i have never understood the watchtower's explanation of the rich man and lazarus story jesus told in luke 16. of course, they don't believe jesus is talking about what happens in an "afterlife" after people die.. but from the watchtower's point of view:.
1. who are the five brothers?.
2. why can't lazarus go witness to them?
Anony Mous
Deut 32:22, Is 33:11.14, Is 66:24, Dan 12:2, Psalm 21:10, Mt 8,12; Mt 25:41, Mt 25:46, Mt 3,12; Mk 9:43-49, Lk 3,16-17, Lk 13:28, Rom 2,6-9, 2Tess 1:6-9, 2Pt 2:4, Rev 14:11, Rev 20,10.15
Salmond, Stewart (1903). The Christian Doctrine of Immortality.
due to their apparent theological bias, the watchtower shamelessly inserts the word "other" in order to "make room" for their own idea that jesus is also a created being.
it is clear that jehovah's witnesses try to avoid having to admit that christ created everything because "the one who constructed all things is god" (hebrews 3:4).
instead, the society teaches that "christ was the only one created by god," and that then he "created everything else with jehovah.
"The highlighted words are from Greek philosophy."
It's not an argument, it's just a bluff that you can't give a meaningful answer.
There are many terms known and used in Greek philosophy used in the NT terminology, such as: pleroma, logos, arkhe, hypostasis, physis, etc. So the apostles were not at all averse to the use of terms and concepts that had their own precedents and parallels in Greek philosophy as well, so it's completely justified.
We know that Paul willingly boarded a ship dedicated to Castor and Pollux, or that a Christian person in the Bible bore the names Fortunatus or Mercurius. But there is even more elaborate: Paul takes his analogy from the Mithraic cult when talking about shedding the old man and putting on the new man. Paul approvingly quotes a verse ("in Him we live and move and exist") that originally addressed Zeus. He even calls a Cretan poet, Epimenides, a prophet.
We know that these names and motifs come from paganism, and if you were right, Christians should have thrown them away like hot iron. Apostles used the pagans' education in this sense, at least, and sometimes lived with their customs and phrases. Thus, they did not hesitate to call Jesus "Savior", although Roman emperors and earlier pagan rulers used it as a decorative title. Similarly, the Kyrios, which was applied to Jesus in the first, most concise Christian creeds, was the emperor's title of honor. But Paul spoke of the victor's wreath, which was part of the pagan religious elements woven into the Olympic Games, or the winner's palm, which also symbolized eternity with pagan overtones.
"By contrast, in biblical language Jesus is, “the firstborn of all creation” (Col 1.15), “the beginning of the creation of God” (Rev 3.14)"
Neither text proves what you reads into it. This interpretation is, to put it mildly, improbable, and the other statements of Scripture that the Son was "begotten" and already "was" in the beginning, even though excludes this interpretation, not to mention the countless statements that cannot be applied to creatures. The term firstborn in biblical context doesn't mean "first in order", but pre-eminent heir. In the contemporary context, prōtotokos here is a title, a dignified name, roughly meaning "distinguished, pre-eminent heir". Just as WTS literure can understand it well in other 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 the title "firstborn" actually means "preeminent position", why would "preeminent of all creation" mean the "first creature"?
The fact that "the arche of God's creation" in the given Hellenic cultural-linguistic environment did not mean at all that he was the "first created being", but rather the primordial, elementary principle, active cause, orign, etc. of creation. This was the meaning of the word "arkhe" in the original language, which the English word "beginning" cannot accurately reflect. You can check how many times and senses does the NT uses this word int the Concordance.
“I live because of the Father” (John 6.57)"
That also doesn't refute the Nicene theology, which also holds this: the Son is generated from the Father, but not made, not by creation, but - as the Scripture says - begotten, born, and "before" the creation of the aions.
"“the Lord created me” (Prov 8.22 in the Jewish Publication Society translation, Robert Alter’s translation, the NRSV, and the LXX as quoted and accepted by all the early Christian fathers, including Athanasius)."
