Until 1961, the Jehovah's Witnesses used the King James, yet they taught that Jesus Christ was created first by the Father, and was sent to create all (other) things.
The following are a few verses they used back then and today to indicate that Jesus is not God, and that he was created.
This question "Was Jesus created?" is a crucial and often contested question, one that demands precision, reverence, and a careful handling and understanding of the King James text. To be clear, the King James Bible does not explicitly state that Jesus was created or that He is not God. HOWEVER, some verses have been interpreted by certain groups as the Unitarians, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Arians, to suggest he is. So, let’s examine those verses and then weigh them against the broader testimony of Scripture.
These verses do not affirm that Jesus was created, but they are sometimes misinterpreted to suggest it:
Proverbs 8:22, “The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way…” Some claim this refers to Christ being created. But “possessed” (Hebrew qanani) means to be “appointed” or “begotten,” not created.
Colossians 1:15, “Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature.” “Firstborn” is taken to mean Jesus was the first created. But “firstborn” (prototokos) refers to rank and inheritance, not origin. See
Psalm 89:27, "Also, I will make him my firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth."
John 14:28, “My Father is greater than I.." This verse is used to argue Jesus is inferior to God. This refers to functional subordination during the incarnation, not inequality.
1 Corinthians 15:28, “And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all." This suggests Jesus is not equal to God. Again, this is about role and submission, not essence.
Mark 13:32, “But of that day and that hour knoweth no man… neither the Son…” This verse appears to imply that Jesus lacks divine omniscience. but all it does is reflect His voluntary limitation in His humanity, see Philippians 2:7, He "made himself of no reputation, and took upon himself the form of a servant, and was (emptied himself) and was made in the likeness of men:"
Now let's flip the coin over on the other side: The following verses from the King James directly contradict the idea that Jesus was created or is not God:
John 1:1, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
John 8:58, “Before Abraham was, I am.” (Echoes Exodus 3:14)
Colossians 1:16–17, “For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities (rulers) or powers, all things were created by him, and for him:"
Hebrews 1:8, “Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever…” (The Father's address to his Son)
Philippians 2:6, “Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.” Compare with 2 Corinthians 4:4, "Christ, "who is the image of God,"
Revelation 1:8, Jesus is speaking, “I am Alpha and Omega… saith the Lord… the Almighty.”
My final thought: There is no verse in the King James Bible that plainly teaches Jesus was created or that He is not divine. The few verses that are sometimes used to argue otherwise require interpretation that contradicts the broader witness of Scripture. The overwhelming testimony, from Genesis to Revelation, is that the Son is eternal, divine, and one with the Father. And so, after 1961, the Jehovah's Witnesses had to rewrite the Scriptures for them to agree with their teaching.
J.W's claim Jesus was created
Moderator: Moderators
-
placebofactor
- Guru
- Posts: 1281
- Joined: Wed Nov 20, 2024 3:37 pm
- Location: Tuscaloosa Alabama
- Been thanked: 85 times
- Contact:
-
tygger2
- Student
- Posts: 96
- Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2025 4:15 pm
- Has thanked: 42 times
- Been thanked: 33 times
Re: J.W's claim Jesus was created
Post #2When Jesus called himself "the beginning [Greek – arkhe/arche] of the creation of God" - Rev. 3:14, KJV, ASV, RSV, NASB, NKJV, MLB, Douay, Byington, Rotherham, Lattimore, Lamsa, Phillips, Darby, Webster, etc. - he meant "the first thing created by God."
Some trinitarians, however, insist that the word arkhe (sometimes written in English as arche) here does not mean "beginning" but should be rendered "source" or "origin." A few even suggest that John meant "the ruler of the creation of God."
So the real question is: Do the writers of the New Testament ever use arkhe to mean "source," "origin," or even "ruler"? And, more importantly, since John wrote Rev. 3:14, does John ever use arkhe to mean "source," "origin," or "ruler"?
In all the writings of John you will find that he never uses arkhe to mean "ruler" but, more properly, always uses arkhon. If you will check the New American Standard Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible (1981), you will find that even the very trinitarian New American Standard Bible (NASB) never translates John's uses of arkhe as "ruler" but does translate arkhon for "ruler" eight times: John 3:1; 7:26; 7:48; 12:31; 12:42; 14:30; 16:11; and Rev. 1:5. Not only is this word (arkhon) always used with the meaning of "ruler" by John, but it is the only word he uses for "ruler"!
