Is Jesus the Creator?

by Sea Breeze 405 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • Sea Breeze
    Sea Breeze
    Do you think that these many groups considered themselves orthodox

    What does that have to do with anything? Why would it matter what heretics think of themselves? The early church elders contended for the faith just as Christians do today. These were men personally trained by the apostles.

    We see a perfect unification in Christology from the outset, to the many examples that predate Constatine considered in this thread, as well as professions of faith by Christians on the board.

    Because of their vast written record, we know when the heresy arose, and who did it. They name names.

    For example, several of the early church leaders mention the Nicolaitans in their writings. Isidore of Seville, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Epiphanius, and Theodoret, linked this group to Deacon Nicolas (Acts 6:5), holding that he was the author of the sect and the heresy thereof.

    • Isidore of Seville wrote, “The Nicolaites (Nicolaitans) are so called from Nicolas, deacon of the church of Jerusalem, who, along with Stephen and the others, was ordained by Peter.
    • Irenaeus added, “They (Nicolaitans) lead lives of unrestrained indulgence … teaching it is a matter of indifference to practice adultery, and to eat things sacrificed to idols.”
    • Victorinus of Pettau held that the error of the Nicolaitans was that they ate things offered to idols.

    At the time the Book of Revelation was being written, the Nicolaitans were a formidable force bent on teaching false doctrines in the church and their deeds and doctrines were widespread, leading many astray into apostasy. They were a real problem to the point that they drew the attention of Heaven. In a letter Jesus personally dictated to John to be sent to the church at Pergamos, Jesus rebuked the church for the fault that there were some Christians there who had embraced the false doctrines of the Nicholaitans. In these words Jesus rebuked them,

    14 But I have a few things against thee, … 15 So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate. (Re 2:14, Re 2:15)

    Confronting heretics and rebuking them is a honored tradiion in Christianity because heretics will always be with us until Christ returns.

    Here's a couple examples that are more in line with the topic of this thread.

    Polycarp (AD 69-155) was the bishop at the church in Smyrna. Irenaeus tells us Polycarp was a disciple of John the Apostle. In his Letter to the Philippians he says,

    Now may the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the eternal high priest himself, the Son of God Jesus Christ, build you up in faith and truth...and to us with you, and to all those under heaven who will yet believe in our Lord and God Jesus Christ and in his Father who raised him from the dead.

    Ignatius (AD 50-117) was the bishop at the church in Antioch and also a disciple of John the Apostle. He wrote a series of letters to various churches on his way to Rome, where he was to be martyred. He writes,

    Ignatius, who is also Theophorus, unto her which hath been blessed in greatness through the plentitude of God the Father; which hath been foreordained before the ages to be for ever unto abiding and unchangeable glory, united and elect in a true passion, by the will of the Father and of Jesus Christ our God; even unto the church which is in Ephesus [of Asia], worthy of all felicitation: abundant greeting in Christ Jesus and in blameless joy.

    Being as you are imitators of God, once you took on new life through the blood of God you completed perfectly the task so natural to you.

    There is only one physician, who is both flesh and spirit, born and unborn, God in man, true life in death, both from Mary and from God, first subject to suffering and then beyond it, Jesus Christ our Lord.

  • Earnest
    Earnest

    Earnest : Do you think that these many groups considered themselves orthodox (i.e. representing the teachings of Christ and the apostles) or heretical?

    Sea Breeze : What does that have to do with anything? Why would it matter what heretics think of themselves?

    You miss my point. There was no dominant group until the fourth century and later, so the writers you are quoting from were also considered "heretics" in the second and third centuries as far as other Christian groups were concerned. The non-Jewish Logos theology did not have a monopoly at that time. Thus, for example, the Monarchians found their theology "inconsistent with monotheism". And claims of apostolic succession were so widespread they were only limited by lack of imagination.

  • Duran
    Duran
    Why would you ask me this since I am the one who posted the scriptures that claims this is how we are constructed?

    So, if we are all constructed like that and in the center of your chart, it shows 'spirit' = God, then that means we are all god's. Is that your view?

    And since all the angels are 'spirit' beings as well, then they are all god's too. Is that right?

    How about the other 3 points I showed...

    When is it said, 'it is written in your law' about 'TWO witnesses', it is really God's law isn't it?

