Colossian 1:16 - "all OTHER things"

by aqwsed12345 136 Replies latest watchtower bible

Journeyman

Slim and Earnest, I admire your efforts on this thread and I was almost tempted to contribute further a couple of times, but as I intimated back on page 2 (three days ago - and more than three pages ago - that's more than a page a day that this has been going on) trying to reason with entrenched trinitarians is futile. It doesn't matter whether you use scripture, the writings of historians, philosophers and early church fathers, or simple logic. It's like butting your head against a wall.
It's like trying to reason with a Muslim over how Jesus can be God's Son without God needing sexual relations. Or, for that matter, trying to persuade a PIMI JW that the GB might actually be wrong about something! An exercise that ends only in frustration, circular arguments and more entrenchment, padded out by episodes of waffle and contradictory or confused thinking.
In my more active days of being a JW on the doors, I would have tried to worry away at controversial 'bones' like the trinity, Islam's view of Jesus and so on, but today I can't be doing with the futility of butting heads like that anymore.

Still - 10 out of 10 for effort!
aqwsed12345
It’s not prejudice, but the logical conclusion of the following facts:
1. the NT exclusively describes the Son’s orgin from the Father by terms derived from ‘gennao’ and ‘tikto’, and openly states that that in the beginning He already was, even the aeons made through him
2. the NT exclusively describes the creation’s, and the creatures’ coming in the existence by terms derived from ‘ktizo’ and ‘poioi’
3. therefore there must be a significant difference in quality between these two
4. the Scripture cannot contradict itself
5. therefore the OT cannot maintain that the Son is a creature, especially not the sense of ‘poio’
I assume those secular scholars disregard the point 4. So the logical conclusion can only be, that in the Proverbs 8:22
1. ‘Qanah’ simpy doesn’t mean ‘ktizo’, but ‘ktáomai’, Jerome’s solution.
2. ‘Qanah’ may mean ‘ktizo’, but not in the abused Arian sense, which is actually ‘poio’, therefore in the general meaning of it, which also includes: for example “to appoint”. Athaniasius’ solution.
3. ‘Qanah’ can mean even ‘poio’ (highly unlikely, even from linguistic POV), but applied to the Incarnate Christ, according to which of course He’s a creature
4. ‘Qanah’ can mean whatever, since it’s not literally about the generation of the Son/Logos of the NT, but an allegory of the Wisdom of God, so whatever this means, theologically irrelevant for the Christology. This solution is also acceptable for the WTS.
The choice is yours :-)
Btw, check this: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/קנה
slimboyfat

He started to translate the Vulgate after the Council of Constantinople, when Arianism wasn't an issue at all for him.
There you go again. 🙂 How do you know what went on inside Jerome’s head? Where’s your evidence? By the way, I’m not saying that Jerome definitely removed “created” from Prov. 8.22 for theological reasons, even though the source you cited said it was motivated by Arianism, and even though Jerome complained the world “groaned in astonishment to find itself Arian” in 360 CE. I don’t know on what basis you claim Arianism wasn’t an issue for Jerome other than your say so.
You say qana shouldn’t be translated “created”, yet experts in Hebrew do translate it as “created”, including Jewish scholars such as Robert Alter. How are we supposed to judge the situation? Hebrew scholars are wrong and aqwsed12345 is right? On what basis? Experts don’t always get it right, of course, but you’ve given no good reason for thinking they aren’t right about qana meaning “created” in Prov 8.22. I described Robert Alter’s translation as “highly regarded” because it is. Read some of the reviews online. John Barton, a scholar at Oxford University, described Robert Alter’s translation of the Hebrew Bible as perhaps the best translation ever made into English. Alter’s view does carry some weight.
Some dispute whether the OT of the Peshitta was translated directly from Hebrew and a majority favour direct translation. I checked Emanuel Tov’s Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (2011) and he says the Peshitta was translated from Hebrew. Earnest mentioned Targums supporting the reading “created”. I didn’t know about that but they’ll be making their commentary from the Hebrew. But we’re really getting into the long grass here. The support in favour of “created” in Prov 8.22 is substantial.
Incidentally I don’t think there is any Harvard publication that says Jesus did not exist.
On the view of Jesus in the Gospel of John I find the comments of Adela Yarbro Collins interesting (yes brace yourself I’m going to quote those blasted “experts” again) from King and Messiah as Son of God: Divine, Human, and Angelic Messianic Figures in Biblical and Related Literature (2008):
the third clause of John 1:1 May be translated either “the word was God” or “the word was a god.” Justin Martyr apparently understood the passage the latter way. … It is not precisely clear what Casey means by [describing Jesus as] “a fully divine being” here. If he means something like the second person of the trinity, it is doubtful that John 1 supports such a view. 175, 176
Wisdom was portrayed as God’s first creature in Prov 8:22-23 and Sir 24:9. 178
The identification [of Jesus with “the word” in John’s prologue] implies that Jesus is pre-existent and divine in the sense of being an emanation of God or being “a god”. 181
The term “son of God”, however, is elaborated so that Jesus is portrayed as a pre-existent, heavenly messiah. He is son of God in a unique way as “the only-begotten god.” 186
In the Gospel he [Jesus] is either an emanation of God or God’s first creature, namely, the only begotten god. In Revelation, the evidence suggests that he is God’s first creature, namely the principal angel. 203
Wonderment