Whoever translates it so, whoever "accepts" this, it's still a mistranslation. It's qanah in the Hebrew text, not bara. And only the original language text is inspired, a translation is not. Athanasius did not "accept" this, just didn't addressed the issue, since he wasn't a Hebraist, nor a Bible translator. And still could refute Arianism.
"You have not given any good reason why these scriptures don’t simply mean what they say"
I have: these text doesn't mean what they "mean" in your mind. I've proven that firstborn doesn't mean first created, from WTS publications I could prove this is a title means "pre-eminent", and arkhe also doesn't mean "first in order or time", and "beginner", but the originating, promordial principle. He doesn't have beginning, he is THE beginning, the arkhe himself.
"any reason why Origen did not mean what he said when he called Jesus the “most ancient of all the works of creation”."
I have: you can look up yourself that Origen was clearly Trinitarian, although sometimes with imprecise wording, but professed that the Son is truly God, and begotten of the same substance of the Father. So you are doing a fallcy quoting out of context. Your translation is also misleading, since he doesn't said He was the first created being, but practically that he is older than demiurges. Origen's words do not at all testify to an Arian consensus in Christology before the 4th century. You also received links where this is presented in detail, but then again for your pleasure:
"John Ziesler said that Jesus is distinct from God and subordinate to him."
Who cares what John Ziesler said or thought? What authority does he have? Nicene theology also accepts that Jesus is distinct from God the Father, and again: Self-subordination doesn't imply inferiorness in substance, that's why it's also necessary to distinguish if we are talking about the ontological, or about economical relationship of the Father and the Son. And after Incarnation the Son is also fully human, and as human of course inferior to God.
"How much clearer could he have been? How can you say that I am not quoting him fairly?"
Because you're doing a WTS-style 'quote collection", "quote mining", without any actual research, and you're throwing quotes at me as authorities. I asked you many times to stop it, since it completely against the scientific methodology and annoying as well.
Raymond Franz describes well that the job of many in Bethel is to visit libraries and look for half-sentences that can be taken out of lexicons. I don't care how many quotes you put in front of me to see, "even" Dr. John Smith and Dr. Franz Williams said. This is a misleading WTS propaganda tactic to frame their interpretation as "scientific consensus". There is a good chance that they did not think in the first place what the WTS wants to put into their mouths, that the early Christians professed a WTS Christology. If you asked them that question, you would get some interesting answers. They write cautious opinions, conclusions, and hypotheses without concrete evidence. The point is
Nowhere does the Bible call the Son a created being (ktistheis), a creature (ktisma) or the first creature (protoktisma or protoktisis). You more specifically, your secondary sources could not name a single early Christian source that specifically and explicitly states that the Son is "the first created being" and that "the Son is the Archangel".
We can see the opposite countless times in early Christian literature, from which it follows that they professed essentially the same content of faith as what was recorded in the Nicene Creed, so there was no alleged "great apostasy", which Jesus' words in Matthew 16:18 exclude anyway. There was no doctrinal break in the true church, false teaching did not take over. See also Mt 23:2-3, Mt 28:20, Rom 3:3-4, 1 Tim 3:15, 2 Tim 2:13.
"It is true that Jehovah’s Witnesses have described Jesus as an angel, but a fair representation of their teaching would acknowledge that they far more often they emphasise that Jesus is unique and superior to the angels because he is the “only begotten Son”."
Yep, but Hebrews 1 clearly proves that the Son is superior to "all the angels", so he cannot be one of them in any sense at all. An archangel is still just an angel, as the archbishop is also a bishop. Maybe the NWT forgot to add the word "other" here. If he cannot be an angel, since he is superior to "all of them", then what is Him? The Scriptures answers clearly: He is Lord, and truly God, not in a sense He is the same (in person) as the God the Father, but in the sense He is the eikon and kharakter of the Father's hypostasis. has the fullness (pleroma) of divinity (theotes, and not theiotes). That's the very same thing, what the Nicene creed contains, when it's says He is homoousios with the Father.
the so called apostates of first century later became the catholic church.
these apostates like saint athanasius, theologian, ecclesiastical statesman, and egyptian national leader decided which books would be part of the bible.
we are now following what they decided.
