why do so many religions claim that Jesus is God?

by evergreen 77 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  hamsterbait

  It is one thing to claim the trinity was a Catholic invention. But another to prove the statement from the facts.

  For one thing, when christian Missionaries first went to India in the 16th cent. they found Christians already believing that who claimed to have been preached to by ST Thomas.

  Catholic simply means 'including a wide variety of things', or 'including all christians' or historically to the doctrines and teaching of the Western Church.

  Since in this last sense the Catholic church did not even exist in the 2nd century where many church Fathers are already declaring a belief in the deity of Christ it is a false statement. After the orthodox and western churches split, the trinity was taken by both. And the Orthodox Greek church is older in tradition than that of Rome. Both believe in the divinity of Christ.

  Throughout the history of the western church, doctrine only came to be codified and explained when some heresy was causing a stir.

  If either doctrine was as clear as WBTS claims there would never have needed to be a council in Nicea. In any event the vote was almost too close to call. Whatever one believes about Jesus' nature, the bible does say that there is no other name under heaven, and that he should be worshipped.

  Polycarp is branded heretic by the 2nd cent church fathers, though he is championed in the WT for denouncing the trinity and immortality of the soul.

  It is rumored that the trinitarian bishops had the leading opponent poisoned, but that does not of itself make the teaching untrue. It Just shows there were men back there who were as unscrupulous as the Borg.

  The WT argues that so many cultures believe in a global flood, so it must be true. It doesn't suit them to use the same logic in this case.

  If your reasoning is based on the "Trinity" brochure there is a very good discussion of its misquotes and misrepresentation of sources online. (I think it is actually a Catholic apologist site)

  HB
• 

  Narkissos

  Since in this last sense the Catholic church did not even exist in the 2nd century where many church Fathers are already declaring a belief in the deity of Christ it is a false statement. After the orthodox and western churches split, the trinity was taken by both. And the Orthodox Greek church is older in tradition than that of Rome. Both believe in the divinity of Christ.

  Throughout the history of the western church, doctrine only came to be codified and explained when some heresy was causing a stir.

  If either doctrine was as clear as WBTS claims there would never have needed to be a council in Nicea. In any event the vote was almost too close to call. Whatever one believes about Jesus' nature, the bible does say that there is no other name under heaven, and that he should be worshipped.

  Am I wrong in seeing some contradiction between the first and the last paragraph above? The kind of deity which was ascribed to Christ in the 2nd century was compatible with subordinatianism and even an angelic Christology, which made Jesus a "god" in a secondary sense, distinct from the unique Almighty God (e.g. Justin Martyr) -- in that sense the Nicene debate in the 4th century was a new one, and as you said, the Church was about equally divided about it. Enrolling the earlier Fathers any side of the 4th century debate is a classic, yet fatal anachronism.

  Polycarp is branded heretic by the 2nd cent church fathers, though he is championed in the WT for denouncing the trinity and immortality of the soul.

  Huh?
• 

  Spectrum

  Narkissos
  
  surely JWs aren't questioning the diety of Christ? Someone(non JW) said to me that because JWs believe jesus was created, albeit in heaven, he cannot by definition be a god. Is this a logical inference?
• 

  Leolaia

  Polycarp is branded heretic by the 2nd cent church fathers, though he is championed in the WT for denouncing the trinity and immortality of the soul.

  Are you sure you've got the right person? Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, was martyred in his old age as a faithful follower of Christ, who denounced gnostics such as Marcion, and he had nothing to say at all on the subjects of the Trinity (tho he did apply theos "God" [= deus] to him in his epistle). He is a saint in Catholicism.
• 

  Navigator

  I like what Charles Fillmore, the founder of the Unity movement, had to say when he was asked the question. "Was Jesus God?

  He replied:

  "Jesus was not God! However, he so gave up his sense of personal self and so identified with his Father in heaven that it becomes difficult to tell where Jesus leaves off and God begins."
• 

  Narkissos

  Spectrum,

  On a JW's lips the "divinity of Christ" always sounds like an ambiguous diplomatic / strategic statement.

