Is Jesus the Creator?

by Sea Breeze 405 Replies latest watchtower bible

aqwsed12345

@Earnest
Edward Adams (2008) offers an alternative translation: “Akeptous, the God-loving, has offered the table to/for God, a memorial to/for Jesus Christ.” This reading distinguishes between “God” and “Jesus Christ,” aligning with a lower Christology more typical of the second and third centuries. While Adams acknowledges the spacing between Θεῷ ("God") and Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ ("Jesus Christ"), he also states: “It seems more natural to take all three words together.” This is crucial because Adams himself leans toward the natural reading of "God Jesus Christ" as a single unit. He acknowledges the possibility of separating the terms but does not insist on it. Nomina sacra (ΘΩ, ΙΥ, ΧΥ) are used for sacred names in the inscription, and their unified appearance reinforces the high theological significance of the phrase. The sacred abbreviations were a deliberate liturgical practice, meant to emphasize Jesus’ divine identity, not diminish it.
The dative case of Θεῷ and Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ naturally supports an appositional reading: Θεῷ "to God", AND Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ "to Jesus Christ" (in the dative case, identifying “God”). In Greek, appositional phrases are common and imply identification, as in Romans 9:5: “...ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας.” (“Christ, who is over all, God blessed forever.”) For the inscription to mean "to God, and to Jesus Christ" as separate entities, we would expect a conjunction like καί ("and") or another grammatical marker. Its absence strongly favors the appositional reading: "to God Jesus Christ."
You claim that the translation “God Jesus Christ” would reflect a “high Christology” that did not exist until the fourth century, after the Council of Nicaea.This argument assumes a developmental Christology that lacks historical support. High Christology is well attested in the first and second centuries, long before Nicaea (cf. Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus of Lyons. The inscription aligns with this early high Christology, providing epigraphic confirmation of what Christian writings already affirm.
You emphasize that the dating of the mosaic to 230 AD is disputed, citing critics, such as Joe Zias, argue that a Roman officer (Gaianus) declaring his Christian faith publicly in the third century is improbable, suggesting the structure was adapted for Christian use later. While skepticism is understandable, there are strong reasons to consider the proposed 230 AD dating plausible. By the early third century, Christianity had gained a significant foothold within the Roman Empire. Although persecution occurred, there were periods of relative tolerance, particularly under Emperor Severus Alexander (222-235 AD). Christians began to occupy higher social positions, and public expressions of faith, while risky, were not unheard of. The Megiddo site includes inscriptions and mosaics that align stylistically and materially with third-century Christian artifacts. Early Christian communities often used pre-existing Roman structures for worship, especially in private or semi-public settings.
The nomina sacra (ΘΩ, ΙΥ, ΧΥ) are consistent with Christian practices in the late second and early third centuries. The use of sacred abbreviations this early demonstrates a mature liturgical tradition. If the mosaic were post-Constantinian, we might expect more explicit Christian symbols (e.g., crosses), which are notably absent here. While unusual, Gaianus’ inscription is not impossible. His act may reflect either a period of relative tolerance, or an extraordinary expression of faith and courage, similar to the martyrdom accounts of early Christians. Dating ancient structures is inherently complex and involves a degree of uncertainty. The fact that some scholars contest the dating does not render the earlier date impossible, particularly when the evidence aligns with other third-century Christian artifacts.
Even if alternative translations exist or the dating is contested, the Akeptous Inscription remains highly significant for early Christology, because tt provides material evidence of Christian worship and Christological beliefs in the early third century. The phrase “Θεῷ Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ” strongly supports a high Christology, consistent with both Scripture and early Christian writings. The use of nomina sacra demonstrates reverence for Jesus and aligns with other early Christian artifacts. While some scholars propose alternative readings or later dates, the appositional reading ("to God Jesus Christ") and the pre-Constantinian dating remain well-supported by the evidence.
aqwsed12345
@Blotty