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 By the way, which one is for today's JWs? The current "light"?
In the first place, why did the apostles establish churches, congregations, if true Christianity was destined to disappear in a few decades for almost two thousand years?
Why didn't the apostles write that everyone should wait for 1914, because what we are doing now is irrelevant anyway.
See also Mt 23:2-3, Mt 28:20, Rom 3:3-4, 1 Tim 3:15, 2 Tim 2:13.
However, despite all the problems, the Christian church could not cease for 1800-1900 years, because according to Christ, even the forces of hell cannot take over it (Mt 16:18, Jude 24-25, cf. Eph 5:25-32). So who lied: Jesus or the Watchtower? The New Testament also writes about the need for continuous protection of the faith (Jude 3), not about a complete disintegration after the 1st century. 2Thesss 2:3 does not mean "great apostasy" in JW sense, but defection, revolt, departure (without details), and then the Antichrist also appears, who sits in the temple of God, deifies himself, etc. None of this has happened yet.
Check:
This is a false ecclesiastical ideal, a church without history
With the ahistorical view of the church in the Protestant-background separatist communities it is almost dogmatic. The supporters of this view think of the time before the formation of their own communities as if it were not the history of the universal church, but "only the history of the Catholic Church." They see that in the history of "the Church," between the first great century and their movement born in the 19th century, there is only a long pause. By "church," they exclusively mean their own community, and in the pages of church history, they only want to recognize "true Christianity" in those communities or individuals who meet their doctrinal criteria, so their reference has a precedential value. This is the approach, for example, of the 19th-century American restorationist movement-grown "non-denominational" churches, the adventist and new apostolic churches with the identity of the "church of the end times," and the Mormon religion. Although they all see the essence of restoration differently, they all believe that the "original" Christianity of the first century has risen in them.
First of all, however, Christ claimed that he himself is building his church, and the gates of hell shall not overcome, prevail against it (Mt 16:18). Whoever believes that the true Christian church practically ceased to exist for centuries (meaning that the forces did indeed overcome), with this – intentionally or unintentionally – also claims that Jesus did not keep this promise, but lied. His church was not only wounded and ailing for centuries, but had to be exhumed after many centuries.
The glorious and miserable sides of church history, as well as its exemplary but greatly mistaken figures, are as much the property of Protestants as they are of Catholics and Orthodox – and vice versa. Anyone who has never read from ancient and medieval Christian teachers does not know what they are missing, even if they are a fervent Protestant.
Thirdly, this selective filtering of the past has only served to foster denominational arrogance. If all the sins of the past belong to the Catholics, it is easy to distance ourselves from them and thus feel better and superior – but isn't this the Pharisaic logic (cf. Lk 18:9-14)? The past of the church is not there for us to forget or to pick and choose from what we like to identify with, but to learn from every page – just like from the Old Testament or from the good and bad days of our own spiritual life.
The "apostasia" mentioned in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 will not occur a few decades after the apostles, but according to Lk 18:8, it will only happen immediately before the second coming of Jesus.
THE ALLEGED “APOSTASY” OF CHRISTENDOM
A recent Watchtower magazine expounds the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ view that orthodox Christianity (“Christendom”) underwent a great apostasy after the death of the apostles: “The death of the apostles removed a restraining influence, allowing a widespread apostasy to develop. (2 Thessalonians 2:7, 8) An organization grew up that unworthily professed to be God’s congregation. It falsely claimed to be the holy nation anointed with God’s spirit to rule with Jesus.” (The Watchtower, 15 June 1992, 19.)