aqwsed12345 addressing Earnest: It is quite clear what Arians do, they take one of the least likely meanings of the word, and then interpret this least likely meaning of that meaning in the least likely way, which is excluded by other statements in Scripture.
Strange, this is the same impression I got from your methodology in your insistence that archē and prōtotokos can only mean "beginner" and "preeminent" correspondingly.
Yet, when I go to a Greek Concordance to check the customary usage of archē , I find that archē in the genitive construction (of) has a passive meaning of "beginning" about 75% of its total usage, denoting beginning, start, or first part of something. Thus, having Christ as "the beginning of the creation by God" (Rev 3.14) would indicate that Christ was part of the created acts of God. The creation is of God, not Christ's. Other minority usage of archē do not indicate that Christ is the sole creator of the universe. This indicates that some individuals are opting to use "one of the least likely meanings of the word, and then interpret this least likely meaning of that meaning in the least likely way, which is excluded by other statements in Scripture."
With prōtotokos in view, I find that the most common meaning of the term is of someone "born first in time" (i.e., temporal priority) used throughout Scripture. (It occurs 130 times in the LXX and 8 times in the NT.) It literally means: “firstborn, earliest born, eldest.” (Analytical Lexicon of New Testament Greek, Robinson & House) = "first-born" - NASB.
In a minority of cases, it has a figurative sense of: ‘foremost’; 'most excellent’; or ‘dearest one,’ as in: Exodus 4:22, Ps 89.27, Jer 31.9. Some add the meaning of 'preeminent‘ to this. But get this: In relation to prōtotokos, everyone listed in the Bible as foremost or dearest one are creatures, not "creators" or "eternal." If Jesus was not created as claimed, he would be the only exception in the Bible on the subject of the Greek term usage. This means that an individual who chooses to use the argument that "first-born of all creation" can only mean "preeminent over all creatures" is falling victim to using "one of the least likely meanings of the word, and then interpret this least likely meaning of that meaning in the least likely way, which is excluded by other statements in Scripture."
aqwsed12345 addressing Earnest:
Just read John 1:1a with understanding, "in the beginning was the Word,"... now say it loudly: "in the beginning ... was", and then repeat WAS, WAS, WAS, until the message gets through your mind.
Aren't you "making a mountain out of a molehill"? Since when does a simple usage of the verb "was" prove unequivocably that Jesus is eternal, just by linking it to the phrase "in the beginning"?
In John 8.44. we read of the Devil: "He was a murderer from the beginning." (KJV)
There you have it. "The Devil is eternal," "he wasn't created," that is, if we go by your reasoning from John 1.1.
Gen 1.1 tells us (KJV): "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void." The verb "was" is being linked to "the beginning." Was the earth eternal?
Gen 10:9: "[Nimrod] was a mighty hunter before the LORD." Of Nimrod, we are told he was mighty before the Lord in the early days. Was Nimrod without a beginning?
Should we conclude that the Devil, heaven, earth, and Nimrod were all eternal? It would be immature on my part to make such a case in an effort to convince others of their eternity. Context is King!
What about the context of the Gospel of John? Was it written to sway others that Christ was God eternal?
No! The Gospel of John was written "that [we] may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and because of believing, you may have life by means of his name." (20.31) Anything else is just philosophy!
aqwsed12345
slimboyfat
"How do you know what went on inside Jerome’s head? Where’s your evidence?"
For example, from the writings of Jerome? Because I - unlike you - if I want to know what an ancient author thought, I first read his writing, not the opinion of a contemporary author about what he thinks he thought. By the very end of the 4th century, the Arian threat was not significant in the core area of the Roman Empire, as the Arian movements were pushed out to Spain and the Goths (I have already spoken about Wulfila's mistranslation of Philippians 2:6).
Jerome wrote a Prologue to each book of the Holy Scriptures, where he explained his position on its canonicity, the available basic text, and possible translation difficulties. He did not receive, nor would he have received, any instructions as to what theological aspects he should comply with during the translation. His opponent was precisely the school of thought that regarded the Septuagint as inspired, and wanted to see God's providence behind its already obvious mistranslations. Or, for example, Augustine was worried about practical church political considerations, it is indicated that he would cause a break between the Latin West and the Greek Church of the East.