Notice that the only use of "ruler" in Revelation by John, is, of course, arkhon: "from Jesus Christ, ... the first-born of the dead, and the ruler [arkhon] of the kings of the earth" (Rev. 1:5, NASB, cf. ASV, JB, NEB, NAB, NIV, GNB (TEV), ETRV, and Barclay's translation). And it is highly significant that it is applied to Jesus in a way that most likely would have been duplicated at Rev. 3:14 if he had also meant "ruler" to describe himself there.
To pretend that "ruler" was intended by John in this scripture not only ignores John's strict adherence to always using forms of arkhon to mean "ruler," but also ignores the clear scriptural Messianic use of the terms arkhon and arkhe! The well-known Messianic scripture of Micah 5:2 sets the pattern for uses of arkhon as applied to the Messiah. The ancient Septuagint version, often quoted by the NT writers, renders Micah 5:2, "out of thee [Bethlehem] shall one come forth to me, to be a ruler [arkhonta, a form of arkhon] of Israel; and his goings forth were from the beginning [arkhe]...". Clearly, if John wanted to use the term `ruler' to apply to the Messiah, it would have been the already scripturally-established arkhon NOT arkhe!
The only NT word John has used when he intended the meaning of "beginning" is arkhe. (The only apparent exception to this is archomai (arkhomai) found at John 8:9 - see p. 139 in the New American Standard Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. However, even trinitarian scholars admit that this verse is spurious, not written by John but added by a later copyist! - [Jn 9:32 should be more literally translated "from of old".])
To say that John meant "origin" or "source" when he used arkhe at Rev. 3:14 ignores an important fact:
Nowhere else does John use arkhe as "source," "origin," or "beginner." In the 23 times it is found in the writings of John (in the text used by the King James translators), it is always understood in the sense of "beginning" and is always so translated in the KJV. (And every time arkhe is found in the writings of John - 21 times in the text used by the NASB - it is also always translated "beginning" in that most-respected trinitarian Bible.) Here are all the uses of arkhe by John according to Young's Analytical Concordance: John 1:1; 1:2; 2:11; 6:64; 8:25; 8:44; 15:27; 16:4; 1 John 1:1; 2:7 (twice in KJV); 2:13; 2:14; 2:24 (twice); 3:8; 3:11; 2 John 5, 6; Rev.1:8 (KJV); 3:14; 21:6; and 22:13. Notice that the ASV, RSV, etc. also translate these as "beginning" or "first" (in time).
John consistently used arkhe to mean only "beginning." Since it is John's writing we are concerned with at Rev. 3:14, this is of utmost importance.
Some trinitarians, however, insist that the word arkhe (sometimes written in English as arche) here does not mean "beginning" but should be rendered "source" or "origin." A few even suggest that John meant "the ruler of the creation of God."
So the real question is: Do the writers of the New Testament ever use arkhe to mean "source," "origin," or even "ruler"? And, more importantly, since John wrote Rev. 3:14, does John ever use arkhe to mean "source," "origin," or "ruler"?
In all the writings of John you will find that he never uses arkhe to mean "ruler" but, more properly, always uses arkhon. If you will check the New American Standard Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible (1981), you will find that even the very trinitarian New American Standard Bible (NASB) never translates John's uses of arkhe as "ruler" but does translate arkhon for "ruler" eight times: John 3:1; 7:26; 7:48; 12:31; 12:42; 14:30; 16:11; and Rev. 1:5. Not only is this word (arkhon) always used with the meaning of "ruler" by John, but it is the only word he uses for "ruler"!
Notice that the only use of "ruler" in Revelation by John, is, of course, arkhon: "from Jesus Christ, ... the first-born of the dead, and the ruler [arkhon] of the kings of the earth" (Rev. 1:5, NASB, cf. ASV, JB, NEB, NAB, NIV, GNB (TEV), ETRV, and Barclay's translation). And it is highly significant that it is applied to Jesus in a way that most likely would have been duplicated at Rev. 3:14 if he had also meant "ruler" to describe himself there.
To pretend that "ruler" was intended by John in this scripture not only ignores John's strict adherence to always using forms of arkhon to mean "ruler," but also ignores the clear scriptural Messianic use of the terms arkhon and arkhe! The well-known Messianic scripture of Micah 5:2 sets the pattern for uses of arkhon as applied to the Messiah. The ancient Septuagint version, often quoted by the NT writers, renders Micah 5:2, "out of thee [Bethlehem] shall one come forth to me, to be a ruler [arkhonta, a form of arkhon] of Israel; and his goings forth were from the beginning [arkhe]...". Clearly, if John wanted to use the term `ruler' to apply to the Messiah, it would have been the already scripturally-established arkhon NOT arkhe!
The only NT word John has used when he intended the meaning of "beginning" is arkhe. (The only apparent exception to this is archomai (arkhomai) found at John 8:9 - see p. 139 in the New American Standard Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. However, even trinitarian scholars admit that this verse is spurious, not written by John but added by a later copyist! - [Jn 9:32 should be more literally translated "from of old".])
To say that John meant "origin" or "source" when he used arkhe at Rev. 3:14 ignores an important fact:
Nowhere else does John use arkhe as "source," "origin," or "beginner." In the 23 times it is found in the writings of John (in the text used by the King James translators), it is always understood in the sense of "beginning" and is always so translated in the KJV. (And every time arkhe is found in the writings of John - 21 times in the text used by the NASB - it is also always translated "beginning" in that most-respected trinitarian Bible.) Here are all the uses of arkhe by John according to Young's Analytical Concordance: John 1:1; 1:2; 2:11; 6:64; 8:25; 8:44; 15:27; 16:4; 1 John 1:1; 2:7 (twice in KJV); 2:13; 2:14; 2:24 (twice); 3:8; 3:11; 2 John 5, 6; Rev.1:8 (KJV); 3:14; 21:6; and 22:13. Notice that the ASV, RSV, etc. also translate these as "beginning" or "first" (in time).
John consistently used arkhe to mean only "beginning." Since it is John's writing we are concerned with at Rev. 3:14, this is of utmost importance.
Last edited by tygger2 on Sat Sep 13, 2025 7:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
tygger2
- Student
- Posts: 96
- Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2025 4:15 pm
- Has thanked: 42 times
- Been thanked: 33 times
Re: J.W's claim Jesus was created
Post #3The highly respected Christian scholar Origen, writing before 250 A.D., said:
“... we have first to ascertain what the only-begotten Son of God is .... For he is termed Wisdom, according to the expression of Solomon: ‘The Lord created me - the beginning of his ways and among His works, before he made any other thing’ .... He is also styled First-born, as the apostle has declared: ‘who is the first-born of every creature.’ The first-born, however, is not by nature a different person from the Wisdom, but one and the same.” - p. 246, Vol. IV, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Eerdmans Publ.
Origen clearly tells us what is meant by ‘first-born’ here in Col. 1:15 by paralleling it with Prov. 8 where the pre-existent Jesus, as the personified Wisdom, was actually created first by the Father!
Tertullian, claimed by modern trinitarians as one of the founders of Christendom’s modern trinity doctrine (see HIST and CREEDS studies), has also written (ca. 200 A.D.) about this very same thing:
“He [Wisdom, who Tertullian also says was created by the Father and is the Word of God] became His [the Father’s] first-begotten Son, because begotten before all things” (the footnote then refers this to Col. 1:15) - p. 601, Vol. III, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Eerdmans.
Again, there is no pretense that the term ‘first-born’ at Col. 1:15 means ‘pre-eminent’ or anything else except what it obviously does, one born or created first! Tertullian even spells it out: The Son was called first-begotten or first-born because he was begotten before all [other] things!
It appears that Clement of Alexandria (ca. 150-213 A.D.) used both “firstborn” and “first-created” [protoktistos] interchangeably to describe the Son of God. John Patrick, the author of Clement of Alexandria (Edinburgh: William Blackwood and Sons, 1914; pp. 103, 104) tells us:
"Clement repeatedly identifies the Word with the Wisdom of God, and yet he refers to Wisdom as the first-created of God; while in one passage he attaches the epithet "First-created," and in another "First-begotten," to the Word. But this seems to be rather a question of language rather than a question of doctrine. At a later date a sharp distinction was drawn between "first-created" and "first-born" or "first-begotten." But no such distinction was drawn in the time of Clement, who with the Septuagint rendering of a passage in Proverbs before him could have no misgiving as to the use of these terms. ...Str., 5.14 Ex. Theod., c.20. Str., vi.7. See Suicer's Thesaurus on PROTOKTISTOS KURIOS EKTISEN ME ARCHEN hODON AUTOU. [Lord (Jehovah) created me first of work of his] Prov 8:22 ... Zahn [in Supplementum Clementinum: pages 141-147] ... points to the fact the Clement makes a sharp distinction between the Son and the Word who was Begotten or created before the rest of creation and the alone unbegotten God and Father."
[Replying to tygger2 in post #2]
“... we have first to ascertain what the only-begotten Son of God is .... For he is termed Wisdom, according to the expression of Solomon: ‘The Lord created me - the beginning of his ways and among His works, before he made any other thing’ .... He is also styled First-born, as the apostle has declared: ‘who is the first-born of every creature.’ The first-born, however, is not by nature a different person from the Wisdom, but one and the same.” - p. 246, Vol. IV, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Eerdmans Publ.
