@Duran
While Jesus never explicitly says, "I am the Creator," the New Testament authors, inspired by the Holy Spirit, consistently affirm this truth. Rejecting their testimony as "outsiders" is problematic because their writings are part of the canonical Scripture, recognized as the Word of God. In John 1:1-3 Jesus (the Word) is explicitly identified as the agent of creation. This is not a vague statement but a direct affirmation of Jesus’ active role in the creation of everything that exists. In Colossians 1:16-17 Paul, another inspired writer, attributes all creation to Jesus. The phrase "all things were created through him and for him" demonstrates both Jesus' role as Creator and His divine purpose in creation. In Hebrews 1:2-3 the writer affirms that God the Father created the world through the Son, and the Son sustains the universe. Hebrews 1:10 speaks for itself.
Proverbs 8:30, which speaks of wisdom as a "master worker," is often interpreted by non-Trinitarian groups as referring to Jesus. However, this passage personifies wisdom in a poetic manner, and its direct application to Jesus is debated. Even if one assumes it refers to Christ, it does not negate His role as Creator. Being a "master worker" implies active involvement in creation alongside the Father. Moreover, if one insists that Proverbs 8:30 refers to Jesus, it only strengthens the argument for His divine involvement in creation, as the "master worker" is not a passive observer but an active agent in the creative process.
Jesus often acknowledges the Father’s overarching authority and role, as seen in Matthew 6:26. However, Jesus’ acknowledgment of the Father does not diminish His own divine role. Instead, it reflects the relational dynamic within the Trinity. 1 Corinthians 8:6 highlights the cooperative roles of the Father and the Son in creation. The Father is the source of creation ("from whom"), and the Son is the agent ("through whom"). There is no contradiction but harmony in their roles.
Dismissing John and Paul as "outsiders" misunderstands their role as divinely inspired authors. Jesus Himself appointed the apostles and promised them guidance through the Holy Spirit (John 14:26). Paul, though not one of the original Twelve, was chosen by Jesus (Acts 9:15). Their writings carry the full weight of divine authority and are integral to understanding who Jesus is.
The argument that Jesus never explicitly claimed to be the Creator fails to consider the broader biblical witness. Jesus didn’t explicitly claim many things in His earthly ministry, such as being the high priest or the fulfillment of Melchizedek's order (see Hebrews 7), but these truths are revealed in Scripture. Similarly, the apostles’ testimony about Jesus as Creator reflects a fuller revelation of His identity.
The Trinity does not teach that Jesus acts independently of the Father. Instead, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit work in perfect unity. Jesus as the Creator does not diminish the Father’s role as the source of creation. Rather, the Father creates through the Son (John 1:3; Hebrews 1:2).
You claim that Paul's statement in Galatians 1:12 refers only to the good news and not to "the history of the universe." This is true insofar as Paul's statement focuses on the gospel, but the gospel itself encompasses profound theological truths, including the identity and role of Jesus Christ as Creator. Paul’s revelation aligns with the rest of Scripture, which describes Jesus' preexistence and divine role in creation (Colossians 1:16, John 1:3). To suggest that Paul's revelation excludes such truths is an artificial limitation not supported by the text. The gospel Paul received was a complete revelation about Jesus Christ, including His preexistence, deity, and work in creation.
You state that Genesis 1:26 refers to Jehovah speaking to "another," who you believe is the Son. However, the text explicitly uses plural pronouns ("us," "our"), which suggests a plurality within the divine nature, the Godhead. This plurality is consistent with the Trinitarian understanding of God: one essence in three persons. Moreover, Genesis 1 consistently refers to "God" (Elohim), a plural form in Hebrew, which reinforces the concept of a plurality within the Godhead. The New Testament clarifies that Jesus was actively involved in creation (John 1:3, Colossians 1:16). Genesis 2’s use of "Yahweh God" (YHWH Elohim) does not exclude Jesus; it reflects the unified action of the Godhead. The separation and sharp contrast between Yahweh and Jesus you propose is not supported by the broader biblical context.