Direct sources about this are still available today, and there is no mention of theological biases anywhere, especially those that would have affected Christology, or the Arian controversy. And I repeat: even the WTS spoke highly of Jerome's work and did not accuse him of theological bias. If you have any direct source that Jerome took into account aspects related to the Arian debate during his work on Bible translation, then bring it up!
I would like to note that this is where the difference between our two positions comes into play. The apostles received the Holy Spirit (Jn 20:22), and the Holy Spirit leads the Church (Jn 16:13, 1Jn 2:27). The Holy Spirit was passed on by the laying on of hands by the apostles (Acts 8:14-17, Acts 14:23, Acts 19:5-6, Hebrews 6:1-2, 1 Tim 4:14, 1 Tim 5:22).
Now, if the true Church has disappeared, then the Holy Spirit has also disappeared, or maybe the Holy Spirit was poured out separately for Russel. Or which successor of the apostle laid his hand on him?
And only the one in whom the Holy Spirit works can speak the truth, and this is only possible if the successors of the apostles communicated the Holy Spirit to him through the laying on of hands.
I would focus on Jesus' promise in Matthew 16:18, which excludes the disappearance of God's church for 1800-1900 years, and the fact is that there is no data to suggest that the theology of the early Christians was even remotely similar to today's JWs. See also Mt 18:17, Mt 23:2-3, Mt 28:20, Rom 3:3-4, 1Tim 3:15, 2Tim 2:13.
If the JW conspiracy theory about the "great apostasy", and the removal of the Tetragrammaton from the New Testament etc. were true, then the whole of Christianity is a worthless.
"I’m not saying that Jerome definitely removed “created” from Prov. 8.22 for theological reasons, even though the source you cited said it was motivated by Arianism"
Which of source maintains that Jerome translate 'qanani' as "possedit" in order to prevent Arianisms?
"and even though Jerome complained the world “groaned in astonishment to find itself Arian” in 360 CE."
I let you look after when did Jerome start to translate the Book of Proverbs from Hebrew to Latin. A hint: not in 360. Furthermore, where does Jerome's complaint in 360 relate to the fact that he was guided by this aspect when translating the book of Proverbs?
"You say qana shouldn’t be translated “created”, yet experts in Hebrew do translate it as “created”, including Jewish scholars such as Robert Alter. How are we supposed to judge the situation? Hebrew scholars are wrong and aqwsed12345 is right? On what basis?"
You are funny, at least :-) So it's me and only me against the whole scientific consensus, oh really?. I can play also the same: Who should we trust, Robert Alter or Philo of Alexandria, Aquila, Theodotion, Symmachus, Jerome and the consensus of the Church of two millenia?
But it's not even like that. I would be happy to ask any of your sources (like the counter-WTS apologists asked George Howard) to clarify their views. Namely, a Hebrew word that has many nuances (Semitic languages are quite compact), and you have to select a word from it during the Bible translation, or you have to use a complete circumscription. Okay, let's assume that linguistically it is not inherently acceptable, but even desirable to translate the Hebrew 'qanah' here with the English verb 'to create', although by definition and necessarily the shades of meaning of this English word will not cover the Hebrew verb "qanah". Can you clarify what you mean by that? Is it then possible to build a doctrine on this English word?
Or, specifically, the question I would like to ask any Hebraist, including your sources:
1. Let's put aside those principles adopted during biblical exegesis, that e.g. it is necessary to take into account the genre of the given biblical book (that you cannot base a doctrine on a poetic book), its place in the revelation, and the Christian principle (which the JWs completely reject) that the person of Jesus and the gospel are the center of the revelation , so in the event of a controversial question, the New Testament interpretation must guide the Old Testament.
2. Let us assume that the Wisdom of the book of Proverbs is not an allegory, but literally and one-to-one the Son/Logos revealed in the New Testament, so the statements made here regarding Wisdom are to be interpreted as straight doctrinal truths for him.
3. In this hypothetic case, the Hebrew sentence "YHWH qānānî rêšîṯ darkōw qeḏem mip̄'ālāw mê'āz" specifically grammatically contradictory and excludes, refutes the statement of the Nicene Creed about the Son that "gennethenta ek toú Patrós ..., gennethenta, ou poiithenta"? Really? Yes or no?
Let's continue...
So according to Adela Yarbro Collins, Justin Martyr professed the the Son was "a lesser god", or demigod (even archangel Michael), just like later Arians and JWs do. Unfortunately, Adela Yarbro Collins does not indicate which of Justin's statements she based this opinion on, so it remains a mystery. To me, what Justin wrote personally seems more relevant than Adela Yarbro Collins' uncorroborated opinion of what she thinks Justin really thought. Here you can find some direct quotes from Justin, where you can read directly what he actually wrote.
https://www.bible.ca/H-trinity.htm
Journeyman

