1. Giving of the Mosaic Law-Compare Exodus 20:1-26; Deuteronomy 5:1-27 with Acts 7:53; Galatians 3:19. See Hebrews 2:1-3.
2. Meting out of the ten plagues-Exodus 12:12-13; Numbers 33:3-4. Compare Psalm 78:49; Hebrews 11:28.
3. Judgment in the Wilderness-Numbers 14:28-30; Joshua 5:6; 1 Corinthians 10:5, 10; Jude 5.
4. Destroying people in Jerusalem after the census was taken-2 Samuel 24:14-17; 1 Chronicles 21:13-17.
5. Did Jacob wrestle with God, a man or with an angel?-Genesis 32:1, 22-20; Hosea 12:3-5. Compare Judges 6:21-24.
6. Who brought Israel up from Egypt and gave the law covenant?-Judges 2:1-4; Isaiah 63:8-9, 14.
See also Genesis 48:15-16.
203 comments:
1 – 200 of 203 Newer› Newest»I read somewhere that the Hebrew word for "alone" can have a meaning that is not generally thought of the word in English.
It doesn't strictly mean "isolated, on ones own with nobody else" it can simply mean that person is the "sole source" of the action - but doesn't eliminate the use of mediatory agents (dia + genitive)
Zechariah ch.3:1,2JB"He then showed me the high priest Joshua, standing before the angel of YAHWEH, with Satan standing on his right to accuse him.
2 The angel of YAHWEH said to Satan, 'May YAHWEH rebuke you, Satan! May YAHWEH rebuke you, since he has made Jerusalem his choice. Is not this man a brand snatched from the fire?'"
As You know many translations render this verse very differently.
Acts 7 - angels? How does that fit in the context?
Servant, Rotherham gives this rendering for Zechariah 3:1-2: "And he shewed me, Joshua the high priest, standing before the messenger of Yahweh,—and, the Accuser, standing at his right hand, to accuse him.
2 Then said Yahweh unto the Accuser, Yahweh rebuke thee, O Accuser, Yea Yahweh rebuke thee, he who is choosing Jerusalem,—Is not, this, a brand snatched out of the fire?"
Duncan, angels qua spirit beings are perfect for this context. Stephen is giving a speech to the Sanhedrin and relating a history of Israel's/the Jews' untoward relationship with Jehovah. In Acts 7:37-38, he mentions the "angel" that talked with Moses on Sinai. Furthermore, the things related by Stephen about angels transmitting the Torah are mentioned by other writers. Who else would have been on Sinai with Moses unless it were some kind of spirit being?
In volume II of his tome about Acts, Crag Keener writes about Acts 6:15:
Just as Jesus (Luke 9:29) and Moses were transfigured, so is Stephen
here, even if not as literally.[333] In view of connections with the following context, which situates Stephen (Acts 7:51) in the tradition of the prophets (7:52), an allusion to Moses makes sense here. Moses saw God’s glory in the bush (via an angel, 7:30–31, 35) and reflected God’s glory (Exod 34:29–30, 35); Stephen (later) witnesses Jesus’s glory in heaven (Acts 7:55–56), and so perhaps he (albeit beforehand) reflects his glory as Moses reflected God’s glory to the people. Luke thus ironically reverses the accusation that Stephen opposes Moses (in 6:11); instead, Stephen follows the pattern of Moses,[334] whereas (as he will shortly demonstrate) his accusers identify with their ancestors who repudiated Moses (7:27, 35–37). Stephen stands in prophetic continuity with the earlier agents of God whom his speech invokes (7:51–52).
Luke saves the climactic ἀγγέλου (of an angel) for the final word of the
sentence. In this case, Stephen’s face appearing like that of an angel in 6:15 and his vision of Christ’s glory in 7:55–56 frame his martyr speech,
connecting his martyrdom closely with that of Jesus (see comment on Acts
7:55–60). The most important contextual connection may be 7:53;[335]
God’s people failed to keep God’s law given to them through angels (cf. also
7:30, 35, 38) and likewise reject Stephen, who is God’s agent of revelation to them. Far from undermining the law (per their accusation), Stephen is linked with the angelic giving of the law and himself offers prophetic revelation in chapter 7. (Possibly it is relevant that he is facing death and that Luke elsewhere shows his awareness that some believe in an angelic existence after death [cf. 12:15].)[336] The Sadducean part of the Sanhedrin, who reject angels (23:8–9), will also reject Stephen, God’s agent.
In Acts 7 it speaks of Angel and Angels? Which is it? Doesn't this contradict the idea of THE angel of yehovah?
Aren't the accounts here attributable to the one angel?
Hebrew "alone"
https://biblehub.com/hebrew/levaddi_905.htm
Duncan, it can be other: the account doesn't have to be contradictory. The former verse is talking about Moses receiving the Torah on Mount Sinai but Acts 7:53 speaks of Israel receiving the Torah. That's how it reads to me but I will check the scholars later.
And those who study the Malak YHWH narratives closely know that Jehovah/YHWH did not just limit his "theophanies/actions" to just one angel. I read an article about that kind of thing not that long ago. Things that Jehovah does are attributed to "angels" (plural) also.
Duncan, adding to this mix, see Acts 7:30. I looked closely at Acts 7:38, 53 and checked many sources. The bottom line seems to be that Stephen's words are not contradictory though they might be hard to decipher as to the what/when of the account, but the mention of an angel and angels does not have to be contradictory: both could be true.
Here is C.K Barrett's perspective on Acts 7:38 Acts I-XIV, volume 1:366: "the angels are different, in v. 35 the angel seen in the burning bush and here the angel who spoke on Sinai. It is noteworthy that whereas in the Pentateuch God himself speaks to Moses and gives him the Law, here the speaking is done by an angel. Reverence puts God at a further remove from
earthly affairs."
Not sure I buy the last sentence but I agree with the substance of his remarks.
Concerning the angel of YHWH, see the following paper:
Citation: Mart-Jan Paul, “The Identity of the Angel of the LORD,” Hiphil 4 [http://www.seej.net/hiphil] (2007) Accessed DD.MM. YYYY.
Abstract
This article presents an overview of scholarship about the identity of
the Angel of the LORD and evaluates the exegetical evidence for the
plausibility of the interpretations. Especially the grammatical issues
are considered. The conclusion is that it is impossible to distinguish a
special angel. The emphasis is not on the messenger, but on the
message of the divine Sender.
This is great. A great list for times when someone wants to make a metaphysical equivalence based on YHWH does X, Christ does X ... etc etc.
The concept of mediation, shaliah, and divine intermediaries is crucial to theology and an understanding of the divine economy in the bible.
https://boris.unibe.ch/167692/1/_15685179_-_Dead_Sea_Discoveries__The_Liturgical_Communion_of_the_Ya_ad_with_the_Angels.pdf
https://www.mohrsiebeck.com/uploads/tx_sgpublisher/produkte/leseproben/9783161553035.pdf
Duncan, I'm checking out your links now. I've got the Matthew Walsh book about angels and the DS community. I like that book and have made screenshots of his remarks concerning the book of Daniel.
Thanks for the article by Michael Jost: it looks like a nice bit of research.
Thanks, Roman. I found that even Michael Heiser used to make such equivalences when he explained angel of YHWH verses in the Bible. For instance, Exodus 23:20-21 but Maurice Casey shows that God's name being in an angel doesn't make the angel equivalent to YHWH.
Larry is still helping out - https://era.ed.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1842/2661/HurtadoMonotheism%5B1%5D%20DSS%20Handbook.doc?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Found this list of parallels between Jesus and Joseph - Does it make Jesus and Joseph one and the same?
Both Joseph and Jesus were A SHEPHERD OF HIS FATHERS SHEEP (Gen 37:2/Jn 10:11,27-29)
Both Joseph and Jesus were LOVED DEARLY BY THEIR FATHER (Gen 37:3/Mt 3:17
Both Joseph and Jesus were HATED BY THEIR BROTHERS (Gen 37:4/Jn 7:45)
Both Joseph and Jesus were SENT BY FATHER TO BROTHERS (Gen 37:13,14/Heb 2:11)
Both Joseph and Jesus had OTHERS TO HARM THEM (Gen 37:20/Jn 11:53)
Both Joseph and Jesus had ROBES TAKEN FROM THEM (Gen 37:23/Jn 19:23,24)
Both Joseph and Jesus were TAKEN TO EGYPT (Gen 37:26/Mt 2:14,15)
Both Joseph and Jesus were SOLD FOR A PRICE OF A SLAVE (Gen 37:28/Mt 26:15)
Both Joseph and Jesus were TEMPTED (GEN 39:7/mT 4:1)
Both Joseph and Jesus were FALSELY ACCUSED (Gen 39:16-18/Mt 26:59,60)
Both Joseph and Jesus were BOUND IN CHAINS (Gen 39:20/Mt 27:2)
Both Joseph and Jesus were PLACED WITH 2 OTHER PRISONERS, ONE WHO WAS SAVED AND THE OTHER LOST (Gen 40:2,3/Lu 23:32)
Both Joseph and Jesus were EXALTED AFTER SUFFERING (Gen 41:41/Phil 2:9-11)
Both Joseph and Jesus were BOTH 30 YEARS OLD AT THE BEGINNING OF PUBLIC RECOGNITION (Gen 41:46/Lu 3:23)
Both Joseph and Jesus BOTH WEPT (Gen 42:24; 45:2, 14, 15; 46:29/Jn 11:35)
Both Joseph and Jesus FORGAVE THOSE WHO WRONGED THEM (Gen 45:1-15/Lu 23:34)
Both Joseph and Jesus SAVED THEIR NATION (Gen 45:7/Mt 1:21)
Both Joseph and Jesus had WHAT MEN DID TO HURT THEM, GOD TURNED TO GOOD (Gen 50:20/ 1Cor 2:7,8
https://biblehub.com/text/acts/1-23.htm
https://biblehub.com/text/acts/4-36.htm
Found the quote finally:
"The main point of the Jewish law of agency is expressed in the dictum, "A person's agent is regarded as the person himself." Therefore any act committed by a duly appointed agent is regarded as having been committed by the principle." The Encyclopedia of the Jewish Religion, R.J.Z. Werblowski and Geoffrey Wigoder
Good point, Anonymous. That is known as the shaliach principle. Thanks for the quote.
My comments: https://justpaste.it/avd8d
In short: the 'malak' here is not an angel (spirit creature), but a messenger in a general sense. According to traditional theology, this is the pre-incarnate Logos, who is said to be YHWH's 'malak' and YHWH at the same time.
How can the essentially unipersonal Logos be the the essentially tri-personal Supreme God?
aservantofJehovah
The Logos is not tri-personal, but one person (subsistence) of the one God. The verses cited by the blogger here support precisely that there is a plurality within the one Godhead.
I have recently been dealing with the theme of the "Angel of the LORD" in the Old Testament. If we look at where this occurs, the Bible attributes things to him that make it clear that the angel of Yahweh (more accurately, his messenger) is none other than a person who is himself God (see, for example, Judges 2:1-5, 6:11ff, where he is identified with Yahweh).
aservantofJehovah, please read this:
https://tinyurl.com/yck66v3c
Hebrews ch.2:1,3NIV"For since the message spoken through angels was binding, and every violation and disobedience received its just punishment, 3how shall we escape if we ignore so great a salvation? This salvation, which was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard him. "
Note the contrast between the angels and the Lord /Logos through whom the gospel was first transmitted.
With all due respect to Mr. Bowman the word "God" has a semantic range that would include divinely empowered representatives of JEHOVAH according to the scriptures and a number of lexicons recognise that fact. The expression Most High excludes JEHOVAH'S having any co-equals.
I did not argue that the Old Testament was also revealed through angels, but where YHWH's "malak" is spoken of in the Old Testament, and YHWH is also said at the same time, it was not an angel who manifested, but the Logos before the incarnation, so Christophany. So Jacob did not wrestle with the Father, but with the Son, and the Son also appeared in the burning bush, etc. And the Son is not another/different God compared to the Father, and he is not called God only because he represents the Father, but because he was born of the Father before all "aions" and dwells in him the fullness of the Godhead. I note that I am glad that you recognized that it is clear from the Epistle to the Hebrews, that the Son is clearly contrasted with all the angels, so he is not one of them.
nincnevem - my only comment is your writing is in conflict with modern scholarship..
The bible verses do nothing of the sort - Does that make an Angel a person of God?
you yourself have made the point of Hebrews 1:5 making logos not an angel, yet now say he is? "aggelos" by definition means "messenger" - you should make up your mind.
Edgar: could this be used of Parents and God? as in God says to obey Parents - therefore if you disobey parents you are in turn disobeying God?
aservantofjah:
the contrast being that only one (or two) person heard the angels - yet many more heard Jesus?
offtopic note:
we hear in the Bible
uiou theou (son of God) - even in the plural (Who are said to be with God before creation)
pneuma theou (Spirit of God)
We never hear "pater theou" Father of God. When referring to God the Father we would assume this is the language that would be used since its never "God the [son / spirit]"
God is a "substance" surely the apostles were smart enough to realise the problem here
Actually Paul's point is that the Lord is greater than any of the angels through whom Moses received the Law. Hebrews ch.2:2,3ASV"For if the word spoken through angels proved stedfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompense of reward; 3how shall we escape, if we neglect so great a salvation? which having at the first been spoken through the Lord, was confirmed unto us by them that heard;"
JEHOVAH Did not literally descend on mount Sinai it was the voice of JEHOVAH'S angel that the nation heard announcing the decalog.
Exodus ch.19:18 exodus ch.20:1-17 acts ch.7:38
Thayer's defines ainos as :age (Latinaevum, which is αἰών with the Aeolic digamma), a human lifetime (in Homer, Herodotus, Pindar, Tragic poets), life itself (Homer Iliad 5, 685 με καί λίποι αἰών etc.)."
So not time itself but time as experienced by humanity.
Or that "malak" there does not mean an actual angel (spirit creature), but a messenger, az envoy, who is said to be YHWH, not only because he "represented" YHWH, but because he can really be said to be YHWH God himself (too).
In Hebrews 1:2, the "aions" (in plural) obviously do not mean a human lifetime, but the whole of the created world ages, so the Son was born of the Father even before time came into being.
That is why the Nicene Creed, originally also written in Greek, states that the Son "begotten of the Father before all worlds (æons)". Thus the Son is not part of creation.
This doctrine is supported in John 17:5 when Jesus refers to the glory that he had with the Father "before the world (kosmos) existed". John 17:24 also refers to the Father loving Jesus "before the foundation of the world".
https://www.cointalk.com/threads/aeternitas.330879/
Human lifetimes (PLURAL)the malak through which the Israelites received the Law was not the Logos that is the point Paul is making at Hebrews ch.2:2,3NIV"For since the message spoken through angels was binding, and every violation and disobedience received its just punishment, 3how shall we escape if we ignore so great a salvation? This salvation, which was first announced by the Lord(Logos), was confirmed to us by those who heard him. " The angel who announced the decalog is included in Paul's statement ,so that angel is not the Logos and is definitely not JEHOVAH.
https://bazhum.muzhp.pl/media/files/Res_Historica/Res_Historica-r2010-t29/Res_Historica-r2010-t29-s27-32/Res_Historica-r2010-t29-s27-32.pdf
There is a creation that proceeded the physical creation.
Proverbs ch.8:22JB"YAHWEH CREATED me, first-fruits of his fashioning, before the oldest of his works."
Colossians ch.1:15KJV"Who is the image of the invisible God, the FIRSTBORN of every creature:"
Just as his being firstborn from the dead numbers him among the resurrected.Colossians ch.1:17 so too does his being prototokos of Creation number him among the created.
Hebrews 13:8
aservantofJehovah
The "aions" in Hebrews 1:2 obviously do not denote "human lifetimes", but all created world ages. Even in your denomination's translation (NWT) it is not interpreted like this, but is translated with the typical WTS jargon: "systems of things":
The Greek word "angelos" does not necessarily mean an angel, i.e. heavenly spirit creatures, but can simply mean a messenger, an envoy.
I can only repeat my request to you to read this: https://justpaste.it/avd8d
Proverbs 8:22, on the one hand, is not literally the Son, but the personified Wisdom, which is usually _applied_ to the Son as a _type_, but cannot be literally identified with him. Anyway, the more precise translation of "qanani" is "acquired", the term "bara" is used in Hebrew for creation.
Colossians 1:15 ("the Firstborn of the whole creation") does not prove that He is a creature, on the contrary, it means that He is the pre-eminent heir, therefore the Lord of all that was created, BECAUSE all things were created in him, as the text continues. By the way, this title is a typical Jewish term, since "firstborn of the world" (בכורו של עולם, bekoro shel olam) is the title of God in rabbinical Judaism.
It's not the lifetimes but the civilisation that Characterise the lifetimes.
The angel that delivered the decalog is NOT the Logos Mr. Nevem stop being a robot and engage with my actual argument Hebrews ch.2:2,3 I don't recognise the authority of uninspired men over the bible. In the inspired record the prototokos is ALWAYS A Member of the set of which he is prototokos as in every single instant.
Anonymous, yes, I think the principle could be used with parents. It is a legitimate biblical inference that if one disobeys his/her parents, it's akin to disobeying God with the caveat that the parent must also align dictates to the child with God's dictates. In other words, another Bible principle is that we must obey God as ruler rather than man (Acts 5:29).
"In 1886 J.B. Lightfoot (Colossians, p,145) affirmed that the title BEKORO SHEL OLAM (primogenitus mundi) was used by the rabbis to describe God. He cites R. Bechai on the Pent. fol. 124.4 and fol. 74.4 where "Ex 13.2 is falsely interpreted so that God is represented as calling Himself primogenitus." Michaelis (Kittel 6:878) mentions the reservations of Durand (RSR 1901) about this. Some rabbis did refer to God as "the One before the world" (qarmono shel olam) Kittel 6:878; Strack-Billerbeck 3:626."
Hebrews 2:2-3 does not speak specifically about the giving of the Decalogue, but about a message preached in general. The Old Testament speaks of a piece of "malak" there. The article I linked talks about what is attributed to the Son, but I'll highlight this part for you:
"Paul teaches that during the forty-year journey in the wilderness, Christ was the leader and benefactor of the Israelites, whose blessings followed them at every step. Moreover, the frequent grumblings and rebellions of the Israelites were directed against Christ, who was their guide and companion (1 Cor. 10:4,9). Paul also states that it was Christ who shook the earth at the giving of the law on Mount Sinai (Heb. 12:26)."
The Council of Sirmium (AD 351) excommunicates those who would deny that it was with the Son of God (the Logos) that Jacob wrestled.
The concept of the Church is shown by the so-called improperiums, or reproaches (antiphons and responsories), which are said in the Good Friday liturgy under the veneration of the cross for the ingratitude and infidelity of the Jewish people, because 1. He led the Israelites out of Egypt; 2. He guided them for forty years in the desert and finally led them to the fertile land of Canaan; 3. He struck Egypt with plagues and its firstborn with death for them; 4. He opened the Red Sea before them so that they could cross; 5. He buried Pharaoh's army in its waves; 6. He walked before them in the Pillar of Cloud; 7. He fed them with manna in the desert; 8. He quenched their thirst with living water from the rock; 9. He defeated the kings of Canaan for them; 10. He gave them royal law; 11. He elevated them with His power. The same is shown by the second "O" antiphon of the liturgy of the week before Christmas (Dec. 18): "Oh Adonai (God of the Covenant), Leader of the house of Israel, who appeared to Moses in the flame of the burning bush and gave him the law on Mount Sinai, come and redeem us with your mighty arm!"
The Firstborn does not have to be part of "all creation" if the Firstborn itself is a lordly title that the Jews ascribe to God. The Watchtower argues that “the firstborn of” always indicates that the firstborn is part of the named group. That is, the relationship between the two terms is one involving a basic similarity and equality as parts and whole. For example, the firstborn of an animal is an animal, the firstborn of Pharaoh is part of Pharaoh’s family. The Watchtower wants the Witness to think that the firstborn of creation must be similar to and part of the creation, hence a created being. Again, this reasoning is seriously flawed. When the argument is allowed to be taken to its logical conclusion, its flaws are obvious. The phrase “firstborn of Pharaoh” cannot mean simply that the child is similar to Pharaoh as part of the Pharaoh family. If in fact the firstborn is part of Pharaoh’s family it is only because Pharaoh is the FATHER of the firstborn. Likewise, the firstborn of an animal is a part of that animal group just because an animal is the PARENT of the firstborn. One cannot separate being “part of” from its actual cause: giving birth, fathering or mothering. When the Watchtower argument is now applied to Jesus as “firstborn of creation”, the fallacy is revealed. The argument becomes absurd. If Jesus is the firstborn of creation, according to the Watchtower’s reasoning, then creation is the parent of Jesus; that is, creation gives birth to Jesus. If the Watchtower argument is valid, then the Creation truly is “Mother Earth.” Even the Watchtower would not want to believe this, but the logic of their argument demands it, thus showing its absurdity. Obviously the phrase “firstborn of creation” is not being used in the fashion that the Watchtower claims. The phrases “the firstborn of” that the Witnesses cite are not analogous with Paul’s statement that Jesus is the firstborn of creation. The Apostle does not reason as does the Watchtower. But the reason the Watchtower must resort to a fallacious argument is because they fail to understand the actual usage of the term in the Old Testament. As was shown above, the “birth order” meaning of firstborn fades as the “birth right” significance takes on greater meaning, culminating in its Messianic connotations. The Watchtower’s attempts to limit the meaning to “birth order” cannot be justified.
The genitive in Col 1:15 does not at all mean that he is included, that "the firstborn of the whole creation" does not mean that the Son is among the creatures, any more than "Lord of worlds" means that the Lord is also a world himself, or "the king of the country" means that the king is also a country himself. The genitive in itself expresses a relation, not "belonging" to a group. If you think he always belongs to that respective group, then it doesn't really mean anything good for you if the Son is also the firstborn of the Father, with this logic this just justifies the "homoousios" doctrine, that the Son "belongs" to the same category as the Father, thus God. Or what about Exodus 4:22? If Israel is "the firstborn of the God", then Israel is also God?
"Firstborn" is a title of preeminence or of unique relationship with the Father, rather than suggesting that Jesus was a created being. The Son is eternally begotten, not made or created. I point to the rest of Colossians 1, particularly verses 16-17, which suggest that Jesus, the Son, is not part of creation but is instead the agent through whom all things were created.
The phrase "something of something" does not at all mean "belonging to a category" in any language (not even in English), in itself it just expresses a kind of relation. What that relation is, is expressed by the specific statement and the broader context.
It is not difficult to understand what the "Firstborn of the whole creation" means. It is enough to see what the title "Firstborn" title means: preeminent, distinguished heir, ruler, etc., therefore it's a lordly title, is also related to the Davidic-Messianic title - even according to the Watchtower, cf. Aid to Bible Understanding p. 583-584.
What kind of relationship this "Firstborn" has with "the whole creation" mentioned after it, well, that it is a part of it, does not follow at all from the linguistic meaning of this term, nor from a narrower or broader context. Once "Firstborn" is a lordly title, and "the whole creation" (which by definition is subject to this ruling Firstborn - also according to the WTS) mentioned mentioned after, then it is much more reasonable that this person enjoys the status of the "Firstborn" over "the whole creation" rather than being classified as a part of it. The whole context is a passage glorifying the Son, it is completely foreign if you rewrite the second half of Col 1:15 to say that he is "the first created being", then it would become completely meaningless. Is he "the first created being, BECAUSE all [other things was created in him"? What?
The funniest thing is that this is the standard interpretation of these words ("the firstborn of all creation"), that this means that the Son is "the Firstborn", therefore the Lord, the Ruler of the whole creation, otherwise it is completely compatible with the theology of the Watchtower too, but they still cannot admit it, they have to stick to it until they break the nails, because they NEED this "one-liner" "proof" text, if the Scriptures do not declare the Son to be a creature anywhere.
Hebrews ch.2:2,3 is talking about the law which would include the decalog. The malakim who delivered the Law including the decalog are inferior to the logos their being called elohim does not make them JEHOVAH they represent JEHOVAH that is why they are called Elohim
If we are guided by scriptural precedent there is NO reason to interpret prototokos in any other way but that Christ is part of the creation Just as his being prototokos of the dead means he is one of the resurrected.
Colossians ch.1:18NIV"And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. "
Not according to scripture why can't you find a single scripture where the firstborn is outside of the set of which he is firstborn. Only if we TOTALLY Ignore scriptural precedent can we make an exception at Colossians ch.1:15
The standard interpretations ignore the TOTALITY of scriptural precedent that is all that matters to us the TOTALITY of scriptural precedent.
We'll find a figurative use for protokos that puts the figurative prototokos out of the group. If you could have you would have, but you can't so all you have is this huffing and puffing
Psalms ch.90:1,2NIV"1Lord, you have been our dwelling place
throughout all generations.
2Before the mountains were born
or you brought forth the whole world,
from everlasting to everlasting you are God."
