Is Jesus the Creator? (page 20)

peacefulpete

That might be a very good question if it hadn't already been answered many times. I'd need to see pretty much the opposite of what we have in this case. Proof of exitance, clarity of message, originality of storyline, and absence of contradiction. Instead, we find a message filled with Pharisaic style parable and reused topoi, typological reinterpretation of the OT, a theology with uncanny resemblance to late second temple era apocalypticism and contemporary mystery cults. The supposed foundational texts themselves are filled with sectarian emendation and expansion. Given all that, it is not surprising we have 500 years of rivalry and power struggle before anything resembling a consensus is drawn.

Earnest

peacefulpete : All of these forms however referred to 'Christ' as God.

Most of them I agree. However, there were a number of Jewish Christian movements which did not recognise his divinity. The Ebionites of which there were a number of sects, possibly the Nazarenes although the evidence is divided. Some of the gnostic movements.

Paul of Samosata taught that Christ was created, as did Lucian of Antioch, as did Arius and those who supported him. So, speaking of Christ as 'God', or I should say 'god', meant different things to different people.

TTWSYF

Earnest25 minutes ago

peacefulpete : All of these forms however referred to 'Christ' as God.

Most of them I agree. However, there were a number of Jewish Christian movements which did not recognise his divinity.

I wonder where these Jewish Christian movements which did not recognize Jesus’s divinity ended up? I wonder if anyone can remember what fruits that they gave humanity with their views on Christ.

Did they think they had the truth and that they’d never die too?

ttwsyf

slimboyfat

So, what kind of evidence would it take for you to conclude the deity of Christ

That’s easy. If the Bible didn’t say that Jesus is taught by someone else, exalted by someone else, given life by someone else, and given power by someone else, then it might be worth investigating further. Given all those things are said of Jesus, and given that none of those things could ever be said of an almighty God, it is overwhelmingly clear that Jesus is different than and subject to almighty God.

peacefulpete

Ernest...Sadly like many of the early Christian sects we know very little about the Ebionites. It also seems that some of the heresiologists were confusing them with others or had nothing but hearsay. Even if they had information, the descriptions are almost certainly biased. But given all that, Irenaeus said they were Adoptionists like Cerinthus. That again means they believed Christ to be divine with Jesus the vessel. Others had diverse views, but they all seem to agree they were adoptionists.

Blotty

One explicit statement in one verse that the trinity exists would make me believe the trinity.

(or God himself says he is, When Christ returns - whenever that will be, If God said he was made up of three persons, Ill eat my shoe)

The explicit statement must be confirmed to be original and must include that God is made up of three persons, and these three persons are a single God.

Once any trinitarian can cite what they expect from the Jehovah's Witnesses on multitple topics - then ill believe the trinity, until then, forget it!

Rivergang

One thing at least remains obvious - this 1,500 year long argument is still no nearer to being resolved than it ever was.

aqwsed12345

The Gospel narratives were not "mistaken" as history by later Christians; they were understood as historical accounts rooted in eyewitness testimony. Luke explicitly states his purpose to provide an orderly and reliable historical narrative based on firsthand sources (Luke 1:1-4). Early Christian communities accepted the Gospels as authoritative accounts of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection, as evidenced by their widespread use in liturgy, teaching, and apologetics. Writers like Papias (early 2nd century) affirmed the apostolic origins of the Gospels, demonstrating their historical credibility within a generation of their composition. While theological interpretation of the Gospels varied, the core message of Jesus as the incarnate Son of God was consistently upheld. The suggestion that these narratives were "mistaken as history" undermines the consistent testimony of early Christians regarding Jesus’ identity and mission.

The emergence of different Christological models reflects the Church’s attempt to articulate the mystery of Jesus as both fully God and fully man, not "rationalizations." These debates were driven by a commitment to preserve apostolic teaching amid challenges from heretical interpretations. Orthodoxy emerged not by rejecting history but by safeguarding the core truths of the Gospel against reductive interpretations like Docetism (denying Jesus' humanity) and Adoptionism (denying His divinity). The NT affirms Jesus’ dual nature (e.g., John 1:1-14, Phil. 2:6-11, Col. 2:9). Theological developments such as the Chalcedonian Definition (451 AD) clarified this teaching without deviating from the biblical witness.

