Posts by slimboyfat

405

Is Jesus the Creator?

by Sea Breeze in

that's what the word says.

.

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—all things have been created through him and for him..

slimboyfat

I think it must be. Conspicuous absence of typos too. (Probably ask it to add some now)

405

Is Jesus the Creator?

by Sea Breeze in

that's what the word says.

.

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—all things have been created through him and for him..

slimboyfat

Yeah, hundreds of words in a couple of minutes is not humanly realistic. And still claiming that Hart meant the opposite of what he wrote and said. This is a waste of time.

405

Is Jesus the Creator?

by Sea Breeze in

that's what the word says.

.

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—all things have been created through him and for him..

slimboyfat

Not forgetting that Hart is an Orthodox Christian at all, and he himself believes the Trinity doctrine, this is clear. This makes his comments on John 1.1 all the more interesting. His Trinitarianism apparently doesn’t prevent Hart from dropping the traditional rendering “the Word was God”, stating that “the Logos was a god” is a legitimate rendering, and opting for the rendering “god” in his own translation. He further perceives a development in the gospel of John so that John 20.28 contains a fuller expression of Jesus’ divinity than 1.1. However, even on this point, somewhat surprisingly even to me, Hart concedes during the interview that John 20.28 could be read as an exclamation to God and not addressing Jesus as ho Theos. I’m not saying this is my view, but it illustrates that Hart is not even fully committed to a Trinitarian reading of this verse. It may be uncomfortable for you that a Trinitarian can admit that “a god” and “god” are legitimate. This doesn’t appear to trouble Hart, presumably because he believes God guided the church toward a Trinitarian understanding over the centuries. What is not legitimate is for you to claim that Hart’s Trinitarianism means he cannot say what he says about John 1.1, and about Arius representing the orthodox position and Nicaea representing innovation.

405

Is Jesus the Creator?

by Sea Breeze in

that's what the word says.

.

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—all things have been created through him and for him..

slimboyfat

There is nothing anywhere in those long quotations where Hart advocates for the traditional rendering “the Word was God” as you claimed. It’s as if you think if you use enough words the point will get lost.

Hart’s statement on the translation of John 1:1 in his book Atheist Delusions was as follows:

"As a general rule, the 'articular' form ho Theos—literally, 'the God'—was a title reserved for God Most High or God the Father, while only the 'inarticular' form theos was used to designate this secondary divinity. This distinction, in fact, was preserved in the prologue to John, whose first verse could justly be translated as: 'In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was a god.'"

Hart is opposed to using the adjective “divine”, and he is open to either “god” or “a god” (compare also his translation of John 10.33). In his own translation of John 1.1 he opted for “the Logos was god”. Before you focus on the word “could” in the above quotation, as you inevitably will, in another attempt to distort what he said, it’s notable that he nowhere says that the verse “could justly” be translated “the Word was God”, much less that it is to be preferred. He nowhere:

affirms that the grammatical and theological context of John 1:1 supports the traditional rendering, “the Word was God.”

as you earlier claimed. In fact he wrote, translated, and now interviewed arguing the opposite of that. It’s pure mischief to claim he meant the opposite of what he wrote, translated, and said, just because you find it inconvenient.

405

Is Jesus the Creator?

by Sea Breeze in

that's what the word says.

.

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—all things have been created through him and for him..

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.

405

Is Jesus the Creator?

by Sea Breeze in

that's what the word says.

.

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—all things have been created through him and for him..

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.

405

Is Jesus the Creator?

by Sea Breeze in

that's what the word says.

.

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—all things have been created through him and for him..

slimboyfat

he recognizes the Nicene Creed as a defense of the Church’s understanding of Christ’s divine nature against a theological innovation.

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

405

Is Jesus the Creator?

by Sea Breeze in

that's what the word says.

.

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—all things have been created through him and for him..

slimboyfat

acqwsed you wrote:

While Hart acknowledges diversity in early Christian theology, he does not claim that Arius more faithfully represented the apostolic faith.

This is just wrong. It is difficult to maintain belief in your good faith when you so blatantly distort a source we have both listened to. Hart said that:

“scholars have known this, I mean known that Arius was not some strange, curious anomaly, that he was simply an extreme expression of what was regarded by many as the orthodoxy of centuries, and there is a reason why after the Arian controversy, the controversy continued with the Eunomians and others, you know, bishops and priests still committed to this older view that they thought was the correct view. It was the Nicene party that was proposing a new grammar, you know, even a new word, homoousios, consubstantial, it’s not in scripture, and it wasn’t in previous Christian usage.” (Around 50 minutes into video)

How can you be trusted when you claim Hart meant the opposite of what he said in a source that we both have access to?

405

Is Jesus the Creator?

by Sea Breeze in

that's what the word says.

.

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—all things have been created through him and for him..

slimboyfat

Hart says that Arius represented the traditional view and that Nicene theology was the innovation. He couldn’t be clearer about that. For Hart it apparently doesn’t matter that the early Christians believed in a subordinate Christ rather than the Trintiy of equals because he is prepared to believe in a development of theology. For JWs, of course, what the earliest Christians believed is determinative.

405

Is Jesus the Creator?

by Sea Breeze in

that's what the word says.

.

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—all things have been created through him and for him..

slimboyfat

Yes Jesus is distinguished from God (ho theos) in John 1.1 as a god (theos), described as “the firstborn of all creation” in Col 1.15, and is exalted in Phil 2.5–11 “to the glory of God the Father”. After Nicaea these verses had to be explained as not contradicting the novel doctrine of the Trinity, but earlier Christians took these and other passages at face value as meaning what they said.