    Jesus says that he is ONE witness, and his father is ONE witness. Together that makes TWO separate persons, right? If you claim they are ONE person and not TWO, then God would be violating his own law. John 8:17,18

    And what do you say about the context of ALL being ONE? John 17:20-23

    Lastly, what do you say about what is shown on the site link that you yourself posted to show that 'Jesus is God', yet it says: “Jesus Christ, Son of God, Savior.” / "Jesus Christ God's Chosen Son" [This Greek magazine ]

  • Duran
    Duran

    Edit - gods, not god's

    So, if we are all constructed like that and in the center of your chart, it shows 'spirit' = God, then that means we are all gods. Is that your view?

    And since all the angels are 'spirit' beings as well, then they are all gods too. Is that right? John 10:33,34; Psalm 82:6; Job 38:7

  • Sea Breeze
    Sea Breeze

    @ Ernest

    You miss my point. There was no dominant group until the fourth century

    I get your point. It's about all we every heard about as JW's But, the evidence doesn't support such a conclusion.

    The evidence supports a seamless uninterrupted doctrine of the deity of Christ all the way up until Arius, whose ideas were shot down by other Christian leaders.

    Jesus is called God in Jn. 1:1

    Jesus is called God manifest in the flesh in 1 Tim. 3: 16

    Jesus is called God by Thomas in Jn 20: 28

    Jehovah calls Jesus God in Heb. 1: 8

    Titus 2: 23 says Jesus is our God and Savior

    Col. 2: 9 says Jesus has the fullness of God

    After the close of the New Testament Scripture Canon, the apostles trained leaders who taught the same thing as the bible:

    Polycarp (AD 69-155) was the bishop at the church in Smyrna. Irenaeus tells us Polycarp was a disciple of John the Apostle. In his Letter to the Philippians he says,

    Now may the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the eternal high priest himself, the Son of God Jesus Christ, build you up in faith and truth...and to us with you, and to all those under heaven who will yet believe in our Lord and God Jesus Christ and in his Father who raised him from the dead.1

    Ignatius (AD 50-117) was the bishop at the church in Antioch and also a disciple of John the Apostle. He wrote a series of letters to various churches on his way to Rome, where he was to be martyred. He writes,

    Ignatius, who is also Theophorus, unto her which hath been blessed in greatness through the plentitude of God the Father; which hath been foreordained before the ages to be for ever unto abiding and unchangeable glory, united and elect in a true passion, by the will of the Father and of Jesus Christ our God; even unto the church which is in Ephesus [of Asia], worthy of all felicitation: abundant greeting in Christ Jesus and in blameless joy.2

    Being as you are imitators of God, once you took on new life through the blood of God you completed perfectly the task so natural to you.3

    There is only one physician, who is both flesh and spirit, born and unborn, God in man, true life in death, both from Mary and from God, first subject to suffering and then beyond it, Jesus Christ our Lord.4

    For our God, Jesus the Christ, was conceived by Mary according to God’s plan, both from the seed of David and of the Holy Spirit.5

    Consequently all magic and every kind of spell were dissolved, the ignorance so characteristic of wickedness vanished, and the ancient kingdom was abolished when God appeared in human form to bring the newness of eternal life.6

    For our God Jesus Christ is more visible now that he is in the Father.7

    I glorify Jesus Christ, the God who made you so wise, for I observed that you are established in an unshakable faith, having been nailed, as it were, to the cross of the Lord Jesus Christ.8

    Wait expectantly for the one who is above time: the Eternal, the Invisible, who for our sake became visible; the Intangible, the Unsuffering, who for our sake suffered, who for our sake endured in every way.9

    Justin Martyr (AD 100-165) was an Christian apologist of the second century.

    And that Christ being Lord, and God the Son of God, and appearing formerly in power as Man, and Angel, and in the glory of fire as at the bush, so also was manifested at the judgment executed on Sodom, has been demonstrated fully by what has been said.10

    Permit me first to recount the prophecies, which I wish to do in order to prove that Christ is called both God and Lord of hosts.11

    Therefore these words testify explicitly that He [Jesus] is witnessed to by Him [the Father] who established these things, as deserving to be worshipped, as God and as Christ.12

    The Father of the universe has a Son; who also, being the first-begotten Word of God, is even God. And of old He appeared in the shape of fire and in the likeness of an angel to Moses and to the other prophets; but now in the times of your reign, having, as we before said, become Man by a virgin....13

    For if you had understood what has been written by the prophets, you would not have denied that He was God, Son of the only, unbegotten, unutterable God.14

    Melito of Sardis (died c. AD 180) was the bishop of the church in Sardis.

    He that hung up the earth in space was Himself hanged up; He that fixed the heavens was fixed with nails; He that bore up the earth was born up on a tree; the Lord of all was subjected to ignominy in a naked body—God put to death! ... [I]n order that He might not be seen, the luminaries turned away, and the day became darkened—because they slew God, who hung naked on the tree.... This is He who made the heaven and the earth, and in the beginning, together with the Father, fashioned man; who was announced by means of the law and the prophets; who put on a bodily form in the Virgin; who was hanged upon the tree; who was buried in the earth; who rose from the place of the dead, and ascended to the height of heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father.15

    Irenaeus of Lyons (AD 130-202) was bishop of Lugdunum in Gaul, which is now Lyons, France. Irenaeus was born in Smyrna in Asia Minor, where he studied under bishop Polycarp, who in turn had been a disciple of John the Apostle.

    For I have shown from the Scriptures, that no one of the sons of Adam is as to everything, and absolutely, called God, or named Lord. But that He is Himself in His own right, beyond all men who ever lived, God, and Lord, and King Eternal, and the Incarnate Word, proclaimed by all the prophets, the apostles, and by the Spirit Himself, may be seen by all who have attained to even a small portion of the truth. Now, the Scriptures would not have testified these things of Him, if, like others, He had been a mere man.... He is the holy Lord, the Wonderful, the Counselor, the Beautiful in appearance, and the Mighty God, coming on the clouds as the Judge of all men;—all these things did the Scriptures prophesy of Him.16

    He received testimony from all that He was very man, and that He was very God, from the Father, from the Spirit, from angels, from the creation itself, from men, from apostate spirits and demons.17

    Christ Jesus [is] our Lord, and God, and Savior, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father.18

    Christ Himself, therefore, together with the Father, is the God of the living, who spoke to Moses, and who was also manifested to the fathers.19

    Carefully, then, has the Holy Ghost pointed out, by what has been said, His birth from a virgin, and His essence, that He is God (for the name Emmanuel indicates this). And He shows that He is a man.... [W]e should not understand that He is a mere man only, nor, on the other hand, from the name Emmanuel, should suspect Him to be God without flesh.20

    Clement of Alexandria (AD 150-215) was another early church father. He wrote around AD 200. He writes,

    This Word, then, the Christ, the cause of both our being at first (for He was in God) and of our well-being, this very Word has now appeared as man, He alone being both, both God and man—the Author of all blessings to us; by whom we, being taught to live well, are sent on our way to life eternal.... The Word, who in the beginning bestowed on us life as Creator when He formed us, taught us to live well when He appeared as our Teacher that as God He might afterwards conduct us to the life which never ends.21

    For it was not without divine care that so great a work was accomplished in so brief a space by the Lord, who, though despised as to appearance, was in reality adored, the expiator of sin, the Savior, the clement, the Divine Word, He that is truly most manifest Deity, He that is made equal to the Lord of the universe; because He was His Son, and the Word was in God....22

    Tertullian (AD 150-225) was an early Christian apologist. He said,

    For God alone is without sin; and the only man without sin is Christ, since Christ is also God.23

    Thus Christ is Spirit of Spirit, and God of God, as light of light is kindled.... That which has come forth out of God is at once God and the Son of God, and the two are one. In this way also, as He is Spirit of Spirit and God of God, He is made a second in manner of existence—in position, not in nature; and He did not withdraw from the original source, but went forth. This ray of God, then, as it was always foretold in ancient times, descending into a certain virgin, and made flesh in her womb, is in His birth God and man united.24

    Bear always in mind that this is the rule of faith which I profess; by it I testify that the Father, and the Son, and the Spirit are inseparable from each other , and so will you know in what sense this is said. Now, observe, my assertion is that the Father is one, and the Son one, and the Spirit one, and that they are distinct from each other. This statement is taken in a wrong sense by every uneducated as well as every perversely disposed person, as if it predicated a diversity, in such a sense as to imply a separation among the Father, and the Son, and the Spirit. I am, moreover, obliged to say this, when they contend for the identity of the Father and Son and Spirit, that it is not by way of diversity that the Son differs from the Father, but by distribution: it is not by division that He is different, but by distinction; because the Father is not the same as the Son, since they differ one from the other in the mode of their being. For the Father is the entire substance, but the Son is a derivation and portion of the whole, as He Himself acknowledges: “My Father is greater than I.” In the Psalm His inferiority is described as being “a little lower than the angels.” Thus the Father is distinct from the Son, being greater than the Son, inasmuch as He who begets is one, and He who is begotten is another; He, too, who sends is one, and He who is sent is another; and He, again, who makes is one, and He through whom the thing is made is another. Happily the Lord Himself employs this expression of the person of the Paraclete, so as to signify not a division or severance, but a disposition (of mutual relations in the Godhead); for He says, “I will pray the Father, and He shall send you another Comforter...even the Spirit of truth,” thus making the Paraclete distinct from Himself, even as we say that the Son is also distinct from the Father; so that He showed a third degree in the Paraclete, as we believe the second degree is in the Son, by reason of the order observed in the Economy. Besides, does not the very fact that they have the distinct names of Father and Son amount to a declaration that they are distinct in personality?25

