Is Jesus the Creator?

by Sea Breeze 405 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • peacefulpete
    peacefulpete

    Or aqwsed is God.

  • Blotty
    Blotty

    Yes Pete - I believe it is - I sent my results to Slim privately but will reveal if you reverse engineer AQ's answers and ask an AI (ChatGPT specifically) it will spout similar nonsense.

    Try it yourself: ask Chatgpt if something AQ said is true, it should come back with a similar structure
    and answer (granted it wont be identical, but it will be similar)
    It is AI generated 100%

    worlds fastest typer: https://www.academyoflearning.com/blog/the-fastest-typists-in-the-world-past-and-present/#:~:text=Who%20Is%20the%20Fastest%20Typist%20in%20the%20World?,WPM%E2%80%94over%20seven%20times%20faster!

    I highly doubt AQ is even among the top 10 and would want valid proof if claimed.

  • Blotty
    Blotty

    Another bit of proof is AQ's acknowledgement of cited sources, they are for the most part non-existent.

    Most humans would atleast acknowledge a cited source, but AQ almost always discards them for "reasons" or seems to fail to read or watch them, seemingly ignoring that the source contradicts his view.
    (Who are more credible than he is, aswell)

    yet ANOTHER thing is: How can such similar posts be turning up all over the internet on sites that are not trinitarian? - I went to some really out of the way blog, when reseraching a subject and there was a post by an annoymous user regurgitating the exact same stuff almost verbatim that AQ has posted here.

    see here: https://landandbible.blogspot.com/2019/12/my-lord-and-my-god-trinitarians-get-it.html

    (see comments section)

    this is one good example.. this blog you have to dig for.. it doesn't appear in the top 5 pages of Google search results for "John 20:28" (for me anyway, different countries get different results)
    However even if this were true - this somewhat proves AQ is theologically motivated since why would you go and spam multiple different blogs with the same crap? NO claimed catholic I know does this. I have never seen anything of this scale (it is somewhat impressive) But I find quite concerning.

  • Blotty
    Blotty

    " Hart writes:

    “Some other scholars have chosen to render the inarticular form of theos as ‘a divine being,’ but this seems wrong to me on two counts: first, if that were all the evangelist were saying, he could have used the perfectly serviceable Greek word theios; and, second, the text clearly means to assert some kind of continuity of divinity between God the Father and the Logos, not merely some sort of association between ‘God proper’ and ‘a divine being.’”

    This explicitly rejects the JW interpretation of “a god” as a lesser divine being,"

    Where? it says nothing of the sort... infact Hart here is talking about theios being rendered "a divine being"

    How can he "explicitly reject" it, When he doesn't even explicitly say it

  • aqwsed12345
    aqwsed12345
    @Earnest

    No one has argued for a modalist/Sabellian reading of John 20:28, the Gospel of John consistently distinguishes between the Father and the Son (e.g., John 1:1-2; 5:19-23; 17:1-5). Thomas’s declaration does not conflate Jesus with the Father but acknowledges Jesus's fully divine nature as the Son who shares in the essence of God. The Greek phrase εἶπεν αὐτῷ (“he said to him”) indicates that Thomas is addressing Jesus directly. The nominative forms ὁ κύριός μου (“my Lord”) and ὁ θεός μου (“my God”) function as vocative forms in Koine Greek. Thomas’s words are not directed to the Father but directly to Jesus. Modalism claims that God is a single person who appears in different "modes" (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). This heresy is contradicted by the relational distinctions consistently presented in John's Gospel.

    In first-century Jewish culture, invoking God's name flippantly, as in “Oh my God!” would constitute blasphemy (Exodus 20:7; Leviticus 24:16). Thomas, a devout Jew, would not utter such an exclamation. Jesus does not rebuke Thomas for blasphemy or a mistaken declaration. Instead, He commends Thomas’s belief: "Because you have seen me, you have believed" (John 20:29). This affirmation confirms that Thomas’s words were a true confession of faith. The phrase “my God” is used over 100 times in the Bible, and in every instance, it refers to YHWH, the one true God of Israel (e.g. Psalm 35:23, Revelation 4:11). For a pious Jew like Thomas to call Jesus "my God" signifies his recognition of Jesus as fully divine. In John 20:28, Thomas applies this language directly to Jesus, aligning with the Gospel's high Christology.

