Is Jesus the Creator?

by Sea Breeze 405 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • slimboyfat
    slimboyfat
    The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct persons

    The Bible says that the Father is the “one God”, (1 Corinthians 8.6) not “one distinct person of God”. That’s a later formulation that tries to obscure the fact the Trinity contradicts what the Bible says. The Bible doesn’t say anything about God consisting of different “persons”. In fact it assumes and sometimes explicitly states the opposite.

    Galatians 3.20 But a go-between is not needed when only one person is involved; and God is one.
  • Earnest
    Earnest
    aqwsed12345 : Just look at the Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-orthodox_Christianity

    Interesting article. This reminds me I should also have recommended Walter Bauer's "Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity" for a clearer view of the diversity of early Christianity.

    In a review of its reception in the years 2000 - 2010, the Harvard Theological Review said :

    First published in 1934, Walter Bauer's [Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity] warned against simply equating the words “orthodoxy” and “heresy” with the notions of majority and minority and with the process of deviation from correct belief to wrong belief. Bauer sought to show that in the first two Christian centuries orthodoxy and heresy did not stand in relation to one another as primary and secondary. He tried to prove that in many regions what came to be known in the ecclesiastical tradition as “heresy” was in fact the original manifestation of Christianity. For example, according to Bauer, the major figures in earliest Christianity at Edessa were the “heretics” Marcion, Bar Daisan, and Mani. In Egypt a gnostic form of Christianity appears to have been dominant before A.D. 200, and in Asia Minor “orthodox” leaders such as Ignatius and Polycarp waged only moderately successful battles against gnosticism and judaizing Christianity.
  • peacefulpete
    peacefulpete

    Comparing 1rst-3rd century fragments leads back to what I said earlier, in some form every early sect had some understanding that God/divinity was on earth. Yet this was potentially blasphemous if the naive thought God actually became a human.

    1. The Logos concept as exemplified in the writings of Philo insulated the Most High from his creation by his producing an emanation of himself in a form which was fully divine but yet somehow sufficiently distinct to interact directly with matter. One of God's powers was 'being'. Self-manifestation. The Logos was always within the Father until he/it was manifested. I think of a 'mini me' version of God, a genetic clone made separate. The Holy Spirit was sometimes regarded a separate emanation sometimes equated/conflated with the Logos. This concept was often combined with the following other ideations.

    2.Some dealt with the potentially blasphemous implications by separating Jesus the man from the divinity (Logos/Holy spirit) that possessed him from baptism ("today I have begotten you") through what is now called 'adoptionism'. A new person was born. A number of subtle and no-so-subtle alterations were made in the Gospel text to 'refute' this. It is the suspected motivation of adding virgin birth narratives and the childhood miracles of the Infancy Gospel for overt examples.

    3.Others understood Jesus was, like the OT stories, a materialized spirit, able to eat and interact but not truly flesh and able to dematerialize at will, this was 'Docetism'. from the Greek word for 'seem'. This prevented God from literally becoming a human. This was often combined with the Logos concept, ie. the Logos was the agent of divinity that materialized. Many proto-orthodox adjustments were made to the texts to refute Docetism, such as the Thomas (holes in hands/eating) scene. Famously the pseudonymous 2 John was written (2:17) labeling such teachers as the 'antichrist'.

    4.The so-called Gnostic branches understood Jesus as being exceptional by being in touch (and empowered thereby) with his true divine essence that dwells in all of us. While Gnostics by definition were secretive regarding details, they still identified Christ with divinity. They also used the Logos language and concept in modified way.

    5. Marcionism was a hybrid Christology. The agent of creation aka, the God of the Jews was a 'son' of the Most High in the same 'second power' sense. This creator God became vested in the Jewish system he created so the Father sent another new emanation in the figure of Christ. The nature of Christ wasn't a focus, but they seemed to lean towards Docetism.

    6. For hundreds of years Adoptionist, Gnostics and Docetist Christians simply ignored additions the proto-orthodoxy made in their forms of the Gospel, (easy to do since they had their own versions and harmonizations that did not include them). The 4th century Roman Church in contrast had to create a philosophy capable of accounting for them The Trinity doctrine developed as a harmonization of all the anti-Docetic, anti-Adoptionist pieces, the virgin birth etc. This in the end left the story sounding blasphemous for Jews.