You argue that "firstborn" indicates Jesus was created, but this misinterprets the Greek term prototokos (πρωτότοκος), which means "preeminent" or "having supremacy." It does not imply that Jesus is a created being. Instead, Paul uses this term to affirm Jesus’ rank and authority over creation. The context of Colossians 1:16-17 dispels the notion that Jesus is part of creation. If Jesus created "all things," He cannot be part of creation. To assert otherwise would contradict the text.
The title "Son of God" does not imply that Jesus was created. In Jewish and biblical thought, "son" often denotes a unique relationship rather than temporal origin. For instance, in John 10:30-33, Jesus’ claim to be the Son of God was understood as a claim to equality with God, prompting the Jewish leaders to accuse Him of blasphemy. Additionally Hebrews 1:3 and John 1:1-2 affirm Jesus' eternal nature and equality with the Father.
You claim that Genesis 2 does not mention Jesus as giving life, but the New Testament provides the full picture. Jesus’ role as Creator and sustainer of life is affirmed in John 1:4 and Hebrews 1:10-12. The assertion that the Father alone created excludes the full biblical revelation of the Godhead’s unified work in creation.
Trinitarians do not "elevate Jesus" to diminish the Father but affirm what Scripture reveals: the equality of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit within the one divine essence. The Trinity is not a contradiction but a mystery grounded in biblical testimony. Your assertion that Jesus was created to "make Him the Son of God" overlooks that Jesus is uniquely the "only begotten Son" (monogenēs, John 3:16), signifying His eternal relationship with the Father, not temporal creation.
You suggest that since God cannot die, Jesus cannot be God. The doctrine of the Incarnation teaches that Jesus is fully God and fully man. While His divine nature is eternal and cannot die, His human nature could and did experience death. This is the mystery and beauty of the Incarnation: God the Son took on human flesh to experience death on behalf of humanity (Philippians 2:7-8; Hebrews 2:9). Even in death, Jesus’ divine nature remained fully active, sustaining the universe (Colossians 1:17). His resurrection vindicated His victory over death and affirmed His divine power.
The claim that Jesus did not resurrect Himself because He was dead, and you interpretation of John 2:19-21 misrepresents both the biblical text and theological understanding. Psalm 115:17 highlights that the dead, in their earthly state, cannot engage in acts like praising God. However, this does not address the unique situation of Jesus, who is not merely a human being but also the eternal Son of God. Jesus’ resurrection is a divine act, one that He explicitly claims in John 2:19 and affirms elsewhere in Scripture. His divine nature (as God) is not subject to death, even though His human nature experienced it. Therefore, while His human body was in the grave, His divine power remained active, and He was able to raise Himself.
In John 2:19, Jesus explicitly says, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” While the Jews misunderstood this as referring to the physical temple in Jerusalem, the Gospel clarifies that Jesus was speaking about the temple of His body (John 2:21). The phrase "I will raise it up" is a first-person statement by Jesus. If He didn’t mean He would participate in His own resurrection, He could have said, "It will be raised." Instead, He took ownership of the act. The claim that Jesus didn’t predict His own resurrection simply misrepresents the text.
The context of John 2 and the consistent testimony of the Gospels indicate that Jesus referred to His physical resurrection. His statement connects directly to His bodily resurrection, as John explicitly clarifies in John 2:21. Additionally in Luke 24:39 Jesus affirms His physical resurrection by showing His disciples His physical body, not a spiritualized or symbolic resurrection. In John 20:27 Jesus invites Thomas to touch His wounds, further demonstrating the physical nature of His resurrection. The idea of a "spiritual temple" is a theological concept tied to the Church as the Body of Christ (1 Cor. 3:16), but it does not negate the literal, physical resurrection of Jesus’ body. Your assertion that "Jesus' body was not raised" directly contradicts multiple New Testament passages (John 20:27, Romans 8:11, 1 Corinthians 15:4, Acts 2:31). To deny the bodily resurrection of Jesus is to contradict the core teaching of the New Testament and the faith of the early Church.