The Witnesses believe that the influx of pagan converts brought in doctrines and concepts from Greek philosophy and religion which were then integrated into the Christian faith, resulting in such “false” teachings as the Trinity, the deity of Christ, the immortality of the soul, and eternal punishment in hell. According to the Watchtower Society, Christendom lived in darkness for 18 centuries after this apostasy. Yet they believe there were always individuals who were faithful to divine truth — a truth more fully unveiled when their founder, Charles Russell, began to study the Bible in earnest in the 1870s. To support this view, Watchtower literature regularly cites passages from the church fathers to demonstrate that, even after the apostasy, there were some who believed as Jehovah’s Witnesses do today.
In light of this line of argumentation, it is worthwhile to examine the writings of the early church fathers. If indeed such writings reveal that early Christians believed as Jehovah’s Witnesses do today, then surely a reevaluation of orthodox Christian teachings is needed. If these writings fail to support Watchtower claims, however, then one must conclude that Jehovah’s Witnesses represent a new religious tradition of the late 19th century, with no historical connection to apostolic Christianity.
The body of literature of the postapostolic church is substantial, and a full review would be outside of the scope of a limited survey such as this. The most critical period is that prior to the Council of Nicea in A.D. 325, because it is historically closest to the apostles.
Did a Great Apostasy Occur?
Was the true faith taught by the apostles lost or corrupted within the first generation after the apostles? If so, then the true faith was not successfully transmitted anywhere in the evangelized world of the first and second centuries — including churches established by the apostles, with leadership appointed personally by them. A “great apostasy” would require an extraordinary event: the simultaneous loss of faith by an entire generation of Christians throughout the civilized world. Included in this apostasy would be disciples of the apostles themselves, as well as those who witnessed the thousands of martyrs who, just a short time previously, refused to deny Christ, either explicitly or by worshiping pagan gods.
A great apostasy, wherein the doctrines of Greek pagan philosophy replaced apostolic teaching, would most likely have begun in areas where the church was accepting a large number of converts with backgrounds in Greek religion and philosophy, such as Alexandria, Egypt. The prominent western churches established directly by the apostles, such as those in Rome and Antioch, would likely have fallen into heresy more slowly. But the historical facts do not support this (or any other) scenario of a “great apostasy.” Had a great apostasy begun immediately after the death of the apostles, as the Watchtower claims, a mixture of “true Christianity” (i.e., Watchtower–type teachings) and “pagan heresy” (i.e., orthodox Christian teachings) would be discernible in the literature of the early church, which was widespread in its geographical points of origin.
Is it possible that all the writings of the followers of the “true faith” were completely destroyed by the paganized church? Such a view is highly improbable. Many manuscripts have survived from Gnosticism (a widespread religious movement of this period which combined elements of Greek paganism and eastern mystery religions), despite several centuries of concerted attack and condemnation by the church. Yet not a single document exists pointing to a group who believed as the Jehovah’s Witnesses do today.
The absence of such early “Watchtower” literature causes one to doubt the existence of the so-called “faithful and discrete servant class.” After all, the stated purpose of these 144,000 anointed servants in Jehovah’s plan is to provide “meat in due season” — that is, literature that imparts “accurate knowledge” about the Bible. If these early Jehovah’s Witnesses were true to the kingdom gospel, handed down to them by the apostles, they would have written sufficiently to provide the faithful with an understanding of the Scriptures. Keep in mind that the Watchtower Society teaches that the Scriptures cannot be properly understood without such aids. The Watchtower Society, while claiming to use the Bible alone, actually teaches that the Bible cannot be understood without the aid of the “meat in due season,” the literature provided by the Society — its interpretation of Scripture being the only valid one. Yet where is the Watchtower literature of the first and second centuries — or for that matter, of any century prior to the 1870s? Its absence is most telling, and highly damaging to the claim of a general apostasy with just a few of the dedicated faithful surviving.
Perhaps the most compelling argument against a universal early apostasy may be found in the commissioning and empowering of the apostles themselves. If a universal apostasy occurred immediately after the death of the apostles, we would have to judge the apostles as incompetent or negligent evangelists who utterly failed to accomplish Jesus’ commission to make disciples. Such an apostasy would reflect poorly on Jehovah God as well, whose “holy spirit” was unable to preserve His followers for even a single generation.