Ok, I'll bite for just one more time. Let's forget the academics and other human philosophies for a second (since they ultimately boil down to "he said... she said" debates in the end).
At 1 Corinthians 15, Paul speaks of the importance of the resurrection of the Christ, of the first Adam and "the last Adam", and of fleshly and spiritual bodies and how God chooses to clothe ones in one body or the other as it pleases him.
For anyone rejecting the view of Jesus as a completely separate being from the Father, how could Jesus become an equivalent of Adam if he is co-eternal and part of an immutable Godhead?
Adam was non-existent before being created from the dust. He had before him the risk of dying and ceasing to exist again (returning to dust) if he failed God and chose to sin (which he did).
If Jesus has always existed as a part of a Godhead, he could not possibly be a parallel to Adam. How could his test in the flesh work? If he had failed by choosing to sin and then died in the flesh, he would simply have returned to being that part of the Godhead (or possibly even continued to be so in one form while also still in the flesh - depending on one's interpretation of how this Godhead is supposed to be).
However, because he was, in fact, a separate being, created by the Father first in spirit form, then transformed by the Father into flesh, his failure could have had the same consequences as that of Adam's - complete destruction. It also makes his success more directly relatable to all humankind (1 Peter 2:21), proving that they too could choose to be obedient if raised back to the same perfect state as Adam (and Jesus in the flesh) had been.
The parallel and symbolic importance is clear:
The first Adam was a physical created son of God who proved unfaithful as a father to mankind and thus condemned his offspring to death, the "last Adam" (Jesus) a spiritual created son of God who then took on the same fleshly mantle but who proved it was possible to be faithful while in the flesh, and also thus became the adoptive father to all whom Adam had condemned to death (and hence became the promised "Eternal Father" - Isaiah 9:6 - often confused with God).
Indeed, at death Jesus ceased to exist, being "among the dead" until the "third day" (Luke 24:21,46; John 20:9), until his Father raised him up (John 10:17,18; Acts 2:24,32) back to the flesh (John 20:17), then later he returned to the spirit world (Luke 24:51, Acts 1:9). How could he be "among the dead" if he was a co-eternal part of a Godhead?
aqwsed12345
Wonderment
Both 'archē' and 'prōtotokos' are honorific titles for the Son. He himself is the 'archē' and he himself is the 'prōtotokos'. When he uses the same words in the context of "the whole creation" with a genetive, it means the same as, when these titles stands alone, when the NT states that he is the 'archē' and the 'prōtotokos'. The expression 'firstborn' was even correctly interpreted by WTS in another context:
„David, who was the youngest son of Jesses, was called by Jehovah the "first-born," due to Jehovah’s elevation of David to the preeminent position in God's chosen nation.”
(Aid to Bible Understanding, 1971, 584)
So if according even to your boss, in a biblical context, the firstborn does not mean the first born in the order, but the pre-eminent heir, then why would it mean anything else in Col 1:15? Just because then you would lose your one-liners?
And the term 'archē' cannot be separated from the connotation it created in the given age, in the given Hellenic world. The Greek philosophers called 'archē' the primordial principle, the source of the created world, the principle from which the world originates. You cannot transfer this connotation to the English term "beginning". This is not a "beginner in time", since He is the BEGINNING himself, the 'archē', the source of creation. This does not make him a creature, on the contrary. Another meaning is: 'ruler'.
"Since when does a simple usage of the verb "was" prove unequivocablly that Jesus is eternal, just by linking it to the phrase "in the beginning"?"
Not by itself from the word "was", but because the prologue of John's Gospel clearly speaks of "the beginning" in the absolute sense, while this cannot be said about the John 8:44 you quoted. John's prologue is clearly about the absolute beginning, since John begins his gospel in a way that is clearly rhymes with the words of the books of Genesis. According to the Septuagint, Genesis 1:1 begins "En archē...", and John 1:1a also harmonizes with these exact words. And in John 8:44 you quote, it says "ēn ap' archēs". No harmony.
Also, it makes "was" without further statement, not in all your other examples. In the begginning. He. Was. Full stop. Thus already existed in the beginning in absolute sence. So John 1:1a just proves that the Logos already in the absolute sense of the beginning 'was', not 'came to be', not created, etc.
"Gen 1.1 tells us (KJV): "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void." The verb "was" is being linked to "the beginning." Was the earth eternal?"
Non sequitur. There it is quite clear that "was" is used after creation. So the Earth used to be 'without form, and void'. Your other example of Gen 10:9 is even more stupid.
The fact that John 20:31 calls Chirst "Son of the God" since when excludes that John 1:1a declares that the Son existed in the beginning?
The other interesting fact that Jesus' words in John 8:58 stongly echoes God's name in Exodus 3:14 (LXX), so the NWT had to distort it :)
The other JW "argument" is that the simply "theos" without article can only be a lesser god, and only "ho theos" can mean truly God (which I don't know where they got it from), then why does Thomas call Jesus "ho theos", according to John 20:28?
I ask you too:
- Where does the Bible declare that the Son was created, or that he is a creature? Nowhere.
- On the contrary: that he was born / begotten.
- Where does the Bible declare that the Son is an angel? Nowhere.
- On the contrary, He is superior to all the angels (Hebrews 1)
- Where does the Bible declare that Son is the same as archangel Michael? Nowehere.
- The difference between Jesus and Michael is also well illustrated by their relationship with Satan: the apostle Jude writes that Michael "did not dare" to bring condemnation/judgment on Satan (Jude 9; cf. 2 Peter 2:11), but Jesus pronounced a clear judgment on him (Jn 16:11; cf. John 5:22, 27; 1 John 3:8; Col 2:15).
- Does it declare the Son is LORD and GOD? Yes, in many places.
- Where does the Bible say that the Son had a beginning in time, and there was a time when he didn't exist? Nowhere.
- On the contrary, the Bible writes that even time, the ages (aions), were created by him and in the beginning He already "was".
aqwsed12345

Journeyman
Where does the Bible say that the Jesus is "a completely separate being from the Father"?
First of all, how dare you to us the word "being"? PHILOSOPHY!!! ;-)
Of course they are separate persons, but I can't find where does the Bible declare them "completely separate beings". I read in the Bible that the Father and the Son are "one", which of course had to be quickly rewritten in the NWT to say that they are only "in agreement". The fact that it is a distortion of the Bible is one thing, but why would it be considered blasphemy by the Jews? Every person who takes their faith seriously feels that they are "in agreement" with God, so it's not a big deal to say so.
"If Jesus has always existed as a part of a Godhead, he could not possibly be a parallel to Adam."
Only a human can be paralleled with Adam, so this parallel says nothing about what the Son already was from the beginning, before his incarnation. Likewise, your Michael Jesus in heaven could not be compared to Adam without his incarnation. Statements about the human nature of Jesus can in no way be contrasted with his divinity.
By the way, the theology of the WTS about redemption is completely incorrect. Jesus' sacrifice is not equivalent to Adam's sin. They also falsiely put this into to NWT 1Tim 2:6. The original term (antilutron = ransom) only appears here in the New Testament and is just one of many similar expressions that describe the same redemption (Mt 20:28 lutron, Eph 1:14 apolutrosis, etc.). It cannot be claimed that a ransom - in the Bible or in the world - must necessarily be of equal value. Secondly, according to the Bible, God wants to give more than a perfect human life, even if this seems unfair in the eyes of the WTS. According to Paul (Rom 5:12-21), Adam was indeed a precursor to Jesus at a certain point: as sin entered the world through Adam and spread to everyone, so righteousness entered the world through Jesus and was given to every believer (see 5:18-19). However, he continues: "But the gift is not like the trespass (...) God's grace and the gift abounded all the more (...) where sin increased, grace abounded all the more" (5:15-16,20).
"Indeed, at death Jesus ceased to exist..."
According to the WTS yep, in the Bible I find nowhere that with his death Jesus "ceased to exist." According to the Apostolic Creed of the 1st century He "descended into the underworld" (hades), within that to Abraham's bosom. Cf. Matthew 12:40, Acts 2:24, Acts 2:31, Eph 4:9, Col 1:18, 1 Peter 3:18-19, 1Peter 4:6.
"..until his Father raised him up..."
The Bible indicates that all three Persons of the Trinity were involved in Jesus’ resurrection. Galatians 1:1 says that the Father raised Jesus from the dead. First Peter 3:18 says that the Spirit raised Jesus from the dead (see also Romans 1:4, and note that Romans 8:11 clearly says that God will resurrect believers “through His Spirit”). And in John 2:19 Jesus predicts that He will raise Himself from the dead (see also John 10:18). So, when we answer the question of who resurrected Jesus, we can say God did. And by that we can mean it was the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
“I lay down my life—only to take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again.”
Q.E.D.
"How could he be "among the dead" if he was a co-eternal part of a Godhead?"
So that he took on his human nature with the incarnation and will no longer put it down. Ask your bosses this question instead: how could he be "among the dead" if he completely ceased to be a human with his death, and was not actually resurrected, but was recreated, made back simply into an angel?
slimboyfat

This is the passage from Justin Martyr that Adela Yarbro Collins cites in a footnote:
I shall attempt to persuade you, since you have understood the Scriptures, [of the truth] of what I say, that there is, and that there is said to be, another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things; who is also called an Angel, because He announces to men whatsoever the Maker of all things— above whom there is no other God — wishes to announce to them. Dialogue with Trypho 56
aqwsed12345

slimboyfat
Another self goal. Shouldn't you finally take my advice and throw out the books of liberal Protestants, skeptical-secular Bible criticists, who want to tell you what the early Church actually believed, and what Church Fathers really thought? Why don't you pick it up and read directly what they wrote?
I replied again, "If I could not have proved to you from the Scriptures that one of those three is God, and is called Angel *, because, as I already said, He brings messages to those to whom God the Maker of all things wishes [messages to be brought], then in regard to Him who appeared to Abraham on earth in human form in like manner as the two angels who came with Him, and who was God even before the creation of the world, it were reasonable for you to entertain the same belief as is entertained by the whole of your nation."
" ὃς καὶ ἄγγελος καλεῖται, διὰ τὸ ἀγγέλλειν τοῖς ἀνθρώποις ὅσαπερ βούλεται αὐτοῖς ἀγγεῖλαι ὁ τῶν ὅλων ποιητής"
Footnote: Or, "Messenger." In the various passages in which Justin assigns the reason for Christ being called angel or messenger, Justin uses also the verb ἀγγέλλω, to convey messages, to announce. The similarity between ἄγγελος and ἀγγέλλω cannot be retained in English, and therefore the point of Justin's remarks is lost to the English reader.
Justin did not say "angel" in the JW's Michael-Jesus sense at all. The Hebrew malʼākh and the Greek angelos simply mean "messenger", in a general sense. Here it's especially clear that Justin used the general meaning of angelos: He is called angelos, BECAUSE He announces... If Adela Yarbro Collins wasn't aware of this general sense of the word angelos, then that says a lot about the credibility of your soo "modern and respected" scholars.
Do you even know how many times Justin called Jesus God in the Dialogue?

Colossian 1:16 - "all OTHER things"

Share this