Posts by aqwsed12345

408

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..

aqwsed12345

The claim that Hebrews 1:6 and the use of proskyneō in Scripture do not imply worship of Jesus as God is fundamentally flawed. The argument rests on a misunderstanding of the Greek term proskyneō, a selective approach to biblical texts, and an inconsistent treatment of worship as it pertains to Jesus. While proskyneō can also signify homage or obeisance to a superior, its usage in the NT often implies worship in a divine sense, particularly when directed toward Jesus. The context determines whether proskyneō signifies mere reverence or true worship. For instance, when the wise men "fell down and worshipped" the child Jesus (Matthew 2:11), this act is presented in a religious context, signaling recognition of Jesus' divine status. Similarly, the disciples worshipped Jesus after He calmed the storm, exclaiming, "Truly you are the Son of God" (Matthew 14:33). These are not acts of mere respect but of divine worship. The Watchtower's claim that proskyneō does not indicate worship when applied to Jesus contradicts its own translation principles. In Revelation 5:13-14, both God the Father and the Lamb (Jesus) receive identical worship from all creation: "To the one seated on the throne and to the Lamb be blessing and honor and glory and power forever and ever." The parallel construction demonstrates that Jesus is worshipped as God.

Hebrews 1:6 quotes the Septuagint's rendering of Deuteronomy 32:43 or Psalm 97:7, applying it to Christ: "And let all God’s angels worship Him." In its original OT context, this passage refers to Yahweh. By attributing this divine worship to Jesus, the author of Hebrews unequivocally identifies Him as God. The Watchtower’s alteration of "worship" to "do obeisance" in its New World Translation reflects theological bias rather than linguistic fidelity. Notably, the same term proskyneō is translated as "worship" when referring to Jehovah in the NWT (e.g., Matthew 4:10). The argument that proskyneō in Hebrews 1:6 means only homage collapses under the weight of its biblical and theological context. The angels are commanded to worship Jesus as part of their acknowledgment of His divine status, not as a mere created being.

The NT presents Jesus as the object of prayer, worship, and divine attributes. Acts 7:59 records Stephen praying to Jesus: "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." This mirrors OT prayers directed to Yahweh (Psalm 31:5). If Jesus were not divine, this would constitute idolatry. In Mark 2:5-7, Jesus forgives sins, a prerogative that belongs solely to God. The scribes correctly recognized this act as a claim to divinity, yet Jesus does not correct them; instead, He demonstrates His authority by healing the paralytic. Philippians 2:10-11 applies Isaiah 45:23 to Jesus, stating, "At the name of Jesus every knee should bow... and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord." Isaiah’s original passage declares this worship as due to Yahweh alone. Paul’s application to Jesus underscores His divine identity.

The Watchtower Society’s shifting stance on the worship of Jesus undermines its credibility. Early Watchtower publications endorsed the worship of Jesus, as noted in the writings of C.T. Russell and J.F. Rutherford. For instance, the 1945 Yearbook of Jehovah’s Witnesses affirmed, "Let all the angels of God worship Him" in Hebrews 1:6. It was only in 1954 that the Society began prohibiting the worship of Jesus, not based on new biblical insights but on doctrinal revisionism. This inconsistency suggests theological convenience rather than faithful exegesis.

Philo’s Logos is fundamentally different from John’s. For Philo, the Logos is a semi-divine intermediary—neither fully divine nor fully personal. It serves as a bridge between the transcendent God and the material world, functioning as an abstract principle of reason and order. John’s Logos is fully divine, personal, and eternal. John 1:1 explicitly states, “The Word was God.” John 1:14 declares, “The Word became flesh and dwelt among us.” This is a radical departure from Philo’s philosophical abstraction. The Logos in John is not a mere emanation or cosmic principle but the Second Person of the Trinity. The concept of the Logos in John is deeply rooted in the Hebrew Scriptures, particularly the idea of God’s Word (dabar) as active in creation (Genesis 1:3, Psalm 33:6), revelation (Isaiah 55:11), and salvation (Psalm 107:20). John’s Gospel connects this Jewish understanding with the incarnational reality of Jesus Christ. While John may have been aware of Hellenistic philosophical concepts, his Logos theology is firmly anchored in the Hebrew Scriptures and the revelation of Christ. The Stoic concept of the logos spermatikos (a principle of rationality permeating the cosmos) is impersonal and fundamentally incompatible with the personal Logos of John. The Christian Logos is not a universal rational principle but a distinct Person who entered history through the Incarnation. So while Philo and the Stoics provide historical context for the term Logos, John’s theology transcends these frameworks. The Logos in John’s Gospel is a unique and divinely revealed concept, rooted in the Hebrew Scriptures and culminating in the person of Jesus Christ.

Angels in the Hebrew Scriptures are always subordinate to God and serve as His messengers or agents (e.g., Genesis 19, Exodus 3:2). They do not receive worship, as worship is reserved for Yahweh alone (Deuteronomy 6:13). In Revelation 19:10 and 22:8-9, John attempts to worship an angel but is rebuked: “You must not do that! I am a fellow servant with you and your brothers. Worship God.” This explicitly reinforces the NT’s strict monotheism and the prohibition of worshiping angels. Jesus, however, is worshiped throughout the NT (e.g., Matthew 28:17, John 20:28, Hebrews 1:6), highlighting His unique status as God incarnate. The distinction between Jesus and angels is consistently maintained, as seen in Hebrews 1, which declares Jesus as superior to all angels. While apocryphal texts like the Ascension of Isaiah and the Epistle of the Apostles provide fascinating insights into early Christian thought, they are not authoritative Scripture and often reflect speculative or syncretistic ideas. The hierarchical descriptions of angels in these texts do not equate Jesus with angels but rather emphasize His transcendence. For example, in the Ascension of Isaiah, Christ is depicted as descending through angelic ranks, assuming their forms, but ultimately surpassing them in glory and authority. The argument that Jesus is equated with the Angel of the Lord misunderstands the typological and christological connections in Scripture. The Angel of the Lord in the OT often speaks and acts as Yahweh (e.g., Exodus 3:2-6), prefiguring the Incarnation. However, the NT clarifies that Jesus is not merely an angel but Yahweh Himself made flesh (John 8:58, Philippians 2:6-11). So the NT and early Christian theology clearly distinguish Jesus from angels. While angels are servants of God, Jesus is God incarnate, worthy of worship and adoration. Apocryphal texts may provide background for certain theological developments but cannot supersede the authority of Scripture.

The “Two Powers in Heaven” concept in Second Temple Judaism was often used to describe an intermediary figure (e.g., the Angel of the Lord) who acted on behalf of Yahweh. However, this does not imply a belief in two deities but rather highlights the complex ways in which God’s actions were perceived. The NT redefines this concept by presenting Jesus as the unique Son of God who shares fully in the divine identity (John 10:30, Colossians 2:9). Jesus is not a subordinate power but one with the Father. Describing the Logos as an emanation diminishes His full divinity. The NT consistently affirms that Jesus is fully God, not a derived or secondary being. John 1:1-3 identifies the Logos as eternal, uncreated, and the agent of all creation. The claim that Yahweh is absent from the NT is baseless. The NT applies Yahweh’s name and attributes to Jesus (e.g., Philippians 2:10-11 cites Isaiah 45:23). This demonstrates continuity between the OT and NT in affirming the divinity of Christ. So the NT transforms Second Temple Jewish concepts to reveal the full truth of the Trinity. Jesus is not a second power or emanation but the eternal Son of God, fully equal with the Father and the Spirit.

408

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..

aqwsed12345

Hebrews 1:6 states, “And let all God’s angels worship him.” This quotation appears to draw from the Septuagint version of Deuteronomy 32:43, which explicitly calls on the angels to worship Yahweh. The application of this verse to Jesus is not a random or "creative mashup" but a direct affirmation of Jesus’ divinity. Hebrews 1 emphasizes Jesus’ superiority to angels, showing that He is worshiped by them—a role exclusive to God in Jewish monotheism (cf. Exodus 34:14). Psalm 89:27 speaks of David as God’s “firstborn,” which is a typological foreshadowing of Christ as the true “firstborn” (Colossians 1:15, Romans 8:29). This typology does not reduce Christ to a created being but emphasizes His preeminence and royal authority. The invocation of Deuteronomy 32:43 further reinforces the divine status of Christ, as the angels are called to worship Him, a role reserved for Yahweh in Jewish theology. The New Testament authors do not engage in arbitrary "eisegesis" but interpret the OT in light of the revelation of Christ. Their exegesis is typological, seeing Christ as the fulfillment of OT figures and promises. Hebrews consistently portrays Jesus as superior to all OT figures (angels, Moses, the Levitical priesthood) because He is God incarnate. The use of OT texts serves this purpose, not as random or forced reinterpretations. So Hebrews 1:6 affirms Jesus’ deity by applying a verse about Yahweh to Him. This is consistent with the broader NT theology that identifies Jesus as Yahweh incarnate, not as a mere Davidic king or subordinate being.

Both Psalm 2:7 and 2 Samuel 7:14 are applied typologically to Jesus in Hebrews 1:5, affirming His unique sonship. Psalm 2:7’s “You are my Son; today I have begotten you” speaks of the eternal relationship between the Father and the Son, not a temporal act of adoption. This is supported by NT texts like John 1:1-3, which affirm Christ’s eternal preexistence. 2 Samuel 7:14 refers to the Davidic covenant, which finds its ultimate fulfillment in Christ as the eternal King (Luke 1:32-33). The Western text of Luke 3:22 includes the phrase, "You are my Son; today I have begotten you." However, this variant does not undermine Christ's eternal sonship. The phrase reflects the public declaration of Jesus’ divine sonship at His baptism, not the beginning of His existence. Origen and later Church Fathers refuted Adoptionism by emphasizing the eternal begetting of the Son (John 1:18) and the unbroken hypostatic union of Christ's divine and human natures. Hebrews 1:5-6 directly refutes Adoptionism by emphasizing Christ’s eternal sonship and superiority to angels. The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact imprint of His nature (Hebrews 1:3), which is incompatible with the idea of a created or adopted son. So Hebrews 1:5 does not support Adoptionism but affirms the eternal relationship between the Father and the Son. The NT consistently portrays Jesus as fully divine and eternally begotten, not temporally adopted.

Philo’s Logos is a semi-divine intermediary, a metaphysical abstraction influenced by Platonic and Stoic thought. It is not a person but an impersonal principle that bridges the gap between the transcendent God and the material world. John’s Logos, by contrast, is fully divine, eternal, and personal. John 1:1 explicitly states that “the Word was God” (theos), and John 1:14 declares that the Logos “became flesh.” This incarnational theology is foreign to Philo’s framework. John’s Logos is deeply rooted in Jewish Scripture, particularly in the concept of God’s Word (dabar) as a creative and revelatory agent (Genesis 1:3, Psalm 33:6, Isaiah 55:11). The identification of the Logos with Yahweh’s actions (e.g., creation, revelation) underscores the continuity between the OT and NT. John’s Logos is not a Hellenistic borrowing but a fulfillment of Jewish theological themes. So John’s Logos theology is distinct from Philo’s philosophical abstraction. While both use similar terminology, John’s Logos is the divine Word made flesh, fully consistent with Jewish monotheism and revelation.

The doctrine of the Trinity is not an artificial construct but the Church’s articulation of the revealed truth about God’s nature. The NT consistently presents the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as distinct persons who share one divine essence (Matthew 28:19, 2 Corinthians 13:14). The Church Fathers, such as Athanasius and the Cappadocians, developed Trinitarian theology to defend the biblical witness against heresies like Arianism and Adoptionism. The NT frequently applies Yahweh’s divine name and attributes to Jesus, demonstrating continuity with the OT. For example, Philippians 2:9-11 cites Isaiah 45:23 to affirm that Jesus is Yahweh. The alleged “freer conception” of God is unsupported by evidence. The NT authors maintain the strict monotheism of Judaism while revealing the triune nature of God. So the Trinity is a faithful expression of biblical revelation, not an artificial imposition. The NT’s application of Yahweh’s identity to Jesus affirms His full divinity within the unity of the Godhead.

408

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..

aqwsed12345

The claim that Philo’s Logos is the foundation for John’s Logos theology misinterprets both the Jewish philosopher Philo and the Johannine tradition. While Philo and John both use the term Logos, their conceptions of it are fundamentally different. Philo’s Logos is an intermediary principle that bridges the transcendent God and the material world. It functions as a divine agent, akin to an emanation, but it is not a distinct person or fully divine in itself. It is largely an abstraction, informed by Greek philosophical influences, particularly Stoicism and Platonism. Philo often allegorizes the Hebrew Scriptures, attributing symbolic roles to the Logos as the “reason” of God. However, Philo does not identify the Logos as Yahweh or as a concrete, incarnate figure. John in his Prologue (John 1:1-14) identifies the Logos explicitly as God (theos), fully divine, preexistent, and distinct in personhood while remaining one in essence with God. Unlike Philo’s abstraction, John’s Logos becomes flesh in the person of Jesus Christ (John 1:14), revealing a fully incarnate divine being. John portrays the Logos as personal and relational, engaging directly with creation and humanity. John’s theology is firmly rooted in Jewish monotheism, yet it includes the divine Logos within the identity of Yahweh, as seen in John 8:58 ("Before Abraham was, I AM"). The attempt to conflate Philo’s Logos with John’s Logos ignores these critical differences. While Philo’s concept of the Logos may have influenced the Hellenistic language available to John, John’s use is distinctly rooted in Jewish Scripture and the self-revelation of God through Christ. The Logos in John is not a philosophical abstraction but the second person of the Trinity, fully God and fully man.

The discussion of "Two Powers in Heaven," as presented by Dr. Michael Heiser and others, relates to Jewish debates about divine intermediaries in Second Temple Judaism. This idea is frequently used to argue that early Jewish Christians identified Jesus with an intermediary figure like the "Angel of the Lord." In Jewish tradition, the Angel of the Lord is often described with divine attributes (e.g., Exodus 3:2-6), but it is understood as a manifestation of Yahweh, not a distinct or subordinate being. Some Second Temple Jewish texts suggest a “second power” or divine figure, such as the Son of Man in Daniel 7. However, this does not imply polytheism but rather the complexity of God’s self-revelation. The New Testament identifies Jesus as the Son of Man from Daniel 7, who shares in divine authority and worship (Matthew 26:64; Revelation 1:13-14). This identification places Jesus within the divine identity, not as a subordinate angelic being. The New Testament frequently applies Old Testament passages about Yahweh directly to Christ (e.g., Philippians 2:9-11 cites Isaiah 45:23). This demonstrates that early Christians saw Jesus as fully divine, not a mere intermediary. The "Two Powers in Heaven" concept highlights the complexity of Jewish thought but fails to support the JW claim that Jesus is merely an archangel. Early Jewish Christians, as evidenced in the New Testament, went beyond the “Two Powers” framework by affirming Jesus’ full divinity as one with Yahweh.

Jehovah’s Witnesses claim that Jesus is Michael the Archangel, a created being, ontologically subordinate to God. This view is neither supported by Scripture nor compatible with early Christian theology. In Revelation 5:13-14, Jesus receives worship alongside God the Father. Worship is reserved for God alone (Exodus 34:14), ruling out the idea that Jesus is a mere angel. Hebrews 1:5-6 explicitly denies that Jesus is an angel: "For to which of the angels did God ever say, ‘You are my Son, today I have begotten you’?" The passage also commands the angels to worship Jesus. While JWs argue that “firstborn of all creation” (Colossians 1:15) implies Jesus is a created being, the context refutes this. "Firstborn" (Greek prototokos) signifies preeminence and authority over creation, not temporal origin. The subsequent verses clarify that all things were created "through him and for him," affirming His divine agency in creation. JW Christology reduces Jesus to a created being, denying His full divinity and contradicting both Scripture and the unanimous testimony of the early Church. Their interpretation is anachronistic, projecting modern theological constructs onto ancient texts.

The claim that NT authors understood Yahweh as a second power, distinct from the Most High, reflects speculative interpretations like those of Margaret Barker. This view lacks substantial historical and textual support. The distinction between Yahweh and the messianic Lord in Psalm 110:1 reflects Jesus’ dual nature as both God and man, not subordination to a separate “Most High.” The verse aligns with the Incarnation, where Christ, though fully divine, assumes a human role. Jesus is explicitly identified with Yahweh’s divine name and receives universal worship (Isaiah 45:23 and Philippians 2:9-11), affirming His full divinity.

408

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..

aqwsed12345

@peacefulpete

Harnack’s assertion that early views of Jesus were divided between (a) Adoptionism and (b) a form of subordinationism misrepresents the actual theological landscape of early Christianity. Both positions fail to account for the robust and nuanced understanding of Christ’s divinity and humanity as found in the Scriptures and upheld by the Church Fathers.

The Apostolic Fathers and early apologists, such as Ignatius of Antioch and Justin Martyr, clearly affirmed both the full divinity and full humanity of Christ. Ignatius refers to Jesus as "our God" (Letter to the Ephesians 18:2) and emphasizes His eternal existence, saying, "There is one Physician, both flesh and spirit, born and unborn, God in man" (Letter to the Ephesians 7:2). This early testimony demonstrates that the belief in Jesus as fully divine and fully human was not a later theological development but was rooted in the apostolic tradition. It does not align with Harnack's suggestion that Adoptionism or a semi-divine Christ dominated early Christian thought.

Theodotus' view, as described by Hippolytus, is heretical because it denies Christ’s eternal preexistence as the Son of God and reduces Him to a mere human who was later infused with divinity. This idea is incompatible with the Church's teaching on the hypostatic union, as defined in the Councils of Nicaea (325) and Chalcedon (451). The belief that Jesus became the Son of God only at His baptism contradicts clear scriptural affirmations of His eternal Sonship (John 8:58, Colossians 1:15-17, Hebrews 13:8). Sonship pertains to the person of Christ, not merely to His human nature. By asserting that Jesus was merely human and later adopted, Adoptionism effectively divides Christ into two persons (Nestorianism) or denies the true union of the divine and human natures. The Holy Spirit’s descent at Christ’s baptism in the Jordan signifies the inauguration of His public ministry, not the beginning of His divine Sonship. This is evident in Luke 2:49, where the twelve-year-old Jesus already calls God "My Father," long before His baptism. The Council of Chalcedon (451) defined that Jesus Christ is one person in two natures—fully God and fully man. This dogma is rooted in Scripture and Tradition and directly refutes Adoptionism.

Pope Victor I condemned Theodotus’ teaching in the late second century because it undermined the core of Christian faith: the Incarnation of the eternal Son of God. This condemnation was not an isolated act but part of the Church's consistent defense of orthodoxy. The early Church identified Adoptionism as a denial of Christ’s true identity and mission. By reducing Jesus to a mere human elevated to divine status, Adoptionism obscures the salvific significance of the Incarnation, which requires the union of divine and human natures in one person.The Church’s rejection of Adoptionism was reaffirmed in later centuries, notably in the condemnation of Elipandus of Toledo and Felix of Urgel in the eighth century, whose teachings similarly distinguished between a "natural Son" (divine) and an "adopted son" (human).

Theodotus' view that Jesus received the Spirit at His baptism misunderstands the purpose of the Spirit’s anointing. This event is not about adoption but about equipping Jesus for His public mission as the Messiah. Jesus, as the eternal Son of God, already possessed the fullness of divine nature. The descent of the Spirit at His baptism is a Trinitarian manifestation that inaugurates His public ministry, as seen in Matthew 3:16-17: "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." Adoptionism mistakenly assumes that the Spirit's descent adds something to Jesus’ identity. In reality, the Spirit’s descent reveals His divine identity to others and empowers His human nature for His salvific mission.

So Harnack’s dichotomy and Theodotus’ Adoptionism fail to account for the scriptural and theological evidence of Christ’s eternal Sonship and the unity of His divine and human natures. The Catholic Church, from the apostolic age to the present, has consistently upheld the truth that Jesus is the eternal Son of God, fully divine and fully human, who assumed our human nature to redeem us. Adoptionism, in all its forms, is a reductionist heresy that distorts the mystery of the Incarnation and contradicts the clear teaching of Scripture and Tradition.

408

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..

aqwsed12345

While there may be linguistic and conceptual overlap between Philo’s use of Logos and John’s Gospel, the Logos in Christianity is fundamentally distinct. Philo’s Logos was a philosophical and intermediary concept, bridging the gap between an utterly transcendent God and creation. It was not personal, nor did it possess the qualities of incarnation or full divinity as the Christian Logos does. John’s Gospel explicitly identifies the Logos as fully divine (theos) and co-eternal with the Father, culminating in the remarkable claim of incarnation: “The Word became flesh and dwelt among us” (John 1:14). This is a profound departure from Philo, whose Logos was neither incarnate nor a person but rather an abstraction or intermediary principle. Philo’s idea of the Logos walking on earth is speculative and allegorical, whereas John’s proclamation of the Logos becoming flesh is historical and literal. Philo’s Logos could not genuinely unite divinity with humanity as Christianity claims in the hypostatic union. The doxa (glory) referenced in John 1:14 refers not only to the divine presence but to the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies regarding God’s indwelling with His people (e.g., Ezekiel 43:5). Unlike Philo’s abstract concept, this fulfillment is realized in Jesus Christ.

While it is true that Hellenistic Judaism, including Philo, influenced early Christian theology, the Christian Logos doctrine transcends these influences. The idea that John’s Logos is merely a continuation of Philo’s concept is reductionistic. The uniqueness of the Christian claim lies in the identification of the Logos with Jesus Christ, who is fully God and fully man, as affirmed by the hypostatic union. Moreover, the Philonic Logos lacks the central salvific role ascribed to the Christian Logos. The Logos of John is not only the agent of creation but also the Redeemer, reconciling humanity to God through His death and resurrection. This salvific role is entirely absent in Philo’s framework. Any similarities between Philo’s and John’s conceptions of the Logos must be understood within the broader context of progressive revelation. The divine revelation often employs terms and concepts familiar to the audience but elevates them to express deeper truths (Summa Theologiae, I, q. 1, a. 9). Thus, while the language of Logos was accessible to Hellenistic audiences, its Christian meaning is entirely unique and rooted in divine revelation.

Adoptionism, whether in its classical form (e.g., Theodotus of Byzantium) or in its broader implications, fundamentally denies the eternal pre-existence of Christ as the divine Son of God. This contradicts the clear teaching of Scripture (John 1:1–3, Colossians 1:16–17). Adoptionism’s claim that the eternal Logos merely “inhabited” Jesus at baptism reduces Christ to a human vessel, severing the constant hypostatic union between the divine and human natures in Christ. This denies the full unity of Christ’s divine and human natures, as affirmed by the Council of Chalcedon (451), which declared Christ to be “one person in two natures” without confusion or separation. The claim that the virgin birth narratives are later “additions” to Mark’s Gospel is unfounded and lacks textual and historical support. While it is true that Mark’s Gospel does not explicitly include the virgin birth, the Gospels of Matthew and Luke independently attest to this event, affirming its significance. Far from being fabricated to refute Adoptionism, these narratives are integral to the Gospel’s proclamation of Christ’s divine identity. The virgin birth highlights the initiative of God in salvation history and underscores the unique role of Christ as the God-man.

The argument that early Christians modeled the incarnation on Greek myths of gods becoming human is both historically and theologically untenable. Early Christians were adamant about distinguishing their faith from paganism, particularly in rejecting the polytheistic and morally questionable portrayals of gods in mythology. St. Justin Martyr, for example, explicitly contrasted the Christian doctrine of the Logos with pagan myths, arguing that Christianity reveals the truth that Greek philosophy and religion only dimly apprehended (First Apology, chs. 20–22). While superficial parallels may exist, the incarnation of the Logos in Christianity is radically distinct. In Greek mythology, the gods’ interactions with humanity are often capricious and self-serving. In contrast, the Christian Logos became incarnate out of love, humility, and a desire to save humanity (cf. Philippians 2:6–8). The incarnation is not an arbitrary act but the culmination of God’s salvific plan

The statement attributed to Tatian, “God was born in the form of a man,” does not support Adoptionism but rather aligns with the doctrine of the hypostatic union. Tatian’s Address to the Greeks affirms the uniqueness of Christ’s incarnation, contrasting it with pagan myths. Far from implying a mere indwelling of divinity, Tatian’s statement highlights the profound mystery of God taking on human nature.

408

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..

aqwsed12345

@slimboyfat

The claim that the Bible identifies the Father as the "one God" without reference to a triune nature oversimplifies the text and ignores the broader biblical context. In 1 Corinthians 8:6, Paul does indeed say, "for us there is but one God, the Father," but he immediately continues, "and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live." It is no coincidence that you closed your eyes at the second half of the verse, such a heretical eisegesis requires such a mechanical, distorting reading. Paul here identifies the Father as the "one God" and Jesus Christ as the "one Lord." This reflects the Jewish Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4: “Hear, O Israel: The LORD [YHWH] our God, the LORD [YHWH] is one”) but reinterprets it in light of Christ’s relationship to the Father. The Shema emphasizes monotheism, and Paul upholds this while including Jesus within the divine identity:

The Father is the source of all creation (“from whom are all things”).
The Son is the agent of creation (“through whom are all things”).

This does not divide God into two beings but shows that the Father and the Son share the divine essence, fulfilling distinct roles within the Godhead. Paul is clearly reinterpreting the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4: "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one") in light of Jesus. He divides the Shema’s monotheistic confession into two parts: the Father as "one God" and Jesus as "one Lord." This does not contradict monotheism but expands it to include Jesus within the divine identity. The Shema’s “one Lord” (YHWH) is here applied to Jesus, while “one God” (YHWH) is applied to the Father. This is not a denial of Jesus’ divinity but a rearticulation of Jewish monotheism to incorporate Jesus as divine. In doing so, he reinterprets the Shema within a Christological framework, assigning to Jesus the divine role of Creator and Sustainer. Far from excluding Jesus from divinity, Paul’s language includes Him within the identity of the one God, showing an early development of Trinitarian theology.

Paul does not exclude Jesus from being fully divine; instead, he includes Jesus in the unique identity of YHWH. Isaiah 44:24 declares that YHWH alone created the universe: “I am the LORD [YHWH], who made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself.” However, in 1 Corinthians 8:6, Paul attributes creation to both the Father and the Son, saying that "all things" came "from" the Father and "through" the Son. This dual attribution is incompatible with the idea that Jesus is merely a creature, as YHWH explicitly states He did it alone.

Paul’s distinction between the Father and the Son in 1 Corinthians 8:6 does not imply a denial of the Trinity. Instead, it reflects the relational roles within the Godhead. The Father as the source, the Son as the agent, and elsewhere, the Spirit as the sustainer (cf. Genesis 1:2; Job 33:4). These distinctions do not divide God into separate beings but describe the harmonious operation of the one God in creation and redemption.

The title “one Lord” (heis Kyrios) is significant. In Deuteronomy 6:4 (LXX), the Shema declares that YHWH is “one Lord” (Kyrios heis). Paul’s deliberate use of this title for Jesus identifies Him with YHWH, the God of Israel. This is not merely a title of authority but a claim to divine identity. Paul’s language reflects a distinction between the Father and the Son without dividing them into separate beings. This aligns with Trinitarian theology, which affirms one God in three persons. The Father and the Son are distinct persons but share the same divine essence. Far from contradicting the Trinity, 1 Corinthians 8:6 provides evidence for the relational distinction within the Godhead while maintaining the unity of God.

The context of Galatians 3:20 is Paul’s discussion of the role of the law and the promise made to Abraham. So the context is not a doctrinal discussion about the nature of God but about the role of a mediator in the covenant. Paul contrasts the giving of the Mosaic Law, which involved a mediator (Moses), with the promise given to Abraham directly by God. Paul’s point is that the promise to Abraham was made unilaterally by God, without the need for a mediator, because "God is one." This phrase emphasizes God’s unity and direct action in fulfilling His promises, not a denial of relational distinctions within the Godhead. Paul contrasts the giving of the law, mediated by angels (and Moses), with the promise, which was given directly by God. His point is that God, unlike human agreements requiring mediators, acts unilaterally in fulfilling His promise to Abraham. The phrase "God is one" (ho theos heis estin) reaffirms monotheism, consistent with Deuteronomy 6:4, but it does not address whether God exists as a single person. Instead, it emphasizes God’s unity and faithfulness in contrast to human systems of mediation. · The statement "God is one" in Galatians 3:20 reflects the Jewish monotheistic confession of Deuteronomy 6:4. It affirms God’s unity but says nothing about the internal relational distinctions within the Godhead. The claim that this verse denies the Trinity is a category error, as it conflates the unity of God (His essence) with the concept of personhood (relational distinctions within the Godhead).

The Greek word for “one” (heis) does not inherently mean “one person.” It denotes unity or singularity. For example, in John 10:30: Jesus says, “I and the Father are one [hen],” signifying unity of essence, not singularity of personhood. In Genesis 2:24 (LXX) a husband and wife become “one flesh” (mia sarx). This does not mean they are one person but that they are united in essence and purpose. Trinitarian theology does not deny that God is one; it affirms that the one God exists as three distinct persons. The unity of God refers to His essence, while the distinction between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit pertains to their relational roles.

In His incarnate state, Jesus voluntarily submitted to the Father’s will (Philippians 2:6-8). This submission reflects His role in redemption, not an ontological inferiority. For example, John 5:19-23 shows both Jesus’ dependence on the Father and His equality with the Father. Jesus does nothing of His own accord (v. 19) but is entrusted with all judgment (v. 22) so that “all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father” (v. 23). To honor the Son in the same way as the Father would be blasphemy unless the Son shares the Father’s divine nature. The distinction between Father, Son, and Spirit pertains to their roles, not their essence. The Father sends, the Son redeems, and the Spirit sanctifies. These roles are complementary, not hierarchical.

Your objection that the Bible never uses the term "persons" to describe God misunderstands the theological terminology. The term "persons" (hypostasis, subsistentia, supossitum) was developed by the Church Fathers to articulate the biblical data about the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Bible presents the Father, Son, and Spirit as distinct yet fully divine. For instance, in the baptismal formula of Matthew 28:19, Jesus commands baptism "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." The singular "name" (not "names") implies unity, while the distinct references to Father, Son, and Spirit reflect their relational distinctions. The term "persons" is used to describe this relationship without compromising the essential unity of God.

This is like challenging a young child who is learning a language as their mother tongue to explain that since they don't know the technical terminology of grammatics (noun, adjective, verb, adverbs, etc.), they can't know the language itself or the concept of language.

Your argument that the expression "the God and Jesus" disproves Christ’s divinity is based on a false dichotomy. The Bible frequently refers to Jesus alongside the Father, but this reflects their relational distinction, not an ontological separation. For example, John 1:1 states, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Here, "the Word was with God" distinguishes the Son from the Father, while "the Word was God" affirms the Son’s full divinity. This passage demonstrates the co-existence and unity of the Father and Son within the divine nature.

The claim that "God" exclusively refers to the Father misunderstands the flexibility of biblical language. While the New Testament often uses "God" (Greek theos) to refer to the Father, it also applies the term to the Son. Thomas addresses the risen Christ as "My Lord and my God" (ho theos mou kai ho kyrios mou) in John 20:28, and the author of Hebrews quotes Psalm 45:6-7, addressing the Son: "Your throne, O God, will last forever and ever" (Hebrews 1:8). These passages show that the title "God" is not restricted to the Father but is shared by the Son within the context of Trinitarian theology.

Moreover, your suggestion that Trinitarians inconsistently apply "God" to mean either the Father alone or the triune God misunderstands how language operates within theological discourse. The term "God" can refer to the Father as the source of divinity, to the Son or Spirit when emphasizing their divine nature, or to the triune God collectively. This flexibility reflects the richness of biblical revelation, not inconsistency. Just as a single term like "humanity" can refer to an individual person, a group, or the human race collectively, so too can "God" be used in various contexts without contradiction.

Finally, your suggestion that the one who is not the Father cannot be God fails to account for the relational dynamics presented in Scripture. Jesus frequently refers to the Father as "my God" (e.g., John 20:17) because, in His incarnation, He assumed a subordinate role as the mediator between God and humanity. This relational subordination does not undermine His divinity but reflects His role within the economy of salvation. The Son’s submission to the Father is functional, not ontological, consistent with the doctrine of the Trinity, which maintains that the Father, Son, and Spirit are co-equal in essence yet distinct in person.

@Earnest

The term "orthodox" reflects the continuity of apostolic teaching, rooted in Scripture and the witness of the early Church Fathers. Even in the first three centuries, there was a recognized core of Christian belief that distinguished orthodoxy from heresy (e.g., Irenaeus' Against Heresies explicitly defends apostolic teaching against Gnostic distortions). Early councils, such as the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15), and writings of early Fathers (e.g., Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr) demonstrate a clear effort to preserve and define the faith handed down from the apostles.

The diversity of early Christian movements does not imply equivalence in theological validity. Groups like the Gnostics or Ebionites deviated from apostolic teaching, often rejecting core tenets such as the divinity of Christ or the resurrection. These deviations were not “alternate Christianities” but distortions of the original faith. Walter Bauer’s thesis, cited by Earnest, has been heavily critiqued. Scholars such as Larry Hurtado and Richard Bauckham have demonstrated that orthodox belief in Christ’s divinity and the Trinity existed from the earliest stages of Christianity, even if terminology developed over time.

Bart Ehrman’s The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture and Adolf von Harnack’s works are heavily criticized for imposing modern skepticism on ancient sources. They often assume textual corruption or theological evolution where continuity is evident. Edward Gibbon’s The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire is notorious for its Enlightenment-era anti-Christian bias, portraying the Church as politically motivated rather than spiritually guided. These authors selectively focus on outlier groups or speculative reconstructions, neglecting the overwhelming evidence of continuity in apostolic teaching.

Bauer’s claim that what became “heresy” was often the original form of Christianity is speculative and unsupported by evidence from regions like Antioch, Alexandria, or Rome, where apostolic teaching was preserved and affirmed. Scholars such as Andreas Köstenberger and Craig Evans have shown that Bauer’s arguments rely on isolated examples and ignore the broader unity of early Christian belief in Christ’s divinity.

@peacefulpete

The concept of the Logos in Christianity is fundamentally different from Philo’s philosophical Logos. John’s Gospel identifies the Logos as fully divine and incarnate in Jesus Christ (John 1:1, 14). The Logos is not an “emanation” or a “mini me” of God but the Second Person of the Trinity, fully sharing the divine essence (homoousios) with the Father. Philo’s Logos functioned as an abstract intermediary, whereas John presents the Logos as a personal, relational, and incarnate God. Early Church Fathers, such as Irenaeus and Justin Martyr, engaged with Hellenistic thought but firmly grounded their theology in the biblical revelation of the Logos as both fully divine and fully human.

Adoptionism denies the preexistence of Christ and contradicts clear biblical passages affirming His eternal nature and divinity (e.g., John 1:1-3, Colossians 1:15-20). It was rejected by the Church because it failed to account for the full revelation of Christ as both God and man. The virgin birth narratives (Matthew 1:23, Luke 1:35) and other Gospel accounts were not “additions” to refute Adoptionism but part of the original apostolic witness to Christ’s divine and human natures.

Docetism, which claimed that Jesus only “seemed” to be human, was explicitly condemned in Scripture (1 John 4:2-3) and by early Church Fathers. It undermines the reality of the Incarnation, which is central to Christian soteriology. The Gospel accounts of Jesus eating, suffering, and dying (e.g., Luke 24:39, John 19:34) are consistent with His full humanity and divinity. These details are not “proto-orthodox adjustments” but essential to the apostolic proclamation of the Gospel.

The Trinity doctrine is not a 4th-century invention but a faithful articulation of biblical teaching. Passages such as Matthew 28:19, 2 Corinthians 13:14, and John 14:16-17 reveal the triune nature of God. The doctrine’s development reflected the Church’s effort to defend the apostolic faith against heretical distortions, not to “harmonize” conflicting views. Far from being “blasphemous” to Jews, the Trinity is rooted in the monotheism of the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4) and the messianic expectations fulfilled in Jesus (Isaiah 9:6, Daniel 7:13-14). Early Jewish Christians like Paul affirmed this understanding (Philippians 2:6-11, Romans 9:5).

The New Testament itself reflects early and sophisticated Christological reflection. Paul’s letters (e.g., Colossians 1:15-20) and the Gospel of John provide a high Christology that became the foundation for later doctrinal developments. Early Christian worship practices, such as baptism “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19) and hymns like Philippians 2:6-11, demonstrate that Christians were deeply concerned with the nature of Christ from the beginning.

408

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..

aqwsed12345

Just in short: Ehrman, Gibbon and Harnack... learning Catholic church history from them is like trying to learn about the Jewish people from Hitler's Mein Kampf, ehh...

Just look at the Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-orthodox_Christianity

Ehrman's schematic model of four early Christian sects, including the proto-Orthodox. So there were these 4 fractions, but where are the proto-JWs?

408

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..

aqwsed12345

The Gospel narratives were not "mistaken" as history by later Christians; they were understood as historical accounts rooted in eyewitness testimony. Luke explicitly states his purpose to provide an orderly and reliable historical narrative based on firsthand sources (Luke 1:1-4). Early Christian communities accepted the Gospels as authoritative accounts of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection, as evidenced by their widespread use in liturgy, teaching, and apologetics. Writers like Papias (early 2nd century) affirmed the apostolic origins of the Gospels, demonstrating their historical credibility within a generation of their composition. While theological interpretation of the Gospels varied, the core message of Jesus as the incarnate Son of God was consistently upheld. The suggestion that these narratives were "mistaken as history" undermines the consistent testimony of early Christians regarding Jesus’ identity and mission.

The emergence of different Christological models reflects the Church’s attempt to articulate the mystery of Jesus as both fully God and fully man, not "rationalizations." These debates were driven by a commitment to preserve apostolic teaching amid challenges from heretical interpretations. Orthodoxy emerged not by rejecting history but by safeguarding the core truths of the Gospel against reductive interpretations like Docetism (denying Jesus' humanity) and Adoptionism (denying His divinity). The NT affirms Jesus’ dual nature (e.g., John 1:1-14, Phil. 2:6-11, Col. 2:9). Theological developments such as the Chalcedonian Definition (451 AD) clarified this teaching without deviating from the biblical witness.

Arianism posited that the Son was a created being, "the firstborn of all creation" (Colossians 1:15, misinterpreted by Arians). While Arians called Christ "God," they denied His co-eternity and consubstantiality with the Father, which orthodox Christianity affirmed. Orthodox theology, as defined at Nicaea (325 AD), upheld the biblical teaching that Jesus is "God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God" (Nicene Creed), reflecting His full divinity and eternal relationship with the Father.

Logos theology is rooted in Scripture, particularly John 1:1-14, which identifies Jesus as the preexistent Logos who is God and became flesh. This concept is not an invention of later Christians but a reflection of Jesus’ own self-revelation (e.g., John 10:30, Matthew 28:19). The "Second Power" concept in Jewish theology refers to divine agency and was not viewed as heretical until after Christianity began to flourish. Early Christians applied this framework to Jesus, affirming His divinity in continuity with Jewish monotheism. Logos theology consistently portrays Jesus as divine, not merely an emanation or secondary figure. While heretical groups like Marcionites and Valentinians misinterpreted this theology, the mainstream Church preserved the biblical teaching of Christ’s full divinity and humanity.

The Ebionites rejected Christ’s divinity, but they were a small, isolated sect that broke from mainstream Jewish-Christian beliefs. Their theology was rejected by the broader Church as inconsistent with the apostolic teaching of Jesus’ divine nature. The Nazarenes, by contrast, are often described as affirming Christ’s divinity while maintaining adherence to Jewish customs. The evidence is divided, but they do not represent a widespread denial of Christ’s divinity. Key Jewish-Christian figures, such as the Apostle Peter and James, affirmed Jesus’ divine identity. Peter’s confession, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matt. 16:16), reflects an early and consistent acknowledgment of Jesus’ divine nature.

While it is true that much of our knowledge of the Ebionites comes from their critics, such as Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Epiphanius, the evidence we do have allows for a reasonably clear understanding of their theology. The Ebionites rejected the divinity of Christ, viewing Him as a mere human, a prophet chosen by God, but not preexistent or divine; denied the virgin birth, asserting that Jesus was the biological son of Joseph and Mary; and clung to Mosaic Law, insisting on its continued observance, which set them apart from mainstream Christianity (e.g., Galatians 2:16, Acts 15). The theological framework of the Ebionites places them outside the orthodox understanding of Jesus as both fully God and fully man, which was consistently affirmed by the broader Church.

The accusations of bias or confusion by early heresiologists like Irenaeus or Epiphanius do not negate the core facts about Ebionite theology. Their writings reflect a clear distinction between the Ebionites and other groups such as the Cerinthians or Nazarenes. For instance, while the Nazarenes may have been closer to orthodoxy, the Ebionites outright rejected Christ's preexistence and divinity; and consistency in describing Ebionite beliefs about Jesus as non-divine and in emphasizing their adherence to the Mosaic Law. The frequent mention of the Ebionites in early Christian writings suggests their theological distinctiveness was well recognized, even if their numbers were small.

While Irenaeus mentions the Ebionites and Cerinthus, he does not conflate their beliefs. The Cerinthians were Gnostic-leaning and held more complex cosmological views, whereas the Ebionites represented a simple Jewish-Christian sect that rejected Christ’s divinity and adhered to the Mosaic Law. Adoptionism, as applied to the Ebionites, does not mean they saw Christ as divine in any significant sense. Rather, their view of Jesus being “adopted” at His baptism reflects their rejection of His preexistence and divinity. To say the Ebionites thought Christ was "divine" misunderstands the limited role they attributed to Jesus as a human agent of God. The early Church consistently rejected Adoptionism because it undermined the biblical teaching of Christ’s eternal divinity (John 1:1-3, Colossians 1:15-20). This opposition further highlights the theological discontinuity between the Ebionites and mainstream Christianity.

The suggestion that all early Jewish-Christian movements shared Adoptionist views oversimplifies the diversity of Jewish-Christian groups. The Ebionites were explicitly non-Trinitarian and denied Christ’s divinity. The Nazarenes are often regarded as closer to orthodoxy, potentially recognizing Jesus’ divinity while maintaining Jewish practices. The Cerinthians held a Gnostic-leaning Adoptionism, distinct from the Ebionite rejection of the virgin birth. These distinctions matter because they show that early Jewish-Christian movements were not monolithic. While some were Adoptionist, others affirmed Christ’s divinity or held beliefs closer to orthodox Trinitarian theology.

The disappearance of the Ebionites and similar groups can be attributed to their theological and practical isolation. Their rejection of Christ’s divinity, the virgin birth, and the New Covenant alienated them from the growing Christian movement rooted in apostolic teaching. By clinging to Mosaic Law, they failed to adapt to the broader Gentile context of the early Church (e.g., Acts 15, Galatians 3:28). This rigidity limited their appeal and integration into the expanding Christian world. Orthodox Christianity, by affirming the divinity, humanity, and salvific role of Christ, provided a coherent and compelling theological framework that resonated across diverse cultural and social contexts. The success of this framework contributed to the enduring legacy of the orthodox faith. Orthodox Christianity prevailed because it upheld the full biblical revelation of Christ as fully God and fully man, offering a theologically robust and historically enduring faith.

Figures like Paul of Samosata and Arius also represent theological deviations from the mainstream Church. Their teachings were condemned as heretical because they contradicted the apostolic witness to Christ’s preexistence and divinity (e.g., John 1:1, Col. 1:15-20). Lucian of Antioch’s association with Arianism is debated, but even his Christology did not achieve widespread acceptance in the early Church. The writings of the early Church Fathers (e.g., Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp, Irenaeus) consistently affirm Jesus’ divinity. These witnesses, closer in time to the apostles, refute the claim that the created Christologies of later heresies represent the original teaching.

While heretical groups used the term "God" inconsistently, the orthodox understanding of Jesus as fully God and consubstantial with the Father is rooted in Scripture (e.g., John 1:1, Phil. 2:6, Titus 2:13). This understanding prevailed because it accurately reflected the apostolic teaching. Earnest’s argument conflates heretical misuses of "God" with the orthodox affirmation of Jesus’ deity. The early Church consistently rejected interpretations that diminished Christ’s divine status (e.g., Arians, Adoptionists) while affirming the unity and co-equality of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

The historical record shows that the core belief in Christ’s divinity, as articulated in Logos theology, is deeply rooted in Scripture and the apostolic tradition. Heretical movements like Adoptionism, Arianism, and Ebionism represent deviations from this core belief, not its foundation. The early Church’s debates ultimately clarified and preserved the orthodox faith in Jesus Christ as fully God and fully man.

To demand, to expect a verse explicitly stating that "God is made up of three persons, and these three persons are a single God" misunderstands how Scripture reveals truth. The Bible does not always present doctrine in isolated proof texts but reveals truths progressively across its entirety. The word “Trinity” itself does not appear in the Bible, just as terms like "theocracy" or "omnipotence" do not. However, the concepts behind these terms are clearly taught. The Trinity is derived from the cumulative witness of Scripture, which affirms three truths:

There is one God (Deuteronomy 6:4; Isaiah 44:6).
The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct persons (Matthew 28:19; John 14:16-17).
Each person is fully God (John 1:1; Acts 5:3-4; Philippians 2:6).

Doctrine is often a synthesis of biblical data. Just as the doctrine of the canon of Scripture required discernment of the Bible's various books, so too does the Trinity require integrating the totality of what Scripture reveals.

You argue that Jesus’ dependence on the Father proves He cannot be God. However, this reflects a misunderstanding of the Incarnation. In becoming man, Jesus voluntarily entered into a state of submission and dependence. Philippians 2:6-8 explains that He “emptied Himself” (not of His deity, but of His divine privileges) to take on the role of a servant. Jesus prayed to the Father, received authority, and acted in obedience because He was fulfilling His mission as the incarnate Son of God. This does not negate His divinity but reveals His role in redemption. For example, “The Son can do nothing by Himself” (John 5:19) emphasizes Jesus’ dependence during His earthly ministry, but the same chapter declares, “All should honor the Son just as they honor the Father” (John 5:23), a clear claim to equality with God. Jesus’ submission to the Father (1 Corinthians 15:28) reflects relational roles within the Trinity, not inequality of essence. This is analogous to human relationships, where different roles do not imply different worth.

Your argument ignores numerous biblical affirmations of Christ’s deity:

Jesus Is Called God:

John 1:1: “The Word was God.”
John 20:28: Thomas addresses Jesus as “My Lord and my God.”
Hebrews 1:8: The Father says of the Son, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever.”

Jesus Is Worshiped:

Matthew 28:17: The disciples worshiped Him.
Revelation 5:13-14: Jesus receives the same worship as the Father, an act reserved for God alone.

Jesus Has Divine Attributes:

Omnipotence: Jesus claims, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me” (Matthew 28:18).
Omniscience: Jesus knew people's thoughts (Matthew 9:4).
Omnipresence: “I am with you always” (Matthew 28:20).

Jesus Is the Creator:

Colossians 1:16-17: “By Him all things were created... and in Him all things hold together.”
John 1:3: “All things were made through Him.”

These passages affirm that Jesus possesses the attributes, titles, and roles of Almighty God, even while serving as the incarnate Son.

While the Bible does not use the specific phrase "three persons, one God," it describes the Father, Son, and Spirit in ways that imply their unity and distinction:

Matthew 28:19: Baptism is performed “in the name [singular] of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” showing unity within distinction.
John 14:16-17: Jesus asks the Father to send the Spirit, demonstrating relational interaction between three divine persons.
2 Corinthians 13:14: Paul writes, “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all,” reflecting the triune relationship.

The Trinity affirms one God in essence, not three separate gods. Jesus’ distinction from the Father does not mean He is a separate deity, as Scripture consistently affirms one God (Isaiah 45:5; 1 Corinthians 8:4).

"I’ll Believe It If God Says It Directly"

This expectation is inconsistent with how God has revealed Himself throughout Scripture. God’s revelation is often progressive and mediated. For example, the term “Messiah” is not explicitly defined in the Old Testament, yet the concept is developed through prophecies and fulfilled in Christ. Jesus Himself affirmed that some truths are only revealed to those willing to see them: “If anyone’s will is to do God’s will, he will know whether the teaching is from God” (John 7:17). Your demand for a specific phraseology ignores the way God invites us to discern truth through the totality of His Word.

All in all, the deity of Christ and the doctrine of the Trinity are not human inventions but truths revealed in Scripture. Jesus’ dependence on the Father reflects His mission as the incarnate Son, not a denial of His divinity. The Bible consistently affirms one God in three persons, even if it does not use the exact wording you request. Instead of rejecting these truths based on modern expectations for explicit statements, I encourage you to prayerfully study Scripture as a unified testimony to God’s self-revelation in Christ.

408

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..

aqwsed12345

@slimboyfat

1. The Claim: Jesus Was an Angelic Being

The assertion that Jesus is an angelic being conflicts with key biblical texts that affirm His deity and unique status.

Hebrews 1:5-6: “For to which of the angels did God ever say, ‘You are my Son; today I have begotten you’? Or again, ‘I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son’? And again, when he brings the firstborn into the world, he says, ‘Let all God’s angels worship him.’”

This passage explicitly differentiates Jesus from angels, affirming His superiority over them. Angels worship Jesus, demonstrating that He is not merely one of them but their Creator (cf. Colossians 1:16-17).

John 1:1-3: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made.”

The Word (Jesus) is explicitly described as God and the Creator of all things, which includes angels. If He created angels, He cannot be one.

2. The Claim: Jesus Is the Firstborn

The term “firstborn” (πρωτότοκος, prototokos) is often misunderstood. It does not imply that Jesus was created but refers to His preeminence and unique relationship with the Father.

Colossians 1:15-17: “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.”

The context clarifies that “firstborn” signifies supremacy and authority, not temporal sequence. Jesus is the Creator of “all things,” which would include Himself if He were a created being—an illogical contradiction.

3. The Claim: Jesus Is “Always (?!?!) Subordinate to God

The claim that Jesus is eternally subordinate ignores the context of His incarnation and His eternal divine nature.

Philippians 2:6-7: “Who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.”

Jesus voluntarily took on a subordinate role in His incarnation, but this does not diminish His eternal equality with the Father. His submission was functional, not ontological.

John 10:30: “I and the Father are one.”

Jesus claims unity with the Father, not subordination. This unity encompasses essence and purpose, affirming His equality with God.

4. The Claim: Jesus Reflects God’s Character but Is Not God

While Jesus perfectly reflects God’s character, Scripture goes further, identifying Him as fully divine.

John 20:28: “Thomas answered him, ‘My Lord and my God!’”

Thomas directly addresses Jesus as “My God,” a clear affirmation of Jesus’ deity.

Colossians 2:9: “For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily.”

This verse explicitly states that Jesus embodies the full nature of God, not merely reflects it.

5. The Role of 1 Corinthians 2:16

The citation of 1 Corinthians 2:16—“But we have the mind of Christ”—is used to support the idea that Jesus reflects God. However, this verse emphasizes believers’ transformation into Christ’s image through the Holy Spirit, not a limitation on Jesus’ divine nature.

Conclusion

The biblical evidence overwhelmingly refutes the claim that Jesus is an “angelic being” or merely a reflection of God. Instead, the Scriptures consistently affirm that:

Jesus is not an angel but the Creator of angels and the object of their worship.
The term “firstborn” denotes His preeminence, not creation.
Jesus’ subordination during His earthly ministry was voluntary and does not negate His eternal equality with the Father.
Jesus is fully God, as affirmed by Thomas and Paul.

The claim reflects a misunderstanding of biblical terminology and context. The apostles’ language—using terms like theos (God) and kyrios (Lord)—was deliberately chosen to affirm Jesus’ full deity, not merely a secondary or subordinate role.

408

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..

aqwsed12345

@Blotty

Textual criticism recognizes differences between deliberate alterations and inadvertent scribal errors. Even if (!) et deum were added later, this doesn't mean the entire letter is inauthentic or that the theological message of early Christianity was fundamentally altered. The presence of similar high Christology in Polycarp’s contemporaries, like Ignatius, demonstrates that the belief in Jesus’ deity was not dependent on isolated phrases but was a widespread, well-attested doctrine. Accusing the entire tradition of manipulation based on one hypothetical instance is an overreach.

Origen himself acknowledged some alterations, but these were limited to his opponents or scribes with theological biases. However, the argument doesn't generalize. Early Christian communities were vigilant about preserving authentic texts. For example, when the Long Recension of Ignatius' letters emerged, it was recognized as inauthentic and was eventually dismissed by scholars. The preservation of the Middle Recension demonstrates the early Church’s efforts to maintain textual integrity. Theoretical possibilities (“what stops them?”) aren't evidence of widespread corruption; they’re speculative.

The pronoun αὐτῷ in John 20:28 unambiguously refers to Jesus. Your attempt to minimize its significance doesn't hold. Thomas’ declaration, “My Lord and my God!” (ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου), directly addresses Jesus, as αὐτῷ makes clear. The structure of the Greek grammar, particularly the article "ὁ" (the), shows that Thomas is making a direct and personal confession about Jesus' identity as both Lord and God. Claims that this is a general doxology lack linguistic and contextual support.

The vocative form of κύριος (κύριε) is indeed used in direct address, but the nominative ὁ κύριος can also function vocatively in Koine Greek, particularly in expressions of high reverence. In John 20:28, the nominative case serves both theological emphasis and direct address. Revelation 7:14 involves an angel, but the context clearly differentiates the angel from the Lamb (Jesus). Angels are messengers; they do not share the divine identity of the κύριος (Lord) invoked by Thomas in John 20:28.

Some marginal translations might interpret it as a doxology, but the original Greek supports a direct address to Jesus. The context—Thomas responding to Jesus’ invitation to touch His wounds—strongly indicates a personal address. The confession aligns with John’s theological emphasis on Christ’s divinity throughout the Gospel (e.g., John 1:1, 10:30). Rendering it as a doxology undermines the passage’s explicit Christological focus.

Scholars like Daniel Wallace and A.T. Robertson, widely respected in textual criticism and Greek grammar, support the interpretation of John 20:28 as affirming Jesus’ deity. While theological biases exist across all interpretations, the weight of scholarly consensus and linguistic analysis supports the traditional reading of this passage. It is not merely a matter of opinion but of consistent methodology in examining the text.

While δεσπότης and κύριος can overlap in meaning, their usage differs. δεσπότης typically conveys the sense of a master in a hierarchical relationship, such as a master over slaves (e.g., 1 Timothy 6:1-2). κύριος, however, carries broader connotations, including divine lordship. In the Septuagint, κύριος is consistently used to translate Yahweh, emphasizing God’s covenantal lordship. The apostles’ deliberate choice of κύριος for Jesus signifies His divine authority and identity, consistent with Old Testament usage for Yahweh.

Origen’s use of “divine” for angels refers to their participation in God’s glory, not their ontological nature as full deities. This is consistent with early Christian theology, which distinguishes between God’s uncreated essence and the derivative, participatory “divinity” of created beings. Angels are "divine" insofar as they reflect God’s holiness and serve His purposes, but they are not θεός in the sense applied to Christ in John 1:1 or Thomas’ confession.

Moses’ designation as “elohim” (Exodus 7:1) is metaphorical, reflecting his role as God’s representative before Pharaoh. Psalm 82 similarly refers to human judges as “elohim” due to their divine appointment, but this is a far cry from the ontological deity ascribed to Christ. Jesus’ identity as θεός (God) in John 1:1 and John 20:28 is presented as unique and unshared, aligning Him with Yahweh, not with metaphorical or lesser uses of "god."

It is a complete anachronism to translate the Hebrew term “elohim” in the oldest OT books before the Second Temple period, which is clearly used in connection with creatures, into Greek as θεός, θεοί, since here it simply means "mighty ones." In pure monotheism there are no such semi-"divine" beings, but one is either completely uncreated and omnipotent God and always has been, or is not at all and never was and never can be in any sense. But of course, the modernist Christian-bashers and the Arians who abuse their researches assume that this earlier pre-Isaiah usage, the eradication of which was already begun in the LXX (e.g. Psalm 8:5: “elohim” -> ἄγγελοι, and NOT θεοί) is also the guiding principle for the time of the apostles, and that θεός is also such a generic term with no special meaning, which can be boldly applied to the Archangel Michael, without any connotation to the actual deity in the proper sense. This approach ignores the principle of progressive revelation as well, there is no longer any such thing as non-YHWH, non-ominpotent “elohim” or θεός, not at all. God gradually led Israel to monotheism, the first step being that He commanded them to worship YHWH alone. It was not yet established on such a fundamental level that other gods did not exist at all. However, once that became evident, the use of the name YHWH no longer made sense, since it only meant "He who is". When it was already established on a fundamental level that other gods simply do not exist, and whenever we say “God” or “Lord,” we only can mean the One God, the Eternal Creator, the primum movens, since we cannot mean anything or anyone else. Κύριος is no longer just the own national god of the Jewish people, but the only one that deserves the names "God" and "Lord."

To translate the term “elohim” simply as "mighty ones" into Ancient Greek in a way that avoids the monadic sense of θεός (God in the proper, monadic, and monotheistic sense), one might consider using terms that convey strength, power, or divine authority without necessarily implying the exclusive monotheistic connotation. Here are a few possible options:

1. δυνάμεις (dynamis, plural: dynamies) – This term means "powers" or "forces" and conveys a sense of mighty entities or forces without strictly identifying them as gods.

2. ἄρχοντες (archontes) – Meaning "rulers" or "authorities," this could reflect beings with dominion or significant authority, aligning with a henotheistic or monolatrist interpretation.

3. κράτος (kratos, plural: krateis) – This refers to strength or might. While not typically personified, in a plural sense it could convey "mighty ones."

4. ἥρωες (heroes) – In the sense of semi-divine beings or mighty figures from mythology, this could also fit, though it leans more toward human-like entities.

5. ἰσχυροί (ischyroi) – Derived from ἰσχύς (ischys, meaning "strength" or "might"), this word directly means "mighty ones" or "strong ones."

For the specific context of Exodus 7:1 or Psalm 82, δυνάμεις or ἰσχυροί might be the best choices, as they emphasize the aspect of might or power without necessarily connoting formal divinity in the strict sense implied by θεός. ἄρχοντες might work well in a context emphasizing authority or rulership. Colossians 1:16 uses terms like θρόνοι (thronoi), κυριότητες (kyriotētes), ἀρχαί (archai), and ἐξουσίαι (exousiai) to describe a hierarchy of cosmic powers or authorities, which could be very relevant when trying to render "elohim" in Greek with a broader connotation than θεός. These terms provide a nuanced vocabulary for expressing a range of powerful entities without strictly aligning them with monotheistic God (in the θεός sense). Here’s how these terms compare to the "mighty ones" idea of “elohim”:

θρόνοι (thronoi) – "Thrones," emphasizing a high-ranking or exalted authority, potentially linking to heavenly or cosmic rulers.
κυριότητες (kyriotētes) – "Dominions" or "lordships," indicating spheres of dominion or powerful rule.
ἀρχαί (archai) – "Principalities" or "beginnings," often used for primordial or foundational powers, which can connote both authority and a cosmic role.
ἐξουσίαι (exousiai) – "Authorities," highlighting a legal or delegated power, perhaps akin to divine or cosmic governance.

To reflect the "mighty ones" concept in Exodus 7:1 or Psalm 82, the terms from Colossians 1:16 might work well depending on the context:

ἀρχαί (archai) could emphasize primordial authority or foundational powers, aligning with the more ancient concept of elohim as significant yet subordinate beings.
κυριότητες (kyriotētes) could reflect rulership or dominion, especially if the emphasis is on divine governance.
ἐξουσίαι (exousiai) might convey "mighty ones" in the sense of wielding authority delegated by a higher power, fitting contexts like Psalm 82, where God presides over the assembly of divine beings.

For Exodus 7:1, where Moses is made “elohim" to the Pharaoh, ἐξουσία (authority) or κυριότης (dominion) might convey Moses’ empowered status effectively, as these terms stress the bestowed nature of his power rather than an innate divinity.

Describing Jesus as "a divine Person" fits Trinitarian theology, as the Son is fully God, sharing the divine essence with the Father and the Spirit. However, the Greek text of John 20:28 goes beyond acknowledging Jesus as merely "a divine Person"; it explicitly affirms Him as ὁ θεός (the God), linking Him directly with the monotheistic God of Israel.