  The question whether "being God" is compatible or not with "being created" (and the correlative dilemma "created OR begotten") is really a 3rd-4th century one. It occurs downstream of the Gnostic debate of the 2nd century which put the concept of creation to the fore. In Gnostic thought, creation occurs at a low stage in the chain of divine (or, actually, supra-divine) emanations or begettings. The creator "god" is an imperfect, spiritless emanation of the supra-divine, and his creation obscures the higher realm. This dramatises the border between "uncreated" and "created".

  Prior to the popularisation of Gnosticism, otoh, that was not such an issue. Both Philo and Justin, for instance, can identify the logos, Son of God, to the "oldest angel" which is not incompatible with its/his being created, yet call him "God" (while distinguishing it/him from THE almighty God).

  Whatever, the history of ideas runs one way; and once a conceptual dilemma is created it can rarely be forgotten. That's why, I guess, JWs will never actually call Jesus "our god" even though such a title would be theoretically consistent with their theology.
• 

  greendawn

  Were there any church fathers before Athanasius that believed in Christ having anything other than secondary divinity? Weren't they all subordinationists ie believed that the Son though a God, was subordinate to the supreme God, his Father?
  
  True though the dubs don't understand that the Christ is Lord over this world, worthy of worship. They also don't believe that they are part of his new covenent so their christianity is empty and pointless.
• 

  LittleToe

  Navigator:
  I suspect that a number of Trinitarians would agree, though they'd need to put it another way.

  Is Jesus "God"? No, Jesus is "God the Son of God", not the sum total of "God".

  Spectrum:Yes, they question the deity of Christ. While they pay lip-service to him being "a god" (John 1) and a "master worker" with the Father, they don't acknowledge him as a creator or divine being in the sense that most folks would attrribute to the word "divinity". To them he mystically has some kind of "eternal life", but the issue is cloudy to the point of being as mysterious as Christendom's Trinity.

  Didier:

  Both Philo and Justin, for instance, can identify the logos, Son of God, to the "oldest angel" which is not incompatible with its/his being created, yet call him "God" (while distinguishing it/him from THE almighty God).

  Agreed. Which is also not incompatible with its/his being uncreated, also, yes?

  On another, but closely linked, subject; is procreation equivalent to creation in ancient parlance?
• 

  Spectrum

  Narkissos
  
  " The creator "god" is an imperfect, spiritless emanation of the supra-divine, and his creation obscures the higher realm."
  
  Don't you mean the created god is imperfect.
  
  A good question is did the Gnostics know what they were talking about?
  " Both Philo and Justin, for instance, can identify the logos, Son of God, to the "oldest angel" which is not incompatible with its/his being created, yet call him "God" (while distinguishing it/him from THE almighty God)."
  Isn't this exactly what the JWs believe? Christ is a god but not the Almighty.
  
  Or is this what you and Little Toe say they are paying lip service to? If they are paying lip service to Christ's proper divinity then to what level have the relegated him and does that mean they risk their salvation?
• 

  Narkissos

  Spectrum,

  A good question is did the Gnostics know what they were talking about?

  LOL. Did any theologian, ever?

  About JWs, I think they will never refer to Jesus as "god" except in a diplomatic way, when talking to a convinced Trinitarian. Thus, while their doctrine may be objectively (or statically) similar to that of Justin, the religious emphasis is just opposite, as the theological trajectory is. Justin comes from (Samaritan) Judaism and from this starting point exalts Christ in calling him god (even secondary to "God"). JWs come from Trinitarian "orthodoxy" and relegate Christ to the position of "a god," which is the same statically but the opposite in a dynamic perspective.

  Just imagine praying "in the name of Jesus our Lord and god" in the Kingdom Hall. Any current JW wants to try and tell us?

  Ross,

  The (metaphorical) language of procreation (begetting, giving birth) vs. creation (also making, forming, etc.) is a very interesting issue. One can discern a consistent trend in monotheism from the former (still present in the word toledoth, "begettings/births" in the mythological background of Genesis) to the latter (God creates, makes, forms things and people already in the Genesis stories), down to the Islamic God who cannot beget at all. The point, of course, is increasingly separating God from creation. The reversal of Gnosticism (man is not only a creation of "God," he is the progeny of a "Father" higher than the creator "God") makes the difference critical. Upstream of Gnosticism it may not be that significant, but downstream nobody can ignore it anymore: a "created Saviour" might have been enough to people and generations unaffected by Gnostic thought, it is radically inadequate to the Gnostics and (even orthodox) post-Gnostics.