The New Testament attributes Jesus’ resurrection to God the Father (e.g., Acts 2:24, Gal. 1:1), to the Holy Spirit (e.g., Rom. 8:11), and to Jesus Himself (e.g., John 2:19, John 10:17-18). These are not contradictory but complementary statements reflecting the Trinitarian understanding of God’s unified work in redemption. Jesus, as God, has the authority to take His life and raise it up again: See also John 10:17-18. Thus, Jesus’ resurrection is a Trinitarian act. Jesus, being fully divine, has the power to take up His life again (John 10:18), demonstrating His equality with the Father.
In John 10:17-18, Jesus states that He lays down His life and takes it up again by His own authority. He then adds that this authority is given to Him by the Father. Far from undermining Jesus' deity, this highlights the unity and harmony of the Father and the Son in the divine plan of salvation. The phrase, "This command I received from my Father", underscores the relational order between the Father and the Son in the Trinity. It reflects the Son's willing submission to the Father, which is consistent with the Trinitarian understanding: the Son and the Father are distinct persons but share the same divine nature and will.
The statement, "I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again," is critical. No mere human could claim such authority over life and death; it underscores Jesus’ divine power. The phrase shows that Jesus' death was voluntary and purposeful, not forced upon Him, and His resurrection was not dependent on external forces but was an act of divine power, which He possesses as God. This is consistent with other scriptures (John 2:19, Philippians 2:8-9). Thus, John 10:17-18 reinforces, rather than refutes, the doctrine of the Trinity. The Son operates with divine authority, fully aligned with the Father’s will. The "command" from the Father is not evidence of inferiority but of relational distinction and unity within the Godhead. Jesus’ power to take up His life after death demonstrates His divine nature.
Paul’s reception of the Gospel directly from Christ in Galatians 1:12 does not conflict with Jesus’ role as Creator or His resurrection power (Colossians 1:16, John 1:3). Paul’s theology consistently affirms Jesus’ divine nature and creative authority. His role as Creator emphasizes His divine power, including His ability to raise Himself from the dead.
You suggest that because Jesus says His authority was "given" to Him, He cannot be equal to God. Additionally, you cite John 14:28, where Jesus says, "The Father is greater than I," as evidence that Jesus is ontologically inferior to the Father. In Matthew 28:18:Jesus declares His universal authority after His resurrection, demonstrating His victory over sin, death, and the devil. The phrase "has been given" reflects His role in the economy of salvation, where the Son voluntarily took on human nature and subordinated Himself to the Father’s will for the purpose of redeeming humanity (Philippians 2:6-11). This voluntary subordination does not negate His divine nature but rather underscores His humility and mission.
In John 14:28 the statement "The Father is greater than I" reflects Jesus’ earthly ministry, where He operated in His human nature and voluntarily submitted to the Father. In His divine nature, Jesus is fully equal to the Father (John 1:1; Philippians 2:6). The Church has long affirmed that this statement pertains to Jesus’ human nature, not a denial of His deity. The doctrine of the Trinity teaches that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are co-equal in essence but distinct in their relational roles. The Father sends the Son, and the Son carries out the mission, which reflects an order of operations (economy) but not an inequality in deity.
You argue that the statement "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30) merely reflects unity of purpose and not equality in essence, citing Jesus’ prayer in John 17 for believers to be "one." The immediate context indicates more than unity of purpose. In verse 28, Jesus declares His ability to give eternal life, a divine prerogative. In verse 29, He asserts that no one can snatch His sheep out of the Father’s hand or His own hand, demonstrating co-equal authority. The Jewish audience understood this claim as a declaration of deity, as evidenced by their attempt to stone Him for blasphemy (John 10:33). While John 17 does speak of believers being "one," this is not in the same ontological sense as the unity of the Father and Son. Believers share spiritual unity with God and one another, but they do not share the divine essence. The unity between the Father and Son, however, is intrinsic and essential, as Jesus is "the exact imprint of [God’s] nature" (Hebrews 1:3).
