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..
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.
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..
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.
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..
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.
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..
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?
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..
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.
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..
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.
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..
Yes, according to David Bentley Hart, and other scholars of the period, the earliest Christians viewed Jesus as subordinate to God, the highest angel. Arius reflected this early tradition better than the Nicene faction who introduced its Trinitarian theology as a later innovation. Hart points out that you can see the change if you read Eusebius before and after the council of Nicaea.
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..
The earliest Christology is angel Christology. This fell away in the fourth century after Nicaea, but the earliest Christians conceived of Jesus as the highest being in service of God, the unique Son. See scholar David Bentley Hart explain this at the 48 minutes mark in this interview
i recall as though it was only 60 years ago, sitting in the kingdom hall on those horrible chairs, learning of the four forms of love: agape, philia, storge and eros.. the watchtower never mentioned pragma.. pragma: this is a committed, compassionate love that often grows as two partners continue to cherish and care for each other.
this type of love is associated with being together for a long time.
in some cases, the passion of eros can grow into pragma over time, this forging a lasting bond.. i think i know why; the watchtower isn't into committed, compassionate, cherishing and caring, are they?.
Is it used in this sense anywhere in the NT? But then, neither does Eros?
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..
According to who? Margaret Barker, the Mormons, and few besides.
The most quoted OT verse in the entire NT is Psalm 110.1 in which YHWH is explicitly distinguished from and superior to the messianic Lord.
