@Blotty
The assertion that Ps. 82
and 2 Cor. 4:4 use “gods” metaphorically to refer to human judges and Satan’s
authority, respectively, is well-supported by mainstream biblical scholarship
and early Christian interpretation. Ps. 82 clearly speaks of human judges, as
evidenced by the context of their rebuke for failing to uphold justice. The
phrase “you will die like men” underscores their mortality and distinction from
God. This metaphorical use is not new or controversial and aligns with Jesus’
usage in John 10:34-36 to argue from the lesser to the greater—if mere humans
can be called “gods,” how much more appropriate is it for Him, the Son of God,
to claim divine prerogatives? As for 2 Cor. 4:4, Satan being referred to as “the
god of this age” denotes his temporary authority over the fallen world, not
divinity in the ontological sense. This metaphorical use is standard in
biblical language and does not conflict with monotheism.
Regarding Wikipedia,
dismissing its utility entirely is not valid. The platform often provides
accurate summaries, and while it is not an academic source, it can lead readers
to scholarly references. The critique that I rely on Wikipedia is misplaced, as
my arguments draw from well-established scholarly sources, including linguistic
and theological studies, not mere online encyclopedias. Your insistence on
citations is valid, but dismissing arguments solely due to their perceived
association with Wikipedia reflects a lack of engagement with their substance.
On John 1:1, the
grammatical structure of the Greek text—theos ēn ho logos—emphasizes
the qualitative nature of the Logos as fully divine. The absence of the
definite article does not imply indefiniteness but highlights the Word’s
essence as God. This is not merely my interpretation but a conclusion supported
by scholars like Daniel Wallace and Bruce Metzger. Rendering it as “a god”
imposes a theological bias, introducing a polytheistic-henotheistic nuance
incompatible with the monotheistic framework of John’s Gospel.
Your claim that “dia”
in John 1:3 and Col. 1:16 suggests Jesus was merely an intermediary is
incorrect. The preposition “dia” indicates agency, but the broader context clarifies
that Jesus is the Creator. John 1:3 explicitly states that “all things were
made through Him,” and without Him, “nothing was made that has been made.” This
affirms Jesus’ direct and indispensable role in creation. Origen, while using
subordinationist language reflective of his era, still affirmed the Logos’
divine status and creative work. His speculative theology must be interpreted
within the historical development of Trinitarian doctrine.
The claim that John 1:3
merely attributes creation to God acting through the Logos misunderstands both
the language of the passage and the broader theological context of the Gospel
of John. The verse explicitly states that "all things were made through
Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made." The phrase
"without Him" categorically excludes the possibility of the Logos
being merely a passive instrument, or a created being himself. The Logos is presented as integral and
active in the creation process. The preposition dia (through) in this
context does not diminish the Logos’s role but highlights His divine agency
within the unity of the Godhead. The context of John 1:1-3 establishes that the
Logos is not subordinate but fully God: "The Word was God." This
directly associates the Logos with the creative power of Yahweh in Genesis 1.
The argument that dia
inherently implies subordination is a misunderstanding of its semantic range.
While dia can indicate agency, it does not imply inferiority or
dependence. In John 1:3 and Col. 1:16, dia highlights the relational
dynamic within the Trinity: the Father is the source, the Son is the agent, and
the Spirit is the perfecting force. This dynamic does not imply ontological
inequality but reflects the distinct roles of the divine persons. The assertion
that Origen denied Christ’s role as Creator is incorrect when his works are
properly understood. Origen recognized the Logos as the agent of creation,
fully divine and distinct in person but not inferior in essence. His
descriptions are rooted in the relational economy of the Trinity, not
subordinationism.
The objection to the term
"intermediary" relies on a semantic confusion. While
"intermediary" can mean "in-between," this does not imply
inferiority when applied to the Logos. In Trinitarian theology, Christ as the
Logos acts as the mediator of creation, reflecting His unique role within the
Godhead. This mediation does not suggest that He is less than the Father;
instead, it highlights the distinct personal roles within the unity of divine
essence. Human intermediaries, such as prophets or angels, act externally and
dependently on God. In contrast, the Logos acts internally and inherently as
God.
The claim that Isa. 44:24
excludes the Son from creation is based on a misinterpretation of the text.
Isaiah emphasizes Yahweh’s exclusive role as Creator to deny the existence of
rival gods. The NT writers, including John and Paul, consistently apply OT
creation texts to Christ, identifying Him as Yahweh. For instance, Heb. 1:10
applies Ps. 102:25-27, which describes Yahweh’s creative work, directly to
the Son. This affirms the Son’s full participation in the divine essence.