Origen clearly tells us what is meant by ‘first-born’ here in Col. 1:15 by paralleling it with Prov. 8 where the pre-existent Jesus, as the personified Wisdom, was actually created first by the Father!
Tertullian, claimed by modern trinitarians as one of the founders of Christendom’s modern trinity doctrine (see HIST and CREEDS studies), has also written (ca. 200 A.D.) about this very same thing:
“He [Wisdom, who Tertullian also says was created by the Father and is the Word of God] became His [the Father’s] first-begotten Son, because begotten before all things” (the footnote then refers this to Col. 1:15) - p. 601, Vol. III, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Eerdmans.
Again, there is no pretense that the term ‘first-born’ at Col. 1:15 means ‘pre-eminent’ or anything else except what it obviously does, one born or created first! Tertullian even spells it out: The Son was called first-begotten or first-born because he was begotten before all [other] things!
It appears that Clement of Alexandria (ca. 150-213 A.D.) used both “firstborn” and “first-created” [protoktistos] interchangeably to describe the Son of God. John Patrick, the author of Clement of Alexandria (Edinburgh: William Blackwood and Sons, 1914; pp. 103, 104) tells us:
"Clement repeatedly identifies the Word with the Wisdom of God, and yet he refers to Wisdom as the first-created of God; while in one passage he attaches the epithet "First-created," and in another "First-begotten," to the Word. But this seems to be rather a question of language rather than a question of doctrine. At a later date a sharp distinction was drawn between "first-created" and "first-born" or "first-begotten." But no such distinction was drawn in the time of Clement, who with the Septuagint rendering of a passage in Proverbs before him could have no misgiving as to the use of these terms. ...Str., 5.14 Ex. Theod., c.20. Str., vi.7. See Suicer's Thesaurus on PROTOKTISTOS KURIOS EKTISEN ME ARCHEN hODON AUTOU. [Lord (Jehovah) created me first of work of his] Prov 8:22 ... Zahn [in Supplementum Clementinum: pages 141-147] ... points to the fact the Clement makes a sharp distinction between the Son and the Word who was Begotten or created before the rest of creation and the alone unbegotten God and Father."
[Replying to tygger2 in post #2]
-
Capbook
- Guru
- Posts: 2355
- Joined: Sat May 04, 2024 7:12 am
- Has thanked: 48 times
- Been thanked: 61 times
Re: J.W's claim Jesus was created
Post #4Yes, every word of the Bible bears meanings defined by Bible lexicon at the time it was used, the "beginning," in Greek "ἀρχή archē" as first cause, origin, one who constitute initial cause, ruler and etc. And much more TDNT described "archē" in Rev 3:14, as in much the same sense (Rev. 21:6; 22:13)tygger wrote: When Jesus called himself "the beginning [Greek – arkhe/arche] of the creation of God" - Rev. 3:14, KJV, ASV, RSV, NASB, NKJV, MLB, Douay, Byington, Rotherham, Lattimore, Lamsa, Phillips, Darby, Webster, etc. - he meant "the first thing created by God."
Some trinitarians, however, insist that the word arkhe (sometimes written in English as arche) here does not mean "beginning" but should be rendered "source" or "origin." A few even suggest that John meant "the ruler of the creation of God."
So the real question is: Do the writers of the New Testament ever use arkhe to mean "source," "origin," or even "ruler"? And, more importantly, since John wrote Rev. 3:14, does John ever use arkhe to mean "source," "origin," or "ruler"?
Bible lexicons proves that Jesus is not a creation, He is the First and the Last, and Beginning and the End.
NT:746 G746 ἀρχή archē (Louw and Nida Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament)
one who or that which constitutes an initial cause - 'first cause, origin.'
the origin of what God has created' Rev 3:14. It is also possible to understand
in Rev 3:14 as meaning 'ruler' (see 37.56).
(from Greek-English Lexicon Based on Semantic Domain. Copyright © 1988 United Bible Societies, New York. Used by permission.)
NT:746 (TDNT)
Rev 3:14 probably calls him ἀρχή archē in much the same sense (cf. 21:6; 22:13).
(from Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, abridged edition, Copyright © 1985 by William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. All rights reserved.)
Rev 22:12 “Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to reward each one as his work deserves.
Rev 22:13 “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.”
Rev 22:16 “I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to you of these things for the churches. I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star.”
Rev 22:20 He who testifies to these things says, “Yes, I am coming quickly.” Amen. Come, Lord Jesus.
