These were men personally trained by the apostles.
Is Jesus the Creator?
by Sea Breeze 405 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
peacefulpete
-
aqwsed12345
@Duran
You referenced John 17:20-23, where Jesus prays for His disciples to be one “just as” He and the Father are one. This passage emphasizes the unity among believers, mirroring the unity between Jesus and the Father. It's important to recognize that the term "one" (Greek: hen) can denote unity of purpose, will, and love, rather than numerical identity. While John 17 highlights the desired unity among believers, other passages indicate a unique and profound unity between Jesus and the Father that goes beyond mere agreement or harmony.
- John 10:30: "I and the Father are one." Here, the context suggests a unity of essence and nature, which is why the Jewish leaders accused Jesus of blasphemy and attempted to stone Him (John 10:31-33). They understood His claim as making Himself equal with God.
- John 1:1: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." This verse affirms the divine nature of the Word (Jesus) and His coexistence with God.
- Colossians 2:9: "For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form." This indicates that Jesus embodies the full nature of God.
Therefore, while believers can share unity in purpose and love, the oneness between Jesus and the Father encompasses a shared divine essence, which is unique to the Godhead.
You compared human sonship, where sons possess their father's DNA, to divine sonship, suggesting that Jesus, as the Son of God, possesses God's essence. Indeed, orthodox Christian theology affirms that Jesus shares the same divine essence as the Father. However, when referring to other beings called "sons of God," such as angels (e.g., Job 38:7), it's important to distinguish between created beings and the uncreated, eternal Son. Angels are called "sons of God" in a metaphorical sense, as created beings who serve God. They do not share the divine essence but are part of creation. In contrast, Jesus is referred to as the only begotten Son (John 3:16), indicating a unique and singular relationship with the Father. The Greek term "monogenēs" means "one of a kind" or "unique," emphasizing that Jesus is not a son in the same way as angels or humans but shares the very nature of God.
Human reproduction involves the division and combination of genetic material. The offspring is separate and distinct in essence from the parents. In Christian theology, "begotten" (Greek: monogenēs) in reference to Jesus does not imply creation or division of essence. Instead, it conveys the eternal and unique relationship between the Father and the Son. The Son is eternally begotten, meaning He shares the Father’s divine essence fully and completely without division or beginning. This concept is qualitatively different from human fatherhood. Your analogy of "half DNA" misunderstands divine sonship, which is not material but metaphysical.
You mentioned that Jesus is God's "Chosen Son" among all His spirit sons. While Jesus is indeed chosen for a specific mission, the New Testament emphasizes His preexistence and divine nature.
Hebrews 1:5-6: "For to which of the angels did God ever say, 'You are my Son; today I have become your Father'? Or again, 'I will be his Father, and he will be my Son'? And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says, 'Let all God's angels worship him.'"
This passage distinguishes Jesus from all the angels, affirming His superiority and divinity. The fact that angels are commanded to worship Him underscores His divine status since worship is reserved for God alone. As the incarnate Christ, Jesus was indeed chosen for His mission (Isaiah 42:1, Matthew 12:18). However, this refers to His role in salvation history, not to His divine nature. Jesus’ divine nature as the eternal Word (Logos) predates His earthly mission. John 1:1-3 declares that the Word (Jesus) was both "with God" and "was God," underscoring His eternal divinity.
You referenced John 8:17-18, where Jesus says:
"In your own Law it is written that the testimony of two witnesses is true. I am one who testifies for myself; my other witness is the Father, who sent me."
Your argument suggests that for there to be two witnesses, Jesus and the Father must be two separate persons, which is consistent with Trinitarian doctrine. The Trinity teaches that the Father and the Son are distinct persons within the one Godhead.
In Trinitarian theology God is one in essence but exists eternally in three distinct persons—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The persons of the Trinity are distinct but not separate beings. They share the same divine essence. Therefore, when Jesus refers to Himself and the Father as two witnesses, He acknowledges their distinct personhood within the unity of the Godhead. This does not violate the concept of one God but affirms the relational dynamic within the Trinity.
You provided an analogy suggesting that claiming to be both a father and a son does not make one two witnesses if one is only a single person. In human terms, being both a father and a son refers to different roles or relationships of the same individual, not separate persons. However, in the context of the Trinity, the Father and the Son are distinct persons, not merely different roles or titles of one person. This distinction allows for genuine interpersonal relationships, such as love, communication, and, as in this case, providing separate testimony.