The Watchtower article cited makes selective use of historical and biblical sources, misrepresenting them to support Jehovah’s Witnesses’ doctrinal stance. The Bible does not explicitly prohibit celebrating birthdays. The examples of Pharaoh (Genesis 40:20) and Herod (Matthew 14:6-10) show sinful acts committed on birthdays, but the celebrations themselves are not condemned. These narratives highlight the wickedness of the individuals, not the inherent sinfulness of marking a birthday. In fact, Job 1:4-5 suggests that Job’s children held feasts "each on his day." While Jehovah's Witnesses argue this refers to something other than birthdays, the text does not explicitly deny the possibility. Job’s concern was for their behavior, not the occasion itself. The Watchtower’s argument hinges on the idea that wedding anniversaries celebrate a divinely instituted arrangement (marriage), while birthdays do not. However the Bible does not mandate the celebration of anniversaries either. Birthdays, like anniversaries, can be moments to reflect on God’s blessings and milestones in life. Both celebrations can honor God if done appropriately.
Jehovah’s Witnesses often reject customs with alleged pagan origins (birthdays, Christmas) while embracing others (wedding rings, using names of days/months). This double standard is illogical: As the Watchtower itself states (The Watchtower, Oct. 15, 1991):
“Still, all kinds of objects, designs, and practices have, at some time or place, been given a false interpretation or have been linked with unscriptural teachings. Trees have been worshiped, the heart shape has been viewed as sacred, and incense has been used in pagan ceremonies. Does this mean that a Christian must never use incense, have trees in any decoration, or wear heart-shaped jewelry? That is not a valid conclusion.”
If wedding rings are permissible despite their pagan history, so too should be birthdays or Christmas, which no longer carry pagan meanings in their modern context. Practices like birthdays and Christmas have lost their pagan associations and are celebrated today in entirely different contexts. Christians focus on Christ’s incarnation at Christmas, not pagan gods or rituals. Similarly, birthdays celebrate life—a gift from God.
The Watchtower often cites sources like Hastings’ Encyclopaedia or Origen to argue against birthdays, ignoring the broader historical context. Origen’s condemnation of birthdays reflects his ascetic philosophy, not a biblical command. His views were not universally accepted by early Christians and are irrelevant as binding doctrine. While ancient Jews avoided birthdays due to potential astrological connotations, this cultural preference is not a binding principle for Christians. The New Testament explicitly teaches that Christians are not bound by Jewish customs (Colossians 2:16-17; Galatians 4:9-10).
The claim that "week names" (e.g., Thursday, named after Thor) are unavoidable but harmless is revealing. Jehovah’s Witnesses argue that using pagan-derived weekday names is acceptable because these names are practical tools, not acts of worship. However the same reasoning applies to birthdays and Christmas. These celebrations no longer carry their original pagan significance and are instead opportunities for family unity, gratitude, and worship of God.
Romans 14:5-6 teaches that Christians have freedom regarding the observance of special days:
“One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord.”
This passage underscores personal liberty in matters of celebration, provided they honor God. Celebrating a birthday or Christmas is not inherently sinful and can be done in a God-honoring way. Celebrating milestones like birthdays or Christmas can be spiritually enriching when approached with gratitude toward God. Jehovah’s Witnesses’ blanket rejection overlooks the potential for these celebrations to inspire faith and community.
The entry in Kitto’s Cyclopedia of Biblical Literature provides historical context about birthdays in ancient cultures but does not establish any prohibition against their observance for Christians. Below is a detailed response addressing the key points raised in the entry:
Claim: "The observance of birthdays may be traced to a very ancient date... celebrated with a degree of festivity."
Yes, the celebration of birthdays has ancient origins, but their historical existence does not inherently make them inappropriate for Christians. The argument that birthdays are tied to pagan practices misunderstands the nature of cultural evolution. Modern birthday celebrations are no longer associated with the religious or idolatrous rites of ancient Egypt, Persia, or Rome. Just as wedding rings or calendars have pagan origins but are now used without religious connotations, birthdays can similarly be celebrated without idolatry.
Claim: "The birthdays of the Egyptian kings were celebrated with great pomp... regarded as holy days with no business done upon them."
The text mentions Egyptian practices, which often involved idolatrous rituals, but it does not follow that modern birthday celebrations are idolatrous. Christians are not bound by Egyptian or Persian customs, nor do contemporary birthday celebrations mimic those practices. For example a holiday like Christmas or Easter may have coincided with ancient pagan festivals but has been "Christianized" to reflect biblical truths. Similarly, birthday celebrations today are a time of thanksgiving and joy, often involving prayer and acknowledgment of God’s blessings.
Claim: "In the Bible there is no instance of birthday celebrations among the Jews themselves... later Jews regarded birthday celebrations as parts of idolatrous worship."
The absence of explicit birthday celebrations in the Bible is not a prohibition. The Bible does not record many neutral or positive cultural practices of its time, but this does not make them sinful. Later Jewish avoidance of birthdays was cultural and based on caution against pagan influences, not a biblical command. This reflects a post-exilic mindset of distancing from Gentile customs, but Christians are not bound by later Jewish traditions (see Colossians 2:16-17).
Claim: "The example of Herod the tetrarch, whose birthday celebration cost John the Baptist his life, can scarcely be regarded as such."
The fact that immoral acts occurred during Herod’s birthday does not condemn the concept of celebrating birthdays. The Bible does not attribute the beheading of John the Baptist to the birthday itself but to the wickedness of Herod and his family. By this logic, one could argue against any festivity because sinful acts might occur during them. Similar logic could be misapplied to weddings. For instance, Jesus attended a wedding at Cana (John 2:1-11), but if someone committed a sin during a wedding, would that mean weddings are sinful? Of course not. It is the actions of the individuals, not the occasion, that are condemned.
Claim: "Later Jews regarded birthday celebrations as parts of idolatrous worship... on account of idolatrous rites in honor of patron gods of the day."
The association of birthdays with idolatry in some cultures does not apply universally or historically to every birthday celebration. Christians do not observe birthdays with idolatrous intent or rituals. Modern birthday customs, such as cakes or candles, are secularized expressions of celebration and gratitude, devoid of pagan worship. The argument against birthdays based on their alleged pagan origins ignores the fact that Jehovah’s Witnesses allow practices like the use of wedding rings, which also have pagan roots. Their own literature acknowledges:
“Many of today’s articles of clothing and aspects of life originated in pagan lands. The present time divisions of hours, minutes and seconds are based on an early Babylonian system. Yet, there is no objection to a Christian’s using these time divisions, for one’s doing so does not involve carrying on false religious practices.” (The Watchtower, Jan. 15, 1972, p. 63-64).
Why apply a stricter standard to birthdays while ignoring other practices with similar origins? The Bible does not explicitly command or forbid birthday celebrations. However, it does emphasize the freedom of Christians regarding cultural practices, as long as they do not involve sin:
"One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord." (Romans 14:5-6)
"Let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or Sabbaths." (Colossians 2:16-17)
In Job 1:4-5, Job’s children held feasts "each on his day," which some scholars interpret as their birthdays. Job, rather than condemning the celebrations, prayed for his children, showing concern for their spiritual well-being. This demonstrates a balanced perspective: celebrations can be occasions for gratitude and prayer, not condemnation.
So the argument against birthdays relies on guilt by association, linking modern practices with ancient pagan customs that are no longer relevant. The Bible provides no explicit prohibition of birthdays, and their modern observance bears no resemblance to ancient idolatrous rites. Christians are free to celebrate birthdays as occasions of gratitude to God for the gift of life. As Paul wrote, "Whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God" (1 Corinthians 10:31). Jehovah’s Witnesses’ stance on birthdays reflects an inconsistent application of their principles, as they permit other practices with similar historical roots while condemning birthdays without biblical justification. In short, the observance of birthdays is a personal choice and can be a God-honoring tradition when approached with the right intent.
The rejection of birthdays and Christmas by Jehovah’s Witnesses is rooted in selective interpretations of history and inconsistent application of their own principles. Modern Christians celebrate these occasions in ways that reflect their faith and gratitude to God, not paganism. The Bible allows freedom in such matters, emphasizing that the heart's intention is what matters most (Colossians 3:17). Rejecting these celebrations outright imposes unnecessary restrictions and misses opportunities to glorify God through shared joy and thanksgiving.
Your emotional claims deserve a measured response:
- Claim: "I avoid celebrations for commercialism or pagan reasons."
- Claim: "People like you put me off religion."
Earnest

@ Sea Breeze :
I didn't give a full reponse to your posts here and here which reflected the article Nine Early Church Fathers Who Taught Jesus is God by Tim Barnett on the Stand to Reason website. Of course that doesn't negate the quotations made, and so I should expand on my comment that "scholarship on the Apostolic Fathers shows most evidence we have of what they wrote is very late and has been subject to revision".
First, regarding the evidence we have of their writings being very late, I refer to the third edition of The Apostolic Fathers, 2007, edited by Michael Holmes. Holmes says, regarding the letter of Polycarp to the Philippians (p.277) :
The text of the letter has been poorly preserved. Nine late Greek manuscripts are extant, all incomplete and all derived from the same defective source, [which only go up as far as 9.2. The oldest Greek witness is Vaticanus Graecus 859 from the 11th–13th centuries, but most are from the 15th–16th centuries]. For the rest of the letter we are dependent upon a Latin translation, preserved in nine manuscripts, [the earliest from the 11th century].
So the quotation that you provide from chapter 12 of Polycarp's Letter to the Philippians referring to "our Lord and God Jesus Christ" has no manuscript support in the Greek at all, but relies on a Latin translation no earlier than the eleventh century. The nine Latin manuscripts have different readings. Four of the Latin manuscripts (r,p,m,f) read "dominum nostrum et deum Iesum Christum" (= "our Lord and God Jesus Christ") while five of the Latin manuscripts (o,v,b,c,t) read "dominum nostrum Iesum Christum" (= "our Lord Jesus Christ"), omitting "et deum".
Now I would like to show that it was common practice to interpolate and/or alter the writings of early Christians so they reflected later dogma. Rufinus (344-411 AD) translated Origen into Latin and he discusses interpolations in On the Adulteration of the Works of Origen (late fourth century). Indeed, Rufinus himself "altered many things which had a heterodox meaning as found in the ordinary mss. of Origen, so as to make the work consistent with itself and with the orthodox views expressed in other parts of Origen’s writings" (p.736).
He lists several examples of interpolation in the writings of other Church Fathers. Eunomian arguments interjected into Clement's Recognitions, subordinationist views into the writings of Clement of Alexandria, Sabellian and Arian positions into those of Dionysius of Alexandria (p.737). Latin writers like Hilary of Poitiers (p.741), Cyprian (p.742), and Jerome were also victims of interpolation. If this was going on while the writers were still alive (as Origen asserted in his own case), it can hardly be a surprise that it happened after they died. Especially when so much was at stake (banishment, imprisonment or death) once the emperor got involved.
So let me go back to the expression "God Jesus Christ" which was allegedly written in Polycarp's Letter to the Philippians. Interestingly, in the CCEL Apostolic Fathers it only reads "Lord Jesus Christ". In the Apostolic Fathers, edited by Michael Holmes, it does read "God Jesus Christ" but has a footnote saying "Many ancient authorities omit 'and God' [in the expression "our Lord and God Jesus Christ"]". I wrote to Michael Holmes regarding this, and he replied :
I consulted an unfinished commentary on the Letter of Polycarp that I have been working on since publishing the latest edition of the translation. It turns out that I had forgotten that I had in fact, after working on this passage in more detail, concluded by disagreeing with Lightfoot at this point; I argue the phrase et deum is more likely a later addition. So, if and when I publish the commentary, I will need to revise the published translation to match it.
aqwsed12345
Your argument against the authenticity of the phrase "our Lord and God Jesus Christ" in Polycarp's Letter to the Philippians—and by extension, your broader point about potential interpolations in early Christian writings—requires a detailed response. You correctly note that the Greek manuscript evidence for Polycarp's letter is incomplete and relies on late Latin manuscripts for the latter part. However, this does not automatically render the inclusion of "our Lord and God Jesus Christ" invalid. Several points need consideration. Many ancient works have come down to us in fragmentary or late manuscripts. For instance, much of classical literature is known from manuscripts no earlier than the Middle Ages. This does not negate the authenticity of those works; rather, it underscores the care required in textual criticism. While there are variations in the Latin manuscripts regarding "et deum" ("and God"), the presence of this phrase in four of the nine manuscripts is significant. Variations in wording are a common feature of manuscript traditions and must be weighed carefully, not dismissed outright. The phrase "our Lord and God Jesus Christ" aligns with the theological language of Polycarp's time. The early Christian community frequently referred to Jesus in terms that affirmed His divinity (e.g., John 20:28, Ignatius of Antioch).
You raise valid concerns about the possibility of interpolations in early Christian writings, citing Rufinus and examples from other Church Fathers. However, while Rufinus admits to "harmonizing" Origen's works with orthodox theology, this was not a systematic effort to alter all early Christian texts. The cases you cite (e.g., Clement, Dionysius of Alexandria) are specific examples, not evidence of widespread fabrication. Differences in manuscript traditions are normal, but they do not imply deliberate falsification. Textual criticism aims to identify the most likely original reading based on internal and external evidence. Polycarp was a disciple of the Apostle John and a contemporary of Ignatius of Antioch, whose writings unambiguously affirm Jesus' divinity (e.g., Ignatius’ letter to the Ephesians: "our God, Jesus Christ"). The phrase "our Lord and God Jesus Christ" fits the theological framework of Polycarp’s milieu, making interpolation less likely.
The expression "our Lord and God Jesus Christ" is consistent with early Christian theology. Thomas explicitly addresses Jesus as "My Lord and my God" (Ho Kyrios mou kai ho Theos mou). This confession of Jesus' divinity became a cornerstone of early Christian belief. Writing just decades before Polycarp, Ignatius repeatedly refers to Jesus as God (e.g., To the Romans 3:3: "our God, Jesus Christ"). The idea of Jesus' divinity was not a late development but an integral part of early Christian theology. As a disciple of the Apostle John, Polycarp's theology would naturally reflect Johannine Christology, which strongly emphasizes Jesus' divine nature (e.g., John 1:1, 10:30).
Michael Holmes' personal correspondence, where he suggests "et deum" may be a later addition, reflects the ongoing nature of textual criticism. However, textual criticism often involves differing opinions. Holmes' later reconsideration does not constitute definitive proof against the phrase's authenticity. Other scholars, such as J.B. Lightfoot, have defended the phrase. The broader context of Polycarp's writings emphasizes Christ's exalted status. Even if "et deum" were omitted, the remaining text still supports a high Christology consistent with early Christian belief.
Your broader assertion that no first-century Christian, including Paul, believed in a Trinity is not supported by the evidence. Paul refers to Jesus in divine terms (e.g., Philippians 2:6-11, Colossians 1:15-20, Titus 2:13). While Paul does not use the term "Trinity," his writings provide the foundation for later Trinitarian doctrine. The New Testament contains numerous references to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in ways that suggest a unified divine nature (e.g., Matthew 28:19, 2 Corinthians 13:14). The writings of Ignatius, Justin Martyr, and others demonstrate that belief in Jesus' divinity and the Triune nature of God was firmly established in the early church.
In the New Testament, Jesus Christ is referred to as κύριος (Lord) and θεός (God) in numerous instances, but according to Arians these do not mean anything special, it’s not a big deal, right? They argue that κύριος does not necessarily refer to Adonai, and thus ultimately to Yahweh, and that θεός may also have a more general meaning. But is this really what the apostles meant by using these terms?

In Ancient Greek, to convey "master" or "lord" in non-divine sense while avoiding the connotations of κύριος (kyrios), you could use:
1. δεσπότης (despotes) - This term generally means "master" or "lord" in the sense of a ruler or one with authority over a household or dependents. While it can have hierarchical connotations, it is less tied to divinity in classical contexts.
2. ἄναξ (anax) - This is a poetic or noble term often translated as "lord" or "master." It has heroic or noble associations, especially in Homeric contexts.
3. ἄρχων (archon) - Meaning "ruler" or "chief," this term could be used for someone with authority in a civic or administrative role.
4. ἡγεμών (hēgemṓn): Meaning "leader" or "governor," though it often denoted a political or military leader rather than a personal "lord" or "master."
The best choice depends on the context and the specific nuances you want to convey about the relationship or setting. δεσπότης is probably the closest neutral alternative in most general uses.

Question: if the apostles wanted to avoid Christ being understood as a divine Lord in the proper sense, and wanted to avoid the YHWH-Adonai association, why didn't they use one of these terms instead of κύριος?

But likewise, the apostles repeatedly call Christ θεός, and instead, numerous expressions would have been available if they wanted to express that he was partly divine, godlike, kind of god:
1. θεῖος (theios): "Divine," "godlike," or "of the gods." Often used adjectivally to describe something extraordinary, inspired, or blessed by the gods, such as divine wisdom (θεῖα σοφία). It does not imply the being is a full deity. This term works well for attributing divine qualities without implying the individual is a full god.
2. ἡμίθεος (hemitheos): "Demigod," literally "half-god. Used for mythological figures, typically heroes or mortals with divine parentage or divine favor. For example, Heracles is referred to as a ἡμίθεος. This explicitly signals a partial divinity or divine favor, emphasizing a lower status than a full deity.
3. ἥρως (hērōs): "Hero," a mortal of exceptional ability, often regarded as semi-divine. Heroes like Achilles or Odysseus were sometimes venerated and associated with divine qualities. While primarily mortal, ἥρως carries connotations of extraordinary, divine-like qualities.
4. θεϊκός / θεϊνός (theïkos / theinos): "Godlike," "pertaining to a god." These adjectival forms emphasize qualities that resemble those of a deity but do not imply full divinity. For example, extraordinary beauty or wisdom could be described as θεϊκή. Flexible for metaphorical or partial divine associations.
5. θεώτερος (theōteros): "More divine." Comparative form, used to imply that someone or something is more divine or godlike than others, but not absolutely divine. It highlights relative, rather than absolute, divinity.
6. δαίμων (daimōn): Originally referred to a spirit or lesser deity, often a personal or local divine force. Associated with a range of supernatural beings, not inherently good or evil. In later usage, particularly in Christian contexts, it took on a negative connotation (as "demon"), but in classical texts, it was more neutral. Suitable for referring to a lower-order divine being or a guiding force without implying supreme authority.
Question: if the apostles really wanted to avoid understanding Christ as God in the absolute, monadic sense, then why didn't they use one of the terms instead of θεός?
Earnest

aqwsed12345 : Differences in manuscript traditions are normal, but they do not imply deliberate falsification.
Rufinus, who I quoted, was writing about deliberate falsification. It happened all the time, but especially in the fourth century when the consequences of "heresy" were imprisonment or exile. When Origen complained it was happening to his own writings in his lifetime, do you think he was talking about different manuscript traditions?
aqwsed12345 : Polycarp was a disciple of the Apostle John and a contemporary of Ignatius of Antioch, whose writings unambiguously affirm Jesus' divinity (e.g., Ignatius’ letter to the Ephesians: "our God, Jesus Christ").
I would have thought you would have known that the writings of Ignatius are completely corrupted. I will happily write similar details about the textual history of Ignatius, but it is sufficient for now to say that there are three different recensions of his letters, the shorter, the medium and the longer recension. Several scholars think they are all forgeries, and all scholars accept some are forgeries and the rest have interpolations.
aqwsed12345 : Other scholars, such as J.B. Lightfoot, have defended the phrase ["our Lord and God Jesus Christ" in Polycarp's Letter to the Philippians].
J.B. Lightfoot wrote in the nineteenth century and textual criticism has moved on since then. At that time, Lightfoot edited "The Apostolic Fathers". The current editor is Michael Holmes, and it was from his latest edition of "The Apostolic Fathers" that I got my information.
LauraLynn

There have been a lot of well-thought-out responses to Sea Breeze's original question, and many, many offshoots have developed, from whether Christmas or even birthdays should be celebrated all the way to more weighty matters such as whether Jesus is God. I guess we could discuss the differences between JW theology and orthodox theology ad infinitum, but the bottom line should be the gospel message and how we respond to it. And this is the message:
"And there is no other god besides me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none besides me. "Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other." [Isa 45:21-22]
Every single one of us is in need of salvation. The Apostle Paul wrote:
"for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith." [Rom 3:23-25]
We all fall short of God's holy standard, which is summed up in Jesus' exchange with a Jewish lawyer:
"And behold, a lawyer stood up to put him to the test, saying, "Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?" He said to him, "What is written in the Law? How do you read it?" And he answered, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself." And he said to him, "You have answered correctly; do this, and you will live."" [Luk 10:25-28]
Jesus challenged this man to live in such a way so as to show wholehearted love and devotion to God and our neighbor in order to inherit eternal life. Yet, who of us can do this perfectly? The only person to ever fulfill this requirement was Jesus. When we compare our lives to the perfect life of Jesus, how do we fare? Did we ever lie, cheat, or steal? Do we love and honor our mother and father? Did we ever commit adultery, or love money more than God?
Only Jesus fulfilled the intent of the Mosaic law perfectly. That is why faith in Jesus' death and resurrection has such power to save us--He is the only one who can stand before God in our place--by His suffering and death He took on the spiritual punishment we deserve for breaking God's laws.
For those who put their faith in Jesus as the promised Messiah who would save us from our sins, He grants eternal life:
"Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life." [Jhn 5:24]
""For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God." [Jhn 3:16-18]
I am not an eloquent defender of orthodox Christian faith, but the above is the basis anyone needs to understand and believe. Every other discussion should flow from this simple gospel message. This is the foundation on which all theology should be built. How could I understand more complex topics if the foundation I am building on is not secure?
God is looking for people who are searching for truth, who are humble:
"Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light." [Mat 11:28-30]
"Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." [Jhn 14:6]
Like Paul says:
"We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God." [2Co 5:20]
]
Earnest

@ aqwsed12345 :
As you raised the sayings of Ignatius I will provide a bit more background to what we know about his writings. As I said, the existing manuscripts of the letters from Ignatius exist in three basic forms.
The first recension (short recension) only contains three letters - to Polycarp, to the Ephesians and to the Romans. It is extant only in a Syriac version.
The second recension (middle recension) contains these three letters in a fuller form, and adds to them four others - to the Magnesians; to the Trallians; to the Philadelphians; and to the Smyrneans. This is extant in Greek and Latin with three sets of fragments in Syriac and two fragmentary manuscripts in Coptic. There are also Armenian and Arabic fragments translated from the Syriac.
The third recension (long recension) contains the seven letters of the middle recension in a still longer form, together with six others - one from Mary of Cassabola to Ignatius; Ignatius's reply to her; letters to the churches at Tarsus, Antioch, and Philippi; and one to Hero [Ignatius's successor as bishop of Antioch]. This is extant in Greek and Latin. These six additional letters were added in the fourth century and are universally viewed as spurious. There were another four letters added in the Middle Ages (to John the Evangelist and an exchange with the "virgin Mary") but I think these can be safely ignored.
So, of the twelve "Ignatian" letters, three (Polycarp, Ephesians, Romans) occur in three different forms; four (Magnesians, Trallians, Philadelphians, Smyrneans) occur in two forms; and the remaining five from the long recension (Mary, Tarsus, Antioch, Philippi) in one form only.
I will only detail the support for the middle recension, as that is the only one viewed as reflecting the genuine letters of Ignatius, although you can read The Apostolic Fathers (pp. 70–126; 587–598) for yourself to confirm manuscript support for the other recensions if you wish.
There is only one surviving copy of the middle recension in Greek, an eleventh century manuscript, the codex Mediceo-Laurentianus 57,7. This contains the letters of the middle recension (except Romans) as well as the forged letters from Mary to Ignatius, Ignatius to Mary, and Ignatius to Tarsus (a fragment). It probably contained all twelve letters of the long recension originally but the ms is defective. The letter to the Romans comes from a tenth century manuscript, codex Parisiensis-Colbertinus.
The Latin of the middle recension is based on two manuscripts from the thirteenth century, one of which is now lost. (Codex Caiensis 395 and codex Montacutianus [lost]). This contains the letters of the middle recension as well as the forged letters from Mary to Ignatius, Ignatius to Mary, and letters from Ignatius to Tarsus, Antioch, and Hero, all part of the long recension.
So ... there is only one Greek and one Latin ms of the middle recension extant. None of these are dated before the tenth century (except for a papyrus from the fifth century which only contains the letter to the Smyrneans 3.3-12.1). All these manuscripts also contain some or all of the forged letters from the fourth century. It is hardly surprising that the theology we find in the extant "genuine" letters also reflects fourth century theology.
Blotty

Too address the questions of why were theos and Kurious used of Christ if the apostles didn't want to call him God..

Simple use a braincell... none of the other exhert the force needed or meaning that the writers intended...
Neither JW's nor anyone here claims Jesus is a demi-God (Half divine half something else) something not really known to NT writers and certainly not something they would express, because this would imply a competing God..
the adjectival force would essentially be what "theos" is in John 1:1c - essentially turning it into an adjective (according to Goodspeed and Daniel Wallace)
what is the earliest use of these words? and are they used in the NT at all (or lxx)?
citations please.
see Mounce for uses of the word: https://www.billmounce.com/greek-dictionary/despotes - Where it is used of both Christ and God by my understanding.
not sure why you are being wilfully ignorant on these cases.. but your certainly not what you claimed to me before.
Blotty

Do a simple google search on AQWED's word list - this is misleading and only made to suit an agenda rather than be a substantial question - think about it, if this was a valid point why did smart scholars like Daniel Wallace, A.T Robertson (both of who, for the most part you DO NOT argue with on Greek grammar - along with Goodspeed and Moffatt are considered authorities) not raise this question previously? simple their is something that invalidates every single example.. Which AQWSED does not disclose, when a simple google search reveals it, why?
aqwsed12345
@Earnest
Rufinus does acknowledge editing Origen’s works, but this cannot be extrapolated to claim systematic falsification of all early Christian texts. Rufinus’ harmonizations were limited in scope and did not reflect a widespread pattern of deliberate textual corruption across early Christian writings. Origen lamented textual corruption during his time, but this refers primarily to errors from scribal transmission, a common phenomenon in ancient texts, not deliberate theological manipulation. Polycarp and Ignatius were widely venerated as martyrs and early witnesses to apostolic faith. Any significant textual corruption of their writings would have provoked objections from the Christian communities safeguarding these texts.
The survival of Polycarp’s letter in incomplete Greek manuscripts and a full Latin translation is not unusual for ancient works. Many classical and early Christian texts survive in later manuscripts, and textual critics rely on these with established methodologies to reconstruct the original text. The Latin manuscripts are based on an earlier Greek text no longer extant. While there are some variations, the general consistency of the text across traditions supports its authenticity. The phrase "our Lord and God Jesus Christ" is theologically consistent with the high Christology of Polycarp’s contemporaries, such as Ignatius of Antioch and the Gospel of John (e.g., John 20:28).
Scholars generally agree that the Middle Recension represents the authentic core of Ignatius’ writings. The Short Recension is a summary, and the Long Recension contains later interpolations. However, these interpolations do not undermine the authenticity of the Middle Recension. The Middle Recension is well-supported by Greek, Latin, Syriac, and Armenian manuscripts. While many manuscripts date to later centuries, this reflects the preservation process rather than the composition date. Eusebius of Caesarea, writing in the early fourth century, explicitly mentions the seven authentic letters of Ignatius. His documentation provides strong evidence for their authenticity before any alleged fourth-century manipulations. Ignatius’ high Christology ("our God Jesus Christ") aligns with the theology of his time. It reflects continuity with New Testament teaching (e.g., John 1:1, Colossians 1:15-20) and other early Christian writings.
While Michael Holmes has expressed caution regarding the phrase "our Lord and God Jesus Christ", he has not definitively ruled it an interpolation. Textual criticism often involves debates, but the phrase’s presence in multiple Latin manuscripts and its theological consistency argue for its authenticity. The expression aligns with Ignatius’ description of Christ as "our God" and John 20:28, where Thomas directly calls Jesus "my Lord and my God." This phrase reflects early Christian belief, not a fourth-century theological development. Even if "et deum" were a later addition, the rest of Polycarp’s letter reflects a high Christology consistent with early Christian faith, undermining claims of later doctrinal manipulation.
The Christology in Ignatius’ letters is not uniquely fourth-century but reflects the developing theology of the second century, grounded in apostolic teaching. Ignatius’ emphasis on Christ’s divinity and his role as Savior echoes New Testament themes (e.g., Philippians 2:6-11, John 1:1-14). Despite some scholars questioning Ignatius’ letters in the 19th and 20th centuries, most patristic scholars today accept the Middle Recension as authentic, as noted by recent studies and critical editions (e.g., Paul Hartog, Polycarp’s Epistle to the Philippians and the Martyrdom of Polycarp).
The apostles used "Kyrios" (Lord) precisely because it connoted the divine Lordship of Yahweh. For example, Paul applies Joel 2:32 ("everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved") to Jesus in Romans 10:13. The apostles and early Christians used "Theos" (God) to affirm Jesus’ full divinity, as seen in John 1:1 ("the Word was God") and Titus 2:13 ("our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ"). Avoiding ambiguous terms like "theios" or "hemitheos" underscores their intention to present Jesus as fully divine. In both Jewish and Greco-Roman contexts, using "Kyrios" and "Theos" for Jesus directly affirmed His divine nature in terms intelligible to their audiences. Other terms, like "hemitheos," would have implied partial or subordinate divinity, contradicting their message.

@Blotty
I did not claim the apostles intended to use terms implying "demi-God" or something less than divine; instead, I highlighted that alternative terms existed to avoid the connotation of full divinity (κύριος for Yahweh and θεός for absolute deity). My point was that the apostles intentionally chose terms that affirm Christ's full divinity. The claim that no other term could "exert the force" of κύριος or θεός only supports my argument. If the apostles selected these terms because they carried the intended divine connotations, it undercuts the notion that they avoided presenting Christ as truly God.
I never suggested that Jehovah's Witnesses view Jesus literally as a demi-God. Rather, I demonstrated that if the apostles had wanted to describe Jesus as less than fully divine, they had linguistic options to do so, such as ἡμίθεος or θεῖος. The absence of these terms, coupled with the consistent use of θεός and κύριος, strongly implies that the apostles affirmed Christ's full divinity.
The claim that θεός in John 1:1c functions adjectivally ("the Word was divine") is not a consensus view. While certain scholars like Goodspeed or Moffatt have proposed this interpretation, their position is highly contested. For example, Daniel Wallace, a respected authority on Greek grammar (ironically cited by you), rejects this interpretation. Wallace argues that θεός in John 1:1c is qualitative, emphasizing that the Word possesses the full nature of deity, not merely some divine qualities partially. Other scholars, including A.T. Robertson, Leon Morris, and Bruce Metzger, affirm that John 1:1c explicitly presents the Word as fully God, not merely divine in some adjectival sense. Therefore, the claim that θεός in John 1:1c functions adjectivally is a minority position, lacking robust support among the majority of Greek scholars.
Both κύριος and θεός are extensively used in the Septuagint and the New Testament. Importantly, κύριος in the LXX frequently translates the Tetragrammaton (YHWH), particularly in contexts affirming God's sovereignty and supreme authority. By applying κύριος to Jesus, the apostles identified Him with the divine Lord of the Old Testament. θεός is consistently used in the LXX and the New Testament to denote the one true God. When θεός is applied to Jesus (e.g., John 1:1, John 20:28, Romans 9:5), it aligns Him with the divine identity of Yahweh, not merely a lesser or figurative deity. You asks for citations of these terms' usage but provide no counterexamples from the LXX or NT that contradict my argument. The overwhelming evidence shows that these terms carry divine connotations, which the apostles intentionally applied to Christ.
My argument already relies on widely accepted lexical and theological studies. However, here are specific examples to reinforce my points:
- κύριος: Used for Yahweh in the LXX, e.g., Isaiah 45:23 ("Every knee shall bow..."), applied to Jesus in Philippians 2:10-11.
- θεός: Explicitly used for Christ in John 1:1, John 20:28 ("My Lord and my God!"), and Titus 2:13 ("Our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ").
- Daniel Wallace: In Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Wallace explains that θεός in John 1:1c has a qualitative force, signifying that the Word possesses the same divine nature as God the Father.
Scholars like Wallace and Robertson have indeed addressed these issues. Wallace, for example, defends the full deity of Christ in his discussion of θεός in John 1:1 and other key passages. The absence of specific objections to alternative Greek terms (e.g., ἡμίθεος) in their writings does not invalidate your argument; it merely reflects the fact that these terms were never seriously proposed as alternatives in early Christian theology.

Altogether, my argument stands firm: if the apostles intended to avoid presenting Christ as fully divine, they had ample linguistic tools to express lesser divinity or divine-like qualities (e.g., θεῖος, ἡμίθεος). Instead, they consistently used θεός and κύριος, terms that unequivocally identify Jesus with the one true God of Israel. Your dismissal lacks substance and misrepresents both your argument and the scholarly consensus. The apostles' choice of language reflects their clear affirmation of Christ's full divinity, aligning with the Nicene doctrine of the consubstantiality.

Is Jesus the Creator?

Share this