There is, therefore, no reason to believe that a great apostasy occurred following the death of the apostles, with the resulting loss of the “true” Christian faith for over 1800 years. This conclusion seems undeniable in view of the Great Commission, the power of the Holy Spirit, the absence of literary evidence for an alternative group of believers with a gospel similar to that preached by Jehovah’s Witnesses, and the implausibility of the required simultaneous loss of faith by an entire generation of geographically dispersed Christians.
i have never understood the watchtower's explanation of the rich man and lazarus story jesus told in luke 16. of course, they don't believe jesus is talking about what happens in an "afterlife" after people die.. but from the watchtower's point of view:.
1. who are the five brothers?.
2. why can't lazarus go witness to them?
Hades isn't "Catholic hell", hades is the underworld which cointained Abraham's bosom (limbus patrum) AND the place of the wicked, thus hell, gehenna in the OT.
due to their apparent theological bias, the watchtower shamelessly inserts the word "other" in order to "make room" for their own idea that jesus is also a created being.
it is clear that jehovah's witnesses try to avoid having to admit that christ created everything because "the one who constructed all things is god" (hebrews 3:4).
instead, the society teaches that "christ was the only one created by god," and that then he "created everything else with jehovah.
raymond frantz
"If Jesus wa[s] the Almighty there would be an "ὁ" before the word "θεὸς" [in John 1:1c] but there isn't which means that Jesus is just a small god."
Based on what? If John 1:1c said "ho theos en lo logos", that would mean the Logos is the same who was with (thus the Father) mentioned in John 1:1b (so sabellian modalism). That is not a proven stance, but just an invented theological bias that only "ho theos" is true and almight God, "theos" without an article must mean lesser "god", or demigod. There is no such rule, neither gramatically, nor logically. By the way the Son is also called "ho theos" in the NT, and the Father is also called simply "theos" without an article in the NT many times. According to the Eastern/Greek Orthodox Bible translation, John 1:1c "and the Word was {what} God {was}", the footnote for this verse explains the difficulty:
This second theos could also be translated 'divine' as the construction indicates "a qualitative sense for theos". The Word is not God in the sense that he is the same person as the theos mentioned in 1:1a; he is not God the Father (God absolutely as in common NT usage) or the Trinity. The point being made is that the Logos is of the same uncreated nature or essence as God the Father, with whom he eternally exists. This verse is echoed in the Nicene Creed: "God (qualitative or derivative) from God (personal, the Father), Light from Light, True God from True God… homoousion with the Father."
By the way, how do you reconcile with Isaiah 44:24 that a "small god" was involved in creation (which the NT states several times about the Son). Additionally Neh 9:6, Isa 44:24, 45:12, 48:13, Psalm 95:5-6.
due to their apparent theological bias, the watchtower shamelessly inserts the word "other" in order to "make room" for their own idea that jesus is also a created being.
it is clear that jehovah's witnesses try to avoid having to admit that christ created everything because "the one who constructed all things is god" (hebrews 3:4).
instead, the society teaches that "christ was the only one created by god," and that then he "created everything else with jehovah.
Self-subordination doesn't imply inferiorness in substance, that's why it's also necessary to distinguish if we are talking about the ontological, or about economical relationship of the Father and the Son.
You are misquoting authors the basically the same way the WTS did.
You quoted a couple of people who gave their own opinion, and as we can see, it was enough for me to find the Greek original of the references: no early Christian writer said "the Son is just an angel" or "the Son was made, he is a creature ", etc. The Holy Scriptures do not state this either, and as you can see, neither did the early Christian writers. How can you say that Christians before the Nicene Creed would have held a WTS Christology?
The Trinity is simply the summation and definition of the Scriptural statements that there is one God, but at the same time, as we can see, there is a plurality in it, since it declares about several persons being true God.