Tertullian’s writings, while not using the developed terminology of Nicaea,
affirm the Son’s role in creation. In Against Praxeas, Tertullian
states that the Father created "through His Word," acknowledging the
Son’s divine agency in creation. His writings are consistent with the broader
Trinitarian framework that ascribes creation to the Father, Son, and Spirit as
one God. Tertullian, in Against Praxeas, affirms that the Father and
Son are united in essence and act inseparably in creation. His analogy of the
sun and its rays illustrates the Son’s consubstantiality with the Father. While
Tertullian emphasizes the Father’s primacy in order, he does not deny the Son’s
role as Creator.
The demand for an explicit
passage calling Jesus "Creator" overlooks the cumulative witness of
Scripture. John 1:3, Col. 1:16, and Heb. 1:10-12 explicitly attribute creation
to the Son, presenting Him as the agent through whom all things exist. The
insistence on a single, formulaic statement ignores how Scripture reveals truth
progressively and through a synthesis of passages. The same approach applies to
doctrines like the Trinity, which are derived from the entirety of biblical
revelation rather than isolated proof texts.
The analogy comparing the
Logos’s unity with the Father to the unity of angels or humans with God is
flawed. While believers and angels may act in alignment with God’s will, this
unity is moral and functional, not ontological. Christ’s unity with the Father,
as described in John 10:30 ("I and the Father are one"), refers to
their shared divine essence, not merely cooperative action. This is why the
Jewish audience accused Jesus of blasphemy—they understood His claim to be
ontological. Similarly, when Christ prayed for believers to be "one"
with Him and the Father (John 17:21), He spoke of relational unity through
grace, not equality of essence. Angels and humans remain created beings,
whereas Christ, as the Logos, is uncreated and fully divine.
The claim that the angel in
Rev. 22:13 speaks as "Alpha and Omega" misrepresents the text. The
angel does not use this title for itself but conveys the words of God. Revelation
carefully distinguishes between God, the Lamb (Jesus), and angels. The
"Alpha and Omega" title is used exclusively for God and the Lamb (Rev.
1:8, 22:13), emphasizing their divine nature. Unlike angels, who reject worship
(Rev. 19:10, 22:8-9), Christ consistently receives worship in the NT (Matt. 14:33,
John 20:28, Rev. 5:13-14). This worship underscores His divine identity, as
worship is reserved for God alone (Exod. 34:14). The angel’s role in Revelation
demonstrates submission to God, whereas Christ’s role reveals His divine
authority and identity.
The criticism of the use of
ego eimi in John 8:58 misunderstands Greek grammar and the context of
the passage. Jesus’ declaration, “Before Abraham was, I AM,” uses the present
tense ego eimi to assert eternal existence, evoking the divine name
revealed in Exod. 3:14 (ehyeh asher ehyeh, “I am who I am”). This
connection is reinforced by the reaction of the Jews, who sought to stone Him
for blasphemy, recognizing His claim to deity. The argument that ego
eimi could mean “I have been” ignores the theological implications of
Jesus’ statement and the broader Johannine context.
Your reference to Jason
BeDuhn and his critique of Trinitarian translations does not undermine the
linguistic and theological validity of traditional renderings. While BeDuhn
praises the NWT for its literal approach, he also critiques its theological
bias, particularly in passages like John 1:1. His preference for “divine”
rather than “a god” underscores the qualitative nature of theos, which
aligns with the traditional understanding of the Logos as fully God. BeDuhn’s preference for
"divine" as a rendering of theos in John 1:1c stems from his
focus on the qualitative aspect of the Greek term in its context. This usage
reflects the Logos’ sharing in the nature of deity, emphasizing what
the Word is (its essence) rather than introducing an indefinite or subordinate
interpretation such as "a god." BeDuhn himself, though not a
Trinitarian, does not advocate for the Arian interpretation implied by the NWT ("a god"). Instead, his argument aligns with the
broader scholarly consensus that the absence of the article in theos
does not suggest indefiniteness but rather highlights the qualitative nature of
the term.
Your appeal to Origen's
usage of "divine" to describe angels misses the mark. Origen's
occasional use of such terminology does not undermine the distinctive
application of theos to the Logos in John 1:1c. When Origen applies theos
to the Logos, he explicitly affirms its ontological distinction from created
beings and its unique participation in the divine essence, as seen in Contra
Celsum and other writings. His nuanced theological language—though
predating Nicene orthodoxy—aims to clarify, not dilute, the Logos' deity.
Origen never equates the Logos with angels or lesser divine beings but instead
affirms its superior and eternal relationship with the Father.
