Is Jesus the Creator?

by Sea Breeze 405 Replies latest watchtower bible

Blotty

THANK YOU! someone else who sees the selective and distorting nature - so I'm not crazy then
Blotty

Another thing AQ has distorted is the usage of "Dia"
"of one who is the author of the action as well as its instrument, or of the efficient cause: δἰ αὐτοῦ (i. e. τοῦ Θεοῦ) τά πάντα namely, ἐστιν or ἐγένετο, Romans 11:36; also δἰ οὗ, Hebrews 2:10; δἰ οὗ ἐκλήθητε"
It is ACKNOWLEDGED "dia" can mean "source" - you yourself have acknowledged this before! How you can sit here and say it now only means "channel" with a straight face is amusing to me
You need to keep your arguments consistent... I concede here and Hebrews 2:10 it means "source" or describe the Channel if the act creation "used" to come into existence
(if you dont understand that second one, seriously go back to primary school and learn basic English Grammar)
[Ill get to the rest later.]
aqwsed12345

@slimboyfat
Hart’s acknowledgment that Arius was part of a broader theological tradition and not a fringe figure does not mean that Hart sees Arianism as faithfully preserving the apostolic teaching. Instead, his comments highlight the diversity of early Christian thought and the complex theological landscape that culminated in the Council of Nicaea. To conflate Hart's nuanced observations with an endorsement of Arianism as the "traditional view" is to oversimplify his position and ignore the broader context of his argument.
Hart’s point about homoousios being a "new grammar" or a "new word" does not imply that Nicene theology itself was a departure from apostolic faith. Rather, it reflects the reality that theological precision often requires new terminology to address contemporary challenges and heresies. The term homoousios was introduced to clarify and safeguard the Church's understanding of Christ’s divine nature, not to invent it. Hart’s commentary on this development acknowledges the historical reality that Arian views had some roots in earlier theological trends, but it does not follow that he sees Arius as more representative of apostolic tradition. Instead, Hart recognizes that the Council of Nicaea articulated and defended what the Church had long believed about Christ’s divinity, even if the specific term homoousios was new.
Your appeal to scholars like Paula Fredriksen, E.P. Sanders, Geza Vermes, and Adela Yarbro Collins does not substantiate the claim that Arianism represented the traditional view. These scholars, while valuable contributors to the study of early Christianity, often approach the subject from a historical-critical perspective that may emphasize diversity in early Christological thought. However, highlighting theological diversity does not equate to validating Arianism as the dominant or original understanding of Christ. Historical theology, including the work of scholars like Larry Hurtado and Richard Bauckham, demonstrates that worship of Jesus as divine was present from the earliest stages of Christianity, making Arianism's subordinationist view a deviation rather than a continuation of apostolic faith.
Furthermore, the claim that Hart sees Nicaea as an "innovation" ignores the distinction between theological articulation and theological invention. The Nicene Creed did not introduce new beliefs but clarified the Church’s existing faith in response to Arianism’s challenge. The Church had always confessed Christ’s divinity, as evidenced by pre-Nicene writings like those of Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus. These authors affirmed the eternal and divine nature of Christ, demonstrating that Nicene theology was not a departure but a formalization of long-held beliefs.
It is also important to note that Hart’s broader theological and philosophical work consistently affirms the centrality of Nicene theology to Christian orthodoxy. While he recognizes the historical complexity of the Arian controversy, he does not suggest that Arianism better reflects the apostolic faith. Instead, he critiques overly simplistic narratives about the development of Christian doctrine, emphasizing the importance of understanding historical context without undermining the theological validity of Nicene conclusions.
In conclusion, the assertion that Hart unequivocally sees Arius as representing the traditional view and Nicaea as an innovation misrepresents his position. Hart’s comments on theological diversity and the historical development of doctrine do not equate to an endorsement of Arianism or a rejection of Nicene theology. His acknowledgment of the complexity of early Christological debates underscores the need for nuanced understanding, not the wholesale dismissal of Nicene orthodoxy. The Nicene Creed, far from being an innovation, articulated and defended the Church’s apostolic faith against the distortions of Arianism.
If you are really interested in the history of Arianism, and don't just want to read the summary opinions of subversive liberal theologians and second-hand authors who throw in bold claims only to confirm your existing theological preconceptions, and to collect yummy punchlines to flaunt to those filthy "apostates," I suggest you read some more nuanced work, like this one:
Hanson - The search for the Christian doctrine of God : the Arian controversy, 318-381

@Blotty
First, dia does not intrinsically mean "source"; its meaning depends on the grammatical construction and context. When dia is used with the genitive case (as in John 1:3, Colossians 1:16, and Hebrews 1:2), it typically denotes active agency—the means or instrument by which an action is accomplished. This is distinct from the concept of "source," which is more commonly indicated by prepositions like ek ("from") or apo ("out of"). For example, Romans 11:36 uses ek autou ("from Him") to describe God as the source, followed by dia autou ("through Him") to describe the means or agency, and eis auton ("to Him") to indicate the purpose or goal. These prepositions highlight distinct aspects of God's relationship to creation, and dia in this context emphasizes active agency rather than origin or source.
In Hebrews 2:10, dia is again used with the genitive ("through whom all things exist"), referring to God's role as the one through whom creation and redemption are accomplished. While dia with the genitive can sometimes imply a close relationship between the agent and the origin of the action, it does not equate to the concept of "source" in the sense of ultimate causation. Instead, it highlights the instrumental or mediatory role in the act described. This distinction is vital to understanding passages like John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16, where Christ is presented as the divine agent of creation, not as a subordinate or separate source.
Your assertion that I have "acknowledged" dia can mean "source" misunderstands my argument. In cases where dia refers to active agency, it does not imply that the agent is the ultimate source or origin of the action. In Trinitarian theology, the Father is often described as the ultimate source (ek ou), while the Son is the agent (dia hou), and the Spirit is the perfecting force. This relational economy within the Trinity reflects distinct roles in divine action without implying ontological subordination or inequality. Therefore, acknowledging that dia can describe agency does not contradict my earlier points; rather, it reinforces the proper understanding of Christ's role in creation as the active and integral divine agent. You should read about Perichoresis.
The claim that I have inconsistently argued that dia "only means channel" is a strawman. My argument has been that dia with the genitive in these contexts emphasizes agency, not that it "only means channel" in every usage. The phrase "channel of an act" you invoke is not a dismissal of Christ’s role but an accurate description of how dia functions to highlight relational distinctions within the Godhead. To conflate this with denying Christ's divinity or agency is a misrepresentation of both my argument and the broader theological framework.
Your concession that dia in Hebrews 2:10 can describe the "channel" of creation aligns with my argument rather than refuting it. Christ, as the Logos, is the divine agent through whom all things exist, and this is entirely consistent with the language of Scripture and the theology of the early Church. The Logos is not a passive conduit or subordinate instrument but an active and integral participant in creation, fully divine and inseparable from the Father in essence and action. This distinction between agency and source does not diminish Christ’s role but affirms His unique position within the Trinitarian framework.
Finally, your appeal to "basic English grammar" as a rhetorical flourish does not address the substantive issues at hand. Greek prepositions like dia do not operate identically to English prepositions, and their meanings are shaped by grammatical case and context. Dismissing the nuanced theological implications of dia in favor of oversimplified or incorrect analogies betrays a lack of understanding of both Greek grammar and the biblical texts in question. If your critique is based on a superficial reading of the text without engaging the linguistic and theological nuances, it fails to undermine the consistency of my argument or the traditional understanding of Christ’s role as Creator.
Blotty

So you are over ruling a dictionary? A dictionary which is more knowledgeable than a theologically motivated troll..
READ:
"of one who is the author of the action as well as its instrument, or of the efficient cause"
This dictionary is similar to EVERY dictionary and lexicon I have checked, Why are you more credible than these? (Not because they are only useful tools blah blah blah [AQW talk] - actual reason) Why should I believe you, a person who has 0 credibility and twists others words to suit your own agenda (Even Fosters, Who is a JW) - in what world would I trust you?

I bet even if Christ returned today and said he wasn't part of a trinity - you would still insist he is, somehow twisting what he said to suit your theological agenda.
(Obviously this hyperbole, but I think this illustrates that ANY other source that is NOT named "AQWSED" is better)
Did you read Wallace or A. T Robertson? I get the feeling you didn't (I wonder why) you cant access the page of Wallace's book on Google books that I cited - you seemingly don't have access to it, meaning you are parroting what others have said online rather than reading his book yourself.
Wallace's Book contradicts you - Christ is not the ultimate source ("creator")
and A.T Robertson says:
"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)"
"Your concession that dia in Hebrews 2:10 can describe the "channel" of creation aligns with my argument rather than refuting it." - no kidding sherlock, How did you figure that one out? Let me guess the word "concede" in my prev answer... seriously...
"The Logos is not a passive conduit or subordinate instrument but an active and integral participant in creation" - since when does being a passive instrument, mean not being an active part of creation?
Who denied Christ wasn't involved in creation? not me, Not JW (they use the same language you do)
"Finally, your appeal to "basic English grammar" as a rhetorical flourish does not address the substantive issues at hand." - well duh.. its not meant to address the argument, its meant as a rhetorical device to say: if you misunderstand the argument - go back to school, you clearly don't understand English idiom (which you don't, I use many you don't seem to understand - almost like an *autistic person, but act remarkably more unaware of your own actions.)
can you read? seemingly not because in my last post I said:
"[Ill get to the rest later.]"
Do you understand what this means? apparently not
* this is not an insult to autistic people ( rather a comparison AQ probably wont understand.)
Blotty

"the assertion that Hart unequivocally sees Arius as representing the traditional view and Nicaea as an innovation misrepresents his position." - have you actually watched the video on this subject? again I would doubt you have.
Slimboys quote CLEARLY and EXPLICITLY says before Nicea. Arius was considered "Orthodox" Which is consistent with Jerome's statement on Origen's writings that were "full of references to Christ as a created being"
So No - it is you who misrepresent the evidence and further proof your statement on "respectful dialogue" is worth no more than the trash can I have sitting right next to me.
What Slimboy says Hart says is literally what Harts says (This is his opinion, based on evidence)... even acknowledging that John 1:1 COULD be rendered as "a god" and should not be understood polytheistically
SOMETHING you didn't mention and would have if you had watched the video... (see: 48 min mark - Chapter "Jesus")
you havent watched the video, you are a fraud
ANY person who watches the video will see Slim quoted Hart accurately and "to a T" - Hart even talks of "looking at the evidence" in the same context..
before you comment further AQ - watch the video or risk making yourself look worse than you already do.. to anybody who looks at the evidence literally in the video
Blotty

Hart: "you can see the change occurring in Eusebius, read him before the council on who Jesus is and read him after and there's been a change...."
[Watched this video before when Slim originally posted it, however now it seems I'm going to have to start quoting from it]

again there is NO evidence he means anything different to what's said - if I need to contact this guy t prove you wrong aswell, Im more than happy too.
aqwsed12345
@Blotty
You argue that I am "overruling a dictionary," but this reflects a misunderstanding of how dictionaries and lexicons function. Dictionaries provide definitions based on common usage, but they do not determine meaning in specific contexts, particularly in specialized fields like biblical Greek. Lexicons and dictionaries, including the one you cited, are tools that assist in understanding the range of possible meanings for a word. However, their entries must be applied with contextual and grammatical precision. The definition you referenced—"of one who is the author of the action as well as its instrument, or of the efficient cause"—supports my argument, not yours. It acknowledges that dia can indicate (active) agency (or instrument) as well as cause (efficient cause). The distinction between these uses depends entirely on the context, which I addressed in my earlier response. Ignoring this nuance while appealing to a general definition does not strengthen your case.
You also question my credibility versus that of a dictionary or lexicon. Credibility in this context is not about authority but about the ability to engage with the linguistic and contextual data accurately. Theological motivations are irrelevant if the argument is grounded in proper exegesis and scholarly methodology. Rather than dismissing my points based on assumptions about motive, it would be more constructive to engage with the substance of the argument. Ironically, your own appeal to the authority of dictionaries without engaging the broader exegetical context undermines your criticism of theological bias.
Regarding your claims about Wallace and A.T. Robertson, you misunderstand their points. Wallace does not argue that Christ is not the Creator; rather, he explains the relational distinctions within the Godhead. When he notes that dia with the genitive indicates agency, he is highlighting the instrumental role of the Son in creation as distinct from the Father's role as the ultimate source (ek ou). This is consistent with Trinitarian theology, which maintains that all three persons of the Trinity are involved in creation but with distinct relational roles. Similarly, A.T. Robertson’s comment that the Son is the "intermediate agent" aligns with this view. Being an intermediate agent does not diminish Christ’s deity or role as Creator; it simply reflects the Trinitarian economy of roles in divine action. Your argument that these scholars "contradict" me overlooks this nuance and conflates the relational distinctions within the Trinity with ontological subordination, which neither Wallace nor Robertson supports.
Your dismissal of my point about "passive instruments" as irrelevant is misplaced. The distinction between a passive and active instrument is critical to understanding the Logos's role in creation. A passive instrument is merely a tool that acts at the behest of an external agent, while an active participant is inherently involved and integral to the action. Christ, as the Logos, is not depicted in Scripture as a passive instrument but as an active and divine agent through whom all things were created (John 1:3, Colossians 1:16). Your acknowledgment that Christ is "involved in creation" aligns with this understanding, even if you attempt to minimize its theological implications.
You accuse me of misunderstanding your rhetorical devices and idioms, but this is a distraction from the substantive issues. Resorting to rhetorical flourishes, ad hominem attacks, or irrelevant comparisons does not address the argument. If you have substantive critiques of my points, they should focus on the linguistic, grammatical, or theological evidence, not on my perceived inability to grasp idioms or rhetoric.
Your hyperbolic statement about Christ returning and denying the Trinity is not a meaningful argument but an emotional appeal. If we are to discuss the Trinity or Christ's deity, the discussion must be grounded in the biblical text, historical context, and theological tradition. Speculative scenarios or personal assumptions about my intentions do not contribute to the debate.
Hart’s acknowledgment that Arius was considered “orthodox” before the Council of Nicaea does not mean that Arius represented the apostolic tradition or the dominant theological consensus of early Christianity. To say that Arius was within the bounds of orthodoxy before Nicaea simply reflects the fact that theological language and definitions were still being developed and that there had not yet been a formalized creedal condemnation of Arianism. This does not mean that Arius’ views faithfully reflected the teachings of the apostles or that his Christology was consistent with the broader trajectory of early Christian worship and theology. Hart’s comment highlights the historical reality that theological disputes often take time to reach formal resolution, not that Arius’ subordinationist Christology was the authentic view of the early Church.
You cite Jerome’s statement about Origen’s writings containing references to Christ as a created being as evidence that this view was “traditional.” However, this misses a crucial point: Origen’s theology was highly speculative and complex, and his writings contain apparent tensions and contradictions. While Origen occasionally described Christ in terms that could be interpreted as subordinating Him to the Father, he also affirmed the eternal generation of the Son and rejected the idea that Christ was created in the sense that creatures are created. Origen’s influence on later Arian thought does not mean that Arianism represents Origen’s theology in its entirety, nor does it make Arianism reflective of the broader Christian tradition. Church Fathers like Athanasius vigorously critiqued Arianism precisely because it deviated from what they saw as the apostolic and biblical teaching about Christ’s eternal deity. Origen’s theology was highly complex and multifaceted, and while his writings influenced later theological thought, including elements that Arians appropriated, his views are not equivalent to those of Arianism. Origen affirmed the eternal generation of the Son, which sets his theology apart from Arianism. For Origen, the Son is co-eternal with the Father, sharing in the divine nature. He described the Son as a “ktisma,” but this was not in the sense of being part of creation; rather, it referred to the Son as the first expression of God’s creative act within the divine life itself. Key points in Origen’s theology include his use of the term “epinoiai” (aspects of the Logos' function), his understanding of the Son as eternally generated from the Father, and his attempts to avoid anthropomorphism by explaining the relationship between the Father and the Son in metaphysical terms. While Origen described the Son as “subordinate” to the Father, this was a subordination within the Godhead, emphasizing relational distinctions rather than ontological inequality. Origen also rejected the idea that the Son was derived from non-existence (ex nihilo), a hallmark of Arian theology. I quote Hanson:
We can note also that both Origen and Arius described the Son as a ‘creature’ (ktisma). But here we encounter a difficulty. It is indeed pretty clear, in spite of the efforts of Rufinus in his translation of the Peri Archon to disguise the fact, and of those of Jerome to exaggerate it, that Origen did in the Peri Archon describe the Son both as ‘having come into existence’ (γενητός) and as a ‘creature’ (κτίσμα), at a period when nobody distinguished ‘having come into existence’ (γενητός) from ‘begotten’ (γεννητός).22 For Origen ποιεῖν (to make) was an appropriate word to apply to the production of everything invisible and spiritual, whereas πλάσσειν (to mould) was the correct term to use for the creation of whatever is visible and material.23 The Son could therefore be described as ‘made’ in this sense. But at the same time he declares his belief in the eternity of the Son as a distinct entity from the Father, even in the Peri Archon,24 and frequently elsewhere in his works. For Origen the Logos/Wisdom is coeternal with God, and he only calls him a creature because in him God had formed the ideas of future creation and of all creatures.25 This is a very different concept from Arius’ doctrine of a Son who is created at a certain point, though apparently before time, who did once not exist, who is the highest of the creatures but still part of creation rather than within the Godhead.
22 At Peri Archon 1.2.2 (Crouzel and Simonetti Traité I, 112, 114) Rufinus’ long paraphrase probably disguises the fact that Origen applied the word κτίζειν to the Logos; so Simonetti Studi, 23 (Lorentz, Arius Iud. 69 however defends Rufinus’ integrity here); and at Peri Archon IV.4.1 (28) (402) the Greek preserved by Justinian is probably correct in representing Origen as applying ktisma to the Son; so Simonetti Studi 23, 24; see note on this in Crouzel and Simonetti (Traité IV.9, 242–246). For Origen’s use of γενητός see Crouzel and Simonetti Traité I Introd., n2–n3.
23 So Origen explains Comm. on John XX.22. 24I.2.10 (132, 138); IV.4.1 (28) (402); cf. Gregory Thaumaturgus, whose Expositio (Hahn Bibliothek der Symbole 253–255) clearly declares the eternity of the Son, but who (according to Basil, Epistle 210.5) could, elsewhere, call the Son κτίσμα and ποίημα.
25 This is clearly enough expressed in Peri Archon 1.2.2 (112, 114) and in Comm. on John, frag. 1; see Lorentz op. cit. 69.
Your reference to John 1:1 and Hart’s comment about the phrase “a god” being a possible rendering is taken out of context. Hart’s point in such discussions is not to affirm Arianism but to highlight the challenges of translating ancient texts and the complexities of early Christian theological language. The overwhelming weight of scholarship, however, recognizes that the grammatical and theological context of John 1:1 supports the traditional rendering, “the Word was God,” as a statement of the Word’s full divinity. To argue that Hart’s acknowledgment of a possible alternative rendering somehow endorses an Arian interpretation is to misrepresent the purpose of his remarks.
Your accusation that I have not watched the video is unfounded and irrelevant. Engaging with the content of Hart’s arguments, as well as the broader historical and theological context, does not require slavish repetition of every statement made in a video. The crux of the discussion is not whether Hart acknowledges diversity in early Christology—this is uncontroversial and well-documented—but whether Hart endorses the view that Arianism represents the authentic apostolic tradition. He does not. Instead, Hart critiques the oversimplification of early Christological development and the tendency to view doctrinal articulation as purely linear or static.
The reference to Eusebius’ supposed “change” before and after Nicaea is another misinterpretation. Hart’s observation about Eusebius reflects the fact that the Arian controversy forced theologians to clarify their positions and align with the Nicene Creed’s precise terminology. This does not imply that Eusebius fundamentally changed his belief about Christ’s deity. Though his language may have lacked the precision that the Council of Nicaea later required, Eusebius stopped short of fully embracing Arianism. He rejected the idea that the Son came from non-existence and affirmed that the Son is unique. His theology represents an intermediary position between Origen’s eternal generation and Arius’s stark separation of the Son from the Father. The “change” in Eusebius’ writings after Nicaea reflects his acceptance of the Creed’s language, not a wholesale revision of his theology.
Finally, your inflammatory tone and ad hominem attacks undermine your credibility and the strength of your argument. Accusing me of being a “fraud” or dismissing my comments as “trash” does not engage with the substance of the discussion. Hart’s work, like any scholarly contribution, invites interpretation, critique, and dialogue. Resorting to personal attacks instead of engaging with the theological and historical issues at hand does nothing to advance understanding or resolve disagreement.
slimboyfat

You are still trying to get Hart to mean the opposite of what he said. Why not simply say you disagree with him over Arius representing the traditional view and Nicaea as the innovation, rather than try to distort what he said?
Hanson’s book is good. It is one the first books I read on the ‘Arian controversy’. It’s huge and has lots of detail. I no longer own a copy because I bought it for £20 and later sold it to make a profit at £100. It is now very scarce. If a cheap physical copy becomes available I’d buy it again.
Hanson is generally fair in his treatment and his overall assessment of pre-Nicene Christology contradicts a neat Trinitarian reading of the history of the dogma. Hanson is clear that the pre-Nicaea orthodoxy was subordinationism. This is most extensively elaborated in Origen but applies to all pre-Nicene Christian authors. Origen also clearly made numerous statements that are simply incompatible with later Trinitarian dogma, such as that the Word is a “secondary god” compared “the God”, calling Jesus a “creation”, and making numerous statements about Jesus being subordinate to God. It is true that Origen also taught a concept of “eternal generation” which later Trinitarians would exploit to bolster their view that Jesus is not a creation. But bearing in mind that Origen viewed Jesus as a creation and subordinate to God, it is appropriate to ask what Origen meant by his own terminology rather than the alternative meaning that later Trinitarians put on it. Origen apparently was concerned to emphasise that Jesus was not begotten at a point in time for reasons to do with his cosmology and therefore conceptualised it as an ongoing process. This in no way negates his numerous statements regarding Jesus’ junior status in relation to God and the gulf is honour, power and position that he perceived between God and Jesus.
Other key points to bear in mind include that later Trinitarians declared Origen a heretic because they recognised that the extensive writings of this preeminent pre-Nicene scholar was incompatible with their Trinitarian dogma. It is also crucial to note that the works of Origen that survive represent a tiny amount of what he wrote and that many of his works were suppressed or rewritten in order to conform with later Trinitarian dogma. You can claim this is not so - inevitably you will - but it is an extensively documented fact in the scholarly literature. Given the tampering with Origen’s work by later Trinitarians, it is in fact remarkable that crucial traces of his subordinationist Christology remains, and it can only mean that his views on this matter were so integral to his overall theology that it simply proved impossible for later Trinitarian dogmaticians to eradicate it completely.
aqwsed12345

@slimboyfat
Your claim that Hanson’s assessment undermines a Trinitarian reading of pre-Nicene theology is misleading. Hanson acknowledges that pre-Nicene theology employed subordinationist language, but this was not synonymous with Arianism. The subordination found in figures like Origen or Justin Martyr pertains to relational roles within the Godhead rather than ontological inequality. Hanson himself explicitly rejects the notion that Origen's theology laid the groundwork for Arianism, as Origen affirmed the co-eternity and divine nature of the Son. Your attempt to equate Origen's subordinationism with that of Arius misinterprets Origen's work and ignores the distinction between relational and ontological subordination.
You argue that Origen described Christ as a "secondary god" and "a creation," suggesting that his views are incompatible with Trinitarian orthodoxy. However, this is a partial and selective representation of Origen's theology. While Origen occasionally used terms like ktisma ("creature") or genetos ("generated"), these terms must be understood within his broader theological framework. Origen explicitly rejected the idea that the Son was created ex nihilo (out of nothing), which is a hallmark of Arianism. Instead, he taught that the Son was eternally generated from the Father, sharing the Father's divine essence. Origen's use of "creature" reflects his attempt to describe the Son as the first expression of God’s creative activity, but always within the divine life itself, not as part of creation. This position is fundamentally different from Arius’ claim that the Son was created and thus ontologically distinct from the Father.
Indeed, Origen called the Son "κτίσμα", and "produced" (γενητός), however, it is undeniable that when Origen calls the Son κτίσμα, he always has in mind a certain expression of Wisdom in the LXX: "The Lord ἐκτισέ me (instead of ἐκτήσατο) as the beginning of His ways." Origen explains the meaning of this text in the following way:

"Since in this hypostasis of Wisdom (already) all the potential and representation of future creation was contained, and by the power of foreknowledge everything was predetermined and arranged – both what exists in the proper sense, and what pertains to the former as belonging to it: therefore, for the sake of these creatures, which were as it were outlined and prefigured in Wisdom itself, she calls herself created at the beginning of God's ways through Solomon, because she contains and prefigures in herself the beginnings, forms, or types of all creation."

Thus, the plan of the universe, preordained in its entirety and details in Wisdom, the world, potentially and ideally existing in Her, – this is the aspect by which the Son is called a "κτίσμα." Clearly, such a basis as the naming of the Son κτίσμα is insufficient to say that Origen acknowledges the Son as a creature in the sense that this word acquired after the Arian controversies. But even weaker is the basis that Origen calls the Son γενητός and other similar expressions. The word γενητός means, strictly speaking, "having its being from another," and the use of its root γίνομαι by Origen proves that it not only did not stand in opposition to the word γεννητός, but even was not distinguished from the latter. Thus, calling the Son κτίσμα, Origen pointed out, in general, the origin of the Son from the Father, by no means intending to express the idea of the created nature of His nature by this name of the Son, but using this expression because it is found in Holy Scripture. The expression κτίσμα or κτίζω is used, as is known, in the Bible in application to the hypostatic Wisdom (Prov. 8:22), and there is no doubt that Origen borrowed it from there. As for the meaning of this expression, it is determined by the Hebrew text, in which it does not mean "creation", as it stands in the translation of the 70 (ἒκτισε), but "acquisition" ( קָגָגִי ) acquired me, in the Vulgate - possedit me, in Aquila - ἐκτῖσατο μὲ). Church writers used this expression in both senses. Long before the appearance of the Arian heresy, many of them used the said expression in the first sense, for example, Athenagoras, Tertullian, Cyprian, Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus and others. In the second sense this expression is used by Basil the Great (C. Eun. 2), Gregory of Nyssa (G. Eun. 1), Jerome (Hom. in IsaJam 26, 13), and others. However, in both cases, the Church Fathers by no means wanted to say that the Son is the creation of the Father, as the Arians later asserted. If some, not wishing to depart from the literal understanding of the biblical text, used the said expression (κτίσμα, κτίζω in the sense of creation, then they had in mind the human nature of the of the Son. Others, finally, used this word to denote the generation of the Son from the Father. In this case, it is noteworthy that this meaning is given to this expression in the language of the Bible; thus, when it is said of Eve that she "acquired a man" (Cain), the expression is used: ἐκτισάμην ἄνθρωπον. From all that has been said, it is evident that the words κτίζω and κτίσμα were not used in the same way by all in ancient times, and that none of the most ancient fathers of the church used them in the sense which the Arians subsequently gave them. It is impossible, therefore, not to call the following remark of Henry of Valesius just: “the ancient theologians, and especially those who wrote before the Council of Nicaea, under the word κτίζειν non solum creationem intelexerunt, quae ex nihilo fit, sed omnem generaliter productionem tam quae ab aeterno esset, tam illum quae in tempore.”. True, such use of κτίσμα and κτίζω in patristic literature cannot serve as decisive proof that Origen could not have used the above expressions in the Arian sense, but in any case, patristic literature provides very strong grounds for the assumption that he could not have used these expressions in the Arian sense. As to whether he really gave them a different meaning than the Arians, we can be convinced of this from his works. Thus, in one place he says the following: “In the expression: in the beginning was the Word, by the Word is meant the Son, who is called in the beginning precisely because He is in the Father.” In this case, the expression κτίζω, used in Holy Scripture about the Son, is explained by Origen in the sense of the general origin of the Son from the Father, or the procession to creation, but of the same origin, that He - the Son proceeds or proceeds to creation from the Father, in Whom He was as in His beginning. Thus, the expression “created” is understood by Origen as an expression used in Holy Scripture to denote the uncreated nature of the Son, by virtue of which He remains consubstantial with the Father. In another place, Origen discusses the bestowal of existence on Wisdom and the creation of the whole world through Her in the following way.
“As life was in the Word, so the Word was in the beginning. Consider whether we cannot say: in the beginning was the Word understand in such a sense that everything happened according to Wisdom and according to the images consisting of the totality of the ideas contained in it. For I think that just as a house or a ship is built according to the architect’s plans (τύπους), according to the images and foundations (τύπους καὶ λόγους) that the artist has, which constitute the beginning of the house or ship, so everything came to be in accordance with the foundations of things that were to be, foundations that God had foreseen beforehand in Wisdom ( κατὰ τοὶς ἐν τῆ σοφία προτρανωθέντας ύπὸ Θεοῦ , τπων ἐσομένων For He created everything (ἐποίησε) in Wisdom (Ps. 48:13, 21) and it must be said that He created, so to speak, living Wisdom, and granted to it from the types existing in it (ὰπὸ τῶν αὐτῆ τύπων) the granting of being, formation and forms to beings and matter. I wonder, then, whether it cannot also be said that the beginning of things existing is the Son of God, Who says: I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last (Rev. 22:13)".
Thus, from the point of view of Origen, the Son is the "living Wisdom", containing in Himself the ideas and prototypes of all things, created by God, but created precisely in the sense of Wisdom alone, as the prototype of the world - the prototype in which He created everything. Obviously, the creation of everything in Wisdom and the creation of Wisdom itself are not the same thing, from the point of view of Origen. It is also remarkable that, speaking further about Wisdom, Origen uses the expression "created" with the addition of "so to speak", - speaking of those forms and ideas that were in Wisdom, he uses the word ἐποίησε. The former, apparently, has a general meaning, similar to that which is given in the above-cited place (John 1:17), while the second means something in the proper sense created, finite.
Your assertion that later Trinitarians declared Origen a heretic due to his incompatibility with their theology is historically inaccurate. Only the Second Council of Constantinople in 553 AD dealt with the Origenist crises, but never condomned his Chistology. The controversies surrounding Origen in the fourth and fifth centuries were complex and often politically motivated, centering on issues like his views on universal salvation (apokatastasis) rather than his Trinitarian theology. As Ilaria Ramelli demonstrates in Origen’s Anti-Subordinationism and its Heritage in the Nicene and Cappadocian Line, Origen’s theology significantly influenced anti-Arian figures like Athanasius and the Cappadocians. Far from being a precursor to Arianism, Origen provided the exegetical and theological tools that later theologians used to refute Arian subordinationism and articulate the doctrine of the Trinity.
You claim that Origen’s works were suppressed or rewritten by later Trinitarians to conform to Nicene orthodoxy. While it is true that Rufinus' translations sometimes softened Origen's language, this does not amount to a wholesale distortion of his theology. Key aspects of Origen's anti-subordinationist thought are preserved in Greek fragments and independent witnesses, such as Gregory of Nyssa, who extensively relied on Origen's arguments in his polemics against Arianism. For example, Gregory’s In Illud: Tunc et Ipse Filius closely follows Origen’s interpretation of 1 Corinthians 15:28, rejecting any notion of the Son’s inferiority to the Father. This demonstrates that Origen’s theology was not only compatible with Nicene orthodoxy but foundational to its development.
The claim that there was no universal understanding of Christ’s divinity before the 4th century is an oversimplification. While it is true that theological language and concepts were refined over time, the essential belief in Christ’s divinity was present from the earliest days of Christianity. The 4th-century debates were not about whether Jesus was divine but about how His divinity related to the Father and the Holy Spirit. Arius introduced a radical subordinationist view, claiming that "there was a time when the Son was not," directly contradicting earlier teachings about Christ’s eternal nature (e.g., John 8:58, Colossians 1:15-17). Contrary to your portrayal of Arianism as a significant and widespread tradition, it was quickly recognized as heretical by a majority of the Church. The Council of Nicaea (325 AD) did not invent the Trinity but reaffirmed the Church’s belief in the co-equality and co-eternity of the Son with the Father. The Council of Nicaea was composed of bishops from across the Christian world, many of whom suffered persecution under earlier Roman emperors. These leaders were deeply committed to defending orthodoxy based on Scripture and apostolic tradition, not imperial politics. Constantine sought unity for political reasons but did not dictate theological content. He deferred to the bishops on matters of doctrine. Constantine sought unity within the Church for the stability of the empire. While his theological expertise was limited, his summoning of the Council of Nicaea was not an attempt to impose doctrine but to facilitate a resolution among bishops. The council decisively rejected Arianism and affirmed the Son's consubstantiality (homoousios) with the Father. This was not a political imposition but the collective decision of the Church’s leadership, guided by Scripture and tradition.
The term homoousios (“of the same substance”) was a point of contention, but its rejection by some bishops before Nicaea does not mean they opposed the concept it conveyed. Many Eastern bishops hesitated to use the term because it had been associated with heretical teachings in prior controversies, not because they denied the consubstantiality of the Father and the Son. Constantine's support for homoousios is also misrepresented. While JWs often suggest that Constantine imposed the term, historical evidence indicates that theologians like Hosius of Cordoba and Alexander of Alexandria championed its inclusion, with Constantine likely relying on their guidance. The adoption of homoousios reflects theological precision rather than imperial overreach. While homoousios had philosophical origins, its use at Nicaea was deeply rooted in biblical and theological reflection. The early Church often employed philosophical terminology to clarify doctrinal truths without compromising biblical fidelity. The Council of Antioch’s earlier rejection of the term was contextual and did not preclude its legitimate use in opposing Arianism. Moreover, the biblical basis for the term is evident in passages like John 10:30 (“I and the Father are one”) and Hebrews 1:3 (“[The Son is] the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being”). Homoousios encapsulates these scriptural truths, affirming that the Son shares the same divine essence as the Father.
The Nicene Creed formalized language already in use and defended long-standing beliefs against Arian innovation. While early theologians used varying terminologies, there was broad agreement on the divinity of Christ and His unity with the Father. Differences often arose from cultural and linguistic contexts rather than fundamental disagreements. Arians sought to align their teachings with a perceived earlier tradition, but this does not mean their Christology was uncontroversial. The Church rejected Arianism precisely because it was seen as a departure from the apostolic faith, not its preservation. The Nicene Creed was not a theological innovation but a clarification of what the Church already believed, formulated in response to the confusion Arius' teachings created. Arius and his supporters may have selectively quoted earlier Church Fathers, such as Justin Martyr, Origen, and Tertullian, but this does not mean these Fathers shared Arian views. The claim that early Church Fathers supported Arian Christology is a misrepresentation, as they consistently affirmed the divinity of Christ within a Trinitarian framework, even if their terminology was not as developed as it became in later centuries. Jerome’s remark that "the whole world groaned to find itself Arian" reflects the political pressures that political favour temporarily empowered Arianism, not its theological validity. Arius’ teaching that "there was a time when the Son was not" was a clear departure from the Church's traditional understanding of Christ’s eternal preexistence. The Nicene Council condemned this as a heretical innovation. The Nicene Creed did not invent new theology but articulated the apostolic faith in precise terms to counter Arian misinterpretations. Development in terminology (e.g., homoousios) does not imply doctrinal invention but greater clarity. The Nicene Creed formalized what the Church had always believed, ensuring doctrinal consistency and fidelity to Scripture. The ecumenical councils did not "create" the Trinity but clarified and defended the Church's belief in response to controversies. The theological debates, far from being mere power struggles, involved deep scriptural exegesis and reflected the Church’s commitment to fidelity to the apostolic witness.
Finally, your discussion of John 1:1 and Hart’s acknowledgment of alternative renderings like “a god” fails to grasp Hart’s point. Hart highlights the linguistic and cultural challenges of translating ancient texts but affirms that the grammatical and theological context of John 1:1 supports the traditional rendering, “the Word was God.” This aligns with the overwhelming consensus of biblical scholarship, which recognizes that the lack of a definite article before theos in Greek emphasizes the Word’s qualitative identity with God, not its separateness or inferiority.
slimboyfat

You write that Hart:
affirms that the grammatical and theological context of John 1:1 supports the traditional rendering, “the Word was God.”
Please show me where Hart says this using direct quotes. He does not.
At this rate I might as well simply say that aqwsed doesn’t believe in the Trinity and supports Arianism and end the discussion there, because apparently you think it’s fine attribute the exact opposite view to anyone. For what purpose, goodness knows.

Is Jesus the Creator?

Share this