Is Jesus the Creator?

by Sea Breeze 405 Replies latest watchtower bible

Halcon

Rivergang - the way you describe things, it sounds like God is a state of mind?
Yes, if the mind is infinite and I believe it is, then yes.
aqwsed12345

Did Constantine Invent the Trinity?
Did the Trinity Come from Paganism?
peacefulpete

Not sure if you still want to engage Kaleb but regarding the evolution of the Devil/Satan figure, your objection to my comment seems to be in the suggestion that some Jewish circles had included a rebellious angel element in the concept. I'm not as fully read on the topic as I'd like but the Enochic tradition certainly included the idea of rebellious angels and a leader called Satanail, and the Tobit story with its Ashmedai prince of the demons sound very much like the Devil figure in the NT. The Ezekiel 28 Protective cherub that became wicked and the falling star of Isaiah 14 were connected in late nonrabbinic Judaism. Again, I go back to the Gospel and Revelation themselves, the descriptions of the Devil within are not presented as if a new revelation, the readers are assumed to be aware of the characters, it's the action that is the focus. Paul's (and G,John's) use of archon suggests some connection to early Gnostic ideation. That really is not controversial. I think it demonstrates the composite character of the tradition of Satan. I hesitated to include the Jewish Mysticism traditions but they often featured the 'Samael' Great Demon as a live character of rebellion. Probably only secondarily connected but in some Gnostic traditions the Devil was actually an earlier son of God than Christ. The whole idea of losing great position and rank by rebellion runs through much of these traditions.
Specifically what part of my comments are incorrect? I post some speculative stuff to be sure, but it is always with the motive of brainstorming with more experienced posters. Be free to respond to error without concern for my feelings. I consider myself lucky to have had your ear.
Blotty

according to you, Im confused alot... choke on this AQ: I DO NOT CARE FOR YOUR TRINITARIAN THEOLOGY!
if you want to discuss linguistics, cool - I'm happy to, if you can answer with a reasonable length post cool I'm happy to engage. If you can actually cite sources when requested, even better.
"This metaphorical use is standard in biblical language and does not conflict with monotheism." - so calling something "a god" is NOT polytheism then.. or henotheism (both of which you stretch the definition of)
again if I believed in the trinity, I would understand the NWT to be saying "a divine person"
"The critique that I rely on Wikipedia is misplaced," - When did I say YOU, rely on Wikipedia - quote please.
"Your insistence on citations is valid" - so provide them. Iv asked for 4 in my last 2 posts - if its valid - provide them
" but dismissing arguments solely due to their perceived association with Wikipedia reflects a lack of engagement with their substance." - You can use Wikipedia all you want, until you publish an academic paper. idc
I dismiss wikipedia on alot of issues unless other sources agree with it - this is not solely directed at you, its a blanket "policy" of mine.
"The phrase "without Him" categorically excludes the possibility of the Logos being merely a passive instrument, or a created being himself." - Do you know what a "passive instrument" is? and no it doesnt.. There is an idiom that speaks in absolutes around the time the bible was written.
"Rendering it as “a god” imposes a theological bias, introducing a polytheistic-henotheistic nuance incompatible with the monotheistic framework of John’s Gospel." - and yet here you are proving my point you CANNOT do strictly linguistically arguments, My question was around STRICT linguistics, not Johns theology or yours (Are all Catholics as obnouxious as you?)
" While dia can indicate agency, it does not imply inferiority or dependence." - cite the exception..
"the Father is the source, the Son is the agent, and the Spirit is the perfecting force. " - So the Son is not the "creator" - The trinity as a whole is.
So instead of being misleading clear your language further, and Why does Tertullian not call the son the creator? Or Origen or Justin Martyr?
"The claim that Isa. 44:24 excludes the Son from creation is based on a misinterpretation of the text." - Where did I say it excludes the son - Where?
"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." - Where does it say that in John chapter 10, explicitly?
Church fathers use "essence" to also mean SOLELY union
"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." - can you read.. it seems you cant
I said:
"Angels quote God almost verbatum most of the time.
note the Angel in Revelation says "I am the alpha and the omega"(1st person) while quoting what God said for it to tell John."
again do you read?
How can I be any more clearer?
"The argument that ego eimi could mean “I have been” ignores the theological implications of Jesus’ statement and the broader Johannine context." - nope, just yours..
"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. " - yet you insist the modern meaning for "worship" must be applied to Christ. interesting double standard.
"Your argument conflates BeDuhn’s linguistic analysis with theological conclusions that he does not explicitly endorse." - I asked: Have you ever asked Beduhn what he meant by "divine"? No? so you cant impose YOUR meaning on Beduhns words - he likely means any dictionary definition - not your trinitarian definition.
"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." - Shall I just email him and ask him then? I guarantee he does not mean the trinitarian sense - he is not a trinitarian for starters..
"The claim that the Greek present tense conveys timeless or continuous existence is not a baseless assertion." - sure Mr. quote miner sure.
"John 8:58 goes beyond mere continuity, implying eternality, as the predicate-less ego eimi conveys existence unbounded by time" - it does not, it simply states he existed sometime before Abraham, which is not specifically stated - and is going on up to now.
Eternal existance could be said another way.
The idea that "ego eimi" is parroting God in exodus is stupid, Even the LXX acknowledges that "the being" (Which would indicate eternal existence in that context)
The lXX in the very next sentence when God tells Moses to "parrot" him emphasizes " ἐρεῖς τοῖς υἱοῖς Ισραηλ ὁ ὢν ἀπέσταλκέν με πρὸς ὑμᾶς"
NOT "I am" indicating "I am" wasn't the important part of the sentence.
"Your assertion that claiming Jesus' deity in John 8:58 is "opinion, not fact" fails to account for the Gospel's broader context." - I'm failing account for what you want me to account for... not this pre-conceived context you have in your head.
"This theological significance is why the Jews reacted with an attempt to stone Him—an act reserved for perceived blasphemy." - yes "perceived"
and why they asked "Who are you?"? straight after "I am"
Quote for the NIV -"[ ]" is used to highlight anything not in the original Greek or could not be understood from the original Greek ("He" is implied - LIKE Bible PRINCIPLES)
That is why I told you that you would die in your sins. For unless you believe that I am* [He], you will die in your sins.”
25“Who are You?” they asked.
* Greek (8:24):
εἶπον οὖν ὑμῖν ὅτι ἀποθανεῖσθε ἐν ταῖς ἁμαρτίαις ὑμῶν· ἐὰν γὰρ μὴ πιστεύσητε ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι, ἀποθανεῖσθε ἐν ταῖς ἁμαρτίαις ὑμῶν.
"The choice of ego eimi rather than a past tense verb like ēmēn (“I was”) " - If Jesus used a past tense verb, the idoim wouldnt work and would imply, most likely, that the "event" before Abraham, had finished
"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." - equality with God and being God are 2 totally seperate things in Jewish thought
" they never claimed intrinsic authority to forgive sins" - are you sure about that? One of the Prophets infact did.
"Lastly, your claim that Catholic interpretations are selective or lack credibility " - I claimed yours, not Catholics in general - Catholics I speak too don't troll on the internet and comment under insulting usernames.. They have honour and credibility - you don't
"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 mean literally nothing to me.. I couldn't care less, what Atha has to say on any subject.
"Your insistence on explicit passages ignores the nature of biblical revelation, which often conveys truths through cumulative and interconnected evidence. " - LOL, so why do you ask The Witnesses for just one explicit passage or myself?
you have double standards.
aqwsed12345

@Blotty
Regarding the Wikipedia issue, your critique misrepresents my position. I did not claim you accused me of relying on Wikipedia; I addressed your dismissal of its validity. Your own "blanket policy" acknowledges its utility if corroborated by reliable sources, which undermines the general rejection you initially implied.
The claim that "without Him was not anything made" (John 1:3) doesn't exclude the possibility of the Logos being a created entity misunderstands the passage's construction. The statement categorically excludes anything made without the Logos. This would include the Logos if He were created, creating a logical impossibility.
The Greek phrase choris autou ("without Him") is an absolute negation, leaving no room for exceptions. This grammatical structure ensures that the Logos was not merely a passive tool but an essential, active agent in creation. The text explicitly places the Logos in a position of indispensable creative authority, refuting any notion of passivity.
You challenge the claim that dia (through) does not imply inferiority or dependence and demand an exception. In Greek, dia often denotes agency, indicating the means by which an action is accomplished. Its use does not inherently imply subordination or inferiority. For instance, in Romans 11:36, Paul writes, "For from Him and through [dia] Him and to Him are all things." Here, dia is used for God’s agency in creation, clearly not implying inferiority. Similarly, in John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16, dia highlights the Son’s role as the divine agent in creation, functioning within the unity of the Godhead. It emphasizes the relational distinction between the Father as the source and the Son as the agent without suggesting ontological subordination. Dia ("through") often indicates active agency without implying inferiority. For example, Hebrews 1:2 describes the Son as the one "through whom" God made the universe, affirming His divine role without subordination. If you demand citations, the works of Daniel Wallace or A.T. Robertson on Greek prepositions provide ample evidence.
You assert that the Trinity as a whole is the Creator and accuse me of misleading language by distinguishing the roles of Father, Son, and Spirit. However, Trinitarian theology does not deny that the entire Godhead acts in creation. Instead, it affirms that each divine person participates in creation according to their unique roles: the Father as the source, the Son as the agent, and the Spirit as the sustainer. This relational distinction does not imply inequality but reflects the harmonious operation of the one divine essence. While early writers like Tertullian or Origen may not have used later Nicene terminology, their writings affirm the Son’s divine agency in creation. For example, Tertullian states in Against Praxeas: "The Father created the world through His Word," acknowledging the Son’s active role as Creator. The development of Trinitarian language over time does not negate this foundational truth but clarifies it.
You claim that I misrepresented your position on Isaiah 44:24, suggesting you never said it excludes the Son. However, the implication of your argument—that creation is attributed solely to the Father—contradicts the NT’s consistent application of OT creation texts to the Son. Hebrews 1:10 applies Psalm 102:25-27 to the Son, directly attributing Yahweh’s creative work to Him. The unity of Father and Son in creation is a fundamental aspect of Trinitarian theology, underscoring the Son’s full participation in the divine identity. If you agree that the Son participates in creation, then you align with the Trinitarian understanding that creation is the work of the one God involving all three persons.
Calling something "a god" in metaphorical terms (e.g., Psalm 82 or 2 Corinthians 4:4) itself does not equate to polytheism or henotheism. These passages use "god" as a metaphor to describe authority or divine representation, not divinity in the ontological sense. In John 1:1, however, the term theos qualitatively describes the Logos as possessing the divine essence, which aligns with Jewish monotheism and the broader context of John's Gospel. This is a theological and linguistic distinction. The metaphorical use of "gods" in contexts like Psalm 82 or 2 Corinthians 4:4 does not equate to polytheism or henotheism because it does not involve ontological divinity. In Psalm 82 human judges are called "gods" (elohim) because they act as representatives of God’s authority, not because they are divine beings. Jesus uses this argument in John 10:34-36 to demonstrate the appropriateness of His claim to divine sonship. In 2 Corinthians 4:4 Satan is referred to as "the god of this age" metaphorically, denoting his temporary authority in a fallen world, not literal deity. By contrast, John 1:1c uses "theos" qualitatively to affirm the Logos' divine nature, not metaphorically. The Word is not likened to a godly figure or representative but is described as sharing fully in the divine essence. The NWT's rendering of "a god" imposes an interpretation that introduces a polytheistic nuance foreign to the Johannine text.
If you equate "a god" with "a divine person," you misunderstand the theological implications. The phrase "a god" introduces ambiguity and suggests separateness or subordination, which is inconsistent with John’s monotheistic framework. The qualitative reading of "theos" in John 1:1c does not present the Word as "a divine person" among many but as possessing the full essence of divinity. BeDuhn has clarified his stance in his works. While he prefers "divine" as a translation, his use of the term does not align with the Trinitarian understanding of Christ's full divinity. However, his critique of traditional translations like the NWT does not amount to an endorsement of their theological implications. His linguistic analysis must be distinguished from theological conclusions. BeDuhn’s "divine" emphasizes the qualitative nature of the Logos without explicitly endorsing the Arian interpretation of "a god." His preference for "divine" reflects the Logos' nature as distinct but does not reject Trinitarian possibilities, as he has acknowledged that his translation leaves room for multiple interpretations.
Your critique of applying modern meanings to "divine" ignores how BeDuhn’s preference for "divine" reflects the qualitative nature of theos in John 1:1c. BeDuhn does not endorse a polytheistic/henotheistic interpretation; rather, he acknowledges the qualitative aspect of the Logos’ divinity. Your claim that you could email him to clarify underscores the need for rigorous analysis over speculation. If you choose to contact BeDuhn, it would be prudent to frame your questions carefully, distinguishing between his linguistic analysis and his personal theological views. However, his prior work already suggests that his preferred translation, "divine," is open to interpretation and does not necessarily support Jehovah’s Witness theology. Even if BeDuhn is non-Trinitarian, this does not invalidate Trinitarian scholarship or early Christian interpretations affirming Christ's full divinity.
Your insistence on focusing solely on linguistics while disregarding theological context is problematic. Greek grammar operates within the framework of meaning, which includes theological nuances in texts like John 1:1 and John 8:58. Stripping these texts of their theological context results in incomplete interpretations. Your personal theological preferences are noted, but this debate is not about personal preferences; it is about textual, historical, and linguistic analysis. The discussion hinges on what the original Greek text and early Christian interpretations indicate, not on whether you personally accept Trinitarian theology.
The term "worship" as applied to Christ in the New Testament (e.g., Matthew 28:17; Hebrews 1:6) reflects the veneration due only to God. In Greek, the word proskyneō (worship) can indicate varying levels of reverence, but when directed toward Christ, it is consistently within a divine framework, affirming His full deity. Modern definitions of "worship" align with this understanding, emphasizing supreme reverence, which is inconsistent with Jehovah’s Witness theology that restricts worship to the Father.
John 10:30’s statement, "I and the Father are one," uses the neuter hen to express unity in essence, not merely cooperative action. The reaction of the Jews—attempting to stone Jesus for blasphemy—indicates they understood this as a claim to divinity, not just moral unity. The broader context of John 10 supports this interpretation.
On Revelation 22:13, you misconstrue my argument. The angel quoting "Alpha and Omega" does not attribute this title to itself but conveys the words of Christ, as seen in the consistent use of the title for God or Jesus in Revelation (1:8, 21:6, 22:13).
Your dismissal of the connection between John 8:58’s ego eimi and Exodus 3:14 reflects a misunderstanding. The Septuagint’s rendering of Exodus 3:14 as ego eimi ho on ("I am the Being") underscores God’s eternal self-existence. While the phrase "I am" in John 8:58 doesn’t replicate the exact wording, its predicate-less structure conveys eternal existence. The Jewish reaction—attempting to stone Jesus—indicates they understood His claim as divine.
On John 8:58, translating ego eimi as "I have been" diminishes the statement's theological significance. Jesus’ use of ego eimi without a predicate conveys a timeless existence, aligning with the Prologue’s declaration of His eternal nature. The broader context of John’s Gospel consistently affirms Jesus’ divinity, making the claim of eternal existence fitting.
The predicate-less ego eimi is a deliberate echo of the divine name revealed in Exodus 3:14, where God declares, "I AM WHO I AM" (Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh). The Septuagint renders this as ego eimi ho on ("I am the Being"), linking ego eimi to God’s self-identification. In John 8:58, Jesus’ use of ego eimi contrasts with the temporal clause "before Abraham was" (prin Abraam genesthai), emphasizing His eternal existence. The reaction of the Jews—attempting to stone Him—confirms their understanding of this as a claim to deity, not merely preexistence. Your assertion that ego eimi could have been expressed differently to indicate eternality ignores the theological weight of Jesus’ words and the broader Johannine context, where His divine identity is a recurring theme (e.g., John 1:1, John 20:28).
You claim that the Jews’ question, "Who are you?" (John 8:25), undermines the significance of ego eimi. However, this question does not diminish Jesus’ declaration but reflects their ongoing confusion and rejection of His claims. Throughout John’s Gospel, the Jews repeatedly misunderstand or resist Jesus’ assertions of His identity (e.g., John 6:41-42, John 10:24-26). Their response highlights their unwillingness to accept the implications of His words, not a lack of clarity on Jesus’ part.
You also argue that the Septuagint’s emphasis on "the Being" (ho on) in Exodus 3:14 undermines the connection between ego eimi and the divine name. However, the distinction is not as stark as you suggest. The phrase ego eimi in John 8:58 carries the same theological resonance as ho on, as both expressions emphasize God’s eternal, self-existent nature. The absence of ho on in John 8:58 does not weaken the connection to Exodus 3:14 but reflects John’s theological focus on Jesus’ personal appropriation of the divine name.
Your dismissal of ego eimi as a declaration of deity because it does not explicitly state eternal existence overlooks the cumulative evidence of John’s Gospel. The Prologue (John 1:1-3) establishes the Logos as eternal and divine, and Jesus’ "I am" statements throughout the Gospel consistently affirm His divine identity (e.g., John 6:35, John 10:11, John 14:6). The use of ego eimi in John 8:58 is a climactic affirmation of this identity, grounded in the broader narrative of the Gospel.
You challenge my interpretation of John 5:18, claiming that equality with God and being God are separate concepts in Jewish thought. While it is true that claiming equality with God does not necessarily equate to claiming to be God, the context of John’s Gospel shows that Jesus’ claims went beyond equality. In John 10:30, Jesus declares, "I and the Father are one," prompting the Jews to accuse Him of blasphemy for "making Himself God" (John 10:33). This reaction confirms that Jesus’ statements were understood as assertions of deity, not merely equality.
Your assertion that a prophet once forgave sins like Jesus overlooks the unique authority with which Jesus forgave sins. In Mark 2:5-12, Jesus forgives the paralytic’s sins and justifies His authority by healing him, stating, "The Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins." Unlike OT prophets, who acted as intermediaries delivering God’s message, Jesus forgave sins by His own authority, a prerogative reserved for God alone. This distinction underscores His divine identity and authority.
Your claim that "Son of God" implies equality but not divinity in Jewish thought is incomplete. In John 5:18, the Jews accuse Jesus of "making Himself equal with God," showing that this title was understood as a divine claim. Additionally, forgiving sins (Mark 2:5-12) and accepting worship (John 20:28) are divine prerogatives, not merely actions of a prophet.
Finally, your claim of double standards regarding explicit passages misunderstands the nature of biblical revelation. Trinitarian doctrine emerges from the cumulative evidence of Scripture, not isolated proof texts. When asking for explicit passages from Jehovah’s Witnesses, the request addresses their specific claims, such as Jesus being Michael the Archangel, which lacks clear biblical support. In contrast, the deity of Christ is supported by the interconnected itness of Scripture.
Blotty

AQ - can you read? or do you need to go back to primary school?
"which undermines the general rejection you initially implied." - Its moe you just cant read..
"For instance, in Romans 11:36, Paul writes, "For from Him and through [dia] Him and to Him are all things." Here, dia is used for God’s agency in creation, clearly not implying inferiority. " - but here, its being used as the source not as for the channel of an act.
"The Greek phrase choris autou ("without Him") is an absolute negation, leaving no room for exceptions." - We have similar instances elsewhere.. adn again I dont beleive Christ is like teh rest of creation - To me is both "created" and "uncreated" (Philo's concept) not made from nothing but made from Gods wn "substance" i.e Like Eve was made from Adam
(Begotten essentially - without brothers or sisters, stilll wouldnt make him God tho)
"However, the implication of your argument—that creation is attributed solely to the Father" - t does, The Father is thought of as the Creator (to the cited churh fathers, which you ignore.)
To Daniel Wallace who says:
see GGBTB page 434 (John 1:3)
and here: https://www.google.co.nz/books/edition/Greek_Grammar_Beyond_the_Basics/XlqoTVsk2wcC?hl=en&gbpv=1
and A.T Robertson here:
" (δι' αυτου). By means of him as the intermediate agent in the work of creation. The Logos is John's explanation of the creation of the universe. The author of Hebrews (Hebrews 1:2) names God's Son as the one "through whom he made the ages." Paul pointedly asserts that "the all things were created in him" (Christ) and "the all things stand created through him and unto him" (Colossians 1:16). Hence it is not a peculiar doctrine that John here enunciates. In 1 Corinthians 8:6, Paul distinguishes between the Father as the primary source (εξ ου) of the all things and the Son as the intermediate agent as here (δι' ου)."
(https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/rwp/john-1.html)
: "As the intermediate and sustaining agent. He had already used εν αυτω (in him) as the sphere of activity."
(https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/rwp/colossians-1.html)
you misrepresent both of these citations
" it would be prudent to frame your questions carefully, distinguishing between his linguistic analysis and his personal theological views." - I have literally linked to your claims on the subject and asked him if he would agree with your statements about his claims of being "Divine" and your clarification on what that means (synonym for deity)..
If not - you lied. and I will expose you for it. in a seperate post.
yes Beduhn did agree that "theos" was qualiative but what else did he say on thsi Subject? you are omitting information to suit YOUR agenda.
He also talks about "theos" being a catergory. Before and after his "basic agreement" with Harner.
"BeDuhn does not endorse a polytheistic/henotheistic interpretation" - You are being so selective on this: https://www.google.co.nz/books/edition/Truth_in_Translation/if2ACgAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1
have you actaully read Beduhns book? I doubt it.
"John 10:30’s statement, "I and the Father are one," uses the neuter hen to express unity in essence, not merely cooperative action. " - But they were not the same "essense" (your meaning) at this time, were they? Jesus was both God and Man
God was only a spirit. (count noun NOT mass noun.)
"However, his prior work already suggests that his preferred translation, "divine," is open to interpretation and does not necessarily support Jehovah’s Witness theology. Even if BeDuhn is non-Trinitarian" - it invalidates your claim he means your trinitarian "divine" sense.
"Stripping these texts of their theological context results in incomplete interpretations." - Im happy to do this with anyone, except a theologically motivated troll who has 0 crediibility
"which is inconsistent with Jehovah’s Witness theology that restricts worship to the Father." - John 4:24
"The angel quoting "Alpha and Omega" does not attribute this title to itself but conveys the words of Christ, as seen in the consistent use of the title for God or Jesus in Revelation (1:8, 21:6, 22:13)." - contexts indicate how these terms are meant. One is for God, onse is for teh one who died.
When did I say it did?
you say I misunderstand alot, can you read?
What did I say... repeat it back to me..
"its predicate-less structure conveys eternal existence." - there is also such a thing as an implied predicate as the NIV shows
"The predicate-less ego eimi is a deliberate echo of the divine name revealed in Exodus 3:14" - prove it, the LXX evidence would say otherwise.
" However, this question does not diminish Jesus’ declaration but reflects their ongoing confusion and rejection of His claims." - Or another possibility is they didnt understand "ego eimi" as a divine name at all.. Why would they at first ask who are you?
but in the very next instance understand it as a quote from Ex 3:14?
claiming to have lived long enough to see Abraham would have been quite enough to provoke the crowds violent reaction.
""The Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins."" - because he was given it.
"The phrase ego eimi in John 8:58 carries the same theological resonance as ho on" - then we would expect the LXX to repeat the entirety of God's [claimed] name - not just the later.
" In John 5:18, the Jews accuse Jesus of "making Himself equal with God," showing that this title was understood as a divine claim. " - so to them God was someone else. as they only accused him of equality with God, NOT being God.
"Finally, your claim of double standards regarding explicit passages misunderstands the nature of biblical revelation. Trinitarian doctrine emerges from the cumulative evidence of Scripture, not isolated proof texts. When asking for explicit passages from Jehovah’s Witnesses, the request addresses their specific claims, such as Jesus being Michael the Archangel" - I can use the same argument... this is an excuse not a valid reason.
aqwsed12345
@Blotty
Regarding dia in Romans 11:36, your claim that it refers to "source" rather than "channel" misunderstands the distinction between the prepositions ex (from) and dia (through). Paul uses ex for the Father as the ultimate source ("from Him") and dia for the Son as the means or agent ("through Him"). This distinction highlights relational roles within the Godhead rather than ontological subordination. Dia consistently denotes agency rather than origination in the Pauline corpus when applied to Christ (e.g., John 1:3, Colossians 1:16, Hebrews 1:2). Your interpretation conflates these relational nuances, undermining the Trinitarian understanding of shared divine essence and distinct personal roles.
The claim that in Romans 11:36, dia refers to God as the source rather than as a channel misunderstands the preposition's semantic range and the specific context of this passage. In Romans 11:36, Paul uses three prepositional phrases: "from Him" (ex autou), "through Him" (dia autou), and "to Him" (eis auton). These prepositions highlight distinct aspects of God's relationship to creation: ex autou indicates that God is the ultimate source, dia autou emphasizes His active agency or means, and eis auton denotes the goal or purpose. The use of dia in this context does not imply inferiority but underscores the unity of the Godhead in creation. In Johannine theology, dia similarly reflects Christ’s active role in creation as the divine Word, not a subordinate instrument, but one who fully participates in the work of creation as God.
Your question about a "passive instrument" reveals a misunderstanding of the term and the argument. A passive instrument would imply something used by another without agency or self-determination, akin to a tool wielded by a craftsman. However, John 1:3 explicitly negates this interpretation by stating that "all things were made through Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made." This clause establishes the Logos as the necessary and active agent of creation. The Logos is not passive but integral to the creative process, as indicated by the phrase "without Him" (choris autou), which excludes any possibility of creation occurring apart from Him. This absolute negation leaves no room for the Logos to be a mere instrument or created being.
The idea that "absolute negation" was idiomatic in the biblical era lacks textual evidence in this context. While hyperbolic or idiomatic language exists in Scripture, the construction in John 1:3 is precise and unambiguous. The use of choris autou—combined with the double negation in the Greek text ("without Him was not... anything that was made")—intensifies the exclusivity of the Logos's role in creation. This language rules out the notion that the Logos is part of creation or a secondary agent.
Your assertion that Christ could be both "created" and "uncreated," drawing on Philo's concept of the Logos, reflects a misunderstanding of both Philo's philosophy and John's theology. Philo's Logos is a philosophical abstraction, a mediator between the divine and the material, whereas John's Logos is a person—Jesus Christ—who is fully divine and eternal. John’s description of the Logos as "with God" (pros ton Theon) and "was God" (theos ēn ho logos) affirms the Logos's full divinity and eternal existence. Unlike Eve, who was derived from Adam and is ontologically subordinate to him, the Logos is of the same divine essence as the Father, as clarified by the Nicene Creed's term homoousios ("of the same substance"). The analogy you propose is therefore incompatible with Johannine and Nicene theology. Philo's Logos concept is philosophical speculation, while John's Logos is firmly grounded in Jewish monotheism and the revelation of Christ as fully divine. The Logos is not created "from God's substance" in the manner you describe; such a view parallels Arianism, which was condemned as heretical by the early Church. The Nicene Creed clarifies that the Son is "begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father." The analogy of Eve being formed from Adam misunderstands the distinction between human derivation and divine begetting. The Son's "begetting" is eternal, not a temporal or contingent event, emphasizing His equality and consubstantiality with the Father.
Your claim that creation is attributed solely to the Father reflects a selective reading of the Church Fathers. While the Father is often described as the "source" of creation (ex ou), the Son is consistently portrayed as the agent (dia hou), and the Spirit as the perfecting force. This Trinitarian framework is evident in Scripture (e.g., John 1:3, Col. 1:16-17, Heb. 1:2, 1 Cor. 8:6) and upheld by patristic theology. For instance, Irenaeus, in Against Heresies (Book 4, Chapter 20), refers to the Son and Spirit as the "two hands of God" in creation. This imagery underscores the collaborative and unified work of the Trinity in creation, without suggesting any ontological hierarchy.
Regarding Daniel Wallace and A.T. Robertson, your citations do not contradict my argument but rather reinforce it. Both scholars affirm that dia in John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16 emphasizes the Logos’s role as the divine agent in creation. Wallace, in Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, explains that dia can indicate agency without implying inferiority, particularly when the context involves divine action. Similarly, Robertson acknowledges that the Son functions as the "intermediate agent" in creation, which is consistent with Trinitarian theology. Your attempt to use these scholars to suggest subordination misrepresents their positions, as neither Wallace nor Robertson denies the Logos’s full divinity or eternal nature. So your citation of Daniel Wallace and A.T. Robertson supports my argument, not yours. Wallace explicitly identifies dia as indicative of agency in John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16, emphasizing the Son's role in creation without implying inferiority. Robertson similarly recognizes the Logos as the active, sustaining agent in creation. Your selective interpretation of their works misrepresents their conclusions, which consistently affirm the high Christology of these texts.
The appeal to the intermediate agency of the Logos as a basis for subordination is a category error. In Trinitarian theology, "agency" reflects the relational distinctions within the Godhead, not an ontological hierarchy. The Father, Son, and Spirit act inseparably in all divine works, including creation. The Son’s role as the agent of creation (dia hou) does not imply subordination but highlights the relational economy of the Trinity, where the Father is the source, the Son the agent, and the Spirit the perfecter.
Your interpretation of the Logos as "created from God’s substance" contradicts the biblical and theological witness. The Nicene Creed explicitly rejects the idea that the Son is "made" (poiētos), affirming instead that He is "begotten, not made" (gennētos, ou poiētos). This distinction underscores that the Son is eternally generated from the Father, sharing the same divine essence, rather than being a creation. The analogy of Eve's derivation from Adam fails to capture the eternal and consubstantial relationship between the Father and the Son, which is foundational to Trinitarian theology.
On your point that the Church Fathers attribute creation solely to the Father, this is inaccurate. While the Fathers emphasize the Father's role as the source of creation, they also affirm the Son's active participation as Creator. For example, Irenaeus states in Against Heresies (Book 2, Chapter 30): "The Father, indeed, is above all, and He is the Head of Christ; but the Word is through all things and is Himself the head of the Church." This statement aligns with Hebrews 1:2 and Colossians 1:16, where the Son is described as the agent of creation. The relational distinctions in these descriptions reflect the economic Trinity, not subordination.
Regarding BeDuhn, his acknowledgment of theos as qualitative does not negate Christ's divinity. While BeDuhn prefers "divine" as a translation, he recognizes that this aligns with the Logos's divine nature as described in John 1:1. The qualitative use of theos emphasizes the Logos's full participation in the divine essence, not a lesser or created status. Your claim that I selectively omitted information is unsubstantiated; BeDuhn’s linguistic analysis supports the traditional understanding of John 1:1 as affirming the Logos's divine nature, even if he does not personally endorse Trinitarian theology.
BeDuhn acknowledges that theos can denote a category or class, but he does not reduce the Logos to being merely "a god" in the sense of polytheism or henotheism. Instead, his preference for the term "divine" reflects the qualitative nature of theos in John 1:1c, aligning with the broader Johannine context that emphasizes the Word's intrinsic divinity. This interpretation does not equate to an endorsement of the JWs’ theological stance, as BeDuhn himself critiques their translation's theological bias elsewhere.
Regarding the claim that theos as a "count noun" undermines its qualitative force, this argument misunderstands Greek syntax and semantics. While theos can function as a count noun, its role in John 1:1c aligns with qualitative usage. As noted by Harner and other scholars, the anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb often emphasizes the nature or essence of the subject. In this case, it attributes divinity to the Word, consistent with the Gospel's prologue and broader theological framework. The qualitative interpretation of theos here does not necessitate subordination or categorical division but underscores the Word's shared essence with God. Check these:
- Revisiting the Colwell Construction in Light of Mass / Count Nouns Don Hartley
- Theos is a Count Noun: "God" or "a god" in John 1:1c Robert Hommel
The criticism that the neuter hen in John 10:30 does not indicate unity of essence due to the Incarnation is also misplaced. Theological nuances of Christ's dual nature (divine and human) do not negate His ontological unity with the Father. The use of hen emphasizes unity of will and essence, not mere functional agreement. This is corroborated by the immediate context, where Jesus’ claim leads to accusations of blasphemy, indicating that His audience understood Him to assert divine identity, not merely cooperative action.
On the claim that God as "spirit" (John 4:24) precludes Jesus’ shared essence during His earthly ministry, this reflects a misunderstanding of Trinitarian theology. The Incarnation does not diminish or alter Christ's divine essence; rather, it affirms the hypostatic union, where Christ is fully God and fully man. Describing God as "spirit" emphasizes His immaterial and eternal nature, which Jesus shares as the Logos.
The appeal to theos as a "count noun" fails to refute its qualitative application in John 1:1c. The argument presupposes a rigid linguistic framework that dismisses established grammatical insights. Scholars like Wallace and Harner demonstrate that theos in this context functions to attribute the essence of divinity to the Word without implying numerical separation or inferiority. The argument that theos must always be definite or indefinite overlooks the nuanced qualitative category evident in Koine Greek.
The critique conflates BeDuhn’s linguistic analysis with theological conclusions he does not make. His acknowledgment of the grammatical possibility of “a god” does not mean he endorses it as the most accurate or contextually appropriate rendering. BeDuhn’s focus on qualitative nuance supports a reading that recognizes the Word’s divinity in harmony with monotheistic Jewish theology. Mischaracterizing his position as aligning with JW theology misrepresents his work and the broader academic consensus.
Your assertion that ego eimi in John 8:58 simply indicates existence before Abraham but not eternal existence fails to account for the linguistic and contextual factors. The phrase ego eimi (I am) is not merely a statement of past existence but a present-tense declaration of ongoing being. This present tense, coupled with the temporal clause prin Abraam genesthai (“before Abraham came to be”), creates a contrast that goes beyond the simple claim of existence at a specific point in time. The use of the present tense where a past tense (e.g., ēmēn, “I was”) might be expected indicates a timeless, ongoing existence. This is consistent with how John presents Jesus in the Prologue (John 1:1), where the Logos is described as eternally pre-existent and divine.
Your suggestion that eternal existence could have been conveyed another way ignores the flexibility of Greek grammar. The structure of ego eimi uniquely emphasizes existence in a way that transcends time, which is precisely what John intended to communicate. It aligns with the Prologue's declaration that “the Word was with God, and the Word was God” and reflects a deliberate theological choice to present Jesus as the eternal Logos.
The dismissal of the connection between ego eimi in John 8:58 and the divine name in Exodus 3:14 is unfounded. While it is true that the LXX renders Exodus 3:14 as ego eimi ho on (“I am the Being”), the theological resonance between the two passages cannot be ignored. The use of ego eimi in John 8:58, without the qualification of ho on, emphasizes the immediacy and simplicity of Jesus’ claim to divinity. The reaction of the Jews—attempting to stone Him—confirms that they understood this as a blasphemous assertion of deity, paralleling God’s self-revelation to Moses. The assertion that ego eimi in John 8:58 carries the same resonance as ho on in Exodus 3:14 is supported by the broader Johannine context. The use of ego eimi in John consistently affirms Jesus’ divine identity, as seen in statements like “I am the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6) and “I am the resurrection and the life” (John 11:25). These declarations align with the divine self-revelation in Exodus and reflect Jesus’ unique role in salvation history.
The argument that ho on is emphasized in Exodus 3:14 rather than ego eimi overlooks the broader significance of God’s self-identification. While the phrase ho on (“the Being”) is present, ego eimi remains integral to the passage’s theology as it introduces God’s eternal and self-sufficient existence. The absence of ho on in John 8:58 does not diminish the theological connection but reflects John’s focus on Jesus’ appropriation of the divine name. The Gospel of John consistently portrays Jesus as embodying the divine identity, as seen in His other “I am” statements (e.g., John 6:35, John 14:6).
The claim that the Jews’ reaction was merely “perceived blasphemy” does not weaken the argument. Throughout the Gospel of John, the Jewish leaders accuse Jesus of blasphemy specifically because He claims equality with God (John 5:18; 10:30-33). The stoning attempt in John 8:59 is consistent with their understanding that Jesus was asserting divinity, whether or not they accepted the claim.
Your argument regarding the question “Who are you?” (John 8:25) as evidence that the Jews did not initially understand ego eimi as a divine claim overlooks the developing narrative. The question reflects their confusion and resistance to Jesus’ identity, not a denial of His claims. By the time of John 8:58-59, their reaction indicates that they did understand the theological weight of His words, even if they rejected the claim.
The idea that ego eimi could have been expressed differently to imply eternality misunderstands the nuance of Greek grammar. Using a past-tense verb like ēmēn (“I was”) would imply that Jesus’ existence before Abraham was finite or had ceased, which contradicts the intended meaning. The choice of the present tense conveys a continuous and timeless existence, aligning with the divine self-identification in Exodus 3:14.
Your argument that “Son of God” implies equality with God but not divinity in Jewish thought oversimplifies the theological context. While it is true that Son of God could be used for righteous individuals or the Davidic king, Jesus’ usage consistently goes beyond this. In John 5:18, the Jews understand His claim as making Himself “equal with God,” which they consider blasphemy. This equality is not merely functional but ontological, as evidenced by Jesus’ further claims of unity with the Father (John 10:30) and His acceptance of divine worship (John 20:28).
Your dismissal of the predicate-less ego eimi in John 8:58 as an echo of Exodus 3:14 ignores both the linguistic and theological context. The Septuagint's rendering of Exodus 3:14 as ego eimi ho on ("I am the Being") establishes a connection between ego eimi and divine self-identification. In John 8:58, Jesus deliberately uses ego eimi in a way that transcends temporal constraints, asserting eternal existence. The Jews' reaction—attempting to stone Him—demonstrates their understanding of His claim to deity, consistent with the Gospel's high Christology. The suggestion of an implied predicate in ego eimi based on the NIV translation does not apply to John 8:58. While ego eimi can have an implied predicate in some contexts (e.g., John 6:20, “It is I”), its predicate-less usage in John 8:58 is unique and intentional. It conveys existence rather than identification, reinforcing its theological significance.
Your argument that the Jews' initial question, "Who are you?" (John 8:25), undermines the divine claim of ego eimi in John 8:58 is flawed. The question reflects their ongoing misunderstanding and resistance to Jesus' identity, a recurring theme in John's Gospel. By the time of John 8:58, the context and phrasing of Jesus' statement clearly provoke the Jews to accuse Him of blasphemy, confirming their recognition of His divine claim. The claim that the Jewish reaction in John 8:59 could be explained solely by Jesus’ claim to have seen Abraham is inadequate. While the statement that Jesus existed before Abraham would be provocative, it would not necessarily provoke an accusation of blasphemy and an immediate attempt to stone Him. The context and reaction suggest that the Jews understood Jesus’ words as a claim to divine identity.
On John 5:18, your assertion that the Jews accused Jesus only of equality with God, not being God, misreads the text. Equality with God in this context implies sharing divine prerogatives, which the Jews understood as a claim to deity. Similarly, your claim that the Son's authority to forgive sins (Mark 2:10) was merely given to Him ignores the broader theological context of His divine identity. The authority to forgive sins is a prerogative of God alone (Isaiah 43:25), and Jesus exercises it by His own inherent authority.
Your argument that Jesus’ authority to forgive sins was merely given to Him (e.g., Mark 2:10) misunderstands the theological implications. While Jesus acts in accordance with the Father’s will, His authority to forgive sins reflects His divine identity. The scribes’ reaction in Mark 2:7 (“Who can forgive sins but God alone?”) confirms that they understood this act as a claim to divine prerogative. The argument that the Jews only accused Jesus of claiming equality with God but not of being God misrepresents the text. In John 10:33, the Jews explicitly accuse Jesus of “making [Himself] God,” demonstrating that they understood His claim to be ontological, not merely functional. The distinction you propose between equality and identity does not hold in the context of the Jewish leaders’ accusations.
Your critique of Revelation's use of "Alpha and Omega" fails to account for the consistent application of this title to Christ (Revelation 1:8, 21:6, 22:13), affirming His divine status. While the title also applies to the Father, this reflects the shared divine identity of the Father and the Son, consistent with Trinitarian theology.
Trinitarian theology, as you rightly pointed out, is derived from the cumulative and interconnected evidence of Scripture, not isolated passages. This approach respects the nature of biblical revelation, where truths about God are revealed progressively and holistically across the entirety of Scripture. In contrast, JW theology is built on such one-liner prooftexts and punchlines, and it is entirely fair to point out that this does not actually work.
The reason Trinitarians ask JWs for explicit passages—such as evidence that Jesus is Michael the Archangel—is because the JW position hinges on claims of explicit textual evidence. For example, they assert that Jesus is explicitly Michael, or that God’s name "Jehovah" must appear in the NT, and so the burden of proof naturally falls on them to provide direct support for those assertions.
By contrast, Trinitarian theology doesn’t rest on one isolated verse but on the whole counsel of Scripture. For example:
- John 1:1 describes the divine nature of the Logos, who "was God."
- Philippians 2:6 speaks of Christ’s equality with God.
- Matthew 28:19 demonstrates the unity and shared authority of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
These passages, taken together with others like John 20:28 (where Thomas calls Jesus "My Lord and My God") and Colossians 1:15–20 (describing Christ as the Creator of all things), form a cohesive picture that supports the Trinity.
When JWs or other non-Trinitarians challenge the Trinity, they often focus on denying its cumulative basis, insisting instead on isolated, explicit texts that they feel undermine it. Yet, when challenged on their own teachings (e.g., that Jesus is Michael), they cannot provide cumulative evidence—let alone explicit texts—to substantiate their position.
Thus, the request for explicit passages is not a double standard; it’s a logical response to specific claims. Trinitarian doctrine has never claimed to rest on a single verse but on the consistent and harmonious testimony of Scripture as a whole. I would encourage you to apply the same standard of cumulative evidence to your own theology and ask whether it aligns with the breadth of biblical revelation.
slimboyfat

acqwsed you wrote:
While Hart acknowledges diversity in early Christian theology, he does not claim that Arius more faithfully represented the apostolic faith.
This is just wrong. It is difficult to maintain belief in your good faith when you so blatantly distort a source we have both listened to. Hart said that:
“scholars have known this, I mean known that Arius was not some strange, curious anomaly, that he was simply an extreme expression of what was regarded by many as the orthodoxy of centuries, and there is a reason why after the Arian controversy, the controversy continued with the Eunomians and others, you know, bishops and priests still committed to this older view that they thought was the correct view. It was the Nicene party that was proposing a new grammar, you know, even a new word, homoousios, consubstantial, it’s not in scripture, and it wasn’t in previous Christian usage.” (Around 50 minutes into video)
How can you be trusted when you claim Hart meant the opposite of what he said in a source that we both have access to?
aqwsed12345

@slimboyfat
Hart’s acknowledgment that Arius was not a "strange, curious anomaly", "was regarded by many as" etc., and that his views were rooted in earlier theological currents does not equate to explicitly claiming that Arius "more faithfully represented the apostolic faith." Hart’s analysis focuses on the complexity of early Christian theological diversity, not on affirming the superiority or fidelity of Arian theology to apostolic teaching. There is a critical distinction between recognizing Arius as part of a broader theological tradition and suggesting that his views were closer to the apostolic faith than those of the Nicene "party."
Hart's comment about the Nicene party proposing "a new grammar" and introducing terms like homoousios reflects the historical fact that theological language developed over time to address specific controversies. However, Hart does not suggest that this development constitutes a departure from apostolic teaching. Rather, the adoption of homoousios was a necessary response to Arianism, which sought to redefine Christ’s relationship to the Father in a way that contradicted the apostolic understanding of His full divinity. The use of precise terminology like homoousios was not a creation of new doctrine but an articulation of the belief already embedded in the worship, prayers, and confessions of the early Church. To argue that a theological term is not in the Bible is as pathetic, primitive, and foolish an exegesis as the Amish logic that since cars are not mentioned in the Bible, only horse-drawn carriages can be used.
To interpret Hart’s comments as a wholesale endorsement of Arius is to ignore the broader thrust of his argument, which is concerned with the historical and theological dynamics of the early Church. Hart’s acknowledgment of Arianism’s historical roots does not negate the fact that he recognizes the Nicene Creed as a defense of the Church’s understanding of Christ’s divine nature against a theological innovation. Arianism’s claim that the Son was not begotted, but a created being ("there was a time when he was not") represented a deviation from the apostolic teaching that Jesus was eternal, divine, and of the same essence as the Father. This is precisely why Arianism was rejected by the broader Christian community and condemned as heretical at Nicaea.
Moreover, the argument that homoousios was "not in scripture" does not diminish its theological validity. Hart himself, in other writings and discussions, acknowledges that theological development is an inherent part of the Church’s life as it seeks to clarify and defend the truths revealed in Scripture. The Nicene party did not invent Christ’s divinity; they articulated it in precise terms to safeguard the apostolic faith against misinterpretations like Arianism. The fact that homoousios was a "new word" does not mean it introduced a new concept. The term encapsulated the biblical witness to Jesus’ divine nature, as seen in passages like John 1:1, Philippians 2:6-11, and Colossians 1:15-20.
Additionally, Hart’s observation that some bishops and priests adhered to what they believed was an "older view" does not imply that this view was correct or representative of the apostolic faith. Early Christian theology was marked by a diversity of thought, but not all theological currents were equally faithful to the apostolic witness. The early Church, through councils like Nicaea, discerned and defended the truth of Christ’s divinity against deviations like Arianism. The persistence of Arian and semi-Arian views after Nicaea reflects the complexity of theological disputes in the fourth century, not the validity of Arianism as a more authentic representation of the apostolic faith.
Hart’s acknowledgment of this historical complexity does not amount to a repudiation of Nicene theology or an explicitt endorsement of Arianism as the "orthodoxy of centuries." The claim that the Nicene "party" introduced a "new grammar" does not undermine the fact that this grammar faithfully expressed the substance of apostolic teaching. Hart’s discussion highlights the need for historical and theological nuance, not the wholesale rejection of Nicene orthodoxy in favor of Arianism.
slimboyfat

he recognizes the Nicene Creed as a defense of the Church’s understanding of Christ’s divine nature against a theological innovation.
That’s about as near to the exact opposite of what Hart said as you could possibly get. Hart’s whole point is that Arius represented the traditional view and Nicaea was the innovation. More than that, he says that this fact is well known among scholars even if it may be surprising to others. (The comments of many other scholars on the subject bear this out - Paula Fredricksen, EP Sanders, Geza Vermes, Adela Yarbro Collins, to mention a few.) You can waste as many words trying to get Hart to the say the opposite as you like but it doesn’t change what he says. It’s a pointless exercise.

Is Jesus the Creator?

Share this