Birth language used of JEHOVAH ALWAYS Means create so Beget=create when ever JEHOVAH is the begetter
Since the Holy Scriptures clearly state many times that the Son was begotten / born of the Father, but never once that he was created, there is therefore no reason to assume that he was a creature. The mentioned part of the Epistle to the Colossians does not confess that Jesus is a creature, but glorifies him as the Ruler, the Lord of the creation, and it is also clear from the context that he is called the Firstborn BECAUSE "all things were created in him", so he is not one of created things, that is why the NWT had to unjustifiably insert the word "other" in the text. Is he the first creature BECAUSE he is the creator of everything?
And since in the Jewish context "the firstborn of the world" is the title of YHWH God, the verse does not confess that Jesus was created, but his deity.
The Firstborn means that he is a distinguished, pre-eminent heir, therefore Lord. The vine of creation means the Lord of creation.
And since the Son is the "only-begotten" of the Father, it is not necessary, indeed it is not possible, for anyone else to be said to be such a Firstborn.
Just answer the rhetorical question at Hebrews 1:5:
"For which of the angels did God ever say, "You are my Son, today I have begotten you"? Or again, "I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son"?"
Doesn't this just prove that his origin from the Father is qualitatively different (superior) from that of the creatures? That he was born is not the same as creation?
Dear Nincsnevem,
1) At what poiunt in time was God called, "the firstborn of the world"? Who called him that and when?
2) I'm sure you know that the OT and other sourcess refer to angels as "sons of God."
Dear Mr. Foster
1) The Jewish rabbinical writers called God as "bekorah shel olam" (בכורו של עולם), meaning "firstborn of the world". You can look up in Talmudic sources: Shemot 34:20, Bereishit Rabbah 38.7 on Gen 11:2. Another notable example is Bahya ben Asher. So if an educated Jew had read the apostle Paul's epistle to the Colossians, he would have associated exactly that.
The title "qadmono shel olam" (קדמונו של עולם), applied to God in Jewish literature (see: Rashi on I Samuel 24:12), has a similar meaning, which can be translated as "the Ancient One of the world" or "the Primordial One of the world". In my opinion, this rhymes with the title "arche" (ἀρχὴ) of the creation.
So both are actually divine titles in a Jewish context.
2) Of course, I am aware of it, nevertheless, the Son/Logos is the "only-begotten" Son of the Father, so He is unique in his kind, His sonship to the Father is qualitatively different, superior from that of the angels, since He alone is said to have been born/begotten by the Father, while the angels were created.
Dear Nincsnevem,
Sorry, but I don't find those sources to be relevant when it comes to understanding Paul's use of prototokos. The OT usage and Second temple use is more relevant than the Talmud or Rashi, both of which are not synchronicity evidence. I see no biblical precedent for calling God the firstborn. The sources you cited do not help.
Monogenes is another highly-debated Greek word but Witnesses acknowledge that Christ is God's unique Son.
To say that an educated Jew would have made the associations you suggest is puzzling in light of how the OT uses firstborn plus educated Jews did know about Paul's words and now do.
Dear Mr Foster,
you can look at the rabbinical sources on the website www.sefaria.org, some of them are translated into English, as I can see, the given expressions occur quite often, which I think indicates that this is quite an old rabbinic tradition.
The apostle Paul himself called himself a Pharisee (Acts 23:6), who studied under Gamaliel (Acts 22:3), not at all unreasonably compares the parallels between Paul's expressions and their Pharisaic-rabbinic resonance.
The Old Testament also provides a sufficient basis that 'prototokos' / 'bekorah' means priority, pre-eminence, sovereignty. Here Paul says that Jesus stands in the relation of 'prototokos' to all creation, that is, He is the Firstborn, and, as the Firstborn, the absolute Heir and sovereign Lord, of all creation.
"David, who was the youngest son of Jesse, was called by Jehovah the "first-born," due to Jehovah's elevation of David to the preeminent position in God's chosen nation and his making a covenant with David for a dynasty of kings. (Ps. 89:27) In this position David prophetically represented the Messiah.—Compare Psalm 2:2, 7 with 1 Samuel 10:1; Hebrews 1:5."
Source: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200011483
His origin was minus an intermediary so of course it's distinct but he is not innately superior to the angels
Hebrews ch.1:4KJV"Being made(From ginomai) so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they."
His God and Father JEHOVAH made him better than the angels. After having made him lower than the same angels for a time.
Hebrews ch.2:7KJV"Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:" Both his inferiority and his superiority to the Angelo's were/are at the pleasure of his God and Father JEHOVAH.
The figurative firstborn is always Part of the set of which he is figuratively firstborn. Our brother Paul never but the inspired word of JEHOVAH in second place to Jewish sensibilities.
Acts ch.15:5KJV"Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.”"
Phillipians ch.2:4,5KJV"4And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage: 5To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you."
"His origin was minus an intermediary"
God created all creatures exclusively and directly ("alone," "by himself," "with his own hands"), there is no such thing as "indirect creation" by using a creature, the idea that a "lesser god", other than Jehovah, also participates in creation, is refuted by Isaiah 44:24; 45:12, 48:13, Malachi 2:10; Job 9:2,8, Psalm 95:5-6, Neh 9:6. If God created by actually doing it through an "agent", who is not one God with him, then he did not create "alone". If I build my house through an "agent", then I did not build my house "alone". And the Scripture itself uses the analogy of building a house for creation: Hebrews 3:4.
"but he is not innately superior to the angels"
Chapter 1 of the Epistle to the Hebrews clearly distinguishes the Son from "all the angels" ("For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son; today I have begotten you”? [...] Are they not ALL ministering spirits?"), the translators of the NWT must have forgotten to insert their favorite word "other" here as well...
"Hebrews ch.1:4KJV"Being made(From ginomai) so much better than the angels"
The verb 'ginomai' here does not mean creation ('poio', 'ktizo'), but also functions as the aorist form of the Greek copula ('estin' = to be). Hebrews 1 speaks partly of the supremacy which he already possessed from the beginning (meaning his deity), since he is the only one begotten of the Father, and on the other hand of the glory which he received only after his resurrection and ascension, and obviously this is according to his humanity. The two are not sharply separated in the text, for example in verse 10 it is about the creation of the world, it was obviously before those mentioned in the verses 3-4: "made purification of sins", etc. Here the apostle speaks of Christ as man, and tells us that Christ, even as man, by his ascension was exalted above the Angels.
The narrative continues in chapter 2, where it is clarified in verse 9: "for a little while was made lower than the angels", i.e. through incarnation, self-emptying (kenosis). This is obviously to be interpreted in accordance with Philippians 2:6-9, where it says in the 9th verse that his human name (Jesus) also recieved the title: the Lord. Obviously, because the exaltation of Jesus Christ means not only that he returned to the glory in which he already had from the beginning before his incarnation, but also that the human nature of Jesus Christ, which was the instrument of his humility, was also glorified.
By the way, Philippians 2:9 is also distorted by the NWT, since the original text contains the verb hyperypsōsen, which means: to raise above all measure, above all. This expression occurs only here in the New Testament, and it does not express a high degree (comparative), but an excessive high degree: "to the highest place" (Superlative). At the same time, the NWT renders it only as comparative: "to a superior position".
"The figurative firstborn is always Part of the set of which he is figuratively firstborn."
I have already answered this argument above, in the 4:06 AM comment.
"Paul never but the inspired word of JEHOVAH in second place to Jewish sensibilities."
However, it is an excellent aid to the interpretation of the words of Paul as a Jew from Pharisaic traditions, if we examine what the individual expressions mean in the rabbinical tradition as well.
Please do not speak generalities, if www.sefaria.org has an example of what you claim them please post a link?
The phariseeism of Paul's time is disconnected by a wide span of time from these commentators. Have you found something in the Mishna?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firstborn_(Judaism)
@Duncan
Shemot 34:20
להקב"ה שהוא בכורו של עולם
lehaqadosh baruch hu shehu bekhoro shel olam
"Blessed be He (i.e. God), that He is the firstborn of the world"
Kli Yakar on Exodus 9:14:5
בהקדוש ברוך הוא בכורו של עולם כדאיתא בספר נוה שלום
behakadosh baruch hu bekhoro shel olam keda'ita b'sefer noveh shalom
..the Holy One, Blessed be He, the firstborn of the world, as is found in the book 'Nove Shalom'
In this context, the phrase "בכורו של עולם" (bekhoro shel olam), translated as "the firstborn of the world," is referring to God. The text seems to be using metaphorical language to describe Pharaoh's defiance against God, who is referred to here as the "firstborn of the world." It's not referring to a literal firstborn person but is using the term to emphasize the primacy and preeminence of God.
* Rabbeinu Bahya, Shemot 34:20:1: This passage speaks of the great status of the firstborn and connects it symbolically to God, who is referred to as the "firstborn of the world."
* Kli Yakar on Exodus 9:14:5: This text connects the concept of the firstborn to God, referencing Him as the "firstborn of the world."
The term "firstborn of the world" in this context likely refers to God's status as the ultimate origin and creator of the universe. In Jewish thought, God is often described as the "first" in the sense that He is preeminent, supreme, and without beginning. The world was created by Him, and everything in existence comes from Him.
By describing God as the "firstborn of the world," the text may be emphasizing the special status of the firstborn as a reflection or symbol of God's own primacy and sovereignty. Just as the firstborn child has a particular status within a family, God's status as the "firstborn" signifies His unique and unparalleled position in relation to the created world.
The concept also connects with the theme of redemption, as it may be drawing an analogy between the redemption of the firstborn son in Jewish law and the ultimate redemption of the world by God. In this view, the redemption of the firstborn is not just a legal requirement but carries deeper theological and eschatological significance, reflecting broader themes of divine order, holiness, and redemption.
The phrase "πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως" from Colossians 1:15 translates to "the firstborn of all creation" and is used in the New Testament to describe Jesus Christ. Both the Jewish concept of God as the "firstborn of the world" and the Christian concept of Christ as the "firstborn of all creation" deal with the notion of primacy and preeminence.
1. Jewish Concept (Firstborn of the World):
Applied to: God, the Creator of the universe.
Meaning: Emphasizes God's unique status as the source and origin of all creation. God's being referred to as the "firstborn" symbolizes His supremacy and sovereignty.
Theological Implications: This concept underscores the monotheistic belief in one God, who is above all and the source of everything. The status of the firstborn in Jewish law may also be a reflection of this divine attribute.
2. Christian Concept (Firstborn of All Creation, Colossians 1:15):
Applied to: Jesus Christ.
Meaning: This term is part of a larger Christological statement that emphasizes Jesus' preeminence over creation and His unique relationship to God the Father. Being the "firstborn" is understood in the context of primacy and supremacy over all creation.
Theological Implications: This concept is deeply rooted in the Christian understanding of the Trinity, where Jesus is considered both distinct from and one with the Father. It asserts Jesus' deity and His unique role in the process of creation and redemption.
Thus both terms use the metaphor of the "firstborn,". In Judaism, it emphasizes God's unique status as Creator, while in Christianity, it speaks to the unique role and nature of Jesus Christ in relation to all creation. Both terms, however, underscore a theme of primacy and supremacy in their respective contexts.
@Duncan
I've found another two:
1. Rabbi Bahya ben Asher on Exodus 34:20 in Mikraot Gedolot:
"Redeem every firstborn of your sons, and do not appear before Me empty-handed – anyone who has the merit of being a firstborn, it is a great virtue, and it is a hint to the Holy One, Blessed be He, that He is the Firstborn of the world. The service of offerings in ancient times was with the firstborns; thus, Jacob was zealous, and Esau the wicked sold [his birthright], despising the service of the Blessed God. Afterward, the firstborns were disqualified by the sin of the Golden Calf, and the Levites were separated in their place so that the service should be with them and not with the firstborns. Even though the service is not with them, they still have virtue and advantage over other people, because they are firstborns. Our Rabbis expounded: anything that is said to be 'Mine' (i.e., belonging to God) is in this world and in the world to come; Israel is [considered as such] in this world and in the world to come, as it is said."
2. Klei Yakar on Exodus 9:14
"The hail struck what was selected first, in retaliation for Pharaoh's insolence toward the Holy One, blessed be He, the Firstborn of the world, as is mentioned in the book 'Naveh Shalom,' and incidentally, the verse informed us about the flax and barley."
"The Firstborn of the world" - was an argument made by a(?) scholar that gained no traction in modern scholarship and has been named a "fanciful" interpretation of the text. - even if God is called "Fistborn" it would STILL be a temporal conotation rather than a "pre eminence" one
Should also be noted "Rabbi Bahya ben Asher" relied on Jewish mysticism..
Moule notes that "R. Bechai appears to be R. Bahya ben Asher,
a late writer (died 1340 [CE]), who is scarcely important for the
original meaning of our passage."
(C. F. D. Moule, The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Colossians and to
Philemon (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1957), 65.)
" this rhymes with the title "arche" (ἀρχὴ) of the creation." - there are 2 flaws in this:
1) Johns STRICT usage regarding arkhe (explain that one away) which everytime means "beginning" (the start of something) in a genitive
2) Lxx Job 40:19 - surely you aren't going to say whatever is addressed here is what you claim Rev 3:14 means?
for Hebrews 1:5:
regarding this contrast it should be noted it was said to Jesus as a human - so no angel...
secondly it is not uncommon in the bible for things to be "exalted" or "contrasted" with their respective groups, no matter what they are still part of the group!
Isreal was "magnified" above the nations becoming Gods, and is contrasted as such - it is however STILL a nation and part of the group of "nations"
For phil 2:9
"so greatly exalted him"
(https://studybible.info/Goodspeed/Phil%202:9)
the sense is not incorrect as Goodspeed rendered it similarly - you gonna tell me "The greatest NT scholar in American history" was wrong?
" the more precise translation of "qanani" is "acquired", the term "bara" is used in Hebrew for creation." - all of that Hebrew terms meaning signify something that the individual did not have before - and you have alot of other scriptures to contend with to disassociate such a meaning
compare Gen 49:5 (see in the lxx)
Shemot 34:20 - http://dssenglishbible.com/exodus%2034.htm
http://dssenglishbible.com/exodus%209.htm
Considder - https://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/test-archives/html4/1996-10/15102.html
"Both the Jewish concept of God as the "firstborn of the world" and the Christian concept of Christ as the "firstborn of all creation" deal with the notion of primacy and preeminence."
Possibly but one should not conflate the two, world & creation. I don't think your quotes are old enough or specific enough to make any solid connection. Keep looking.
Dear Anonymous (12:28 AM),
„"The Firstborn of the world" - was an argument made by a(?) scholar…”
You're debating here with me alone, so don't point the finger at anyone else. I looked up the above rabbinical sources.
“that gained no traction in modern scholarship and has been named a "fanciful" interpretation of the text.”
Argumentum ad hominem
“even if God is called "Fistborn" it would STILL be a temporal connotation…”
Ah, so then the Father was also created in time? Say more like that...
“… rather than a "pre eminence" one”
The fact that the meaning of the "firstborn" in the biblical context is "the pre-eminent one" is recognized even in the publications of the Watchtower, cf. Aid to Bible Understanding p. 583-584.
“Should also be noted "Rabbi Bahya ben Asher" relied on Jewish mysticism..”
Argumentum ad hominem again. So what then? It is still an authoritative rabbinic source, and as such relevant evidence that this turn of phrase is well known in the Jewish context, and as I quoted above, the phrase occurs in several Mishnaic sources.
“Johns STRICT usage regarding arkhe (explain that one away) which everytime means "beginning" (the start of something) in a genitive”
The primary dictionary meaning of ‘arkhe’ is indeed "beginning", but this English term cannot adequately cover and convey the underlying Greek idea. ἀρχή does not have a temporal initiality, but a much deeper meaning: principle, head, primordial principle, agent, source, from which the world, creation flows, as it were. Perhaps the word “principle” known from the Vulgate (“principium”), which also entered the English language as a loanword, could convey this as fluently as possible. Anyway, it is evident from Colossians 1:18 that "arkhe" is actually one of Jesus' titles, and Revelation 3:14 was not referred to even by the Arians of the 4th century.
"regarding this contrast it should be noted it was said to Jesus as a human - so no angel..."
This is nonsense, Hebrews 1:5 does not refer to the birth of Jesus as a human from Mary, but to his birth from the Father in the aions before the beginning. Especially since it is clear from John 1:1a that he "was" already "in the beginning".
"secondly it is not uncommon in the bible for things to be "exalted" or "contrasted" with their respective groups, no matter what they are still part of the group!"
One has to read the 1st chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews quite blindly, so that it is not evident that the Son does not belong to the group of "the angels", who are “ALL ministering spirits”.
“Isreal was "magnified" above the nations becoming Gods, and is contrasted as such - it is however STILL a nation and part of the group of "nations"”
Yet according to Numbers 23:9, Israel was not counted among the nations.
“the sense is not incorrect as Goodspeed rendered it similarly - you gonna tell me "The greatest NT scholar in American history" was wrong?”
Yes, since 'huperupsoo' in Philippians 2:9 is not comparative, but superlative. Whoever translated it that way did it wrong.
“all of that Hebrew terms meaning signify something that the individual did not have before”
Not necessarily, the actions that take place (with)in God do not take place in time, since God is not subject to temporality, and obviously the imperfect human language can only speak about God in an analogical way, cf. Isaiah 55:8-9, Acts 17:29. It is clear from Hebrews 1:5 that the birth of the Son from the Father took place in the "today" of God.
You claimed: This is nonsense, Hebrews 1:5 does not refer to the birth of Jesus as a human from Mary, but to his birth from the Father in the aions before the beginning.
Hebrews ch.1:5NIV"For to which of the angels did God ever say,
“You are my Son;
Today I have become your Father” a?"
Here is the today according to the one authority that matters:
Acts ch.13:33NIV" has fulfilled for us, their children, by raising up Jesus. As it is written in the second Psalm:
“ ‘You are my son;
today I have become your father.’ "
The resurrection is a creative act
You claimed:Ah, so then the Father was also created in time? Say more like that...
“… rather than a "pre eminence" one”:
I reply:Reality precedes and exceeds creation. JEHOVAH would indeed the first and greatest reality So could poetically be referred to as firstborn of reality.
Isreal was "magnified" above the nations becoming Gods, and is contrasted as such - it is however STILL a nation and part of the group of "nations"”
Yet according to Numbers 23:9, Israel was not counted among the nations.
My reply:psalms ch.147:19,20"He has revealed his word to Jacob,
his laws and decrees to Israel.
20He has done this for no other nation;
they do not know his laws. b
Praise the Lord."
Deuteronomy ch.7:7 Brenton's Septuagint"It was not because ye are more numerous than all other nations that the LORD preferred you, and the LORD made choice of you: for ye are fewer in number than all other nations. "
"Mishnaic sources" - to my knowledge you have not cited any?
Please do not confuse sources on that site as all being Mishnaic in origin - very few are.
See - https://www.sefaria.org/Rabbeinu_Bahya?tab=contents
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mishnah
Dear aservantofJehovah,
please feel free to read this:
https://shorturl.at/aimqP
Dear Nincsnevem,
The NWT is not wrong in its handling of the language at Philippians 2:9: the fact of the matter is that the degree posited is a mat5ter of debate. I will quote part of what Richard R. Melick, Junior writes in his NA Commentary on Philippians, Colossians, and Philemon:
Jesus’ exaltation is stated graphically. The word translated “exalted to the highest place” actually means superexalted.157 Some scholars have taken the word in a comparative sense, that God exalted him more than before. Thus they seek a new position for Jesus after the ascension.158 Others, however, point out that this is a superlative degree. He was exalted “to the highest,” a contrast which compares the lowliness of the “death of the cross” (v. 8) with the exaltation of restored glory.159 Finally, many interpret this in the context of the human Jesus. The hymn describes the exaltation of humanity in Christ.160
See Melick's entire discussion to get his overall view.
NET Bible: "As a result God highly exalted him
and gave him the name that is above every name,"
Philippians 2:9 (Catholic DR Bible):
For which cause God also hath exalted him, and hath given him a name which is above all names.
"The fact that the meaning of the "firstborn" in the biblical context is "the pre-eminent one" is recognized even in the publications of the Watchtower, cf. Aid to Bible Understanding p. 583-584." - it doesnt negate a coming into existance however - as you like to claim.
"It is still an authoritative rabbinic source" - yet you have no problem pointing to the Watchtower selectively quoting or that one of the sources they cite for John 1:1 was a spiritualist or something similar.
if its not used in the bible and is not commented on by scholars its not really a source worth considering.
especially since only one of two have picked it up.. show the relaibility of it.
Ill address whoever I please - it was directed at everyone.
"it is evident from Colossians 1:18 that "arkhe" is actually one of Jesus' titles" - not nessacarily, as I can use the same argument of the LXX for Gen 49:5
"Yet according to Numbers 23:9, Israel was not counted among the nations." - it doesn't matter what they considered themselves - what matters is that though they were "magnified" above the nations, israel itself was still a nation and remained part of the group not an exception to it.
" Especially since it is clear from John 1:1a that he "was" already "in the beginning"." - Johns perspective when he wrote the passage see: Daniel Wallaces- Greek grammar beyond the basics - that makes the logos no more eternal than if I said "In the beginning was the angels" - scholars have ditched this argument due to the many flaws in it.
so that it is not evident that the Son does not belong to the group of "the angels", who are “ALL ministering spirits”-
1) Gods own nation doesnt belong to the "nations" but is still a nation
2) This was said when jesus was a man..
3) an archangel is not part of the angels (nor are cherubs for that matter)
4) "all" can have exceptions - I notice you use this selectively
"Yes" - We should take your sources over Goodspeed (and others) because?
the last blurb is theological not a linguistical argument. see Biblehub for a list of uses of the word then get back to me.
infact it doesnt address the argument at all rather skirts around it.
your also clearly unaware of the "today idiom"
"since God is not subject to temporality" - scriptural proof?
"It is clear from Hebrews 1:5 that the birth of the Son from the Father took place in the "today" of God." - is today in eternity then?
see page 446: https://archive.org/details/the-jewish-encyclopedia-vol.-2/page/445/mode/2up
On "Firstborn of the world"
Edgar How much do you know about this - would be a fascinating research project tbh
Dear Mr Foster,
"Superexalted", yes, this is the literal meaning of the corresponding word (hyperypsōsen) here, which is superlative, and not comparative.
The Catholic DR Bible you quote is wrong also in that respect, because God did not give him "A name", but "THAT name", or "THE name".
Of course, the NWT inserts the term "other" here as well, without any basis.
According to the Catholic interpretation, this means that according to his human nature he receives the name (title) "the Lord" (= Kyrious = Adonai), which has the same value as Yahweh, so he rises to divine glory according to his human nature, without of course actually becoming God. At the same time, even during His earthly ministry, He was already called "the Lord", apparently according to his divine nature.
Dear Nincsnevem, you ignored the fact that some scholars think the word is comparative. Literal meanings (etymology) can be misleading. Either way, the NWT or NET aren't wrong because they don't opt for the superlative view of the word.
So if "some" people interpret it that way, then it can no longer be considered wrong? With this logic, since the Flat Earth Society exists, it is no longer possible to judge their view as wrong, since there are "some" who see it this way? It is quite clear that the NWT always consciously chooses solutions that better suit its theology, and which only represent a marginal view in linguistics, who state that this is only a theoretical possibility.
If I am reading this correctly - https://biblehub.com/greek/pro_totokos_4416.htm
Then there are only 3 NT occurrences and really there is no such thing as NT Greek in any provable/useful category. One has to look at period koine usage to include all possibilities.
One cannot be definitive and in my book
Duncan, one problem I have with Nincsnevem approach is that he violates a basic principle of exegesis/study of semantics by trying to impose a later usage, "firstborn of the world" on the apostle Paul. Secondly, as you implied, it's not always that easy to pin down what "firstborn" means and we have to consider the syntax and context of the word.
Nincsnevem, I didn't say there's no right or wrong, linguistically or otherwise. I've tried to be charitable but you make me wonder if all of these invalid deductions made are willful. In grammar, syntax or linguistics and semantics, some things are left open. While you criticize the NWT/JWs, I find it pretty self-serving to interpret the Father of Matthew 6:9 as the Trinity. That is highly unlikely, to put it mildly.
Unknown, I started back teaching classes today, so things are hectic, but that info looks good. It is great to have and would be a fine research project. I know about the rabbi but had not read that entry before. Thanks.
Dear Mr Foster,
I didn't want to "impose" anything on Paul, I just gave some examples from the rabbinic tradition that can shed light on the meaning of "firstborn" (bekhoro / prototokos), if we take into account the linguistic-cultural-theological nuances of the meaning of this term in the Jewish tradition.
The fact is that lot of rabbis living at significant geographical distances from each other used this term for God, which I think indicates that this is an ancient Jewish tradition.
I note that "firstborn" means "the pre-eminent one" in biblical context, it can even be supported by WTS publications, so I don't understand the objection in this regard.
The JWs should not have any objections to the fact that we interpret the phrase "the firstborn of all creation" to mean that Jesus is the pre-eminent heir, the Sovereign, the Lord of the whole creation, after all, this also corresponds to their theology in principle too.
Anyway, Paul does not class πρωτότοκος Himself in πᾶσα κτίσις; for the expression used in the 16. verse is not τὰ ἄλλα or τὰ λοιπά, but τὰ πάντα ἐκτίσθη.