For the other position, the Arian definition, it is no coincidence that the falsification and deliberate mistranslation of the Holy Scriptures was necessary.
The Word is of course not God in the sense that he is the same person as God the Father, but he has the same quality (hence of the substance, has the fullness of deity), that's the Nicene definition. He is begotten from the Father before the aeons (which are also made through Him), and He is the eikon and kharakter of the Father's hypostasis. In Jesus, the fullness (pleroma) of "divinity" (theotes, not theiotes) resides bodily, not the fullness of the "divine quality", as the JWs falsely translated it.
The Philippians 2:6 is clearly mistranslated by the Arian Ulfias, and by the NWT. Existing in the morphē of God (has the Bible ever said that about any angel before?), and did not regard as "harpagmos" to BE (einai) equal (isa) with God. What does it mean not regarding/considering something as "harpagmos"? This expression can only be described as something that you cling to at all costs, by force, approx. as Gollum clings to the One Ring "my precious"). So he didn't cling, insist on his equality with God (which he already had), by continuing to stay in the morphē of God, BUT etc.
Ulfias rendered the part "equality with God" to be only "similar" with God. NWT is much worse, it completely distorts the meaing here.
due to their apparent theological bias, the watchtower shamelessly inserts the word "other" in order to "make room" for their own idea that jesus is also a created being.
it is clear that jehovah's witnesses try to avoid having to admit that christ created everything because "the one who constructed all things is god" (hebrews 3:4).
instead, the society teaches that "christ was the only one created by god," and that then he "created everything else with jehovah.
slimboyfat
Let's check your citation from the First Apology 21 of Justin Martyr:
"Τῷ δὲ καὶ τὸν λόγον, ὅ ἐστι πρῶτον γέννημα τοῦ θεοῦ, ἄνευ ἐπιμιξίας φάσκειν ἡμᾶς γεγεννῆσθαι..."
It was also a self goal, Justin doesn't say here, that the Logos was a creature at all! This text (proton gennēma tou theou) doesn't mean "first created" either, but the opposite: it means the "first-birth", "first begotten", or simply "firstborn" of God. It's terminology rather corresponds the Nicene Creed: "γεννηθέντα ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς" [gennēthenta ek tou Patros], "γεννηθέντα, οὐ ποιηθέντα" [gennēthenta, ou poiēthenta].
You should look up if there any early Christians who use use the verbs "ktízō", and even more so "poiéō" (or phrases formed from these) for the generation of the Son from the Father, and finally start to doubt the credibility of your sources.
I suggest you to read Newman’s book 'The Arians of the Fourth Century'.
due to their apparent theological bias, the watchtower shamelessly inserts the word "other" in order to "make room" for their own idea that jesus is also a created being.
it is clear that jehovah's witnesses try to avoid having to admit that christ created everything because "the one who constructed all things is god" (hebrews 3:4).
instead, the society teaches that "christ was the only one created by god," and that then he "created everything else with jehovah.
LOL, was it a serious question? No, I don't even have a far idea who John Locke was, ehh..
Was he a theologian? If we are talking about history of dogma development, church history, it would be logical, to look up for primary sources, and church historians about the issue.
due to their apparent theological bias, the watchtower shamelessly inserts the word "other" in order to "make room" for their own idea that jesus is also a created being.
it is clear that jehovah's witnesses try to avoid having to admit that christ created everything because "the one who constructed all things is god" (hebrews 3:4).
instead, the society teaches that "christ was the only one created by god," and that then he "created everything else with jehovah.
John Locke was not a church historian and his claim is completely baseless.
Of course, driven by various intentions, there are many well-known people who, largely without indicating specific historical facts, suggest similar things to what the JWs do today, that early Christianity, the Edict of Milan and the Council of Nicea was the true, uncorrupted church. And after that it went bad and became evil. Oh really? What about Jesus promise in Matthew 16:18? Even the gates hell cannot take over the Church of Jesus, but according to the JWs, it went totally "apostate" just in a few decades!