You cite 1 Corinthians 11:3 ("the head of Christ is God") to argue that Jesus is ontologically subordinate and not part of a co-equal Trinity. This verse reflects the relational roles within the Trinity, particularly during Christ’s earthly ministry. The Son willingly submits to the Father in function, not in essence. The analogy of headship in 1 Corinthians 11 also addresses human relationships (man and woman), where headship implies order, not inequality (Galatians 3:28).
The argument that Jesus having a "God" (as seen in John 20:17) somehow disqualifies Him from being God Himself or part of the Trinity reflects a misunderstanding of the incarnation and the relationship between the Father and the Son within the framework of the Trinity. When Jesus refers to "my God," it reflects His role as fully human during the Incarnation. In the Incarnation, the Son took on human nature (Philippians 2:6-8), fully experiencing the limitations of humanity, including dependence on and submission to God the Father. According to John 1:14 Jesus, the eternal Word, became fully human without ceasing to be fully divine. According to Hebrews 2:17 Jesus assumed a real human nature to accomplish His redemptive work. As a man, Jesus perfectly exemplified reliance on and obedience to the Father, modeling for humanity what a proper relationship with God should look like. His acknowledgment of the Father as "my God" is consistent with this role.
The Trinity teaches that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are distinct persons who share the same divine essence. Jesus calling the Father "my God" does not contradict His deity. Within the Trinity, the Son eternally proceeds from the Father, not as a created being, but as an eternal relationship of origin. This relational dynamic allows for Jesus, in His human nature, to address the Father as "my God" without denying His own deity. While equal in essence, the persons of the Trinity fulfill different roles in the economy of salvation. The Son submits to the Father (1 Corinthians 15:28) to accomplish His mission of redemption, but this submission does not imply inferiority in nature or essence.
The Bible repeatedly affirms Jesus’ divine nature alongside His humanity (John 1:1, Colossians 2:9, John 20:28). If Jesus were not God, His acceptance of worship and the divine titles given to Him in Scripture would be inappropriate and blasphemous.
Jesus’ statement in John 20:17 emphasizes two key truths. First, Jesus differentiates between "my Father" and "your Father." His relationship with the Father is unique as the eternal Son of God, while the disciples are children of God through adoption (Galatians 4:4-5). Second, by calling the Father "my God," Jesus emphasizes His solidarity with His human brothers and sisters. This reinforces His role as the mediator between God and humanity (1 Timothy 2:5).
Jesus referring to "my God and your God" does not place Him on the same level as His brothers in essence or nature. Instead, it underscores that Jesus bridges the gap between humanity and God. He relates to the Father as "God" on behalf of humanity while remaining one in essence with the Father as God Himself. As believers, we worship the one true God, revealed as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Jesus’ words invite His disciples into this shared relationship with the Father.
Thus, the statement in John 20:17 does not deny Jesus' deity but highlights His dual nature as fully God and fully man. In His human nature, Jesus acknowledges the Father as "my God," consistent with His role in the Incarnation and the Trinity. This verse, far from disproving the Trinity, fits seamlessly within its framework, affirming both the relational distinctions and the unity of the Godhead.
@Earnest
The phrase in question reads:
"The God-loving Akeptous has offered the table to God Jesus Christ as a memorial."
The inscription uses the dative forms, Θεῷ (Theō) and Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ (Iēsou Christō), to indicate the recipient of the offering. The dative case and lack of a coordinating conjunction like καί (and) strongly imply that Theō (God) and Iēsou Christō (Jesus Christ) are being presented as appositional—that is, "God Jesus Christ." The use of abbreviated sacred names with horizontal bars (nomina sacra) unites the terms Θεῷ (Theō), Ἰησοῦ (Iēsou), and Χριστῷ (Christō) as a theological formula referring to Jesus Christ's divine identity. This abbreviation practice was prevalent in early Christian texts to denote sacred terms.