-
1213
- Savant
- Posts: 12958
- Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 11:06 am
- Location: Finland
- Has thanked: 454 times
- Been thanked: 469 times
Re: J.W's claim Jesus was created
Post #5It is interesting why do you need to twist what the Bible tells.placebofactor wrote: ↑Fri Sep 12, 2025 11:05 am Until 1961, the Jehovah's Witnesses used the King James, yet they taught that Jesus Christ was created first by the Father, and was sent to create all (other) things.
The following are a few verses they used back then and today to indicate that Jesus is not God, and that he was created.
This question "Was Jesus created?" is a crucial and often contested question, one that demands precision, reverence, and a careful handling and understanding of the King James text. To be clear, the King James Bible does not explicitly state that Jesus was created or that He is not God. HOWEVER, some verses have been interpreted by certain groups as the Unitarians, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Arians, to suggest he is. So, let’s examine those verses and then weigh them against the broader testimony of Scripture....
According to the Bible, there is only one true God. Jesus tells he is going to that God.
Jesus answered, "The greatest is, 'Hear, Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one: you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.' This is the first commandment.
Mark 12:29-30
How can you believe, who receive glory from one another, and you don't seek the glory that comes from the only God?
John 5:44
This is eternal life, that they should know you, the only true God, and him whom you sent, Jesus Christ.
John 17:3
Jesus said to her, "Don't touch me, for I haven't yet ascended to my Father; but go to my brothers, and tell them, 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'"
John 20:17
If Jesus is himself the one and only true God, why would he say he is going to the God?
I think it is because:
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
1 Tim. 2:5
My new book can be read freely from here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rIkqxC ... xtqFY/view
Old version can be read from here:
http://web.archive.org/web/202212010403 ... x_eng.html
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rIkqxC ... xtqFY/view
Old version can be read from here:
http://web.archive.org/web/202212010403 ... x_eng.html
-
Revelations won
- Sage
- Posts: 953
- Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 10:13 pm
- Has thanked: 3 times
- Been thanked: 33 times
Re: J.W's claim Jesus was created
Post #6To all respondents,
What Ploacebofactor is really dealing with is the Origin and Destiny of man.
Was Christ created and were we created? Is this really the beginning of Christ and us?
If we draw a line it has a beginning and an end.
If we draw a perfect circle where is the beginning and the end?
Are we not All in a state of eternal progression?
Have we clearly understood that we existed as intelligences co-etenal with God?
Do we clearly understand that that we are also the literal spirit off spring of God (our eternal father wherein our co-eternal intelligence was clothed with a spirit body?
For as Paul taught in the following:
Romans 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.
15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.
16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.
1. Corinthians 2:
But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
We must so live that we indeed may receive revelation which will allow us to receive revelation and be taught by the Holy Ghost whose mission in to teach us all things as shown below:
10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
Matthew 11:25 At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.
26 Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight.
27 All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.
Mark 9:9 And as they came down from the mountain, he charged them that they should tell no man what things they had seen, till the Son of man were risen from the dead.
10 And they kept that saying with themselves, questioning one with another what the rising from the dead should mean.
Note: We should clearly observe that in the above that not all revelation is given to allay the same time as shown in the above.
John 15:15 Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you.
Daniel 2:22 He revealeth the deep and secret things: he knoweth what is in the darkness, and the light dwelleth with him.
23 I thank thee, and praise thee, O thou God of my fathers, who hast given me wisdom and might, and hast made known unto me now what we desired of thee: for thou hast now made known unto us the king's matter.
We may gain a clearer concept of “Eternal Life” when we have a clear understanding of our true Origin and destiny as we progress from a co-eternal intelligence to being clothed with a spirit body and the progressing on this earth receiving a physical body, then receiving death and then an eternal resurrection wherein our spirit body and Physical bodies are eternally reunited in their proper and perfect form with the full potential to become exalted as joint heirs with Christ.
What Ploacebofactor is really dealing with is the Origin and Destiny of man.
Was Christ created and were we created? Is this really the beginning of Christ and us?
If we draw a line it has a beginning and an end.
If we draw a perfect circle where is the beginning and the end?
Are we not All in a state of eternal progression?
Have we clearly understood that we existed as intelligences co-etenal with God?
Do we clearly understand that that we are also the literal spirit off spring of God (our eternal father wherein our co-eternal intelligence was clothed with a spirit body?
For as Paul taught in the following:
Romans 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.
15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.
16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.
1. Corinthians 2:
But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
We must so live that we indeed may receive revelation which will allow us to receive revelation and be taught by the Holy Ghost whose mission in to teach us all things as shown below:
10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
Matthew 11:25 At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.
26 Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight.
27 All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.
Mark 9:9 And as they came down from the mountain, he charged them that they should tell no man what things they had seen, till the Son of man were risen from the dead.
10 And they kept that saying with themselves, questioning one with another what the rising from the dead should mean.
Note: We should clearly observe that in the above that not all revelation is given to allay the same time as shown in the above.
John 15:15 Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you.
Daniel 2:22 He revealeth the deep and secret things: he knoweth what is in the darkness, and the light dwelleth with him.
23 I thank thee, and praise thee, O thou God of my fathers, who hast given me wisdom and might, and hast made known unto me now what we desired of thee: for thou hast now made known unto us the king's matter.
We may gain a clearer concept of “Eternal Life” when we have a clear understanding of our true Origin and destiny as we progress from a co-eternal intelligence to being clothed with a spirit body and the progressing on this earth receiving a physical body, then receiving death and then an eternal resurrection wherein our spirit body and Physical bodies are eternally reunited in their proper and perfect form with the full potential to become exalted as joint heirs with Christ.
-
Capbook
- Guru
- Posts: 2355
- Joined: Sat May 04, 2024 7:12 am
- Has thanked: 48 times
- Been thanked: 61 times
Re: J.W's claim Jesus was created
Post #7I believe the same author of the book John wrote Jesus as saying, He is the way, the truth and the life.1213 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 14, 2025 5:21 amIt is interesting why do you need to twist what the Bible tells.placebofactor wrote: ↑Fri Sep 12, 2025 11:05 am Until 1961, the Jehovah's Witnesses used the King James, yet they taught that Jesus Christ was created first by the Father, and was sent to create all (other) things.
The following are a few verses they used back then and today to indicate that Jesus is not God, and that he was created.
This question "Was Jesus created?" is a crucial and often contested question, one that demands precision, reverence, and a careful handling and understanding of the King James text. To be clear, the King James Bible does not explicitly state that Jesus was created or that He is not God. HOWEVER, some verses have been interpreted by certain groups as the Unitarians, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Arians, to suggest he is. So, let’s examine those verses and then weigh them against the broader testimony of Scripture....
According to the Bible, there is only one true God. Jesus tells he is going to that God.
Jesus answered, "The greatest is, 'Hear, Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one: you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.' This is the first commandment.
Mark 12:29-30
How can you believe, who receive glory from one another, and you don't seek the glory that comes from the only God?
John 5:44
This is eternal life, that they should know you, the only true God, and him whom you sent, Jesus Christ.
John 17:3
Jesus said to her, "Don't touch me, for I haven't yet ascended to my Father; but go to my brothers, and tell them, 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'"
John 20:17
If Jesus is himself the one and only true God, why would he say he is going to the God?
I think it is because:
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
1 Tim. 2:5
And in 1John 5:10-12, the Father had a testimony concerning His Son, that the eternal life is in His Son, and that if we do not believe the Father's testimony we make the Father a liar.
Do you believe that the Father's testimony just eight verses onward would expire?
Then who had the eternal life in 1John 5:20?
If you answer that question honestly, you'll just make the Father not a liar.(1John 5:11)
Joh 14:6 Jesus *said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.
1Jn 5:10 The one who believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself; the one who does not believe God has made Him a liar , because he has not believed in the testimony that God has given concerning His Son.
1Jn 5:11 And the testimony is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son.
1Jn 5:12 He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life.
-
1213
- Savant
- Posts: 12958
- Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 11:06 am
- Location: Finland
- Has thanked: 454 times
- Been thanked: 469 times
Re: J.W's claim Jesus was created
Post #8I don't think God's testimony expires.Capbook wrote: ↑Mon Sep 15, 2025 3:04 am And in 1John 5:10-12, the Father had a testimony concerning His Son, that the eternal life is in His Son, and that if we do not believe the Father's testimony we make the Father a liar. Do you believe that the Father's testimony just eight verses onward would expire?
The one believing in the Son of God has the witness in himself. The one not believing God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed in the witness which God has witnessed concerning His Son. And this is the witness: that God gave us everlasting life, and this life is in His Son. The one having the Son has life. The one not having the Son of God does not have life.
1 John 5:10-12
The one having the Son has life.
And we know that the Son of God has come, and He has given to us an understanding that we may know the true One , and we are in the true One , in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and the life everlasting.
