Posts by slimboyfat

406

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

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?

406

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

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.

406

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

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.

406

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 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.

406

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 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.

406

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

Plus the responses take the form: “X might have said Y, but they didn’t mean Y, considering everything, blah blah, they clearly meant Z.” It’s a mince machine that can turn any facts into an argument for the opposite.

What weird times we live in. Where will it end?

406

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)

406

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.

406

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.

406

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.