The Bible presents a complex yet coherent picture of God's nature. From the opening of Genesis ("Let us make mankind in our image" - Genesis 1:26) to the Great Commission ("baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" - Matthew 28:19), Scripture hints at a plurality within the one God. Jesus accepts worship (Matthew 14:33), forgives sins (Mark 2:5-7), and uses the divine name "I AM" (John 8:58), all actions that signify deity. The Holy Spirit is described with personal attributes—He teaches (John 14:26), can be grieved (Ephesians 4:30), and intercedes (Romans 8:26).
-
Earnest
@ aqwsed12345
Thank you for your response regarding the diversity of early Christianity. You say that "the disputes were primarily about how to articulate [Christ's] divinity within a monotheistic framework". That is true in part, but there were also disputes about adoptionism (that Jesus was just a man adopted by God), separationism (that Christ and Jesus are two different entities), docetism (that Jesus only appeared to be in the flesh) and modalism which I have already touched on. There were also differences within each group including the Logos theology. Tertullian's alignment with the Montanists was considered heretical. Origen came to be violently opposed by the fourth-century heresiologist Epiphanius. In fact, just about every ante-Nicene father was declared heretical at a later period although they were "orthodox" in their time.
When I said that claims of apostolic succession were limited "only by lack of imagination", I meant that it was not only Irenaeus and his party which claimed their predecessors (Polycarp) were taught by the apostles, but many groups including the Gnostics could also trace their predecessors back to the apostles. Whether, in fact, Polycarp did know the apostle John is discussed by Richard Carrier here, as referred to in the post from peacefulpete.
@ Sea Breeze
Unfortunately, your "single seemless [sic] tradition of solardarity [sic] among Christians" from the beginning was a piece of propaganda from Eusebius in his "Ecclesiastical History" written in the fourth century. Your cut-and-paste from the article Nine Early Church Fathers Who Taught Jesus is God does not reflect scholarship on the Apostolic Fathers which shows most evidence we have of what they wrote is very late and has been subject to revision. I am not going to respond to everything provided in a cut-and-paste, but if you wish to provide one example yourself I would be happy to let you know how accurate it is.
-
aqwsed12345
@Earnest
You refer to Richard Carrier's argument that Polycarp likely never met the Apostle John. While it is true that some modern scholars question this connection, Carrier's conclusion is based on speculative assumptions, not concrete evidence. Carrier dismisses the possibility of John's long life because of the average lifespan of people in antiquity. However, many historical figures lived well beyond the average lifespan, especially in positions like apostleship, which involved less manual labor and better care. Tradition holds that John lived into the late first century, which aligns with Polycarp's timeline. Carrier argues that because Polycarp does not explicitly mention meeting John in his letter to the Philippians, this proves he never did. However, the purpose of Polycarp's letter was not to recount his own biography or associations but to encourage the Philippians in their faith. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Carrier dismisses Irenaeus’s testimony as "telephone-game" legend. Yet Irenaeus specifically states he personally knew Polycarp and recounts Polycarp’s connection to the apostles. This is firsthand testimony from someone in a position to know. To dismiss this without solid evidence is speculative at best.
You suggest that groups like the Gnostics could also claim lineage back to the apostles, making such claims unreliable. While it is true that many groups appealed to apostolic authority, their claims often lacked credibility for the following reasons. The proto-orthodox Christians (like Irenaeus) emphasized teachings that aligned with the apostolic writings and the Hebrew Scriptures, while groups like the Gnostics introduced esoteric and contradictory teachings. For example, Marcion rejected the Old Testament entirely, a position utterly incompatible with the teachings of Jesus and the apostles. The Gnostics often relied on later, non-apostolic texts, such as the Gospel of Thomas or other pseudepigrapha, which were written well after the apostolic era. The proto-orthodox tradition, on the other hand, preserved the apostolic writings that form the New Testament.
You correctly note that early Christianity included diverse theological views, such as adoptionism, modalism, and docetism. However, this diversity does not negate the existence of a dominant theological trajectory. The New Testament itself provides a strong foundation for the belief in Christ's deity. Passages like John 1:1-14, Philippians 2:6-11, and Colossians 1:15-20 all affirm Christ's divine nature. These texts predate the theological debates of the second and third centuries, indicating that belief in Christ’s deitywas not a later invention. Groups like the Gnostics, Marcionites, and modalists were deemed heretical not because of political expediency but because their teachings deviated from the apostolic faith. For example, modalism denies the distinct persons of the Trinity, contradicting passages like Matthew 3:16-17 (Jesus' baptism) and John 14:16-17 (Jesus promising the Spirit).