Dear Mr Foster,
Interpretation and translation are two different genres, although there is obviously some overlap.
When I criticize the NWT, I do so primarily on linguistic and not theological grounds. The theological argument here is exhausted by me pointing out which WTS doctrine the choice of words can be traced back to.
In Philippians 2:9, WTS Christology obviously dominated, which is why they rendered hyperypsōsen in the comparative form and not the superlative form, and why they inserted the term "other" even though there is no ἄλλος in the text.
You cannot compare this with the fact that the addressee of the "Our Father" prayer is not narrowed down to the first person of the Trinity, that is, the Logos of the Father, since there is no Catholic (or non-Catholic Trinitarian Christian) Bible translation, to the best of my knowledge, that would have been "translated" πάτερ ἡμῶν in Matthew 6:9 as "Our Trinity" or something similar.
I criticize the NWT on the basis that they wrote their own interpretation into the main text itself, which cannot be justified on linguistic grounds.
And since you brought it up, I would also like to point out that the Lord's Prayer, and every other prayer addressed to God, always addresses the entirety of the Godhead. This comes from the principle of the perichoresis within the Trinity, meaning that the persons of the Trinity fully permeate each other and are in one another. Therefore, conceptually, it's not possible to direct prayers to individual persons of the Trinity but rather to the entire Godhead, even if the phrasing of the prayer specifically addresses one person. The Council of Florence declares: 'In God, all things are one where no opposition of relations is encountered.' (in Deo omnia sunt unum, ubi non obviat relationum oppositio). Because of this unity, the Father is wholly in the Son and wholly in the Holy Spirit, the Son is wholly in the Father and in the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is wholly in the Father and wholly in the Son. This mutual full reality-sharing is termed 'περιχώρησις' in Greek Eastern theology, known also as interpenetration or co-inherence. In Latin, it's 'circumincessio', meaning that the persons mutually permeate each other, each with the fullness of their reality passing into the other. In Latin contexts, it is more commonly referred to as 'circuminsessio', meaning co-inherence or being-in-each-other: the persons rest within each other with the full content of their reality.
The basis for this is that in the Gospel of John, the Savior frequently expresses the shared reality: 'I and the Father are one'; 'the Father is in me, and I am in the Father.' (Jn 10:30; 10:38; cf. 1:9-11). Regarding the Holy Spirit, the Apostle Paul says, 'For who among men knows the things of a man, except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so, no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God.' (1 Cor 2:11). Church fathers from the beginning have explicitly taught this (references provided) and especially against the Arians, they illustrated it with analogies: the persons permeate each other like multiple forms of knowledge in the same mind, like the fragrance of an ointment, or like sunlight permeates the air. Damascenus (Damascen. Fid. orthod. references provided) was the first to use this theological term and systematically elaborated on its content.
Dear Anonymous,
"it doesn't negate a coming into existence however - as you like to claim."
The Nicene theology does not deny that he received his being and deity from the Father, but only denies that he was created in time, and asserts that he was born before all "aions". Since it can be well supported, even on the basis of your publications, that the meaning of "first-born" is "pre-eminent one", that is why Colossians 1:15 does not even prove that he belongs to the ranks of creatures, but only claims that he is the Lord of all creation .
"yet you have no problem pointing to the Watchtower selectively quoting"
Criticism of selective citation is justified, as well as of failing to place and indicate the given source in the coordinate system of the authorities in reality, e.g. whether George Howard's hypothesis is merely a marginal opinion or a scientific consensus.
"or that one of the sources they cite for John 1:1 was a spiritualist or something similar."
I think you are referring to Johannes Greber, but I did not refer to him. In any case, pointing out the self-contradiction is also useless, I prefer linguistic criticism than "ad hominem" arguments.
"if its not used in the bible"
Who said yes? I said it was a rabbinic tradition, not that it is in the Tanakh. So I placed the proof of my argument in the real coordinate system of authority.
"and is not commented on by scholars"
Of course, several Bible commentators have raised this (Clarke's Commentary), I just looked it up.
"its not really a source worth considering."
Obviously, the rabbinical sources have no significance as to how an expression can be interpreted in a Jewish context. Ehh..
""it is evident from Colossians 1:18 that "arkhe" is actually one of Jesus' titles" - not necessarily"
No? So why does Paul say about Jesus that he himself is the arche? So this is Jesus' title. By the way, the Book of Revelation also calls the Father arche.
""Yet according to Numbers 23:9, Israel was not counted among the nations." - it doesn't matter what they considered themselves"
Based on God's authority, they did not belong among the nations. This is why the Jews still call the Gentiles "goyim" (peoples), and the Old Testament refers to them as such countless times.
""Especially since it is clear from John 1:1a that he "was" already "in the beginning"." - Johns perspective when he wrote the passage"
No, John 1:1 is parallel to Genesis 1:1, so here it refers to the absolute beginning, when the Logos already "was", rather than being created in the beginning. John does not refer to the perspective of the present, but to the creation of the world.
"that makes the logos no more eternal than if I said "In the beginning were the angels""
But yes, and angels are not said in the Bible that they "were in the beginning."
"This was said when Jesus was a man."
According to your theology, Jesus ceased to be human at his death and his resurrection meant his restoration to archangel status. And although Hebrews was indeed written after the incarnation of Jesus, chapter 1 is not speaking of the present in this regard.
"an archangel is not part of the angels"
An archangel is just as much an angel as the archbishop is a bishop too. This difference does not amount to the essence (nature) but only to the degrees of the same nature, that being angelic, and therefore, created. The "arch-" prefix does not denote a difference in nature, but the priority of the task/mission, so it is a question of respect here, not of two separate "angel species". An archangel is still an angel too, thus a "ministering spirit". Hebrews 2:5 proves that an angel cannot be the Messianic King, as the ruler.
""since God is not subject to temporality" - scriptural proof?"
"I am the Lord, and I do not change". (Malachi 3:6) "there is no change, nor shadow of alteration." (James 1:17) Time is the measurement of change. Wher there is no change, ther is no time, no temporality.
""It is clear from Hebrews 1:5 that the birth of the Son from the Father took place in the "today" of God." - is today in eternity then?"
Yes, for God, "today" is the unchanging eternity.
I don't think there is much doubt about meaning here - https://biblehub.com/text/luke/2-7.htm
As time goes on we are accumulating a wealth of first century inscriptions and coins, other material evidences, all helping us to understand how many words were used in a more general sense. We can build up a broad spectrum of linguistic semantics and cultural significance. Something new can always pull the rug from under our feet.
By the way, it is interesting how much you underestimate the importance of the rabbinical sources I refer to, saying they are "late".
At the same time, it is you who draw far-reaching conclusions from the very medieval Hebrew translations of the New Testament, cf. Shem Tob's Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, refer to them and fill the New Testament with "Jehovah". Well, aren't these "late" sources? Is one "late" good, the other not? Isn't this a double standard?
As I mentioned, the WTS argues that "the firstborn of" always indicates that the firstborn is part of the named group. Well, this is quite simply because in every single case when someone is called the firstborn in the Old Testament (e.g. David), then by definition he was born from the person who is said to be firstborn of. So David belongs to Jesse's family not because he is the "firstborn" or not, but because of the fact that he was born of Jesse. I already talked about this in my 4:06 AM comment above.
At the same time, the Son is clearly not born of "the creation", but of the Father. Hebrews 1:6 clearly calls the Son the "firstborn" of God.
So if you think that the concept of "firstborn of the whole creation" means that He must belong to creation, then with the very same logic, the concept of "firstborn of God" means that He belongs to "category" of being God.
@Duncan
Jesus is the "firstborn" of Mary: it is customary in the Scriptures to call not the one who is followed by siblings, but the one who is born first, the firstborn. Thus, Paul also calls Christ the firstborn Son of the Father (Heb 1:14; cf. Ex 34:19 Num 18:15). Among the Jews, the firstborn is primarily a legal concept; therefore, it also applies to the only child. Firstborn can mean the same as the only child, as Christ is called in John 1:14, because according to the scriptural language usage, the only children are also called firstborns. See Joshua 17:1. According to the Old Testament legal conception, the firstborn, as the future head of the family, has a distinguished position in the family; he receives a larger portion of the inheritance than the other children.
"Is one "late" good, the other not? Isn't this a double standard?" - no, common sense as too why..
" I prefer linguistic criticism" - really? so far you have done nothing but theological.
"they did not belong among the nations." - no they belonged to isreal - which if it was no longer a "nation" what was it?
if your going to say "Gods Firstborn" - it was still a nation.
"Of course, several Bible commentators have raised this (Clarke's Commentary), I just looked it up." - if bibles thought they could get away with this, they would have rendered it as such. The lack of renderings in bible translations shows the wide spreadness of the argument, hint: not very wide spread.
"Criticism of selective citation is justified" - and critism of a citaion of someone who uses jewish mystism to interpret scripture is also justified if you can cite another who is "clean" then maybe you will have a point.
"So why does Paul say about Jesus that he himself is the arche? So this is Jesus' title. By the way, the Book of Revelation also calls the Father arche." - 2 different contexts
notice Firstborn of creation is contrasted to Firstborn of the dead (which trinitarans consede is temporal) Jesus is the First to be resurected to eternal life in heaven. "The beginning" of that covenant.
we know this because of the position of arkhe and "Firstborn of the dead"
Revlation calls the Father "the beginning and the end" - Jesus is never called such - "the beginning" is modifed bu "and the end" making it completely different.
Where is the holy spirit called Arkhe?
to finish off your "trinity"
"No, John 1:1 is parallel to Genesis 1:1, so here it refers to the absolute beginning, when the Logos already "was", rather than being created in the beginning. John does not refer to the perspective of the present, but to the creation of the world."
- you dont know what perspective means do you? I can talk about the beginning from my perspective "The angel was in the beginning"
notice the angels are said to be before the creation of the world. Job 38:7
Was John in the beginning? no, so it was his own perspective.
cite me a dictionary where beginning is said to mean "eternity"
(infact do this for all your claims)
according to Mark "In the beginning he made them male and female"
We know this refesr to genisis its infact a paraphrase.. showing "The beginning" eamsn the commencement of creation.
"John does not refer to the perspective of the present" - when did I say this? Moses wrote about Earth from his own perspective not God's or the angels - How could he? he is not them.
cheap arguments like this wont get you anywhere in the scholarly field. especially since a Greek grammarian admits the same, who defends the trinity adamantly.
"at he received his being and deity from the Father," - right... yet you dont see how thats a contridiction too "eterntal logos"
say what you mean - not what you dont mean
How is he God for eternity if he recieved his deity from the Father? by defintion there was a time he didnt exist. or wasnt God (dont go on about human anatomy, I dont care) by the defintion of the words you use - thats the meaning that other will get.
" the archbishop is a bishop" - nature has nothing to do with it, its catergory to which a subject belongs.. archbishops are still themselves bishops, tho if I just say "all the bishops" - would you think I include archbishops? I wouldnt - most wouldnt, espeacially if the subject was one himself.
you argument is theological not linguistical. (this is messy and I am a hypocrite here)
"Where there is no change, there is no time, no temporality." - really? not sure about that one. Your assuming this. - this sint backed up scripture nor stated that "When there is no change there is no time"
"Jesus ceased to be human" - What the bible literally says - However again it amazes me how you dont get the crux of the argument.
"the WTS argues that "the firstborn of" always indicates that the firstborn is part of the named group. Well, this is quite simply because in every single case when someone is called the firstborn in the Old Testament (e.g. David), then by definition he was born from the person who is said to be firstborn of."
- part of the group does NOT mean born of that group.
The Firstborn of death - is itself a deadly disease, infact the most deadly, but is still part of the group
The Firstborn of the dead - is not "born from the dead" but infact the first to be risen from the dead.
The Firstborn of Mary - is a member of the group Mary gave birth too. They are not Mary themselves.
David as Firstborn King - is not literally "first-king" but is the first king in another sense (One which you frequently omit)
The Firstborn of creation - is himself part of that creation, not an exception too it - not born of it.
My vote is we see both meanings of Firstborn as seen in other places.
pre-eminent, but also part of the group.
However none of your examples exclude being "created" (take note of the " " marks)
as to the original subject...
its interesting how in bible times they applied the shiliach principle to almost anyone and everything - proabbly a dumb question and I may be wrong but surely they would use the passive verb in every case of agency, even when the active is used
""Is one "late" good, the other not? Isn't this a double standard?" - no, common sense as too why.."
Yes, of course, obviously not an obvious theological interest, but "common sense" is the reason that Shem Tob's Hebrew Gospel of Matthew is a relevant source, and Rabbi Bahya ben Asher is not :D
""I prefer linguistic criticism" - really? so far you have done nothing but theological."
I criticized the rendering order of Philippians 2:9 in the NWT on purely linguistic grounds.
""they did not belong among the nations." - no they belonged to Israel - which if it was no longer a "nation" what was it?"
According to the Old Testament, Israel was not "of the nations", why do you dispute the clear statement of the Scriptures about this?
""Of course, several Bible commentators have raised this (Clarke's Commentary), I just looked it up." - if bibles thought they could get away with this, they would have rendered it as such."
Unfortunately, I don't quite understand your sentence, could you try in standard English this time? The correct literal translation is "the firstborn of all creation." The commentary is not a translation of this, but an interpretation.
"The lack of renderings in bible translations shows the wide spreadness of the argument, hint: not very wide spread."
The commentaries are not primarily intended to refute the Arian interpretation of a marginal denomination in the first place, nor are they expected to address every single aspect. And you don't have to be "widespread", maybe even I can't discover new aspects myself?
""Criticism of selective citation is justified" - and criticism of a citation of someone who uses Jewish mysticism to interpret scripture is also justified"
On the other hand, for those who use such sources themselves, such criticism is quite hypocritical. I note: what I have quoted are not primarily representatives of "Jewish mysticism", but highly respected rabbinic sources.
"if you can cite another who is "clean" then maybe you will have a point."
How many "unclean" sources does WTS use? I think you would define the criterion of "cleanness" here.
""So why does Paul say about Jesus that he himself is the arche? So this is Jesus' title. By the way, the Book of Revelation also calls the Father arche." - 2 different contexts"
In addition to the fact that one is written by Paul and the other by John, the expression is still the same, which shows that "arche" does not mean a temporal beginning, but a divine title applied to Jesus in the New Testament.
"notice Firstborn of creation is contrasted to Firstborn of the dead (which trinitarians concede is temporal)"
Jesus is not the first person to die, nor is he the first to be resurrected (cf. Lazarus), nor is he therefore the firstborn of the dead, but because he is their Lord. By the way, in Hebrews 12:23, "firstborn" obviously means heir.
"Revelation calls the Father "the beginning and the end" - Jesus is never called such "
Cf. Rev. 1:8, 22:13 - where the Son is obviously speaking, since he says that he will come, while the Father is never said to come.
Note, "the first and the last" (Revelation 1:17, 2:8) also means exactly the same as "alpha and omega" (the first and last letters of the Greek alphabet).
By the way, even the Watchtower admits that Jesus is speaking in Revelation 22:13:
"Jesus associated his return with the rewarding of his followers. Said he: "If I go my way and prepare a place for you, I am coming again and will receive you home to myself, that where I am you also may be." And again: "Look! I am coming quickly, and the reward I give is with me, to render to each one as his work is." Paul understood it this way, for he wrote: "I have fought the right fight, I have run the course to the finish, I have observed the faith. From this time on there is reserved for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, will give me as a reward in that day, yet not only to me, but to all those who have loved his manifestation."- John 14:3; Rev. 22:12; 2 Tim. 4:7, 8, NW." (Watchtower 1955 July 1 p.387)
"6 Also, in his final revelation concerning "the things that must shortly take place," Jesus again stresses the suddenness with which he comes:
"I am coming to you quickly . . . I am coming quickly. Keep on holding fast what you have."-Rev. 2:16; 3:11 a.m.
"Look! I am coming quickly. . . . Look! I am coming quickly, and the reward I give is with me. . . . Yes; I am coming quickly." (Rev. 22:7,12, 20)
In response to these last expressions of our Master, surely each one of us joins with the apostle John in saying: "Amen! Come, Lord Jesus.""
(Watchtower 1978 October 1 p.15 "Keep on the Watch")
"15 Jesus now adds a final word of encouragement: "He that bears witness of these things says, 'Yes; I am coming quickly.'" (Revelation 22:20a) Jesus is "the faithful and true witness." (Revelation 3:14) If he bears witness to the visions of Revelation, they must be true. Both he and Jehovah God himself repeatedly stress the fact that they are coming "quickly," or soon, Jesus here saying that for the fifth time. (Revelation 2:16; 3:11; 22:7, 12, 20) The "coming" is to execute judgment on the great harlot, the political "kings" and all others who oppose "the kingdom of our Lord [Jehovah] and of his Christ."—Revelation 11:15; 16:14, 16; 17:1, 12-14. "
(Revelation Climax (1988) p.319 Ch.44 Revelation and You)
"18 In the book of Revelation, Jesus announces several times: "I am coming quickly." (Revelation 2:16; 3:11; 22:7, 20a) He must yet come to execute judgment on Babylon the Great, Satan's political system, and on all humans who refuse to submit to Jehovah's sovereignty, as now expressed by the Messianic Kingdom. We join our voices with that of the apostle John, who exclaimed: "Amen! Come, Lord Jesus."-Revelation 22:20b."
(Watchtower 1999 Dec 1 p.19 Be Happy Readers of the Book of Revelation)
"Where is the holy spirit called Arkhe?
to finish off your "trinity""
The Scripture does not have to mention each title separately for the Holy Spirit, it is enough if it turns out that it is not the same as the power of God (because he himself has power), but a person, and that he is God.
If the word "person" had to be present for something to be a person, then WITH THE SAME FORCE, neither the Father nor the Son could be a person. As I said in the language of the Bible, the word "name" served to describe a person, e.g., "you have insulted my name" -> "you have insulted my person" or "you have insulted me."
The Holy Spirit has a name, see the baptismal formula, which proves that it is a person.
And force cannot be a person in the first place, since the Holy Spirit has power... and power cannot have power. Moreover, it differentiates in many places.
According to the Apostle Peter, when Ananias lied to the Holy Spirit, he lied not to man, but to God (tó theó, Acts 5:3-4). Thus, the Holy Spirit is God.
"can talk about the beginning from my perspective "The angel was in the beginning""
You may say such things, but the Scriptures do not say so, since angels did not "exist" in the beginning, but were created in the beginning. Angels were not "present" at the creation of the world, since they were also created "in the beginning", and especially they did not participate in the creation at all. The Holy Spirit, on the other hand, was present at creation, see Genesis 1:2 (cf. Job 33:4, Psalm104:30), which the NWT also mistranslates.
At the beginning of time, God created the angelic world. "In the beginning God created the heaven AND the earth", which they generally interpreted as "In the beginning, God created the visible AND invisible world." If, on the other hand, we consistently consider the essential assignment of the angelic world to the human world, then simultaneous creation is logical.
"notice the angels are said to be before the creation of the world. Job 38:7"
Job does not contradict, since 38:4–7 can be interpreted for the second story of creation (Genesis 2. chapter), which is mainly about man and man's relation to the world and society.
Genesis 1:26 - God does not speak to the angels, but it is either a plural of majesty (as 'Elohim' is also plural), or to the Son, who is not "of the angels". Augustine vigorously opposed Philo's explanation that at the beginning of Scripture (Gen 1:20-26) God would have called on the angels to be his helpers in creation (August. Gen. ad litt. IX 15, 26 - 28 Civ. Dei XII 24; Trin. III 8, 13; cf. already Iren. I 22, 1; II 2, 4; IV 20, 1). Even the WTS didn't claim this either. Nowhere do we find angels involved in any type of creation. According to the Bible, angels are created beings, not co-creators with God. The psalmist wrote:
"Praise Him, all His angels; Praise Him, all His hosts . . . Let them praise the Lord for He commanded and they were created" (Psalm 148:2,5)
"cite me a dictionary where beginning is said to mean "eternity""
"The beginning" does not mean eternity, don't try to "sandbox" the individual words and verses, but the fact that in a prologue parallel to Genesis 1:1, in a solemn form, John asserts about the Logos that already "was in the beginning". John 1:3 (here the authors of the NWT forgot to add their favourite word "other) too) clearly proves that Jesus is not "made", but in accordance with John 1:1, he always "was". For if Jesus were a creature, this verse would claim about him that he was created with his own cooperation, which unleashes the conceptual monster of "self-creation" on the debater who tries this.
"according to Mark "In the beginning he made them male and female""
However, since we know that people are created in time, therefore, in their regard, the beginning refers to their own beginning.
"Moses wrote about Earth from his own perspective not God's or the angels"
No, Genesis 1 does not only write about the creation of the earth, but "the heavens and the earth", that is, the spiritual world and the material world, and the author writes this under inspiration from God's point of view.
""at he received his being and deity from the Father," - right... yet you dont see how thats a contradiction too "eterntal logos" [...] How is he God for eternity if he recieved his deity from the Father?"
There is no contradiction here, the Logos can be "eternal" precisely because he did not receive his existence from the Father in time, but was born before the beginning of time, in the eternal "today" of God.
"by definition there was a time he didn't exist. or wasn't God"
There is no such definition, because it already existed (at the absolute "beginning") when the created world was created. So it was already when time began "in the beginning".
"archbishops are still themselves bishops, tho if I just say "all the bishops" - would you think I include archbishops?"
That's right, because an archbishop is a bishop, so when I say "all bishops," that includes archbishops, cardinals, and even the pope.
""Where there is no change, there is no time, no temporality." - really? not sure about that one."
The concept of eternity (aeternitas): We can talk about three variations of duration (Latin: duratio, remaining, existing, lasting). Time is a duration in which there are successive states. Temporal existence is characteristic of the existing things in the world because their existence and activity are realized in a series of successive states. Another variation of duration is called 'aevum.' Aevum is a duration that, in itself, excludes successive states but has a beginning, and incidental successive states may also be associated with it. According to medieval theology, aevum characterizes the mode of existence of the angels: the existence of angels excludes successive states (temporality), but their existence has a beginning, and they have temporal activity. The third variation of duration is eternity, which is the simultaneous and perfect possession of unbounded life. Eternity is a duration that excludes successive states, has no beginning or end, and to which successive states cannot even incidentally be connected. Eternity, as a duration that excludes temporality and aevum, is exclusively a characteristic of God. Eternal can only be an unchanging reality that excludes potential existence; for the changing existence that realizes potential existence is temporal. God is pure and infinite reality. Therefore, the divine existence is eternal. Eternity has no beginning and no end. However, only a reality that exists by the force of its essence can be eternal. Because all existents that do not exist by the force of their essence, but owe their existence to some cause, have a beginning, and at least potentially, the closure of their duration also threatens them. The argument for God from the series of constituting causes and from contingency points to the fact that God exists by the force of His essence with absolute necessity. Therefore, the divine existence is eternal. Eternal can only be a reality to which even incidental temporal activity (i.e., activity leading from potentiality into actuality) cannot be connected.
"this sin backed up scripture nor stated that "When there is no change there is no time""
The Holy Scriptures do not give the abstract concept of time, but by definition time is the measure of change, and if you look at the International System of Units definition of the basic unit of time (second), you will see that the measurement of time is connected to the measurement of change. Therefore, if there is no change in God (immutable), He is not subject to temporality either.
""Jesus ceased to be human" - What the bible literally says"
Where does Scripture say this? Who is the "man" then mentioned in 1 Timothy 2:5 and Acts 17:31? What about Hebrews 2:5?
"we see both meanings of Firstborn as seen in other places. pre-eminent, but also part of the group."
So being firstborn of God (Hebrews 1:5) means He belongs of the "group" (category) of being God then?
The first-born belongs to the given group only IF (!!!) it can be known at the same time that he was actually born into that group by being born to a given member of the given group.
For the record, I never said anything about Shem-Tob: I stand by how NT scholarship and OT scholars generally do things. They don't impose medieval ideas/meanings on OT or NT works/passages, and synchrony takes precedence over diachrony in word studies.
Having a name does not make X a person. That is not a valid inference as shown by how the OT and NT use "name." Animals were given names; does that make them persons? What about plants? Name can refer to authority or be a label. It doesn't necessarily mean that the thing with a nomen is a person.
"There is no god besides me." (Deuteronomy 32:39)
In Acts and Titus, the Bible speaks of God pouring our holy spirit through Christ and the apostles receive power that way. Acts 1:8, for example. None of this has to mean that the spirit is a person and I take the pouring out to be metaphorical. The ancient Jews did not view the spirit as a person.
You may not have referred to the Shem-Tob, but the NWT translators mostly refer to MEDIEVAL Jewish Hebrew NT translations (called "J-sources") as to where they put Ha-Shem or some form of the Tetragrammaton. Why? These late _translations_ would perhaps prove that in these places where these Jewish translators, e.g. put for example Ha-Shem in place of 'Kyrios', Tetragrammaton (some form of it) was present in the NT autographs in the given places?
I pointed out this contradiction: if you think it is irrelevant to the meaning of Colossians 1:15 that the authoritative Jewish rabbinic commentators used a very similar term for God, saying these sources are "late", then why are the medieval Hebrew NT translations irrelevant?
"Having a name does not make X a person."
Then what kind of word should be applied to the Holy Spirit to make it a person, if the NT does not have an adequate word for it?
"In Acts and Titus, the Bible speaks of God pouring our holy spirit through Christ"
So maybe these aren't persons either?
* "Because He [Christ] poured out Himself unto death" Isa 53:12
* "I [Paul] am being poured out as a drink offering" Phil. 2:17; 2 Tim. 4:6
* David was poured out Psalm 22:14
"and the apostles receive power that way. Acts 1:8"
Yet, the Holy Scriptures reveal that God's spirit, the Holy Spirit, is not the same as God's power/force: Mic 3:8, Zech 4,6, Lk 1,35, Lk 4:14, Acts 10,38, Rom 15:13,19, 1 Cor 2,4, 1 Thess 1.5. The Holy Spirit himself has power, and can fill beings with his power (Mic 3:8 cf. Acts 1:8)
Dear Nincsnevem, why not address what I said rather than what I did not say?
Where did I ever bring up medieval Hebrew NT translations? Answer: never. Seems like you need to take up your concern with the NWT translators. You confuse the purpose of this blog's existence with the reason for the NWT existing and being in its current form.
Well, I don't start with the presupposition that the holy spirit is or s to be a person, nor do I think ancient Judaism worked with this presupposition. For starters, it would help if the NT explicitly called the holy spirit, "God," but it does not. Not even Acts 5:3-4 supports your point. It's an inference at best.
You'll notice that I did not use the line of argumentation that since the holy spirit is poured out through Christ, then it must not be a person. I never said any such thing but the holy spirit is not just "poured out" but poured out through Jesus Christ from the Father. That does make us wonder about the personhood of the spirit. In your examples above, each person poured himself out. However with the spirit, someone else did the pouring through another agent.
I never claimed that God's spirit is his power and that is not a Witness teaching. But I don't see where the Bible ever teaches that the spirit "himself" has power; only that God exerts/conveys power through the spirit. Not to mention that the holy spirit is described with masculine, feminine, and neuter pronouns in Hebrew and Greek. But I don't hang too much on that either.
Regarding Shem Tov's Hebrew Matthew, also see - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_Gospel_hypothesis
So, even though no one can prove that this is the early Gospel of Matthew there is a reason to look for one.
Yehovah in the LXX.
https://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/test-archives/html4/1996-03/12555.html
Dear Mr Foster,
"why not address what I said rather than what I did not say? Where did I ever bring up medieval Hebrew NT translations? Answer: never. "
I think I am responding to your suggestion on the merits, however, I do not consider it irrelevant to MENTION that your denomination does indeed rely on medieval Jewish sources in connection with the alleged Tetragrammaton in the NT. By the way, what do you think proves that the autographs of NT books contained the Tetragrammaton or some form of it instead of the Kyrios?
"Seems like you need to take up your concern with the NWT translators."
I assume that there were and are people who wrote to the WTS about this, I don't think they are not aware of the criticisms related to the addressed issues. Another issue is that they don't really consider the objections, otherwise they wouldn't have taken out the promised brackets from the 2013 update of the NWT, e.g. at the insertion of the word "other" at Colossians 1:16. So if there is a change, it is rather negative.
"You confuse the purpose of this blog's existence with the reason for the NWT existing and being in its current form."
This wording is telling anyway. I assumed that you are open to discussing your own solutions to the NWT on your blog, given that it is the official translation of your denomination.
"Well, I don't start with the presupposition that the holy spirit is or s to be a person, nor do I think ancient Judaism worked with this presupposition."
Of course, the Jews do not accept the Holy Spirit as a person and God, since they consider plurality within God to be 'Shituf', but at the same time the rabbinical understanding of the Holy Spirit has a certain degree of personification. Nevertheless, this is less relevant from the point of view of our present discussion, after all, according to the mainstream Christian interpretation, the Trinity of God (and thus also the personhood of the Holy Spirit) was not revealed in the Old Testament, at best somewhat foreshadowed. At the same time, even in the OT, the Spirit is distinguished from the strength/power/force of God (koach, chayil), see Micah 3:8, Zechariah 4:6.
"For starters, it would help if the NT explicitly called the holy spirit, "God," but it doesn't."
For now, let's stick with what term you think the NT should use for the Holy Spirit in order for it to be a person. Since there is no abstract expression for this in the NT, it is not stated that either the Father or the Son should be a person. Perhaps the expression 'onoma' (= "name") is closest to the concept of person, which is used in the NT in a similar sense as the OT often uses nephesh.
By the way, I note that even the Arians of the 4th century did not deny the personality of the Holy Spirit, which is why the original Nicene Creed speaks only narrowly about the Holy Spirit. The Macedonians denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit, but even they did not deny that it was a person. This was also known as Pneumatomachianism, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pneumatomachi
That is why the Nicene Creed had to be supplemented at the Council of Constantinople.
Thus before the modern era, there have been no Christian movement at all that would have denied that the Holy Spirit was a person, there is no trace of this in church history. Groups with Unitarian theology such as Polish Socinians, the 18th-19th Century Unitarian Church, and Christadelphians conceive of the Holy Spirit not as a person but an aspect of God's power.
Although Arius believed that the Holy Spirit is a person or high angel, that had a beginning, modern Semi-Arian groups such as Dawn Bible Students and JWs believe that the Holy Spirit is not an actual person but is God's "power in action", "breath" or "divine energy", which had no beginning, and which proceeds only out of the Father, and through the Son, which the Father uses to accomplish his will. Jehovah's Witnesses do not typically capitalize the term, and define the Holy Spirit as "God's active force".
"Not even Acts 5:3-4 supports your point. It's an inference at best."
I did not claim that this Bible verse specifically says that "the Holy Spirit is God", but it is as if you said that "when you called Max, you did not call a cat, but a dog", then it turns out that Max a dog. I think that 2 Cor. 3:18 does connect Lord closely with the Spirit. See also 1 Corinthians 6:17, 2 Corinthians 3:17, Hebrews 9:14.
"but the holy spirit is not just "poured out" but poured out through Jesus Christ from the Father. That does make us wonder about the personhood of the spirit. In your examples above, each person poured himself out. However with the spirit, someone else did the pouring through another agent."
I don't know why this would disprove that the Holy Spirit is a person, it only proves the Filioque doctrine disputed by the Eastern Orthodox.
"I never claimed that God's spirit is his power and that is not a Witness teaching."
JW teaching is that it is "God's active force", force and power are practically synonymous terms, which practically means God's power in action. So much so that they believe that they wrote this doctrine into Genesis 1:2, even though the word "ruach" in the original text obviously does not mean "active force".
"I never claimed that God's spirit is his power and that is not a Witness teaching."
JW teaching is that "it" is "God's active force", force and power are practically synonymous terms in English, which practically means God's power in action. So much so that they believe that they wrote this doctrine into Genesis 1:2, even though the word "ruach" in the original text obviously does not mean "active force".
In contrast, the NT does not identify 'Pneuma' with 'dynamis' (force, power, might, strength), but explicitly distinguishes between them (e.g. Luke 1:35, Acts 10:38, 1 Corinthians 2:4).
"But I don't see where the Bible ever teaches that the spirit "himself" has power"
Some non-exhaustive examples:
* Luke 4:14: "in the power OF the Spirit" (en tē dynamei tou pneumatos)
* Romans 15:13: "by the power OF the Holy Spirit" (en dynamei pneumatos hagiou)
* Romans 15:19: "through the power OF the Spirit of God" (en dynamei pneumatos theou)
"Not to mention that the holy spirit is described with masculine, feminine, and neuter pronouns in Hebrew and Greek."
Gender of a word has nothing to do with identity. It has to do with the language. Gender belongs to the language of the word, not to the case of, or the object of the word. This is similar to how in German the pronoun always matches the grammatical gender of the given noun, in English this is only the case with countries, ships, etc. (e.g. "Britain and her allies", "Titanic and her destruction"). Angels are neuter pneuma " IT " spirits in Heb 1:14. Demons are neuter pneuma " IT " spirits over 45 times in scripture. A masculine pronoun ("He" Greek: ekeinos, literal "that One") is applied to the Holy Spirit throughout the New Testament despite the fact that "Spirit" (Greek: pneuma) is neuter.
Dear Duncan,
I know Howard's hypothesis about Shem Tob's Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, but it is unfounded to say the least, that it is a supposed survival of the Hebrew Proto-Matthew. Why would the Jews have preserved the original version of the Gospel of Matthew? These are translations into medieval Hebrew. For some reason, 'ha-Shem' (= "the Name") was written in place of those Old Testament quotations where the Tetragrammaton was mentioned in the original Hebrew version of the given Old Testament text.
Stafford, for instance, wants to justify the insertion of "Jehovah" into the New Testament Watchtower by suggesting that it was probably not the apostles who began to abbreviate holy names, but the generation that followed them, while the apostles followed the practice of the Old Testament copyists who inserted Hebrew into the Greek text. In this demonstration, he relies on the hypothesis of a Hebrew original Matthew derived from Papias and Jerome as a fact. However, research has already refuted this insofar as it has shown that the Matthew we have is not a translation, but was originally written in Greek. The hypothesis of a Hebrew Matthew might have originated from those early Syriac translations which, as later works, corrected the tangled Hebraisms in Matthew. The author is also mistaken in suggesting that Matthew consistently quoted from the Hebrew text, because there are many places where he follows the Septuagint (e.g., 1:23, 3:3, 4:4, or 15:8-9).
So Matthew's alleged "original" Gospel in Hebrew has not been proven at all that there was such a thing, even if some ancient authors refer to it, there is a good chance that it is not the same as our canonical Matthew, probably an Ebionite apocryphal document. By the way, no ancient author mentions that there was a Tetragrammaton in this Hebrew Matthew. The oldest NT manuscripts were kept in the Theological Library of Caesarea Maritima, where Jerome is said to have seen the oldest manuscripts, but he also does not mention that he saw any Tetragrammaton.
But if the Gospel of Matthew was written in Hebrew, why does it follow that it had to contain the Tetragrammaton? Let me note that if Matthew had written in Hebrew, he certainly would not have used the Tetragrammaton, Matthew even tends to avoid the word "God" too, which in Mark and Luke is "the kingdom of God", in Matthew tends to render it as "the kingdom of heaven". The Ecclesiastes, the Book of Esther, and the Song of Songs were also written in Hebrew, yet they do not contain the Tetragrammaton. Couldn't it have been there as well, only the "apostate" copyists removed from there also, and should it be "restored" in the NWT according to this logic? And anyway, you didn't just include "Jehovah" into Matthew, what about the other 26 NT books?
Dear Duncan,
"Yehovah in the LXX."
What does this have to do with the alleged NT "Jehovah"? If I have a sink in my bathroom, does it follow that my living room has to have one as well? In any case, the fact that there was a text variant of the Septuagint that contained it was nothing new, after all Origen and Jerome (who even allegedly saw the Hebrew Matthew) reported on it, but no one about in the NT. As far as I know, there are only FOUR such LXX manuscripts in existence, each containing it in a different form, making it doubtful that this was the original reading. In any case, according to the majority opinion of researchers, this was a later, re-Hebraizing, heterodox reading of the LXX, and the fact that it was not included in the NT in the first place is simply justified by the different theological environment.
The fact that a number of hitherto unknown manuscripts have been discovered in recent centuries weakens your position: according to them, among thousands of ancient New Testament manuscripts, there is not ONE single one that indicates any kind of deliberate falsification of the Bible, especially in this regard.
There is no direct or indirect source or evidence for this, only speculation and conspiracy theory. Maybe these evil "apostate" copyist did such a perfect job? Maybe I've been watching too many crime dramas, but I guess there is no such thing as a perfect crime. Do you think so? Jesus seemed to say that the truth cannot be hidden. Or as Seneca's famous quote says: "The truth never perishes" (Veritas numquam perit)
But let's suppose that such a "Jehovist" New Testament manuscript were to be found, but what would that prove? That this was the original reading of the apostolic autograph, the Urtext, and "using" the name "Jehovah" was the original church mainline of the Christianity? Well, because JWs not only claim that there could have been such a reading, but also the latter. However, this would not be far from proving this!
It is even possible to imagine in principle that there was a minor heterodox Judaizing-Hebraizing sect among some Jewish Christians, that inserted it into the text because they thought it "should" be there. Read up on who the Ebionites were. Irenaeus (d. c. 202) reports that the Gnostics, and Valentinian heretics used Ἰαῶ (Iao), but there is no sign that there was ever such a "Jehovist" trend in the original, primitive mainline church.
Interestingly, no one claims that in the apocryphal Gospels of the Ebionites, or the Gospel of the Hebrews, there was any kind of YHWH either, and where such a thing could be imagined, it is precisely these.
This theory fails on the fact that the manuscripts made long before the Council of Nicaea do NOT contain the divine name YHWH either.
It is no coincidence that the Watchtower stands on the same platform with conspiracy-believing, anti-Christian authors who believe that "Constantine founded the Church and rewrote the Bible", in opposition to the position of Christians who believe in the intact preservation of the New Testament scriptures. In this matter they are on the same platform with e.g. Dan Brown or Bart Ehrman.
Furthermore, why did the Arians not refer to the alleged New Testament presence of the divine name YHWH and its importance in refuting Nicene theology? So even the trends considered heretical by the Church never referred to an alleged falsification or mistranslation of the Bible. At that time, the Alexandrian Library and the Theological Library of Caesarea Maritima (of Eusebius) still existed, where many early manuscripts, which have since been destroyed, were kept. Yet no one has ever mentioned a manuscript tradition that is significantly different from the one known today!
Nor does Wulfila's Gothic translation suggest anything of the sort.
testing. For some reason, I cannot finish posting my comment. I know about grammatical gender in the Bible and said I would not hang too much on the fact that "spirit" is described wit all 3 grammatical genders. You can find places on this blog where I've discussed such things.
Nincsnevem, see https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2013/06/donald-mastronarde-on-greek-grammatical.html
I've done more about the subject on this blog.
(very short as short on time)
" obviously not an obvious theological interest" - really? I think your more theologically motivated than I am - If you cant see the difference you probably shouldnt be accusing me of having a theological bias..
"I criticized the rendering order of Philippians 2:9 in the NWT on purely linguistic grounds." - the ONLY one you have done so far - Is there any respected NT scholar who has critisized it? no, then its fine. (note alot of critisized the NWT for other renderings, not this one tho)
"why do you dispute the clear statement of the Scriptures about this?" - if its not a nation, what was it then?
because it doesnt mean literally what your tring to make out. brentons LXX confirms this.
"Unfortunately, I don't quite understand your sentence, could you try in standard English this time?" - I did, this is aimed at "Firstborn of the world"
" I have quoted are not primarily representatives of "Jewish mysticism"" - doesnt matter, using Jewish mystism according to scripture is wrong as it would fall under "magic"
"How many "unclean" sources does WTS use?" - your hypocritical here..(Im not because I have never cited an "unclean" source)
"Jesus is not the first person to die, nor is he the first to be resurrected (cf. Lazarus)" - He was the first to be resurrected.. "To never die again"
your quote from Rev does nothing to establish Jesus as "The beginning and the end"
"According to the Apostle Peter, when Ananias lied to the Holy Spirit, he lied not to man, but to God (tó theó, Acts 5:3-4). Thus, the Holy Spirit is God." - AD hominem as you like to put it.
There is another example of this in the Bible, is Abraham also God?
"since angels did not "exist" in the beginning, but were created in the beginning." - modern scholarship disagrees as they are described to applaud in Job 38:7 - note v 4
"since 38:4–7 can be interpreted for the second story of creation (Genesis 2. chapter)" - CAN be, its not in modern scholarship. You are no scholar (very evident)
"don't try to "sandbox" the individual words and verses" - you forget dicitonarys also list unusual meanings within a given context, so it should list under what you claim. your refusal to do so is telling of troll or theologically motivated
"the beginning refers to their own beginning." - oh how conveiniant... yet all bibles (I have checked) cross reference this with Gen 1:1..
* "The beginning of creation" was when God made man and woman? not according to the bible
" say "all bishops," that includes archbishops, cardinals, and even the pope." - only you would, most would realise if the subject was an archbishop, it wouldnt mean anything other than the other bishops
"because he did not receive his existence from the Father in time" - this is theological not linguistical.
"I live because of the Father"
He doesnt live in human form because of the Father but because of the spirit..
"the concept of eternity (aeternitas" - thological argument not linguistical
Trinitarian scholar Moses Stuart stated:
"To say, as some have said, that HN of itself denotes timeless existence(like ESTI in QEOS ESTI), seems not to be well founded in the laws of grammatical usage. The assertion of the eternality of the Logos depends not on the use of HN, but on the nature of the declaration respecting him."
"Hence we need not insist that [en](John 1:1)is strictly durative always(imperfect). It may be aorist also."-A Grammar of the N.T. in the Light of Historical Research, p.883.
"Doubtful Imperfects."
https://archive.org/details/grammarofgreekne00robeuoft/page/882/mode/2up
you have to be crazy to disagree with these 2, One is an "authority" like your rabbi's - you dont argue with A.T Robertson (on things he si not blatently wrong on).
"Who is the "man" then mentioned in 1 Timothy 2:5 and Acts 17:31? What about Hebrews 2:5?" - clearly refers to a historical point, not present
Paul was not alive at the same time Jesus was. Paul was after Jesus, since the man is the sacrifice used to gain salvation not "the spirit" Paul would naturally refer to the historical man.
"being firstborn of God (Hebrews 1:5) means He belongs of the "group" (category) of being God then?"
- Gen 49:3 lxx - are Reuben's kids are also Reuben?
- Firstborn of Mary, is also Mary?
I will address this here:
"No, Genesis 1 does not only write about the creation of the earth, but "the heavens and the earth""
- does it really matter, do you not get the implied?
"he author writes this under inspiration from God's point of view." - scholars disagree
" force and power are practically synonymous terms in English, which practically means God's power in action." - yes and born and begotten are synonyms in Greek yet you wont accept that...
the rest of your responce is actaully very misleading.. and disrespectful.
on note inserting "other": cant believe I have to explain this, just because other is in some passages doesnt mean it has to be in all! surely you realise putting it in John 1:3 makes no sense.
"his theory fails on the fact that the manuscripts made long before the Council of Nicaea do NOT contain the divine name YHWH either." - I can cite multiple copies of the LXX dated before nicea that have the name in some form.
you have a MASSIVE hurdle with 1 cor 2:16 and proving the divine name wasnt used..
"why did the Arians not refer to the alleged New Testament presence of the divine name YHWH and its importance in refuting Nicene theology?" - Why did atha not refute prov 8:22 appliing to christ? yet you say it cannot be used to support doctrine, atha thought differently.
Edgar I'm sure you have already noted this but check Nincsnevem' claim on pouring out - different words are used that mean different things. misleading argument
I have seen claims like yours before.
https://www.tetragrammaton.org/harshrealities.html
But committees dictate the state of all "translations", as those like Bart Ehrman repeatedly remind.
Would we claim the OT texts in modern bibles are correct because they have been in use for a long time and just completely ignore the dead sea Scrolls? There is still debate on how much was sectarian and how much came ot of Jerusalem temple.
There is no "perfect" translation and even if it was, based on which manuscripts. But circular reasoning imposes a trinity into the text regardless of which version or translation you use - it's not there. So you include the authority of church committees changing the bible too, reading there arguments back into the text.
There are far too many artificial pidgin holes and categories. Human nature makes this a flaw we need to be aware of. Show love and make peace.
There are other issues to deal with that keep coming to light.
https://youtu.be/hhPbj0VUjLU?si=JZkeU5MQ13rlUrsL
It is also an interesting fact that the earliest manuscripts treated Pneuma as a "nomen sacrum" and abbreviated as ΠΝΑ and ΠΝΣ, which proves that the early Christians also treated the (Holy) Spirit as a divine title.
Thanks Anonymous. I agree and wish I had more time to point out his errors. Even granting his premise, the conclusion still does not follow
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/new-testament-studies/article/abs/reading-for-the-spirit-of-the-text-nomina-sacra-and-language-in-p46/E8514EE523963A257D84AF67ED1761FA
"While it is impossible to know the exact extent to which theological ambiguities around the Spirit may have played a role in the scribe’s decisions to write πνεῦμα as a nomen sacrum or in full, it is easy to imagine how the ideological commitments and socio-cultural location of a scribe would inevitably surface through the tip of his pen. Yet, as we have seen, treating the nomina sacra as reliable indicators of theological meaning is fraught with hazards. The pattern simply is not stable enough to bear interpretive weight. Still, the variability that precludes such interpretive certainty itself testifies to the general fluidity of both scribal practices and pneumatological reflection during the period in which P was produced. The idiosyncrasy of πνεῦμα language in P reflects its sociological situation within a flurry of emerging scribal and theological developments. It also suggests some relationship between the two, even while reminding us that scribal patterns do not map directly onto their theological and socio-cultural landscapes."
"Exactly how these realities overlay in P is a matter for further investigation. Could the scribe’s decision not to record πνεῦμα as a nomen sacrum in the Trinitarian benediction of Cor . indicate some hesitance to ascribe equal status to Father, Son and Spirit, similar to the subordinationism evident in Tertullian and Origen? Does the usage of nomina sacra to refer to spiritual persons in Cor suggest some affinity with the notion of theosis? Or might the nomina sacra for πνεῦμα in P serve a more symbolic than theological function – simply to express visually the identity of Christians as a discrete social group? It is difficult to say for certain. What we do know is that the very phenomenon that so stubbornly resists explanation reveals scribes at work in the fascinating process of cultural conveyance, reading and writing not simply by the letter, but also for the spirit of the text."
"which proves that the early Christians also treated the (Holy) Spirit as a divine title." - does it? again another very misleading and unscholarly argument/ conclusion drawn for theological reasons..
it proves nothing as we have abbreviations all over the Bible - it only proves it was common practise to omit details that were so obvious to the readers, it couldn't possibly be miss interpreted.
Dear "Anonymous",
if you are who I think you are (the guy from the other forum), then it becomes especially ironic that even though you are not a JW, you defend their doctrines more vehemently than they do.
I must say you are a particularly rude and irksome debater. I have debated a lot with Protestants, Muslims, and atheists etc., and my experience is that the tone of the debate does not depend on the degree of difference of opinion, but on the attitude of the debater. There were those with whom the difference of opinion was much greater, yet the discussion was conducted in a pleasant tone, and we were able to remain on good human terms.
But for this, it is necessary that the discussion partner does not want to win or oppress by gnashing his teeth, but to carry on a dialogue.
I have already made it clear that I am neither a cleric, nor a theologian, nor a linguist, but an attorney who likes to deal with theology in his spare time. In comparison, you attack by saying that I am not a "scholar", why are you that?
It is especially amusing to brush off the arguments of the debater, saying that you are not a "scholar" anyway, so shut up, from a denomination that trains all its members to be "messengers" whose job it is to present theological arguments to non-believers. I know many JW's who haven't even finished high school, yet start explaining with great confidence that "according to ancient Greek grammar", etc.
Your permanent scoffing and demanding "scholarly sources" reminds me of this meme: https://imgur.com/a/Klk3Pxw
That's all about the introduction, I will only respond to your texts that deserve a response.
"Is there any respected NT scholar who has criticized it? no, then its fine."
There were, and it's a silly argument that what other people MAY NOT have noticed "then its fine". For example, I don't know if anyone else noticed that the NWT translates "ek tou kosmou" as "not *PART* of the world" when it is correctly "not OF the world". If others haven't even noticed, that doesn't make it "fine": it's still wrong. Where is it written that only a "respected NT scholar" can discover anything?
""why do you dispute the clear statement of the Scriptures about this?" - if its not a nation, what was it then?"
Discuss this with the authors of the OT books who said it was not a nation. It is enough for me to point out that they were "the chosen people" (ha-ʿam ha-nivḥar) as opposed to "the nations" (goyim). Sometimes the term 'goy' is also used for OT Israel, but usually with adjectives, e.g. "holy nation" (goy kadosh), "great nation" (goy gadol), and others.
"" I have quoted are not primarily representatives of "Jewish mysticism"" - doesnt matter, using Jewish mysticism according to scripture is wrong as it would fall under "magic""
The fact that the Hebrew expression 'bekhoro shel olam' only occurs in Jewish mysticism is concretely not true, and it is a particularly absurd logical leap that "mysticism" = magic. Read up on what 'Mikraot Gedol' is, and what it has to do with Kabbalah, mysticism, especially "sorcery", ehh... What about 1 Thessalonians 5:21?
""Jesus is not the first person to die, nor is he the first to be resurrected (cf. Lazarus)" - He was the first to be resurrected.. "To never die again""
Indeed, but that does not make him the firstborn of the dead, but because he is the Lord of the saints.
"your quote from Rev does nothing to establish Jesus as "The beginning and the end"
Then read Revelations 1:8 and 22:13 again - where the Son is obviously speaking, since he says that he will come, while the Father is never said to come.
"There is another example of this in the Bible, is Abraham also God?"
Where do you get that for example Moses or the judges are 'elohim' in the same sense that the Son or the Holy Spirit is 'theos' in the NT? Not even in WTS theology, since they practically profess a semi-Arian (homo*i*ousian) Christology.
