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

by slimboyfat 70 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • aqwsed12345

    Arian Objections To The Trinity Refuted

    First, consider why, if it is such a fundamental teaching that the Son is a creature, this isn't explicitly stated anywhere? If you took the principle of 'sola Scriptura' seriously, which according to the standard Protestant interpretation of 1 Cor. 4:6 means “do not go beyond what is written,” then the fact that Scripture uses the terminology of begotten/born should suffice, and you should simply state that the Son is begotten/born of the Father, period.

    But no, JWs insist that He was created/made, and since such a statement does not exist in the Bible, JWs cling to three verses whose context isn't even about this. Of these, Prov. 8:22 and Col. 1:15 were already cited by the 4th-century Arians, but not Rev. 3:14, as no ancient Greek speaker interpreted it that way, even though they had the Revelation.

    Revelation 3:14 - Jesus Christ as the 'archē' of God’s creation

    The phrase "archē tēs ktiseōs" in Revelation 3:14 is mistranslated in the NWT as "the beginning of the creation by God." The correct translation, "the 'archē' of the creation OF God," indicates Christ as the source or origin of creation, not the first created being. The NWT's use of "by" instead of "of" is misleading. The Greek text does not support "hupo" (by), but rather "archē" denotes the origin or source, aligning with John 1:3 where all things were made through Him. It is also no coincidence that no one referred to Rev. 3:14 in the 4th century Arian debates, why? Because a native Greek speaker would never think of such nonsense, since all educated Greeks knew that the archē is the first principle from which creation flows, not the first piece of created things. I think that the phrase "arkhe of creation" in Rev. 3:14 means exactly the same as Colossians 1:16, since it Jesus the "arkhe", certainly because through him all things were created.

    "Archē" in Revelation 3:14 can mean "origin", "first principle" or "source," indicating that Christ is the foundational principle through which all creation came into being. This aligns with Colossians 1:16, which states that all things were created through Him.

    In Revelation 3:14, "arkhe" can indeed mean "beginning," but it should not be understood in the modern English way, but as "principle", hint: the English "principle" is a Latin loanword, Latin principium, which is how the Vulgate translates it in Rev. 3:14, as well as John 1:1a tc. The NT's usage in other contexts emphasizes a role of preeminence and authority, aligning with the interpretation of Christ as the "first principle" or "originator" of creation.

    According to the Thayer's Greek Lexicon ἀρχή (arkhe) can mean "beginning," "origin," "active cause," or "principle." The specific usage depends on the context, and in Revelation 3:14, it refers to Christ as the divine Logos, indicating He is the active cause or origin of creation, not a created being. The term "arkhe" in Revelation 3:14 should be understood in the context of Christ’s role as the origin and active cause of all creation (John 1:3, Col. 1:16). This interpretation aligns with the overall biblical narrative that portrays Jesus as divine and preexistent.

  • FragrantAddendum

    jesus showed us what showing love looked like

    he didn't act like a scribe or a pharisee

    "clothe yourselves with love"

    the context says some are "naked" and it's exposed

    because they are harping on the unimportant things while

    forgetting that

    god is love

  • peacefulpete

    Kaleb has made some enlightened comments. For us who grew up to believe that Christianity was originally about correct interpretation of proof texts, it probably sounds gibberish. However, the influence and attraction of Christianity was it's elevated sense of piety, community and comfort. Someone and something to believe in a world of disappointment and despair. The eventual, perhaps inevitable, orthodoxy set boundaries and limits for acceptance into this community as humans tend to do. Written texts carried with them a permanence that for some reduced the dynamic faith into a catechism.

    Modern literacy and literalism have spawned divisions anew as the texts themselves were the product of an earlier, less rigorous stage and lend themselves to selective perception.

  • FragrantAddendum

    scotus and justice?


    do you believe in the tooth fairy too?

  • Earnest

    slimboyfat, in your post above you quoted from the book King and Messiah as Son of God: Divine, Human, and Angelic Messianic Figures in Biblical and Related Literature (p.203) which says :

    In Revelation the evidence suggests that he is God’s first creature, namely, the principle angel.

    Part of that evidence is Revelation 10:1 which refers to "a strong angel descending from heaven, arrayed with a cloud, and a rainbow was upon his head, and his face was like the sun, and his legs were like pillars of fire", who had an opened scroll (cp. Revelation 5:5,9).

    Did the scribe of codex Sinaiticus understand that Revelation 10:1 referred to Jesus a.k.a. the Son of Man?

    Whereas the reading should be "and a rainbow was upon his head..." (και hη ιρις επι της κεφαλης αυτου...), the scribe of codex Sinaiticus changed this to read "and hair was on his head..." (καὶ hἡ θρὶξ ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς αὐτοῦ...).

    Juan Hernández writes regarding this (p.110), that
    It is likely that the replacement of ‘rainbow’ with ‘hair’ is a harmonization to Revelation [1:13-15], where the glorified Son of Man is also described as having ‘hair’, αἱ τρίχες. The fact that various characteristics of the Strong Angel already echo those of the Son of Man increases the likelihood that the change is meant to draw the two even closer. To this we might add that there was already an exegetical tradition in place that equated the two figures. Victorinus of Pettau (in the third century) and Tyconius (in the fourth) assert that the Strong Angel was in fact the Son of Man.
  • FragrantAddendum

    i think it's hilarious

    that anyone today would want to be associated

    with the catholic church

    considering they hid

    those manuscripts all those years

    talk about freakin hypocrites

    all the religious institutions are a bunch of frauds

    the ones who claim to be "god's channel" or "popus maximus" or some other type of benefactor

    are the worst blasphemers of god's name

    stupid pope wearing special robes like he's some kind of king

    same with gb and their fake fds title


  • slimboyfat

    Very interesting Earnest. I recall reading about that and thinking about the striking image of that angel in the Revelation book with the rainbow above his head and one foot on the land and one foot in the sea. I was surprised to find how many Trinitarian commentators also take this angel in Revelation 10 to be a description of Jesus, but presumably “not a created angel” - the usual formulation for acknowledging Jesus as an angel in scripture without admitting the implications of that.

    Interestingly, Charles Gieschen in his book Angelomorphic Christology (1998) lists the NT texts where Jesus is overtly identified as an angel as follows: Gal 4:14; Rev 10:1; 14:14–15; 20:1. He argues that it’s implied elsewhere too (that’s the whole point of his 400+ page book) but again probably with Trinitarian inflection in his case because I gather he’s an evangelical.

  • FragrantAddendum

    we know this messenger is jesus because he looks so much like his father

    with the rainbow

    and jesus is the one who received the scroll in the beginning of the revelation

    he was the only one who could open it

    also revelation shows it is at jesus' command the execution of jehovah's judgments depicted in revelation are carried out

    ("and when he cried out, the voices of the seven thunders spoke")

  • Blotty

    Could you provide a source for your claim that the catholic church hid fragments? (a reliable one)

  • Blotty

    Ill also add Johns primary usage of arkhe and his model seemingly based of Micah 5:2 LXX

    and that while the philosophical meaning is possible Strongs nor any other dictionary I can find lists an actaul scripture for such a meaning + in a genitive construction its always means "beginning"

    Bible commentators seem to agree

Share this