Arianism posited that the Son was a created being, "the firstborn of all creation" (Colossians 1:15, misinterpreted by Arians). While Arians called Christ "God," they denied His co-eternity and consubstantiality with the Father, which orthodox Christianity affirmed. Orthodox theology, as defined at Nicaea (325 AD), upheld the biblical teaching that Jesus is "God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God" (Nicene Creed), reflecting His full divinity and eternal relationship with the Father.

Logos theology is rooted in Scripture, particularly John 1:1-14, which identifies Jesus as the preexistent Logos who is God and became flesh. This concept is not an invention of later Christians but a reflection of Jesus’ own self-revelation (e.g., John 10:30, Matthew 28:19). The "Second Power" concept in Jewish theology refers to divine agency and was not viewed as heretical until after Christianity began to flourish. Early Christians applied this framework to Jesus, affirming His divinity in continuity with Jewish monotheism. Logos theology consistently portrays Jesus as divine, not merely an emanation or secondary figure. While heretical groups like Marcionites and Valentinians misinterpreted this theology, the mainstream Church preserved the biblical teaching of Christ’s full divinity and humanity.

The Ebionites rejected Christ’s divinity, but they were a small, isolated sect that broke from mainstream Jewish-Christian beliefs. Their theology was rejected by the broader Church as inconsistent with the apostolic teaching of Jesus’ divine nature. The Nazarenes, by contrast, are often described as affirming Christ’s divinity while maintaining adherence to Jewish customs. The evidence is divided, but they do not represent a widespread denial of Christ’s divinity. Key Jewish-Christian figures, such as the Apostle Peter and James, affirmed Jesus’ divine identity. Peter’s confession, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matt. 16:16), reflects an early and consistent acknowledgment of Jesus’ divine nature.

While it is true that much of our knowledge of the Ebionites comes from their critics, such as Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Epiphanius, the evidence we do have allows for a reasonably clear understanding of their theology. The Ebionites rejected the divinity of Christ, viewing Him as a mere human, a prophet chosen by God, but not preexistent or divine; denied the virgin birth, asserting that Jesus was the biological son of Joseph and Mary; and clung to Mosaic Law, insisting on its continued observance, which set them apart from mainstream Christianity (e.g., Galatians 2:16, Acts 15). The theological framework of the Ebionites places them outside the orthodox understanding of Jesus as both fully God and fully man, which was consistently affirmed by the broader Church.

The accusations of bias or confusion by early heresiologists like Irenaeus or Epiphanius do not negate the core facts about Ebionite theology. Their writings reflect a clear distinction between the Ebionites and other groups such as the Cerinthians or Nazarenes. For instance, while the Nazarenes may have been closer to orthodoxy, the Ebionites outright rejected Christ's preexistence and divinity; and consistency in describing Ebionite beliefs about Jesus as non-divine and in emphasizing their adherence to the Mosaic Law. The frequent mention of the Ebionites in early Christian writings suggests their theological distinctiveness was well recognized, even if their numbers were small.

While Irenaeus mentions the Ebionites and Cerinthus, he does not conflate their beliefs. The Cerinthians were Gnostic-leaning and held more complex cosmological views, whereas the Ebionites represented a simple Jewish-Christian sect that rejected Christ’s divinity and adhered to the Mosaic Law. Adoptionism, as applied to the Ebionites, does not mean they saw Christ as divine in any significant sense. Rather, their view of Jesus being “adopted” at His baptism reflects their rejection of His preexistence and divinity. To say the Ebionites thought Christ was "divine" misunderstands the limited role they attributed to Jesus as a human agent of God. The early Church consistently rejected Adoptionism because it undermined the biblical teaching of Christ’s eternal divinity (John 1:1-3, Colossians 1:15-20). This opposition further highlights the theological discontinuity between the Ebionites and mainstream Christianity.

