Is Jesus the Creator?

by Sea Breeze 405 Replies latest watchtower bible

Rivergang

Are we any closer to finding an answer to the question of - Is Jesus the Creator?
No closer than they were 1,500 years ago, I would think.
Sea Breeze

@moomanchu
aqwsed12345
Your knowledgeable, comprehensive and noninsulting answers are admirable. Very patient, way more than me.
Me too. Whenever, I see Ad hominims getting thrown around, I know that side has run out of places to hide. And it is nearly always the same side that engages in it.
Thank you aqwsed12345 for your research on this thread.
Colossians 1:16
For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities
aqwsed12345
@Blotty
It’s true that Hart lists "god" and "a divine being" separately, but this is not to suggest they are categorically distinct. Hart's commentary reflects nuanced grammatical and theological considerations, where both terms relate to possible, though contextually problematic, interpretations of the anarthrous theos in John 1:1c. You also make the mistake of focusing on superficial differences, the lowercase of the word "god," and not considering that the JWs would mean something completely different than Hart. Hart's lowercase of the word "god" means that one whose coequality is not yet fully revealed, that is, still unclear. The JWs read this precisely in the sense of "a divine being," as Psalm 82 uses it. But in fact, the JWs view all unfallen angels as "gods," and even all humans who act in God's behalf, so in effect, the JWs read John 1:1c as "the Logos was [or used to be] an unfallen archangel representing Jehovah." Well, Hart's translation footnote explicitly rejects this interpretation. He writes:
"Some other scholars have chosen to render the inarticular form of theos as ‘a divine being,’ but this seems wrong to me... The text clearly means to assert some kind of continuity of divinity between God the Father and the Logos."
By pointing out the problematic nature of rendering theos as "a divine being," Hart effectively critiques any interpretation that treats the Logos as less than fully divine. Although "a god" and "a divine being" may carry slight semantic differences, both terms fail to align with the Logos' theological significance in John's Gospel, as Hart himself emphasizes the Logos' continuity with the Father's divinity. Hart’s rejection of "a divine being" applies equally to the JW reading of the rendering "a god" because both introduce a subordinationist or henotheistic framework. While the words differ, the theological implications overlap. His critique is broad enough to encompass both phrases, invalidating the Jehovah's Witnesses' rendering of "a god."
Hart acknowledges that the lowercase "god" is grammatically possible due to the anarthrous theos. However, grammatical possibility does not equal theological endorsement. Hart explicitly critiques the theological premise behind the NWT’s rendering in the way JWs read it. The NWT’s translation fundamentally undermines this "continuity of divinity" by relegating the Logos to a subordinate "god." Hart’s rejection of this premise is clear, even as he discusses the grammatical flexibility of the Greek. Recognizing a possibility is not the same as endorsing it. For instance, grammatically, “John ran quickly” could mean “John sprinted,” but it could also mean “John dashed off in a hurry.” Hart explores potential meanings while grounding his interpretation in theological and contextual coherence. He explicitly avoids readings that contradict the overarching theology of John's Gospel.
The claim that Constantine sought "a united statement of faith" at Nicaea is historically accurate, but Hart’s acknowledgment of this fact does not imply that Constantine introduced Trinitarian theology. Hart critiques simplistic narratives about Constantine’s involvement, but he does not argue that the Nicene Creed represents an imposition of Roman politics. Instead, Hart situates the Nicene Creed within the broader context of doctrinal development. While Hart acknowledges pre-Nicene diversity, this does not equate to dismissing the Nicene settlement as illegitimate or unorthodox. His historical observations do not endorse Arianism or the Jehovah's Witnesses' concept of a "Great Apostasy." They reflect the complexities of theological evolution. Some resources for you:
Hart’s comparison between John’s Logos and Philo’s is nuanced and does not imply equivalence. Philo’s Logos is a metaphysical intermediary, while John’s Logos is explicitly identified as divine (theos). Hart observes shared terminology, but he also highlights differences in theological context. For example, Philo’s Logos does not carry the incarnational or salvific dimensions present in John’s Gospel. Hart acknowledges parallels but does not reduce John’s Logos to Philo’s framework. This distinction is critical, as the Logos in John’s Gospel possesses divine continuity with the Father, a concept absent from Philo’s writings.
You claim Hart does not view Thomas’s confession as definitive evidence of Christ’s divinity. However, Hart explicitly identifies John 20:28 as a climactic moment in the Gospel:
"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."
"John’s prologue does not give us a co-equal Son. John 20 does."
Hart does not assert that this passage is ambiguous. He affirms that Thomas addresses Jesus as ho theos ("the God"), recognizing Jesus' divine identity, and that John 20 does give us a co-equal Son. The phrase "εἶπεν αὐτῷ" ("he said to him") confirms that Thomas's confession is directed solely to Jesus, not to the Father. Hart’s acknowledgment of historical debates does not negate his conclusion that John presents Thomas’s confession as the culmination of the Logos’ full revelation.
You claim Hart relies solely on evidence and not theological motivations. However, Hart’s approach integrates linguistic analysis, theological context, and historical tradition. He critiques the NWT’s rendering because it fails both linguistically and theologically. Linguistically, the anarthrous theos in John 1:1c functions qualitatively, emphasizing the Logos’ divine essence rather than denoting a separate deity. Theologically, Hart rejects subordinationism, affirming the Logos’ continuity of divinity with the Father. Hart’s rejection of the NWT’s interpretation stems from its incompatibility with John’s monotheistic framework and its reduction of the Logos to a lesser deity.
slimboyfat

Hart does not assert that this passage [John 20.28] is ambiguous.
Yes, he does, in his interview he says precisely that. He says it may present Jesus as full divinity, as he has argued, or it might be honorific, or it might be an exclamation to God, not Jesus. That is what Hart himself says, yet once again you claim he says the opposite.
Hart also explains what he means by “continuity of divinity” in John 1.1:
here what you have is not necessarily co-equal identity but of continuity. It is still saying the Logos is “god” but is not equating it there with God most high, and this is quite common right up through to the fourth century in Christian thought … 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.
aqwsed12345
@slimboyfat
Aren't you tired of arguing about authority? Why don't you respond to my arguments instead of insisting on what Hart thought or understood, as if the truth depended on Hart's opinion. I've argued with you about this many times, that I don't want to argue with the names you throw around, but with you directly. Or should I call you Dr. Ad Verecundiam?
Or is this how you work? When you sit down to read a book, do you always have a highlighter in your hand? You actually read books to find yummy quotes that you can throw at your interlocutors during online discussions, making it easy work for you, since you are able to list three, four, or even five very smart professors, and then your interlocutors can wrestle with them instead of you from then on. "They can't be wrong, huh? They are many, they have PhDs, do you?"
Well, this has made it certain that you are incapable of independent thought, nor are you capable of any substantive refutation. You are a kind of glossator, a compiler, from whom the Middle Ages extracted a cartload. They did not need great independence, a sharp mind, or knowledge of the Bible - only a few books of the Church Fathers, from which he could write another. Such people were needed in centuries of spiritual and material decay, but in today's age these glossators are certainly not of much use.
Hart acknowledges historical debates about the interpretation of Thomas’s confession but ultimately argues that John 20:28 presents Jesus as ho theos in the fullest sense of divinity. Hart describes this moment as a deliberate narrative culmination in John’s Gospel:

"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."
"John’s prologue does not give us a co-equal Son. John 20 does."
This statement clearly indicates that Hart views Thomas’s confession as theologically definitive within the Johannine narrative. While he may acknowledge alternative interpretations discussed historically, he himself aligns with the traditional understanding that Thomas explicitly addresses Jesus as "my Lord and my God." The grammatical construction, particularly the phrase εἶπεν αὐτῷ ("he said to him"), confirms that Thomas is speaking directly to Jesus, ruling out the possibility of it being an exclamation directed to the Father. Hart's recognition of historical debates is not the same as affirming ambiguity. Rather, he situates these debates within the broader theological framework of early Christian thought. His description of alternative views is meant to provide historical context, not to endorse those views as equally valid. When he states that Thomas's confession reveals Jesus as ho theos, he emphasizes its climactic role in confirming the Logos’ divine identity, consistent with the Gospel's prologue.
Hart’s use of "continuity of divinity" in John 1:1 does not imply (ontological) subordination or inequality between the Logos and the Father. Instead, it reflects the Logos’ intrinsic participation in the divine essence. Hart explicitly contrasts the anarthrous theos in John 1:1c with the Greek term theios, which would have suggested derivative or subordinate divinity. By choosing theos, the evangelist emphasizes the Logos’ full divine nature, albeit distinct in personhood from the Father:
"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.’"
Hart’s rejection of the term theios underscores his view that the Logos is not merely "godlike" or a created being, as subordinationists claim. Instead, the Logos fully participates in the divine essence, consistent with Nicene orthodoxy. Hart’s comment about pre-Nicene theology being "vague" regarding co-equality reflects the historical development of doctrinal language, not a rejection of the Logos’ divinity. Early Christian thinkers, such as Eusebius, may have lacked the precise terminology later formalized at Nicaea, but this does not negate the underlying belief in the Logos’ divine nature. Hart situates these early theological discussions within the broader trajectory that culminates in Nicene orthodoxy, affirming the Logos’ full divinity as consistent with the apostolic tradition.

Hart explicitly rejects interpretations that subordinate the Logos to the Father, including the Arian and Jehovah’s Witnesses’ reading of John 1:1 as "a god":

"Some other scholars have chosen to render the inarticular form of theos as ‘a divine being,’ but this seems wrong to me... The text clearly means to assert some kind of continuity of divinity between God the Father and the Logos."

By rejecting subordinationist readings, Hart affirms that the Logos shares the same divine essence as the Father, consistent with the Johannine prologue’s declaration that "the Word was God." I'll write it in all caps this time so you understand: What I'm basically saying that
- HART MAYY NOT UNIVOCALLY AND EXPLICITLY REJECTS WHAT THE NWT WRITES, BUT HE DOES REJECT WHAT THE WTS MEANS BY IT, AND HOW THE JWS EAD IT.
Could you finally please shift the focus to this?
slimboyfat

Aren’t you tired of misrepresenting people? If you think Hart’s expert view is of no consequence then why are you so doggedly persistent in misrepresenting what he said at every turn?
Scripture itself is incredibly clear that Jesus is separate from and subordinate to God. Scholars who recognise this are just stating the obvious. If you took verses such as John 17.3 seriously then it wouldn’t even be a discussion. Those who attempt to obscure the distinction such as Bauckham and Hurtado are engaging in Trinitarian apologetic.
slimboyfat

Contrast what you say Hart says:
By rejecting subordinationist readings, Hart affirms that the Logos shares the same divine essence as the Father
With what Hart says about John 1.1:
It is still saying the Logos is “god” but is not equating it there with God most high, and this is quite common right up through to the fourth century in Christian thought … 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.
aqwsed12345
@slimboyfat
You didn't react to the fact that you can't move on from waving the names of authority figures, like a dog that has always been chained and, although the chain is no longer there, doesn't dare to leave its familiar place. You don't dare to make an independent statement without bringing up some authority figure, do you need someone to hold your hand?
You don't even understand elementary logic: the assertion that, according to Hart, the Johannine prologue does not clearly declare the constubstantiality does not mean that it negates it, nor does it mean that it asserts Arian subordinationism. You cite Hart as saying:

“It is still saying the Logos is ‘god’ but is not equating it there with God most high...”

The phrase "is not equating" simply means that it does not assert it, but does not mean it also negates it. Not asserting is not the same as negating. Elementary logic, do you understand what that is? Hart also says that it is asserted later, so he could not have understood the statement "is not equating" as a negation, it is just an assertion of the yet lack of clear assertion. This statement reflects Hart’s acknowledgment of the anarthrous (lacking the definite article) theos in John 1:1c, a grammatical feature that emphasizes the qualitative nature of the Logos’ divinity. Hart explicitly rejects the interpretation that this means the Logos is a subordinate or lesser being. In fact, he clarifies:

“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.’”

Thus, Hart’s point is that the Logos shares in the divine nature of the Father, even while maintaining distinct personhood. He rejects the idea that the Logos is “God most high” in the sense of being the Father but affirms the Logos’ full divinity, which rules out subordinationist readings like those promoted by the JWs.

You reference Hart’s statement:

“…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.”

This statement highlights the historical development of doctrinal language, not a denial of the Logos’ full divinity. Early Christian theology was still formalizing the language needed to express the relationship between the Father and the Son. Hart is describing the diversity of pre-Nicene thought, not endorsing subordinationism. He situates this diversity within the broader trajectory that culminates in Nicene orthodoxy. By focusing on Eusebius, you ignore that even he, despite his hesitation about the term homoousios (one in essence), affirmed Christ’s divine pre-existence and unique relationship with the Father. The so-called “vagueness” Hart mentions refers to terminology, not the essential belief in the Logos’ divinity.
You cite John 17:3 as proof of Jesus’ non-deity. John 17:3 proves monotheism at best, not Unitarianism, this does not deny that Jesus is God, although in his state of self-emptying the Son understandably did not emphasize his deity in prayer. This verse says that “the Father is the only, true God” (which is in accordance with Trinitarian teaching), but it does not say that “only the Father is true God alone” (like the JW eisegesis reads it), there is a clear difference between the two propositions. This verse must be read within the broader Johannine context, which repeatedly emphasizes Jesus’ unity with the Father:
- John 10:30: “I and the Father are one.”
- John 14:9: “Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father.”
- John 5:18: Jesus “was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.”
John 17:3 highlights the Father’s role as the source of the divine plan, but it does not negate the Son’s deity. The term “only true God” affirms monotheism, while “Jesus Christ whom you have sent” underscores the relational distinction within the Godhead. It does not reduce Christ to a mere creature or deny his divine nature. The syncategorematical use of "only" (monos) in John 17:3 emphasizes exclusivity without necessitating exclusion of the Son or Spirit. The term "only true God" does not imply that the Father is the only person who can possess divine attributes. In fact, similar restrictive language is used elsewhere in Scripture without excluding other members of the Godhead Jude 4 describes Jesus as “our only Master and Lord.” This does not exclude the Father from being Lord or Master, as seen in Matthew 11:25. In John 10:30, Jesus declares, “I and the Father are one,” emphasizing their shared divine essence and work, particularly in granting eternal life (John 10:28-30). Restrictive terms like “only” are often used in contexts that affirm uniqueness in one sense while allowing shared attributes in another. In John 17:3, the Father is identified as the source of divine authority within the Trinity, while the Son is the mediator through whom eternal life is granted. So a syncategorematical use of "only" (monos), just like for example in Jude 4. So "monos" does not exclude other divine persons from being the true God, but it excludes foreign gods, hence this simply asserts monotheism, not unitarianism.
FYI: Does John 17:3 Disprove the Trinity?

You dismiss Richard Bauckham and Larry Hurtado as engaging in “Trinitarian apologetics.” However, their work is grounded in rigorous scholarship and reflects the historical and theological realities of Second Temple Jewish monotheism. Bauckham demonstrates that early Christians included Jesus within the unique identity of Yahweh, a key marker of monotheism. Hurtado’s concept of “cultic devotion” highlights the unprecedented worship of Jesus alongside the Father in the earliest Christian communities, which is incompatible with subordinationism. Their conclusions are based on historical evidence, not mere apologetics, as you claim. Dismissing their work without substantive engagement is not a valid critique.

Hart does not argue that the Logos’ divinity is “vague” in an ontological sense but rather that pre-Nicene terminology lacked precision. He affirms that the Johannine prologue (John 1:1) and Thomas’s confession (John 20:28) present the Logos as fully divine:

“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.”

This climactic revelation aligns with the prologue’s declaration that “the Word was God.” Hart explicitly rejects the idea that the Logos is a lesser being or a created entity.
slimboyfat

Actually, if you listen to Hart carefully, he appears to believe the prologue was written by a different author than the gospel and that they had different Christologies. Hart does ascribe a subordinationist view to the prologue and argues for a full ascription of divinity to Jesus at John 20.28. The contrast he provides between the two should be an additional clue, as if it is needed, that he views the prologue as containing a subordinationist view compared with 20.28. But he is not definite even on that point because he allows for the possibility that the title is used honorifically of Jesus in the verse, or that Thomas is praising God not Jesus in the verse. You don’t have to agree with that, and neither do I, but it’s what Hart says he thinks about the subject. So stop trying to ventriloquise him to support your theology.
Hart explicitly rejects the interpretation that this means the Logos is a subordinate or lesser being
What part of “there is not co-equality” do you not understand?
He rejects the idea that the Logos is “God most high” in the sense of being the Father but affirms the Logos’ full divinity
I guess you can play fast and loose with words like this because you are so practised doing it in scripture itself. When Hart says that the Logos is not “God most high” he means just what he says. He doesn’t require you to redefine the terms for him to bend it toward Nicene orthodoxy. Otherwise who knows what anyone means by anything. Perhaps by “the Trinity doctrine is true” what you really mean is the Trinity is false. It’s ridiculous.
Hart’s whole point is that John 1.1 has a different view of the Logos than later Nicene orthodoxy, that the Logos is subordinate to the most high God in this conceptual world, and that this view of the Logos persisted until at least the fourth century. He says these facts may surprise some but they are well know to scholars. What you are doing is isolating individuals words and phrases to turn everything he said on the subject on its head. (Such as he wouldn’t translate theos as “divine”.) Other times you just make it up entirely, such as your claim that Hart merely acknowledges “diversity” rather than describing the Arian view as an extreme version of traditional orthodoxy. No doubt Hart is aware of “diversity” in early Christianity, but where are you quoting this, and how does it negate what he says about Arius holding the traditional view and Nicaea representing novelty?
aqwsed12345

@slimboyfat
I still don't understand why we're still and only arguing about Hart and not the issue itself, and why you can't argue without mentioning authority figures...
1. "Hart believes the prologue was written by a different author than the gospel."
Hart, in his writings and interviews, has indeed discussed the possibility of textual layers or differing Christological emphases within the Gospel of John. However, this does not mean Hart views the prologue as fundamentally contradictory to the rest of the Gospel. Instead, he acknowledges a literary and theological development within the text, where the full divinity of Jesus is progressively revealed. Even if Hart entertains a difference in authorship, this does not imply that he considers the prologue to promote an Arian Christology. Rather, Hart emphasizes the prologue's nuanced theological language, particularly the qualitative use of theos in John 1:1c, which underscores the Logos’ divine nature.
2. "Hart does ascribe a subordinationist view to the prologue and argues for a full ascription of divinity to Jesus at John 20:28."
This claim oversimplifies Hart’s position. While Hart may acknowledge a development in how Jesus’ deity is revealed across the Gospel, he does not argue that the prologue presents a subordinationist Christology, He only asserts that the revelation of the coequality of the Logos is yet withheld in the prologue. Hart explicitly states that the anarthrous theos in John 1:1c emphasizes the Logos’ continuity of divinity with the Father. This continuity excludes the idea of a subordinate or derivative divinity, as Hart rejects the JW/Arian reading of “a divine being,” which would imply such Arian subordination. Hart’s commentary on John 20:28 aligns with this view, portraying it as the narrative’s climactic moment where Jesus is explicitly acknowledged as ho theos (God in the fullest sense). However, this does not negate the Logos’ deity as stated in John 1:1c.
3. "Hart allows for the possibility that Thomas is praising God, not Jesus."
This is incorrect. Hart explicitly addresses the grammar of John 20:28, pointing out that the phrase eipen auto (“he said to him”) leaves no ambiguity: Thomas is directly addressing only one person: Jesus. The possessive pronoun mou (“my”) further underscores Thomas’ personal recognition of Jesus as “my Lord and my God.” Hart does discuss historical debates around the interpretation of this verse, but his own conclusion is clear—Thomas’ confession directly ascribes full divinity to Jesus, aligning with the Gospel’s broader theological framework.
4. "What part of 'there is not co-equality' do you not understand?"
This is a misrepresentation of Hart’s statements. When Hart says the prologue does not explicitly assert co-equality, he refers to the limitations of the prologue’s language and conceptual framework relative to later Nicene formulations. And you still haven't grasped the elementary logical principle that denying a statement is not the same as asserting its negation. This does not mean the prologue negates co-equality; it simply means that the language of Nicene orthodoxy was developed later to articulate what is already implicit in the Johannine text. Hart’s rejection of the term theios and his emphasis on the qualitative use of theos in John 1:1c affirm the Logos’ full participation in the divine essence, excluding subordinationism.
5. "Hart’s whole point is that John 1:1 has a different view of the Logos than later Nicene orthodoxy."
Hart acknowledges that the theological language of the prologue is not identical to that of Nicene orthodoxy because the latter represents a more developed doctrinal articulation. However, this does not mean Hart views the prologue as incompatible with Nicene orthodoxy. On the contrary, Hart argues that the prologue presents the Logos as fully divine, participating in the same essence as the Father. This is consistent with Nicene theology, which builds upon the Scriptural foundation provided by texts like John 1:1.
6. "Hart describes Arius holding the traditional view and Nicaea representing novelty."
This claim misrepresents Hart’s position. Hart acknowledges the diversity of early Christian theological thought but does not endorse the view that Arianism represents the traditional apostolic faith. Instead, he situates Arianism within the broader spectrum of early Christological debates and recognizes the Nicene Creed as a formal clarification of the apostolic tradition. Hart explicitly rejects the reduction of the Logos to a created being, which is central to Arianism, affirming instead the Logos’ full divinity and continuity with the Father.
7. "Stop trying to ventriloquise him to support your theology."
This accusation is unfounded. Your argument carefully distinguishes between Hart’s grammatical observations and his theological conclusions. You have demonstrated that Hart rejects the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ reading of John 1:1c (Psalm 82-sense “divine being”, which is basically: nothing special) and affirms the Logos’ full divinity. Your use of Hart’s commentary is not ventriloquism but a faithful representation of his views.

Is Jesus the Creator?

Share this