    Fast forward 1200 years and Christian reformers intellectually broke from the Church. Growing aware of older conceptions of God through the new availability of printed material, some arrived at new nontrinitarian Christologies. Bound by tradition, they retained the Catholic texts but simply explained away parts that didn't fit the new formulation.

    The WT take fits that description.

    I still submit that pre-Gospel 'Christians' did not concern themselves with questions. I suspect that even when the earliest Gospel was written it was understood allegorically as was popular in Hellenized Judaism.

  • aqwsed12345
    aqwsed12345
    @slimboyfat

    The claim that the Bible identifies the Father as the "one God" without reference to a triune nature oversimplifies the text and ignores the broader biblical context. In 1 Corinthians 8:6, Paul does indeed say, "for us there is but one God, the Father," but he immediately continues, "and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live." It is no coincidence that you closed your eyes at the second half of the verse, such a heretical eisegesis requires such a mechanical, distorting reading. Paul here identifies the Father as the "one God" and Jesus Christ as the "one Lord." This reflects the Jewish Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4: “Hear, O Israel: The LORD [YHWH] our God, the LORD [YHWH] is one”) but reinterprets it in light of Christ’s relationship to the Father. The Shema emphasizes monotheism, and Paul upholds this while including Jesus within the divine identity:

    1. The Father is the source of all creation (“from whom are all things”).
    2. The Son is the agent of creation (“through whom are all things”).

    This does not divide God into two beings but shows that the Father and the Son share the divine essence, fulfilling distinct roles within the Godhead. Paul is clearly reinterpreting the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4: "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one") in light of Jesus. He divides the Shema’s monotheistic confession into two parts: the Father as "one God" and Jesus as "one Lord." This does not contradict monotheism but expands it to include Jesus within the divine identity. The Shema’s “one Lord” (YHWH) is here applied to Jesus, while “one God” (YHWH) is applied to the Father. This is not a denial of Jesus’ divinity but a rearticulation of Jewish monotheism to incorporate Jesus as divine. In doing so, he reinterprets the Shema within a Christological framework, assigning to Jesus the divine role of Creator and Sustainer. Far from excluding Jesus from divinity, Paul’s language includes Him within the identity of the one God, showing an early development of Trinitarian theology.

    Paul does not exclude Jesus from being fully divine; instead, he includes Jesus in the unique identity of YHWH. Isaiah 44:24 declares that YHWH alone created the universe: “I am the LORD [YHWH], who made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself.” However, in 1 Corinthians 8:6, Paul attributes creation to both the Father and the Son, saying that "all things" came "from" the Father and "through" the Son. This dual attribution is incompatible with the idea that Jesus is merely a creature, as YHWH explicitly states He did it alone.

    Paul’s distinction between the Father and the Son in 1 Corinthians 8:6 does not imply a denial of the Trinity. Instead, it reflects the relational roles within the Godhead. The Father as the source, the Son as the agent, and elsewhere, the Spirit as the sustainer (cf. Genesis 1:2; Job 33:4). These distinctions do not divide God into separate beings but describe the harmonious operation of the one God in creation and redemption.

    The title “one Lord” (heis Kyrios) is significant. In Deuteronomy 6:4 (LXX), the Shema declares that YHWH is “one Lord” (Kyrios heis). Paul’s deliberate use of this title for Jesus identifies Him with YHWH, the God of Israel. This is not merely a title of authority but a claim to divine identity. Paul’s language reflects a distinction between the Father and the Son without dividing them into separate beings. This aligns with Trinitarian theology, which affirms one God in three persons. The Father and the Son are distinct persons but share the same divine essence. Far from contradicting the Trinity, 1 Corinthians 8:6 provides evidence for the relational distinction within the Godhead while maintaining the unity of God.

    The context of Galatians 3:20 is Paul’s discussion of the role of the law and the promise made to Abraham. So the context is not a doctrinal discussion about the nature of God but about the role of a mediator in the covenant. Paul contrasts the giving of the Mosaic Law, which involved a mediator (Moses), with the promise given to Abraham directly by God. Paul’s point is that the promise to Abraham was made unilaterally by God, without the need for a mediator, because "God is one." This phrase emphasizes God’s unity and direct action in fulfilling His promises, not a denial of relational distinctions within the Godhead. Paul contrasts the giving of the law, mediated by angels (and Moses), with the promise, which was given directly by God. His point is that God, unlike human agreements requiring mediators, acts unilaterally in fulfilling His promise to Abraham. The phrase "God is one" (ho theos heis estin) reaffirms monotheism, consistent with Deuteronomy 6:4, but it does not address whether God exists as a single person. Instead, it emphasizes God’s unity and faithfulness in contrast to human systems of mediation. · The statement "God is one" in Galatians 3:20 reflects the Jewish monotheistic confession of Deuteronomy 6:4. It affirms God’s unity but says nothing about the internal relational distinctions within the Godhead. The claim that this verse denies the Trinity is a category error, as it conflates the unity of God (His essence) with the concept of personhood (relational distinctions within the Godhead).