""since angels did not "exist" in the beginning, but were created in the beginning." - modern scholarship disagrees as they are described to applaud in Job 38:7"
""since angels did not "exist" in the beginning, but were created in the beginning." - modern scholarship disagrees as they are described to applaud in Job 38:7"
This does not prove that the angels were already in the beginning, and I do not know what kind of "modern scholarship" (cf. chronolatry) you are talking about. Genesis 1:1 speaks of the creation of "the heavens" (and thus the angels too) in the beginnning. For your sake, I looked it up directly on jw.org, they do not claim that the angels "were" already "in the beginning", they only claim that "the angels were created long before man's appearance" (Insight on the Scriptures), therefore the WTS does not practically claim more than they were created before the "sixth day" of creation. In Genesis 1:1, "heavens" means the invisible, spiritual world and its "inhabitants", "earth" is not this planet or globe, but the material, visible world.
""the beginning refers to their own beginning." - oh how convenient... yet all bibles (I have checked) cross reference this with Gen 1:1."
But since we know that man was created on the "sixth day," by implication "the beginning" in their case is their own beginning when they were created.
""because he did not receive his existence from the Father in time" - this is theological not linguistical."
Since the Scriptures do not give an abstract concept of time, this cannot be discussed on a linguistic basis, what we know is that the Son:
- was born / begotten
- in the eternal God's "today" (Hebrews 1:5)
- He already was with the Father "before the world began." (John 17:5)
- before all "aions" (Hebrews 1:5)
- He already "was in the beginning" (John 1:1a)
- His "origins are of old, from the days of eternity." (Micah 5:2)
If you put all these together, you get exactly the content of the Nicene Creed.
On the other hand, where does the Scripture say that He is a creature, and He was "created" on a specific point in time? I'll tell you: nowhere.
On the other hand, there are only such attempts that, well, it CAN also mean this, etc., but where are your proofs? Because you're on the defensive, that's for sure.
"the concept of eternity (aeternitas" - theological argument not linguistical"
I can only repeat myself: defining the concept of time is not the task of linguistics. Have you already looked up the definition about what a second is?
"En archē ēn ho Logos" (John 1:1a) - it's not aorist, but simply imperfect indicative of εἰμί (eimi), which is used to show continuous action in the past, meining that the Logos was pre-existing, ongoing "in the beginning". For the aorist of the copula (eimi, "to be") the verb γίγνομαι (gígnomai, "to come into being", "to become") was used, so it would have been "Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἐγένετο ὁ λόγος". The different form of the Greek words depends on how they function in the sentence. For example, ἐγένετο (Genesis 1:3, 5, LXX; John 1:3), γέγονεν (John 1:3), and Γενηθήτω (Genesis 1:3, LXX) come from the verb γίνομαι (become, to come into existence, happen, be made). When John uses these verbs in the same context, ēn implies “existence” and egeneto [ginomai] implies “coming into being.” For example, in John 8:58, “Jesus said to them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was [became], I am.’” Whereas Abraham became (genésthai [ginomai]), Jesus pre-existed (egō eimi).
Check these:
* https://t.ly/HwBlN
* https://t.ly/OWstQ
* https://t.ly/4XfFb
* https://t.ly/73Rdx
No matter what your sources claim, you can check in any grammar book that the Greek copula (eimi, "to be") does not have an aorist form, so the verb γίγνομαι (gígnomai, "to come into being", "to become") was used for this. Consequently, "en archē ēn ho Logos" (John 1:1a) is not aorist, but simply imperfect indicative. By the way, it contradicts that the WTS itself simply translates "ἦν" in the Greek text as "was" in the NWT, since the imperfect here corresponds to the English simple past. Here is an article about this too:
https://t.ly/h1GS_
""Who is the "man" then mentioned in 1 Timothy 2:5 and Acts 17:31? What about Hebrews 2:5?" - clearly refers to a historical point, not present"
So we don't have a mediator right now? So who will mediate our prayers, if that person is "the man" Jesus? Paul uses the present tense in 1 Timothy 2:5. And Acts 17:31 speaks of the future, that a "man" was chosen to judge the world.
But you didn't answer: where does the Scripture say that Jesus ""ceased"" to be a man?
And you didn't answer also how the messianic king can be an (arch)angel, considering Hebrews 2:5?
"Paul was not alive at the same time Jesus was. Paul was after Jesus"
Apostle Paul was born approx. in 5 AD, so he was a contemporary of Jesus.
You didn't answer this either: "being firstborn of God (Hebrews 1:5) means He belongs of the "group" (category) of being God then?" If being the "firstborn" of something or someone necessarily means being a member of that category, does God's firstborn also fall into God's "category"?
"- Gen 49:3 lxx - are Reuben's kids also Reuben?
- Firstborn of Mary, is also Mary?"
You are now talking about personal identity, and I wasn't, because the Son is not God in the sense being the same person as the Father: He is a different person, but just as God, as the Father. Why do JWs and their apologists have to be reminded so many times that we are not modalists?
Reuben's children are just as human as Reuben, Mary's firstborn is just as human as Mary.
"yes and born and begotten are synonyms in Greek yet you wont accept that..."
I do accept this, according to Catholic theology it is also synonymous that the Son was "born" (tikto) or "begotten" (gennao). I do not accept that it is the same as he "created" (ktizo) or "made" (poio). Since Scripture says the former countless times, the latter never once.
"I can cite multiple copies of the LXX dated before Nicea that have the name in some form."
You can name exactly FOUR such pieces, but you can hardly prove that it was in the version of the LXX used by the Christians of the apostolic age. By the way, doesn't it bother you that I was talking about NT manuscripts? Where did these go? Did the cat take it away?
"you have a MASSIVE hurdle with 1 cor 2:16 and proving the divine name wasn't used.."
Where is the reference to the Tetragrammaton in this? Just because this is an OT quote where the Tetragrammaton appeared, does not make it a proven fact that Paul wrote this "using" the Tetragrammaton.
""why did the Arians not refer to the alleged New Testament presence of the divine name YHWH and its importance in refuting Nicene theology?" - Why did atha not refute prov 8:22 applying to Christ?"
You sidestepped the answer: if the presence of the Tetragrammaton is so useful for the Arian argument (WTS claims it is), why didn't the 4th century Arians, who had far more early manuscripts in their time, mention that "hey guys, you falsified the Scripture?"
I am not arguing that the Wisdom of Proverbs 8 can be "applied" to the Logos (as a type), but rather that it
1. would be identical to Him
2. it would be suitable to support doctrine
3. "qanah" in the given place would mean "made" (poio) in the Arian sense, instead of "ktomai"
Regarding the Holy Spirit, you may read this: https://t.ly/-mcd0
I'm willing to let this thread continue a little longer, but can we stick with issues, not personalities? Thanks.
@Duncan
On the jw.org, there is a short video titled "Entrusted With Translating 'the Sacred Pronouncements of God' (Romans 3:2)." Despite the title, we do not get an answer in the video to the basic question of who entrusted whom with the translation of the Scriptures? Before the appearance of the NWT, the reliability of widespread Bible translations was guaranteed by knowing: 1) that they were suitable and professionally trained, 2) authorized by a denominational or interdenominational Bible society, and 3) prepared by people whose names were known because they were already famous scholars or could be requested from the publisher, and whose work was supervised by ecclesiastical and professional forums. These important considerations did not apply to the dozens of modern private translations in English. Nor did they apply to the NWT.
Did they not want their names to be made public? However, the authors of private editions that were born before and after the NWT's appearance have taken responsibility for their work. This is also true for translations issued by the WTS, and the film even mentions Wilson and Rotherham's translation. However, the WTS has always claimed that its "Bible scholars" wanted to remain anonymous only so as not to draw attention to themselves but to give all glory to Jehovah; the translation must therefore be judged on its quality (see NWT Preface). This sounds nice, but the fact is that outsiders' interest in them has been focused from the outset precisely because of the quality of the translation. Very few wanted to praise them, and many more wanted to know who is responsible for it? Translating the Bible is a huge responsibility. From the mass distributors of a translation that is unprecedented in many ways and is spread worldwide, it would be a sign of basic decency if they took responsibility for their work. The NWT, based on the number of copies issued, was obviously not made only for the Witnesses but for the whole world. However, its editorial board and publisher have not dared to present the translation to the international professional audience to defend the translation's features in scientific journals and forums. Why? What is the reason that the ŐT, in 65 years, has been able to present only a few positive opinions but must keep silent about many more criticisms? The first possibility is that the profession dealing with Bible translation and ancient languages, with all its ecclesiastical and civil scientific institutes, departments, and professional forums worldwide, is so ignorant or unprincipled or biased that they do not see or do not want to see what is clear even to a simple Witness if he reads the few pages of explanation in the NWT Appendix. The other possibility is that the organization never had a real team of scholars, so it is constantly forced to refer to others' authority in everything, and the NWT's features are so unjustifiable not only from a Christian theological but also from a scientific (linguistic, translation technique) point of view.
However, an article in the March 1, 1991, issue of The Watchtower (The “New World Translation”—Scholarly and Honest) on page 30 shares "the Israeli Benjamin Kedar's" opinion on the NWT:
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1991167
The quote does not reveal who Benjamin Kedar is, why WTS quotes him, on what occasion he "said" what he said, what kind of philological (i.e., linguistic) research he conducted, or whether he spoke about the entire Bible or just the Old Testament? Kedar, however, received many clarifying letters due to The Watchtower's 1991 article and, according to an independent website edited by an anonymous JW in November 1995, issued a statement. It reveals that he only dealt with specific passages of the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) in a series of articles on linguistic topics, comparing certain Hebrew verb forms' English translations, including positively mentioning the NWT; he does not believe that truth can be understood through "linguistic quibble" stresses that he does not feel sympathy for any sect, including Jehovah's Witnesses, whom their organization manipulates to present its teachings as the ultimate truth; he thinks the WTS's critics are no better, and generally, Jewish, Muslim, and Christian religious communities all tend to dogmatic arrogance; he insisted that only the complete statement could be published. The 1991 Watchtower article did not mention Kedar's university, only that he was Israeli; the current jw.org editors only found Benjamin Z. Kedar, the historian from the Hebrew University, on the internet. (The other Kedar is at least as difficult to find anything about other than his statement about the NWT, as a similar statement.) In any case, they quote Kedar's original opinion in the film as if it were about the whole Bible. However, every critic of the NWT knows that there are few "unique" linguistic solutions in the so-called Hebrew Scriptures. The real problem is posed by the so-called "Christian Greek Scriptures", with linguistically unjustifiable, clearly theologically motivated word insertions, omissions, paraphrases, and reinterpretations. More detailed studies address this, however.
The film explains the "astonishing" achievement of the NWT compilers by claiming that they were "supported by Jehovah's spirit." However, in their case, it's not merely about them humbly asking for God's assistance like all Bible translators do. They firmly believe that Jehovah's spirit supports only them, and this exclusivity is effective not only outwardly, against other religious communities and their Bible translators but also inwardly, against the majority of the Witnesses themselves.
The organization of Jehovah's Witnesses has been teaching since 1935 that believers have two different hopes: earthly or heavenly. The latter, a smaller group of 144,000 "anointed," has been continuously called since the 1st century, and today about 14,000 are alive. They are entitled to all the blessings and privileges that, according to Christian denominations, every believer in Christ receives (e.g., rebirth by the Holy Spirit, divine sonship, partaking in divine nature, reigning with Christ, etc.). The responsible leaders of the organization, including the creators of the NWT, were all "anointed." The other 8.2 million Witnesses only have an earthly hope: eternal life in the new world, in the renewed earthly paradise. They are entirely dependent on "Jehovah's channel of communication" (i.e., the leaders of the WTS), so whatever is placed in their hands as the Bible, they must read as Scripture. They have no choice but to trust the organization because the "holy spirit" does not dwell in them; they are not "anointed."
Make no mistake: the lay members of Christian denominations – unskilled in linguistics and theology – also rely on the work of international Bible societies when they pick up the Bible. Everyone depends on trusting others, as our complicated world particularly requires specialists. That's why the "holy spirit" cannot replace linguistic, historical, and theological training, professional debates and supervision, or personally undertaken responsibility in the public eye. Referencing God alone is not a reason for trust but rather a reason for mistrust, as any Bible translation can be judged entirely on human, professional grounds.
Whether the NWT is indeed the "best" translation ever made or the "most scholarly" Bible, as claimed by the WTS film, can only be assessed by a professional with thorough justification. However, professional knowledge – depending on aptitude, form of training, and invested time and energy – can be acquired by anyone (unlike the "anointing"), can be checked and held accountable by anyone (unlike the anonymous editors of the NWT). This is why, in the past 65 years, the WTS has been able to enlist only a few scholars on its side but has attracted even more scholarly criticism.
The short film claims from the beginning that "according to many, this is the best Bible translation", the NWT's "greatest virtue", and its trust-inspiring feature is that it "consistently uses" the name of God, "Jehovah", "consistently noting" it in both the Old and New Testaments. It is stated as an undeniable fact that God has a personal name, Jehovah, and that this is how one can "get to know Jehovah's personality" and "think of Him as a friend". The idea is portrayed as logical and necessary that if a name was in an Old Testament Hebrew sentence, then it had to appear in the New Testament Greek text that quoted it. However, the following reveals what the WTS probably doesn't know or doesn't want to know.
First of all, God's "name" is not a personal name in the sense of human names (Karl, Jennifer, etc.). In Hebrew, the concept of "name" (shem) referred not only to addressing or labeling (as in Exodus 3:16) but also replaced the abstract concept of the person, which did not exist in Hebrew. Therefore, Jews still refer to God as ha-Shem, "The Name", or "He."
Knowing this, many Biblical sentences become meaningful. For example, "I will make your name great": I will make you a significant person (Genesis 12:2). God gains a people "for His name", that is, for Himself (Acts 15:14). He leads on the right path "for His name's sake": because He is the one (Psalm 23:3). His "name" strengthened: He Himself gave strength (Acts 3:16). Holy is "His name", that is, He is entirely different, special (Luke 1:49). Proclaim "my name" throughout the earth: that is, what I am like (Exodus 9:16). This house bears "your name": you yourself dwell in this house (1 Kings 8:43). "Your name" is sanctified: your person is holy (Matthew 6:9). I made "your name" known to them: I revealed who you are, your essence (John 17:6). The "name above all names" is the Greatest Person (Philippians 2:9). Under heaven, "there is no other name" that could save: that is, there is no one else who can save (Acts 4:12).
It's not simply a matter of knowing about the YHWH or Jehovah name, nor are we talking about mere "taking in knowledge of" God (John 17:3, NWT), but knowing God.
The second problem is that all biblical divine names are descriptions of God's attributes or activities: God's people experienced God in this or that way (holy, creator, wise, mighty, eternal, ruler, etc.). The four Hebrew letters YHWH are also a descriptive name, the future causative form of the verb of being; its meaning is "He Who Will Cause to Be", and its pronunciation according to modern biblical scholarship could have been Yahweh.
The Jews did not pronounce the word unnecessarily out of superstition, but out of godly pious fear. Therefore, when reading the Scriptures, they would say Adonai (Lord) when they came to the YHWH. The name "Jehovah" originated when medieval Christian theologians read YHWH with the vowels of Adonai. So if we know anything for certain about God's name, it's that it was not Jehovah. The word "Jehovah" also sounds quite strange to Jewish ears. This is why modern Bible translations have dropped the variations of "Jehovah" and refer to occurrences of YHWH in small capitals ("LORD").
The third and biggest problem is that the WTS in the so-called "Christian Greek Writings" (New Testament) has replaced the words kyrios (Lord) or theos (God) with Jehovah 237 times. The short film twice states that the WTS tries to use or note the name Jehovah "consistently". Moreover, it believes that if the Name was in the Hebrew text, then it had to be in the Greek text that quoted it; this is "logical." There are several problems with these statements.
First of all, of the 237 cases found in the NWT, only 82 are quotations from the Hebrew text where YHWH originally appeared. In the other 155 cases, the WTS completely arbitrarily switched the words Lord and God to Jehovah. Yes, where this supports its teaching, but no, where this would contradict its teaching (e.g., 1 Cor 12:3 would read: "...no one can say 'Jesus is Jehovah', except by the Holy Spirit"). The NWT editors were consistent only in this sense.
Second, it doesn't matter what is "logical" to the WTS if the fact is that in the thousands of extant ancient Greek manuscripts or fragments of the New Testament, there is not a single Hebrew letter – let alone the YHWH. The apostles quoted the Hebrew Old Testament five times as often as its Greek translation (Septuagint). Quoting the Hebrew text, they mostly replaced the YHWH with "Lord" (kyrios) or "God" (theos). They surely knew what it meant to call Jesus "Lord" (Adonai) or "God", so if they did so, and this is a fact, then the logical conclusion is that they did so because this was their belief, this was their teaching.
The WTS elsewhere formulates the accusation that the 2nd-4th century church falsified the Bible, exchanging the YHWH for "Lord" and "God", and thereby confusing God and Jesus, and thus "restoring" Jehovah's name in the New Testament. But this has no historical basis; it remains a slander.
In summary, the NWT reader not only has the right but every reason to think about the text's authenticity.
Edgar check the nomina sacra claim as well as this is also misleading
see David trobich "The first edition of the new Testament" page 9 - 11
Why do JWs and their apologists have to be reminded so many times that we are not modalists?
We don't, its how you interpret the answer, its straight forward to anyone else who I have used a similar argument with - They have all conceded I'm right, though still don't agree with me (that's fine) all I ask is people I "debate" with don't make stupid-as arguments - because I can do the same..
(find me one source that isreal is not a nation - see: Exodus 33:16
consider:
(Job 1:1)
“. . .There was a man in the land of Uz whose name was Job. . .”
(Job 1:8)
“. . .And Jehovah said to Satan: “Have you taken note of my servant Job? There is no one like him on the earth. He is an upright man of integrity. . .”
yet there were plenty of people on the earth... upright and integral.
Job was most definitly a man same sense as numbers 23:9
see the commentaries here : https://biblehub.com/numbers/23-9.htm
"Reuben's children are just as human as Reuben, Mary's firstborn is just as human as Mary." - This has NOTHING to do with it and you know it... again I ask for a dictionary definition to the meaning you give to prototokos.
They are part of the group of "sons" or "daughters" of said person.
We have Mary, then "Mary's children" - the Firstborn of Mary is not an exception to this, they are part of the group "Marys children"
Jesus is the Firstborn of creation, we know creation came from God. He is part of the group that came from God, in other words "creation"
we should also note Christ has brothers, even when he is in heaven - God has "sons" (as you claim all 3 can be called "The Father")
"By the way, it contradicts that the WTS itself simply translates "ἦν" in the Greek text as "was" in the NWT" - it does not, else you would accuse them of mistranslation... either way they lose to you.. The rules of the verb are quite clear, you seem to miss what Daniel Wallace has said about it
Daniel B. Wallace explains the Greek imperfect in pp 540-553 in his book Beyond the Basics and makes remarks about the imperfect in comparison to the aorist. he states :
"The imperfect is often used to describe an action or state that is in progress in past time from the viewpoint of the speaker." (he includes John 1:1 in this catergory)
"The Greek word is ην. It is also found at J 1:10. In verse 9, the Word is coming into the world. Then in 10, he was (ην) the world. His being in the world did not precede his arrival. If we apply this to J 1:1, he did not precede the beginning." - user on on stack exchange
he "already "was"" in the world in John 1:10
Edgar: if they are not going to be serious and cite nothing but subjective "sources" and make false claims (as I have and will cont to point out) What's the point?, they contribute nothing, they are not helpful on a linguistical level - they are one of the two things I said earlier - don't know why I bother tbh, one day someone will get really annoyed and destroy them.. but it wont be me.. (in all honesty I think it will be Stafford, if he starts in on him)
Benson commentary
the firstborn, from, or of, (as εκ may be here rendered,) the dead, both because he was the first who ever rose to an immortal life, and because he is the Lord of all the dead, (as well as the living, Romans 14:9,) and will raise them at the last day.
Barnes
"The first-born from the dead - At the head of those who rise from their graves. This does not mean literally that he was the first who rose from the dead for he himself raised up Lazarus and others, and the bodies of saints arose at his crucifixion; but it means that he had the pre-eminence among them all; he was the most illustrious of those who will be raised from the dead, and is the head over them all. Especially, he had this pre-eminence in the resurrection in this respect, that he was the first who rose from death to immortality. Others who were raised undoubtedly died again. Christ rose to die no more"
(obviously Jesus was part of "the dead" as he died himself)
"The first-born from the dead (πρωτότοκος ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν)
Defining how Christ is the beginning of the new spiritual life: by His resurrection. Compare 1 Corinthians 15:20, 1 Corinthians 15:23, and Prince of life, Acts 3:15 (note) See on Revelation 1:5, where the phrase is slightly different, "first-born of the dead." He comes forth from among the dead as the first-born issues from the womb. Compare Acts 2:4, "having loosed the pains of death," where the Greek is ὠδῖνας birth-throes. There is a parallelism between first-born of the creation and first-born from the dead as regards the relation of headship in which Christ stands to creation and to the Church alike; but the parallelism is not complete. "He is the first-born from the dead as having been Himself one of the dead. He is not the first-born of all creation as being himself created" (Dwight)"
(While i disagree with dwight, Ill still cite this)
see how many interpret it the same way the JW do, your own your own here..
Romans 6:9
“For we know that Christ, now that he has been raised up from the dead, dies no more; death is no longer master over him.”
1 Peter 3:18
“For Christ died once for all time for sins, a righteous person for unrighteous ones, in order to lead you to God. He was put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit.”
(we know this means as a spirit due to a number of things, you cant reinterpret this with tripping yourself up + ill need actaul evidence not theological rubbish)
"Where is it written that only a "respected NT scholar" can discover anything?"
I never stated this - you have twisted the meaning of the argument to suit your own ends, I grow tired of you doing this.
nowhere, but this is a misleading argument as well..
you have made no "discovery" though, this has been known and done for decades - if you think it is, submit it for peer review and you'll soon be surprised
you cannot prove it is wrong (love to see you try), ALL Bibles add words to clear up the meaning of sentences - this is translation. If you look at Bible hub commentators all basically say what the NWT says.
Bible hub commentators state it means -
"Belonged to the world"
OR
Pulpit on V 19 "i.e. still a part of it"
this is just two of many.. you cannot criticize because it doesn't match the raw Greek or the Greek tense that it is wrong, because news flash its not. - Take a class or do an online course in koine Greek and tell this to your tutor, they will laugh.
Translation is meant to convey the meaning of something, in this case it conveys the correct meaning and is not outside the possible meaning of the genitive. If its not outside the possible meaning it is not a mistranslation.
You have a "Hate-boner" for the NWT, that is very clear - you do not realise how translation works that is also clear.
Tell me: why is the word "part" wrong?
plenty of NT scholars have criticized the NWT NT for "mistranslations" yet none have ever cited the ones you are. why? because the meaning is not changed. The NWT is not striving to be a "literal" translation - though you state its on linguistical grounds its actually for theological reasons (this is a clear pattern).
how does the bible you use translate 1 John 4:5?
most bibles I can find render it "from this world" but that means the same thing as "part" in this context.
and Just one verse back we have a similar instance, however , most if not all add "one" to ponērou even though it is not in the Greek.
IMO this is pot calling kettle. I know of many instances where marketability of a translation trumps the translators and committee's do not just include scholars but also "defenders of there faith". That's why I posted that youtube video. Some of the best translations of the Hebrew texts are independent. I don't know so much about the Greek. The translator is the traitor as they say and many "authorised" translations are nothing of the kind as the "scholars" do not go back to the latest manuscript data. All they do is modernise the wording of an existing translation/interpretation.
I have facsimiles of many of the authorised editions, and all the baggage they carry, particularly the controversies of "the received text".
Unknown, thanks for the point about nomina sacra and Trobisch. Duncan also posted some good info about nomina sacra and the holy spirit: see also the notable article by Larry Hurtado on the subject.
For Hurtado, see https://scholarlypublishingcollective.org/sblpress/jbl/article/117/4/655/182766/The-Origin-of-the-Nomina-Sacra-A-Proposal
"The quote does not reveal who Benjamin Kedar is, why WTS quotes him, on what occasion he "said" what he said"
- ever heard of a quick google search? or asking him yourself?
" The 1991 Watchtower article did not mention Kedar's university, only that he was Israeli; the current jw.org editors only found Benjamin Z. Kedar, the historian from the Hebrew University, on the internet. (The other Kedar is at least as difficult to find anything about other than his statement about the NWT, as a similar statement.)"
- okay this is just an out and out lie, I can list hundreds of websites that clarify who the Benjamin Kedar is, it doesn't take much..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Kedar-Kopfstein
Most websites encourage you to do your own research - this is no different..
If you had bothered to do a simple google search for an actaul proper source you would find who Kedar is/was
"First of all, of the 237 cases found in the NWT, only 82 are quotations from the Hebrew text where YHWH originally appeared. In the other 155 cases, the WTS completely arbitrarily switched the words Lord and God to Jehovah."
- this is a lie aswell, they did not do it "arbitrarily" as you point out..
again you'll have alot of trouble proving your position because of 1 cor 2:16
Let me remind you there is no variant where Paul uses the name in the original quote - However in the "we have the mind of" clause we have 2 variants "Christ" and "Lord" - if the divine name wasn't at one point used, why does the variant which says "We have the mind of the lord" exist?
For in this "lord" variant we have kyrios in both instances and it is very hard to see how a scribe wouldn't see the conflict or blatant contradiction..
I can point to more than four anceint writings before Nicea (except maybe one, which is debated), where the divine name was used..
How many more misleading/ one-sided self serving arguments are you going to make?
""Why do JWs and their apologists have to be reminded so many times that we are not modalists?" We don't, its how you interpret the answer"
Nope. You asked, "Firstborn of Mary, is also Mary?" Since the Son is the Firstborn of God the Father, I just turned your own logic against you, that if "firstborn of" necessarily means that he must belong to the group/category of which he is said to be the firstborn of. Well, the Son was obviously not born of some creature, or "of the whole creation", but of God the Father.
Thus your logic stumbles when people (e.g. the pharaoh's son, David) are called "firstborn", then they belong to that family not because they are firstborn or not, but because they were actually born into that family, by the fact that they were begotten by their father. Of course, in the case of humans, the two coincide: they were born from the person to whom they are said to be firstborn of, but for the Son it's not the case.
"find me one source that Israel is not a nation"
Look up in any Hebrew dictionary what the word 'goyim' means and who it is used for.
"they are part of the group "Mary's children""
Show me where anyone else than Jesus is specifically called the child of Jesus's mother. For instance James and Joseph are also called Jesus' "brothers" (Mt 13:55), but they are the sons of another Mary who was a disciple of Jesus (Cf. Mt 27:56), and is significantly called "the other Mary" (Mt 28:1). Cf. Machir is called "the firstborn son of Manasseh" (Joshua 17:1), even though he was an only child (cf. Numbers 26:29).
""By the way, it contradicts that the WTS itself simply translates "ἦν" in the Greek text as "was" in the NWT" - it does not, otherwise you would accuse them of mistranslation..."
Come on, since when does WTS care what NWT critics say? At most they can say that these are "opposers", etc. The NWT translates John 1:1a just the same as everyone else, correctly "In the beginning *was* the Word".
"Daniel B. Wallace explains [...] "The imperfect is *often* used to..."
"Often", so it is not proof (hint: proof is that which does not allow any other possibility), but only a possibility. What proves that it means this here?
"...describe an action or state that is in progress in past time from the viewpoint of the speaker."
John also indicates what the "past time" was when this was already "in progress": "In the beginning...". Although, according to your logic, the Logos did not already exist "in the beginning", but was """created""" in the beginning. However, the Holy Scriptures do not say this ANYWHERE.
A simple example: if I say that when the store opened, there "were" already bananas in the store. It follows that the banana must have been placed there *before* "the opening".
"He was in the world" (John 1:10), yet your source claims that "His being in the world did not precede his arrival." And yet this verse claims that, however, this is self-goal from your point of view, since the constant presence in the world is also a divine attribute. He was in the world, just not "in flesh" before his Incarnation.
Anyway, you have been given countless links to sources that discuss John 1:1a, have you even looked into any of them?
"the firstborn, from, or of, (as εκ may be here rendered,)"
This is also a self-goal, since εκ literally classifies it in the given category, while the genitive does not necessarily.
"(obviously Jesus was part of "the dead" as he died himself)"
However, the Scriptures state that Jesus died, but not that he was created.
"but made alive in the spirit." (1 Peter 3:18) this does not mean "as a spirit". This does not mean that he became an angel (spirit), but that he was resurrected by the (Holy) Spirit. The preposition "in" is often understood in the sense of "by" (cf. "all things were created IN him", Col 1:16) He was raised "in the Spirit", but not "as a spirit." In Romans 8:9 all the believers in Rome are said to be "in the Spirit." Were they spirit creatures? Paul is "present in spirit" (1 Cor 5:3, Col 2:5) mean that he also turned into an angel? The expression "in the Spirit" simply means "in the power of the [Holy] Spirit." First Peter 3:18 demonstrates that the Holy Spirit raised Jesus from the dead and quickened him.
"you cannot prove it is wrong (love to see you try), ALL Bibles add words to clear up the meaning of sentences - this is translation."
There is a big difference between them and what the NWT does, for example how does "in their relative positions" get into Romans 13:1? There is no such thing in the original text at all. (Hint: here I am not talking about whether this is a correct interpretation, but whether it is a correct translation. The place for interpretation is not in the Bible translation, but in the commentary).
"You have a "Hate-boner" for the NWT, that is very clear"
I don't "hate" anything or anyone, I don't judge on an emotional basis. What kind of excuse is "you just hate us"?
"Tell me: why is the word "part" wrong?"
Because a) This is not in the text, b) it changes the meaning of the text. "Not OF the world" means that the Kingdom of God is not immanent, but supernatural (originating), while "not PART of the world" refers to the detachment mentality from the society practiced by the JWs.
Then, after putting it into the text, they quote this as an authority, even though Jesus did not say such a thing. On the contrary: John 17:15-16.
"The NWT is not striving to be a "literal" translation"
Oh really? According to the 'Reasoning From the Scriptures':
"What kind of translation is this? For one thing, it is an accurate, largely *literal* translation from the original languages. It is *not* a loose paraphrase, in which the translators leave out details that they consider unimportant and *add ideas* that they believe will be helpful." Source: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101989250
"how does the bible you use translate 1 John 4:5? most bibles I can find render it "from this world""
Actually, not "most", but ALL OTHER Bible translations besides the NWT renders it that way. Any idea why?
"but for the Son it's not the case." - this is an opinion, not a fact
"Firstborn" - right, ok - didn't know you could twist an argument so badly that you miss the entire point..
you said: "You asked, "Firstborn of Mary, is also Mary?" - yeah assuming Mary is a trinity (hypothetically)
"that if "firstborn of" necessarily means that he must belong to the group/category of which he is said to be the firstborn of" - well find me an exception.. (apart from Col 1:15)
scholars abound say this, and acknowledge it.
David is a firstborn king (placed as) - he is still a King
Reuben is a Firstborn - he is part of his Fathers offspring.
"Show me where anyone else than Jesus is specifically called the child of Jesus's mother. For instance James and Joseph are also called Jesus' "brothers" (Mt 13:55), but they are the sons of another Mary who was a disciple of Jesus (Cf. Mt 27:56), and is significantly called "the other Mary" (Mt 28:1). Cf. Machir is called "the firstborn son of Manasseh" (Joshua 17:1), even though he was an only child (cf. Numbers 26:29)"
- not a true parallel, and is either explicitly stated in the text or some other condition is met. Machir is called "Firstborn" because literally the first one born. Doesn't need brothers or sisters to be called "Firstborn".
"However, the Holy Scriptures do not say this ANYWHERE." - it also doesn't explicitly say God is 3 persons... I can use the same ridiculous arguments. if it does, where? just one scripture, you can use the same methodology you make me use.
Ek has a range of meanings, not just one (as you are trying to make out), it can mean up to 13 different things
(https://biblehub.com/greek/1537.htm)
"And yet this verse claims that," - if you think this, I really think you should go and learn koine Greek.. I think most Greek experts would disagree.
"Look up in any Hebrew dictionary what the word 'goyim' means and who it is used for." - Have you looked up all its usages?
you yourself stated:
"Sometimes the term 'goy' is also used for OT Israel, but usually with adjectives, e.g. "holy nation" (goy kadosh), "great nation" (goy gadol), and others." - so its still a nation... just a "holy" or "great" one, but still a nation as you wrote nation twice.
"you have been given countless links to sources that discuss John 1:1a, have you even looked into any of them?" - I have actually (in the past - not recently), have you read them? you should read your own sources and the footnotes..
you have no proof that the imperfect means backwards from "The beginning of creation"
John is talking about strictly "the beginning" - which In no dictionary is defined as eternity or anything of the sort.
until you can cite me a dictionary with that meaning, your on the defensive.
You can say whatever theological stuff you like, until you can do it, the argument is considered dishonest.
"This is also a self-goal" - I didn't say this. someone else did..
" the Scriptures state that Jesus died, but not that he was created." - maybe if you considered "created" and "born" as parallels as they are in scripture... then you would have a different view. I can prove this with one scripture.
Justin Martyr did.
"this does not mean "as a spirit"." - the immediately previous clause has the same construction but with "flesh", they both have to be rendered the same way - else its dishonest.
these scriptures are also different, ones contrasting, one isn't.- another dishonest argument.
" What kind of excuse is "you just hate us"?" - I question your intentions here, because that's not what I said.. and again I am not a Witness - If you think defending something I'm not apart of is wrong -
Do you think War is wrong? if so (I would hope so considering your a catholic, so you claim) go get involved in the ones going on now..
"Because a) This is not in the text" - according to scholars, you are dead wrong.. and again "God is 3 persons" is also not in the text.
"Jesus has 2 natures" is also not in the text.
"b) it changes the meaning of the text." - tell me all the functions a genitive construction has.. (it has more than 3 possible uses)
"from" this world and "part" of this world mean the same thing lol - again take a class of koine Greek and ask your tutor this, they will laugh.
""The NWT is not striving to be a "literal" translation" Oh really? "
- this is about the eighth/ ninth dishonest claim you have made, you clearly haven't noted the " " (in my answer) and secondly I raise the question if you know how translation works..
"Actually, not "most", but ALL OTHER Bible translations besides the NWT" - really?
note you stated that ALL render it as: "From this world"
New Living Translation
Those people belong to this world, so they speak from the world’s viewpoint, and the world listens to them.
Amplified Bible
They [who teach twisted doctrine] are of the world and belong to it; therefore they speak from the [viewpoint of the] world [with its immoral freedom and baseless theories—demanding compliance with their opinions and ridiculing the values of the upright], and the [gullible one of the] world listens closely and pays attention to them.
GOD'S WORD® Translation
These people belong to the world. That's why they speak the thoughts of the world, and the world listens to them.
Just a 3 of many - I don't see you rushing to submit this "discovery" for peer review.. This is Greek not English the language's work completely differently - I sometimes translate between 2 languages - In Spanish you can leave off the indefinite article for qualitative force or you can add it for numerical purposes, however one is grammatical in English and one isn't, We must provide "a" or "the" even if it is not in the spanish text, any good translator will tell you this
And since you claim not to be a linguist or scholar, what gives you the right to point it out? any reliable resource on the internet will tell you what I just have. (not exactly, but similar principles)
oh and you missed "and Just one verse back we have a similar instance, however , most if not all add "one" to ponērou even though it is not in the Greek."
Ill probably be away for a few days now - as I have other matters that require my attention.
""but for the Son it's not the case." - this is an opinion, not a fact"
Yet this is the case, in all the other examples you mentioned, it is clear that the firstborn of Pharaoh, Jesse, Manasseh, etc. the one who was actually born from them and that's why they belong to their "category", while the Son was not born from "the whole creation" (or some creature), but from God the Father.
"you said: "You asked, "Firstborn of Mary, is also Mary?" - yeah assuming Mary is a trinity (hypothetically)"
Nope, because Mary gave birth to Jesus not as God, but as a man.
""that if "firstborn of" necessarily means that he must belong to the group/category of which he is said to be the firstborn of" - well find me an exception.. (apart from Col 1:15)"
Since there is no other than the one who is born of the Father (after all, he is the "only begotten"), there is not, and by definition there cannot be, someone else who is said to be the firstborn without being born of a given member of the category. And as I have shown above, the Jewish rabbinic interpretation found no objection to referring to God as the "firstborn of the world" (bekhoro shel olam) without including him in the created world.
"Reuben is a Firstborn - he is part of his Fathers offspring."
Exactly, and FOR THIS REASON he is his firstborn, whereas the Son is not the descendant of "the whole creation", but of the Father.
"Doesn't need brothers or sisters to be called "Firstborn"."
The same is the case with the Virgin Mary.
""However, the Holy Scriptures do not say this ANYWHERE." - it also doesn't explicitly say God is 3 persons..."
The word "person" is not even found in the Holy Scriptures, so your objection is useless. He does, however, indicate the three persons whom he claims to be the real God, and that is exactly enough.
"Ek has a range of meanings, not just one (as you are trying to make out)"
This was not the issue here, but that "ek" explicitly classifies it in the given group, while the genitive does not necessarily.
The term "goyim" (nations) always refers to the Gentiles, and the term "goy" is only used with qualifying adjectives within Judaism to refer to Israel, and that they are not one of "the nations" (goyim), and that in the OT specifically teaches it.
"you have no proof that the imperfect means backwards from "The beginning of creation""
The "arkhe" of creation does not mean that it is the first creation, but that it is the primordial principle of creation from which creation flowed.
"John is talking about strictly "the beginning" - which In no dictionary is defined as eternity or anything of the sort."
I did not claim that expression "the beginning" itself means eternity. Since the "aions" only began "in the beginning" and He, who already existed then, there was no time when he did not exist, which is precisely his definition in eternity. This is why theology says that the Son was born of the Father before the beginning/creation of time.
"maybe if you considered "created" and "born" as parallels as they are in scripture..."
However, "parallelism" does not mean identity. The origin of the Word from the unbegotten Father and the origin of created beings from the uncreated God are in a “structural” kinship with each other. A similarity can be established between the Word and created beings because each of them is some kind of endpoint of origin. The endpoint of the Word's origin from the Father is the Word, consubstantial with the Father. This origin is an inner-Godly origin, its endpoint is also within God, and the origin cannot be considered a causal relationship in the strict sense. The origin of created beings is a causal relationship in the strict sense, which does not result in consubstantiality with God but only a limited existence different from God. Still, there is a relationship between created beings and the Word, as a result of which the Word can be considered the archetype of creation, and the origin of created beings can be understood as a (limited) participation in the origin of the Word, as in a model. Thus, the doctrine of the Trinity, which seeks to approach the inner life of God, also sheds light on the role played by divine persons in creation and the history of salvation.
Thomas Aquinas deals with why it was especially fitting (konveniens) for the Word, among the three persons, to become incarnate (Summa Theologiae III q.3.a.8, see: https://www.newadvent.org/summa/4003.htm#article8). The main point Thomas Aquinas sees in the aforementioned similarity between the Word and creatures. The person of the Word was especially suitable to become the "firstborn of all creation" after the incarnation and for the world corrupted by sin to be restored by the original model. Thomas Aquinas mentions three degrees in relation to the similarity of creatures to the Word. The first degree refers to every creature: here the basis of similarity is that both the Word and the creatures originate from some origin. The second degree includes rational creatures, where due to their rationality, the similarity is greater. The third degree already refers to the supernatural order. This similarity is related to the Son's origin from the Father and is manifested in the supernatural divine filiation. In the state of sanctifying grace, and then in the state of beatific vision (visio beatifica) in salvation, the righteous participates in the life of the Holy Trinity based on similarity to the Son, as the Son of the Father.
"Do you think War is wrong?"
Who said it's not? The Catholic teaching on "bellum iustum" does not say that war is "good". Catholic teaching interprets neighborly love according to the order of love and legitimate self-defense and the legitimacy of self-defense war, so it does not in any way profess the principle of absolute pacifism. It condemns unlawful aggression and self-serving cruelty, but he also believes that a mere ceasefire does not mean true peace, because peace can only be the fruit of justice, as XII. Pius' memorable papal motto (Opus Justitiae Pax, cf. Is. 32:17) expressed it. War is one of the most serious evils, so the Church advocates avoiding it by all means while it is possible. That is why all self-serving blood-steamed war incitement, unbridled militarism is a serious, flagrant crime, since war in itself is never holy, and never just in the full sense of the word, at most unavoidable.
"Justin Martyr did."
He claimed that:
* "Jesus Christ is the only proper Son who has been begotten by God, being His Word and first-begotten, and power; and, becoming man according to His will, He taught us these things for the conversion and restoration of the human race" (First Apology 23).
* "The Father of the universe has a Son, who also being the first begotten Word of God, is even God." (First Apology, ch. 63)
* "Christ is called both God and Lord of hosts." (Dialogue with Trypho, ch. 36)
* "this Christ existed as God before the ages, and that He submitted to be born and become man" (Dialogue with Trypho, ch. 48.)
* "God begot before all creatures a Beginning, who was a certain rational power from himself and whom the Holy Spirit calls . . . sometimes the Son, . . . sometimes Lord and Word ... We see things happen similarly among ourselves, for whenever we utter some word, we beget a word, yet not by any cutting off, which would diminish the word in us when we utter it. We see a similar occurrence when one fire enkindles another. It is not diminished through the enkindling of the other, but remains as it was" (Dialogue with Trypho, ch. 61)
.
* "But this Offspring who was truly brought forth from the Father, was with the Father before all the creatures, and the Father communed with him" (Dialogue with Trypho, ch. 62).
""Actually, not "now", but ALL OTHER Bible translations besides the NWT" - really? note you stated that ALL render it as: "From this world""
None of your examples claim that Christians cannot be "part" of the world. Jesus taught just the opposite, have you read John 17:15-16?
"And since you claim not to be a linguist or scholar, what gives you the right to point it out?"
Where is it written that one has to be a linguist or scholar to have the right to point out anything? And maybe you are a linguist or scholar?
Considering Iv called you out on 9+ misleading claims and one out and out lie, your "reputation" (or word) is not exactly one to be taken at face value for anything..
" but that "ek" explicitly classifies it in the given group" - on this very blog you have stated the exact opposite aswell.(pretty sure its you) - you cant have it both ways
"however, indicate the three persons whom he claims to be the real God, and that is exactly enough." - Why are you being a hypocrite, you put standards on me and the Witnesses, yet any thing will do for you?
surely as an attorney (apparently) you realise this wouldnt pass in court.. (I know because Im seeing one atm - they have talked to me about this)
Jesus never said outright "I am God"
The holy spirit never said "I am God"
" the "aions" " - and you clearly also have not looked at the NT examples of this word either -as it also doesnt mean as you claim.
It means "periods of time" (not time itself, that is Greek Philosophy- Do I need to prove that? look at plato for one)
The bible refers to "this age" and "the next [age]"
(check Vines)
"Since there is no other than the one who is born of the Father (after all, he is the "only begotten"), there is not, and by definition there cannot be"
- this is an excuse because you cannot find one. It does not exist - you are a troll, no other catholic has ever argued this with me ever. (they have infact admitted im right)
You cant beat me lingusitically so you go theology of which Im not interested in debating.. as Edgar has said this blog is for linguistics, scholarship and his musings on theology (Which always involve the prev two)
every other example in the NT & LXX the subject is part of teh group specified (sometimes the literal thing sometimes parents.)
"And as I have shown above, the Jewish rabbinic interpretation found no objection to referring to God as the "firstborn of the world"" - a guy who relied on mystism, yeah real good source. (Dont even bring the WT into it, as I am not affiliated with them - and you CANNOT say anything, then again neither can they)
again find me one who wasnt pratising anything dodgey and if this was a term used in a bible verse and had any authenticity,
Why is not in any bible?
"whereas the Son is not the descendant of "the whole creation", but of the Father." - you really know how to muck about with meanings, dont you..
He is not a descendant of "the dead" either, but (as you say) of The Father..
" they are not one of "the nations" (goyim), and that in the OT specifically teaches it." - but it is still a nation (like a country)
its not an idol worshipping nation tho
Its Gods nation. - but still in technical terms a nation..
Otherwise Job wasnt a human by that definition
"The "arkhe" of creation does not mean that it is the first creation, but that it is the primordial principle of creation from which creation flowed." - this is no responce to what i stated, not even teh right subject if you read properly.
And you expect me to believe John broke his strict usage of the 2 forms in just this instance? when even in the same chapter before and after continues the trend?
Other examples in biblical literature do not line up.
+ you have the passive verb to deal with, which like it or not matters..
GreekGrammarBeyond[the]Basics - Daniel Wallace: P. 542 footnote. 6
"None of your examples claim that Christians cannot be "part" of the world." - do I need to cite Bible footnotes, who says it means exactly this.. that they are "part of the world" - it means the same thing.. as with a other instances of this construction - it is either "part" or "origin" of said thing
"Where is it written that one has to be a linguist or scholar to have the right to point out anything?" - never stated this, you are objectively wrong.. look at the NET Bibles footnote for that scripture..
Your the only one on this blog who hasnt admitted to being wrong once.. Your right about everything... well hint you are not - adn it will never be accepted as such.
you also miss the point.
"And maybe you are a linguist or scholar?" - clearly I know how it works better than you, and Edgar knows it better than both of us.
I use resources far more credible than you - majority opinon isnt always right, but its also helpful - I have found NO one who I have "pointed this passage out too" who has stated anywhere in any commentary or any critism that it is wrong.
If you think it is wrong please prove it linguistically with other [matching] examples cited.
Are you debating theology or the bible? two different things..
"a guy who relied on mysticism, yeah real good source."
I'm still waiting for you to find what Mikraot Gedolot and Keli Yekar are, and what they have to do with mysticism.
"Why is it not in any bible?"
Because only the Son is said to be the only-begotten AND firstborn of the Father, and at the same time the firstborn of the creation. Well, if he is said to be the firstborn of two "categories", which category does he belong to, the one which he was born of, or the one from which he was obviously not?
"He is not a descendant of "the dead" either, but (as you say) of The Father."
On the other hand, in Colossians 1:18, the text explicitly classifies him among the dead with the expression "ek" (from, among) (in addition to the fact that we also know from the Gospels that he died), the classification does not follow from the genitive in the 1:15, and the NT, there is no statement anywhere that it was created.
By the way, how do you explain the statement in Colossians 1:17 that "He *IS* before *all* things", this is also aorist? :) Why doesn't the text say "He was created before all *other* things", or "He came into being before all *other* things"?
"And you expect me to believe John broke his strict usage of the 2 forms in just this instance?"
You don't mean to say that according to John the exclusive meaning of "arche" is "starting point", "beginning in line". He is the arche of creation because he himself is the beginning (arche) and the end (as is the Father).
""None of your examples claim that Christians cannot be "part" of the world." - do I need to cite Bible footnotes, who says it means exactly this."
Read again: here I objected primarily to the TRANSLATION of the text, "ek tou kosmou" does not have any "part of the world" meaning. According to Jesus, there is no such instruction that we cannot be part of the world, after all according to John 17:5 "I do not pray that You should take them out of the world...".
""Where is it written that one has to be a linguist or scholar to have the right to point out anything?" - never stated this"
So why did you ask me "what gives you the right to point it out"?
"Your the only one on this blog who hasn't admitted to being wrong once."
This is not true, there was already a precedent for clarifying my statement.
""And maybe you are a linguist or scholar?" - clearly I know how it works better than you"
Compared to this, your text is often hard to understand (let's not even mention the spelling), so work on your English first before jumping into Greek.
"Are you debating theology or the bible? two different things.."
Both. Theology is based on the revelation of the Bible (and for me: Holy Tradition). Different but not separable genres, just like the human and divine nature of Jesus :)
"Jesus never said outright "I am God" The holy spirit never said "I am God""
FYI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_silence
Perhaps this is the only way that Scripture tells us this about them?
By the way, Jesus didn't say "I am a creature and Michael the archangel" either. 1-1.
"" the "aions" " - and you clearly also have not looked at the NT examples"
But here it is plural, meaning that it was born of the Father before ALL "aions", so there was no such age/era when He did not exist.
"this is an excuse because you cannot find one. It does not exist"
This is not an "excuse", but the logical explanation, according to which no such claim is made about someone else, because the Father has no other "firstborn" and "only begotten" (this is the meaning of only-begotten), so it is in vain that you demand of me to name another person who although he is born of the Father, he is also said to be the "firstborn" of creation.
"no other Catholic has ever argued this with me."
Where is it written that I cannot refer to arguments that no other Catholic has already mentioned to you before me?
"You can't beat me linguistically"
Oh, much ado about nothing, triumphalistic speech without provision. What you are doing here is not "linguistics", but source-abusing, quote-collecting. Maybe I should start throwing links at you too? You don't read it anyway, just like you haven't done the previous ones. For example, I speak four languages besides my mother tongue, what about you?
"every other example in the NT & LXX the subject is part of teh group specified"
However, as I repeated, in all these cases it becomes clear for what reason they are part of that category: because they were actually born into that very group BY being born to a member of the group. The Pharaoh's firstborn belongs to the Pharaoh's family, BECAUSE he was actually born of the Pharaoh, but Jesus is not born from creation, but from the Father, so he does not even have to belong to the ranks of creatures. And you still didn't answer: if in EVERY CASE he has to belong to the category of what is said to be the firstborn of, then what does this logic result in the case of the title "firstborn of God".
"the text explicitly classifies him among the dead with the expression "ek" (from, among) (in addition to the fact that we also know from the Gospels that he died), the classification does not follow from the genitive in the 1:15"
- you miss that in 1:18 "Ek" is in a genitive construction compare Rev 1:5, Where John also puts it in a genitive construction (without Ek) confirming they mean the same.
"arche" is "starting point", "beginning in line" - find me an instance where its not ( - in a genitive construction), even outside of John this is the common usage.
Its only ever means "power" "ruler" etc when used with other words that mean similar. I can think of maybe one example where its so obvious that it wouldnt even need to be stated.