Restorianist tendencies are understandably disturbed by the abundance of early Christian literature, which clearly points out that the institution, faith, practice and traditions of the Church are essentially intact and consistent and unchanged for two thousand years. External sources also point to this.
These restorationists claim that the Christians of the apostolic age professed exactly what they do today. In other words, the faith of the churches of the apostolic age was just like that of today's JW (which one? according to the current "light"?). They considered Jesus as the archangel Michael, a creature, thought that Jesus was executed on a simple stake (cf. Alexamenos graffito), referred to God with the name Jehovah, only celebrated the Lord's Supper annually, and believed in a two-class system of salvation, and waited for the 1914 etc., when they were erased from history "just once".
Of course, this assumption is completely unfounded. You can cite quotes, but you won't be able to prove it, because it's a conteo.
Of course, the terminology used to describe the relationship and position of the Father and the Son changed and fluctuated. What words to use, hypostasis, physis, prosopon, persona, ousia etc.. The meaning and nuance of these expressions have also changed by time. This is normal, for example, in English, the word "gun" originally meant cannon, and then took on the general meaning of "firearm".
But it is clear that the earliest Christians declared that Jesus was God, eternal, etc. They didn't make excuses that "oh, he's not really God in the true sense, but really just an angel, namely Michael."
due to their apparent theological bias, the watchtower shamelessly inserts the word "other" in order to "make room" for their own idea that jesus is also a created being.
it is clear that jehovah's witnesses try to avoid having to admit that christ created everything because "the one who constructed all things is god" (hebrews 3:4).
instead, the society teaches that "christ was the only one created by god," and that then he "created everything else with jehovah.
So let's see the question specifically. There was a total of ONE textual variant, in this case the Codex Sinaiticus, which renders the ominous passage of 3:14 as "the arche of God's church", not "the beginning of God's creation". Well, if you look at the critical apparatus of NA28, it turns out that there were quite a few textual variants of the New Testament, in this case, okay, there was one in this one. And then you (or your selected source), what conclusion do you draw?
1. The orthodox Nicene school must have been "afraid" of the original version. This is completely baseless. The fact that "the arche of God's creation" in the given Hellenic cultural-linguistic environment did not mean at all that he was the "first created being", but rather the primordial principle,, etc. of creation. This was the meaning of the word "arkhe" in the original language, which the English word "beginning" cannot accurately reflect.
2. This text variant was a deliberate, purposeful forgery. And this is the usual JW conspiracy theory, about the evil corrupt church that was willing to falsify the Bible. It was certainly just as random a copyist's error as any of the textual variants seen in the footnotes of NA28. It is typical that he assumes some malicious intention behind everything.
3. There was a central church effort to falsify the Revelation 3:14. Well, the Church has never ordered this, no such church instruction, decree, synodal decision exists, no deliberate mistranslation has ever spread, and the Vulgate officially accepted by the Latin Church did not contain this, nor did the Patriarchal Text used by the Eastern Church.
Well, it is not the Catholics or Orthodox who deliberately falsify the Scriptures, but rather the Arians. The mistranslation of Proverbs 8:22 is not their fault, but an inadvertent mistake of the Jewish translators before Christ, but they persisted in it even after it was revealed that it was a mistranslation of the corresponding Hebrew verb ('qanah', not 'bara') in the appropriate place.
The Arians of the 4th century did not interpret John 1:1c as saying that the Word was only "a lesser god", a demigod, but interpreted this verse by putting a period, a full stop after «God was», and the end of the verse, "the Word" was placed as the beginning of sentence in the next verse.
The Gothic translation made by the Arian Wulfila (Ulfias) is a good example of this, Philippians 2:6, which correctly means "thought it not robbery [harpagmos] to be equal with God", the Gothic Arian Bible has "thought it not robbery to be similar (galeiko) with God".
The NWT is the worst of all these, which clearly and intentionally mistranslates a bunch of christologically relevant verses.