The suggestion that all early Jewish-Christian movements shared Adoptionist views oversimplifies the diversity of Jewish-Christian groups. The Ebionites were explicitly non-Trinitarian and denied Christ’s divinity. The Nazarenes are often regarded as closer to orthodoxy, potentially recognizing Jesus’ divinity while maintaining Jewish practices. The Cerinthians held a Gnostic-leaning Adoptionism, distinct from the Ebionite rejection of the virgin birth. These distinctions matter because they show that early Jewish-Christian movements were not monolithic. While some were Adoptionist, others affirmed Christ’s divinity or held beliefs closer to orthodox Trinitarian theology.

The disappearance of the Ebionites and similar groups can be attributed to their theological and practical isolation. Their rejection of Christ’s divinity, the virgin birth, and the New Covenant alienated them from the growing Christian movement rooted in apostolic teaching. By clinging to Mosaic Law, they failed to adapt to the broader Gentile context of the early Church (e.g., Acts 15, Galatians 3:28). This rigidity limited their appeal and integration into the expanding Christian world. Orthodox Christianity, by affirming the divinity, humanity, and salvific role of Christ, provided a coherent and compelling theological framework that resonated across diverse cultural and social contexts. The success of this framework contributed to the enduring legacy of the orthodox faith. Orthodox Christianity prevailed because it upheld the full biblical revelation of Christ as fully God and fully man, offering a theologically robust and historically enduring faith.

Figures like Paul of Samosata and Arius also represent theological deviations from the mainstream Church. Their teachings were condemned as heretical because they contradicted the apostolic witness to Christ’s preexistence and divinity (e.g., John 1:1, Col. 1:15-20). Lucian of Antioch’s association with Arianism is debated, but even his Christology did not achieve widespread acceptance in the early Church. The writings of the early Church Fathers (e.g., Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp, Irenaeus) consistently affirm Jesus’ divinity. These witnesses, closer in time to the apostles, refute the claim that the created Christologies of later heresies represent the original teaching.

While heretical groups used the term "God" inconsistently, the orthodox understanding of Jesus as fully God and consubstantial with the Father is rooted in Scripture (e.g., John 1:1, Phil. 2:6, Titus 2:13). This understanding prevailed because it accurately reflected the apostolic teaching. Earnest’s argument conflates heretical misuses of "God" with the orthodox affirmation of Jesus’ deity. The early Church consistently rejected interpretations that diminished Christ’s divine status (e.g., Arians, Adoptionists) while affirming the unity and co-equality of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

The historical record shows that the core belief in Christ’s divinity, as articulated in Logos theology, is deeply rooted in Scripture and the apostolic tradition. Heretical movements like Adoptionism, Arianism, and Ebionism represent deviations from this core belief, not its foundation. The early Church’s debates ultimately clarified and preserved the orthodox faith in Jesus Christ as fully God and fully man.

To demand, to expect a verse explicitly stating that "God is made up of three persons, and these three persons are a single God" misunderstands how Scripture reveals truth. The Bible does not always present doctrine in isolated proof texts but reveals truths progressively across its entirety. The word “Trinity” itself does not appear in the Bible, just as terms like "theocracy" or "omnipotence" do not. However, the concepts behind these terms are clearly taught. The Trinity is derived from the cumulative witness of Scripture, which affirms three truths:

There is one God (Deuteronomy 6:4; Isaiah 44:6).
The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct persons (Matthew 28:19; John 14:16-17).
Each person is fully God (John 1:1; Acts 5:3-4; Philippians 2:6).

Doctrine is often a synthesis of biblical data. Just as the doctrine of the canon of Scripture required discernment of the Bible's various books, so too does the Trinity require integrating the totality of what Scripture reveals.

You argue that Jesus’ dependence on the Father proves He cannot be God. However, this reflects a misunderstanding of the Incarnation. In becoming man, Jesus voluntarily entered into a state of submission and dependence. Philippians 2:6-8 explains that He “emptied Himself” (not of His deity, but of His divine privileges) to take on the role of a servant. Jesus prayed to the Father, received authority, and acted in obedience because He was fulfilling His mission as the incarnate Son of God. This does not negate His divinity but reveals His role in redemption. For example, “The Son can do nothing by Himself” (John 5:19) emphasizes Jesus’ dependence during His earthly ministry, but the same chapter declares, “All should honor the Son just as they honor the Father” (John 5:23), a clear claim to equality with God. Jesus’ submission to the Father (1 Corinthians 15:28) reflects relational roles within the Trinity, not inequality of essence. This is analogous to human relationships, where different roles do not imply different worth.

Your argument ignores numerous biblical affirmations of Christ’s deity:

Jesus Is Called God:

John 1:1: “The Word was God.”
John 20:28: Thomas addresses Jesus as “My Lord and my God.”
Hebrews 1:8: The Father says of the Son, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever.”

Jesus Is Worshiped:

Matthew 28:17: The disciples worshiped Him.
Revelation 5:13-14: Jesus receives the same worship as the Father, an act reserved for God alone.

Jesus Has Divine Attributes:

Omnipotence: Jesus claims, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me” (Matthew 28:18).
Omniscience: Jesus knew people's thoughts (Matthew 9:4).
Omnipresence: “I am with you always” (Matthew 28:20).

Jesus Is the Creator:

Colossians 1:16-17: “By Him all things were created... and in Him all things hold together.”
John 1:3: “All things were made through Him.”

These passages affirm that Jesus possesses the attributes, titles, and roles of Almighty God, even while serving as the incarnate Son.

While the Bible does not use the specific phrase "three persons, one God," it describes the Father, Son, and Spirit in ways that imply their unity and distinction:

Matthew 28:19: Baptism is performed “in the name [singular] of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” showing unity within distinction.
John 14:16-17: Jesus asks the Father to send the Spirit, demonstrating relational interaction between three divine persons.
2 Corinthians 13:14: Paul writes, “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all,” reflecting the triune relationship.

The Trinity affirms one God in essence, not three separate gods. Jesus’ distinction from the Father does not mean He is a separate deity, as Scripture consistently affirms one God (Isaiah 45:5; 1 Corinthians 8:4).

"I’ll Believe It If God Says It Directly"

This expectation is inconsistent with how God has revealed Himself throughout Scripture. God’s revelation is often progressive and mediated. For example, the term “Messiah” is not explicitly defined in the Old Testament, yet the concept is developed through prophecies and fulfilled in Christ. Jesus Himself affirmed that some truths are only revealed to those willing to see them: “If anyone’s will is to do God’s will, he will know whether the teaching is from God” (John 7:17). Your demand for a specific phraseology ignores the way God invites us to discern truth through the totality of His Word.

All in all, the deity of Christ and the doctrine of the Trinity are not human inventions but truths revealed in Scripture. Jesus’ dependence on the Father reflects His mission as the incarnate Son, not a denial of His divinity. The Bible consistently affirms one God in three persons, even if it does not use the exact wording you request. Instead of rejecting these truths based on modern expectations for explicit statements, I encourage you to prayerfully study Scripture as a unified testimony to God’s self-revelation in Christ.

Earnest

aqwsed12345 : Earnest’s argument conflates heretical misuses of "God" with the orthodox affirmation of Jesus’ deity.

To speak of 'heretical' and 'orthodox' in the first three centuries is meaningless as what was "orthodox" differed from group to group. I intend to write a post showing the diversity of early Christianity but, in the meantime, would refer you to Bart Ehrman's "The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture", Edward Gibbon's "The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" (chapters 15 & 16), Adolf von Harnack's "Mission and Expansion of Christianity in the First Three Centuries", or Harmut Leppin's "The Early Christians".

While I think your summary of the Ebionites through the lens of their critics is fairly accurate, your view of what you term orthodoxy is obviously partisan.

One other point I would like to put to rest as you have not responded to my post enquiring about "the majority Latin manuscripts" which include et deum (Lord and God Jesus Christ) in the twelfth chapter of Polycarp's Letter to the Philippians, is that in fact the minority include et deum ("and God"), the majority omit it.

aqwsed12345

Just in short: Ehrman, Gibbon and Harnack... learning Catholic church history from them is like trying to learn about the Jewish people from Hitler's Mein Kampf, ehh...

Just look at the Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-orthodox_Christianity

Ehrman's schematic model of four early Christian sects, including the proto-Orthodox. So there were these 4 fractions, but where are the proto-JWs?

Is Jesus the Creator?

Earnest25 minutes ago

Share this