The mosaic dates to approximately 230 CE, predating the Council of Nicaea (325 CE) and thus serves as an independent witness to early Christian theology. The clear ascription of deity to Jesus Christ in the inscription aligns with early Christian practices and writings. For example, second-century authors like Ignatius of Antioch explicitly referred to Jesus as God in phrases like "our God Jesus Christ." The inscription's reference to a "table" likely pertains to the Eucharistic altar, reinforcing a theological setting where Jesus is worshiped as divine.
If the phrase was intended to separate God from Jesus Christ, we would expect more explicit syntactic markers, such as the addition of καί (and) or clearer grammatical distinctions. Other early Christian inscriptions and texts consistently use similar formulas to affirm the divine identity of Jesus, providing strong evidence for the unity of "God Jesus Christ" as the intended meaning here.
The crux of your argument lies in the claim that Ἰησοῦ (Iesou) being in the genitive means “God of Jesus” and not “God Jesus Christ.” In Greek, it is common for appositional constructions to involve cases like the genitive or dative. For example, when referring to “God Jesus Christ,” the nominative would not necessarily be required. Instead, apposition allows for Θεῷ (God, in the dative) to be followed by Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ (Jesus Christ, also in the dative, with “Jesus” in the genitive modifying “Christ”). This interpretation fits well with the inscription’s intended theological emphasis: “to God (namely) Jesus Christ.” The genitive Ἰησοῦ modifies Χριστῷ, not Θεῷ, making it read naturally as a single unit: "Jesus Christ."
Early Christian texts often use apposition to clarify divine titles. For example, in the New Testament, John 20:28 states, “ὁ Κύριός μου καὶ ὁ Θεός μου” (My Lord and my God), where apposition identifies “Lord” and “God” as the same entity. The phrase “God of Jesus” would typically require a construction like ὁ Θεός τοῦ Ἰησοῦ, not the phrasing seen here. This specific construction in the mosaic does not include the article τοῦ, which would make the genitive relational (“of Jesus”). Furthermore, Θεῷ Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ aligns with early Christian liturgical language, where dative cases frequently denote the recipient of offerings or prayers. The genitive here functions adjectivally or possessively, modifying the compound name Jesus Christ, not separating Jesus from God.
The use of ΘΩ, ΙΥ, ΧΥ demonstrates a unified theological formula. This shorthand was specifically designed to express divinity and sacredness, often applied collectively to names and titles like “Jesus Christ” and “God.” In this context, the abbreviation underscores the identification of Jesus Christ with God, as part of an early Christian declaration of faith. The absence of καί (and) further strengthens the unity of “God Jesus Christ” in the inscription. If the intent was to separate “God” and “Jesus Christ,” the writer could have easily included a conjunction for clarity. The lack of καί supports an appositional reading.
The genitive case for "Jesus" is τοῦ Ἰησοῦ (toû Iēsoû), and the dative case can appear as either τῷ Ἰησοῖ (tôi Iēsoî) or Ἰησοῦ (Iēsoû), depending on the form. The phrase in the mosaic, Θεῷ Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ (Theō Iēsou Christō), uses:
- Θεῷ (Theō): dative, meaning “to God.”
- Ἰησοῦ (Iēsou): in this case, the shorter dative form of Jesus.
- Χριστῷ (Christō): dative, meaning “to Christ.”
This means all three terms are in the dative case. Ἰησοῦ here is not in the genitive case but in its alternative dative form. In some instances, Greek uses the shorter Ἰησοῦ instead of the longer Ἰησοῖ as the dative. This occurs in some Koine Greek texts, especially in inscriptions and manuscripts, where space was limited. The same phenomenon occurs in New Testament manuscripts (e.g., John 1:17 uses Ἰησοῦ in the dative, meaning "through Jesus Christ"). As part of nomina sacra, sacred names were abbreviated and often lacked accents or breathings. This simplification supports the idea that Ἰησοῦ is the dative here, as nomina sacra frequently omit such distinctions when abbreviating divine titles.