You mention that figures like Tertullian and Origen were later deemed heretical, suggesting that early orthodoxy was unstable. However Tertullian's alignment with Montanism occurred late in his life and pertained to issues of prophecy and church discipline, not core doctrines like Christ's deity or the Trinity. His earlier writings, which defended the Trinity, remain influential and orthodox. Origen was criticized centuries later for speculative theological ideas, such as the preexistence of souls, but his contributions to Trinitarian theology were foundational. Even his opponents respected his scholarship.
-
joey jojo
Why dont Jews believe in a trinity? I would think that the voice of the people that wrote the old testament would carry some weight and be taken into consideration by christians?
-
Anony Mous
@joey jojo: the original text definitely makes references to a trinity. What Jews believe today is often very different (especially as there are still different factions) than what was once believed, pretty much like every religion.
Christianity was a Jewish sect at one point, Islam as well, so all the ideas come from the same root - purely historically speaking, the Jewish God has both Elohim and Yahweh as name, both coming from different deities, and the spirit is also often mentioned, it would make sense that if you’re trying to meld multiple gods into one, you take aspects of a ‘father’ god (El) and his son Yahweh, often depicted as a bronze snake.
Note that a more recognizable form of Judaism and the composite Old Testament doesn’t develop until the 5th century BC, many centuries after the earliest writings surrounding the (initially polytheistic) cult of Yahweh starts (1800BC), references survive such as the different names of god, story about the King of Salem, bronze calf, references to other gods being ‘real’ and having some power and beasts that were once worshipped in various places like the Book of Job etc, it would thus be likely that ideas about a trinity or unity deity may have survived through tribal or sectarian knowledge transfer.
-
peacefulpete
Why dont Jews believe in a trinity? I would think that the voice of the people that wrote the old testament would carry some weight and be taken into consideration by christians?
JoJo....The Trinity doctrine was a later formulation, one that did in some ways offer a harmonization of various texts. It did not however actually represent any previous conception of God. As has been mentioned a number of times, scores of passages in the OT and many intertestamental works conceived their God as of an unapproachable infinitude that worked indirectly with humans and creation through the agency of an emanation or aspect/virtue of himself.
Philo of Alexanderia famously honed the idea, but it was centuries older in some form.
For instance Philo explains the Genesis 1:26 passage where God says Adam had become 'like one of us' as referring to his plurality of 'virtues' but are likened to 'beings'.
The expression, "one of us," indicates a plurality of beings; unless indeed we are to suppose, that God is conversing with his own virtues, which he employed as instruments, as it were, to create the universe and all that is in it...But all these things are similitudes, and forms, and images, among men; but among the gods they are prototypes, models, indications, and more manifest examples of things which are somewhat obscure; but the unborn and uncreated Father joins himself to no one, except with the intention of extending the honour of his virtues.
Now Philo was certainly reading into the text, but he did it through the lens of Hellenized Judaism. (In reality the 'Like one of us' was a reference to the divine council of gods, but that is another topic.)
As former JWs it is difficult to accept that we had overlooked the many examples in the OT that personified the Dibbur/Word/Logos or the Kabod/Glory of God or the Angel of Yahweh etc. but we did. Interestingly after the Christian expansion of these concepts through the embodiment of Jesus, the Rabbis generally condemned the notion of emanations (second power theology) as too polytheistic sounding, though rarely the concept reappears in the Talmud, mainly as the Memra/Word.
So no, the Jews did not have the Trinity doctrine, yet the Trinity doctrine was in fact an attempt to explain many aspects of Jewish writings.
-
peacefulpete
I see someone gave me a negative. Was something in the comment incorrect?
-
joey jojo
peacefulpete
I see someone gave me a negative. Was something in the comment incorrect?It wasnt me.
The Jewish religion almost universally rejects the notion of a trinity. There are hints of polytheism in the old testament but that is completely different than a trinity.
Gen 1:26 is an interesting scripture in the context of this discussion. To use the phrase 'like one of us' almost sounds like man is equal to god. Believers of the trinity certainly extrapolate more meaning into other verses with far less substance to support the idea that jesus = god.
-
KalebOutWest
In defense of peacefulpete, there really is nothing wrong with the answer pete provided. It is not the main reason, but it isn't incorrect. (Consider it a "besides," as some call it.)
Think of it this way, as I think we can all relate to what it used to be when we were all self-centered in the world of Jehovah's Witnesses:
Now that we are out of the Watchtower, we realize that nothing we did, no publication we released or any event we engaged in was really noticed by anybody. For example: remember those super-big Yankee Stadium conventions that Jehovah's Witnesses held once and were supposedly history-making that "the entire world took note of"? Nobody really knows about about those. Nobody cares. Conventions where? Who? What? They meant nothing to the world.
Now let's apply this to the Trinity and why we Jews don't believe in the concept. It has to do with the historical Jesus of Nazareth. According to secular history and that of my people the Jews, Jesus, son of Joseph, the rabbi from Nazareth did indeed exist. The only difference is that for us Jews, Jesus was like a Watchtower religion event occuring in our Jewish world--we didn't notice much of anything while he was happening.
In fact, we Jews had a different messianic concept than what Christians eventually developed due to what happened when Jesus redefined his followers expectation when he died on the Cross (and redefine those expectation, Jesus did--but that is a different story I won't go into here and now).
The Jewish messianic concept developed when the Hasmonean dynasty failed due to falling into the hands of the Herods, and the Herods betraying the Hasmoneans by selling them out to the Romans who overtook our land in exchange of putting the Herods onto the throne. The Jews, always looking for a divine reason why national tragedy occurs blamed this one on the fact that the Hasomean kings were all Levites instead of Judeans. The Mosaic Law and other texts state that rulership should be in the hands of the House of David, and thus a "reason" for God's "punishment" was seen in the Roman oppression.
The only way out was that God would send a deliverer, Jews thought, a Davidic king anointed to as prince to save the people and remove the yoke of oppression. Thus the hope of a restored kingdom, like the one the Hasmoneans had tried to build, but with a son of David as ruler. (This was newly discovered and retrofitted from re-reading the Biblical texts to fit into the new Roman oppression. There are no Hebrew Scriptures that mention a figure called "the Messiah.")
But this prince would be more like Judah Maccabee of the Hasmoneans than the peaceful, love preaching rabbi of Christianity, Jesus of Nazareth. According to the Jewish sages, it would be by violent war and a heavy rod that this messianic figure was believed to restore the independence the Hasmoneans had lost to the Herods. Who was this figure?
The Jews believed this prince was to be Simon Bar Kokhba who was anointed as nasi or "prince" by the high prince after the Romans allowed the Jews to return to Jerusalem after the First Jewish Revolt. Due to a fatal mistake of interpreting Ezekiel's Temple prophecy as literal and claiming that the Messiah would come only when there was a need to rebuild it in fulfillment of this particular oracle, the Second Jewish or Bar Kokhba Revolt ended the Diaspora in 136 CE. Bar Kokhba was killed, Jews were slaughtered again, and Jews did not see their holy land again until after the Holocaust.
This caused a practical end to the Messianic hope in Judaism. While it became a part of Maimonides 13 articles of Faith, Judaism as a whole, which is not dogmatic, never universally adopted them. The Reform Movement, for example, the first Jewish denomination, denied any belief in a Messiah. Reconstructionist Jews do not believe in a personal Messiah either.
Eventually, the Messiah became a personal hope generally shared among some Orthodox groups, though again not universal among each and every Jew.
The reason Jews do not believe in the Trinity is because Christians have a different view on the Messiah altogether. They see the Messiah as a spiritually salvific figure and one with God. Except for mostly Unitarians and Jehovah's Witnesses, accepting Jesus as the Messiah means to accept Jesus as the Second Person of the Trinity. And this is the main reason Jews do not accept Jesus as the Messiah.
There isn't anything bad about Jesus to Jews, personally speaking. A rabbi who teaches Torah and tells Jews to stop teaching personal traditions and who performs miracles with the power of God as well as stands for justice--what is wrong with that? He even rises from the dead! The only wrong thing is that Christians say he is God.
So this is why the Jews don't believe in the Trinity. God is also not so much of a person or perhaps even that much of an entity in Judaism. In Christianity, the Bible's descriptions of God being a personal God are literal because Jesus said so. Therefore this makes the Trinity more of a reality for Christians.