    The Greek word for “one” (heis) does not inherently mean “one person.” It denotes unity or singularity. For example, in John 10:30: Jesus says, “I and the Father are one [hen],” signifying unity of essence, not singularity of personhood. In Genesis 2:24 (LXX) a husband and wife become “one flesh” (mia sarx). This does not mean they are one person but that they are united in essence and purpose. Trinitarian theology does not deny that God is one; it affirms that the one God exists as three distinct persons. The unity of God refers to His essence, while the distinction between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit pertains to their relational roles.

    In His incarnate state, Jesus voluntarily submitted to the Father’s will (Philippians 2:6-8). This submission reflects His role in redemption, not an ontological inferiority. For example, John 5:19-23 shows both Jesus’ dependence on the Father and His equality with the Father. Jesus does nothing of His own accord (v. 19) but is entrusted with all judgment (v. 22) so that “all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father” (v. 23). To honor the Son in the same way as the Father would be blasphemy unless the Son shares the Father’s divine nature. The distinction between Father, Son, and Spirit pertains to their roles, not their essence. The Father sends, the Son redeems, and the Spirit sanctifies. These roles are complementary, not hierarchical.

    Your objection that the Bible never uses the term "persons" to describe God misunderstands the theological terminology. The term "persons" (hypostasis, subsistentia, supossitum) was developed by the Church Fathers to articulate the biblical data about the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Bible presents the Father, Son, and Spirit as distinct yet fully divine. For instance, in the baptismal formula of Matthew 28:19, Jesus commands baptism "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." The singular "name" (not "names") implies unity, while the distinct references to Father, Son, and Spirit reflect their relational distinctions. The term "persons" is used to describe this relationship without compromising the essential unity of God.

    This is like challenging a young child who is learning a language as their mother tongue to explain that since they don't know the technical terminology of grammatics (noun, adjective, verb, adverbs, etc.), they can't know the language itself or the concept of language.

    Your argument that the expression "the God and Jesus" disproves Christ’s divinity is based on a false dichotomy. The Bible frequently refers to Jesus alongside the Father, but this reflects their relational distinction, not an ontological separation. For example, John 1:1 states, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Here, "the Word was with God" distinguishes the Son from the Father, while "the Word was God" affirms the Son’s full divinity. This passage demonstrates the co-existence and unity of the Father and Son within the divine nature.

    The claim that "God" exclusively refers to the Father misunderstands the flexibility of biblical language. While the New Testament often uses "God" (Greek theos) to refer to the Father, it also applies the term to the Son. Thomas addresses the risen Christ as "My Lord and my God" (ho theos mou kai ho kyrios mou) in John 20:28, and the author of Hebrews quotes Psalm 45:6-7, addressing the Son: "Your throne, O God, will last forever and ever" (Hebrews 1:8). These passages show that the title "God" is not restricted to the Father but is shared by the Son within the context of Trinitarian theology.

    Moreover, your suggestion that Trinitarians inconsistently apply "God" to mean either the Father alone or the triune God misunderstands how language operates within theological discourse. The term "God" can refer to the Father as the source of divinity, to the Son or Spirit when emphasizing their divine nature, or to the triune God collectively. This flexibility reflects the richness of biblical revelation, not inconsistency. Just as a single term like "humanity" can refer to an individual person, a group, or the human race collectively, so too can "God" be used in various contexts without contradiction.

    Finally, your suggestion that the one who is not the Father cannot be God fails to account for the relational dynamics presented in Scripture. Jesus frequently refers to the Father as "my God" (e.g., John 20:17) because, in His incarnation, He assumed a subordinate role as the mediator between God and humanity. This relational subordination does not undermine His divinity but reflects His role within the economy of salvation. The Son’s submission to the Father is functional, not ontological, consistent with the doctrine of the Trinity, which maintains that the Father, Son, and Spirit are co-equal in essence yet distinct in person.


    @Earnest

    The term "orthodox" reflects the continuity of apostolic teaching, rooted in Scripture and the witness of the early Church Fathers. Even in the first three centuries, there was a recognized core of Christian belief that distinguished orthodoxy from heresy (e.g., Irenaeus' Against Heresies explicitly defends apostolic teaching against Gnostic distortions). Early councils, such as the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15), and writings of early Fathers (e.g., Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr) demonstrate a clear effort to preserve and define the faith handed down from the apostles.

    The diversity of early Christian movements does not imply equivalence in theological validity. Groups like the Gnostics or Ebionites deviated from apostolic teaching, often rejecting core tenets such as the divinity of Christ or the resurrection. These deviations were not “alternate Christianities” but distortions of the original faith. Walter Bauer’s thesis, cited by Earnest, has been heavily critiqued. Scholars such as Larry Hurtado and Richard Bauckham have demonstrated that orthodox belief in Christ’s divinity and the Trinity existed from the earliest stages of Christianity, even if terminology developed over time.

    Bart Ehrman’s The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture and Adolf von Harnack’s works are heavily criticized for imposing modern skepticism on ancient sources. They often assume textual corruption or theological evolution where continuity is evident. Edward Gibbon’s The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire is notorious for its Enlightenment-era anti-Christian bias, portraying the Church as politically motivated rather than spiritually guided. These authors selectively focus on outlier groups or speculative reconstructions, neglecting the overwhelming evidence of continuity in apostolic teaching.

    Bauer’s claim that what became “heresy” was often the original form of Christianity is speculative and unsupported by evidence from regions like Antioch, Alexandria, or Rome, where apostolic teaching was preserved and affirmed. Scholars such as Andreas Köstenberger and Craig Evans have shown that Bauer’s arguments rely on isolated examples and ignore the broader unity of early Christian belief in Christ’s divinity.


    @peacefulpete

    The concept of the Logos in Christianity is fundamentally different from Philo’s philosophical Logos. John’s Gospel identifies the Logos as fully divine and incarnate in Jesus Christ (John 1:1, 14). The Logos is not an “emanation” or a “mini me” of God but the Second Person of the Trinity, fully sharing the divine essence (homoousios) with the Father. Philo’s Logos functioned as an abstract intermediary, whereas John presents the Logos as a personal, relational, and incarnate God. Early Church Fathers, such as Irenaeus and Justin Martyr, engaged with Hellenistic thought but firmly grounded their theology in the biblical revelation of the Logos as both fully divine and fully human.

    Adoptionism denies the preexistence of Christ and contradicts clear biblical passages affirming His eternal nature and divinity (e.g., John 1:1-3, Colossians 1:15-20). It was rejected by the Church because it failed to account for the full revelation of Christ as both God and man. The virgin birth narratives (Matthew 1:23, Luke 1:35) and other Gospel accounts were not “additions” to refute Adoptionism but part of the original apostolic witness to Christ’s divine and human natures.

    Docetism, which claimed that Jesus only “seemed” to be human, was explicitly condemned in Scripture (1 John 4:2-3) and by early Church Fathers. It undermines the reality of the Incarnation, which is central to Christian soteriology. The Gospel accounts of Jesus eating, suffering, and dying (e.g., Luke 24:39, John 19:34) are consistent with His full humanity and divinity. These details are not “proto-orthodox adjustments” but essential to the apostolic proclamation of the Gospel.

    The Trinity doctrine is not a 4th-century invention but a faithful articulation of biblical teaching. Passages such as Matthew 28:19, 2 Corinthians 13:14, and John 14:16-17 reveal the triune nature of God. The doctrine’s development reflected the Church’s effort to defend the apostolic faith against heretical distortions, not to “harmonize” conflicting views. Far from being “blasphemous” to Jews, the Trinity is rooted in the monotheism of the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4) and the messianic expectations fulfilled in Jesus (Isaiah 9:6, Daniel 7:13-14). Early Jewish Christians like Paul affirmed this understanding (Philippians 2:6-11, Romans 9:5).

    The New Testament itself reflects early and sophisticated Christological reflection. Paul’s letters (e.g., Colossians 1:15-20) and the Gospel of John provide a high Christology that became the foundation for later doctrinal developments. Early Christian worship practices, such as baptism “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19) and hymns like Philippians 2:6-11, demonstrate that Christians were deeply concerned with the nature of Christ from the beginning.

  • peacefulpete
    peacefulpete
    The concept of the Logos in Christianity is fundamentally different from Philo’s philosophical Logos. John’s Gospel identifies the Logos as fully divine and incarnate in Jesus Christ... not abstract intermediary...

    Many would disagree with that.

    When the LXX used 'logos' as the translation of Hebrew 'dubar' the meaning of the OT was changed in the minds of anyone schooled in Greek philosophy. The linking of the Jewish notion of Word, Glory, Name and the Greek concept of Logos implies that the Logos was on earth in patriarchal times leading the Israelites through the wilderness and dwelling in the tabernacle. In the same manner Philo conceived of the Word, Glory, Name and angel in the OT stories, that is how he conceived the Logos. Now while Philo interpreted aspects of the scriptures allegorically as subtext, he at the same time understood aspects of it literally. It would be a mistake to believe he thought of the pillar of fire or cloud in the most holy as merely abstractions. As was said before Philo also entertained the idea that the Logos had actually materialized to walk on earth.

    It seems more than coincidental that John 1:14 use of the (doxa) Glory is the same as was used in LXX for the cloud in the Tabernacle/temple. The author was making explicit he, like Philo, equated Christ with the OT Glory of God.

    I'll also repeat that the so-called Christ Myth model of Christian origins proposes an incarnation of the Logos in a mystic sense, something that was believed to have happened but known only through revelation/vision and OT typology. The incarnation in the Ascension of Isaiah (and it's likely pre-Christain source) belongs to that type of Christology. The book of Hebrews also would fit that. Whether you find that model persuasive or not, it's impossible to not see a continuity/influence between Philonic conceptions of Logos and early Christian.

  • peacefulpete
    peacefulpete
    Adoptionism denies the preexistence of Christ and contradicts clear biblical passages affirming His eternal nature and divinity

    Generally, Adoptionism held an eternal Christ inhabited a human Jesus from baptism till moments before death.

    The virgin birth narratives (Matthew 1:23, Luke 1:35) and other Gospel accounts were not “additions” to refute Adoptionism...

    Yes, the two contradictory birth narratives are additions to Mark using OT typology and a popular cultural topos.

  • slimboyfat
    slimboyfat
    Generally, Adoptionism held an eternal Christ inhabited a human Jesus from baptism till moments before death.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adoptionism

    Adoptionism denies the eternal pre-existence of Christ, and although it explicitly affirms his deity subsequent to events in his life, many classical trinitarians claim that the doctrine implicitly denies it by denying the constant hypostatic union of the eternal Logos to the human nature of Jesus.
  • peacefulpete
    peacefulpete

    I mentioned Tatian before as possibly an adoptionist, seems that depends who you asked. In the Address to the Greeks attributed to Tatian he says:

    We do not act as fools, O Greeks, nor utter idle tales, when we announce that God was born in the form of a man. I call on you who reproach us to compare your mythical accounts with our narrations.

    This would suggest he was not Adoptionist. It is an interesting theological argument being made, the Greeks should have no problem with gods being incarnate as they had a number of such stories in their 'mythical accounts'. Clearly that was not a good strategy, as it opened the Jesus story to the same charge of being mythical by association and parallelism.

  • aqwsed12345
    aqwsed12345

    While there may be linguistic and conceptual overlap between Philo’s use of Logos and John’s Gospel, the Logos in Christianity is fundamentally distinct. Philo’s Logos was a philosophical and intermediary concept, bridging the gap between an utterly transcendent God and creation. It was not personal, nor did it possess the qualities of incarnation or full divinity as the Christian Logos does. John’s Gospel explicitly identifies the Logos as fully divine (theos) and co-eternal with the Father, culminating in the remarkable claim of incarnation: “The Word became flesh and dwelt among us” (John 1:14). This is a profound departure from Philo, whose Logos was neither incarnate nor a person but rather an abstraction or intermediary principle. Philo’s idea of the Logos walking on earth is speculative and allegorical, whereas John’s proclamation of the Logos becoming flesh is historical and literal. Philo’s Logos could not genuinely unite divinity with humanity as Christianity claims in the hypostatic union. The doxa (glory) referenced in John 1:14 refers not only to the divine presence but to the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies regarding God’s indwelling with His people (e.g., Ezekiel 43:5). Unlike Philo’s abstract concept, this fulfillment is realized in Jesus Christ.

    While it is true that Hellenistic Judaism, including Philo, influenced early Christian theology, the Christian Logos doctrine transcends these influences. The idea that John’s Logos is merely a continuation of Philo’s concept is reductionistic. The uniqueness of the Christian claim lies in the identification of the Logos with Jesus Christ, who is fully God and fully man, as affirmed by the hypostatic union. Moreover, the Philonic Logos lacks the central salvific role ascribed to the Christian Logos. The Logos of John is not only the agent of creation but also the Redeemer, reconciling humanity to God through His death and resurrection. This salvific role is entirely absent in Philo’s framework. Any similarities between Philo’s and John’s conceptions of the Logos must be understood within the broader context of progressive revelation. The divine revelation often employs terms and concepts familiar to the audience but elevates them to express deeper truths (Summa Theologiae, I, q. 1, a. 9). Thus, while the language of Logos was accessible to Hellenistic audiences, its Christian meaning is entirely unique and rooted in divine revelation.

    Adoptionism, whether in its classical form (e.g., Theodotus of Byzantium) or in its broader implications, fundamentally denies the eternal pre-existence of Christ as the divine Son of God. This contradicts the clear teaching of Scripture (John 1:1–3, Colossians 1:16–17). Adoptionism’s claim that the eternal Logos merely “inhabited” Jesus at baptism reduces Christ to a human vessel, severing the constant hypostatic union between the divine and human natures in Christ. This denies the full unity of Christ’s divine and human natures, as affirmed by the Council of Chalcedon (451), which declared Christ to be “one person in two natures” without confusion or separation. The claim that the virgin birth narratives are later “additions” to Mark’s Gospel is unfounded and lacks textual and historical support. While it is true that Mark’s Gospel does not explicitly include the virgin birth, the Gospels of Matthew and Luke independently attest to this event, affirming its significance. Far from being fabricated to refute Adoptionism, these narratives are integral to the Gospel’s proclamation of Christ’s divine identity. The virgin birth highlights the initiative of God in salvation history and underscores the unique role of Christ as the God-man.

    The argument that early Christians modeled the incarnation on Greek myths of gods becoming human is both historically and theologically untenable. Early Christians were adamant about distinguishing their faith from paganism, particularly in rejecting the polytheistic and morally questionable portrayals of gods in mythology. St. Justin Martyr, for example, explicitly contrasted the Christian doctrine of the Logos with pagan myths, arguing that Christianity reveals the truth that Greek philosophy and religion only dimly apprehended (First Apology, chs. 20–22). While superficial parallels may exist, the incarnation of the Logos in Christianity is radically distinct. In Greek mythology, the gods’ interactions with humanity are often capricious and self-serving. In contrast, the Christian Logos became incarnate out of love, humility, and a desire to save humanity (cf. Philippians 2:6–8). The incarnation is not an arbitrary act but the culmination of God’s salvific plan

    The statement attributed to Tatian, “God was born in the form of a man,” does not support Adoptionism but rather aligns with the doctrine of the hypostatic union. Tatian’s Address to the Greeks affirms the uniqueness of Christ’s incarnation, contrasting it with pagan myths. Far from implying a mere indwelling of divinity, Tatian’s statement highlights the profound mystery of God taking on human nature.

  • peacefulpete
    peacefulpete

    I'm having issues pasting again, but the distinction some are drawing is semantic. When some refer to the "Christ" they mean Jesus Christ and others are referring to the Spirit/Logos that inhabited Jesus.

    Adolf von Harnack, the competing views were that:
    "Jesus was either [a] regarded as the man whom God had chosen, in whom the Deity or the Spirit of God dwelt, and who, after being tested, was adopted by God and invested with dominion; or [b] Jesus was regarded as a heavenly spiritual being (the highest after God) who took flesh, and again returned to heaven after the completion of his work on earth."[1]

    Adoptionism - New World Encyclopedia

    The first known exponent of Adoptionism in the second century is Theodotus of Byzantium. He taught, according to Hippolytus of Rome, that Jesus was a man born of a virgin, that he lived like other men, and was most pious. At his baptism in the Jordan the Christ came down upon him in the likeness of a dove. Only after this could he perform miracles.[2] The belief was declared heretical by Pope Victor I (last decade of the second century C.E.)

    Jesus, Gnosis and Dogma: Roukema, Riemer, Deventer-Metz, Saskia: 9780567466426: Amazon.com: Books

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit