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

Here’s a dose of your own medicine, aqwabot

To understand John 20:28, we must critically examine the text, its context, and the linguistic arguments that might support an alternative interpretation. While the mainstream interpretation holds that Thomas' declaration ("My Lord and my God") is directed to Jesus, there is a case to be made for understanding this exclamation as praise to God the Father, prompted by the revelation of Jesus' resurrection.

While the construction eipen auto ("he said to Him") appears straightforward, it does not explicitly dictate the object of Thomas' exclamation. In Greek, it is possible for a speaker to address one person while making a statement about another. The phrase could introduce a moment where Thomas expresses awe and reverence toward God the Father, inspired by the revelation Jesus brings as His agent.

In the Jewish context of the time, direct worship of a human figure—no matter how exalted—was unprecedented and controversial. The Shema ("Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one" - Deuteronomy 6:4) formed the bedrock of Jewish monotheism. It would be more natural for Thomas, a devout Jew, to offer his declaration as worship to God the Father, recognizing Jesus' role as the mediator of divine revelation, rather than explicitly identifying Jesus as God.

The use of the nominative case ho kyrios mou kai ho theos mou rather than the vocative is often cited as evidence of direct address. However, it could also indicate a statement of fact or an exclamation of praise rather than direct speech to Jesus. The nominative might reflect a Semitic influence, where declarative exclamations about God are common.

For example, in Psalms (LXX), phrases of praise often use the nominative to refer to God in a declarative, rather than vocative, sense. This reading suggests that Thomas’ words could reflect a sudden recognition of God’s power and presence, manifested through Jesus’ resurrection.

John's Gospel consistently emphasizes Jesus' role as the revealer of the Father (e.g., John 14:9: "Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father"). If we view the Gospel through this lens, Thomas’ declaration might be seen as an acknowledgment of God's presence revealed through Jesus, rather than a direct confession of Jesus as God. This interpretation aligns with the Gospel’s overarching theme of Jesus as the one who points to the Father.

As Hart notes in recounting historical debates, some early interpreters entertained the possibility that Thomas’ exclamation was directed to God the Father. While this view did not dominate early Christian thought, it reflects a strand of interpretation that resists reading too much into a single, ambiguous moment. Recognizing Jesus as Lord (kyrios) and the agent of God does not necessarily equate to identifying Him with God (theos) in the fullest ontological sense.

The author of John often leaves room for multiple layers of meaning. For example, in John 1:1, the Word (logos) is both with God and is a god, a paradox that invites reflection rather than dogmatic closure. Similarly, Thomas’ exclamation could be deliberately ambiguous, functioning as a climax that allows for both a high Christological reading and a recognition of God’s work through Jesus.

While the dominant interpretation of John 20:28 sees Thomas’ words as a direct declaration of Jesus' divinity, a plausible alternative is that the exclamation is directed to God the Father, inspired by Jesus’ resurrection. This interpretation respects the Jewish monotheistic framework and aligns with the Gospel’s portrayal of Jesus as the revealer of the Father. The ambiguity in the grammar and the broader theological context allow for this reading, even if it challenges the traditional consensus.

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

What I said:

3. "Hart allows for the possibility that Thomas is praising God, not Jesus."

What AI bot said:

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.

What Hart says:

Well yeah, it could be a fervent expression of praise of God. I mean that was one of the arguments of the past, among those who said you know, he is not addressing Jesus. And how can you tell? Because it’s not in the vocative. He doesn’t say kyriou mou ke theou mou. So it could be either.

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

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.

AI malfunction. You’ve got it addressing yourself rather than me here. Oops.

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

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?

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

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.

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

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.

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 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.

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 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.

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

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?

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)