Comparisons to modern
definitions of "divine," as suggested by your reference to a Google
search, lack the necessary theological precision to engage with this
discussion. In the context of John 1:1c, "divine" reflects the
qualitative divine essence of the Logos as articulated by the Evangelist. This
is not a generic or diluted sense of "divine," but one rooted in the
Jewish monotheistic tradition and its fulfillment in Christology. BeDuhn's
preference for "divine" acknowledges this qualitative aspect without
endorsing subordinationism or polytheism.
Moreover, your claim that
BeDuhn’s non-Trinitarian stance necessarily colors his interpretation of
"divine" as something other than the full divinity of the Logos is
speculative. While BeDuhn critiques traditional Trinitarian interpretations,
his linguistic observations are grounded in the grammar and context of the
Greek text. The qualitative understanding of theos in John 1:1c is not
inherently anti-Trinitarian; rather, it underscores the Logos’ intrinsic
participation in the divine essence, as affirmed by both Trinitarian and
non-Trinitarian scholars.
Your argument conflates
BeDuhn’s linguistic analysis with theological conclusions that he does not
explicitly endorse. His critique of the NWT is not an
unqualified defense of its theological interpretations but an acknowledgment of
its grammatical possibilities within a narrow framework. The broader context of
John 1, as well as the Gospel's high Christology, supports the traditional
understanding of the Logos as fully divine, a point that BeDuhn’s linguistic
observations do not negate.
The claim that the Greek
present tense conveys timeless or continuous existence is not a baseless
assertion. The use of ego eimi in John 8:58 is unique because
it stands in contrast to the temporal clause (prin Abraam genesthai—"before
Abraham came to be"). This contrast demonstrates that Jesus' existence
transcends temporal limitations. While examples of present tense verbs
conveying continuous existence may be rare, they are not unprecedented.
Linguists and theologians such as A.T. Robertson and Nigel Turner have noted
that the Greek present tense can describe an action that began in the past and
continues into the present, as in what is known as the "Present of Past
Action Still in Progress" (PPA). Instances like John 14:9 (“I
have been with you so long”) demonstrate this usage. However, John 8:58
goes beyond mere continuity, implying eternality, as the predicate-less ego
eimi conveys existence unbounded by time—a hallmark of deity.
Your assertion that
claiming Jesus' deity in John 8:58 is "opinion, not fact"
fails to account for the Gospel's broader context. While differing scholarly opinions
exist, the Catholic Church interprets Scripture holistically, guided by
Tradition. In John 5:18, Jesus is accused of "making Himself
equal with God," and in John 10:30-33, the Jews again accuse Him
of blasphemy for claiming unity with the Father. These passages reinforce the
interpretation that John 8:58 is another assertion of deity. While
some scholars may disagree, such disagreements do not invalidate the
interpretation but highlight theological debates that have been resolved within
the Church's Magisterium.
Regarding John 8:58
and other "I am" statements, it is incorrect to equate this phrase
with ordinary expressions like those in John 14:9. The absence of a
predicate in John 8:58 emphasizes the ontological nature of Jesus'
claim. When Jesus declares ego eimi without further qualification, He
asserts an identity that transcends time, which is distinct from everyday
usages like "I am the light of the world" or "I am the bread of
life." This theological significance is why the Jews reacted with an
attempt to stone Him—an act reserved for perceived blasphemy.
The contention that Jesus’
statement in John 8:58 merely denotes preexistence rather than
deity ignores the context and linguistic nuances. The choice of ego eimi
rather than a past tense verb like ēmēn (“I was”) underscores Jesus'
continuous, eternal existence, not merely a past origin. This is consistent
with the Prologue of John's Gospel, where Jesus is described as the eternal Logos
who "was with God, and was God" (John 1:1). Furthermore, the
connection to Exod. 3:14 in the Septuagint (ego eimi ho on,
“I am the Being”) is significant. While the wording differs slightly, the
theological resonance between the passages is clear: both declare the speaker’s
eternal, self-existent nature.
Your suggestion that the NWT
offers a linguistically superior rendering of John 8:58 as “I have
been” reflects theological bias rather than linguistic accuracy. The NWT's
rendering obscures the text's theological depth to conform to Jehovah's
Witnesses' rejection of Christ's deity. Reputable scholars, including
non-Catholics like R.E. Brown and Leon Morris, recognize the unique theological
weight of ego eimi in John 8:58. Rendering it as “I have
been” diminishes its connection to Exod. 3:14 and its affirmation of
Jesus’ divine identity.
The suggestion that Jesus’
language may have been constrained by translation limitations (from Hebrew or
Aramaic into Greek) misunderstands the theological inspiration of Scripture.