"So why did you ask me "what gives you the right to point it out"?" - What gives you the right? you dont have to be a linguist or scholar, but atleast know Greek and the basic functions of the genitive
- translation is to express the meaning of the text, even if you have to add a word for it too make sense in the translated one.
"your text is often hard to understand" - I think thats more of a you problem, never had that critisism before. Iv been told I express quite clearly by numerous individuals online.
"By the way, Jesus didn't say "I am a creature and Michael the archangel" either. 1-1." - double standard. Where did Jesus say "I have a divine nature and human nature"?
atleast the archangel bit is basically confirmed by the use of an idoim. (not just witnesses)
+ you use certain "features" or "descripters" to idenitfy God, why cant the witnesses do the same?
again JW do not consider Christ a mere creature, so ofcourse he is not going to be put under that label. (How many more times does that need to be said christ is not a mere creature, like israel is not a mere nation)
“He is the Son of God, and since
we call Him the Son, we have understood that He proceeded before all creatures from the Father by His power and will.”
ANF 1, chap. 100, page 249 (see also: ANF 1, chap. 62, page 228)
(Whats the Fathers power?)
"so there was no such age/era when He did not exist." - highly interpretive. And against the common meaning of the word.
Consider also it would obviously mean "human era's" as its directed at humans..
"according to John 17:5 "I do not pray that You should take them out of the world..."." - you do get the extent of the rendering ay? you do know there are other contextual hints of what he is saying ay?
Even Bibles not written by the witnesses understand it this way..
"you demand of me to name another person who although he is born of the Father, he is also said to be the "firstborn" of creation." - not what I asked for,most others could figure that out - to be clear:
Find me another genitive construction (any at all) where the one named Firstborn is not part of its group (implied or otherwise).
Firstborn of death is not a descendant of the other diseases. (Lxx)
David is not a "descendant" of the kings. Maybe of one of them, certainly not all of them (admittedly not genitive)
Firstborn of the sons of israel is not a descendant of the sons of israel. at most one of them, not all of them.
"but source-abusing, quote-collecting." - how? They are cited in their context.. How is that source abusing?
you complain when I give you a whole book, & you complain when I give you a page number..
If you label me as such, everyone who cites a source is the same..
(again How do you know I havent read yours, I seem to recall stating that I havent read them recently but I have before.)
" I speak four languages besides my mother tongue, what about you?" - This is Greek, we are not talking about any other language..
Dictionarys and Books from people who now what they are on about are the deciding factor.
My friend, I know exactly what the genitive is and how many different functions it has. The so-called "partitive genitive", which you insist on here, is just ONE POSSIBILITY among many. You are implying that "firstborn of X" can *only* be a partitive genitive, BECAUSE that is how it is used in other cases in the Bible.
However, this is not a linguistic argument, but an exegetical one, against which you protest with the greatest vehemence. There is no grammatical rule at all that this can only be a partitive genitive, in order to determine whether it is, we need to have additional concrete information, based on which we can know that it actually belongs to the main category.
This may be:
1) in the expression itself:
E.g. "a part of the city" = it is conceptually impossible for the part not to be part of the city. "The smartest student of the class" = conceptually the smartest student in the class is also a member of the class.
2) Or in the narrower-broader context.
Here, neither of the two is true:
1) Since in the Bible "firstborn" primarily refers to "birthright", not to being born as the first, so it means pre-eminent supreme one, it does not follow at all from the concept that he must be a member. The "Lord of his creation" need not be a creature.
2) Nowhere in the Bible does it say that the Son was created.
The examples you mentioned (Pharaoh's firstborn, etc.) are misleading, because there it is clear from the concept itself that he is actually Pharaoh's son, so the first case is fulfilled, while in the case of Colossians 1:15 it is not.
By the way, in ancient Greek, the genitive of the whole usually (not always) stands before or after the word denoting the part: "τῶν Θρᾳκῶν πελτασταί" = targeteers of the Thracians", which at least linguistically makes it less improbable that it is partitive, since here it is not πάσης κτίσεως πρωτότοκος.
And the fact that Jesus is said to be "πρωτότοκος ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν" and at the same time "πρωτότοκος τῶν νεκρῶν" does not prove that these two are "the same", especially not that πρωτότοκος + genitive can *only* be a partitive genitive in all cases.
And since the interpretation you suggest does not necessarily follow from the grammar, it is not proof, but only one possible interpretation. Whether H is a creature cannot be decided on the basis of the expression alone.
And the fact that "the 'arche' of creation" would mean "the first created being" is an even more impossible statement than Colossians 1:15, and it is no coincidence that even the Arians of the 4th century did not assert such a thing, and did not refer to Rev. 3:14. Jesus *himself* is the 'arche' (Col. 1:18) and all created things were created in him (Col. 1:16), it is no coincidence that many church fathers interpreted Genesis 1:1 ("In the beginning [Greek: in the 'arche'] God created the heavens and the earth.") in the eternal Logos created by God...
He is the 'arché' of creation not because he was created first, but because he himself is the beginning (arché) and the end, by which anything begins to be, the origin, active cause
In this sense, the 'arché' is the first principle, its source, the origin in which and from which creation originates, the 'arché' of creation is therefore God. For a native Greek it would be completely self-evident.
"Its only ever means "power" "ruler" etc when used with other words that mean similar."
Although I did not argue in favor of this interpretation, there is no question that this interpretation occurs countless times in Scripture, e.g. Luke 12:11; Luke 20:20; Romans 8:38, 1 Corinthians 15:24, Ephesians 3:10, Colossians 1:16, Colossians 2:10, Colossians 2:15, Titus 3:1.
"Its only ever means "power" "ruler" etc when used with other words that mean similar."
Although I did not argue in favor of this interpretation, there is no question that this interpretation occurs countless times in Scripture, e.g. Luke 12:11; Luke 20:20; Romans 8:38, 1 Corinthians 15:24, Ephesians 3:10, Colossians 1:16, Colossians 2:10, Colossians 2:15, Titus 3:1.
"translation is to express the meaning of the text, even if you have to add a word for it to make sense in the translated one."
So you're saying that all the other Bible translations that didn't add the words that the NWT did didn't translate it meaningfully?
""By the way, Jesus didn't say "I am a creature and Michael the archangel" either. 1-1." - double standard."
It's not, I just turned your own argument back on you: you're asking us why the Scriptures don't give a dogmatically precise definition of the Trinity (argumentum ex silentio), and it's perfectly legitimate to shoot back that, well, your theology isn't in it either.
"Where did Jesus say "I have a divine nature and human nature"?"
In the same way: Where did Jesus say that "I always had only one nature, before my incarnation I was only an archangel, and during my earthly service only a man, then I ceased to be a man and became only an archangel again?"
"at least the archangel bit is basically confirmed by the use of an idoim."
Where does the Scripture say that the Son is archangel?
"you use certain "features" or "descriptors" to identify God, why cant the witnesses do the same?"
I didn't say they can't, it was you, who implied that if Jesus didn't say "I am God", then he couldn't be that. But what "features" or "descriptors" are there in Scripture, based on which it can be known that the Son is creature, namely archangel?
"again JW do not consider Christ a mere creature"
Maybe the wording, the JWs use, is not that "Christ a *mere* creature", but that he is the first created being, who has such an advantage over the "other" creatures that he is "directly" created, while the others are "indirectly" created. However, the
A) the first and directly created creature is also a creature, and
B) in the Holy Scriptures there is no such creation that God carried out indirectly, by interposing a creature, since God created everything "alone", "with his own hands" (Is. 44:24; 45:12, 48:13, Mal. 2:10; Job 9:2,8, Ps. 95:5-6, Neh. 9:6), and He who creates is God (Heb. 3:4).
I don't know where you got that αἰών can only mean human lifetime, well that's just one of the possible interpretations, and in Hebrews 1:2 it's obviously not about human lifetimes, but about world ages/eras.
Regarding the "not PART of the world" you claim:
"Even Bibles not written by the witnesses understand it this way.."
Besides the NWT, what other Bible translation renders "ek tou kosmou" as "not PART of the world"?
"For a native Greek it would be completely self-evident." - bold claim, can you back it up? right now your only insisting on meanings.
and if it were to be understood this it would be the primary meaning in dictionaries but its not.
"Nowhere in the Bible does it say that the Son was created." - I mean Prov 8:22 (LXX) does -so does the Hebrew technically, as the occurences of "bought forth" etc and the word being used of the creator and rendered [creator] in multiple passages.
Dont tell me about the difference between ktio and poio
1) thats shifting the goal posts
2) they are synonyms as I can prove.
(see NET footnote, prov 8:22)
"And the fact that "the 'arche' of creation" would mean "the first created being" is an even more impossible statement than Colossians 1:15, and it is no coincidence that even the Arians of the 4th century did not assert such a thing, and did not refer to Rev. 3:14."
- you know why right? because modern scholarship considers this this an allusion to Prov 8:22B "beginning of his ways" (see NET, Biblehub etc) as they most likely did, hence 8:22 is mentioned while 3:14 is not.
(if you dont get those implied omissions, I think Im done here)
Again when I said "beginning of creation" I wasnt referring to Rev 3:14.. you ahve assumed this, showing your motive
- Why do dictionaries admit this is the most likely meaning? If infact it doesnt mean that.
see BDAG or Vines
BDAG (2013) says it explicitly
Vines is less evident, but still
"The examples you mentioned (Pharaoh's firstborn, etc.) are misleading, because there it is clear from the concept itself that he is actually Pharaoh's son"
- The ones I mention arent obvious at all & I didnt even mention the Firstborn of Pharoah.
"especially not that πρωτότοκος + genitive can *only* be a partitive genitive in all cases." - funny in every case Iv looked at, its partitive.
including Ek in a gentive construction.
(Romans 8:29, Christ is Firstborn of [the] brothers)
notice 2/3 times Jesus is called Firstborn (in a genitive construction) he is/was part of that group.
while the genitive conveys many different things
I think Wallace only cites one (maybe 2) scripture[s] outside the partitive catergory, and one of them is the one we are debating.
(this is from memory)
"It's not, I just turned your own argument back on you" - no its desperation, you cant win, so resort to scummy arguments.
else you would just answer the question posed.
(you can find it, and its context)
"So you're saying that all the other Bible translations that didn't add the words that the NWT did didn't translate it meaningfully?" - are you going to keep making misleading arguments? because this is the stupidest argument Iv ever heard.
I side with the other trinitarians (Biblehub) who understand it means "part of the world"
"I always had only one nature, before my incarnation I was only an archangel, and during my earthly service only a man, then I ceased to be a man and became only an archangel again?"
- you can look up all occurences of the idoim found in 1 Thes 4:16 (if you dont know it, refer to almost any Greek handbook)
If Jesus is "God" Why is he coming with a lower authorty than "God"?
Why is he raising the dead with the voice of an [or the] archangel and not God's voice?
[though only one archangel is mentioned in the bible, i accept there may be more, thats a discussion for another day however.]
"God created everything "alone", "with his own hands" " - explain the passive + genitive in every scholarly book being agency then..
Its agency - God is the one who created "alone" through the agent.
Just as God alone gave the law even tho Moses actaully said it [to the people].
you dont seem to get restricted by context do you?
The context where "alone" is said (Is 44:24, I believe) is addressed to false Gods, nothing else in view, atleast no evidence.
again if you know more than scholars submit an acedemic paper for peer review.
"Besides the NWT, what other Bible translation" - see commentaryies on BibleHub, footnote of NET, Goodspeed, Moffat I could go on.
though not exactly the same, they convey the meaning correctly. and Goodspeed is considered one of the best - I have my doubts he translated that wrong.
warning: I have more time than I thought I would.. this will not continue to be the case tho.
(sorry for being slightly misleading with my prev comment Edgar)
"not to being born as the first" - not according to my reasearch, somewhere between 70 -90% refer to literal ones born first (or risen first)
[I dont have my research on-hand, im sure someone who has it on hand will provide.]
You can find out what the concept of "arché" is in any philosophical dictionary. The apostles used many terms used in Greek philosophy, filled with a new meaning: pleroma, physis, hypostasys, sophia, arkhe, etc. etc.
""Nowhere in the Bible does it say that the Son was created." - I mean Prov 8:22 (LXX) does"
Nope. First of all, the LXX is not an inspired text, but only a translation, and even there it only has ἔκτισεν, not ἐποίησεν, and the correct translation would be ἐκτήσατο (Philo of Alexandria, Aquila, Theodotion, Symmachus). In this case, it was not interpreted as "ex nihilo" creation in the Arian sense (cf. "γεννηθέντα οὐ ποιηθέντα"), see: https://t.ly/TYu3l and https://t.ly/677dk
Secondly, Wisdom in Proverbs 8 cannot be literally identified with Jesus, but a parable, which is a type in a poetic text, and therefore cannot be used to support doctrine.
Read this too: https://t.ly/0WLcJ
"so does the Hebrew technically, as the occurences of "bought forth" etc"
It occurs much more often in the "acquired" sense, as this is the primary meaning of the word. Also: the verb "qanah" in Proverbs is somehow always translated "acquired" in the NWT, but not here.
"even the Arians of the 4th century did not assert such a thing, and did not refer to Rev. 3:14." - you know why right?"
Because as native speakers of Koine Greek, they knew exactly that this was not what it meant.
I see that I'm talking to the wall: the fact that in the other examples he is a member of the given group is not because "firstborn of X" can grammatically necessarily be a partitive genitive, but because in those examples it turns out in ANOTHER WAY that he really is a member to the main group.
"including Ek in a genitive construction."
ἐκ is not a "genitive construction", but a preposition that requires a genitive case.
"(Romans 8:29, Christ is Firstborn of [the] brothers)"
Yes, and here it says "πρωτότοκον ἐν πολλοῖς ἀδελφοῖς" and here with the expression ἐν (in, on, among) the explicit classification into the given group takes place, which is not the case in Col. 1:15.
"notice 2/3 times Jesus is called Firstborn (in a genitive construction) he is/was part of that group."
But we don't know this from the fact that "firstborn of X" (even without ἐκ) is necessarily a partitive genitive (because there is no such grammatical rule), but from other information contained in the text, which is not present here.
"I side with the other trinitarians (Biblehub) who understand it means "part of the world""
The question was whether anyone other than the NWT translates the text in the same way. And the way a "trinitarian" interprets it, you can't beat me with it, I'm not in the same dependent relationship with any "trinitarian".
"you can look up all occurrences of the idiom found in 1 Thess 4:16"
It is not said here that Jesus himself is the archangel, but only that "the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a loud command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God". According to them, Jesus himself is the "loud command" and the "trumpet of God"? If the president enters the hall with the sound of the orchestra, is the president the orchestra? No: this means that the coming of Jesus will be accompanied by the voice of an archangel, and the text does not claim that the voice of the archangel is the voice of Jesus.
1 Thessalonians 4:16 does not at all identify the voice of Jesus with the voice of the archangel, it only reveals that the coming of Jesus will be accompanied by the word of an archangel, as Christ predicted His return attended by angels (Matthew 24 :31; Matthew 25:31; comp. 2 Thessalonians 1:7). Paul does not write here "the Archangel," as though pointing to some known Angelic Chief who is to blow this trumpet; his words are, with an archangel's voice, indicating the majesty and power of the heavenly summons, and "the Lord" and the mentioned archangel are here evidently distinguished, the archangel is not Jesus himself. Whoever he is, he is doing the will of Christ. There is no Bible verse that claims that an archangel raises the dead. On the contrary: they rise up at the word of the son of God, not Michael. Read these:
* https://t.ly/qtm6r
* https://t.ly/3QqhB
* https://t.ly/Ryqak
"If Jesus is "God" Why is he coming with a lower authority than "God"?"
The text doesn't say that either. By the way: Jesus is still a man after his resurrection, even though he was glorified, elevated to divine dignity and glory, without, of course, having become God in terms of his human nature.
"Why is he raising the dead with the voice of an [or the] archangel and not God's voice?"
The text does not say that the voice of the archangel will raise the dead, but that the dead will be raised AFTER the coming of the Lord.
"though only one archangel is mentioned in the bible"
Precisely because "archangel" is a Greek word, it only appears in the NT, and the NT indeed only explicitly names Michael as such, in any case, the Bible reveals that there are several archangels. Michael "one of the chief princes" (Dan 10:13, mîḵā’êl ’aḥaḏ haśśārîm hārišōnîm), so there are more angels at the same rank as him, so there are more archangels, and the Jewish tradition has always believed so. In Jewish tradition the highest ranking angels such as Michael, Raphael, Gabriel and Uriel, who are usually referred to as archangels in English, are given the title of śārīm (Hebrew: שָׂרִים, sing. שָׂר, śār), meaning "princes", to show their superior rank and status.
"explain the passive + genitive in every scholarly book being agency then.. Its agency"
Hebrews 1:10 explicitly attributes creation to the Son, and if you really push this "agency" concept, it is still not proven that this "agent" is a creature who only has a secondary creative role. Furthermore: this is ruled out by those statements that attribute creation "alone" to God, and also by the fact that it is conceptually impossible for a created being to be the means of creation.
"God is the one who created "alone" through the agent."
If he created through an "agent" outside of him, he did not create "alone". If I claim that I built my house "alone", "with my own hands", but actually "through an 'agent'", then I lied.
"The context where "alone" is said (Is 44:24, I believe) is addressed to false Gods"
The fact that the text only excludes the role of non-existent false gods in creation is only your claim, the text promotes absolute monotheism, even in the process of creation. There is a study on this detail, read this:
https://t.ly/Haod-
Also, I did not only refer just the Is. 44:24, but Is. 45:12, 48:13, Malachi 2:10; Job 9:2,8, Psalm 95:5-6, Neh 9:6 too, you explain all of them that "alone," "by himself," "with his own hands" does not mean absolutely everyone else (who is not YHWH God) excluded?
""Besides the NWT, what other Bible translation" - see commentaryies..."
The word you're looking for is spelled commentaries. And I didn't ask for commentaries, but for translations. Hint: the biblical text itself.
Maybe I need to get a fact-checking job:
1) One of the meanings given for qanah in BDB is "to create"
2) BDAG says that arche could bear the meaning "first-created" in Rev. 3:14; other sources back up this claim.
3) You said NWT "Always" translates qanah as "acquire" with the exception of Prov 8:22. Well, see Psalm 139:13 in NWT.
While you think a native speaker in ancient Greece would have immediately recognized that John's use of arche suggested the deity of Christ, that is not what numerous scholars say about the passage, including BDAG. Try again.
https://biblehub.com/hebrew/kanita_7069.htm
If a bible such as NET has another rendering of a word in the foot note, it is usually the alternative translation. Which one goes in the main body of text is personal preference and does not indicate scholarly priority. If that was the case then why bother with the footnote.
I looked up to see if anyone in the ancient Christian literature referred to Rev. 3:14:
https://www.catholiccrossreference.online/fathers/index.php/Revelation%203:14
Well the thing is, no, not at all. Neither for nor against this scriptural statement arose in the Arian debate. I wonder why the Arian camp did not quote this verse? Maybe they didn't know about it?
This argument was probably first raised by Socinianism in the 16th century.
In the Book of Revelation, Jesus is the "first and the last" (like the Father), not because he is the first to be craated (he is also the last creature with this logic). I can illustrate this with an analogy, if we take into account the differences between European and American floor numbering. While in Europe, the first level is the ground floor, and the levels above are counted as first floor, second floor, etc. Inn America, the ground floor is the first floor. Here, too, like in the European system, it is about Jesus not being included in the "floors", so he is the first, actually the zeroth, as the active principle of the creation, the creation emanated from Him, but he is not a part of the creation.
@Duncan
I think John 17:14 ("they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world") refers back to John 1:12-13, according to which believers who are born again "were born [...] of God." Therefore, it refers to their state in grace of supernatural (and not immanent) origin, not to the need to maintain an antisocial attitude towards society or to withdraw "from the world". After all, in 17:15 Christ himself says that "I do not ask that You may take them out of the world, but that You may keep them out of the evil."
So Christians are indeed exist and live as PART of the world, part of the society, they only share in the supernatural vocation and grace, and ultimately they look to Christ and his Kingdom, which is also of supernatural origin, and thereby Christians need to sanctify the world, the society.
John 15:19 (NLT): "The world would love you as one of its own if you belonged to it, but you are no longer part of the world. I chose you to come out of the world, so it hates you."
I guess you would criticize this Bible too which uses "no longer part" like NWT does.
But you also misunderstand what JWs mean by being no part of the world. Yes, we live in the world of humankind: we know what Paul wrote in 1 Cor. 5:9-13. We obviously can't get out of this cosmos and we love "the world" in imitation of Jehovah God (John 3:16). However, we don't love the world or the things in it, as 1 John 2:15-17 advises us to do. We know that this ungodly world alienated from the true deity is under the wicked one's control. See 1 John 5:19. So while we live in the world and we're not antisocial as you state, we are no part of the world's uncleanness and we try to stay far away from the world's patent ungodliness. See 2 Timothy 3:5.
Arkhé: beginning, primal principle, archetypal form, primal matter. The common prime cause of all that exists. The Greek thinkers sought that "something" from which the cosmos, the harmonious and regularly operating universe, emerged. This "something" was called 'arkhe' in Greek. They aimed to understand the principles upon which its operation, as a unified foundational principle, could be based, and the common prime cause of all that exists. This prime cause, primal principle, primal matter is the 'arkhé', which on one hand serves as the foundation for the multitude of things as a unified primal matter, and on the other hand, is the initiating cause for observable changes. The term "principle" is often used for arkhé as the prime cause. Here, the expression signifies the foundation and cause of existence and becoming.
What the Bible does is to mark and identify this "arkhé" that the Greek thinkers were looking for, as Christ.
Jesus' words are full of such hyperboles, e.g. Luke 14:26. Do we also take this literally? Or likewise:
"For God so loved the world..." (John 3:16) vs. "Do not love the world" (1 John 2:15)
So God loves the world, but we shouldn't?
If we interpret the sentence taken out of context, and identify the concept of "the world" with humanity, then the question arises: does this contradict John 3:16, which says God so loved the world? And if "the world" concept, considering the desires of the eye and body, refers to today's visual culture, then is it forbidden for a good Christian to engage in the world of television, cinema, and the internet concerning beauty and body culture? The question is: what did John want to protect believers from, and what was he urging them to do?
Firstly, John in his letters often uses the concept of "world" (kosmos) in several ways. On one hand, "world" is the place where God sent His Son (1 John 4:9) for the "world", meaning for the salvation of all people (4:14 cf. John 3:16). On the other hand, he mostly refers to the world outside the church from a spiritual perspective: Christ was not only a propitiation for the already believers but also for "the whole world’s" sin (1 John 2:2); the believers are not recognized by "the world" because it did not know/recognize Christ (3:1); "the world" might even hate them (3:13); many false prophets are in "the world" (4:1), even the spirit of antichrist appeared in "the world" (4:3), but Christ in believers is greater than these forces operating in "the world" (4:4), even if "the world" listens more to the false prophets (4:5-6); although "just as He (Christ) is, so are we in this world" (4:17), ultimately our faith overcomes "the world" (5:4-5), which is needed because "the whole world" lies in wickedness (5:19). He only once refers to "worldly" goods, which must be shared with a needy brother (3:17).
Secondly, before 1 John 2:15-16, John points to the stark contrast between the light of brotherly love and the darkness of hatred for one's brother (2:7-11), then addresses his target group in the letter (children in faith, young men, and fathers) and the reason for his writing: their sins are forgiven, they know God, they are strong, the word of God remains in them, and they have overcome the wicked one (2:12-14).
After this, he warns them (2:15) that they must choose whom or what they love: the Father or the world. If one can "love" only one of them, then "love" is more than just feeling something: it’s about values, decisions, orientations, ultimately about obedience (cf. 5:3). Everyone "loves" someone or something, but we can choose whom or what. Desires were created in us by God, and wealth is not sinful in itself, but it seems that the entire world around us speaks of nothing but dependence on spectacle and boasting about wealth (4:16), although the world, along with desires and wealth, will all pass away (4:17).
So, John does not contradict himself; God "so" loved the world, meaning humanity, that He gave His Son for it, while believers should not "love" the world, meaning everything that speaks of artificial desire-stimulation and boasting with wealth. John does not lash out at today's western visual culture; partly because, while there is a lot to avoid on the internet, not everything to avoid is found on the internet, and avoiding these two types of temptation alone does not guarantee love for God.
John calls us to be conscious of the path of our love. He doesn't call for a desire-less life, but a passionate one. Everyone has desires, and everyone has something, but we should not let our life’s values, decisions, and directions (that is, our love) be determined by what we can desire in this world or what we can possess in it. Instead of idolizing transient things, let's love the Eternal (cf. 1 John 5:20-21).
One of my comments seems to have been lost, even though I did not refer to a "forbidden" source :)
The same is the case for this verse:
"Adulterers and adulteresses! Have you not known that friendship of the world is enmity with God? Whoever, then, may intend to be a friend of the world, he is designated [as] an enemy of God." (James 4:4)
Those who interpret this sentence out of its context and see "the world" as the contemporary culture of the 21st century will understand "friendship with the world" as accepting, using, and following contemporary cultural phenomena. Therefore, for them, a believer who goes to theaters, movies, or concerts, reads non-biblical literature, listens to non-Christian music, watches non-Christian films, dresses elegantly, or engages in sports, etc., is opposing God. The question is, did James think this way?
Firstly, James' letter was written to a community filled with issues, sins, and divided sentiments. The conflicts in the community stemmed from selfish desires and jealousy within its members (4:1-3), as well as arrogance (4:6) and slandering of others (4:11). They didn't even realize that they had not only drifted away from each other but also from God, and they didn't resist the Accuser (4:7-8). In the middle of this line of thinking, James judges their mentality and behavior: by befriending the world, they oppose God.
Secondly, the word, translated in older versions as "adulteresses," means "adulterers" [adultery = infidelity]. Here James could be referring to actual adultery (considering "desires within members," "for your pleasures"?), but also in a metaphorical sense, indicating not the relationship between husbands and wives but the breach between Christ and the Church. This metaphor has a biblical precedent since "fornication" was used to describe spiritual unfaithfulness to God. Numerous examples of this can be found in the Old Testament (e.g., Deut 31:16-17), in Jesus' opinion of the majority of his contemporaries in the Gospels (Matt 12:39, 16:4), and in apostolic letters. The breach of the "betrothal" between Christ and the Church, whether with a prostitute or spiritually, incurs the Lord's wrath (1 Cor 6:15-20, 10:6-9; Col 3:5-6; Rev 2:14-16).
Thirdly, "the world" [cosmos] is a multi-meaning biblical term: the universe, humanity, non-Jewish peoples, our current world, people outside the church, etc. Mostly in the latter sense, "the world" (non-Christians) despises believers (1 Cor 4:9), does not recognize, even hates (1 John 3:1,13) because it follows a different value system. A believer either follows worldly values or Christ's, but if he is a friend of one, he becomes an enemy of the other.
James did not refer to the entire contemporary culture under "the world" or to the phenomena of the 21st-century Western culture. He did not advise withdrawing from the world or completely rejecting culture indiscriminately.
James was condemning certain human behaviors, specifically selfish, envious, arrogant, demeaning, and quarrelsome mentalities. These might be common in the world but are not appropriate within the Church. As we get to know Christ and God, our self-worth heals and our appreciation for others grows. It's especially tragic when, in the absence of these, comparison, judgment, and ambition devastate even within the church. However, James believes it's possible to humble oneself, to obey God anew, and to resist the Accuser again (James 4:7-10).
A good study on Rev. 3:14:
https://shorturl.at/enq19
See also https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2023/03/edmondo-f-lupieri-and-revelation-314.html
https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2023/01/possible-denotations-for-arche.html?m=1
"The apostles used many terms used in Greek philosophy, filled with a new meaning: pleroma, physis, hypostasys, sophia, arkhe, etc. etc." - did these meanings exist at the times of the Apostles though?
I dont think alot of them did.
"any philosophical dictionary" - I want a proper dictionary not any "philosophical dictionary"
"(because there is no such grammatical rule)" - doesnt have to be an established rule for the occurences to always be partitive.
As the examples you didnt address prove.
""If Jesus is "God" Why is he coming with a lower authority than "God"?"
The text doesn't say that either."
- go check every other occurence of the idoim and tell me if its the voice of someone else or the person mentioned...
No he is not Gods trumpet, but thats for obvious reasons.
funny commentators would disagree..
"in Proverbs is somehow always translated "acquired" in the NWT, but not here." - misleading claim # 14
(you literally cannot be trusted to be honest, How much more are you being misleading on?)
Lets look at the list shall we?
Gen 14:19,22 (Maker)
25:10 (purchase)
Deut 32:6
I could go on... you are such a liar..
"Wisdom in Proverbs 8 cannot be literally identified with Jesus, but a parable, which is a type in a poetic text, and therefore cannot be used to support doctrine"
- you yourself use it too support doctrine.. Iv seen you do it about 3 times.
Atha used it too support doctrine.
poetic lanuage uses synonyms to the literal thing - The words in some sense mean the same both ways.
"with an archangel's voice" - either rendering is good, whether you want to be honest or misleading is fine.
"If he created through an "agent" outside of him, he did not create "alone"." - you fail to grasp the actaul meaning of the word translated "alone".
This occurs in acouple of other places where God didnt do something "alone"
"If I claim that I built my house "alone", "with my own hands", but actually "through an 'agent'", then I lied." - nope, because you are the "source" of the house - its how agency works.
instead of ranting Nincsnevem and "powering on through" and insisting on things that don't exist and just being incessantly annoying and "trolly" How about doing actaul scholarship instead of phlosophy..
I have called you out on 13+ misleading claims at this point (no one (except you, doesn't count) has corrected me, so I assume I'm right.)
"Hebrews 1:10 explicitly attributes creation to the Son" - yea the one scripture that does, and could rightfully be said of him, since he was involved in a "hands on" sort of way (Wallace, RObertson etc). The one active verb applied to the son, in light of about 8 passives.
"Jesus is the "first and the last" (like the Father), not because he is the first to be created (he is also the last creature with this logic)." - completely different. gain you can continue to be misleading or you can be honest.
Ek is ALWAYS used in a gentive construction. (too my knowledge) but its still a gentiive construction.
Edgar I would advise you have a look here:
(cited prev) https://www.forananswer.org/Rev/Rv3_14.htm
For starters all 3 of the people who wrote this assume trinity... already bad approach..
best approach is neutral
I think its very misleading and omits a lot of important information.
Just because the genitive constructions don't refer to a person, doesn't mean they are not valid as this person is trying to make out.
passive and active don't really come into it
The email claim is rather shady as anyone can forge an email.
It ignores Johns strict usage of arkhe and arkhon..
question why would John suddenly abandon his own "rule" in just one instance? since before and after continues the same pattern. (Rev 1:5)
The LXX examples are obvious via their context as to what they are referring too, so don't really count as we are dealing with one where the meaning "is unclear".
nobody ever stated that Job 40:19 and Rev 3:14 were the "same context" (not even Stafford claims this)
However it cant be denied that its a linguistical parallel.
all in all very misleading - you can probably poke more holes than I can.
Hi Anonymous, yes I have read that link before and read some again last night. Indeed, it's biased, misleading and wrongheaded, I know. I've allowed the link to be posted but glad there is pushback. I appreciate that others have offered replies since my time is short now but I will try to offer some critiques.
Regarding Rev. 3:14, you could also read this small collection of notes too:
https://justpaste.it/bv4ep
""The apostles used many terms used in Greek philosophy, filled with a new meaning: pleroma, physis, hypostasys, sophia, arkhe, etc. etc." - did these meanings exist at the times of the Apostles though?"
Yes, and the apostles built on these existing concepts. It is no coincidence that God shaped it in such a way that Christianity developed in the Greco-Roman Europe, since it was in this civilization that the concepts that make sense of the entire revelation of the New Testament were most available in th world.
The apostle Paul also spoke about the "unknown god" of the Greeks (Acts 17:23), since Greek thinkers were looking for the origin of the world, for example Aristotle practically understood with the concept of "unmoved mover" that there can only be one God who is unchanging.
The Greeks were looking for what the Logos is, what the Arkhé is, in which the world is formulated and from which the world flows, and this is why the apostles told them that Christ is what you were looking for.
That this was the will of the Holy Spirit is evident from Acts 16:6.9, when He commands them to go to (Hellenic) Europe. Why? Because the historical-cultural-philosophical background and foundation on which Christianity could best build was available there.
""any philosophical dictionary" - I want a proper dictionary not any "philosophical dictionary""
Since "arkhé" is not just a word on its own, but a meaningful concept, it doesn't hurt to look it up not only in a "simple" dictionary, but also in a specific dictionary where the meaning of such concepts is described. But if you insist, for exampleThayer's Greek Lexicon gives the following meanings for 'arché':
1. beginning, origin
a. used absolutely, of the beginning of all things
b. in a relative sense, of the beginning of the thing spoken of
2. the person or thing that commences, the first person or thing in a series, the leader
3. that by which anything begins to be, the origin, active cause
4. the extremity
5. the first place, principality, rule, magistracy
As you can see, there are many nuances to this word as well, again it says that you should not show that it *CAN* also possibly mean how you interpret, but that it *actually* means that here beyond a reasonable doubt.
"(because there is no such grammatical rule)" - doesn't have to be an established rule for the occurrences to always be partitive."
But yes, since the fact that this happens in other cases does not mean that linguistically it is automatically a partitive genitive structure. And why it is so in other cases is not because of some grammatical rule, but because it conceptually follows from the description: a man's firstborn actually belongs to his family, and FOR THE REASON (not because he is called a firstborn) he was actually born of his father. On the other hand, Jesus is never said to belong to the ranks of creatures, and Paul would have had many ways to rank the Son among his creatures.
If you think it is such an important teaching that the Son is a created being, then why is this not openly stated as the verbs 'bara', 'ktio', 'poio' are openly used for his origin?
""in Proverbs is somehow always translated "acquired" in the NWT, but not here." - misleading claim"
Read what I wrote more carefully, I was talking about the book of Proverbs, not the whole OT. You should compare how is the verb 'qanah' translated in the Book of Proverbs 1:5, 4:5, 4:7, 15:32, 16:16, 18:15, 19:8. I think that what the verb 'qanah' means in the book of Proverbs should be judged mostly based on the meaning used in the book of Proverbs, and other books come into question only secondarily, which could have been written hundreds of years before the Proverbs.
""Wisdom in Proverbs 8 cannot be literally identified with Jesus, but a parable, which is a type in a poetic text, and therefore cannot be used to support doctrine"
- you yourself use it too support doctrine."
I don't think it can be used to support a doctrine, only assuming, but not accepting your logic, I reverse the argument and refer to it in this sense that it also contains many hints that 'Chokhmah' is not the first creature, but not because I would really like to support the deity of the Son with this. The NT is there for that.
"poetic language uses synonyms to the literal thing - The words in some sense mean the same both ways."
Certainly, ἔκτισεν can easily be interpreted as a synonym for "begotten", not because the two are the same, but because the poetic language does not express doctrinal precision. It can also be interpreted as a double accusative created/made (installed, ordained) me (to be) his beginning (arkhé)...
""If he created through an "agent" outside of him, he did not create "alone"." - you fail to grasp the literal meaning of the word translated "alone".
"Alone" (as well as: "who was with me?", "with my own hands", "by himself") exactly means "exclusively only me alone, without anyone else's contribution or any kind of involvement." Have you read this: https://t.ly/Haod-
""If I claim that I built my house "alone", "with my own hands", but actually "through an 'agent'", then I lied." - nope, because you are the "source" of the house - its how the agency works."
No, if I boast that "I built this house alone with my bare hands", it means exactly that it was not built the way, that I've ordered, but actually a construction contractor carried it out.
""Hebrews 1:10 explicitly attributes creation to the Son" - yea the one scripture that does"
How many times does God have to tell you something in order for you to believe it?
" and could rightfully be said of him, since he was involved in a "hands on" sort of way"
Hebrews 1:10 not only says that He was "somehow involved" in the creation, but that He actually created the world. Do not flatten, relativize the words of the apostle.
"Ek is ALWAYS used in a genitive construction. (too my knowledge) but its still a genitive construction."
No, "ek" is the preposition that requires a genitive case, as e.g. in Latin, accusative (into) or ablative (inside of) can be added to in.
"the people who wrote this assume trinity... already bad approach.. best approach is neutral"
Maybe JW apologists are neutral?
(By the way, Mr. Foster withheld one of my comments here, even though, to the best of my knowledge, I did not refer to a source that he did not allow here, and which I respect.)
Another study on Proverbs 8:22:
https://docdro.id/5scufme
"Do not flatten, relativize the words of the apostle." - you do the same for Isaiah 44:24... flatten the meaning, when only false gods are in view (your previous source is not very good and also misleading, Bowman is kind of known for that.)
"Proverbs 1:5, 4:5, 4:7, 15:32, 16:16, 18:15, 19:8" - maybe just look at the LXX, and why does this argument work for you? - surely you know limiting the "pool" to just proverbs isn't very scientific nor scholarly.
"it also contains many hints that 'Chokhmah' is not the first creature" - not really, but anyhow.. you'll have issues even with the Church Fathers on this one.
""ek" is the preposition that requires a genitive case" - ill be fact checking that later... you still haven't addressed my examples that aren't so obvious.
If its not a genitive construction, Why do all the Greek handbooks Iv looked through/ up list it as such? you can cut the rubbish.
"How many times does God have to tell you something in order for you to believe it?" - How many times does Paul need to use different prepositions to signify who did what?
ex hou
vs
dia hou
"Maybe JW apologists are neutral?" - how do you get this from what I said?
and once again I raise the question:
Why would John suddenly abandon his own "rule" in just one instance? since before and after continues the same pattern. (Rev 1:5)
from the very logic you are using with Proverbs, if we sample all of Johns usages of arkhe (Primary meanings: Beginning) and arkhon (Primary meaning: Ruler)
(What follows only accounts for Johns usage - no one else's.)
EVERY OCCURENCE of arkhe is translated "beginning" in most Bibles (exception: Rev 3:14)
EVERY OCCURENCE of arkhon is translated "ruler" (no exceptions)
John uses Arkhe and NOT Arkhon in Rev 3:14, therefore the most likely intended meaning is in fact "beginning"
it seems to be an allusion to the second part of Prov 8:22, in which even the NET concedes "as the beginning of his ways" is the most likely translation, as a lot of creation clauses involve double accusatives (never saw you mention this, I had too, important information here)
WE have scriptural parallels cited by both Stafford and Furuoli - where the meaning is "start" or "first one born"
" and which I respect" - probably because its yet another misleading source.. Edgar is welcome to correct me, but those don't have the time of day here + you have no respect for Edgar, so why should he for you?
The least you could is accept you may be wrong.. and not act like a fool..
How would you translate 'arkhé' in Revelation 3:14 into Hebrew? Most translations (even the Hebrew NWT) translate it as 'hārēʾšît̲' (הָרֵאשִׁית), however the Sephardic Jewish translation is 'hat̲ḥālāh' (התחלה). In Hebrew, both "reshit" (רֵאשִׁית) and "techillah" (תְּחִלָּה) are associated with beginnings, but they have different nuances and usages.
Reshit (רֵאשִׁית)
Literal meaning: "First," "beginning," or "chief."
Derived from the root word "rosh" (ראש), which means "head."
Found in the Hebrew Bible in verses like Genesis 1:1 – "Bereshit bara Elohim" (בְּרֵאשִׁית בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים) which is often translated as "In the beginning, God created..."
"Reshit" often implies the very first or primary instance of something.
Techillah (תְּחִלָּה)
Literal meaning: "Beginning" or "start."
This word has a more general sense of the start of something or the outset of an event.
Found in the Hebrew Bible in verses like Proverbs 9:10 – "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom" (תְּחִלַּת חָכְמָה, יִרְאַת יְהוָה).
"Techillah" can be understood as the starting point or initial phase of an action or situation.
While both words are related to beginnings, "reshit" carries a connotation of primacy and is sometimes used in a broader, more abstract sense. On the other hand, "techillah" is more straightforwardly about the commencement or starting point of something.
Given its root in "rosh," "reshit" can also carry the idea of being at the head or foremost part of a line or sequence, implying both a chronological beginning and a place of priority or importance. So "reshit" can be understood as the foremost head of it, depending on the context in which it is used.
The Greek concept of "arkhé" (ἀρχή) refers to both "beginning" and "principle" or "origin." It's a term that denotes the first cause or source of something and has philosophical implications, especially in the works of ancient Greek philosophers. For them, "arkhé" is the underlying substance or principle from which everything originates.
Between "reshit" and "techillah," "reshit" is closer to "arkhé" in its broader range of meanings. While "techillah" emphasizes the start or beginning in a more chronological sense, "reshit" has the broader nuance of being the "first" or "primary" in a sequence, which can refer to both time and importance.
If you're aiming to emphasize that the person denoted is the first principle and not just part of the line, "reshit" is more suitable. It conveys that the individual is not just the beginning of a sequence but also holds a position of primacy or precedence, aligning more closely with the philosophical depth associated with "arkhé."
""Do not flatten, relativize the words of the apostle." - you do the same for Isaiah 44:24... flatten the meaning, when only false gods are in view"
You just ignore the meaning of that verse (in addition to the fact that I quoted many other Bible verses with the same content, which you said nothing about). The fact that it only excludes the involvement of false gods is not supported by anything. Let's imagine a dialogue.
A teacher suspects that the student did not write the submitted paper himself, but that his parents helped him. So the teacher asks:
- Are you sure you wrote this yourself? Didn't your mom help with that?
- No, I wrote it myself alone!
In the meantime, it would turn out that his father actually wrote it, the student would be caught lying, and then he would object that the question was "only" whether his mother helped him. Yes, but you didn't just claim that your mom didn't, you also specifically said that you did it "yourself alone".
""Proverbs 1:5, 4:5, 4:7, 15:32, 16:16, 18:15, 19:8" - maybe just look at the LXX, and why does this argument work for you?"
Why only look at the LXX, what about Philo of Alexandria, Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus?
"surely you know limiting the "pool""
I did not "limit" it, of course other places can be taken into account, but secondarily, primarily, it is advisable to look at the occurrence in the same text material.
""it also contains many hints that 'Chokhmah' is not the first creature" - not really, but anyway.. "
Thank you, so this Bible verse has already fallen out of the circle of "proof texts", two remain.
"you'll have issues even with the Church Fathers on this one."
The Catholic teaching on the Holy Tradition does not mean that you have to agree with every single statement and thought of every church father, but that as witnesses of the faith they authentically represent the apostolic tradition as a whole. Otherwise, the Church Fathers unanimously rejected Proverbs 8:22 as supporting the Arian interpretation that the Logos is a created being.
"""ek" is the preposition that requires a genitive case" - ill be fact checking that later... Why do all the Greek handbooks Iv looked through/ up list it as such?"
The fact that a preposition needs a certain grammatical case (in this case genitive) does not mean that it is a "genitive structure".
""How many times does God have to tell you something in order for you to believe it?" - How many times does Paul need to use different prepositions to signify who did what?"
The two are not mutually exclusive, nor can they be contrasted with each other, just as in the case of the synoptic gospels, one of the evangelists reports more about the same present, even then the fuller statement is the governing one.
By the way, even in the ancient doxologies, subordinate (glory to the Father and Son and Holy Spirit) and subjunctive formulas (glory to the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit) formulas are used ass well, hence these are equivalent.
"Why would John suddenly abandon his own "rule" in just one instance?"
There is no such established rule at all, either grammatically or exegetically. Furuli and Stafford's claim about the existence of such "rules" is something like me saying "I have three children, two of them are boys" and then you saying that if two of them are boys, then the third is too! I don't think that the Colosse church, when they received Paul's epistle, began to count how many times and in what sense the 'prototokos' appeared in the LXX. If Paul really wanted to reveal that the Son is a created being, he could have stated it explicitly.
"arkhe is translated "beginning""
I did not claim that this translation is inherently wrong, just ambiguous, since the English term "beginning" itself has several meanings, so we still have the question, which meaning of the "beginning" should we take:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/beginning
"the origin of something, or the place, time, or way in which something started"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/beginning
"ORIGIN, SOURCE"
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/beginning
"That which begins or originates something; the source or first cause."
Hence the English term "beginning" does not inherently or necessarily imply that "the beginning" is actually the first member of the given category, which this is said to be "the beginning" of.
"John uses Arkhe and NOT Arkhon in Rev 3:14"
You said this as if I didn't know that, but the two are synonymous and cognate terms, and anyway I didn't suggest the meaning of "ruler", but the meaning of primordial principle.
"Prov 8:22, in which even the NET concedes "as the beginning of his ways" is the most likely translation, as a lot of creation clauses involve double accusatives"
However, if you render "create" with a double accusative, it already loses the meaning of "divine act of creation", "brining a creature into existence" and has the meaning of "to ordain", "to install", "to appoint".
"you have no respect for Edgar, so why should he for you?"
I also spoke with the utmost respect about the person of the blogger, but now I referred to his rule that he does not allow to refer to exJW sources or confidential WTS materials here, and I have not done so since then, according to his request.
The term "arche" (ἀρχή) is an Ancient Greek word that has multiple meanings, but most commonly, it is translated as "beginning", "origin", or "principle". It has philosophical, theological, and cosmological connotations. Let's explore some of the contexts in which "arche" is used:
Philosophical Context: In the works of pre-Socratic philosophers, "arche" often referred to the primary principle or the original element from which everything originates. For example, Thales believed water to be the "arche" of everything, meaning he thought everything originated from water.
Cosmological Context: "Arche" can be understood as the beginning or origin of the universe. In a cosmogonic sense, it refers to the primary substance or initial state from which the cosmos emerged.
Theological Context: In Christian theology, the term has profound implications. For instance, in the Gospel of John, Jesus is referred to with the term "Logos" (Word) and it's stated: "In the beginning (ἀρχή) was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Here, "arche" signifies not just a point in time, but an eternal principle or source.
General Usage: Beyond these specific contexts, "arche" can simply mean the beginning of any process or sequence.
Understanding the meaning of "arche" often requires considering the context in which it's used, as its implications can vary widely based on its application.
In theological and philosophical contexts, "arche" (ἀρχή) as "the beginning" or "principle" does not necessarily imply being the "first creature." However, the phrase "ἀρχή τῆς κτίσεως" (arche of the creation) can have nuanced interpretations, especially within Christian theology.
For instance, in the Book of Revelation 3:14, Jesus is referred to as "the beginning (ἀρχή) of the creation of God." Here, the term doesn't mean that Jesus was the first creature created by God. Instead, many Christian theologians interpret this to mean that Jesus is the primary agent or principle through which all creation came into being. In this context, it emphasizes the preeminence and centrality of Christ in the order of creation, not that he was the first created being.
So, while "ἀρχή τῆς κτίσεως" can be literally translated as "the beginning of creation," its deeper theological interpretation, especially in Christian contexts, may not mean "the first creature." It's essential to approach such phrases with an understanding of their broader theological and philosophical implications.
The interpretation of phrases, especially ancient ones from scriptures or philosophical texts, often goes beyond mere linguistic analysis. While linguistic study can provide insight into the probable meanings of words and phrases based on their historical usage and context, interpretation often requires additional considerations. Here's a breakdown of factors to consider:
Linguistic Analysis: This involves studying the historical and literary usage of specific words and phrases. For "ἀρχή τῆς κτίσεως", linguistics can tell us that it means "beginning of the creation." However, the word "beginning" can have varied nuances, including "first in a sequence", "originating source", "primary principle", and more.
Contextual Analysis: This involves looking at the broader context in which a phrase appears. For a biblical text, this would mean examining the surrounding verses, the broader message of the book, and the overarching themes of the entire scripture.
Theological Implications: Especially for religious texts, theological beliefs and doctrines can influence interpretation. Different Christian denominations, for example, may have nuanced interpretations based on their doctrinal stances.
Historical Interpretations: How have scholars, theologians, and believers understood the phrase throughout history? Historical interpretations can offer insights into how a phrase has been received and understood over time.
Comparative Analysis: Comparing translations and interpretations across different languages and versions can provide further insight. Some nuances might be clearer in one language or translation than in another.
Given these factors, determining whether an interpretation is a "mere possibility" or a "probability" is complex. It's not just about the raw linguistic meaning but about weighing all these factors together.
For a phrase like "ἀρχή τῆς κτίσεως" from the Book of Revelation, it's important to note that interpretations have varied over time and across different Christian traditions. While some may emphasize a Christological interpretation that sees Jesus as the primary agent of creation, others might have a more literal interpretation. Deciding between these requires not just linguistic analysis but a holistic approach that considers theology, history, and broader scriptural context.
So in summary, in Colossians 1:15, the FIRSTBORN does not literally mean being the first, foremost part of a line or sequence, but RANK, a lordly title, that he has the RIGHTS of birthright over all creation, without of course being a creature himself.
By the way, the term "all creation" occurs in the same epistle at 1:23, where it is said that the gospel of Jesus Christ was "preached in *all creation* that is under the heaven", by definition Christ does not belong here either into the "all creation", since the gospel obviously did not have to be preached to him.
And the fact that the genitive can also be "genitive of supremacy" is a good example of Christ is called "the head OF the church" (Ephesians 5:23, kephalē *tēs* ekklēsias), and at the same time the same epistle calls him "the head OVER all things for the church" (Eph 1:22, kephalē *HYPER* panta tē ekklēsia), therefore, it does not follow from the genitive structure that He needs to belong to the given group or category.
The word "ktisis" can also mean "created world" (kosmos, olam), and in this case it already departs from your interpretation. After all, whoever is the firstborn of the entire created world is not necessarily a creature - if only because of the abstract nature of the concept.
But the immediate context also speaks against your position. Colossians 1:16 says: "For in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers; all things are through him and to him they were created looking."
With the word "because" Paul's thought is connected to the words "the firstborn of all creation (or: the whole creation)" from the previous verse. Jesus is therefore the firstborn of all creation in the sense that they were created in him, through him and for him. The birthright here has an irrefutable relation to the primacy in dignity, namely not within the circle of creatures, but above them. After all, how could He be a creature by whom all things were created?
Post a Comment