    As if in this way also one were not All, in that All are of One, by unity (that is) of substance; while the mystery of the dispensation is still guarded, which distributes the Unity into a Trinity, placing in their order the three Persons—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost: three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in substance, but in form; not in power, but in aspect; yet of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power, inasmuch as He is one God, from whom these degrees and forms and aspects are reckoned, under the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.26

    Hippolytus of Rome (AD 170-235) was a third-century theologian. He was a disciple of Irenaeus, who was a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of John. He writes,

    The Logos alone of this God is from God himself; wherefore also the Logos is God, being the substance of God.27

    For, lo, the Only-begotten entered, a soul among souls, God the Word with a (human) soul. For His body lay in the tomb, not emptied of divinity; but as, while in Hades, He was in essential being with His Father, so was He also in the body and in Hades. For the Son is not contained in space, just as the Father; and He comprehends all things in Himself.28

    For all, the righteous and the unrighteous alike, shall be brought before God the Word.29

    Let us believe then, dear brethren, according to the tradition of the apostles, that God the Word came down from heaven, (and entered) into the holy Virgin Mary, in order that, taking the flesh from her, and assuming also a human, by which I mean a rational soul, and becoming thus all that man is with the exception of sin, He might save fallen man, and confer immortality on men who believe on His name.... He now, coming forth into the world, was manifested as God in a body, coming forth too as a perfect man. For it was not in mere appearance or by conversion, but in truth, that He became man. Thus then, too, though demonstrated as God, He does not refuse the conditions proper to Him as man, since He hungers and toils and thirsts in weariness, and flees in fear, and prays in trouble. And He who as God has a sleepless nature, slumbers on a pillow.30

    Origen (AD 185-254) was another early Christian theologian. He writes,

    Jesus Christ...in the last times, divesting Himself (of His glory), became a man, and was incarnate although God, and while made a man remained the God which He was.31

    Seeing God the Father is invisible and inseparable from the Son, the Son is not generated from Him by “prolation,” as some suppose. For if the Son be a “prolation” of the Father (the term “prolation” being used to signify such a generation as that of animals or men usually is), then, of necessity, both He who “prolated” and He who was “prolated” are corporeal. For we do not say, as the heretics suppose, that some part of the substance of God was converted into the Son, or that the Son was procreated by the Father out of things non-existent, i.e., beyond His own substance, so that there once was a time when He did not exist.... How, then, can it be asserted that there once was a time when He was not the Son? For that is nothing else than to say that there was once a time when He was not the Truth, nor the Wisdom, nor the Life, although in all these He is judged to be the perfect essence of God the Father; for these things cannot be severed from Him, or even be separated from His essence.32

    And that you may understand that the omnipotence of Father and Son is one and the same, as God and the Lord are one and the same with the Father, listen to the manner in which John speaks in the Apocalypse: “Thus saith the Lord God, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.” For who else was “He which is to come” than Christ? And as no one ought to be offended, seeing God is the Father, that the Savior is also God; so also, since the Father is called omnipotent, no one ought to be offended that the Son of God is also called omnipotent.36

    In 325 AD several hundred church Pastors gathered together to look at the heretical teachings of Arius. They took a vote and it was a unanimous vote against Arius with two bishops abstaining. The views of Arius were condemned.

    This resulted in the Nicene Creed which was supposed to stop this particular heresy from raising up again. We have already looked at the mosaic (230 AD) which proclaims that Jesus is God. And we have already considered the Alexmenos Graffitti (200 AD) which is a hostile witness affiming Jeus was worshipped as God by this early Chriatian.

    The idea that Christianity was some sort of hodgepodge patchwork of belief during this time is not support by the abundance of evidence. Opponents of the traditional view (Jesus is God) cannot point to a source or a place in time where the supposed heresy started. By contrast, we have thousands of pages of the early church leaders who explain various heresies, when they were introduced, and by whom.

    The evidence shows a single seemless tradition of solardarity among Christians from the Resurrection to the present day regarding the deity of Christ.

  • aqwsed12345
    aqwsed12345
    @Earnest

    You are correct that early Christianity witnessed significant theological debates regarding the nature of Christ and His relationship with God. However, disagreement does not imply the absence of a foundational belief in Christ's divinity. The disputes were primarily about how to articulate that divinity within a monotheistic framework. The Logos theology, which you cite as "non-Jewish," was not an innovation but a theological reflection on scriptural truths. Even amidst debates, the vast majority of early Christians affirmed Christ's divinity, as evidenced in the writings of Ignatius of Antioch (c. 107 AD), Justin Martyr (mid-2nd century), and others long before the 4th century. What was debated was the nature of this divinity and its relationship to the Father, not its existence.

    Monarchianism, particularly its modalist branch (e.g., Sabellianism), did indeed challenge the Logos theology, but it was rejected not because it was "monotheistic," but because it failed to align with the full testimony of Scripture. Modalism conflates the persons of the Trinity, denying the distinct roles of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, which are evident in passages like Matthew 3:16-17 or John 14:16-17. The early church rejected Monarchianism precisely because it contradicted these biblical distinctions while attempting to preserve monotheism.

    The claim that Logos theology is "non-Jewish" overlooks its roots in both Jewish thought and the Hebrew Scriptures. The Logos concept draws heavily from Proverbs 8:22-31, Genesis 1 and Psalm 33:6. Far from being alien to Judaism, the Logos theology reflects Jewish monotheism interpreted through the revelation of Christ.

    While it is true that various groups, such as Marcionites, Valentinians, and Monarchians, claimed orthodoxy, the widespread acceptance of key doctrines like Christ's divinity among the majority of Christian communities shows a clear trajectory of consensus. The writings of the early church fathers combatting heresies are not evidence of chaos but of a refining process to preserve the apostolic faith. The fact that the church universally recognized these teachings and codified them in the Nicene Creed (325 AD) demonstrates the underlying continuity rather than later invention.

    The Trinity doctrine was not "created" in the 4th century but clarified in response to challenges. Early Christian worship practices, such as baptizing "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" (Matthew 28:19), demonstrate that Trinitarian belief was embedded in Christian practice from the beginning. The theological language (e.g., homoousios) was developed later to articulate these truths more precisely, not to invent them.

    The idea that Logos theologians "suppressed" other Christianities oversimplifies history. Groups like Marcionites and Valentinians were not considered heretical because they were politically weak, but because their teachings deviated from the apostolic tradition. Marcion rejected the Old Testament and parts of the New Testament, creating a truncated canon, Valentinian Gnosticism introduced dualistic cosmologies and esoteric teachings inconsistent with the apostolic faith. The rejection of these groups was not arbitrary but rooted in their departure from the Scripture and apostolic teaching.

    So while it is true that early Christianity was diverse, the idea that no dominant theological framework existed before the fourth century is misleading. The proto-orthodox position, which included the belief in the divinity of Christ and the relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, was widely accepted and articulated by Church Fathers such as Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus of Lyons, and Tertullian long before the fourth century.

    It is true that various groups, such as the Monarchians, opposed the Logos theology, but this does not mean all positions were equally valid or apostolic. The Church Fathers rejected these theologies because they deviated from the teachings handed down by the apostles. Dynamic monarchianism (adoptionism) claimed Jesus was a mere man "adopted" by God at his baptism. It was rejected because it denied Christ's pre-existence and divinity, as affirmed in Scriptures like John 1:1 and Colossians 1:15-17. Modalistic monarchianism (sabellianism) conflated the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit into one person, undermining the relational distinctions revealed in the New Testament (e.g., Jesus praying to the Father in John 17 or the baptismal scene in Matthew 3:16-17). These views were critiqued and corrected by early theologians because they failed to account for the full biblical revelation of God’s nature.

    The assertion that claims of apostolic succession were limited "only by lack of imagination" disregards the historical evidence of how the early Church carefully preserved and transmitted its teachings. Apostolic succession was not merely a political or organizational claim but a theological safeguard. Bishops like Irenaeus emphasized succession as a way to maintain doctrinal continuity from the apostles. For example, he lists the bishops of Rome in Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter 3) to demonstrate the unbroken transmission of apostolic teaching. While theological disputes existed, the early Church viewed apostolic succession as a means of ensuring unity in faith and practice, distinguishing it from sectarian groups like the Gnostics or the Marcionites, who often disregarded apostolic teaching.

    The fourth-century councils (Nicaea in AD 325 and Constantinople in AD 381) did not invent Trinitarian theology; they clarified and codified what had been believed and practiced since apostolic times. The councils responded to heresies (e.g., Arianism) that distorted Scripture's teachings on Christ's divinity. The baptismal formula in Matthew 28:19, where Jesus commands baptism "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit," reflects an early Trinitarian understanding. Early creeds, such as the Old Roman Creed (precursor to the Apostles' Creed), affirm the unity of the Godhead and the distinct roles of Father, Son, and Spirit.


    @Duran

    The New World Translation renders John 17:20-23 with "in union with me," which introduces a nuance not found in the Greek text. The original Greek phrase "kathōs su, pater, en emoi kago en soi" (v. 21) translates to "just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you." The phrase "en emoi" means "in me," without any implication of being merely "in union." The translation "in union with me" in the NWT reflects a theological bias, softening the deeper unity expressed in Jesus' prayer. The Greek does not qualify or dilute the unity between the Father and the Son as being only "in union." Instead, it presents an intimate, ontological unity (i.e., unity of being) between them. The phrase "in me" supports the idea that Jesus and the Father share a profound relationship consistent with their shared divine nature. By translating this as "in union with me," the NWT downplays the depth of this relationship, aligning with the Jehovah’s Witness theology that denies the deity of Christ. The unity Jesus describes between himself and the Father is unique. While believers are also called to unity (v. 23), this unity is modeled after the unique relationship between the Father and the Son, which believers share only in a secondary sense.

    The acronym ΙΧΘΥΣ (Ichthys), used by early Christians, stands for "Jesus Christ, Son of God, Savior." This does not deny Christ’s deity; instead, it affirms his messianic identity and his role as Savior. The term "Son of God" does not imply subordination or created status but reflects his unique relationship with the Father. In Jewish thought, the "Son of God" often implied equality with God (cf. John 5:18), which is consistent with the Trinitarian understanding. In John 5:18, the Jewish leaders accuse Jesus of making himself equal with God by calling God his Father. The title "Savior" in the Old Testament is used exclusively of God (Isaiah 43:11). By attributing this title to Jesus, early Christians implicitly affirmed his deity. The early Christians used ICTHYS as a shorthand for their belief in Jesus as the divine Savior. This does not diminish his divinity but reinforces the centrality of his role in salvation.

    In John 8:17-18, Jesus references the law requiring two witnesses to validate testimony (Deuteronomy 19:15). He states that he and the Father are two witnesses, affirming the distinction of persons within the Godhead, not a denial of the Trinity. Trinitarian theology does not claim that the Father and the Son are the same person. They are distinct persons who share the same divine essence. The Father testifies to the Son’s identity (e.g., at Jesus’ baptism, Matthew 3:17), and the Son testifies through his works and words. This mutual testimony fulfills the legal requirement without contradicting Trinitarian doctrine. The fact that Jesus can call the Father a separate witness emphasizes the personal distinction within the Godhead, not a denial of their shared divine essence.

    The prayer for unity in John 17 is often used to argue that the Father and the Son’s oneness is no different from the unity among believers. However, this misunderstands the text. The unity between the Father and the Son is ontological (sharing the same essence), whereas the unity among believers is relational (sharing purpose and love). Jesus says, "just as we are one" (v. 22), implying believers’ unity is modeled after but not identical to the divine unity between the Father and the Son. Believers cannot share the same divine essence as the Father and the Son. The goal is for believers to reflect divine unity in their relationships, which is distinct from the intrinsic unity of the Godhead.

  • joey jojo
    joey jojo
    aqwsed12345 and Sea Breeze,

    You write your replies in a way that makes it seem like the trinitarian belief was a foregone conclusion in early christianity.

    It wasnt. There is no specific, defined trinity doctrine that originated from Jesus. This is undisputed fact.

    Belief in the trinity leans heavily on John, written late and containing a different type of gospel than the other 3 - that doesnt concern you?

    It is hardly surprising that Ignatius, Polycarp, Hippolytus and Ireaneus, all followers of John are mentioned. They essentially are part of the 'school of John'.

    Personally, I dont care, I just find the debate interesting from a historical point of view. I am always astonished how some people feel that a 'belief' that was agreed upon by men nearly 2000 years ago is the best we could come up with and it doesnt need any clarifications and to question it today indicates gross heresy. There arent a lot of other beliefs that have withstood the test of time since then, why is faith different?

    To me its as ridiculous as arguing whether Zeus or Mars wore white or red robes.

  • aqwsed12345
    aqwsed12345
    @joey jojo

    While it is true that the technical term "Trinity" as a formalized doctrine emerged later in Christian history, the foundations of Trinitarian belief are firmly rooted in the teachings of Jesus and the apostolic writings. In Matthew 28:19, Jesus commands His disciples to baptize "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." The singular "name" (not "names") underscores unity while identifying three distinct persons. In John 14:9-11, Jesus explicitly says, "Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father... I am in the Father, and the Father is in me." This profound unity between the Father and the Son is a cornerstone of Trinitarian theology. Paul’s letters reflect a proto-Trinitarian understanding. For instance, in 2 Corinthians 13:14, Paul speaks of "the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit," implicitly presenting a triune understanding of God. Colossians 2:9 states, "In Christ, all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form," affirming Christ's divine nature. Thus, while the formal language of the Trinity developed over time, its essence is undeniably present in the New Testament.

    The Gospel of John does indeed contain some of the most explicit Christological statements, but Trinitarian ideas are not limited to John’s writings. In Mark 2:5-12, Jesus forgives sins, an act only God can perform. The scribes accuse Him of blasphemy for claiming divine authority, which He affirms by healing the paralytic. In Matthew 11:27, Jesus declares, "All things have been committed to me by my Father," emphasizing a unique and unparalleled relationship with God. The Old Testament hints at the plurality within God's unity, such as in Genesis 1:26: "Let us make mankind in our image." While not explicit, this provides groundwork for later Trinitarian understanding. As mentioned earlier, Paul frequently interweaves Father, Son, and Spirit in his writings (e.g., Romans 8:9-11). While John’s Gospel certainly contributes significantly to Christology, the Trinitarian framework is supported throughout the New Testament.

    While early Church Fathers, like Ignatius, Polycarp, Hippolytus, and Irenaeus were indeed influenced by Johannine theology, their writings reflect a broader consensus rooted in the entire apostolic tradition. Tertullian (c. 155–220 AD), though later than the others, coined the term "Trinitas" and provided a robust defense of the unity and distinction within the Godhead. These figures did not “invent” new theology but defended and articulated what was already present in the apostolic witness.

    The doctrine of the Trinity was not a mere “invention by men” but the result of careful theological reflection on Scripture and the lived experience of the early Church. The councils that formulated the doctrine (e.g., Nicaea in 325 AD) were not creating something new but clarifying and safeguarding the apostolic faith against heretical distortions (e.g., Arianism). The enduring nature of the doctrine is not a sign of human stagnation but of its profound truth and coherence. The Trinity reflects the complexity of God’s self-revelation while preserving the monotheism central to Judeo-Christian faith.

    Unlike myths about Zeus or Mars, the doctrine of the Trinity addresses profound metaphysical questions about the nature of God, the relationship between the divine and the human, and the unity and diversity within God’s being. The Trinity is not a trivial speculation but central to understanding salvation, worship, and the Christian life. It explains how God can be transcendent (Father), immanent (Son), and present (Holy Spirit) simultaneously.

  • Sea Breeze
    Sea Breeze
    I am always astonished how some people feel that a 'belief' that was agreed upon by men nearly 2000 years ago is the best we could come up with and it doesnt need any clarifications and to question it today indicates gross heresy.

    Joey,

    Here's why it is important to get the right Jesus.

    In his book “Stealing Your Life”, Frank W. Abagnale (who is widely regarded as the most successful con artist and impersonator who ever lived) elaborates on his swindles. Hollywood produced a very successful movie about his criminal career in "Catch Me If You Can".

    The former police chief of Houston once said of me: “Frank Abagnale could write a check on toilet paper, drawn on the Confederate States Treasury, sign it ‘U.R. Hooked’ and cash it at any bank in town, using a Hong Kong driver’s license for identification.” (book “Catch Me If You Can”, page 91)

    Checks, like contracts and other documents require authentic signatures from the actual parties to the transaction. If it is later found out that the actual person named in the agreement wasn't the one who signed or agreed, then the agreement is nullified.

    This is why when believers accept the New Covenant "for the forgiveness of sins" as offered in Mt. 26: 27-28, they need to make sure they are entering into an agreement with the right Jesus, and not an impostor.

    In other words, some JW's and Mormons claim a covenant relationship with Jesus, but they think he is an angel. JW's deny the Resurrection by teaching that his body was turned into gasses and was recreated to be only temporarily physical. That's a different Jesus too.

    They make a deal with the "wrong Jesus", an invention of heretics, an impostor. And hence, their contract is invalid. Jesus will one day tell many people who point to their works as evidence for a fully ratified contract for the forgiveness of sins, "I never knew you". In other words, "I never had such agreement with you".

    I wasn't fully on board with the Trinity when I got saved. Heck, I used to argue the JW side with Baptist pastors at the doors, as a regular pioneer. My indoctrination was deep.

    But, I was careful not to deny it either. I just shelved the issue for later consideration. I entered into an agreement with he who said, "All power has been given me in heaven and earth". I got saved, (accepted) and experienced rather dramatic changes and displays of God's power for the next 2-3 weeks.

    Within 2 months, the Holy Spirit dealt with me one morning around 3 am while reading the bible, and I knew that Father Son and Holy Spirit are just one God.

    But, the Father and Holy Spirit are different in that only The Son is forever merged with the son of a peasant girl Mary, Jesus.


    When God forever implanted the person of the Trinity - "The Son" into Jesus son of Mary, he met the biblical definition of a "Man", since according to scripture men are made up of three personages Spirit, Soul & Body. Jesus has all three, and so is a man.

    But unlike the spirit that we all posess, The Spirit that Jesus posesses is the same indivisible, omnipotent essence of God - "God is a Spirit". This was a one-time event. This is how Jesus is referred to as the only-begotten Son and only-betotten God in scripture. Jesus wasn't created like angels were, he was begotten. Just as my sons are begotten by posessing my essence (half my DNA) with them, Jesus was begotten by posessing the essence of God. And since the nature of God is indivisible (Hear O Israel the Lord our God is One), he is also fully God.

    When Jesus was saying that he is FROM his father, he meant it in the fullest possible meaning of the word, not just a location; as if he was sayng he is from the same location of God. God is omnipresent, so that doesn't make sense. He was saying that he is literally from (begotten) from God, out of his essense, not created.

    This is why Jesus could say He and the Father are one. The chart above perfectly explains "problematic" verses by recognizing the fact that sometimes Jesus spoke as God, and sometimes as a Man, our kinsman redeemer, since he is uniquely BOTH. Because of Jesus, we are all now related to God - if we want it. Before the Incarnation, we were not related to God, We were described as his enemies because of our sin nature. Mankind was alone in the cosmos, separated from God, with nothing more to look forward to than an eternity of conscious separation from God.

  • Duran
    Duran
    Here's why it is important to get the right Jesus.

    LOL! There is not a part of you that wants to get it right...

    This is why Jesus could say He and the Father are one.

    He said more than that and yet you fail to acknowledge it...

    [20 “I make request, not concerning these only, but also concerning those putting faith in me through their word, 21 so that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in union with me and I am in union with you, that they also may be in union with us, so that the world may believe that you sent me. 22 I have given them the glory that you have given me, in order that they may be one just as we are one. 23 I in union with them and you in union with me, in order that they may be perfected into one, so that the world may know that you sent me and that you loved them just as you loved me.]

    Just as my sons are begotten by posessing my essence (half my DNA) with them, Jesus was begotten by posessing the essence of God.

    So you are saying your sons possess your essence, but all of God's sons do not possess his essence...LOL!

    [ 7 When the morning stars joyfully cried out together, And all the sons of God began shouting in applause]

    _____________

    And apparently you have no reply to something you yourself cited:

    [This Greek magazine ] said "Jesus Christ God's Chosen Son"

    This agrees with, out of ALL of God's 'spirit being sons', that God chose ONE of them who would be the ONE to come and be born in the flesh as a man (human).

    _______________

    And apparently you don't want to acknowledge TWO separate witnesses here, you are content with suggesting God is violating his own law by being only ONE witness. - John 8:17,18

    In order for there to be TWO witnesses here in this regard, Jesus and Jehovah would have to be TWO separate persons.

    What you are trying to claim is if you were in a position to where you needed a second person to back up what you said, that rather than have an actual second person, you can just reason that you SB, have a father which makes you a SON, and that you have sons, so that makes you a FATHER, so you say of yourself that even though you are ONE person, you are a FATHER and a SON, so you don't really need an actual second person to back up what you said, because you being a father and a son counts as being TWO witnesses, even though you are ONE person.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit