Is Jesus the Creator?

by Sea Breeze 405 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  peacefulpete

  deleted
• 

  aqwsed12345

  @peacefulpete

  Harnack’s assertion that early views of Jesus were divided between (a) Adoptionism and (b) a form of subordinationism misrepresents the actual theological landscape of early Christianity. Both positions fail to account for the robust and nuanced understanding of Christ’s divinity and humanity as found in the Scriptures and upheld by the Church Fathers.

  The Apostolic Fathers and early apologists, such as Ignatius of Antioch and Justin Martyr, clearly affirmed both the full divinity and full humanity of Christ. Ignatius refers to Jesus as "our God" (Letter to the Ephesians 18:2) and emphasizes His eternal existence, saying, "There is one Physician, both flesh and spirit, born and unborn, God in man" (Letter to the Ephesians 7:2). This early testimony demonstrates that the belief in Jesus as fully divine and fully human was not a later theological development but was rooted in the apostolic tradition. It does not align with Harnack's suggestion that Adoptionism or a semi-divine Christ dominated early Christian thought.

  Theodotus' view, as described by Hippolytus, is heretical because it denies Christ’s eternal preexistence as the Son of God and reduces Him to a mere human who was later infused with divinity. This idea is incompatible with the Church's teaching on the hypostatic union, as defined in the Councils of Nicaea (325) and Chalcedon (451). The belief that Jesus became the Son of God only at His baptism contradicts clear scriptural affirmations of His eternal Sonship (John 8:58, Colossians 1:15-17, Hebrews 13:8). Sonship pertains to the person of Christ, not merely to His human nature. By asserting that Jesus was merely human and later adopted, Adoptionism effectively divides Christ into two persons (Nestorianism) or denies the true union of the divine and human natures. The Holy Spirit’s descent at Christ’s baptism in the Jordan signifies the inauguration of His public ministry, not the beginning of His divine Sonship. This is evident in Luke 2:49, where the twelve-year-old Jesus already calls God "My Father," long before His baptism. The Council of Chalcedon (451) defined that Jesus Christ is one person in two natures—fully God and fully man. This dogma is rooted in Scripture and Tradition and directly refutes Adoptionism.

  Pope Victor I condemned Theodotus’ teaching in the late second century because it undermined the core of Christian faith: the Incarnation of the eternal Son of God. This condemnation was not an isolated act but part of the Church's consistent defense of orthodoxy. The early Church identified Adoptionism as a denial of Christ’s true identity and mission. By reducing Jesus to a mere human elevated to divine status, Adoptionism obscures the salvific significance of the Incarnation, which requires the union of divine and human natures in one person.The Church’s rejection of Adoptionism was reaffirmed in later centuries, notably in the condemnation of Elipandus of Toledo and Felix of Urgel in the eighth century, whose teachings similarly distinguished between a "natural Son" (divine) and an "adopted son" (human).

  Theodotus' view that Jesus received the Spirit at His baptism misunderstands the purpose of the Spirit’s anointing. This event is not about adoption but about equipping Jesus for His public mission as the Messiah. Jesus, as the eternal Son of God, already possessed the fullness of divine nature. The descent of the Spirit at His baptism is a Trinitarian manifestation that inaugurates His public ministry, as seen in Matthew 3:16-17: "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." Adoptionism mistakenly assumes that the Spirit's descent adds something to Jesus’ identity. In reality, the Spirit’s descent reveals His divine identity to others and empowers His human nature for His salvific mission.

  So Harnack’s dichotomy and Theodotus’ Adoptionism fail to account for the scriptural and theological evidence of Christ’s eternal Sonship and the unity of His divine and human natures. The Catholic Church, from the apostolic age to the present, has consistently upheld the truth that Jesus is the eternal Son of God, fully divine and fully human, who assumed our human nature to redeem us. Adoptionism, in all its forms, is a reductionist heresy that distorts the mystery of the Incarnation and contradicts the clear teaching of Scripture and Tradition.
• 

  peacefulpete

  Really this is getting tiresome again. The objective was to demonstrate, in the most basic of outlines, differing views of Christ and God, and that the WT Christology was not held by any known ancient sect.

  Most all, if not all, assumed the Christ/Logos was an aspect of divinity. The most Gnostic (technically that is gibberish I know) groups had such unfamiliar concepts of deity and Pleroma that comparing them with more traditional Judeo-Christian views is pointless. It is very doubtful that the WT would use Gnostic theology as support for their own.
• 

  Earnest

  peacefulpete : It is very doubtful that the WT would use Gnostic theology as support for their own.

  Agreed. However, I found your earlier point about Philo interesting because you had previously said the JW angelology/christology had been "eruditely and thoroughly refuted". Yet, regarding Philo you said
  

  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.

  Do you not think that those Jews familiar with Philo's Logos philosophy would have associated the Logos of John with the angel of the Lord who lead the Israelites through the wilderness, appeared to Abraham, etc etc. In Darrell Hannah's Michael and Christ: Michael Traditions and Angel Christology in Early Christianity he discusses Philo as well as Jewish Apocalyptic Literature, Qumran Literature, Rabbinic and Hekhalot Literature and it seems obvious that early Jewish Christianity identified the pre-existent Logos with the angel of the Lord.
  
• 

  Earnest

  aqwsed12345 : These authors [Bart Ehrman, Adolf von Harnack, Edward Gibbon] selectively focus on outlier groups or speculative reconstructions, neglecting the overwhelming evidence of continuity in apostolic teaching.

  I am not surprised that you reject Bart Ehrman, but Adolf von Harnack was the leading early church historian in Germany, and indeed everywhere else in his time, a stupendously learned scholar. It is no exaggeration to say that he had read every available source regarding early Christianity in many languages and presents all the evidence up to 325 CE, which, as a collection of evidence, has not been surpassed in 100 years.

  No matter. It seems you will reject everyone who does not project your worldview regardless of their expertise. But since you say his "works are heavily criticized for imposing modern skepticism on ancient sources", perhaps you could support your allegation with an example.
• 

  slimboyfat

  Wasn’t Harnack a liberal though, which is enough to disqualify him for some. 😛
  I think Martin Werner cites Harnack in support of his view that the Jews were expecting an angelic messiah.
  Yes I’ve found the page and footnote here:

  Ad. v. Harnack, Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte, Bd. 1, 5. Aufl., I93I, p. 115.

  
  
• 

  peacefulpete

  Do you not think that those Jews familiar with Philo's Logos philosophy would have associated the Logos of John with the angel of the Lord who lead the Israelites through the wilderness, appeared to Abraham, etc etc.

  Yes, certainly that was the Philonic understanding. That is why I disagree with aqwsed that Philo's Logos was merely an abstraction. He is refuting the Platonic Logos and ignoring it's adaptation by Jewish theologians.

  As to the JW use of the term archangel for a prehuman Logos. It gets complicated. The 'angel' of God introduced into some OT scenes as an intermediary represented a particular school's approach to protecting the transcendence/immanence of God. Others used other means such as the Word, Glory, Spirit or Name as stand-ins/placeholders for God. While not likely intended, the sum of these efforts resulted in the 'second power' concept in late 2nd temple Judaism. The LXX cemented a connection with the Greek Logos.

  Different readers took away many different variations on this theme. While some might have equated the 'Great Angel' with the Logos others did not. Some understood the Holy Spirit as the same as the Logos others saw them as separate emanations. Angels, as sons, are a big topic, but it might help to think of them as replacements for the council of gods/sons under El on one hand and at the same time as the hands, mouth and eyes of God on the other. They served two roles. It provided the Most High with a council to sit with and also separated him from material, profane, earthly things. Kaleb made some good comments regarding that. I wish it were simpler, but we are discussing a collection of writings from diverse schools of thought being reinterpreted centuries later by equally diverse sects.

  I have mentioned that there is no question some understood Christ as the Great Angel or Michael through these connections. Revelation uses theophoric descriptions of various great angels and Michael all of which are separate scenes of divinity in action. It is also true that Yahweh was rolled into that mess of second power ideas. Remember the OG forms of Daniel 7 equate the Son of Man/Michael with the Ancient of days. That is the form the NT writers would have read. This explains why many OT allusions to Yahweh were identified with Christ in the NT

  The JW understanding however ignores that all these names and characters were regarded as projections of the Most High and the complexity of the history of these expressions.

  The question of identification of the Most High with Yahweh is another topic, but suffice to say some, like 2nd Isaiah, did and that has dominated JW understanding; but was not universally believed. Many still held that Yahweh was the God/son assigned to Israel by the Most High and therefore a second power like the Logos.
• 

  slimboyfat

  To the extent that Jews viewed the “second power” in heaven as an emanation of God, they did not view it as a person. And to the extent that they viewed the “second power” as a person, he was always distinct and subordinate to God. In neither case is it compatible with the later Trinity doctrine. The second formulation, however, the principal angelic being, God’s firstborn, known various as archangel, Word, Wisdom, messiah, Son of Man, is compatible with JW understanding of who Jesus is.
• 

  slimboyfat

  Many still held that Yahweh was the God/son assigned to Israel by the Most High and therefore a second power like the Logos.

  I think this is the particular view of Margaret Barker and of Mormons. I don’t think it’s otherwise a common view in scholarship.
• 

  peacefulpete

  I think this is the particular view of Margaret Barker and of Mormons...

  And the writers of the NT.