    In Psalm 35:23, the Hebrew phrase אֱלֹהַ֖י וַאדֹנָ֣י (’ĕlōhay wa-’ăḏōnay, "My God and my Lord") demonstrates a close parallel to the Peshitta's rendering of John 20:28. The Psalmist's invocation of God combines two divine titles, indicating both a personal relationship ("my God") and reverence for God’s sovereign authority ("my Lord"). The Targum to this verse also uses אֱלֹהַי וּמָרֵי (Ĕlohāy ū-Mārēy), confirming the use of these terms in a similar liturgical or devotional context. The Peshitta’s Aramaic translation of John 20:28 reads: ܡܳܪܝ ܘܰܐܠܳܗܝ (Mari w-Alahi), which directly translates to "My Lord and my God." Psalm 35:23, in both its Hebrew form (’ĕlōhay wa-’ăḏōnay) and its Targumic translation (Ĕlohāy ū-Mārēy), serves as a linguistic and theological precedent. The structure and terminology in John 20:28 align with the Psalm’s pairing of divine titles. This suggests that Thomas’ exclamation was not an innovation but was deeply rooted in the Jewish linguistic and theological tradition of addressing God. In first-century Palestine, the conversation between Thomas and Jesus likely occurred in Aramaic. Based on the Peshitta’s rendering and the linguistic evidence from the Hebrew Bible and its Targum, Thomas may have said something like: "מָרֵי וֵאלָהָי" (Marei w-Elohai). This reflects the natural way an Aramaic-speaking Jew would declare devotion and recognize divine authority. The declaration in John 20:28 is extraordinary because it is addressed directly to Jesus. In Jewish monotheism, such titles were reserved exclusively for Yahweh. By invoking both "My Lord" and "My God," Thomas expresses not just respect but worship, equating Jesus with the God (Yahweh). This aligns with Christian theology, affirming Jesus’ divine nature as fully God (as in John 1:1) and fully man.

    The text explicitly states that Thomas "said to Him" (εἶπεν αὐτῷ), meaning the whole statement is directed at Jesus, not at the Father. There is no grammatical or contextual basis for redirecting Thomas's words to the Father. The context of John 20:24-29 focuses entirely on Jesus’s resurrection and Thomas's doubt. When Jesus invites Thomas to touch His wounds, Thomas responds with a direct confession of Jesus's identity: "My Lord and my God." This moment reflects Thomas's recognition of Jesus as both his risen Lord and his divine God. Thomas’s confession serves as the climactic conclusion of John’s Gospel, paralleling the prologue: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Thomas’s declaration reaffirms the divine identity of Jesus as introduced in John 1:1. The direct object pronoun ("to him") in both Greek (αὐτῷ) and Aramaic (ܠܶܗ) unambiguously points to Jesus as the recipient of the declaration. The immediate context—Thomas addressing Jesus after seeing his wounds—reinforces that this exclamation is directed at Jesus, not the Father.

    While ho theos generally refers to the Father (just like ho kyrios generally refers to Christ in the NT), it is also used for Jesus in contexts that affirm His divine nature (cf. Hebrews 1:8). In John 20:28, Thomas uses ho theos to acknowledge Jesus’s divine essence, consistent with these other passages. It was only the ignorant linguists of the Watchtower Society who invented that the anarthrous theos necessarily means some kind of minor “god” (that can only be understood in some henotheistic framework), i.e. essentially a good archangel, while only ho theos denotes the proper sense God. As we see, there are also examples where the Son is called ho theos - and of course the Father is also called anarthrous theos in the NT. The possessive pronoun μου (“my”) emphasizes a personal relationship and allegiance to Jesus as his Lord and God. For Thomas, a devout Jew, to address Jesus this way unequivocally affirms Jesus's full divinity.