Thus, the phrase Θεῷ Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ translates as:
- "To God Jesus Christ."
The structure does not separate “God” and “Jesus Christ”. Instead, it forms an appositional phrase:
- Θεῷ: "to God."
- Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ: Further identifies the God being referenced, namely, "Jesus Christ."
If the inscription had intended to say “to the God of Jesus”, it would require the genitive case τοῦ Ἰησοῦ (toû Iēsou). The absence of τοῦ confirms that Ἰησοῦ is in the dative case, not the genitive.
The argument for translating the phrase as “to the God of Jesus” relies on a misunderstanding of the dative case of Ἰησοῦ (mistaking it for genitive), and the absence of τοῦ, which is necessary for a genitive construction like "the God of Jesus." If the inscription intended to separate "God" and "Jesus Christ" into two distinct entities, it would have required the addition of a conjunction like καί (and) or a proper genitive structure (e.g., Θεῷ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ). Neither is present here. So the term Ἰησοῦ in the mosaic is the dative case, not genitive.
The mosaic dates to a period when early Christians widely recognized Jesus as God. Second-century texts, such as those by Ignatius of Antioch, refer to “our God Jesus Christ” (e.g., Ignatius to the Ephesians). This shows that the theological identification of Jesus as God was well-established before Constantine. While later Byzantine inscriptions might prefer phrases like “Lord Jesus Christ” or “Christ our God,” this reflects evolving liturgical language, not a rejection of earlier Christological formulations. The mosaic’s phrasing aligns with pre-Constantinian Christian expressions.
The phrase “God of Jesus” implies a subordinate relationship inconsistent with the high Christology evidenced in early Christian writings and liturgy. For example, in Philippians 2:6-11, Paul describes Jesus as being “in the form of God” and receiving worship, indicating equality with God. Early Christian texts and inscriptions often use similar phrasing to emphasize the deity of Christ. For example the Rylands Papyrus (P52) uses the nomina sacra to express divine titles without ambiguity. Other inscriptions referring to “God Jesus Christ” lack the relational connotation implied by “God of Jesus.”
The presence of a Roman centurion (Gaianus) and other inscriptions commemorating women does not detract from the theological focus of the main inscription. The inclusion of such figures reflects the mosaic’s communal and liturgical significance rather than diminishing its Christological implications. Claims about the larger spacing between Θεῷ and Ἰησοῦ are speculative. Variations in spacing are common in ancient inscriptions and do not necessarily reflect a theological or grammatical distinction.
Based on the linguistic, historical, and theological evidence, the most natural translation of the inscription is:
“The God-loving Akeptous has offered the table to God Jesus Christ as a memorial.”
This translation accounts for the appositional structure of the dative phrases, respects the theological unity expressed by the nomina sacra, and reflects early Christian worship and belief in the deity of Jesus Christ.
The assertion that the Megiddo mosaic does not call Jesus "God" relies on speculative interpretations of spacing and an a priori theological bias. The linguistic, historical, and theological evidence overwhelmingly supports the traditional reading: the mosaic explicitly identifies Jesus Christ as God. This interpretation aligns with the broader context of early Christian worship and belief, as well as with the New Testament and other early inscriptions.
The suggestion that the inscription should be translated as “God of Jesus and to Christ” misinterprets the Greek grammar and theological context. The use of the genitive Ἰησοῦ does not necessitate a relational reading (“God of Jesus”) but instead modifies the compound title “Jesus Christ” within an appositional phrase. The argument for "God of Jesus" misinterprets the grammar and fails to account for the absence of genitive markers or conjunctions. Instead, the mosaic reflects early Christian worship of Jesus as divine, consistent with both the New Testament and other early inscriptions. The inscription is a clear declaration of Jesus’ deity, consistent with early Christian theology and liturgical practice.