Is Jesus the Creator?

by Sea Breeze 405 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  aqwsed12345

  While Philo's writings and Jewish traditions contribute valuable context, they do not negate the unique revelation of the Trinity in Christian theology. Philo of Alexandria's description of the Logos as an intermediary between the uncreated God and creation reflects Hellenistic Jewish thought but falls short of the Christian understanding of the Logos. Philo presents the Logos as a created being, a "suppliant" or "hostage" between God and humanity.

  In contrast, the Christian view of the Logos, as articulated in John 1:1-18, identifies Jesus Christ as fully God (theos) and fully man, not a mere intermediary or subordinate entity. The Johannine Logos is not "in the middle" as Philo describes but is intrinsic to the divine essence. John’s prologue states unequivocally: “The Word was with God, and the Word was God” (kai theos ēn ho logos), affirming both distinction and unity within the Godhead.

  This surpasses Philo's framework and reflects the unique revelation of Christ's divine nature. While Jehovah’s Witnesses might align with Philo’s view of the Logos as neither fully divine nor fully created, this interpretation fails to account for the New Testament's depiction of Christ. The Bible ascribes to Jesus divine prerogatives—creation (Colossians 1:16-17), worship (Hebrews 1:6), forgiveness of sins (Mark 2:5-7), and eternal existence (John 8:58)—that go beyond Philo’s conception of the Logos as a subordinate entity.

  You argue that the Trinity contradicts Jewish monotheism because Judaism emphasizes God's ineffability and often does not conceive of God as personal. However, this reflects modern Jewish philosophical interpretations (e.g., Spinoza or Kaplan), not necessarily the biblical or Second Temple Jewish context. In fact, Two Powers in Heaven by Alan Segal and related scholarship demonstrate that early Jewish thought entertained concepts of divine plurality. For instance:

  • Daniel 7:13-14 describes a "Son of Man" receiving eternal dominion and worship, which parallels New Testament Christology.
  • Exodus 3:2-6 and other passages depict the Angel of the Lord speaking as God Himself, yet distinct from God.
  • Genesis 1:26 uses plural pronouns ("Let us make man in our image"), hinting at complexity within God's unity.

  These elements do not undermine monotheism but show that Jewish thought had categories that could accommodate a plurality within God. The Christian doctrine of the Trinity builds on these scriptural foundations, interpreting them in light of Christ's life, death, resurrection, and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit.

  You claim the Trinity was not developed in consultation with Jewish writings, implying it lacks a basis in biblical revelation. This overlooks how early Christians, who were predominantly Jewish, wrestled with the implications of Jesus’ divinity and the New Testament’s testimony. John 10:30 ("I and the Father are one") and John 20:28 ("My Lord and my God") directly affirm Jesus’ divine nature. Paul’s writings, such as Philippians 2:6-11, describe Jesus as existing in the "form of God" (morphē theou) and being exalted to the divine name ("Lord," kyrios, a title used for Yahweh). The baptismal formula in Matthew 28:19 places the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit on equal footing, indicating shared divine authority. The early Church Fathers, far from “inventing” the Trinity, sought to articulate the faith handed down to them in Scripture. Their formulations were responses to heresies (e.g., Arianism) that distorted the biblical witness about God’s nature.

  The claim that Jesus is not uncreated but also distinct from creation reflects a theological middle ground that lacks scriptural support. The Bible consistently portrays Jesus as eternal and uncreated. If all things were made through Christ (John 1:3, Colossians 1:16-17), He cannot be part of creation. Hebrews 1:3 describes Jesus as the "exact representation of God's being," affirming His divine nature. Jehovah's Witnesses’ interpretation imposes a hierarchical distinction not found in the text, diminishing the full deity of Christ and distorting the biblical teaching of His unique relationship with the Father.
• 

  peacefulpete

  aqwsed.....I thought I was clear. Philo in various places described the Logos as God in action, as the firstborn Son, as the creator of all things, (hence not part of creation) uncreated but not in the same sense as his Father. This mirrors later efforts to define Jesus as 'begotten not made'. Again, I'm not suggesting Philo anachronistically invented or believed the Trinity doctrine, merely that his own similar perspective necessitated a similar apophatic approach.

  I really have no interest in judging 'scriptural support' only in learning and sharing how readers interpreted their religious writings.
• 

  KalebOutWest

  Aqwsed--

  You are arguing with yourself, not me. I was pointing out something else.

  I posted a simple reply that Judaism, as in Jewry, does not accept the Trinity in contrast to your claim that it was compatible with Jewish monotheism.

  It is not merely Kaplan or Spinoza (which are modern examples on one side of the Jewish spectrum) but even in Emet Ve-Emunah the 1988 Statement of Principles of Conservative Judaism it is affirmed:

  "Belief in a trinitarian God, or in a capricious, amoral God can never be consistent with Jewish tradition and history."--Emet Ve-Emunah: God In the Word: "God," page 17.

  This despite the various other views of God in the Jewish spectrum, the leadership council of Conservative Judaism rejected Trinitarian theology due to this being the historical view among Jews.

  No disrespect to the Trinity itself. It is indeed the central theological core to Christianity today. It explains the Ineffable God to billions in the Person of Jesus Christ who many Christians believe was spoken of by the Jewish prophets.

  This isn't formally accepted by Judaism, but this doesn't mean you might not find some interfaith families (marriages between a Christian and Jew) who participate in both religious practices and celebrations, raising children this way. How they make this work and whether these individuals accept or believe in the Trinity is likely something you would have to ask each individual, as I am sure it varies. But I know Jews from these type of families who observe both Christmas and Hanukkah, Easter and Passover, Lent and Yom Kippur, etc.

  Acts chapter 21 shows the early Church in Jerusalem consisting of Jews who observed the Law. Acts chapter 10 contains the famous vision where Peter tells God he only eats kosher. And Paul and Peter have that famous argument in Galatians chapter 2 due to Peter deciding to observe kosher rules when Jewish Christians from Jerusalem arrive but being lax about thus around the Gentiles and how Paul thinks this behavior of inconsistencies is wrong. But Paul observes the Law on a regular basis himself, likely because there is no other way to live as we all have our culture as his is based on the Mosaic Law.

  So it is not an impossibility that even outside of the Messianic Jewish community (as these are neither accepted by Jews at large nor Christians) there are Jews from interfaith families who believe in the Trinity. But you would have to ask. We don't know which religious theology reigns in each individual.

  I was writing in my posts about the official status of the Jewish theological spectrum. That is a bit more complex and very different.
• 

  aqwsed12345

  @peacefulpete

  You stated that Philo described the Logos as uncreated yet distinct from God, drawing a parallel with the Christian description of Jesus as "begotten, not made." While this might seem similar on the surface, there is a crucial theological distinction, since Philo's Logos is simply a philosophical construct that serves as a mediating principle between the ineffable God and creation. It is an abstract, intermediary concept rooted in Hellenistic Judaism and influenced by Greek philosophy, particularly Stoicism and Platonism. Philo's Logos lacks personhood in the way Christianity understands Jesus Christ and is more akin to a divine tool or emanation than a co-equal divine person within the Godhead. In John 1:1-18, the Logos is explicitly personal and divine. "The Word was God" (kai theos ēn ho logos) is a categorical statement of the Logos' full divinity. The Logos becomes flesh in Jesus Christ (John 1:14), something entirely absent in Philo's framework. While Philo's writings provide useful context for understanding how Jewish thought interacted with Hellenism, they fall short of the unique revelation of Jesus as the incarnate Word.

  ---

  @KalebOutWest

  You argue that the Trinity is incompatible with Jewish monotheism, citing the Emet Ve-Emunah statement from Conservative Judaism as evidence. However, this point conflates contemporary Jewish theological positions with the broader and more diverse spectrum of Second Temple Jewish thought, which forms the context of early Christianity. During the Second Temple period, Jewish thought was not monolithic. Texts like Daniel 7:13-14 (the "Son of Man" receiving worship and dominion) and the concept of the "Two Powers in Heaven," explored by Alan Segal, suggest that early Jewish thought could accommodate a complex understanding of God's unity. The Angel of the Lord passages (e.g., Exodus 3:2-6, Genesis 16:7-13) also depict a figure who is both distinct from and identical to Yahweh, laying a foundation for Trinitarian thought. While modern Jewish groups like Conservative Judaism reject the Trinity, this is rooted in post-Christian polemics and developments within Judaism that sought to distinguish themselves from emerging Christian theology. This historical divergence does not negate the compatibility of Trinitarian doctrine with the biblical texts shared by both traditions.

  You mention interfaith families and the blending of Jewish and Christian practices, suggesting that theological beliefs in these contexts are highly individual. While true on a sociological level, this point does not address the core theological issue. The question of the Trinity's compatibility with Jewish monotheism rests on scriptural and historical evidence, not contemporary interfaith practices.

  You cite Acts 21, Acts 10, and Galatians 2 to argue that early Christians, including Paul, observed Jewish Law. This is a valid observation about the early Church's Jewish roots, but it does not undermine the development of Trinitarian doctrine. In fact, the New Testament reveals a tension between the continuity of Jewish practices and the transformative revelation of Jesus as the divine Son of God. Jesus reinterprets and fulfills the Law (Matthew 5:17-18), claiming authority over it as the divine Lawgiver (e.g., "Lord of the Sabbath" in Mark 2:28). While Paul respects the Law's role, he emphasizes faith in Christ as the ultimate fulfillment of God's covenant (Romans 10:4, Galatians 3:24-25). Paul's Christology, as seen in Philippians 2:6-11 and Colossians 1:15-20, affirms Jesus' divinity, consistent with Trinitarian theology.
• 

  Sea Breeze

  I will cut you some slack because you are neither Jewish nor went to Hebrew school nor have studied in Israel (or perhaps been).

  @ Kaleb:

  When my wife gets a little overly critical of me, like every wise and successful man, I've learned certain disarming come-backs that bypasses arguments and fosters the possibility of humor. I will now offer you one of my favorite lines that gets a smile most every time from her: "Please excuse my ignorance". (delivered in perfect grade-school level Appalacian dialect)

  I couldn't help but notice that you describe yourself as knowledgeable in Rabinic Judaism, and I do appreciate your insights in that regard. But, I have never heard you mention much about The Essene community responsible for the thousands of dead sea scrolls. Surely a group responsible for that kind of library, theology and community deserves to be looked at?

  I think that Christians in general are fairly dismissive of Pharisaical style interpretations because of the strong denunciations levied at them from a man who walked out of a tomb, the Author and Finisher of our faith. After all, we Christians have decided to trust our eternity in his hands, so we are naturally sensitive to his viewpoints. While Jesus warned mankind to be wary of the leaven of the Pharisees and Saducees (Mt. 6: 16), there is not a similar recorded denunciation of the Essenes by him. I find that omission interesting.

  From what I understand, The Essenes were very critical of the Pharisees method of OT interpretation, using their oral traditions formulated in their elders meetings to interpret scripture. Christians, later agreed with this view and accused Talmudic views as instrumental in blinding adherents to Messaniac realities found in the OT.

  By contrast, according to Johnson, the Essenes seemed to have stuck to ancient testimonies of well regarded figures in Israel's past to serve as an interpretave lens in which to interpret OT scripture, especially prophecy. Some of these works were regarded to be Medieval forgeries faked by Christians because it was inconceivable to scholars that ancient B. C. works by Jews could contain theology so closely aligned to Christian themes, like grace, atonement, God manifesting in the flesh etc. When fragments showed up in the Dead Sea scrolls, dated to before Christ, they were more diffficult to dismiss as Christian forgeries. At any rate, the messanic characterizations between the two groups were very far apart.

  Your views on how Christianity began to have a new era of prophets with the advent of Christian faith is not supported in New Testament scripture. Hebrews 1 places prophets as a convention of the past, being replaced by God's Son who is over "all things" and "the express image" of God.

  True, God did cause some of the apostles to record the New Testament, but this is revealed in Revelation to come from God the Son, described as "the Alpha and Omega"... "the Almighty" (Rev. 1:8) And then, with the death of the apostles, not only was the canon closed, but so was the possiblity of new light (gospel intrepretation) from any future so-called prophet. (cf.Gal. 1:8-9)

  Christians today do not look to prophets, but to The Word (Jesus - "The Spirit of Prophecy") as mankind's complete revelation of God to man, and final authority.
• 

  KalebOutWest

  SeaBreeze:

  I just mentioned the Essenes a moment ago, on the previous page in a reply to aqwsed:

  The Essenes, the Sadduces and, yes the Pharisees --all those religious Jewish sects, saw their end in 70 CE with the fall of Herod's Temple.

  You write:

  Your views on how Christianity began to have a new era of prophets with the advent of Christian faith is not supported in New Testament scripture.

  My views?

  What you do not realize is that I almost never post my personal views or opinions on here. Being a professional educator for both Christians and Jews at both a Temple and a church, I teach from academic curriculum, and it is from this that I have pulled my information from.

  It comes from the academics and scholars of the Jewish Publication Society, the Society of Biblical Literature, the Catholic Bible Association, the Conservative Rabbinical Assembly, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Reconstructionist Rabbinical College and the International Institute for Secular Humanistic Judaism.

  I do not publish my personal convictions unless I directly express something in the post.

  I am not personally or emotionally invested in what I write like it appears some of you might be. The statements I post are based on scholarship and academic critical methodology as one would learn in a religious class, Christian or Jewish.

  Look at aqwsed--just typing away like some poor meshuggeneh who was hit on the head. Pumping out info like a Watchtower. Deeply invested.

  What do I believe? I have not told you. It's not posted.
• 

  aqwsed12345

  Credo quia absurdum?
  Is the Trinity unreasonable?

  *

  Trinity vs. Islam
• 

  joey jojo

  There are walls of text on this topic in this thread. There are even charts supplied by Sea Breeze. Surely if the trinity doctrine was so cut and dry - even obvious, none of this would be necessary.

  A lot of the scriptures 'supporting' the trinity are bible commentators saying what they believe to be the case, not quotes directly from jesus and these are mostly from John. Objectively speaking, that raises concerns.

  The most basic example of this paradox is Jesus (the word) himself saying, ' the father is greater than I'. Then you have John, who says, 'the word was god'.

  What about the quote from jesus at Matt 24:36? 'No one knows the day or hour but the father'? How can anyone possibly read that verse and decide it means that jesus = god, without serious mental gymnastics?

  Im waiting for the 3000 word reply. Please include more charts - there can never be enough.
• 

  KalebOutWest

  There are walls of text on this topic in this thread.

  It's the JW in people, and I think a bit of hope too. It can stick to us like stepping on gum even after leaving for many years.

  For instance I thought I was getting through to people (i.e., my own content was getting read) only to find out that SeaBreeze would comment a page later that I never mentioned a certain subject that I had just mentioned. I'm the fool, not SeaBreeze.

  Walls of text? People are preaching to themselves. Not the choir. Not to you. Not to me. Themselves. You leave a cult not believing things--you still might not believe. You might not want to be convinced. You might want to keep on not believing.

  It is how we were taught in Watchtower Land. Preach long and hard, with lots of needless quotes and blurbs that make it sound like you know your stuff because if you drown your subject with lots of citations then it sounds academic (right)? After all, who needs to put any critical thinking methodology in a post?

  Nope, just more and more cut and paste, cut and paste. Walls and walls of it. We're preaching to make ourselves feel good people.

  Prove the Trinity? Why ask if you already believe? (Remember kiddies, you don't practice proving you're not in a cult in the Theocractical Ministry School...unless there's a good reason for it.)
• 

  Rivergang

  Joey,