1 John 5:20
My new book can be read freely from here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rIkqxC ... xtqFY/view
Old version can be read from here:
http://web.archive.org/web/202212010403 ... x_eng.html
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rIkqxC ... xtqFY/view
Old version can be read from here:
http://web.archive.org/web/202212010403 ... x_eng.html
-
Capbook
- Guru
- Posts: 2355
- Joined: Sat May 04, 2024 7:12 am
- Has thanked: 48 times
- Been thanked: 61 times
Re: J.W's claim Jesus was created
Post #9Because the last phrase of 1John 5:20, speaks of "this is the true God and everlasting life.1213 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 16, 2025 12:45 amI don't think God's testimony expires.Capbook wrote: ↑Mon Sep 15, 2025 3:04 am And in 1John 5:10-12, the Father had a testimony concerning His Son, that the eternal life is in His Son, and that if we do not believe the Father's testimony we make the Father a liar. Do you believe that the Father's testimony just eight verses onward would expire?
The one believing in the Son of God has the witness in himself. The one not believing God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed in the witness which God has witnessed concerning His Son. And this is the witness: that God gave us everlasting life, and this life is in His Son. The one having the Son has life. The one not having the Son of God does not have life.
1 John 5:10-12
The one having the Son has life.
And we know that the Son of God has come, and He has given to us an understanding that we may know the true One , and we are in the true One , in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and the life everlasting.
1 John 5:20
Yes, as Jesus had that everlasting life, it will be understood that He is also a true God not a false God.
Because God is a title, a divine nature, and not the personal name of the Father.
“God” is not God's name—it's a title. In Hebrew, it's the word elohim, which is a category of being (deity, in this case), just like “human” is a category of being (but not a name).https://www.google.com/search?q=is+God+ ... s-wiz-serp
-
placebofactor
- Guru
- Posts: 1281
- Joined: Wed Nov 20, 2024 3:37 pm
- Location: Tuscaloosa Alabama
- Been thanked: 85 times
- Contact:
Re: J.W's claim Jesus was created
Post #10tygger2 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 13, 2025 5:43 pm When Jesus called himself "the beginning [Greek – arkhe/arche] of the creation of God" - Rev. 3:14, KJV, ASV, RSV, NASB, NKJV, MLB, Douay, Byington, Rotherham, Lattimore, Lamsa, Phillips, Darby, Webster, etc. - he meant "the first thing created by God."
Some trinitarians, however, insist that the word arkhe (sometimes written in English as arche) here does not mean "beginning" but should be rendered "source" or "origin." A few even suggest that John meant "the ruler of the creation of God."
So the real question is: Do the writers of the New Testament ever use arkhe to mean "source," "origin," or even "ruler"? And, more importantly, since John wrote Rev. 3:14, does John ever use arkhe to mean "source," "origin," or "ruler"?
In all the writings of John you will find that he never uses arkhe to mean "ruler" but, more properly, always uses arkhon. If you will check the New American Standard Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible (1981), you will find that even the very trinitarian New American Standard Bible (NASB) never translates John's uses of arkhe as "ruler" but does translate arkhon for "ruler" eight times: John 3:1; 7:26; 7:48; 12:31; 12:42; 14:30; 16:11; and Rev. 1:5. Not only is this word (arkhon) always used with the meaning of "ruler" by John, but it is the only word he uses for "ruler"!
Notice that the only use of "ruler" in Revelation by John, is, of course, arkhon: "from Jesus Christ, ... the first-born of the dead, and the ruler [arkhon] of the kings of the earth" (Rev. 1:5, NASB, cf. ASV, JB, NEB, NAB, NIV, GNB (TEV), ETRV, and Barclay's translation). And it is highly significant that it is applied to Jesus in a way that most likely would have been duplicated at Rev. 3:14 if he had also meant "ruler" to describe himself there.
To pretend that "ruler" was intended by John in this scripture not only ignores John's strict adherence to always using forms of arkhon to mean "ruler," but also ignores the clear scriptural Messianic use of the terms arkhon and arkhe! The well-known Messianic scripture of Micah 5:2 sets the pattern for uses of arkhon as applied to the Messiah. The ancient Septuagint version, often quoted by the NT writers, renders Micah 5:2, "out of thee [Bethlehem] shall one come forth to me, to be a ruler [arkhonta, a form of arkhon] of Israel; and his goings forth were from the beginning [arkhe]...". Clearly, if John wanted to use the term `ruler' to apply to the Messiah, it would have been the already scripturally-established arkhon NOT arkhe!
The only NT word John has used when he intended the meaning of "beginning" is arkhe. (The only apparent exception to this is archomai (arkhomai) found at John 8:9 - see p. 139 in the New American Standard Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. However, even trinitarian scholars admit that this verse is spurious, not written by John but added by a later copyist! - [Jn 9:32 should be more literally translated "from of old".])
To say that John meant "origin" or "source" when he used arkhe at Rev. 3:14 ignores an important fact:
Nowhere else does John use arkhe as "source," "origin," or "beginner." In the 23 times it is found in the writings of John (in the text used by the King James translators), it is always understood in the sense of "beginning" and is always so translated in the KJV. (And every time arkhe is found in the writings of John - 21 times in the text used by the NASB - it is also always translated "beginning" in that most-respected trinitarian Bible.) Here are all the uses of arkhe by John according to Young's Analytical Concordance: John 1:1; 1:2; 2:11; 6:64; 8:25; 8:44; 15:27; 16:4; 1 John 1:1; 2:7 (twice in KJV); 2:13; 2:14; 2:24 (twice); 3:8; 3:11; 2 John 5, 6; Rev.1:8 (KJV); 3:14; 21:6; and 22:13. Notice that the ASV, RSV, etc. also translate these as "beginning" or "first" (in time).
John consistently used arkhe to mean only "beginning." Since it is John's writing we are concerned with at Rev. 3:14, this is of utmost importance.
Trggar2: Thanks for your comments. But what you are doing is making a doctrine of one word and not taking in all the supporting verses. With that one word, you are attempting to make the Lord Jesus a creature of the creation. So, let's examine this issue with a little more discernment. I will be using the King James.
The beginning of the creation of God reaches beyond the Genesis creation account and into the realm of eternity past. It’s not merely the start of time or the universe, but a declaration of the preexistence and eternal nature of the Word, meaning Jesus Christ.
Revelation 3:14, King James, “And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God.” The phrase “The beginning of the creation of God” as you said hinges on the Greek word ἀρχή (archē), which carries a rich semantic range.
The word “beginning” can be used in the following manner. It can mean origin or source, the starting point or cause of something. It can also mean the first in rank or authority, such as the ruler or principal one. It can also refer to the start in time, or the first in chronological order. You have chosen to use, "Jesus as being the first in chronological order, which is wrong."
In Revelation 3:14, the context and broader biblical usage suggest that Christ is being described not as the first created being, but as the originator or source of creation, the one through whom all things came into being.
Let’s reinforce this with other verses that use the Greek "ἀρχή" to clarify Christ’s relationship to creation:
John 1:1–3, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made.”
Your first mistake, you are using the word to mean a starting point for Christ. But “In the beginning” here refers to pre-creation eternity, not the starting point. Jesus Christ is not part of creation but the agent of creation.
Let’s take a look at,
Colossians 1:15–18, Jesus “Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by him were all things created… And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning…” “Firstborn” is a title of preeminence, but some attempt to use it as part of chronology, but it’s not!
So in verse 18, Christ is called “the beginning,” meaning he is the source and ruler, not a created being.
Proverbs 8:22–23, Concerning Jesus Christ. “The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.” “Beginning” here again implies eternal origin, not temporal creation.
To contrast Jesus as being the first to be created contradicts the broader scriptural witness, for example.
In John 8:58, Jesus claims to be eternal, “Before Abraham was, I am.”
He is uncreated and claims to be coequal with the Father, Philippians 2:6, Jesus, “Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God (His Father).” The Greek for “form” is (morphē). It refers to Jesus' essential nature or inner reality, not his outward appearance. It’s his true character and substance, not his external shape or temporary condition.
Now the Greek “Morphē” is distinct from another Greek word (schēma), which refers to outward form or fashion, something changeable or superficial. An example of this is found in Philippians 2:8, where Jesus was “found in fashion of a man,” a temporary condition.
So, when Paul says Christ was in the form of God, he means he possessed the essential attributes of deity and shared in the divine nature, not merely in appearance.
Hebrews 1:3, “Who being the brightness of his (the Father’s) glory, and the express image of his person…” the “express image” is the Greek, "χαρακτὴρ." It reinforces the idea of exact representation, not a copy, but the perfect imprint of God’s essence.
Colossians 1:15, “Who is the image of the invisible God…” Jesus is not a mere reflection, but the visible manifestation of the invisible God.
To conclude, Jesus is the source of creation, not a product of it. So, Revelation 3:14, “beginning” should be understood as the originator of creation, the divine source, the preeminent one, first in rank, not in time.
This is consistent with Johannine and Pauline theology, affirming Christ’s deity and eternal nature. So, Revelation 3:14, is a powerful affirmation of Christ’s sovereignty, divinity, and creative authority, not a suggestion of His being created as you are suggesting.