While Jesus likely spoke Aramaic or Hebrew, the Gospel writers, guided by the
Holy Spirit, chose Greek expressions to convey the intended theological
meaning. The use of ego eimi in John 8:58 is not merely a
linguistic accident but a deliberate choice to emphasize Jesus’ divine nature.
The argument that “Son of
God” does not imply deity is inconsistent with Jewish understanding. In
first-century Jewish thought, claiming to be the "Son of God" often
implied equality with God, as seen in John 5:18. The phrase “Son of
God” is not a mere idiomatic expression for a righteous person but a
declaration of unique relationship and identity, as evidenced by Jesus' trial
before the Sanhedrin (Mark 14:61-64). When Jesus affirms His identity
as the Son of God and the eschatological Son of Man (from Dan. 7:13-14),
the high priest accuses Him of blasphemy. This reaction underscores that Jesus'
claim was understood as a divine one, not merely a messianic or human title.
The broader argument that
Jesus never explicitly claimed to be God overlooks the cumulative evidence of
His actions, titles, and statements in the Gospels. Jesus forgave sins (Mark
2:5-12), accepted worship (Matt. 28:17, John 20:28), and declared His unity
with the Father (John 10:30). These actions, coupled with the Christological
affirmations in the NT epistles, establish His divine identity. Dan. 7:13-14,
cited in Jesus’ trial before the Sanhedrin (Mark 14:61-64), portrays the Son of
Man receiving worship and authority, further confirming His divine status. The assertion that Jesus'
actions, such as forgiving sins and accepting worship, could have parallels in OT
figures or practices misses the cumulative weight of these actions. While
prophets and judges occasionally acted as agents of God, they never claimed
intrinsic authority to forgive sins, nor did they accept worship. In contrast,
Jesus forgives sins by His own authority (Mark 2:5-12), accepts
worship without rebuke (John 20:28, where Thomas addresses Him as “My
Lord and my God”), and declares Himself the ultimate judge of humanity (Matt.
25:31-46). These actions are consistent with deity, not mere agency.
Lastly, your claim that
Catholic interpretations are selective or lack credibility ignores the Church's
theological consistency and reliance on both Scripture and Tradition. The
interpretation of John 8:58 as a declaration of deity is not a
modern invention but has been affirmed by Church Fathers like Augustine and
Athanasius, as well as ecumenical councils like Nicaea and Chalcedon. These
interpretations are rooted in a comprehensive understanding of Scripture, not
selective proof-texting.
Your insistence on explicit
passages ignores the nature of biblical revelation, which often conveys truths
through cumulative and interconnected evidence. The consistency of NT
Christology and its roots in OT theology affirm Jesus’ deity beyond
reasonable doubt. To dismiss these claims as theological bias or trolling
reflects a refusal to engage with the depth of the evidence presented.
@slimboyfat
The claim that early
Christology was primarily "angel Christology" and that Jesus was
viewed merely as the "highest being in service of God" is a
mischaracterization of the evidence found in the NT and the early Church's
theological trajectory. While some scholars, like David Bentley Hart,
acknowledge that early Christian understanding of Christ developed over time,
the assertion that Jesus was considered a mere angel or subordinate being lacks
comprehensive scriptural and historical support.
The NT itself unequivocally
affirms the deity of Christ. For example, John 1:1 states, "In the
beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
This is not a portrayal of an angelic figure but of one who shares fully in the
divine nature. Moreover, Phil. 2:6-11 presents Jesus as "existing in the morphe
of God" and emphasizes His equality with God, even as He humbles
Himself in the Incarnation. This passage is far removed from the notion of
Jesus as a mere subordinate being. The NT itself provides a
clear foundation for the deity of Christ. Passages such as John 1:1-14, Phil.
2:6-11, and Col. 1:15-20 present Jesus as preexistent, divine, and intimately
involved in creation. In John’s Gospel, the Logos is explicitly identified as
God and described as becoming flesh. Paul refers to Jesus as being "in the morphe of God" and possessing equality with God, a profound affirmation of
His divine nature. Far from being conceived as an angel or subordinate heavenly
being, Jesus is portrayed as sharing in the divine essence and glory of the
Father.
The early Church Fathers,
even before the formal articulation of Trinitarian doctrine at Nicaea, also
affirmed Christ’s deity. Ignatius of Antioch, writing around 110 AD,
referred to Jesus as "our God" in multiple letters. Justin Martyr, in
the mid-second century, described the Logos as eternal and divine,
distinguishing Him from created beings. While Justin uses the term theos
kai kurios eteros, this reflects relational distinction, not ontological
subordination. Justin and other Fathers like Irenaeus consistently upheld the
unity of God and the full divinity of Christ while emphasizing the personal
distinctions within the Godhead.
The claim that the doctrine
of Christ’s full divinity was a later development, imposed by the Council of
Nicaea or influenced by Constantine, is historically unfounded. The Council of
Nicaea (325 AD) did not invent the doctrine of the Trinity or Christ’s
deity; rather, it clarified and defended the Church’s longstanding beliefs
against the Arian heresy, which denied the full divinity of the Son. Arianism
itself was a theological innovation that sought to reduce Jesus to a created
being, in contradiction to the worship and confession of the early Church. The
use of the term homoousios (of the same substance) at Nicaea was not a
departure from Scripture but a precise term to articulate the biblical teaching
about Christ’s divine nature.
The assertion that early
Christianity embraced an "angelomorphic" Christology also
misinterprets the evidence. It is true that some early Christian writers, such
as Origen, used angelic imagery or titles to describe Christ, but this was
often metaphorical or intended to illustrate His role as a mediator, not to
equate Him with created angels. For example, when early Christians referred to
Christ as the "’Angel’ of the Lord" (drawing on OT theophanies), they
understood this title in light of His divine nature and His unique role in
salvation history, not as a denial of His deity.
The claim that the doctrine
of the Trinity lacks a basis in Scripture also misunderstands the progressive
nature of theological articulation. The term "Trinity" is not found
in the Bible, but the reality it describes is deeply rooted in the biblical
witness. The baptismal formula in Matt. 28:19, the Pauline blessings (e.g., 2
Cor. 13:14), and the Johannine writings reflect a triune understanding of God.
The development of Trinitarian language in the early Church was a response to
heresies and an effort to faithfully preserve the apostolic teaching about the
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
The claim that the Council
of Nicaea introduced a "new grammar" and imposed a co-equal Trinity
on Christianity misunderstands the historical context. The council formalized
and clarified beliefs that were already widely held within the Church, not
invented them. For instance, Ignatius of Antioch, writing in the early 2nd
century, referred to Jesus as "our God" (Letter to the Ephesians
7:2). Similarly, the Didache and other early Christian writings reflect a
Trinitarian understanding in their baptismal formulas. These predate Nicaea by
over a century, demonstrating that Trinitarian theology was not a late
invention but a natural development of the apostolic faith. Far from being a
new invention, the Nicene Creed formalized what had been the consistent belief
of the Church: that Jesus Christ is "true God from true God, begotten, not
made, consubstantial with the Father."
As for angelomorphic
Christology, while certain early Christians may have used angelic imagery to
describe aspects of Christ's role—such as His position as leader of the
heavenly host—this does not imply that He was considered merely an angel.
Hebrews 1 directly refutes this interpretation: "To which of the angels
did God ever say, 'You are my Son; today I have begotten you'?" The writer
of Hebrews explicitly contrasts Jesus with angels, emphasizing His superiority
and divine Sonship.
The assertion that the
early Church lacked a fully developed Trinitarian theology is technically
accurate but irrelevant to the broader claim. Development in theological
terminology does not mean the absence of the underlying truth. The doctrine of
the Trinity was articulated in response to heresies like Arianism, which sought
to diminish Christ's deity. This articulation did not invent new beliefs but
sought to defend and clarify the apostolic teaching preserved in Scripture and
tradition.
Furthermore, Hart's mention
of homoousios as a "new" term is not evidence against the
Trinity but rather illustrates how the Church developed precise language to
combat doctrinal errors. This term was necessary to affirm that the Son shares
the same divine essence as the Father, in contrast to Arian claims that He was
a created being.
Lastly, the idea that
Thomas’s exclamation "My Lord and my God!" (John 20:28) is merely a
fervent expression or misinterpretation is weak. The text directly attributes
these words to Thomas in response to the risen Christ. The structure of the
Greek text does not support a vocative distinction that would make this a
general exclamation rather than an address to Jesus. Additionally, Jesus
affirms Thomas's statement by blessing those who believe in His identity
without seeing.
In conclusion, while early
Christology may have included diverse expressions and images, the NT and early
Church writings consistently affirm Christ's deity. The Council of Nicaea
and subsequent theological developments did not introduce new beliefs but
safeguarded the apostolic faith against heretical distortions. Thus, the claim
that angel Christology was the "earliest" or dominant understanding
of Jesus is a selective and incomplete reading of history and scripture. The
historical development of Trinitarian doctrine was not an imposition or a break
from earlier belief but a necessary clarification in response to heresies. The NT
and early Christian writings overwhelmingly affirm the deity of Christ,
making the claim of a purely "angelomorphic" Christology historically
and theologically untenable.
