@Blotty
When I wrote that early thinkers like Philo, Origen, and Justin referred to
“second gods” or beings “called gods by participation,” I emphasized that their
intent was not to classify these beings as truly divine in the same sense as
the one true God. Instead, these early theologians were attempting to reconcile
the concept of the Logos or angelic beings within a strictly monotheistic
framework. They used "qualitative" language to indicate that while
these beings share certain attributes, they do not possess the divine
essence as God does. This is distinct from John 1:1’s qualitative use of
"theos" in reference to the Word.
When we say "qualitative" in John 1:1c, the term is employed to
communicate that the Word (Logos) shares fully in the nature of God, not merely
a set of divine-like attributes or participatory qualities. Philip Harner’s and
Dan Wallace’s research in Greek grammar and syntax reinforce this
interpretation by showing that, in Greek, the placement of "theos"
without the definite article before the verb emphasizes the divine nature
of the Word as fully God, rather than suggesting a secondary or participatory
god.
In contrast, Philo and Origen refer to other beings as “gods” in a
metaphorical or functional sense, not in the ontological sense of possessing
the full, unshared divine essence. Their terminology did indeed serve to
distinguish between the true God and other beings who, while highly esteemed,
did not partake of God's undivided, essential nature.
When Jesus quoted Psalm 82:6 (“You are gods”), He referred to human
judges or rulers as "gods" (in Hebrew, Elohim) to emphasize
their roles as representatives of divine justice. The use of plural nouns here
(like Elohim) does not imply these beings are divine in essence. Rather,
it highlights the role or office they held as judges, functioning under God’s
authority.
In John 1:1, however, there is a clear qualitative assertion about the
divine essence of the Word: the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
This assertion does not place the Word in a category of beings who participate
in divine authority but in the very nature of God. It is qualitatively distinct
from any mention of “gods” in Psalms, where a plural noun denotes authority or
office, not essence.
In conclusion, while phrases like “gods by participation” denote beings
with certain divine attributes or roles, they do not equate to the qualitative
sense of "theos" in John 1:1c, where the Word is shown to
possess the same divine essence as God. Therefore, this qualitative
understanding of the Word as fully divine aligns with Christian monotheism,
whereas interpreting John 1:1c as “a god” would undermine the
singular, unified nature of God by implying multiple deities, which is not
consistent with the biblical text.
@peacefulpete
When discussing the New Testament canon, it’s essential to recognize that
the Church’s role was not to arbitrarily choose a list of books but to discern
which texts were genuinely apostolic and inspired. While early
Christian communities might have had various texts circulating among them, by
the fourth century, a broad consensus had formed about which books were
genuinely inspired and apostolic. This process wasn’t a case of “Catholic
domination” but rather a necessary response to the need for a clear, consistent
set of Scriptures in the face of heretical movements.
The Church fathers—such as Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Athanasius—were
instrumental in this discernment process. They appealed not just to
“proto-orthodox” authority but to apostolic tradition and historical
continuity. The books included in the canon were recognized because
they had been widely used in liturgy, teaching, and theological formation.
Claims of “lost forms” of Christianity ignore that many texts not included in
the canon either lacked apostolic authorship, doctrinal consistency, or
widespread acceptance within the unified Christian community.
The discovery of the Nag Hammadi texts provides insight into various
heretical movements, particularly Gnosticism, but it doesn’t imply that these
writings represent legitimate Christian teaching. The Church’s rejection of
these texts was not a matter of suppressing diversity but maintaining
doctrinal purity. Gnostic texts often contain beliefs that are
incompatible with the foundational teachings of Christ and the apostles. For
instance, they often reject the physical resurrection of Christ, a core
doctrine of Christianity. The Gnostic writings diverge significantly from the
theology of the New Testament, particularly regarding the nature of God,
creation, and salvation.
The Muratorian fragment, though redacted in the eighth century, reflects an earlier
understanding of which books were deemed authoritative. Many scholars
do support a second-century origin for the list, even though the extant version
we have is from later. The Muratorian fragment’s general agreement with the
later canonical list, despite some differences, indicates that there was a
significant consensus on the core books of the New Testament by the second
century.
Moreover, while there was no universal decree in the second century, the
major components of what would become the New Testament canon were already in
widespread use. The fact that there were some disputed books (such as Hebrews
or Revelation) does not mean there was no consensus at all but rather shows the
rigorous process of discernment that the early Church engaged
in. The fourth-century councils of Hippo and Carthage simply affirmed the canon
that had already emerged from this process.
The Church did not “create” the canon out of thin air in the fourth century.
Instead, it recognized and formally affirmed the texts that had been considered
authoritative and inspired within the Christian community for centuries. This
was not an exercise in imposing power but rather a means of safeguarding
apostolic teaching against heretical ideas. The councils that affirmed the
canon did so with the intent of preserving the teachings passed down by the
apostles, not with an agenda of suppressing alternative viewpoints.
The New Testament canon as recognized by the early Church reflects a
consistent, unified message that aligns with the apostolic tradition. Early
councils and Church fathers prioritized continuity with apostolic teaching to
prevent doctrinal fragmentation. The early Christians sought to remain faithful
to the apostles' teachings and not allow Christianity to splinter into
disconnected or contradictory forms. The decision to exclude certain texts
(like Gnostic writings) was based on this fidelity to apostolic teaching,
rather than a mere power play by the “Catholic” form.
In conclusion, the process of canon formation was lengthy and involved
careful discernment, rather than hasty selection or suppression of dissenting
texts. The Church’s role in establishing the canon was not an act of
“domination” but rather a necessary safeguard to ensure that the
Christian faith remained true to the teachings of Jesus and the apostles.
To accept the New Testament canon without acknowledging the Church’s role in
discerning and preserving it is inconsistent, as the same Church preserved the
apostolic faith through its teachings, councils, and liturgy.
