Is Jesus the Creator?

by Sea Breeze 405 Replies latest watchtower bible

aqwsed12345

@joey jojo
You noted that if the Trinity were "cut and dry," it wouldn’t require extensive explanation. However, the complexity of the Trinity arises because it attempts to articulate the nature of God—a being beyond full human comprehension. The Church Fathers recognized this difficulty and admitted that the Trinity is a mystery, but one based on revealed truths in Scripture. The extensive explanations, charts, and discussions are not because the doctrine is baseless, but because God’s infinite nature requires careful articulation to avoid misunderstanding. Concepts like God's eternity, omnipresence, and omniscience also require effort to explain, but that does not negate their validity.
You express concerns about the reliance on John’s Gospel and the role of commentators. The Gospel of John is particularly theological, emphasizing Jesus' divine nature (e.g., John 1:1, John 8:58, John 10:30). While John’s Gospel has a unique style, it is consistent with the rest of Scripture (cf. Philippians 2:6, Colossians 2:9, Hebrews 1:3). Bible commentators are not “inventing” the Trinity; they are explaining how Scripture, taken as a whole, supports the doctrine. The Trinity is a synthesis of biblical teaching, not a single verse.
The statement “the Father is greater than I” (John 14:28) often raises questions, but it is not contradictory to the Trinity when understood in context. During His earthly ministry, Jesus voluntarily took on a subordinate role (Philippians 2:6-8). His statement reflects His role in the incarnation, not an eternal inequality with the Father. The Trinity teaches that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are equal in nature (ontological equality) but distinct in roles (functional subordination). Jesus can say the Father is "greater" in terms of role without denying His own divinity.
The statement “no one knows...but the Father” (Matthew 24:36) is another common objection to the Trinity. Here’s how it can be understood. In His incarnation, Jesus voluntarily limited His knowledge in certain areas. This does not negate His divine nature but shows the humility of His human nature. In the mystery of the Incarnation, attributes of Jesus' divine and human natures are not always fully expressed. While Jesus’ divine nature knows all (John 21:17), His human nature could legitimately say, “I don’t know.”
So these statements reflect different contexts: John 1:1 establishes the eternal, divine nature of the Word (Jesus) as God, John 14:28 reflects Jesus’ incarnational role and submission during His earthly ministry. Both truths coexist without contradiction when we understand the hypostatic union: Jesus is fully God and fully man.
The doctrine of the Trinity is complex, not because it is untrue, but because it grapples with the infinite nature of God. Statements like "the Father is greater than I" and "no one knows but the Father" reflect Jesus' incarnate role, not a denial of His deity. The early Christians, through careful exegesis of Scripture, articulated the Trinity to preserve the biblical truths about God, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
peacefulpete

My involvement on this thread and others has been to demonstrate the stages of theological development. The Trinity was not the result of divine 'revelation' nor was it a shocking pagan deviation from Jewish thought. No, it was neither. Jewish conceptions of God had for centuries included ideas that God was not alone. In some sense God had partners in his activity, partners that bridged the material word for him, in some cases partners that were actually God themselves. The sophistication of this idea reached new heights under the Alexandrian school represented by Philo. This is the same community that created the LXX.
When the sect that became called Christianity declared that this 'partner' in God's works had come to earth and died, they were creating a new arrangement to an old tune.
Joey....The paradox you are describing is not unique to the Trinity Doctrine. As I just tried to show, the same seemingly contradictory language was within Philo's work. The Logos was God, the Logos was the creator, and at the same time the Logos owed his existence to the Father and the Logos expressed adoration for the Father of all. Natural language fails to convey what Philo was trying to describe, so he, like the later Christian theologians, resort to apophatic language. For both parties it was deemed easier to understand the Logos in terms of what it was not. It was not like us, it was not a relationship like anything or anyone else. It is not logical; it is 'obscure' 'similitudes and images'.
aqwsed12345

@peacefulpete
You correctly note that Jewish thought occasionally includes depictions of divine "partners" or intermediaries, such as the Memra (Aramaic for "Word") in Targumic traditions or the "Wisdom" (Chokmah/Sophia) of Proverbs 8. These concepts highlight aspects of God’s interaction with the world while maintaining strict monotheism. However, these figures were not seen as distinct persons within the Godhead but rather as personifications of God’s attributes or actions. The Christian doctrine of the Trinity, however, does not merely describe a "partner" or an abstract personification but asserts the existence of three distinct persons who share the same divine essence. This is not merely a "new arrangement to an old tune" but a significant development grounded in the life, ministry, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, as witnessed and recorded by the apostles. The New Testament provides evidence of the distinctiveness of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit while maintaining monotheism (e.g., Matthew 28:19, John 1:1, 2 Corinthians 13:14). This is not a philosophical construct imported from Hellenistic thought but a response to the unique revelation of God in Christ.
While there are surface-level similarities between Philo's Logos and the Johannine Logos, significant differences reveal that they are not identical. For Philo, the Logos was an intermediary between the transcendent God and the material world. It functioned as a bridge or emanation and was not considered fully divine in the sense of sharing God's essence. Philo’s Logos is often described in metaphorical or allegorical terms, influenced by Greek philosophical traditions, particularly Platonism and Stoicism. The Gospel of John begins with a striking declaration: "In the beginning was the Word (Logos), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (John 1:1). This is not allegorical language but a profound theological assertion. The Logos is presented as eternal, fully divine, and incarnate in the person of Jesus Christ (John 1:14). Unlike Philo, John describes the Logos not merely as a bridge but as God Himself entering creation. Thus, while early Christian theologians used language familiar from Greek thought to express their ideas, they adapted it to fit the unique claims of Christian revelation. The Logos theology in John and the early Church represents a radical innovation, grounded not in philosophy but in the person and work of Christ.
You suggest that the Trinity was not the result of divine revelation but rather the culmination of a theological process. While it is true that the precise language of the Trinity (e.g., homoousios, "one substance") was articulated over time in response to heresies, the foundational elements of the doctrine are firmly rooted in the New Testament. The New Testament frequently speaks of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in ways that reveal their distinctness and unity. For example Jesus commands baptism "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" (Matthew 28:19), indicating equality and shared authority; Paul writes that "in [Christ] the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily" (Colossians 2:9), affirming Christ’s full divinity; Jesus prays to the Father and promises the Spirit (John 14–16), revealing the relational dynamics within the Godhead. The doctrine of the Trinity was not an arbitrary “invention” but a necessary framework to make sense of the biblical data. The Church Fathers, including Tertullian, Athanasius, and the Cappadocians, articulated the doctrine to safeguard the integrity of monotheism while affirming the divinity of Christ and the Holy Spirit.
You note that Philo and later Christian theologians employed apophatic (negative) language to describe the divine. This is true, but it reflects a broader theological principle: the finite human mind cannot fully comprehend the infinite God. The paradoxes inherent in Trinitarian theology—such as the simultaneous distinction and unity of the three persons—are not contradictions but mysteries that transcend human logic. The use of apophatic language does not mean that the Trinity is illogical or unsupported by Scripture. Instead, it acknowledges the limitations of human language in describing divine realities. The Church Fathers emphasized that the doctrine of the Trinity is grounded in divine revelation, not human speculation.
Finally, while you rightly reject the claim that the Trinity is a "shocking pagan deviation," it is important to note that the parallels often drawn between the Trinity and pagan triads (e.g., Egyptian, Babylonian, or Roman) are superficial and misleading. Pagan triads represent multiple gods with distinct roles and personalities, whereas the Trinity describes one God in three persons who are co-equal, co-eternal, and of one essence.
joey jojo

aqwsed12345
@joey jojo
You noted that if the Trinity were "cut and dry," it wouldn’t require extensive explanation. However, the complexity of the Trinity arises because it attempts to articulate the nature of God—a being beyond full human comprehension.
If articulation of the nature of god is too complex for human minds, why do you insist on your point of view being the correct one? You are admitting that no one can understand it.
Maybe the complexity of the trinity arises because it makes no logical sense.
aqwsed12345
@joey jojo
The complexity of the Trinity does not mean it is illogical or nonsensical. Many truths in nature and science are complex and require nuanced explanation, but they are not inherently illogical. For instance quantum mechanics is famously counterintuitive, yet it is a rigorously tested framework in physics. The concept of infinity, while difficult to grasp, is essential in mathematics. Similarly, the doctrine of the Trinity is complex because it deals with the infinite and transcendent nature of God. If finite human beings could fully comprehend God’s nature, that would suggest God is no greater than our limited intellects. As Isaiah 55:8-9 states, “My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways... As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.”
While God’s nature is beyond full comprehension, we can understand what has been revealed in Scripture. The Trinity is not a human invention; it is derived from the totality of biblical teaching:
- Monotheism: There is one God (Deuteronomy 6:4, Isaiah 44:6).
- Distinct Persons: The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct (e.g., Matthew 28:19; John 14:16-17).
- Shared Divine Nature: Each person possesses the fullness of divinity (John 1:1, Colossians 2:9, Acts 5:3-4).
These truths may be difficult to reconcile fully in human terms, but they are not contradictory. The Trinity is a synthesis of biblical data, not an irrational leap.
You ask why I insist on the Trinity being correct if it is so complex. The answer lies in the authority of Scripture and the testimony of the early Church. The Trinity arises from faithfully interpreting the Bible, which Christians accept as God’s revelation. While not every detail is fully explainable, it provides a coherent framework for understanding the relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The doctrine of the Trinity was not a later invention but was discerned by early Christians as they wrestled with the biblical witness. It was articulated to preserve biblical truths about Jesus’ divinity and the Holy Spirit's personhood against heretical distortions.
Rejecting the Trinity does not simplify the biblical evidence; it creates greater problems. For instance, if Jesus is not God, how can He forgive sins (Mark 2:5-7) or receive worship (John 20:28; Revelation 5:13)? If the Holy Spirit is not personal, how can He grieve (Ephesians 4:30) or intercede (Romans 8:26)?
Paradoxically, the complexity of the Trinity may be evidence of its divine origin. Human-made religions often reduce God to something easily comprehensible or relatable (e.g., anthropomorphic gods or deistic simplicity). The Trinity, by contrast, reflects a depth that defies human invention. It captures the balance between unity and diversity in God’s nature in a way that is unparalleled in other belief systems.
The Trinity does not violate logic, because God is one in essence (what God is) and three in persons (who God is). These are not contradictory because “essence” and “person” are distinct categories. For example, a triangle is one shape with three sides. While the analogy is imperfect, it demonstrates how something can be “one” in one sense and “three” in another without contradiction.
Sea Breeze

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?
Joey,
It is an unnecessary (and unbiblical) stipulation to overlay a Materialistic view of the nature of man on scripture, and then claim there is some sort of parodox. This is what you, and JW's in general are unwilling to give up:
Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all things, including mental states and consciousness... According to philosophical materialism, mind and consciousness are caused by physical processes, such as the neurochemistry of the human brain and nervous system, without which they cannot exist. - Wikipedia

Jesus sometimes speaks from his human nature, and at other times speakes from his omnipotent nature as God, because he has both natures. I believe the problem that you are having understanding this chart is not because it is complicated. It is because of its implications. If we are constructed as body-soul-spirit, and each one is characterized as your person (You) in scripture, then it immediately begs the question: Where will I spend conscious eternity after the demise of my body?
This is the glaring stupendous reality that the depraved sub-conscious mind wants to suppress and bury at all costs. It is not much different than Adam and Eve hiding from God in the garden. For the JW, atheist, secularist, the ultimate object of their desire is for there to be nothing when they die. That belief is their greatest comfort and it is a false hope and a lie. It is a lie eagerly accepted, even demanded.
The suppression of our nature, as explained in scripture, is what is standing in the way of understanding the nature of Jesus, not a "parodox" that arises when materialism is superimposed on scripture.
peacefulpete

If articulation of the nature of god is too complex for human minds, why do you insist on your point of view being the correct one? You are admitting that no one can understand it.
Maybe the complexity of the trinity arises because it makes no logical sense.
Your comment is quite reasonable. Religion is not supposed to be completely logical. There must always be some mystery, some counterintuitive aspect for the faith to stand apart from the mundane/profane. The degree of acceptable mystery has varied over time and culture. In this example, Christian theologians inherited tradition, terminology and metaphor that were merged into a single figure. That required new theological definitions. Son, doesn't mean what it means for humans, for example.
As we come from a faith spawned in the 'Rationalist Movement' we have little taste for mystery. Our beliefs were framed in a more concrete, seemingly rational way. To do that however, the framers of this religion ignored scores of passages that didn't fit the model. They created a new God, a God that fit 19th century standards, a God that never existed before. A God our minds could embrace. Understanding ancient theology requires a paradigm shift for us, acceptance of mystery and the irrational.
The theologians that framed the Trinity doctrine, had done the same, they created a new deity that had never been conceived in precisely the same way before. They however, selected different texts to emphasize, those that focused upon the deity of Christ. They did however embrace the mystery in a way many 19th century readers could not.
In the end neither model accurately represented the texts. That is because the texts reveal an evolving character, not a singular nature or personality.
Sea Breeze

@ PP
the texts reveal an evolving character, not a singular nature or personality.
The evidence doesn't support this view. The evidence does show a consistent chain of witnesses presenting the orthodox view on the nature of Jesus from the time the events occured all the way through to a gathering of hundreds of congregation leaders in the 4th century.
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
Ignatius (AD 50-117) "Jesus Christ our God"; "the blood of God"; "God in man... Jesus Christ"; our God, Jesus the Christ; "God appeared in human form"; "our God Jesus Christ"; "Jesus Christ, the God who made you".
Polycarp (AD 69-155) "our Lord and God Jesus Christ"
Justin Martyr (AD 100-165) "Christ being Lord, and God the Son of God"; He [Jesus] deserving to be worshipped, as God and as Christ"; the first-begotten Word of God, is even God; "He was God.
Melito of Sardis (died c. AD 180) Pastor of the congregation in Sardis "they slew God"
The Alexamenos graffito (AD 200) Hostile witness testimony that Jesus was worshipped as God. "Alex worshipes his God".

Irenaeus of Lyons (AD 130-202) "He is Himself in His own right, beyond all men who ever lived, God, and Lord, and King Eternal, and the Incarnate Word"; He was very God; "He is God (for the name Emmanuel indicates this) and He shows that He is a man".
Clement of Alexandria (AD 150-215) "He alone being both, God and man"; "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"
Tertullian (AD 150-225) "Christ is Spirit of Spirit, and God of God"
Megiddo Mosaic (AD 230) "Jesus is God"
Hippolytus of Rome (AD 170-235) "the Logos is God"; "God the Word"; "was manifested as God in a body"
Origen (AD 185-254) "Jesus Christ...was incarnate although God"; "the omnipotence of Father and Son is one and the same".
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 and the the teachig that Jesus is God was reafirmed.
Never has there been a more consistent view on a subject so well attested and defended than the deity of Jesus.
aqwsed12345

Pliny the Younger to the Emperor Trajan on Christians around AD 110:
"Affirmabant autem hanc fuisse summam vel culpae suae vel erroris, quod essent soliti stato die ante lucem convenire, carmenque Christo quasi deo dicere..."
"They stated that the sum total of their error or misjudgment, had been coming to a meeting on a given day before dawn, and singing responsively a hymn to Christ as to God..."
peacefulpete

Seabreeze...???? You are suggesting the ancient Yahwists knew God the same way Jesus worshippers do? Of course not. What you define as 'progressive revelation' is theology speak for an 'evolving' nature and character.
Surely you would agree that the God who dwelt in stones from the ground was conceived of very differently from the one who was said to be so transcendent he never left heaven.

Is Jesus the Creator?

Share this