Posts by aqwsed12345

posted

408
Is Jesus the Creator?
by Sea Breeze in
1. watchtower
2. bible
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..
aqwsed12345

@Earnest
You point out that the New Testament often uses "Lord Jesus Christ" (Κυρίῳ Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ) rather than "God Jesus Christ" (Θεῷ Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ). However, this distinction does not negate the high Christology evident in the Megiddo inscription. While the exact phrase "God Jesus Christ" is not present in the New Testament, multiple passages affirm Jesus' deity: John 1:1, John 20:28, Romans 9:5, Titus 2:13. These instances show that the title "God" for Jesus was recognized in early Christian worship and theology. In the New Testament, "Lord" (Κύριος) is often used interchangeably with "God" in reference to Jesus. For example, Philippians 2:11 proclaims Jesus as "Lord" in the context of worship, a role reserved for God in Jewish monotheism (Isaiah 45:23). The absence of the specific phrase "God Jesus Christ" in Scripture does not preclude its usage in early Christian inscriptions, especially considering the context of liturgical offerings and theological affirmation.
You acknowledge the grammatical similarity between "God Jesus Christ" (Θεῷ Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ) and "Lord Jesus Christ" (Κυρίῳ Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ). This similarity strengthens the argument that the Megiddo inscription reflects a natural extension of early Christian liturgical language. The use of appositional phrases like "Θεῷ Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ" indicates that "God" and "Jesus Christ" are being identified as one entity, not as distinct. This is consistent with early Christian worship practices, where Christ was addressed directly in prayer and offerings as God. If the inscription intended to separate "God" and "Jesus Christ," we would expect additional grammatical markers (e.g., the conjunction καί) or a genitive construction (e.g., "God of Jesus").
You argue that a "high Christology" did not exist until the fourth century. However, the evidence from early Christian writings and archaeology contradicts this assertion, Ignatius of Antioch repeatedly calls Jesus "our God", the Didache (ca. 50-100 AD) reflects early liturgical practices that treat Jesus as divine, the Epistle of Barnabas (ca. 130 AD) refers to Jesus as pre-existent and divine. The Megiddo mosaic (ca. 230 AD) predates the Council of Nicaea (325 AD), providing material evidence of early Christian worship. The use of nomina sacra (sacred abbreviations like ΘΩ and ΙΥ ΧΥ) was a widespread practice in the second and third centuries, reflecting reverence for Jesus as divine. The claim that early Christianity lacked a unified Christology until the fourth century oversimplifies the historical development of doctrine. While theological terminology evolved, the worship of Jesus as God was an integral part of Christian belief from its inception.
You suggest that the inscription may reflect a modalist (e.g., Sabellian) theology. The phrase "Θεῷ Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ" does not imply modalism. It affirms Jesus' divinity without conflating the persons of the Trinity. The absence of a conjunction like "and" (καί) does not necessitate modalist theology but reflects the appositional style of early Christian liturgical language. The Megiddo inscription is situated in a broader context of early Christian worship. Modalism, while present in some early Christian sects, was not representative of mainstream theology. The use of nomina sacra and the Eucharistic reference in the inscription align with orthodox Christian practices. Modalist inscriptions or texts typically emphasize the unity of God to the exclusion of Trinitarian distinctions. The Megiddo mosaic, by contrast, uses language consistent with early Trinitarian worship.
You argue that early Christianity was "more fluid" and suggest that the group associated with the Megiddo mosaic may have held unorthodox beliefs. While early Christianity experienced theological debates, key doctrines—such as the divinity of Christ—were widely affirmed. The inscription aligns with these core beliefs, as demonstrated by second-century writings and liturgical texts. The offering of a table (likely an altar) "to God Jesus Christ" reflects mainstream Christian liturgical practice, not an isolated or heretical theology.

@slimboyfat
Isaiah 9:6 refers to the Messiah as “Mighty God” (El Gibbor). This title is significant because El Gibbor is also used in Isaiah 10:21 to describe Yahweh. The parallel usage indicates that the Messiah shares in Yahweh's divine identity. To argue that this term implies a lesser deity ignores its usage in describing the one true God. The context of Isaiah 9:6 connects the Messiah with divine titles like "Everlasting Father," which reinforces His deity. This verse is not describing a subordinate or created being but someone who is fully God.
Philippians 2:6-11 affirms that Jesus, though existing "in the form of God" (ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ), did not grasp at equality with God but humbled Himself. The phrase "in the form of God" signifies Jesus' true divine nature, not a representational role. Colossians 1:15-20 describes Jesus as "the image of the invisible God" and the one in whom "all the fullness of deity dwells bodily" (Col. 2:9). The term "fullness of deity" (πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα τῆς θεότητος) signifies the totality of God's nature, not a partial or subordinate aspect.
Worship (προσκυνέω) is consistently directed toward Jesus in the New Testament (e.g., Matthew 28:17, Revelation 5:13-14). This worship would be blasphemous if Jesus were a created being or merely a representative. Revelation 5:13 shows all creation worshiping "the Lamb" alongside "the One who sits on the throne," placing Jesus as an object of worship equal to God.
John 1:1 explicitly states that "the Word was God." The Greek construction (kai theos ēn ho logos) identifies the Word (Jesus) as fully divine while distinguishing Him from the Father. This is not the language of a "mighty spirit creature" or subordinate being but of someone who shares in the very essence of God. Attempts to translate this as "a god" are linguistically flawed and inconsistent with the monotheistic framework of John's Gospel.
Thomas's declaration, “My Lord and my God” (ho kurios mou kai ho theos mou), directly addresses Jesus as God. The Greek grammar makes it clear that Thomas is speaking to Jesus, not merely about Him. Jesus does not correct Thomas, which would have been imperative if this was a misunderstanding, especially in a monotheistic Jewish context. Instead, Jesus affirms Thomas’s belief by saying, "Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."
Thomas's exclamation is a direct address to Jesus. The Greek text is clear: the pronouns "my" (μου) explicitly connect "Lord" and "God" to Jesus himself. There is no indication in the text that Thomas is addressing someone other than Jesus. If the Gospel writer intended Thomas's words to refer to God the Father, it would contradict the entire dramatic buildup to this climactic confession of faith, in which Jesus appears to Thomas, addresses his doubts, and invites him to believe. The use of the vocative case (direct address) reinforces that Thomas is speaking directly to Jesus. The context of the passage does not support the idea that Thomas is addressing God the Father while simultaneously acknowledging Jesus.
While it is true that Roman emperors claimed titles such as "Lord" (Kyrios) and "God" (Theos), the Gospel of John does far more than assert that Jesus is greater than Caesar. John presents Jesus not only as superior to human rulers but as sharing in the divine identity of the one true God. The parallel to Roman imperial titles may highlight the Gospel's polemic against the emperor cult, but it does not exhaust the meaning of Jesus being called "my Lord and my God." The Gospel of John repeatedly presents Jesus as uniquely divine, not merely in opposition to Caesar, but in unity with the Father (e.g., John 1:1–3, 1:14, 5:18, 10:30). The Gospel begins by identifying Jesus as the Word (Logos), who "was with God" and "was God" (John 1:1). This sets the framework for understanding Thomas's confession. Thomas recognizes what has been revealed throughout the Gospel: Jesus is not a mere intermediary or subordinate figure but is truly God.
You cited passages like John 14:28 ("The Father is greater than I") and John 17:3 ("that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent") to argue that Jesus is distinguished from and subordinate to God. Jesus's statement that "the Father is greater than I" refers to his incarnate state. During his earthly ministry, Jesus voluntarily assumed a subordinate role (Philippians 2:6–8). This does not diminish his divine nature but reflects his mission as the incarnate Word who came to serve and redeem humanity. In John 17:3 Jesus distinguishes himself from the Father, consistent with Trinitarian theology, which affirms that the Father and the Son are distinct persons within the Godhead. However, this distinction does not negate their shared divine essence. The phrase "only true God" emphasizes the unique deity of the God of Israel, in contrast to false gods. Jesus, as the Word made flesh, participates fully in this divine identity.
The claim that Thomas's confession must be understood without reference to the later doctrine of the Trinity misunderstands how doctrine develops. The Trinity is not an innovation but a formal articulation of truths already present in the New Testament. The New Testament repeatedly identifies Jesus with divine attributes, titles, and prerogatives. These include his preexistence (John 1:1, Colossians 1:15–17), his authority to forgive sins (Mark 2:5–7), and his receiving of worship (Matthew 28:17, John 9:38). The doctrine of the Trinity was developed to synthesize and clarify the biblical witness to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It does not impose a foreign concept onto Scripture but articulates what is already present in texts like John 20:28.
The analogy comparing the phrase "moon landing" in an early modern text to the theological interpretation of John 20:28 oversimplifies the issue. The doctrine of the Trinity is not a retroactive imposition but a systematic theological explanation of what Scripture reveals. The context of John 20:28 already supports Thomas's confession as a declaration of Jesus's divinity. This is consistent with John's overarching purpose: "that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name" (John 20:31). Christian theology recognizes that the fullness of God's nature was progressively revealed. The Trinity is a conclusion drawn from the entirety of Scripture, not an anachronistic addition.
Hebrews 1:8 quotes Psalm 45:6, applying it directly to the Son: "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever." The writer of Hebrews uses this verse to establish the Son’s divine kingship and eternal nature. This is not the language of a subordinate representative but of a co-eternal and co-equal divine being.
The argument that Moses and angels are also called "gods" (e.g., Exodus 7:1; Psalm 82:6) fails to consider the context and qualitative difference in how Jesus is described. Moses is called "a god" to Pharaoh in a metaphorical sense, representing God's authority temporarily. Psalm 82 refers to corrupt human judges who are ironically called "gods" but are condemned to die like men. In contrast, Jesus is not just called God; He is worshiped (Matthew 28:17; Revelation 5:12-14), He forgives sins (Mark 2:5-7), and He is identified as Creator (John 1:3; Colossians 1:16). The examples of Moses being called "god" in Exodus 4:16 and 7:1 are not parallel to the way Jesus is called "God" in the New Testament. Moses is never worshiped, nor is he described as possessing divine attributes or participating in the creation of the world.
It is true that Jesus refers to the Father as “my God” (John 20:17, Revelation 3:12). This reflects His incarnational role and His relationship with the Father during His earthly ministry, not an ontological subordination. Philippians 2:6-11 explains this: Jesus, being in the form of God, voluntarily "emptied himself" and took on human nature. His reference to the Father as "my God" reflects His humanity and role as the mediator (1 Timothy 2:5) while not negating His divine nature.
The claim that Jesus’ divinity was a later invention ignores the evidence from early Christian writings and councils, which sought to clarify, not invent, the Church’s understanding of Scripture. Early Church Fathers like Ignatius of Antioch explicitly referred to Jesus as God: “For our God, Jesus Christ, was conceived by Mary…”. The councils of the fourth and fifth centuries affirmed this understanding in response to heretical challenges like Arianism, which denied Christ’s full deity
Justin Martyr and Origen used language that reflects their attempts to explain the relationship between the Father and the Son in the framework of Greek philosophy. However, their writings, especially when read in context, affirm the Son’s full divinity. Origen’s term "second god" is a reflection of his subordinationist tendencies, but even he never argued that Jesus was a mere creature. Instead, he affirmed the eternal pre-existence of the Son.
Justin Martyr's use of "god" (θεός) for Jesus alongside "angel" (ἄγγελος) does not imply ontological subordination. Rather, Justin explains that Jesus is "another God" in the sense of being distinct from the Father, yet He participates fully in divine nature. This reflects the early Christian distinction between the Father and the Son within the unity of the Godhead, not a denial of Jesus' full divinity. Origen's term "second God" (δεύτερος θεός) is often misunderstood. While Origen acknowledges the Son's distinction from the Father, he explicitly states that the Son is of the same divine essence as the Father and eternally generated from Him. Origen does not teach that Jesus is a mere creature but affirms His participation in the eternal Godhead.
The description of Jesus as God’s "chief agent" misrepresents the biblical testimony. Jesus is not merely an agent or a representative; He is the eternal Word through whom all things were created (John 1:3; Colossians 1:16). He shares in the divine nature (Colossians 2:9) and is one with the Father (John 10:30). The Bible consistently attributes divine prerogatives to Jesus that are never given to created beings.
408
Is Jesus the Creator?
by Sea Breeze in
1. watchtower
2. bible
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..
aqwsed12345
@Duran
While Jesus never explicitly says, "I am the Creator," the New Testament authors, inspired by the Holy Spirit, consistently affirm this truth. Rejecting their testimony as "outsiders" is problematic because their writings are part of the canonical Scripture, recognized as the Word of God. In John 1:1-3 Jesus (the Word) is explicitly identified as the agent of creation. This is not a vague statement but a direct affirmation of Jesus’ active role in the creation of everything that exists. In Colossians 1:16-17 Paul, another inspired writer, attributes all creation to Jesus. The phrase "all things were created through him and for him" demonstrates both Jesus' role as Creator and His divine purpose in creation. In Hebrews 1:2-3 the writer affirms that God the Father created the world through the Son, and the Son sustains the universe. Hebrews 1:10 speaks for itself.
Proverbs 8:30, which speaks of wisdom as a "master worker," is often interpreted by non-Trinitarian groups as referring to Jesus. However, this passage personifies wisdom in a poetic manner, and its direct application to Jesus is debated. Even if one assumes it refers to Christ, it does not negate His role as Creator. Being a "master worker" implies active involvement in creation alongside the Father. Moreover, if one insists that Proverbs 8:30 refers to Jesus, it only strengthens the argument for His divine involvement in creation, as the "master worker" is not a passive observer but an active agent in the creative process.
Jesus often acknowledges the Father’s overarching authority and role, as seen in Matthew 6:26. However, Jesus’ acknowledgment of the Father does not diminish His own divine role. Instead, it reflects the relational dynamic within the Trinity. 1 Corinthians 8:6 highlights the cooperative roles of the Father and the Son in creation. The Father is the source of creation ("from whom"), and the Son is the agent ("through whom"). There is no contradiction but harmony in their roles.
Dismissing John and Paul as "outsiders" misunderstands their role as divinely inspired authors. Jesus Himself appointed the apostles and promised them guidance through the Holy Spirit (John 14:26). Paul, though not one of the original Twelve, was chosen by Jesus (Acts 9:15). Their writings carry the full weight of divine authority and are integral to understanding who Jesus is.
The argument that Jesus never explicitly claimed to be the Creator fails to consider the broader biblical witness. Jesus didn’t explicitly claim many things in His earthly ministry, such as being the high priest or the fulfillment of Melchizedek's order (see Hebrews 7), but these truths are revealed in Scripture. Similarly, the apostles’ testimony about Jesus as Creator reflects a fuller revelation of His identity.
The Trinity does not teach that Jesus acts independently of the Father. Instead, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit work in perfect unity. Jesus as the Creator does not diminish the Father’s role as the source of creation. Rather, the Father creates through the Son (John 1:3; Hebrews 1:2).
You claim that Paul's statement in Galatians 1:12 refers only to the good news and not to "the history of the universe." This is true insofar as Paul's statement focuses on the gospel, but the gospel itself encompasses profound theological truths, including the identity and role of Jesus Christ as Creator. Paul’s revelation aligns with the rest of Scripture, which describes Jesus' preexistence and divine role in creation (Colossians 1:16, John 1:3). To suggest that Paul's revelation excludes such truths is an artificial limitation not supported by the text. The gospel Paul received was a complete revelation about Jesus Christ, including His preexistence, deity, and work in creation.
You state that Genesis 1:26 refers to Jehovah speaking to "another," who you believe is the Son. However, the text explicitly uses plural pronouns ("us," "our"), which suggests a plurality within the divine nature, the Godhead. This plurality is consistent with the Trinitarian understanding of God: one essence in three persons. Moreover, Genesis 1 consistently refers to "God" (Elohim), a plural form in Hebrew, which reinforces the concept of a plurality within the Godhead. The New Testament clarifies that Jesus was actively involved in creation (John 1:3, Colossians 1:16). Genesis 2’s use of "Yahweh God" (YHWH Elohim) does not exclude Jesus; it reflects the unified action of the Godhead. The separation and sharp contrast between Yahweh and Jesus you propose is not supported by the broader biblical context.
You argue that "firstborn" indicates Jesus was created, but this misinterprets the Greek term prototokos (πρωτότοκος), which means "preeminent" or "having supremacy." It does not imply that Jesus is a created being. Instead, Paul uses this term to affirm Jesus’ rank and authority over creation. The context of Colossians 1:16-17 dispels the notion that Jesus is part of creation. If Jesus created "all things," He cannot be part of creation. To assert otherwise would contradict the text.
The title "Son of God" does not imply that Jesus was created. In Jewish and biblical thought, "son" often denotes a unique relationship rather than temporal origin. For instance, in John 10:30-33, Jesus’ claim to be the Son of God was understood as a claim to equality with God, prompting the Jewish leaders to accuse Him of blasphemy. Additionally Hebrews 1:3 and John 1:1-2 affirm Jesus' eternal nature and equality with the Father.
You claim that Genesis 2 does not mention Jesus as giving life, but the New Testament provides the full picture. Jesus’ role as Creator and sustainer of life is affirmed in John 1:4 and Hebrews 1:10-12. The assertion that the Father alone created excludes the full biblical revelation of the Godhead’s unified work in creation.
Trinitarians do not "elevate Jesus" to diminish the Father but affirm what Scripture reveals: the equality of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit within the one divine essence. The Trinity is not a contradiction but a mystery grounded in biblical testimony. Your assertion that Jesus was created to "make Him the Son of God" overlooks that Jesus is uniquely the "only begotten Son" (monogenēs, John 3:16), signifying His eternal relationship with the Father, not temporal creation.
You suggest that since God cannot die, Jesus cannot be God. The doctrine of the Incarnation teaches that Jesus is fully God and fully man. While His divine nature is eternal and cannot die, His human nature could and did experience death. This is the mystery and beauty of the Incarnation: God the Son took on human flesh to experience death on behalf of humanity (Philippians 2:7-8; Hebrews 2:9). Even in death, Jesus’ divine nature remained fully active, sustaining the universe (Colossians 1:17). His resurrection vindicated His victory over death and affirmed His divine power.
The claim that Jesus did not resurrect Himself because He was dead, and you interpretation of John 2:19-21 misrepresents both the biblical text and theological understanding. Psalm 115:17 highlights that the dead, in their earthly state, cannot engage in acts like praising God. However, this does not address the unique situation of Jesus, who is not merely a human being but also the eternal Son of God. Jesus’ resurrection is a divine act, one that He explicitly claims in John 2:19 and affirms elsewhere in Scripture. His divine nature (as God) is not subject to death, even though His human nature experienced it. Therefore, while His human body was in the grave, His divine power remained active, and He was able to raise Himself.
In John 2:19, Jesus explicitly says, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” While the Jews misunderstood this as referring to the physical temple in Jerusalem, the Gospel clarifies that Jesus was speaking about the temple of His body (John 2:21). The phrase "I will raise it up" is a first-person statement by Jesus. If He didn’t mean He would participate in His own resurrection, He could have said, "It will be raised." Instead, He took ownership of the act. The claim that Jesus didn’t predict His own resurrection simply misrepresents the text.
The context of John 2 and the consistent testimony of the Gospels indicate that Jesus referred to His physical resurrection. His statement connects directly to His bodily resurrection, as John explicitly clarifies in John 2:21. Additionally in Luke 24:39 Jesus affirms His physical resurrection by showing His disciples His physical body, not a spiritualized or symbolic resurrection. In John 20:27 Jesus invites Thomas to touch His wounds, further demonstrating the physical nature of His resurrection. The idea of a "spiritual temple" is a theological concept tied to the Church as the Body of Christ (1 Cor. 3:16), but it does not negate the literal, physical resurrection of Jesus’ body. Your assertion that "Jesus' body was not raised" directly contradicts multiple New Testament passages (John 20:27, Romans 8:11, 1 Corinthians 15:4, Acts 2:31). To deny the bodily resurrection of Jesus is to contradict the core teaching of the New Testament and the faith of the early Church.
The New Testament attributes Jesus’ resurrection to God the Father (e.g., Acts 2:24, Gal. 1:1), to the Holy Spirit (e.g., Rom. 8:11), and to Jesus Himself (e.g., John 2:19, John 10:17-18). These are not contradictory but complementary statements reflecting the Trinitarian understanding of God’s unified work in redemption. Jesus, as God, has the authority to take His life and raise it up again: See also John 10:17-18. Thus, Jesus’ resurrection is a Trinitarian act. Jesus, being fully divine, has the power to take up His life again (John 10:18), demonstrating His equality with the Father.
In John 10:17-18, Jesus states that He lays down His life and takes it up again by His own authority. He then adds that this authority is given to Him by the Father. Far from undermining Jesus' deity, this highlights the unity and harmony of the Father and the Son in the divine plan of salvation. The phrase, "This command I received from my Father", underscores the relational order between the Father and the Son in the Trinity. It reflects the Son's willing submission to the Father, which is consistent with the Trinitarian understanding: the Son and the Father are distinct persons but share the same divine nature and will.
The statement, "I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again," is critical. No mere human could claim such authority over life and death; it underscores Jesus’ divine power. The phrase shows that Jesus' death was voluntary and purposeful, not forced upon Him, and His resurrection was not dependent on external forces but was an act of divine power, which He possesses as God. This is consistent with other scriptures (John 2:19, Philippians 2:8-9). Thus, John 10:17-18 reinforces, rather than refutes, the doctrine of the Trinity. The Son operates with divine authority, fully aligned with the Father’s will. The "command" from the Father is not evidence of inferiority but of relational distinction and unity within the Godhead. Jesus’ power to take up His life after death demonstrates His divine nature.
Paul’s reception of the Gospel directly from Christ in Galatians 1:12 does not conflict with Jesus’ role as Creator or His resurrection power (Colossians 1:16, John 1:3). Paul’s theology consistently affirms Jesus’ divine nature and creative authority. His role as Creator emphasizes His divine power, including His ability to raise Himself from the dead.
You suggest that because Jesus says His authority was "given" to Him, He cannot be equal to God. Additionally, you cite John 14:28, where Jesus says, "The Father is greater than I," as evidence that Jesus is ontologically inferior to the Father. In Matthew 28:18:Jesus declares His universal authority after His resurrection, demonstrating His victory over sin, death, and the devil. The phrase "has been given" reflects His role in the economy of salvation, where the Son voluntarily took on human nature and subordinated Himself to the Father’s will for the purpose of redeeming humanity (Philippians 2:6-11). This voluntary subordination does not negate His divine nature but rather underscores His humility and mission.
In John 14:28 the statement "The Father is greater than I" reflects Jesus’ earthly ministry, where He operated in His human nature and voluntarily submitted to the Father. In His divine nature, Jesus is fully equal to the Father (John 1:1; Philippians 2:6). The Church has long affirmed that this statement pertains to Jesus’ human nature, not a denial of His deity. The doctrine of the Trinity teaches that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are co-equal in essence but distinct in their relational roles. The Father sends the Son, and the Son carries out the mission, which reflects an order of operations (economy) but not an inequality in deity.
You argue that the statement "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30) merely reflects unity of purpose and not equality in essence, citing Jesus’ prayer in John 17 for believers to be "one." The immediate context indicates more than unity of purpose. In verse 28, Jesus declares His ability to give eternal life, a divine prerogative. In verse 29, He asserts that no one can snatch His sheep out of the Father’s hand or His own hand, demonstrating co-equal authority. The Jewish audience understood this claim as a declaration of deity, as evidenced by their attempt to stone Him for blasphemy (John 10:33). While John 17 does speak of believers being "one," this is not in the same ontological sense as the unity of the Father and Son. Believers share spiritual unity with God and one another, but they do not share the divine essence. The unity between the Father and Son, however, is intrinsic and essential, as Jesus is "the exact imprint of [God’s] nature" (Hebrews 1:3).
You cite 1 Corinthians 11:3 ("the head of Christ is God") to argue that Jesus is ontologically subordinate and not part of a co-equal Trinity. This verse reflects the relational roles within the Trinity, particularly during Christ’s earthly ministry. The Son willingly submits to the Father in function, not in essence. The analogy of headship in 1 Corinthians 11 also addresses human relationships (man and woman), where headship implies order, not inequality (Galatians 3:28).
The argument that Jesus having a "God" (as seen in John 20:17) somehow disqualifies Him from being God Himself or part of the Trinity reflects a misunderstanding of the incarnation and the relationship between the Father and the Son within the framework of the Trinity. When Jesus refers to "my God," it reflects His role as fully human during the Incarnation. In the Incarnation, the Son took on human nature (Philippians 2:6-8), fully experiencing the limitations of humanity, including dependence on and submission to God the Father. According to John 1:14 Jesus, the eternal Word, became fully human without ceasing to be fully divine. According to Hebrews 2:17 Jesus assumed a real human nature to accomplish His redemptive work. As a man, Jesus perfectly exemplified reliance on and obedience to the Father, modeling for humanity what a proper relationship with God should look like. His acknowledgment of the Father as "my God" is consistent with this role.
The Trinity teaches that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are distinct persons who share the same divine essence. Jesus calling the Father "my God" does not contradict His deity. Within the Trinity, the Son eternally proceeds from the Father, not as a created being, but as an eternal relationship of origin. This relational dynamic allows for Jesus, in His human nature, to address the Father as "my God" without denying His own deity. While equal in essence, the persons of the Trinity fulfill different roles in the economy of salvation. The Son submits to the Father (1 Corinthians 15:28) to accomplish His mission of redemption, but this submission does not imply inferiority in nature or essence.
The Bible repeatedly affirms Jesus’ divine nature alongside His humanity (John 1:1, Colossians 2:9, John 20:28). If Jesus were not God, His acceptance of worship and the divine titles given to Him in Scripture would be inappropriate and blasphemous.
Jesus’ statement in John 20:17 emphasizes two key truths. First, Jesus differentiates between "my Father" and "your Father." His relationship with the Father is unique as the eternal Son of God, while the disciples are children of God through adoption (Galatians 4:4-5). Second, by calling the Father "my God," Jesus emphasizes His solidarity with His human brothers and sisters. This reinforces His role as the mediator between God and humanity (1 Timothy 2:5).
Jesus referring to "my God and your God" does not place Him on the same level as His brothers in essence or nature. Instead, it underscores that Jesus bridges the gap between humanity and God. He relates to the Father as "God" on behalf of humanity while remaining one in essence with the Father as God Himself. As believers, we worship the one true God, revealed as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Jesus’ words invite His disciples into this shared relationship with the Father.
Thus, the statement in John 20:17 does not deny Jesus' deity but highlights His dual nature as fully God and fully man. In His human nature, Jesus acknowledges the Father as "my God," consistent with His role in the Incarnation and the Trinity. This verse, far from disproving the Trinity, fits seamlessly within its framework, affirming both the relational distinctions and the unity of the Godhead.

@Earnest
The phrase in question reads:
"The God-loving Akeptous has offered the table to God Jesus Christ as a memorial."
The inscription uses the dative forms, Θεῷ (Theō) and Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ (Iēsou Christō), to indicate the recipient of the offering. The dative case and lack of a coordinating conjunction like καί (and) strongly imply that Theō (God) and Iēsou Christō (Jesus Christ) are being presented as appositional—that is, "God Jesus Christ." The use of abbreviated sacred names with horizontal bars (nomina sacra) unites the terms Θεῷ (Theō), Ἰησοῦ (Iēsou), and Χριστῷ (Christō) as a theological formula referring to Jesus Christ's divine identity. This abbreviation practice was prevalent in early Christian texts to denote sacred terms.
The mosaic dates to approximately 230 CE, predating the Council of Nicaea (325 CE) and thus serves as an independent witness to early Christian theology. The clear ascription of deity to Jesus Christ in the inscription aligns with early Christian practices and writings. For example, second-century authors like Ignatius of Antioch explicitly referred to Jesus as God in phrases like "our God Jesus Christ." The inscription's reference to a "table" likely pertains to the Eucharistic altar, reinforcing a theological setting where Jesus is worshiped as divine.
If the phrase was intended to separate God from Jesus Christ, we would expect more explicit syntactic markers, such as the addition of καί (and) or clearer grammatical distinctions. Other early Christian inscriptions and texts consistently use similar formulas to affirm the divine identity of Jesus, providing strong evidence for the unity of "God Jesus Christ" as the intended meaning here.
The crux of your argument lies in the claim that Ἰησοῦ (Iesou) being in the genitive means “God of Jesus” and not “God Jesus Christ.” In Greek, it is common for appositional constructions to involve cases like the genitive or dative. For example, when referring to “God Jesus Christ,” the nominative would not necessarily be required. Instead, apposition allows for Θεῷ (God, in the dative) to be followed by Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ (Jesus Christ, also in the dative, with “Jesus” in the genitive modifying “Christ”). This interpretation fits well with the inscription’s intended theological emphasis: “to God (namely) Jesus Christ.” The genitive Ἰησοῦ modifies Χριστῷ, not Θεῷ, making it read naturally as a single unit: "Jesus Christ."
Early Christian texts often use apposition to clarify divine titles. For example, in the New Testament, John 20:28 states, “ὁ Κύριός μου καὶ ὁ Θεός μου” (My Lord and my God), where apposition identifies “Lord” and “God” as the same entity. The phrase “God of Jesus” would typically require a construction like ὁ Θεός τοῦ Ἰησοῦ, not the phrasing seen here. This specific construction in the mosaic does not include the article τοῦ, which would make the genitive relational (“of Jesus”). Furthermore, Θεῷ Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ aligns with early Christian liturgical language, where dative cases frequently denote the recipient of offerings or prayers. The genitive here functions adjectivally or possessively, modifying the compound name Jesus Christ, not separating Jesus from God.
The use of ΘΩ, ΙΥ, ΧΥ demonstrates a unified theological formula. This shorthand was specifically designed to express divinity and sacredness, often applied collectively to names and titles like “Jesus Christ” and “God.” In this context, the abbreviation underscores the identification of Jesus Christ with God, as part of an early Christian declaration of faith. The absence of καί (and) further strengthens the unity of “God Jesus Christ” in the inscription. If the intent was to separate “God” and “Jesus Christ,” the writer could have easily included a conjunction for clarity. The lack of καί supports an appositional reading.
The genitive case for "Jesus" is τοῦ Ἰησοῦ (toû Iēsoû), and the dative case can appear as either τῷ Ἰησοῖ (tôi Iēsoî) or Ἰησοῦ (Iēsoû), depending on the form. The phrase in the mosaic, Θεῷ Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ (Theō Iēsou Christō), uses:
- Θεῷ (Theō): dative, meaning “to God.”
- Ἰησοῦ (Iēsou): in this case, the shorter dative form of Jesus.
- Χριστῷ (Christō): dative, meaning “to Christ.”
This means all three terms are in the dative case. Ἰησοῦ here is not in the genitive case but in its alternative dative form. In some instances, Greek uses the shorter Ἰησοῦ instead of the longer Ἰησοῖ as the dative. This occurs in some Koine Greek texts, especially in inscriptions and manuscripts, where space was limited. The same phenomenon occurs in New Testament manuscripts (e.g., John 1:17 uses Ἰησοῦ in the dative, meaning "through Jesus Christ"). As part of nomina sacra, sacred names were abbreviated and often lacked accents or breathings. This simplification supports the idea that Ἰησοῦ is the dative here, as nomina sacra frequently omit such distinctions when abbreviating divine titles.
Thus, the phrase Θεῷ Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ translates as:
- "To God Jesus Christ."
The structure does not separate “God” and “Jesus Christ”. Instead, it forms an appositional phrase:
- Θεῷ: "to God."
- Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ: Further identifies the God being referenced, namely, "Jesus Christ."
If the inscription had intended to say “to the God of Jesus”, it would require the genitive case τοῦ Ἰησοῦ (toû Iēsou). The absence of τοῦ confirms that Ἰησοῦ is in the dative case, not the genitive.
The argument for translating the phrase as “to the God of Jesus” relies on a misunderstanding of the dative case of Ἰησοῦ (mistaking it for genitive), and the absence of τοῦ, which is necessary for a genitive construction like "the God of Jesus." If the inscription intended to separate "God" and "Jesus Christ" into two distinct entities, it would have required the addition of a conjunction like καί (and) or a proper genitive structure (e.g., Θεῷ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ). Neither is present here. So the term Ἰησοῦ in the mosaic is the dative case, not genitive.
The mosaic dates to a period when early Christians widely recognized Jesus as God. Second-century texts, such as those by Ignatius of Antioch, refer to “our God Jesus Christ” (e.g., Ignatius to the Ephesians). This shows that the theological identification of Jesus as God was well-established before Constantine. While later Byzantine inscriptions might prefer phrases like “Lord Jesus Christ” or “Christ our God,” this reflects evolving liturgical language, not a rejection of earlier Christological formulations. The mosaic’s phrasing aligns with pre-Constantinian Christian expressions.
The phrase “God of Jesus” implies a subordinate relationship inconsistent with the high Christology evidenced in early Christian writings and liturgy. For example, in Philippians 2:6-11, Paul describes Jesus as being “in the form of God” and receiving worship, indicating equality with God. Early Christian texts and inscriptions often use similar phrasing to emphasize the deity of Christ. For example the Rylands Papyrus (P52) uses the nomina sacra to express divine titles without ambiguity. Other inscriptions referring to “God Jesus Christ” lack the relational connotation implied by “God of Jesus.”
The presence of a Roman centurion (Gaianus) and other inscriptions commemorating women does not detract from the theological focus of the main inscription. The inclusion of such figures reflects the mosaic’s communal and liturgical significance rather than diminishing its Christological implications. Claims about the larger spacing between Θεῷ and Ἰησοῦ are speculative. Variations in spacing are common in ancient inscriptions and do not necessarily reflect a theological or grammatical distinction.
Based on the linguistic, historical, and theological evidence, the most natural translation of the inscription is:
“The God-loving Akeptous has offered the table to God Jesus Christ as a memorial.”
This translation accounts for the appositional structure of the dative phrases, respects the theological unity expressed by the nomina sacra, and reflects early Christian worship and belief in the deity of Jesus Christ.
The assertion that the Megiddo mosaic does not call Jesus "God" relies on speculative interpretations of spacing and an a priori theological bias. The linguistic, historical, and theological evidence overwhelmingly supports the traditional reading: the mosaic explicitly identifies Jesus Christ as God. This interpretation aligns with the broader context of early Christian worship and belief, as well as with the New Testament and other early inscriptions.
The suggestion that the inscription should be translated as “God of Jesus and to Christ” misinterprets the Greek grammar and theological context. The use of the genitive Ἰησοῦ does not necessitate a relational reading (“God of Jesus”) but instead modifies the compound title “Jesus Christ” within an appositional phrase. The argument for "God of Jesus" misinterprets the grammar and fails to account for the absence of genitive markers or conjunctions. Instead, the mosaic reflects early Christian worship of Jesus as divine, consistent with both the New Testament and other early inscriptions. The inscription is a clear declaration of Jesus’ deity, consistent with early Christian theology and liturgical practice.
51
Theocratic Warfare and Taqiyya
by aqwsed12345 in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
the concept of strategic deception exists in several religious and ideological contexts.

in this article, we will explore and compare the theocratic warfare doctrine of the watchtower society and taqiyya in islam.

both concepts have parallels in their mechanisms of permitting deception for religious purposes but differ significantly in their application and historical roots.. 1. theocratic warfare: the "rahab method".
aqwsed12345

https://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/quotes/theocratic-warfare-lying.php
https://quotes-watchtower.co.uk/lie.html
"From time to time letters are received asking whether a certain circumstance would justify making an exception to the Christian’s obligation to tell the truth. In reply to these the following is given: God’s Word commands: “Speak truth each of you with his neighbor.” ... There is one exception, however, that the Christian must ever bear in mind. As a soldier of Christ he is in theocratic warfare and he must exercise added caution when dealing with God’s foes. Thus the Scriptures show that for the purpose of protecting the interests of God’s cause, it is proper to hide the truth from God’s enemies. A Scriptural example of this is that of Rahab the harlot. She hid the Israelite spies because of her faith in their God Jehovah. This she did both by her actions and by her lips. That she had Jehovah’s approval in doing so is seen from James’ commendation of her faith." Watchtower 1960 Jun 1 pp.351,352 Questions From Readers
"The faithful witness does not commit perjury when testifying. His testimony is not tainted with lies. However, this does not mean that he is under obligation to give full information to those who may want to bring harm to Jehovah's people in some way. The patriarchs Abraham and Isaac withheld facts from some who did not worship Jehovah. (Genesis 12:10-19; 20:1-18; 26:1-10) Rahab of Jericho misdirected the king's men. (Joshua 2:1-7) Jesus Christ himself refrained from divulging total information when doing so would have caused needless harm. (John 7:1-10) He said: "Do not give what is holy to dogs, neither throw your pearls before swine." Why not? So that "they may never . . . turn around and rip you open."—Matthew 7:6." Watchtower 2004 Nov 15 p.28
But isn’t it still perjury?!

Perjury involves false statements under oath that are material to a legal proceeding. If Jehovah's Witnesses were under oath and withheld or misrepresented information material to the proceeding, it could meet this criterion. However, their teachings emphasize not lying under oath but suggest withholding information when deemed "appropriate". This could potentially be viewed as evasive but not necessarily perjury unless the omission directly affects the adjudication of a case.

For perjury, the declarant must knowingly make a false statement. If Jehovah's Witnesses omit information but do not provide factually false testimony, they may not fulfill this criterion. Courts often distinguish between literal truth and deliberate attempts to mislead (as in Bronston v. United States), where evasive but truthful answers do not constitute perjury.

Perjury requires the intent to deceive the court by asserting a falsehood under oath. Theocratic warfare doctrine might reflect intent to protect organizational interests but does not necessarily equate to intent to deceive the court unless a falsehood is knowingly stated.

Perjury applies when statements are made under an oath to tell the truth. The cited doctrine underscores the obligation to tell the truth under oath, making outright lies less likely. However, withholding information might lead to obstruction of justice if it hinders an investigation or proceeding.

If Jehovah’s Witnesses withhold information but do not make a factually false statement under oath, their actions do not meet the strict definition of perjury. Deliberately withholding information or being evasive in ways that materially affect a legal proceeding could be prosecuted under laws related to obstruction of justice or contempt, depending on jurisdiction. While their doctrine may justify withholding information in certain contexts, this could conflict with broader societal expectations for truthfulness and transparency in legal settings.

Oath:

Do you solemnly (swear/affirm) that you will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

The phrase "the whole truth" in the oath encompasses the expectation that a witness will disclose all relevant information that pertains to the case, not just provide truthful statements selectively. Withholding information intentionally, even without stating a falsehood, may violate the commitment to tell "the whole truth." The phrase requires not only that the statements made are factually correct but also that no relevant information is omitted. It obligates the witness to provide a complete and accurate account of the facts material to the case. Intentionally withholding information that is relevant to the proceeding could be considered a breach of this part of the oath.

The doctrine described emphasizes that it is acceptable to withhold information from those not deemed “entitled” to it. However, when under oath, the expectation under law is to fully comply with the promise to disclose all material facts, regardless of personal or organizational considerations. Failure to do so might not constitute perjury (which requires a deliberate falsehood), but it could still undermine the integrity of the legal process and potentially lead to accusations of obstruction of justice or contempt of court.

Courts take the "whole truth" requirement seriously, as partial disclosures or evasions can distort justice. If the omission is significant enough to materially affect the outcome of the case, it may be treated as a serious violation. While theocratic strategy might morally justify withholding information within the organization’s framework, it does not align with the legal standards required by the oath.

Failing to disclose relevant information under oath violates the commitment to tell "the whole truth", even if no explicit falsehood is stated. This omission could result in legal consequences, as the oath obligates a witness to fully disclose all pertinent facts, not just selected truths.
20
Defend Your Borders or Listen to the Watchtower?
by raymond frantz in
1. watchtower
2. bible
https://youtu.be/dnoww-4jfao?si=ehzmc5-gxqukgn7q.

with ww3 on the horizon the watchtower is bringing out their best hits on the issue of neutrality and the latest instalment on jw.org with stephen lett has the theme " why ancient israelites were allowed to go to war but as a christian you can't " or to paraphrase for a 2024 audience " why the modern state of israel is allowed all the nuclear weapons to defend their borders but you as a western european or north american you aren't supposed to compliant against open border policies and uncontrolled illegal migration" isn't that the exact same rhetoric or is it my imagination?

so one of stephen lett's go to arguments is that christians do not take up arms because we don't live in ancient times where israelites had a mandate to occupy the holy land where as we gentile christians we don't.
aqwsed12345

@Duran
You attempt to conflate various apocalyptic passages—primarily from Daniel, Revelation, and 2 Thessalonians—into a single, unified eschatological narrative. However, this approach results in several interpretive errors, including misreading the texts, conflating distinct figures and events, and failing to consider the broader biblical and theological contexts of these passages.
The assertion that the "dashing to pieces" of the power of the holy people aligns directly with the 42 months of Revelation 13 is speculative and ignores the context of Daniel. Daniel 12:7 speaks about the persecution and suffering of God’s people, which will culminate in the fulfillment of God’s purposes. The phrase "time, times, and half a time" often symbolizes a period of intense trial (cf. Daniel 7:25). However, there is no indication that this must correspond exactly to the 42 months in Revelation 13. The contexts of Daniel and Revelation are different: Daniel addresses the plight of the Jewish people under oppressive regimes, while Revelation deals with the Church's trials in the face of global opposition. The phrase "dashing to pieces" symbolizes the oppression and apparent defeat of God’s people, not necessarily their literal destruction. In apocalyptic literature, such imagery often conveys the testing and purification of the faithful. The focus is not on a rigid timeline but on God’s sovereignty in bringing His plans to completion.
The claim that the 42 months of Revelation 13 specifically describe the tribulation of the "chosen ones" and the "great crowd" (GC) under the 8th King is an oversimplification. In Revelation 13:5, 7, 10 the 42 months symbolize a period during which the beast exercises authority and persecutes the saints. However, Revelation uses symbolic language to depict spiritual realities, not to present a precise chronological framework. The focus is on the endurance and faithfulness of believers, not on establishing a specific geopolitical timeline. The MOTB is a symbol of allegiance to the beast's system, contrasting with the seal of God on His faithful. Revelation does not equate the MOTB with an explicit "apostasy" led by the Man of Lawlessness (MOL). The two concepts are distinct: the MOTB reflects allegiance to the beast, while apostasy (in 2 Thessalonians 2) refers to a falling away from faith.
The argument that the MOL and the 8th King are the same figure lacks textual support and misreads the relevant passages. The MOL (2 Thessalonians 2:3-12) is described as a figure who exalts himself above all gods and takes a seat in God’s temple, symbolizing spiritual rebellion and deception. This figure operates within the realm of false religion and apostasy, leading many astray. Paul’s focus is on a spiritual rebellion rather than a geopolitical power like the 8th King. The 8th King (Revelation 17) symbolizes a collective manifestation of earthly powers in opposition to God’s kingdom. It is tied to the beast and the harlot Babylon, representing a global system of rebellion rather than a single individual. While both the MOL and the 8th King oppose God, their roles and contexts differ. The MOL is linked to spiritual deception within the Church (a falling away), whereas the 8th King represents global political and economic oppression. Equating them oversimplifies the complexity of apocalyptic symbolism.
The argument that apostasy refers exclusively to supporting the 8th King and taking the MOTB is inconsistent with the biblical use of the term. Paul uses "apostasy" in 2 Thessalonians 2 to describe a deliberate departure from true faith, instigated by the MOL’s deception. This is not equivalent to taking the MOTB in Revelation, which is a mark of allegiance to the beast's global power. The Bible does not equate the apostasy described in 2 Thessalonians with the MOTB or support for the 8th King. Apostasy involves rejecting God’s truth, whereas the MOTB signifies submission to worldly systems. These are related concepts but not identical.
The claim that the primary basis for judgment is whether one supports or rejects the 8th King oversimplifies Revelation’s eschatology. Revelation 14:6-10 emphasize the eternal gospel and the consequences of worshiping the beast and receiving its mark. However, Revelation’s broader message is about allegiance to God versus allegiance to worldly powers. Judgment is based on faithfulness to God, not merely opposition to the 8th King. In Revelation 19:20-21 the destruction of the beast and its followers reflects God’s ultimate triumph over evil. However, Revelation also describes the final judgment of all humanity (cf. Revelation 20:11-15), which encompasses more than allegiance to the beast.
The claim that Jesus, as the stone in Daniel 2, destroys the 8th King conflates distinct eschatological images. In Daniel 2:34-35 the stone represents God’s eternal kingdom, which triumphs over all earthly kingdoms symbolized by the statue. While Revelation also speaks of Christ’s victory over worldly powers, the imagery of Daniel 2 is not directly tied to the 8th King. The stone crushing the statue signifies the ultimate supremacy of God’s kingdom over all human authority. This is a broader theological truth, not limited to a specific event or figure like the 8th King.
The idea that God’s people must endure tribulation under the 8th King conflates symbolic and literal interpretations of Revelation. Revelation depicts God’s people as those who remain faithful in the face of persecution (cf. Revelation 7:9-14; 14:4-5). The "great tribulation" is a symbol of spiritual testing, not necessarily a literal period under a specific geopolitical regime. Revelation’s judgment scenes (e.g., Revelation 20:11-15) emphasize God’s justice over all humanity, not just those associated with the 8th King. Faithfulness to God, not rejection of a single geopolitical power, is the primary criterion.
In conclusion, your interpretation conflates and misrepresents distinct apocalyptic figures, symbols, and events. The MOL, 8th King, and KOTN are not the same entity, nor are their actions identical. Apostasy, the MOTB, and God’s judgment are broader theological concepts that cannot be reduced to opposition to a single figure or system. A faithful reading of these passages requires attention to their historical, literary, and theological contexts, avoiding speculative and forced connections.
408
Is Jesus the Creator?
by Sea Breeze in
1. watchtower
2. bible
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..
aqwsed12345

Maurice Casey, like many others, misunderstands the term prototokos ("firstborn"). In Colossians 1:15, Jesus is called "the firstborn of all creation," but this does not imply that He is part of creation. Instead, it signifies preeminence, supremacy, and rank, not temporal priority. Prototokos is used throughout the Bible to indicate rank or status rather than literal birth order. For example in Psalm 89:27 "firstborn" signifies David’s preeminence, not that he was literally the first king. In Exodus 4:22 Israel is called God's "firstborn son," not because it was the first nation created, but because it holds a unique covenantal status. Similarly, in Colossians 1:15, Jesus is "firstborn" because He is supreme over all creation as its Creator, not because He is part of creation.
Paul immediately clarifies the meaning of "firstborn": "For by Him all things were created…all things were created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together" (Col. 1:16–17). Jesus cannot simultaneously be a part of creation (first created) and also the Creator of "all things." The phrase "all things" (τὰ πάντα) is all-encompassing, leaving no room for Jesus to be part of the created order.
If Paul intended to convey that Jesus was the first created being, he would have used protoktistos ("first-created"), a term available in Greek. Instead, he uses prototokos to emphasize Christ’s supreme authority and unique relationship to creation. Early Church Fathers, such as Athanasius and Basil the Great, emphasized this distinction to refute Arian interpretations of Colossians 1:15.
Casey argues that Colossians 1:15–20 draws from Jewish wisdom traditions, such as Proverbs 8:22–29, to portray Jesus as a created being. However, this interpretation is problematic for several reasons. Proverbs 8 describes wisdom (Sophia) poetically and metaphorically. While the New Testament identifies Jesus as the incarnate "Wisdom of God" (1 Cor. 1:24), it does not mean He is literally the figure of wisdom described in Proverbs. The Septuagint translates Proverbs 8:22 as "The Lord ‘created’ me" (ἔκτισέν με), but the Hebrew term qanah can mean "acquired" or "possessed." Many translations (e.g., ESV, NASB) render it as "The Lord possessed me," aligning with the idea of eternal wisdom belonging to God, not a created entity.
Paul in Colossians 1:15–20 goes beyond Jewish wisdom traditions by explicitly identifying Jesus as Creator, not as a created being. Proverbs 8:22–29 speaks of wisdom as a personified attribute of God, not a distinct person. Colossians 1:16–17 affirms that Jesus is the agent of creation, through whom "all things" were made. This is incompatible with the idea that He is Himself part of creation.
Casey claims that Colossians reflects a pre-Trinitarian Christology, in which Jesus is viewed as a created being, akin to Wisdom in Jewish thought. This argument ignores early Christian understanding and the progression of revelation: Colossians 1:15–20 clearly portrays Jesus as pre-existent and divine: "He is the image of the invisible God" (Col. 1:15): This statement parallels Hebrews 1:3, which describes Jesus as the "exact imprint of [God's] nature." It emphasizes His divine nature, not a created status. "He is before all things" (Col. 1:17): This affirms Christ’s eternal pre-existence, consistent with John 1:1–3 ("In the beginning was the Word…").
Long before the doctrine of the Trinity was formally defined, early Christians worshipped Jesus as divine (e.g., Philippians 2:5–11). Paul’s Christology in Colossians 1 is fully consistent with this practice. The Nicene Creed (325 AD) clarified that Jesus is "begotten, not made," reflecting what had already been believed and practiced in the early Church. Philo’s Logos was a philosophical abstraction, not a divine person. While Paul uses similar terminology, he radically redefines it to identify Jesus as the personal Creator and sustainer of the universe.
Casey’s argument that Colossians 1:15–20 is merely a "midrash" on Jewish Wisdom speculation collapses under scrutiny. Colossians integrates Christ’s role as Creator, sustainer, and redeemer, surpassing Jewish wisdom traditions. For example "In Him all things hold together" (Col. 1:17): This goes beyond Wisdom’s role in creation to assert Christ’s ongoing sustenance of the universe. "Through Him to reconcile all things to Himself" (Col. 1:20): Jewish wisdom literature does not ascribe a redemptive role to Wisdom. This is uniquely Christian. Paul’s purpose in writing Colossians was to combat heresies that diminished Christ’s supremacy (e.g., early forms of Gnosticism). Far from presenting Jesus as a created being, Paul elevates Him as preeminent over all creation and fully divine.

@vienne
The Greek inscription on the Megiddo mosaic reads:

ΠΡΟΣΗΝΙΚΕΝ ἈΚΕΠΤΟΥΣ Ἡ ΦΙΛΟΘΕΟΣ ΤΗΝ ΤΡΑΠΕΖΑΝ Θ̅Ω̅ Ἰ̅Υ̅ Χ̅Υ̅ ΜΝΗΜΟΣΥΝΟΝ.
Προσῆνικεν Ἀκεπτους ἡ φιλόθεος τὴν τράπεζαν Θεῷ Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ μνημόσυνον.
Prosēniken Akeptous hē philotheos tēn trapezan Theō Iēsou Christō mnēmosynon.
"The God-loving Akeptous has offered the table to God Jesus Christ as a memorial."
The inscription abbreviates sacred names (nomina sacra), including ΘΩ (Theō, dative of Theos, God) and ΙΥ ΧΥ (Iesou Christou, Jesus Christ). These abbreviations are standard in Christian epigraphy for expressing divine titles, unambiguously linking the words “God” and “Jesus Christ.” The structure of the inscription directly connects "God" to "Jesus Christ." There is no grammatical indication that “God” and “Jesus Christ” are separate entities in this phrase. The phrase reads naturally as "God Jesus Christ," reflecting early Christian belief in Christ's deity. The "ichthys" symbol, found in the mosaic, is not the central focus of the inscription but an accompanying Christian symbol. While “ichthys” (fish) is an acronym for “Jesus Christ, Son of God, Savior,” it does not negate the explicit textual reference to Jesus as God in the main inscription.
The claim that the inscription primarily honors women and only references Jesus indirectly is inaccurate. While the mosaic does include references to women (notably Akeptous, the benefactor), the theological focus of the inscription is on the act of offering the table (likely an altar) to “God Jesus Christ.” This demonstrates early Christian worship centered on Jesus as divine.
The claim that the mosaic supports a non-Trinitarian understanding (e.g., Jesus as only the “Son of God”) misunderstands the linguistic and theological context. In early Christian theology, calling Jesus "Son of God" does not diminish his deity but affirms it. In John 5:18, the Jews accuse Jesus of making himself "equal with God" precisely because he claimed to be the Son of God. The reference to “the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” in Paul’s letters (e.g., Ephesians 1:3) does not deny Christ’s deity. Instead, it affirms the relational distinction within the Godhead, consistent with Trinitarian theology.
The argument that the mosaic’s date is in dispute is accurate to some extent, as dating ancient artifacts is often debated. However the proposed date of 230 CE places it firmly within a period when Christian belief in Jesus' deity was widespread, long before Constantine’s influence. The mosaic is significant as early material evidence of Christian worship and Christological belief, consistent with writings from the 2nd and 3rd centuries (e.g., Ignatius of Antioch referring to “our God Jesus Christ”).
The Watchtower's claim that Christianity was "corrupted" in the Apostolic Era does not align with the textual or archaeological evidence. Early Christian writings (e.g., Ignatius, Irenaeus) and artifacts like the Megiddo mosaic demonstrate a consistent belief in Jesus’ deity. The suggestion that Constantine founded “Christendom” is historically inaccurate. While Constantine played a role in legitimizing Christianity within the Roman Empire, the theological foundations of Christian belief, including Christ's deity, predate him by centuries.
So the Megiddo mosaic explicitly refers to Jesus Christ as God. Attempts to reinterpret or diminish its significance rely on speculative readings of the text or theological biases. The mosaic, combined with other early Christian writings and artifacts, affirms that the deity of Jesus was a core belief well before Constantine, contrary to both Arian interpretations and Watchtower claims. This archaeological find underscores the early church's worship of Christ as divine, rooted in both scripture and tradition.
20
Defend Your Borders or Listen to the Watchtower?
by raymond frantz in
1. watchtower
2. bible
https://youtu.be/dnoww-4jfao?si=ehzmc5-gxqukgn7q.

with ww3 on the horizon the watchtower is bringing out their best hits on the issue of neutrality and the latest instalment on jw.org with stephen lett has the theme " why ancient israelites were allowed to go to war but as a christian you can't " or to paraphrase for a 2024 audience " why the modern state of israel is allowed all the nuclear weapons to defend their borders but you as a western european or north american you aren't supposed to compliant against open border policies and uncontrolled illegal migration" isn't that the exact same rhetoric or is it my imagination?

so one of stephen lett's go to arguments is that christians do not take up arms because we don't live in ancient times where israelites had a mandate to occupy the holy land where as we gentile christians we don't.
aqwsed12345

@Duran
In Daniel 11, the KOTN refers to a historical geopolitical power in conflict with the King of the South. While some interpret the latter parts of Daniel 11 as apocalyptic or eschatological, the context primarily deals with historical events leading up to the Maccabean period. The KOTN’s actions—such as profaning the sanctuary and removing the "constant feature" (Daniel 11:31)—are tied to Antiochus IV Epiphanes’ desecration of the Jerusalem temple. Attempts to link this directly to the MOL or the 8th King in Revelation are speculative and lack scriptural support.
In 2 Thessalonians 2:3–4, the MOL is described as an eschatological figure who exalts himself above God and takes his seat in the temple of God. Paul’s focus is on a spiritual rebellion (apostasy) rather than a geopolitical figure. The temple mentioned here likely refers metaphorically to the Church or God’s spiritual dwelling among believers (cf. 1 Corinthians 3:16–17; Ephesians 2:21–22). There is no textual basis for equating this with the KOTN or the 8th King.
The assertion that the "holy place" in Daniel and the "temple" in 2 Thessalonians are identical conflates two different symbols. In Daniel, the "sanctuary" refers to the physical Jerusalem temple desecrated by Antiochus IV, whereas Paul’s "temple of God" in 2 Thessalonians is a metaphorical expression of God’s dwelling. The claim that these must refer to the same entity is unfounded and contradicts the contexts of both texts.
Your interpretation oversimplifies and distorts the concept of apostasy and its connection to the Mark of the Beast. Paul’s reference to apostasy (a falling away) in 2 Thessalonians 2 describes a general spiritual rebellion against God, likely within the context of the Church. There is no mention of a geopolitical power like the 8th King or a symbolic mark such as the MOTB in this passage. The text focuses on the deception propagated by the MOL and the need for believers to remain steadfast.
The MOTB symbolizes allegiance to the beast and its system, often interpreted as a worldly power in opposition to God. However, linking this directly to the KOTN or MOL is speculative. Revelation uses apocalyptic imagery that is not meant to be rigidly tied to other biblical figures without clear textual connections.
The claim that there are only two outcomes—rejecting the MOTB or succumbing to apostasy—oversimplifies the complexity of apocalyptic literature. Revelation and other apocalyptic texts emphasize perseverance and faithfulness but do not present such rigid binaries tied to specific figures.
The interpretation of judgment starting with God’s house and extending to those who support the 8th King misreads the relevant passages. 1 Peter 4:17 refers to the refining trials believers undergo as part of their faith journey, not a specific period under the rule of an 8th King or geopolitical power. Peter emphasizes the spiritual preparation of believers rather than a timeline of apocalyptic events. 2 Thessalonians 1:7–10 describe Christ’s return in glory to bring relief to believers and judgment on unbelievers. There is no mention of the 8th King, KOTN, or a specific period of tribulation tied to these figures. Revelation 13 and Daniel 11 describe persecution and challenges for God’s people but in distinct contexts. Revelation 13 addresses the beast’s blasphemous rule and its demand for worship, while Daniel 11 reflects historical conflicts involving Antiochus IV. These texts are not describing the same event or figure.
The argument that the 8th King (Revelation 17), MOL (2 Thessalonians 2), and KOTN (Daniel 11) are identical is unsupported by the texts. In Revelation 17:11–17 the 8th King represents a culmination of earthly powers opposing God’s kingdom, tied to the imagery of Babylon. This is not an individual figure but a symbol of collective rebellion against God. In Daniel 11 the KOTN’s actions are tied to specific historical events (e.g., the desecration of the temple by Antiochus IV). Attempts to project this onto an eschatological figure like the 8th King or MOL are interpretive leaps. In 2 Thessalonians 2 the MOL is presented as a singular figure associated with spiritual rebellion and deception. There is no evidence connecting this figure to the 8th King or KOTN.
The argument that God’s temple/holy place refers to "all peoples of the world" (as wheat) misinterprets key texts. Ephesians 2:21–22 and 1 Peter 2:5 describe believers collectively as God’s spiritual temple, built on the foundation of Christ. They do not equate the temple with all peoples of the world indiscriminately. This parable in Matthew 13:38 distinguishes between wheat (believers) and weeds (unbelievers) within the world. It does not suggest that the world itself constitutes God’s temple. 1 Corinthians 3:16–17 emphasize the Church as God’s temple, where His Spirit dwells, it does not extend this designation to all humanity.
To sum up, your interpretation selectively conflates distinct biblical texts and figures, resulting in a distorted eschatology. The KOTN, MOL, 8th King, and other apocalyptic symbols are distinct in their contexts and cannot be forcibly merged into a single narrative. The temple/holy place is not a global entity but a spiritual reality for God’s people. Apostasy, tribulation, and judgment are themes that must be understood within their proper scriptural contexts, not through speculative and unsupported connections. A faithful interpretation of these passages requires attention to their historical, literary, and theological contexts rather than an overarching, forced synthesis.
408
Is Jesus the Creator?
by Sea Breeze in
1. watchtower
2. bible
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..
aqwsed12345

@joey jojo
Yes, it's a common objection that if Jesus Christ is God, why did He not clearly and directly declare it? The argument that Jesus never explicitly says the words "I am God" and therefore cannot be fully divine misunderstands the way Jesus communicated His identity and the way Scripture reveals theological truths.
The incarnation of the one true God and, with it, the revelation of the Trinity, was an extraordinary and overwhelming concept for the strictly monotheistic Jews, who, since the Babylonian exile, had conceived of God as utterly transcendent and unapproachable. The wisdom that "orders all things gently" did not permit the great mystery to blaze forth fully at once. The "sun" of this truth, at the moment of its rising, was not allowed to reach its zenith immediately, dazzling and intimidating all with its brightness. Instead, its early rays, filtering through the clouds of restraint, needed to accustom souls gradually, preparing them step by step to receive the full understanding of the mystery.
The incarnate Word had to accomplish the work of redemption through a meritorious life: by living in direct contact and interaction with humanity, experiencing persecution, suffering, and obedience (Luke 24:26; Heb. 2:10; Phil. 2:7–11; Matt. 20:28). If, however, He had presented Himself to His contemporaries in the overwhelming radiance of His deity, the possibility of such a truly human, meritorious life would have ceased to exist. This would have disrupted the entire order of salvation history (œconomia salutis). Furthermore, there would have been no room left for faith in the hearts of people. If Jesus Christ had revealed Himself with complete clarity and tangible evidence as God through words and deeds, it would have inaugurated an eschatological state—the kind of reality He associated with His second coming. The first time, however, He did not come to receive homage and rule but to serve. Thus, His reserved self-revelation was a sign of His superhuman wisdom and, at the same time, evidence that this confession of His deity was not a later human invention. If humans had fabricated it, they would have impatiently and indiscreetly thrust Christ’s deity to the forefront.
What apologetics establishes about the character of Jesus Christ places beyond doubt what He Himself affirmed: "Even if I bear witness concerning Myself, My testimony is true" (John 8:14). Therefore, the conclusion is inescapable: Jesus Christ is God.
20
Defend Your Borders or Listen to the Watchtower?
by raymond frantz in
1. watchtower
2. bible
https://youtu.be/dnoww-4jfao?si=ehzmc5-gxqukgn7q.

with ww3 on the horizon the watchtower is bringing out their best hits on the issue of neutrality and the latest instalment on jw.org with stephen lett has the theme " why ancient israelites were allowed to go to war but as a christian you can't " or to paraphrase for a 2024 audience " why the modern state of israel is allowed all the nuclear weapons to defend their borders but you as a western european or north american you aren't supposed to compliant against open border policies and uncontrolled illegal migration" isn't that the exact same rhetoric or is it my imagination?

so one of stephen lett's go to arguments is that christians do not take up arms because we don't live in ancient times where israelites had a mandate to occupy the holy land where as we gentile christians we don't.
aqwsed12345
@Duran
The MOL is described by Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2:3–12 as an eschatological figure characterized by rebellion, self-exaltation, and deception. The key details include:
- Self-exaltation in the temple of God (verse 4): This indicates a spiritual rebellion against God and an attempt to usurp divine authority. The "temple of God" most likely refers to God's spiritual dwelling (the Church, as in 1 Corinthians 3:16–17), not a literal political structure or global government.
- Revealed at the proper time (verses 6–7): The MOL is restrained until a divinely determined moment, indicating that his emergence is controlled by God's sovereignty.
- Destroyed by Christ's coming (verse 8): The MOL’s destruction is directly tied to Christ’s glorious return, emphasizing divine judgment rather than a prolonged earthly reign.
This description focuses on spiritual rebellion and apostasy, not global political dominance.
The 8th king in Revelation 17:11–14 symbolizes a system or coalition of earthly powers opposed to God, arising out of the previous seven kings. The beast represents ongoing worldly opposition to God throughout history, culminating in a final manifestation of rebellion. The 8th king is associated with the "ten horns" (verse 12), which represent kings who align themselves with the beast for a brief period of power. The beast and its followers are ultimately defeated by the Lamb (verse 14), highlighting their collective opposition to Christ’s kingdom.
While the MOL and the beast share similarities (both oppose God and face judgment at Christ’s return), their contexts and descriptions suggest they are distinct. The MOL is a personal figure of spiritual rebellion, while the beast/8th king represents a political or systemic rebellion against God.
Revelation 14:6–12 describes the "hour of judgment" as a global proclamation calling humanity to worship God and reject the beast. The mark of the beast symbolizes allegiance to worldly systems opposed to God. The mark of the beast represents a spiritual choice, not merely political compliance. Those who align with the beast reject God’s sovereignty. Revelation 19:20–21 shows that the beast and false prophet are thrown into the lake of fire at Christ’s return, signifying the end of their earthly influence.
This imagery does not equate the beast with the MOL but emphasizes their shared opposition to God. The MOL’s role is focused on apostasy and spiritual deception, while the beast operates as a worldly system of power.
The claim that the MOL and the beast/8th king must be the same entity because both are judged at Christ’s return is flawed. Similarities in their judgment do not necessitate identity. The MOL’s focus is on spiritual rebellion within the Church (2 Thessalonians 2:4), while the 8th king represents political and systemic rebellion on a global scale (Revelation 17:13–14). The beast/8th king is described in corporate and symbolic terms (a coalition of kings, horns, and powers), whereas the MOL is depicted as a singular, personal figure. Scripture frequently depicts multiple entities judged simultaneously (e.g., Satan, death, and Hades in Revelation 20:10–14). Shared judgment does not imply shared identity.
Your interpretation relies heavily on literal readings of apocalyptic imagery, leading to speculative conclusions. The "restraint" in 2 Thessalonians 2:6–7 refers to a divine or spiritual force preventing the MOL’s emergence. This is unrelated to political timelines or events leading to an NWO. Apocalyptic imagery in Revelation uses rich symbolism to convey theological truths. Reading these symbols as direct political predictions (e.g., the NWO) distorts their purpose.
Both 2 Thessalonians 2 and Revelation emphasize divine sovereignty and ultimate judgment. The MOL’s deception is a result of God allowing people to be deluded because they rejected the truth (2 Thessalonians 2:10–12). This judgment is spiritual, targeting apostasy and rebellion within the Church. The beast’s judgment in Revelation reflects God’s justice upon worldly powers that oppose His kingdom. It is corporate and symbolic, not focused on individual apostasy. These judgments serve distinct purposes and address different aspects of rebellion against God.
In conclusion, the claim that the MOL and the 8th king are the same entity misreads their respective biblical contexts. While both are judged at Christ’s return, their roles, descriptions, and theological implications differ. The MOL represents spiritual rebellion and apostasy, while the 8th king symbolizes systemic and political opposition to God. Attempts to equate them oversimplify apocalyptic imagery, misinterpret prophetic texts, and impose speculative frameworks that detract from the texts’ true spiritual and theological messages.
408
Is Jesus the Creator?
by Sea Breeze in
1. watchtower
2. bible
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..
aqwsed12345

@Duran
Your statement seems to confuse the distinction between "god" (with a lowercase "g") and "God" (with a capital "G"), as well as misinterpret the verses you’ve cited. The phrase "god of this age" (2 Corinthians 4:4) refers to Satan's temporary and limited authority over the sinful world system, as allowed by the true God. It does not suggest that Satan is "God" in the sense of being divine, eternal, omnipotent, or the Creator. Paul uses the term "god of this age" to emphasize Satan's role in deceiving unbelievers and keeping them from recognizing the truth of the gospel. Satan is a created being, entirely subordinate to God, and his power is neither infinite nor self-existent. Satan’s "godhood" is metaphorical, referring to his influence over this age, not a statement of his divinity. His purpose is to blind unbelievers to the gospel, which displays the glory of Christ. This verse underscores Satan's role as an adversary of Christ, not an equivalence between the two.
Colossians 1:15 clearly identifies Jesus as the "image of the invisible God," which means He perfectly reveals and represents God’s nature, essence, and character. It also refers to His preeminence ("firstborn" in rank and authority) over all creation. This verse celebrates Jesus' divine status, not as a created being but as the agent of creation itself (see Colossians 1:16-17). Jesus is not "a god" or "a creature," but the manifestation of the eternal God (John 1:1, 1:14). The phrase "firstborn over all creation" does not mean Jesus is part of creation but indicates His supremacy and authority over it.
408
Is Jesus the Creator?
by Sea Breeze in
1. watchtower
2. bible
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..
aqwsed12345

@Rattigan350
Paul's statement in Colossians 1:16 ("For by him all things were created...") is not an isolated or novel theological concept. It aligns with the broader biblical narrative of the preeminence and creative work of the Son, rooted in both Jewish Scripture and early Christian revelation. The personification of wisdom in Proverbs 8:22-31describes wisdom as being present with God at creation. Early Christians, including Paul, understood Christ as the incarnate "wisdom of God" (1 Corinthians 1:24). This directly ties the creative work described in Colossians to Old Testament imagery. The role of the "Word" (logos) in creation is implicit in Genesis 1:1-3, where God speaks creation into existence. John later identifies Christ as the "Word" through whom all things were made (John 1:1-3), but this concept is rooted in Jewish thought about God's creative word and wisdom. Psalm 33:6 emphasizes the instrumental role of God's word in creation, prefigures the New Testament identification of Jesus as the divine Word. Paul’s theology integrates these Jewish ideas, understanding Christ as the agent of creation, not in contradiction to Jewish Scripture but as its fulfillment.
The claim that Jesus is the "Son of God" (or "Son of the Supreme Being," as the argument rephrases it) does not contradict His creative role. In fact, the title "Son" affirms His unique relationship with the Father, which is essential for understanding His divine authority. In the cultural and theological context of the Bible, a "son" shares the nature of his father. For instance, Jesus’ claim to be the "Son of God" was understood by His contemporaries as a claim to equality with God (John 5:18). His sonship affirms, rather than denies, His divine identity and creative authority.
So in Jewish thought, the term "Son of God" carries implications of divinity. For example, in John 10:30-33, Jesus states, "I and the Father are one." The Jews immediately sought to stone Him, saying, "You, being a man, make Yourself God." This shows that Jesus’ claim to be the Son of God was understood as a claim to divinity, not merely a title of honor. When Peter calls Jesus "the Christ, the Son of the living God," (Matthew 16:16) Jesus affirms the truth of this statement, declaring that it was revealed to Peter by God (Matthew 16:17). This declaration aligns with other passages where Jesus explicitly claims equality with God (e.g., John 8:58, John 14:9).
In Matthew 4:3 the devil tempts Jesus, acknowledging Him as the Son of God. This reflects Jesus’ unique relationship with the Father and His divine mission, not a denial of His divinity. In Matthew 8:29 the demons recognize Jesus as the Son of God and express fear of His authority. Their acknowledgment underscores Jesus’ power and dominion, further affirming His role as Lord over all creation. Demons recognized Jesus as the "Son of God" (Luke 4:41), acknowledging His divine authority and identity. The fact that demons feared Him and obeyed His commands (Mark 1:24-27) further supports His divine nature, as only God holds such authority over spiritual beings.
"Firstborn of all creation" (v. 15) does not mean Jesus is part of creation. In Jewish culture, "firstborn" signifies rank and preeminence, not chronological birth order. Jesus is supreme over all creation because He is its creator, as stated in verse 16. Verse 16 explicitly states that "all things" were created through and for Him, affirming His active role in creation.
The argument assumes that Paul could not have written Colossians 1:16 because John’s Gospel was not yet available. Paul explicitly states that his gospel was received directly by revelation from Jesus Christ (Galatians 1:12). His understanding of Christ’s role in creation does not depend on John’s Gospel but on his divine commission and extensive knowledge of Jewish Scriptures. The belief in Christ’s role as creator was not unique to Paul. It was a core part of early Christian teaching, rooted in Jewish Scripture and affirmed by other New Testament writers (e.g., Hebrews 1:2-3).
Paul’s statement in Colossians 1:16 is consistent with Jewish Scriptures and the broader New Testament revelation of Jesus Christ. The Son’s creative role does not diminish His sonship; instead, it emphasizes His unique relationship with the Father and His divine authority. Dismissing Paul's theology based on speculative assumptions about his sources ignores the coherence of biblical revelation. Colossians 1:16, far from being an innovation, reflects the fulfillment of Old Testament themes in the person and work of Christ, who is fully God and fully active in creation.
The New Testament provides explicit statements from the apostles affirming Jesus’ deity. After the resurrection, Thomas directly addresses Jesus as "My Lord and my God" (John 20:28) Jesus does not correct Thomas but instead commends his faith, showing that this recognition is correct. Paul frequently affirms Jesus’ deity (Colossians 2:9, Titus 2:13, Philippians 2:6). John 1:1 explicitly identifies Jesus (the Word) as God.
The claim that Jesus did not predict a self-resurrection misunderstands both Scripture and Trinitarian theology. In John 2:19-21 Jesus said, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." John explains that "He was speaking of the temple of His body." In John 10:18 Jesus states, "No one takes [my life] from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again." These passages clearly show that Jesus predicted His own resurrection, demonstrating His divine authority over life and death. The New Testament attributes Jesus’ resurrection to the entire Trinity: God the Father raised Him (Acts 2:32, Galatians 1:1), the Holy Spirit raised Him (Romans 8:11), Jesus Himself took up His life (John 10:18), this reflects the cooperative work of the Trinity rather than any contradiction.
Acts 2:32 and 2:36 emphasize God the Father’s role in Jesus’ resurrection and exaltation but do not diminish Jesus’ deity. "God made him both Lord and Christ": The term "made" here does not imply that Jesus became something He was not before. Rather, it refers to the formal recognition and declaration of Jesus’ roles as Lord and Messiah through His resurrection and exaltation. These roles were eternally His by nature but were revealed and confirmed to humanity in history. The title "Lord" (Kyrios) in the Greek Septuagint is the same word used for Yahweh, the divine name of God. Peter’s declaration in Acts 2:36 aligns with other New Testament affirmations of Jesus as divine Lord (e.g., Philippians 2:10-11).
The argument that Jesus being dependent on the Father proves He is not God misunderstands Trinitarian theology. In the incarnation Jesus, as the Son, voluntarily took on human nature (Philippians 2:6-8). This included submitting to the Father’s will and relying on Him as an example of perfect obedience. His dependency reflects His role within the Trinity and His mission as the incarnate Son, not a denial of His divinity.
The argument that Jesus could not resurrect Himself because "He was dead" misunderstands the nature of Christ’s death. Jesus’ death involved the separation of His human soul and body, not the cessation of His divine nature. As God, He remained fully active and sovereign even during His death. The effectiveness of Jesus’ sacrifice rests on His divine nature, as only an infinite being could provide atonement for the sins of humanity (Hebrews 9:12-14).