    @Blotty

    You claim Hart’s critique is "only" about rendering “theios” as ‘a divine being,’ not about “theos” in John 1:1c. This misreads Hart's intent. Hart does not address “theos” and “theios” as isolated concepts here but uses the absence of “theios” to argue that John 1:1c (which uses “theos”) is not describing the Logos as “a divine being” in the sense of a subordinate or lesser deity. Hart's key point is that if John had intended to describe the Logos as a lesser, derivative divinity (the kind implied by the NWT’s “a god”), the Greek word “theios”—commonly used in Greek for something divine, godlike but not fully God—would have been the appropriate choice. The absence of “theios” and the use of “theos” instead, even in its anarthrous form, underscores the qualitative divine nature of the Logos, rather than relegating it to the category of a secondary or lesser deity. Hart states, “Some other scholars have chosen to render the inarticular form of “theos” as ‘a divine being,’ but this seems wrong to me on two counts.” This is explicitly about the anarthrous “theos” in John 1:1c, not a general comment on “theios.” The inclusion of “theios” in his critique serves to highlight why the evangelist’s choice of “theos” carries deeper theological implications.

    You ask, “Where does Hart explicitly reject the JW interpretation?” The rejection is evident in Hart's broader discussion about the qualitative nature of “theos” in John 1:1c and his critique of subordinationist interpretations. Hart’s commentary addresses the NWT’s rendering, even if he doesn’t name the JWs specifically. Hart rejects a reading of the Logos as merely “a divine being”, as the JWs read the NWT’s rendering (“a god”). Hart: “The text clearly means to assert some kind of continuity of divinity between God the Father and the Logos, not merely some sort of association between ‘God proper’ and ‘a divine being.’” This is a clear dismissal of any interpretation, like the NWT’s, that views the Logos as a subordinate, secondary deity. The NWT explicitly renders “theos” as “a god,” which aligns with what Hart calls “some sort of association” rather than an essential continuity of divinity. The JW interpretation negates this continuity by rendering “theos,” suggesting a separate, inferior divine being. Hart’s emphasis on “continuity of divinity” rules out this possibility.

    Hart critiques the JWs’s reading (“If that were all the evangelist were saying, he could have used the perfectly serviceable Greek word ‘theios’.”) By pointing out that “theios” was not used, Hart emphasizes that the author of John intentionally used “theos” to indicate a qualitative divine essence. This directly counters the NWT’s interpretation of “theos” as referring to a lesser divine being, which would have warranted “theios.”

    Hart situates his interpretation of John 1:1c within a Trinitarian theological framework, acknowledging the Logos’ divine essence while maintaining a distinction from the Father. This is incompatible with the JW interpretation, which negates the Logos’ full divinity and subordinates it to the Father. The NWT interpretation relies on a misunderstanding of the anarthrous “theos” as indefinite (“a god”), rather than qualitative. Hart explicitly critiques this approach by noting that John’s Gospel does not describe the Logos as a separate or subordinate divine being but as one who shares in the divine essence. The distinction Hart draws between “theos” and “theios” highlights the evangelist’s intention to describe the Logos as fully divine, not as a created or subordinate entity. The NWT’s rendering contradicts this by implying a polytheistic framework, treating the Logos as a lesser deity akin to “a divine being” (out of several other possible similar divine beings, e.g. the “elohim” of Psalm 82).

    You seem to focus narrowly on the immediate context of Hart’s discussion about “theios,” without considering its role in his broader argument. Hart uses the absence of “theios” to underscore why the anarthrous “theos” in John 1:1c cannot be rendered as “a god” and/or understood in an Arian sense. Hart’s critique of “a divine being” directly addresses the theological implications of such a reading. While he critiques “a divine being” as a general concept, the JW interpretation of “a god” falls squarely within the scope of his critique, as it reflects the same theological error.

    You dismiss Hart’s rejection of the NWT interpretation by claiming he doesn’t “explicitly” say it. This is a misunderstanding of how theological critique operates. Hart’s argument explicitly refutes the premises underlying the NWT’s rendering, even if he does not directly name the NWT. Hart emphasizes the qualitative nature of “theos” in John 1:1c, which describes the Logos’ divine essence. This is antithetical to the NWT’s indefinite rendering and its normative JW reading, which introduces a subordinate deity incompatible with Johannine monotheism. Hart explicitly rejects readings that fail to recognize the continuity of divinity between the Father and the Logos. The NWT’s “a god” interpretation does precisely this, making Hart’s critique directly applicable.

  • slimboyfat
    slimboyfat
    Hart uses the absence of “theios” to underscore why the anarthrous “theos” in John 1:1c cannot be rendered as “a god”

    No he doesn’t. You just made that up. 🙄

    Hart wrote that it “could justly” be translated “a god” in Atheist Delusions and reaffirmed this view in his recent interview: the exact opposite of the words you attempt to put in his mouth. He said:

    here what you have is not necessarily co-equal identity but of continuity. It is still saying the Logos is “god” but it not equating it there with God most high, and this is quite common right up through to the fourth century in Christian thought that still a very strong, what is considered an orthodox strain of thought (orthodox with a small “o”), especially in the east up until the council of Nicaea, and after, for along time after, there is a kind of subordination ascension, God most high is God in the proper sense, God the Father, and then the Logos is deuteros theos, you find this say in a Jewish thinker like Philo, but also in Christian thinkers, you can read say Eusebius before Nicaea gives you a pretty clear notion of what many consider to be orthodox Christianity in which there is not a co-equality, there is a continuity but it is vague. It can even, in the case of Arianism, the son can be seen as created and there is an ambiguity between creation and generation.

    Then Hart goes on to say John 20.28 May be an exception where Jesus is ho Theos, but maybe not, it might be “honorific”, it was “debated”, or it might be an exclamation. That’s what Hart says, contrary to what you say he says.

  • aqwsed12345
    aqwsed12345
    @slimboyfat

    I primarily relied to the footnote in Hart's Bible translation, and I also looked up what he wrote in other places, and it is clear that Hart explicitly negates the way JWs read and understand the NWT rendering, and asserts that the evangelist avoided the word theios precisely because it would imply a derivative or subordinate divinity, akin to how the JWs read and understand the rendering “a god.” Instead, Hart argues that the anarthrous theos in John 1:1c emphasizes the Logos' continuity of divinity with the Father. This rules the JW reading of a “a god,” which reduces the Logos to a lesser being, and Hart explicitly rejects the theological premise behind the NWT's rendering.

    Didn't you read my criticism about focusing not on the words and typography, but on what Hart means by it? What Hart says is a mere grammatical possibility taken in itself, JWs consider an undoubted fact, and Hart means something completely different by the lowercase "god" than JWs do. You simply ignore the critical distinction between mere grammatical possibility and theological validity as well. Hart discusses the grammatical flexibility of the Greek but unequivocally rejects the JW (Arian) reading of the rendering “a god” as a theologically accurate interpretation. According to Hart, this is not contextually or theologically appropriate:

    1. On Theological Context:

    “The text clearly means to assert some kind of continuity of divinity between God the Father and the Logos, not merely some sort of association between ‘God proper’ and ‘a divine being.’”

    2. On Grammatical Precision:

    If that were all the evangelist were saying, he could have used the perfectly serviceable Greek word theios.”

    Hart explicitly rejects the JW interpretations of the NWT’s “a god” because they fail to capture the Logos’ qualitative divinity and its continuity with the Father. While Hart acknowledges mere grammatical possibilities, he does not endorse them as valid theological readings.

    Your quote is also a mere historical observation about the diversity of early Christian theology ("what many [not everyone, not even the majority] consider to be orthodox Christianity"), not an endorsement of Arianism or subordinationism. Hart is describing how early Christian thinkers, prior to the formalization [not the "introduction", or "imposition"] of Nicene orthodoxy, grappled with the relationship between the Logos and the Father. This does not mean Hart agrees with subordinationist or Arian interpretations or the JW notion of an alleged "Great Apostasy"; rather, he situates those views within the broader historical context. While Hart acknowledges that early Christian thought included a spectrum of views, but he firmly rejects the reduction of the Logos to a created or subordinate being, which is central to Arianism and the JW theology, nor does it argue that the original apostolic faith was replaced as part of some imperial conspiracy.

    Regarding John 20:28, Hart acknowledges historical debates but ultimately affirms that Thomas’s confession reveals Jesus as ho theos in the fullest sense. He writes:

    “It seems to me that the withholding of the full revelation of Christ as ho theos, God in the fullest sense, until Thomas confesses him as such in the light of Easter, must be seen as an intentional authorial tactic.”

    Hart recognizes that John’s Gospel builds toward a climactic revelation of Jesus’ divine identity. While he notes that some early Christians debated the meaning of Thomas’s confession, Hart himself affirms its theological significance. He explicitly rejects the idea that Thomas’s declaration is merely an exclamation or honorific, as it directly addresses Jesus:

    1. The phrase εἶπεν αὐτῷ (“he said to him, not not "to them", not one for Christ, the other for some kind of "Jehovah") confirms that Thomas is speaking only to one person, to Christ, not the Father.
    2. The possessive pronoun μου (“my”) emphasizes Thomas’s personal recognition of Jesus as both Lord and God.

    Hart situates John 20:28 within the Gospel’s overarching narrative, where the Logos is progressively revealed as fully divine. This culminates in Thomas’s confession, which mirrors the prologue's declaration that “the Word was God.”

    A religious Jew might use the phrase "מָרֵי וֵאלָהָי" (Marei w-Elohai) in prayer, meditation, or Torah study when addressing God directly, expressing profound gratitude, submission, or awe. It could also be uttered in moments of introspection or during a heartfelt plea for guidance or forgiveness. This phrase is directed solely to God, as it would not be appropriate to use it for addressing a human being in the Jewish faith due to its sanctified nature. In an ancient Jewish context, it would have at least extremely unlikely for the phrase "Marei w-Elohai" to be used casually or directed toward another person in moments of surprise or emotional outburst, as phrases involving the name of God (Elohai) were treated with great reverence. Jewish tradition, both ancient and modern, generally avoids casual or irreverent use of God's name or titles (cf. Exodus 20:7). This phrase, specifically meaning "My Lord and my God," would have been reserved for solemn, prayerful, or deeply devotional contexts, always directed exclusively toward the Almighty God. Using it in a way similar to expressions like "Oh my God!" in modern everyday English to address a human being in surprise or emotion would likely have been considered inappropriate or even blasphemous within Jewish religious norms. Cultural norms of the ancient world also emphasized the sacred nature of God's name, making it unlikely for such phrases to be used informally or without careful intention.

  • aqwsed12345
    aqwsed12345

    The claim that the doctrine of the Trinity was “imposed” on Christianity through a “great apostasy” orchestrated by the Roman Empire, as some groups like Jehovah’s Witnesses argue, encounters significant historical challenges. This perspective posits that the Roman state, beginning with Constantine, allegedly sought to “paganize” Christianity by “forcing” a Trinitarian theology upon the Church. However, examining the historical and theological developments of early Christianity reveals that this theory is highly implausible and inconsistent with the evidence available from diverse and geographically distant Christian communities, far from the cultural and political influence of Greco-Roman civilization.

    Before the so-called Constantinian shift in the early 4th century, the Christian faith had already spread widely beyond the boundaries of the Roman Empire into regions such as Mesopotamia, Persia, India, and parts of Africa. These Christian communities developed in cultural and political contexts far removed from Roman influence and often existed in isolation from one another. Despite their distance, these communities—such as the Church of the East in Persia, the Saint Thomas Christians in India, the Ethiopian Church, and others—demonstrated striking theological unity on core doctrines, including belief in the deity of Christ and the triune nature of God.

    The idea that Constantine or later Roman emperors could have successfully imposed a Trinitarian theology on these distant and independent communities is historically untenable. Many of these churches were already established long before Constantine's reign and functioned under the political control of rival empires, such as the Sasanian Empire in Persia, which was often hostile to Rome. The Persian Church, for instance, had no political motivation to align itself with Roman theological developments. Yet, despite their separation, these Christians shared theological views that aligned with Trinitarian Christianity, suggesting that the doctrine's acceptance was organic and rooted in the early apostolic tradition, not a later political imposition.

    The claim of a "great apostasy" further fails to account for the strong opposition Constantine faced even within the Roman Empire regarding theological controversies. Constantine himself, though influential in convening the Council of Nicaea in 325, did not dictate theological outcomes. The council's participants were bishops from various regions, many of whom had suffered persecution under previous emperors and were unlikely to acquiesce to imperial dictates against their theological convictions. The debates at Nicaea focused on clarifying longstanding theological issues, not introducing novel ideas. The Nicene Creed articulated the Church’s understanding of Christ's divinity, an understanding that predated Constantine and is evident in earlier writings, such as those of Ignatius of Antioch (c. 35–108), Justin Martyr (c. 100–165), and Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 130–202).

    Moreover, the claim that Trinitarian doctrine was a “paganization” of Christianity does not hold up under scrutiny. While the term "Trinity" was formally defined in later theological discussions, the concept of one God existing in three persons—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—has biblical roots. Scriptural passages such as Matthew 28:19, where Jesus commands baptism "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," reflect an early Trinitarian understanding. Likewise, the writings of early Church Fathers often emphasize the divinity of Christ and the Holy Spirit alongside the Father, long before Constantine's involvement in Christian affairs.

    It is also essential to note that many non-Trinitarian interpretations, such as Arianism, were not a result of early Christian purity but were instead theological innovations that emerged in the 4th century. Arianism's claim that Christ was a created being and completely separate from God the Father was rejected by the majority of the Church because it deviated from the apostolic tradition and scriptural testimony. The widespread rejection of Arianism among Christian communities, even those outside Roman political control, further undermines the argument that Trinitarianism was a later Roman "fabrication."

    Finally, the notion that Trinitarian belief was "imposed" overlooks the martyrdom and resilience of early Christians who upheld their faith against imperial persecution. If the Roman state had sought to "paganize" Christianity, it is difficult to reconcile this with the fact that Christian believers, including many bishops and theologians, willingly endured imprisonment, torture, and execution rather than compromise their beliefs. The commitment of early Christians to their faith, even in the face of death, suggests that their theology was deeply rooted in conviction and tradition, not political convenience.

  • Bribie
    Bribie

    Are we any closer to finding an answer to the question of - Is Jesus the Creator?

  • Blotty
    Blotty

    "and I also looked up what he wrote in other places," - sure, why should I take your word on this? you are already known to quote mine.. twice infact.

    But it should be noted "a god" and "a divine being" clearly don't mean the same thing to Hart as he lists them separately.

    "and it is clear that Hart explicitly negates the way JWs read and understand the NWT rendering" - how can he "negate" it when he states its a possible rendering? you still haven't answered this

    the rest is the usual - the longer your messages the more on the ropes you are AQ. your making stuff up as you go - because Hart doesn't suit your agenda. Its so clear to anyone wo can read basic English

    You make some wild accusations to your second post - that no one has ever claimed, they seem to be invented by you.. as a quick bit of research will show Constantine wanted a united statement of faith.. Before Nicea, Councils as "authority" were unknown in scriptural matters (paraphrase of Hart)

    You don't even listen to Hart when he talks.

    Hart even compares Johns Logos with Philos, something you also reject outright.,

    "Your quote is also a mere historical observation about the diversity of early Christian theology ("what many [not everyone, not even the majority] consider to be orthodox Christianity")" - not what Hart said explicitly in the interview, he said quite the opposite.. again why should I believe you over the man talking?

    "Thomas’s declaration is merely an exclamation or honorific, as it directly addresses Jesus:

    1. The phrase εἶπεν αὐτῷ (“he said to him, not not "to them", not one for Christ, the other for some kind of "Jehovah") confirms that Thomas is speaking only to one person, to Christ, not the Father.
    2. The possessive pronoun μου (“my”) emphasizes Thomas’s personal recognition of Jesus as both Lord and God.

    " - Hart would disagree, according to him it could go either way. it may be or may not be.. He doesn't have a definite answer, and doesn't go as far as saying yes this is a definite proof text of Christs being God - again this man goes on evidence, you go by theological motivation.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit