aqwsed12345

Joined

• started 11 topics
• posted 718 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by aqwsed12345

• 
  406

  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..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  aqwsed12345

  Did Constantine Invent the Trinity?

  Did the Trinity Come from Paganism?
• 
  406

  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..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  aqwsed12345

  @peacefulpete

  Firstly, while you claim that "an emanation is by definition a sharer in divine essence," this conflates the concept of emanation as found in Neoplatonism with the Christian understanding of divine essence. Emanation in Neoplatonism implies a hierarchy of being where successive emanations are progressively less divine and less perfect than their source. This stands in stark contrast to the Christian understanding of Christ as fully God and fully human, consubstantial (homoousios) with the Father. Philippians 2:6 does not describe Christ as an emanation or a lesser divine being but as one who, though existing in the "morphē of God", humbled Himself willingly. The humility described is not ontological diminishment but a voluntary act of self-emptying (kenosis) to assume human nature. This is entirely distinct from Neoplatonic emanationism, which presupposes an involuntary and impersonal diffusion of divine essence.

  Your appeal to Philo’s Logos as evidence for a transition from an “anthropomorphized emanation to being” misses the theological and literary context of both Philo and the New Testament. Philo’s Logos is a conceptual tool, an intermediary through which God interacts with the material world. While Philo ascribes many titles to the Logos (e.g., Son of God, High Priest, and Image of God), he does not describe it as a distinct, personal being in the sense of the Christian understanding of Christ. Instead, Philo’s Logos is a metaphorical and philosophical construct rather than a concrete, incarnate figure. In contrast, the New Testament presents Christ as a real person who took on human nature while retaining His divine essence, as explicitly affirmed in Philippians 2 and other passages such as John 1:1-14 and Colossians 1:15-20.

  The assertion that early Christians “walked the line” between seeing Christ as an anthropomorphized emanation and as a real being is inconsistent with the evidence from the earliest Christian writings. Paul, writing only a few decades after Christ’s death and resurrection, explicitly affirms both the preexistence and incarnation of Christ (e.g., Philippians 2:6-11, Galatians 4:4, Romans 8:3). These affirmations are grounded not in speculative Hellenistic philosophy but in the Old Testament’s portrayal of God’s Wisdom and Word as active in creation and revelation, now fully realized in the person of Christ. The early Christian proclamation (kerygma) was centered on the historical reality of Jesus of Nazareth, His death, resurrection, and exaltation, as evidenced by Paul’s letters and the oral traditions they reflect.

  Your claim that the Gospel of Mark represents a "dramatization of a Christian message of separation from Judaism" is speculative and lacks textual support. Mark’s Gospel is deeply rooted in Jewish Scripture and portrays Jesus as the fulfillment of Jewish messianic hopes, not as a figure opposed to Judaism. The narrative assumes the historicity of Jesus as a real person who performed miracles, taught, and ultimately suffered and died. Far from being a mere literary construct, Mark reflects the historical conviction of the earliest Christians that Jesus was the Messiah who had come in the flesh, as affirmed in writings such as 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 and 1 John 4:2.

  Finally, your suggestion that the image of Jesus as a historical figure developed over time through successive embellishments does not align with the robust historical evidence for the early and widespread belief in Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection. The earliest Christian writings, including Paul’s letters and the Gospels, present a coherent and consistent portrayal of Jesus as a historical person who is also the divine Son of God. This belief was not the product of later generations but was foundational to the Christian movement from its inception.
• 
  406

  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..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  aqwsed12345

  @peacefulpete

  Philippians 2:6-11 explicitly describes Christ as existing in the morphē of God, a phrase that emphasizes His preexistent divine nature, and never used for any creature in the Bible. This is not the language of an emanation or a subordinate being but of one who shares fully in the divine essence. The statement that Christ "did not consider equality with God something to be grasped" (harpagmos) does not imply that He was merely a servant of the Godhead who knew His place. Rather, it highlights that, although Christ is equal with God, He did not exploit this equality for His own advantage but humbled Himself in love and obedience. This stands in stark contrast to the portrayal of the "chief Archon" or rebellious figures in Gnosticism, who sought to usurp or resist divine order.

  The attempt to read Philippians 2 through the lens of Neoplatonic emanationism also distorts the passage. Emanationism involves a hierarchical procession of lesser beings from a distant and impersonal source, often with diminishing degrees of divinity. Philippians 2, however, affirms the full divinity of Christ and His intimate relationship with the Father, as seen in John 1:1-3 and Colossians 1:15-20. These passages affirm Christ’s role as the Creator of all things, not as an emanated or derivative being. Moreover, the notion of Christ as an emanation is fundamentally incompatible with the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, which upholds the co-equality and consubstantiality of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

  The claim that Philippians 2 contrasts Christ with the "Archon of this world" is also problematic. While Ephesians 2:2 does describe a "spirit at work in those who are disobedient," this reference to the "archon of the air" is best understood within the context of Jewish and early Christian demonology, not as a framework for interpreting Christ’s humility in Philippians. The "archon" mentioned in Ephesians represents the devil, a rebellious and fallen creature, whereas Philippians presents Christ as the obedient and self-emptying God-man. These two figures are not parallels or contrasts within the same category but represent entirely different metaphysical realities: Christ as God incarnate and Satan as a created being in rebellion against God.

  Furthermore, the appeal to Philo’s Logos and Ben Sira’s personification of Wisdom to frame Christ as an anthropomorphic emanation misses the mark. Philo's Logos functions more as an intermediary or instrument of creation, not as a fully animate being or a divine person in the Trinitarian sense. Similarly, the personification of Wisdom in Ben Sira and other Jewish wisdom literature is metaphorical, pointing to God’s attributes, not a preexistent being equal with God. In contrast, Philippians 2 presents Christ not as a metaphor or an intermediary but as the incarnate Son of God, who willingly humbled Himself to the point of death for the salvation of humanity.
• 
  406

  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..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  aqwsed12345

  @slimboyfat

  The assertion that early Christians understood passages like John 1:1, Colossians 1:15, and Philippians 2:5–11 as depicting Jesus as a subordinate "god" distinct from the Father misrepresents both the biblical texts themselves and the theological continuity of the early Church. It also oversimplifies the historical development of Christology and the doctrine of the Trinity.

  In John 1:1, the Logos is not merely "a god" but is explicitly affirmed as sharing in the divine nature. The Greek construction of theos ēn ho logos indicates qualitative identity, not a lesser, inferior divinity. The absence of the definite article before theos does not imply inferiority but emphasizes the nature of the Logos as fully divine while maintaining distinction from the Father (pros ton theon). The absence of the article ("ho") before the second occurrence of "theos" does not imply that Jesus is "a god" or a lesser being. In Greek grammar, the lack of the article serves to emphasize the qualitative nature of the noun. If the Logos were called ho theos in John 1:1c, it would not prove Nicene consubstantility, but Sebellianism, which is precisely why it is not there. This distinction in relationship does not negate the unity of essence. The assertion that the Logos is "a god" (nothing special, you know, not a big deal, exactly just like Moses and the judges!) overlooks the monotheistic context of John's Gospel, which would not tolerate the existence of a lesser deity alongside the one true God. John 1:1 presents the Logos as God in essence and being, not as a secondary or subordinate entity. There is no such grammatical rule that only ho theos means true and full-fledged God, and the anarthrous theos is just some kind of nondescript creature, in whose case the theos is a rank that can be applied to anyone, but in reality, he is actually just an archangel.

  Colossians 1:15 describes Christ as "the firstborn of all creation," but the term Prototokos (firstborn) does not imply that Christ is part of creation. Instead, it signifies preeminence and authority over creation. In ancient Jewish usage, "firstborn" often indicated rank and inheritance, not chronological origin. For instance, David is called "the firstborn" in Psalm 89:27 despite being the youngest of Jesse's sons, emphasizing his supremacy and chosen status. Strangely, the last time I looked in the Bible, the Son was still begotten/born of the Father, not that He was created/made/fashioned, so why couldn't you simply accept this biblical terminology and call Him begotten/born? Similarly, Colossians 1:16–17 clarifies that Christ is the agent of all creation: "For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible...all things were created through him and for him." So it is written right there in the next verse that He is the Prototokos regarding the whole creation precisely BECAUSE…, not because He was “made” first. This depiction of Christ as the creator and sustainer of all things unequivocally affirms His divine nature and role, placing Him above creation and not as part of it.

  Philippians 2:5–11 describes Christ as "existing in the morphe of God" (en morphe theou hyparchon) and emphasizes His equality with God. The passage portrays Christ’s humility in not clinging to His divine privileges but taking on human form for the sake of humanity. His subsequent exaltation "to the glory of God the Father" does not imply ontological inferiority but reflects the perfect unity and shared glory within the Godhead. The glorification of the Son brings glory to the Father because their divine essence and purpose are inseparable. Far from suggesting a hierarchical relationship, this passage underscores the divine identity of Christ and His role in the economy of salvation.

  The claim that the doctrine of the Trinity is a later invention ignores the fact that the early Church, even before the Council of Nicaea, consistently affirmed Christ’s divinity. Ignatius of Antioch (c. 110 AD) referred to Jesus as "our God" (Theos hēmōn) in multiple letters. Justin Martyr, writing in the mid-2nd century, described the Logos as eternal and divine, distinct from created beings. These affirmations predate Nicaea by centuries and demonstrate that the divinity of Christ was not a post-Nicene innovation but an intrinsic part of early Christian belief.

  The idea that earlier Christians "took these passages at face value" as denying Christ's full divinity is a selective interpretation. The writings of early Church Fathers and the practices of early Christian worship consistently reflect the understanding of Jesus as fully divine. Pliny the Younger, writing in the early 2nd century, described Christians as worshiping Christ as a god (quasi deo), indicating that this was a well-established practice long before Nicaea. If Jesus were understood merely as a subordinate being, such worship would have been considered blasphemous within the monotheistic framework of early Christianity.

  The Council of Nicaea did not invent or impose a novel doctrine but clarified and defended the Church’s longstanding belief in Christ’s divinity against Arianism, which sought to reduce Jesus to a created being. The term homoousios (of the same substance) articulated the biblical teaching that the Son shares the same divine essence as the Father, countering Arius’ claim that "there was a time when He was not." This theological development did not alter the Church’s belief but provided the necessary precision to refute heretical interpretations.

  The claim that Jesus is "a god" distinct from "the God" (the Father) ignores the consistent biblical witness to Christ’s divine nature and unity with the Father. The Johannine writings, Pauline epistles, and early Christian worship all affirm that Jesus shares in the divine essence and is co-eternal with the Father. While the language of the Trinity was formalized over time, the underlying truth of Christ's divinity and unity with the Father has been present since the inception of Christianity. Thus, the assertion that the Trinity is a later doctrinal invention is historically and theologically untenable.

  ---

  @peacefulpete

  While Hart explores the diversity of early Christian thought, his comments do not support the notion that the earliest Christians viewed Jesus as a mere emanation of God or a "secondary God" in a way that diminishes His divine nature. The New Testament does not depict Jesus as a secondary emanation but as fully divine, sharing in the essence and identity of Yahweh. Hart's mention of the "Great Angel" and similar imagery does not imply that Jesus was viewed as merely an angelic being. Instead, these terms often served as metaphors or functional titles to express Christ's unique mediating role and presence as God’s revelation in the world. Such language does not reduce Jesus to a subordinate being; rather, it highlights His role in divine manifestation. For example, the term "Angel of the Lord" in the Old Testament was used in theophanic contexts where the "Angel" is identified with Yahweh Himself (e.g., Exodus 3:2-6). Early Christians, drawing from this tradition, did not understand Jesus as a created angel but as God’s ultimate self-revelation, fully sharing in the divine nature.

  The response also introduces the concept of a "secondary God" to suggest that early Christians had a fluid or inconsistent understanding of Christ’s deity. However, the notion of a "second power in heaven," as studied in Second Temple Judaism, often served as a precursor to understanding Christ’s divine identity. Far from undermining monotheism, this framework provided a way to articulate the presence and work of God within creation while maintaining His transcendence. The New Testament authors explicitly integrate these Jewish theological categories into their depiction of Jesus, presenting Him as both distinct from the Father and yet fully divine. John 1:1, for example, identifies the Logos as God, not a secondary or subordinate being. Similarly, Philippians 2:6-11 affirms that Jesus, though humbling Himself in the Incarnation, shares in the "form of God" and receives universal worship, something only accorded to Yahweh in Jewish monotheism.

  The assertion that Hart’s view supports the idea of a "developing concept of deity in human form" in the New Testament is an oversimplification of the theological coherence found across the texts. While the New Testament authors use diverse imagery and language to describe Jesus, their central affirmation is consistent: Jesus is the divine Son of God, preexistent and fully involved in creation, yet incarnate as a man for the purpose of redemption. Colossians 1:15-20, for instance, presents Jesus as the one "in whom all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell" and through whom "all things were created." This is not a fragmented or evolving concept but a unified proclamation of Christ’s divine identity and role as Creator and Redeemer.

  The claim that the New Testament authors were "inconsistent in detail but consistent in theme" does not diminish the theological coherence of their Christology. Instead, it reflects the multifaceted nature of divine revelation, as different authors emphasized various aspects of Christ's person and work. The New Testament canon was not compiled arbitrarily or edited to enforce conformity; rather, it reflects the apostolic witness to the reality of Jesus Christ as both fully God and fully man. The thematic consistency of Jesus’ divine identity across the New Testament, despite variations in literary style and theological emphasis, underscores the shared belief in His deity among the earliest Christians.

  Hart’s use of expressions like "God entering time" and "face of God" aligns with the traditional understanding of the Incarnation as God’s self-revelation in Jesus Christ. These terms do not suggest a lesser or emanative status for Jesus but affirm His unique role as the visible manifestation of the invisible God. The New Testament authors repeatedly affirm that Jesus is the definitive revelation of God (e.g., John 14:9, Hebrews 1:3), not merely one "face" among many or a partial emanation. This understanding is fully consistent with Trinitarian theology, which maintains the unity of God while distinguishing the persons of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

  Finally, the assertion that the New Testament reflects a "developing concept of deity" misses the progressive nature of divine revelation. The New Testament writers did not invent or gradually construct the idea of Jesus’ divinity; they bore witness to what had been revealed to them through Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection. While theological terminology developed over time to address heresies and clarify doctrine, the core belief in Jesus’ deity was present from the beginning, as evidenced by the worship of Jesus alongside the Father and the Spirit in the earliest Christian communities.

  In summary, the response distorts Hart’s comments by overstating the role of "angelomorphic" language and ignoring the consistent testimony of the New Testament to Jesus’ full divinity. The early Church’s articulation of Christology, including the use of terms like homoousios at Nicaea, was not a departure from apostolic teaching but a faithful development of it. Hart’s acknowledgment of the complexity and richness of early Christian thought does not undermine the central affirmation that Jesus is God incarnate, the eternal Son who shares fully in the divine essence.
• 
  406

  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..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  aqwsed12345

  @slimboyfat

  First, the claim that the earliest Christians viewed Jesus as subordinate or as a high angel is inconsistent with the New Testament’s portrayal of Jesus. Passages like John 1:1, Philippians 2:6-11, and Colossians 1:15-20 present Jesus as fully divine, sharing in God’s essence and attributes. John explicitly calls the Logos “God” (theos), not “a god” or an angel. Philippians describes Jesus as being “in the form of God” and not clinging to His equality with God, a clear affirmation of His divine nature. Colossians declares that “all things were created through Him and for Him,” and that “in Him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell.” Angels, as created beings, do not receive such worship or descriptions. These texts, which predate the Council of Nicaea, demonstrate that early Christians did not regard Jesus as a mere creature but as fully divine, though distinct in personhood from the Father.

  The claim that Arianism represents the earliest Christian tradition better than Nicene theology ignores the theological continuity found in early Christian worship and writings. Even before Nicaea, Christians universally worshiped Jesus alongside the Father and the Holy Spirit, which would be blasphemous if Jesus were merely an angel or created being. For example, Ignatius of Antioch (c. 110 AD) repeatedly referred to Jesus as "our God" in his letters. Pliny the Younger, in his early second-century report to Emperor Trajan, described Christians as worshiping Christ as a god (quasi deo), showing that the practice of worshiping Jesus was not a later Nicene innovation but a hallmark of Christian belief from the earliest times.

  The Council of Nicaea (325 AD) did not “invent” Trinitarian theology but affirmed what was already believed and defended it against Arianism, a theological innovation that denied the full divinity of Christ. Arius taught that Jesus was a created being, "there was a time when he was not," which clashed with the prevailing understanding of Jesus as eternal and divine. Church Fathers before Nicaea, such as Ignatius of Antioch (d. ~107 AD), referred to Jesus as "our God" (Letter to the Ephesians 18:2) and described his unity with the Father. Justin Martyr (d. ~165 AD) defended the Logos theology, emphasizing Jesus' pre-existence and divinity, distinguishing him from created beings. Irenaeus of Lyons (d. ~202 AD) affirmed that Jesus is "God of God," who reveals the Father and shares in his eternal nature (Against Heresies 4.6.7). These writings predate Arius and demonstrate that belief in Christ's divinity was not a Nicene invention but part of the earliest Christian tradition.

  Arius’ theology, far from being representative of early Christian belief, was a theological innovation. His claim that the Son was a created being who came into existence at a specific point in time (there was a time when He was not) directly contradicted the worship and teaching of the Church. Arius' view of Jesus as a created being, though influential for a time, was not representative of the broader early Christian consensus. Origen (d. ~254 AD), an early theologian cited by Arians, explicitly taught the eternal generation of the Son from the Father, affirming the Son's divinity and rejecting the idea of the Son as a creature. Arius' theology emerged in a specific context, attempting to preserve a strict monotheism that subordinated the Son to avoid perceived polytheism. However, this theology distorted the scriptural and apostolic witness of Jesus' nature. The Nicene Creed's declaration that Jesus is "of one essence with the Father" (homoousios tō patri) was not a novel idea but a precise formulation to counter Arian misinterpretations. This is why his ideas were widely rejected, not just at Nicaea but also in the broader Christian community. Arianism may have borrowed language and concepts that resonated with Greek philosophical ideas of hierarchy, but it diverged from the apostolic teaching found in Scripture and the broader patristic tradition.

  The claim that Nicene theology introduced a later innovation also fails to recognize the historical context of the Council of Nicaea. The use of the term homoousios (of the same substance) was not a new invention but a clarification of what the Church had always believed. The controversy arose because Arius’ teachings forced the Church to articulate more precisely what it meant by the divinity of the Son. Nicaea did not create the doctrine of the Trinity or the belief in Christ’s divinity; it formalized the language necessary to combat heretical distortions.

  The reference to Eusebius of Caesarea as evidence of a theological shift is also misleading. Eusebius, like many early theologians, used language that reflected both the relational distinctions within the Godhead and the essential unity of the Father and the Son. Eusebius, a semi-Arian, initially hesitated to embrace the term homoousios, but even he acknowledged Jesus' pre-existence and divinity. The Nicene Creed clarified and formalized what was already believed to safeguard orthodoxy against heretical reinterpretations like Arianism. Any apparent "shift" in Eusebius' writings reflects the necessity of aligning with this clarified orthodoxy rather than a change in the faith itself. His theology evolved, but this reflects the natural development of thought in response to the Arian controversy, not a wholesale change in belief. Even before Nicaea, Eusebius referred to the Logos as eternal and divine, and he signed the Nicene Creed, affirming the Son’s consubstantiality with the Father. This demonstrates continuity rather than a radical break.

  While Hart acknowledges diversity in early Christian theology, he does not claim that Arius more faithfully represented the apostolic faith. In fact, Hart critiques overly simplistic readings of the early Church and recognizes the deep-rooted Trinitarian understanding in Christian worship and theology. Hart's emphasis on the development of Christian doctrine highlights how theological language was refined over time, but this does not imply that core beliefs, such as Christ's divinity, were later inventions. Trinitarian worship (e.g., baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as per Matthew 28:19) was practiced from the earliest days of the Church.

  Finally, the claim that Nicene theology was a later innovation overlooks the fact that the concept of the Trinity, while not fully articulated with later technical terms, is deeply rooted in Scripture and the early Christian understanding of God. The baptismal formula in Matthew 28:19, the Johannine emphasis on the unity of the Father and the Son (John 10:30, 17:21), and the Pauline doxologies (2 Corinthians 13:14) all point to a triune understanding of God. The articulation of this belief at Nicaea was not a departure but a defense of this apostolic faith.
• 
  406

  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..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  aqwsed12345

  @Blotty

  The assertion that Ps. 82 and 2 Cor. 4:4 use “gods” metaphorically to refer to human judges and Satan’s authority, respectively, is well-supported by mainstream biblical scholarship and early Christian interpretation. Ps. 82 clearly speaks of human judges, as evidenced by the context of their rebuke for failing to uphold justice. The phrase “you will die like men” underscores their mortality and distinction from God. This metaphorical use is not new or controversial and aligns with Jesus’ usage in John 10:34-36 to argue from the lesser to the greater—if mere humans can be called “gods,” how much more appropriate is it for Him, the Son of God, to claim divine prerogatives? As for 2 Cor. 4:4, Satan being referred to as “the god of this age” denotes his temporary authority over the fallen world, not divinity in the ontological sense. This metaphorical use is standard in biblical language and does not conflict with monotheism.

  Regarding Wikipedia, dismissing its utility entirely is not valid. The platform often provides accurate summaries, and while it is not an academic source, it can lead readers to scholarly references. The critique that I rely on Wikipedia is misplaced, as my arguments draw from well-established scholarly sources, including linguistic and theological studies, not mere online encyclopedias. Your insistence on citations is valid, but dismissing arguments solely due to their perceived association with Wikipedia reflects a lack of engagement with their substance.

  On John 1:1, the grammatical structure of the Greek text—theos ēn ho logos—emphasizes the qualitative nature of the Logos as fully divine. The absence of the definite article does not imply indefiniteness but highlights the Word’s essence as God. This is not merely my interpretation but a conclusion supported by scholars like Daniel Wallace and Bruce Metzger. Rendering it as “a god” imposes a theological bias, introducing a polytheistic-henotheistic nuance incompatible with the monotheistic framework of John’s Gospel.

  Your claim that “dia” in John 1:3 and Col. 1:16 suggests Jesus was merely an intermediary is incorrect. The preposition “dia” indicates agency, but the broader context clarifies that Jesus is the Creator. John 1:3 explicitly states that “all things were made through Him,” and without Him, “nothing was made that has been made.” This affirms Jesus’ direct and indispensable role in creation. Origen, while using subordinationist language reflective of his era, still affirmed the Logos’ divine status and creative work. His speculative theology must be interpreted within the historical development of Trinitarian doctrine.

  The claim that John 1:3 merely attributes creation to God acting through the Logos misunderstands both the language of the passage and the broader theological context of the Gospel of John. The verse explicitly states that "all things were made through Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made." The phrase "without Him" categorically excludes the possibility of the Logos being merely a passive instrument, or a created being himself. The Logos is presented as integral and active in the creation process. The preposition dia (through) in this context does not diminish the Logos’s role but highlights His divine agency within the unity of the Godhead. The context of John 1:1-3 establishes that the Logos is not subordinate but fully God: "The Word was God." This directly associates the Logos with the creative power of Yahweh in Genesis 1.

  The argument that dia inherently implies subordination is a misunderstanding of its semantic range. While dia can indicate agency, it does not imply inferiority or dependence. In John 1:3 and Col. 1:16, dia highlights the relational dynamic within the Trinity: the Father is the source, the Son is the agent, and the Spirit is the perfecting force. This dynamic does not imply ontological inequality but reflects the distinct roles of the divine persons. The assertion that Origen denied Christ’s role as Creator is incorrect when his works are properly understood. Origen recognized the Logos as the agent of creation, fully divine and distinct in person but not inferior in essence. His descriptions are rooted in the relational economy of the Trinity, not subordinationism.

  The objection to the term "intermediary" relies on a semantic confusion. While "intermediary" can mean "in-between," this does not imply inferiority when applied to the Logos. In Trinitarian theology, Christ as the Logos acts as the mediator of creation, reflecting His unique role within the Godhead. This mediation does not suggest that He is less than the Father; instead, it highlights the distinct personal roles within the unity of divine essence. Human intermediaries, such as prophets or angels, act externally and dependently on God. In contrast, the Logos acts internally and inherently as God.

  The claim that Isa. 44:24 excludes the Son from creation is based on a misinterpretation of the text. Isaiah emphasizes Yahweh’s exclusive role as Creator to deny the existence of rival gods. The NT writers, including John and Paul, consistently apply OT creation texts to Christ, identifying Him as Yahweh. For instance, Heb. 1:10 applies Ps. 102:25-27, which describes Yahweh’s creative work, directly to the Son. This affirms the Son’s full participation in the divine essence. Tertullian’s writings, while not using the developed terminology of Nicaea, affirm the Son’s role in creation. In Against Praxeas, Tertullian states that the Father created "through His Word," acknowledging the Son’s divine agency in creation. His writings are consistent with the broader Trinitarian framework that ascribes creation to the Father, Son, and Spirit as one God. Tertullian, in Against Praxeas, affirms that the Father and Son are united in essence and act inseparably in creation. His analogy of the sun and its rays illustrates the Son’s consubstantiality with the Father. While Tertullian emphasizes the Father’s primacy in order, he does not deny the Son’s role as Creator.

  The demand for an explicit passage calling Jesus "Creator" overlooks the cumulative witness of Scripture. John 1:3, Col. 1:16, and Heb. 1:10-12 explicitly attribute creation to the Son, presenting Him as the agent through whom all things exist. The insistence on a single, formulaic statement ignores how Scripture reveals truth progressively and through a synthesis of passages. The same approach applies to doctrines like the Trinity, which are derived from the entirety of biblical revelation rather than isolated proof texts.

  The analogy comparing the Logos’s unity with the Father to the unity of angels or humans with God is flawed. While believers and angels may act in alignment with God’s will, this unity is moral and functional, not ontological. Christ’s unity with the Father, as described in John 10:30 ("I and the Father are one"), refers to their shared divine essence, not merely cooperative action. This is why the Jewish audience accused Jesus of blasphemy—they understood His claim to be ontological. Similarly, when Christ prayed for believers to be "one" with Him and the Father (John 17:21), He spoke of relational unity through grace, not equality of essence. Angels and humans remain created beings, whereas Christ, as the Logos, is uncreated and fully divine.

  The claim that the angel in Rev. 22:13 speaks as "Alpha and Omega" misrepresents the text. The angel does not use this title for itself but conveys the words of God. Revelation carefully distinguishes between God, the Lamb (Jesus), and angels. The "Alpha and Omega" title is used exclusively for God and the Lamb (Rev. 1:8, 22:13), emphasizing their divine nature. Unlike angels, who reject worship (Rev. 19:10, 22:8-9), Christ consistently receives worship in the NT (Matt. 14:33, John 20:28, Rev. 5:13-14). This worship underscores His divine identity, as worship is reserved for God alone (Exod. 34:14). The angel’s role in Revelation demonstrates submission to God, whereas Christ’s role reveals His divine authority and identity.

  The criticism of the use of ego eimi in John 8:58 misunderstands Greek grammar and the context of the passage. Jesus’ declaration, “Before Abraham was, I AM,” uses the present tense ego eimi to assert eternal existence, evoking the divine name revealed in Exod. 3:14 (ehyeh asher ehyeh, “I am who I am”). This connection is reinforced by the reaction of the Jews, who sought to stone Him for blasphemy, recognizing His claim to deity. The argument that ego eimi could mean “I have been” ignores the theological implications of Jesus’ statement and the broader Johannine context.

  Your reference to Jason BeDuhn and his critique of Trinitarian translations does not undermine the linguistic and theological validity of traditional renderings. While BeDuhn praises the NWT for its literal approach, he also critiques its theological bias, particularly in passages like John 1:1. His preference for “divine” rather than “a god” underscores the qualitative nature of theos, which aligns with the traditional understanding of the Logos as fully God. BeDuhn’s preference for "divine" as a rendering of theos in John 1:1c stems from his focus on the qualitative aspect of the Greek term in its context. This usage reflects the Logos’ sharing in the nature of deity, emphasizing what the Word is (its essence) rather than introducing an indefinite or subordinate interpretation such as "a god." BeDuhn himself, though not a Trinitarian, does not advocate for the Arian interpretation implied by the NWT ("a god"). Instead, his argument aligns with the broader scholarly consensus that the absence of the article in theos does not suggest indefiniteness but rather highlights the qualitative nature of the term.

  Your appeal to Origen's usage of "divine" to describe angels misses the mark. Origen's occasional use of such terminology does not undermine the distinctive application of theos to the Logos in John 1:1c. When Origen applies theos to the Logos, he explicitly affirms its ontological distinction from created beings and its unique participation in the divine essence, as seen in Contra Celsum and other writings. His nuanced theological language—though predating Nicene orthodoxy—aims to clarify, not dilute, the Logos' deity. Origen never equates the Logos with angels or lesser divine beings but instead affirms its superior and eternal relationship with the Father.

  Comparisons to modern definitions of "divine," as suggested by your reference to a Google search, lack the necessary theological precision to engage with this discussion. In the context of John 1:1c, "divine" reflects the qualitative divine essence of the Logos as articulated by the Evangelist. This is not a generic or diluted sense of "divine," but one rooted in the Jewish monotheistic tradition and its fulfillment in Christology. BeDuhn's preference for "divine" acknowledges this qualitative aspect without endorsing subordinationism or polytheism.

  Moreover, your claim that BeDuhn’s non-Trinitarian stance necessarily colors his interpretation of "divine" as something other than the full divinity of the Logos is speculative. While BeDuhn critiques traditional Trinitarian interpretations, his linguistic observations are grounded in the grammar and context of the Greek text. The qualitative understanding of theos in John 1:1c is not inherently anti-Trinitarian; rather, it underscores the Logos’ intrinsic participation in the divine essence, as affirmed by both Trinitarian and non-Trinitarian scholars.

  Your argument conflates BeDuhn’s linguistic analysis with theological conclusions that he does not explicitly endorse. His critique of the NWT is not an unqualified defense of its theological interpretations but an acknowledgment of its grammatical possibilities within a narrow framework. The broader context of John 1, as well as the Gospel's high Christology, supports the traditional understanding of the Logos as fully divine, a point that BeDuhn’s linguistic observations do not negate.

  The claim that the Greek present tense conveys timeless or continuous existence is not a baseless assertion. The use of ego eimi in John 8:58 is unique because it stands in contrast to the temporal clause (prin Abraam genesthai—"before Abraham came to be"). This contrast demonstrates that Jesus' existence transcends temporal limitations. While examples of present tense verbs conveying continuous existence may be rare, they are not unprecedented. Linguists and theologians such as A.T. Robertson and Nigel Turner have noted that the Greek present tense can describe an action that began in the past and continues into the present, as in what is known as the "Present of Past Action Still in Progress" (PPA). Instances like John 14:9 (“I have been with you so long”) demonstrate this usage. However, John 8:58 goes beyond mere continuity, implying eternality, as the predicate-less ego eimi conveys existence unbounded by time—a hallmark of deity.

  Your assertion that claiming Jesus' deity in John 8:58 is "opinion, not fact" fails to account for the Gospel's broader context. While differing scholarly opinions exist, the Catholic Church interprets Scripture holistically, guided by Tradition. In John 5:18, Jesus is accused of "making Himself equal with God," and in John 10:30-33, the Jews again accuse Him of blasphemy for claiming unity with the Father. These passages reinforce the interpretation that John 8:58 is another assertion of deity. While some scholars may disagree, such disagreements do not invalidate the interpretation but highlight theological debates that have been resolved within the Church's Magisterium.

  Regarding John 8:58 and other "I am" statements, it is incorrect to equate this phrase with ordinary expressions like those in John 14:9. The absence of a predicate in John 8:58 emphasizes the ontological nature of Jesus' claim. When Jesus declares ego eimi without further qualification, He asserts an identity that transcends time, which is distinct from everyday usages like "I am the light of the world" or "I am the bread of life." This theological significance is why the Jews reacted with an attempt to stone Him—an act reserved for perceived blasphemy.

  The contention that Jesus’ statement in John 8:58 merely denotes preexistence rather than deity ignores the context and linguistic nuances. The choice of ego eimi rather than a past tense verb like ēmēn (“I was”) underscores Jesus' continuous, eternal existence, not merely a past origin. This is consistent with the Prologue of John's Gospel, where Jesus is described as the eternal Logos who "was with God, and was God" (John 1:1). Furthermore, the connection to Exod. 3:14 in the Septuagint (ego eimi ho on, “I am the Being”) is significant. While the wording differs slightly, the theological resonance between the passages is clear: both declare the speaker’s eternal, self-existent nature.

  Your suggestion that the NWT offers a linguistically superior rendering of John 8:58 as “I have been” reflects theological bias rather than linguistic accuracy. The NWT's rendering obscures the text's theological depth to conform to Jehovah's Witnesses' rejection of Christ's deity. Reputable scholars, including non-Catholics like R.E. Brown and Leon Morris, recognize the unique theological weight of ego eimi in John 8:58. Rendering it as “I have been” diminishes its connection to Exod. 3:14 and its affirmation of Jesus’ divine identity.

  The suggestion that Jesus’ language may have been constrained by translation limitations (from Hebrew or Aramaic into Greek) misunderstands the theological inspiration of Scripture. While Jesus likely spoke Aramaic or Hebrew, the Gospel writers, guided by the Holy Spirit, chose Greek expressions to convey the intended theological meaning. The use of ego eimi in John 8:58 is not merely a linguistic accident but a deliberate choice to emphasize Jesus’ divine nature.

  The argument that “Son of God” does not imply deity is inconsistent with Jewish understanding. In first-century Jewish thought, claiming to be the "Son of God" often implied equality with God, as seen in John 5:18. The phrase “Son of God” is not a mere idiomatic expression for a righteous person but a declaration of unique relationship and identity, as evidenced by Jesus' trial before the Sanhedrin (Mark 14:61-64). When Jesus affirms His identity as the Son of God and the eschatological Son of Man (from Dan. 7:13-14), the high priest accuses Him of blasphemy. This reaction underscores that Jesus' claim was understood as a divine one, not merely a messianic or human title.

  The broader argument that Jesus never explicitly claimed to be God overlooks the cumulative evidence of His actions, titles, and statements in the Gospels. Jesus forgave sins (Mark 2:5-12), accepted worship (Matt. 28:17, John 20:28), and declared His unity with the Father (John 10:30). These actions, coupled with the Christological affirmations in the NT epistles, establish His divine identity. Dan. 7:13-14, cited in Jesus’ trial before the Sanhedrin (Mark 14:61-64), portrays the Son of Man receiving worship and authority, further confirming His divine status. The assertion that Jesus' actions, such as forgiving sins and accepting worship, could have parallels in OT figures or practices misses the cumulative weight of these actions. While prophets and judges occasionally acted as agents of God, they never claimed intrinsic authority to forgive sins, nor did they accept worship. In contrast, Jesus forgives sins by His own authority (Mark 2:5-12), accepts worship without rebuke (John 20:28, where Thomas addresses Him as “My Lord and my God”), and declares Himself the ultimate judge of humanity (Matt. 25:31-46). These actions are consistent with deity, not mere agency.

  Lastly, your claim that Catholic interpretations are selective or lack credibility ignores the Church's theological consistency and reliance on both Scripture and Tradition. The interpretation of John 8:58 as a declaration of deity is not a modern invention but has been affirmed by Church Fathers like Augustine and Athanasius, as well as ecumenical councils like Nicaea and Chalcedon. These interpretations are rooted in a comprehensive understanding of Scripture, not selective proof-texting.

  Your insistence on explicit passages ignores the nature of biblical revelation, which often conveys truths through cumulative and interconnected evidence. The consistency of NT Christology and its roots in OT theology affirm Jesus’ deity beyond reasonable doubt. To dismiss these claims as theological bias or trolling reflects a refusal to engage with the depth of the evidence presented.

  ---

  @slimboyfat

  The claim that early Christology was primarily "angel Christology" and that Jesus was viewed merely as the "highest being in service of God" is a mischaracterization of the evidence found in the NT and the early Church's theological trajectory. While some scholars, like David Bentley Hart, acknowledge that early Christian understanding of Christ developed over time, the assertion that Jesus was considered a mere angel or subordinate being lacks comprehensive scriptural and historical support.

  The NT itself unequivocally affirms the deity of Christ. For example, John 1:1 states, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." This is not a portrayal of an angelic figure but of one who shares fully in the divine nature. Moreover, Phil. 2:6-11 presents Jesus as "existing in the morphe of God" and emphasizes His equality with God, even as He humbles Himself in the Incarnation. This passage is far removed from the notion of Jesus as a mere subordinate being. The NT itself provides a clear foundation for the deity of Christ. Passages such as John 1:1-14, Phil. 2:6-11, and Col. 1:15-20 present Jesus as preexistent, divine, and intimately involved in creation. In John’s Gospel, the Logos is explicitly identified as God and described as becoming flesh. Paul refers to Jesus as being "in the morphe of God" and possessing equality with God, a profound affirmation of His divine nature. Far from being conceived as an angel or subordinate heavenly being, Jesus is portrayed as sharing in the divine essence and glory of the Father.

  The early Church Fathers, even before the formal articulation of Trinitarian doctrine at Nicaea, also affirmed Christ’s deity. Ignatius of Antioch, writing around 110 AD, referred to Jesus as "our God" in multiple letters. Justin Martyr, in the mid-second century, described the Logos as eternal and divine, distinguishing Him from created beings. While Justin uses the term theos kai kurios eteros, this reflects relational distinction, not ontological subordination. Justin and other Fathers like Irenaeus consistently upheld the unity of God and the full divinity of Christ while emphasizing the personal distinctions within the Godhead.

  The claim that the doctrine of Christ’s full divinity was a later development, imposed by the Council of Nicaea or influenced by Constantine, is historically unfounded. The Council of Nicaea (325 AD) did not invent the doctrine of the Trinity or Christ’s deity; rather, it clarified and defended the Church’s longstanding beliefs against the Arian heresy, which denied the full divinity of the Son. Arianism itself was a theological innovation that sought to reduce Jesus to a created being, in contradiction to the worship and confession of the early Church. The use of the term homoousios (of the same substance) at Nicaea was not a departure from Scripture but a precise term to articulate the biblical teaching about Christ’s divine nature.

  The assertion that early Christianity embraced an "angelomorphic" Christology also misinterprets the evidence. It is true that some early Christian writers, such as Origen, used angelic imagery or titles to describe Christ, but this was often metaphorical or intended to illustrate His role as a mediator, not to equate Him with created angels. For example, when early Christians referred to Christ as the "’Angel’ of the Lord" (drawing on OT theophanies), they understood this title in light of His divine nature and His unique role in salvation history, not as a denial of His deity.

  The claim that the doctrine of the Trinity lacks a basis in Scripture also misunderstands the progressive nature of theological articulation. The term "Trinity" is not found in the Bible, but the reality it describes is deeply rooted in the biblical witness. The baptismal formula in Matt. 28:19, the Pauline blessings (e.g., 2 Cor. 13:14), and the Johannine writings reflect a triune understanding of God. The development of Trinitarian language in the early Church was a response to heresies and an effort to faithfully preserve the apostolic teaching about the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

  The claim that the Council of Nicaea introduced a "new grammar" and imposed a co-equal Trinity on Christianity misunderstands the historical context. The council formalized and clarified beliefs that were already widely held within the Church, not invented them. For instance, Ignatius of Antioch, writing in the early 2nd century, referred to Jesus as "our God" (Letter to the Ephesians 7:2). Similarly, the Didache and other early Christian writings reflect a Trinitarian understanding in their baptismal formulas. These predate Nicaea by over a century, demonstrating that Trinitarian theology was not a late invention but a natural development of the apostolic faith. Far from being a new invention, the Nicene Creed formalized what had been the consistent belief of the Church: that Jesus Christ is "true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father."

  As for angelomorphic Christology, while certain early Christians may have used angelic imagery to describe aspects of Christ's role—such as His position as leader of the heavenly host—this does not imply that He was considered merely an angel. Hebrews 1 directly refutes this interpretation: "To which of the angels did God ever say, 'You are my Son; today I have begotten you'?" The writer of Hebrews explicitly contrasts Jesus with angels, emphasizing His superiority and divine Sonship.

  The assertion that the early Church lacked a fully developed Trinitarian theology is technically accurate but irrelevant to the broader claim. Development in theological terminology does not mean the absence of the underlying truth. The doctrine of the Trinity was articulated in response to heresies like Arianism, which sought to diminish Christ's deity. This articulation did not invent new beliefs but sought to defend and clarify the apostolic teaching preserved in Scripture and tradition.

  Furthermore, Hart's mention of homoousios as a "new" term is not evidence against the Trinity but rather illustrates how the Church developed precise language to combat doctrinal errors. This term was necessary to affirm that the Son shares the same divine essence as the Father, in contrast to Arian claims that He was a created being.

  Lastly, the idea that Thomas’s exclamation "My Lord and my God!" (John 20:28) is merely a fervent expression or misinterpretation is weak. The text directly attributes these words to Thomas in response to the risen Christ. The structure of the Greek text does not support a vocative distinction that would make this a general exclamation rather than an address to Jesus. Additionally, Jesus affirms Thomas's statement by blessing those who believe in His identity without seeing.

  In conclusion, while early Christology may have included diverse expressions and images, the NT and early Church writings consistently affirm Christ's deity. The Council of Nicaea and subsequent theological developments did not introduce new beliefs but safeguarded the apostolic faith against heretical distortions. Thus, the claim that angel Christology was the "earliest" or dominant understanding of Jesus is a selective and incomplete reading of history and scripture. The historical development of Trinitarian doctrine was not an imposition or a break from earlier belief but a necessary clarification in response to heresies. The NT and early Christian writings overwhelmingly affirm the deity of Christ, making the claim of a purely "angelomorphic" Christology historically and theologically untenable.
• 
  406

  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..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  aqwsed12345

  @Blotty

  The Contini article discusses Jerome's exegetical treatment of Psalm 82:6, where humans are called "gods" (theoi in Greek, elohim in Hebrew). Thomistic theology approaches this passage with the understanding that while human beings are created in the imago Dei (image of God), they are fundamentally distinct from God in substance (ousia). Jerome rightly emphasizes that human beings are called "gods" not because they share the divine essence (ousia), but because they participate in God through grace (gratia). This aligns with the Thomistic principle that creatures share in God's perfections by participation, not by essence. As Thomas Aquinas writes, “The divine essence is the source of all being and goodness, and creatures reflect God’s goodness, yet remain distinct from Him in their essence” (Summa Theologiae I, q. 4, a. 3). Origen's tendency to blur the lines between God and creation, attributing to creatures a "certain kinship" with God, risks misunderstanding divine participation as implying consubstantiality. Jerome corrects this by underscoring the radical distinction between the Creator and the creature. This is critical in refuting Arianism, which denied the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father by relegating Christ to the level of a creature. Jerome's clarity safeguards the Nicene faith. Psalm 82 rebukes unjust judges (human rulers) who were metaphorically called "gods" due to their role as representatives of divine authority. Their mortality ("you will die like men") underscores their finite and contingent nature. This passage, as used by Christ in John 10:34, serves to highlight the distinction between divine appointment and intrinsic divinity. Christ surpasses this analogy by claiming unique Sonship, rooted in His consubstantiality with the Father (John 10:30).

  When Jesus cites Psalm 82:6, He draws attention to the fact that even human judges were called "gods" because the "word of God came to them." His point is not to deny His divinity but to argue a fortiori—if these lesser beings could be called "gods," how much more appropriate is it for Him, sanctified and sent by the Father, to claim the title "Son of God"? Jesus does not use Psalm 82 to suggest equality with human judges. Instead, His works ("the Father is in me, and I am in the Father," John 10:38) confirm His unique relationship with the Father. This unity is ontological, not merely functional or moral. The Jews understood this as a claim to divinity, which is why they accused Him of blasphemy. JWs often argue that Jesus claimed to be "a god" rather than God, based on their translation of John 10:33-36. This interpretation fails contextually and grammatically. In John 10:30, Jesus declares, "I and the Father are one" (hen), signifying unity of essence. The Jews' reaction confirms they understood His claim as identifying Himself with YHWH. The absence of the Greek definite article with theos in certain contexts does not imply indefiniteness. Rather, it aligns with the qualitative aspect of divinity (e.g., John 1:1).

  The Contini article posits that Jerome distanced himself from Origen’s universalizing anthropology while borrowing his exegetical methods. The distinction Jerome makes between Christ's divinity by nature and humans' participation in divinity by grace is consistent with Catholic orthodoxy. Humans are called to deification (theosis) through union with God, but this does not erase the Creator-creature distinction. Jerome’s insistence on the unique consubstantiality of Christ with the Father directly counters Arian subordinationism, which denied the full divinity of the Son. Origen’s ambiguity on the relationship between the Son and the Father provided fodder for Arians, which Jerome corrects by affirming the Nicene Creed. JWs misinterpret John 10:34 as diminishing Christ’s divinity. In contrast, Jerome’s anti-Arian exegesis and the Catholic understanding affirm that Christ’s claim to be "Son of God" implies His equality with the Father, grounded in His divine nature.

  From a Thomistic viewpoint, human dignity arises from being made in the imago Dei and being called to union with God through grace. However, God is pure act (actus purus), infinite, and unchangeable. Humans are finite, contingent, and capable of change. No participation in God’s perfections renders humans consubstantial with Him. Participation in the divine life occurs through Christ, who as the God-Man bridges the infinite gap between Creator and creature. As Aquinas notes, Christ's mediation is unique because He alone possesses the divine essence by nature (ST III, q. 26, a. 1).

  The claim that my argument relies on "BSing everyone" is an unsubstantiated ad hominem attack that does not engage with the substance of my theological claims. As for accusations of using insulting usernames or other online conduct, such claims are irrelevant to the present discussion and do not invalidate the content of my arguments. Theological discourse should focus on evidence and reasoning rather than personal attacks or distractions.

  While Psalm 82 and 2 Corinthians 4:4 use "gods" to refer metaphorically to human judges or Satan's authority, the usage of "theos" in John 1:1 is qualitatively different. The prologue of John, steeped in Jewish monotheism, identifies the Logos as eternal, pre-existent, and divine, not as a subordinate or metaphorical "god." The anarthrous construction in Greek ("theos ēn ho logos") emphasizes the qualitative essence of the Logos as fully divine, a theological affirmation that aligns with the Gospel's broader portrayal of Christ as Creator and Sustainer of all things (John 1:3).

  While Wikipedia is not a primary academic source, it can provide useful summaries when its claims are verified by reliable sources. The dismissal of Wikipedia’s utility entirely is unnecessary if the citations are accurate and well-supported by scholarly references. Furthermore, several academic articles and books use Wikipedia for definitions, overviews, or introductory references, particularly in interdisciplinary fields. For example, scholars in digital humanities or pedagogy frequently cite Wikipedia to discuss its role in modern education. Referencing it as a starting point for broader discussion or context is not inherently illegitimate. Scholarly works, while not citing Wikipedia directly, often engage with concepts or summaries that may appear in such platforms. My point was that dismissing an argument solely because it references Wikipedia, without engaging the argument's substance, is an ad hominem tactic rather than substantive critique. This broader perspective negates the blanket dismissal presented in the critique.

  Regarding Tertullian’s discussion of idol makers, the critic misrepresents the context of his writings. Tertullian’s use of the term “idol makers” in De Spectaculis and Apologeticus relates specifically to pagan practices and false gods, not the divine nature of Christ or His participation in creation. Tertullian affirms the Son’s divinity and inseparability from the Father. Tertullian's language reflects the relational dynamic between the Father and the Son, not an ontological hierarchy. His writings predate the Nicene articulation of homoousios (same essence), but they consistently affirm the Son's divinity. Your interpretation of Tertullian is flawed. Tertullian’s writings, such as Against Praxeas, affirm the distinct personhood of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit while maintaining their unity in essence. His analogy of the sun and its rays illustrates that the Son is eternally generated from the Father, sharing the same divine essence and acting inseparably in creation. The statement "cum filio solus, sicut cum filio unum" (neuter, just like "hen" in John 10:30, the masculine "unus" would man Sabellianism) reflects Tertullian’s Trinitarian framework, not subordinationism. Additionally, his reference to idol-makers does not equate the Son with false gods but critiques polytheistic practices. Your reading misrepresents his theology and oversimplifies his nuanced arguments.

  The critique against rendering theos in John 1:1 as "God" rather than "a god" reflects a misunderstanding of Greek grammar and Johannine theology. The anarthrous theos emphasizes the qualitative nature of the Word (the Logos) as fully divine. This aligns with the monotheistic framework of John's Gospel, which never introduces polytheism or henotheism. Rendering it as "a god" imposes a theological bias foreign to the context and undermines the coherence of John 1:3, where the Logos is identified as the Creator of "all things."

  Origen explicitly states in Contra Celsum (Book 8, Chapter 12):

  “...that he may understand the meaning of the saying, 'I and My Father are one'. We worship one God, the Father and the Son, therefore, as we have explained; and our argument against the worship of other gods still continues valid.”

  Origen’s theology, though speculative in some areas, consistently affirms the full divinity of the Logos. The claim that Origen saw the Logos as a "lesser deity" is a misreading of his work. His articulation of the relational distinction between the Father and the Son predates Nicene terminology but aligns with Trinitarian theology. In Contra Celsum (Book 8, Chapter 12), Origen defends the worship of the Logos alongside the Father, affirming the Son's full divinity and unity with the Father. He explicitly rejects polytheism and subordinationist interpretations that would deny the Son’s equality with the Father. Origen's complex theological language seeks to articulate the relational dynamics within the Godhead, not to undermine Christ’s divinity.

  The critique of the Logos as merely an "agent" misunderstands the biblical and theological context of creation. The Greek term dia (through) in John 1:3, Colossians 1:16, and Hebrews 1:2 emphasizes the Logos’s active role in creation, not as a subordinate intermediary but as the divine Word through whom all things exist. This aligns with the Old Testament declaration in Isaiah 44:24 that Yahweh alone created the heavens and the earth. The Logos’s involvement in creation demonstrates His full participation in the divine essence. On the concept of agency, your understanding is reductionist. While "agent" can imply subordination in some contexts, its theological application to Christ must be understood within the framework of divine unity. John 1:3, Colossians 1:16, and Hebrews 1:10 identify Christ as the active agent in creation. These passages leave no ambiguity: Jesus is affirmed as Creator, not as a mere agent but as God Himself, working in unity with the Father and the Spirit. The Father is also called Creator (e.g., Isaiah 44:24), reflecting the Trinitarian understanding that creation is the work of the one God, involving all three persons. The use of "through" (Greek: "dia") does not diminish Christ’s role but emphasizes the relational distinction within the Godhead. The unity of essence between the Father and Son means that Christ’s creative work is not independent but in perfect harmony with the Father's will. This is not analogous to a subordinate intermediary but reflects the functional distinctions within the Trinity.

  The claim that Jesus is not explicitly called "Creator" ignores the context of passages such as John 1:3 ("All things were made through Him"), Colossians 1:16-17 ("For by Him all things were created... He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together"), and Hebrews 1:10, which applies Psalm 102:25-27 to Christ. These texts identify Christ as the agent of creation in a manner that only God could fulfill. The Father’s role as Creator is often implicit, as creation is a Trinitarian act involving the Father, Son, and Spirit in unity.

  Scholars like Jason BeDuhn, while sympathetic to some aspects of the NWT, critique its rendering of texts like John 1:1c, preferring "divine" as a more accurate translation. This reflects a rejection of the polytheistic implications of "a god." BeDuhn’s acknowledgment of theological bias in the NWT undermines the claim that all critiques are Trinitarian in origin. Rigorous academic studies, including those by non-Trinitarian scholars, engage with the historical, linguistic, and theological evidence supporting the Trinity. Examples include works by Richard Bauckham (Jesus and the God of Israel), N.T. Wright (The Resurrection of the Son of God), and non-Trinitarian studies that critique but also engage the traditional view, such as Larry Hurtado’s research on early Christology. To dismiss all Trinitarian scholarship as biased is to ignore the scholarly rigor and diverse perspectives that contribute to the field.

  The claim that ego eimi (“I am”) in John 8:58 should be rendered “I have been” or “I was” rather than “I am” is linguistically weak. While eimi can sometimes be translated differently depending on context, the present tense in Greek often conveys timeless or continuous existence, particularly when used in conjunction with a temporal clause, as in prin Abraam genesthai ego eimi (“before Abraham came to be, I am”). The choice of the present tense eimi rather than the past tense ēmēn (“I was”) suggests an intentional emphasis on Jesus’ eternal existence. This timeless aspect aligns with divine self-revelation rather than mere preexistence, this statement is a direct claim to deity.

  The argument that John 8:58 does not parallel Exodus 3:14 because the Septuagint (LXX) uses ego eimi ho on (“I am the Being”) rather than ego eimi alone overlooks the theological connection between these passages. While the phrasing differs slightly, the use of ego eimi in both cases conveys the self-existence and eternal nature of God. In Exodus 3:14, God identifies Himself to Moses as “I am who I am” (ehyeh asher ehyeh in Hebrew, rendered as ego eimi ho on in Greek), establishing His identity as the eternally existing one. In John 8:58, Jesus’ use of ego eimi evokes this same divine self-identification, particularly in the context of a conversation about Abraham and divine promises. The Jews’ reaction—attempting to stone Jesus for blasphemy—confirms their understanding that He was making a divine claim.

  The assertion that ego eimi is a common phrase used by many individuals in the Bible and thus lacks theological significance is misleading. While ego eimi can indeed appear in ordinary contexts, its usage in John 8:58 stands out because it is coupled with a temporal clause referring to a time before Abraham's existence. This construction, where Jesus speaks of Himself in terms of eternal existence, is unique and unparalleled. For example, John 9:9, where the blind man says ego eimi (“I am [he]”), is a simple identification and lacks the profound theological implications of John 8:58.

  The claim that the reaction of the Jews in John 8:59 (picking up stones to stone Jesus) could be due to reasons other than His claim to divinity, such as their general hostility, ignores the context of their accusation. Throughout the Gospel of John, the Jewish leaders repeatedly accuse Jesus of blasphemy and equating Himself with God (John 5:18, 10:30-33). In John 8:58-59, their response to His declaration directly follows His claim, indicating they understood it as a claim to divine identity. This reaction highlights the gravity of Jesus’ words and supports the interpretation that He was asserting His divinity.

  The argument that John 8:58 does not explicitly identify Jesus as God but rather as a divine agent or messianic figure fails to account for the broader Johannine context. The Gospel of John repeatedly emphasizes Jesus’ divine nature. From the Prologue (John 1:1-14), which declares that “the Word was God,” to Jesus’ statements about His unity with the Father (John 10:30), John presents a consistent Christology that identifies Jesus as fully divine. The “I am” statements (ego eimi) throughout the Gospel, particularly without predicates, further reinforce this theme.

  The critique of the NWT for rendering ego eimi as “I have been” reflects the theological bias of the JWs rather than linguistic accuracy. This translation attempts to obscure the connection to Exodus 3:14 and to downplay the deity of Christ. This approach is inconsistent with standard Greek grammar and the historical understanding of the text. Reputable scholars and translations overwhelmingly render ego eimi as “I am,” preserving the theological significance of Jesus’ statement.

  The suggestion that Jesus may have spoken in Aramaic or Hebrew rather than Greek does not weaken the argument for His deity. Even if He used a Semitic phrase equivalent to ego eimi, the Evangelist John chose to convey this in Greek using the present tense ego eimi, which has specific theological resonance. The inspired text reflects the Evangelist’s intention to present Jesus as the eternal Word of God.

  The broader argument that Jesus never explicitly claimed to be God in the Gospels and was only understood as the Messiah or Son of God by His contemporaries is inconsistent with the evidence. Jesus’ identification with divine prerogatives, His forgiveness of sins (Mark 2:5-12), His authority over the Law (Matthew 5:21-48), and His acceptance of worship (John 20:28) all point to His divine identity. The charge of blasphemy leveled against Him by the Sanhedrin (Mark 14:61-64) was based on His claim to be the Son of Man who would sit at the right hand of Power—a clear reference to Daniel 7:13-14, a vision of divine authority.
• 
  406

  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..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  aqwsed12345

  @Blotty

  The claim that Trevor R. Allin and others like him are "massive liars" undermines the spirit of constructive dialogue. Instead of addressing the substance of their arguments, such personal attacks fail to contribute meaningfully to the debate. If Allin’s claims are flawed, they should be addressed with evidence and reasoned arguments, not ad hominem attacks.

  Regarding the citation of Wikipedia, while it is true that Wikipedia is not a primary academic source, referencing it in a broader discussion is not inherently invalid, especially if the content cited is accurate and supported by other reliable sources. The dismissal of Allin’s arguments purely because of a Wikipedia reference is an overreach and does not negate his broader critiques. The focus should be on the substance of the claims, not the citation medium.

  Your assertion that "a god" in John 1:1c cannot be faulted linguistically is partially correct; it is a grammatically possible rendering. However, the key issue is not mere grammatical possibility but theological and contextual accuracy. John’s Gospel, steeped in Jewish monotheism, does not support the interpretation of the Logos as a lesser god. The qualitative understanding of theos in John 1:1c—affirming the Word’s divine nature—better aligns with both the grammar and the theological context of the text. Simply because “a god” is linguistically possible does not mean it is the most accurate or contextually appropriate translation.

  While it is true that certain early Church Fathers, such as Justin Martyr, used terms like "theos kai kurios eteros" to describe the Logos, their intent must be understood within the context of their writings and their adherence to monotheism. Origen, for example, is not introducing a second deity but rather expressing the distinction of persons within the unity of the divine essence. This relational distinction is foundational to Trinitarian theology, which affirms one God in three persons.

  The term allos theos is not equivalent to the claim that the Logos is "a god" in a polytheistic/henotheistic or subordinate sense. Origen himself clarifies this point in Contra Celsum (Book 2, Chapter 70), where he insists that the Logos shares fully in the divine nature and does not represent a separate or lesser deity. His use of such terms reflects the challenge of articulating the relational dynamics within the Godhead before the formalized terminology of the Nicene Creed. To accuse Origen or other Fathers of literal polytheism is to ignore their explicit commitment to monotheism.

  Similarly, Justin Martyr uses phrases like "theos kai kurios eteros" in a way that underscores relational distinction without compromising divine unity. Justin’s aim is apologetic: he seeks to demonstrate to a Jewish audience that the pre-incarnate Logos, active in creation and Old Testament theophanies, is distinct in person yet shares in the divine essence. Justin explicitly denies any division or multiplication of the divine essence, as seen in Dialogue with Trypho (Chapter 56), where he rejects the idea of abscission, affirming instead the eternal generation of the Son.

  The attempt to equate theos in John 1:1 with "a god" relies on a fundamental misunderstanding of Greek grammar and Johannine theology. The anarthrous theos in John 1:1c ("the Word was God") emphasizes the qualitative nature of the Logos, not its numerical distinction from the Father. The Logos possesses the same divine essence as the Father, consistent with John’s monotheistic framework. Translating theos as "a god" introduces a polytheistic nuance foreign to the text and undermines the theological coherence of John’s prologue. Moreover, the examples cited—such as Satan being called "a god" (2 Corinthians 4:4) or human judges being referred to as "gods" (Psalm 82:6)—do not support the argument for rendering theos as "a god" in John 1:1. These instances employ metaphorical language to denote authority or dominion, not ontological divinity. The context in John 1:1, however, is explicitly ontological, as the Logos is identified as the eternal Creator (John 1:3), distinct in person yet fully divine.

  Early Church Fathers, while operating within the constraints of pre-Nicene terminology, consistently affirm the full divinity of the Logos. Justin Martyr, for instance, asserts that the Logos was eternally with God and distinct in person, as seen in Dialogue with Trypho (Chapter 61). Tertullian similarly speaks of the Logos as proceeding from the Father while remaining fully divine. These writings reflect the embryonic development of Trinitarian theology, not a denial of it. It is also erroneous to claim that Origen or Hippolytus took such descriptions literally in a way that implies polytheism. Their writings must be read in the context of their unwavering commitment to monotheism and their efforts to articulate the mystery of the Trinity in the face of heretical interpretations. For example, Origen explicitly states in Contra Celsum (Book 8, Chapter 12) that the Logos is worshiped along with the Father, reflecting his belief in the Logos’s full divinity.

  Theological development over time does not equate to theological innovation. The Nicene articulation of the Trinity clarified and formalized what was already implicit in Scripture and early Christian thought. Subordinationist language in early writings often reflects the relational order within the Godhead, not an ontological hierarchy. This is evident in Justin’s and Origen’s writings, which affirm the unity of essence while distinguishing the persons. Early Christian writers often used such terms to emphasize the distinct personhood of the Son relative to the Father without implying that He was a lesser or separate deity. This language must be understood within the framework of early Trinitarian theology, which maintained the unity of essence (homoousios) between the Father and the Son. The Church Fathers did not endorse a polytheistic interpretation but affirmed the Son’s full divinity within the monotheistic understanding of God.

  Your point that Satan is called “a god” (e.g., 2 Corinthians 4:4) and human judges are referred to as “gods” (Psalm 82:6) does not support the NWT’s rendering of John 1:1c as “a god.” In both cases, the terms are used metaphorically or analogically, not ontologically. The judges in Psalm 82 are called “gods” because of their role as representatives of divine authority, not because they possess divinity. Similarly, Satan is called “the god of this age” to highlight his influence over the fallen world, not because he shares in God’s nature. The use of theos in these contexts does not equate to the qualitative use of theos in John 1:1c, where the Logos is identified with the very essence of deity.

  Origen’s writings must also be understood in their historical and theological context. While Origen recognized a distinction between the Father and the Son, he affirmed the Son’s divinity and pre-existence. His theology is complex and was later deemed speculative in some areas, but he never taught that the Logos was a created or lesser god in the sense implied by the NWT. Instead, Origen’s writings contributed to the development of orthodox Trinitarian theology.

  Isaiah 44:24 emphatically declares that Yahweh alone is the Creator: "I am the LORD, who made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself." The Hebrew terms "alone" (levadí) and "by myself" (mē’ittí) underscore the absolute exclusivity of God's creative work, leaving no room for any secondary agents—whether false gods, angels, or any other beings. This passage asserts the divine uniqueness and monotheism foundational to the Old Testament, directly contradicting the idea that creation involved a created intermediary like the JW "Michael-Jesus."

  John 1:3 explicitly states, "All things were made through Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made." The Greek verb egeneto (came into being) highlights Jesus' active participation in bringing all creation into existence. The preposition dia (through) does not indicate that Jesus was a mere tool or intermediary, as in the case of a subordinate agent, but rather emphasizes the unity and distinct relational roles within the Trinity. Jesus, as the Logos, was the direct agent of creation, fully sharing in the divine essence. Similarly, Colossians 1:16-17 affirms: "For by Him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible... all things were created through Him and for Him." The phrase "for Him" (eis auton) emphasizes Christ's ultimate supremacy and purpose in creation—attributes that can belong only to God. Paul’s language here reflects Christ’s divine identity, not that of a created being or subordinate agent. Hebrews 1:10 applies Psalm 102:25-27, which speaks of Yahweh as Creator, directly to Jesus: "You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands." This identification of Jesus as Yahweh, the Creator, is clear and unequivocal. If Jesus were merely a creature or an instrument, this attribution would conflict with the exclusive role of Yahweh as Creator in Isaiah 44:24.

  Your interpretation of Tertullian misrepresents his theology. Tertullian affirmed the Son's full divinity and role in creation, stating in Against Praxeas: "He [the Father] stretched out the heavens alone, but alone with His Son, even as He is one with His Son." This shows Tertullian’s understanding that the Father and the Son, while distinct persons, share the same divine essence and work inseparably in creation. Tertullian explicitly denied that the Son was a subordinate or separate being. Instead, he described the Son as "undivided and inseparable from the Father" and emphasized their unity in essence and purpose. His analogy of the Father and Son as the sun and its ray illustrates this: just as the ray emanates from the sun without division, so the Son is eternally begotten of the Father, fully God and co-equal in nature. Your claim that Tertullian supported the idea of "alone" excluding only false gods but allowing for the involvement of creatures in creation is inaccurate. Tertullian clearly affirmed that the Son's participation in creation stems from His unity with the Father in divine essence, not as a created intermediary. His writings consistently refute any subordinationist interpretation.

  Isaiah 44:24 does not merely exclude false gods but categorically denies the involvement of any being, created or uncreated, other than Yahweh in creation. The Hebrew terms "alone" and "by myself" are absolute, precluding even the possibility of an intermediary. If Jesus were a created being, His involvement in creation would contradict this passage. However, the New Testament's consistent portrayal of Jesus as Creator (John 1:3, Col. 1:16, Heb. 1:10) aligns perfectly with the understanding that Jesus is Yahweh, fully divine.

  Your suggestion that a lack of positive scholarly consensus for the NWT is due to a "Trinitarian-dominated world" is speculative and dismissive of legitimate critiques. Many scholars, both Trinitarian and otherwise, have raised concerns about the NWT’s theological bias, particularly in its handling of key Christological texts. Dismissing these critiques as mere bias ignores the substance of their arguments and the weight of evidence against the NWT’s interpretive choices.

  BeDuhn’s defense of the NWT focuses on its linguistic fidelity, but he also acknowledges its theological implications. While he argues for the grammatical possibility of “a god” in John 1:1c, he prefers “divine” as a more accurate rendering. This preference underscores the qualitative nature of theos in this context, which aligns with the broader theological intent of John’s Gospel. The NWT’s choice of “a god” introduces ambiguity and theological bias that is not present in the original text or the broader Johannine context.

  Your critique of traditional Trinitarian scholarship as inherently biased fails to account for the rigorous academic standards applied in such studies. While all translations and interpretations reflect some level of theological presupposition, the weight of historical, linguistic, and contextual evidence overwhelmingly supports the traditional understanding of John 1:1c as affirming the Logos’s full divinity.
• 
  406

  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..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  aqwsed12345

  BeDuhn lauds the KIT for its accuracy as an interlinear translation and its utility in academic settings. He emphasizes its "slavish word-for-word correspondence," which exposes linguistic nuances and forces readers to grapple with the text's original meaning. While the KIT may be a helpful academic tool, its underlying Greek text (Westcott & Hort) is itself subject to scholarly debate, and it represents only one textual tradition. Moreover, the interlinear's literalism can sometimes obscure meaning in cases where context and idiom demand a more dynamic translation.

  BeDuhn defends the NWT as generally accurate and “hyper-literal,” emphasizing that it avoids interpretive glosses often found in mainstream translations. Hyper-literal translations, while exposing readers to the text's structure, can lead to awkward or misleading renderings. For instance, the NWT’s approach in passages like John 1:1 (“a god”) or Colossians 1:15 (adding “other”) reflects interpretive choices influenced by JW doctrine. While these may not be "grammatically impossible," they can still introduce theological bias under the guise of literalism.

  BeDuhn argues that all translations reflect some level of bias, stemming from the theological or doctrinal assumptions of their translators. While bias is indeed present in all translations, not all biases are equal. The NWT has been criticized for systematic doctrinal bias that aligns closely with JW doctrines, particularly regarding the deity of Christ and the use of “Jehovah” in the NT. By contrast, many mainstream translations aim for a broader ecumenical consensus.

  The Watchtower's history of taking scholars’ statements out of context warrants scrutiny. By omitting BeDuhn’s criticisms of the NWT and KIT, the organization risks misleading its readers, particularly given the deference many JWs afford to such endorsements.

  The NWT inserts "Jehovah" in 237 instances in the NT, despite the absence of the Tetragrammaton in all known Greek manuscripts. BeDuhn’s critique in his later writings acknowledges this as a conjectural emendation unsupported by manuscript evidence. This practice reflects theological bias, as it aligns with JW emphasis on the divine name, even at the expense of textual fidelity. It also obscures the NT authors' apparent identification of Jesus with OT references to Yahweh (e.g., Philippians 2:10–11, quoting Isaiah 45:23). BeDuhn criticizes the NWT’s substitution of "Jehovah" for Kyrios (Lord) in the NT, noting that this choice is not supported by manuscript evidence. While he acknowledges that the Watchtower’s theory about the removal of the divine name from early Christian texts might be plausible, he rightly concludes that the current state of evidence does not support this claim. The insertion of “Jehovah” into the NT by the NWT is one of its most controversial features. This choice introduces theological bias, as it aligns with Jehovah’s Witnesses’ distinctive focus on the divine name. While some OT quotations in the NT might justify restoring the Tetragrammaton, the wholesale replacement of Kyrios with “Jehovah” is not only conjectural but also inconsistent with the textual evidence.

  BeDuhn defends the grammatical possibility of “a god” as a rendering, though he concedes that “divine” might better reflect the qualitative nuance of theos in this context. BeDuhn’s argument in favor of the NWT centers on its adherence to Greek grammar, particularly in controversial passages like John 1:1. His assertion that the NWT's rendering of the third clause as "a god" or "divine" is grammatically valid aligns with the understanding of theos without the definite article in Greek. While this argument has linguistic merit, it overlooks the theological implications of rendering theos as "a god." Critics argue that this rendering introduces theological bias by diminishing the traditional understanding of Christ’s deity, a point that BeDuhn downplays as an interpretive choice rather than a distortion. The NWT’s rendering of “a god” introduces theological implications that are inconsistent with Johannine monotheism. The broader context of John’s Gospel, including verses like John 1:3 and John 20:28, supports an understanding of the Logos as fully divine rather than a subordinate deity.

  BeDuhn draws an interesting parallel between Mark 12:26–27 and John 1:1, noting that the absence of the article in theos in Mark 12:27 allows for a categorical or indefinite sense. While this observation is linguistically valid, the context of John 1:1 differs significantly. The Prologue of John is a theological statement about the Logos's identity, emphasizing the Word’s intrinsic divinity rather than placing it in a generic “god” category. John 1:1's prologue is widely understood as affirming the Word’s deity, paralleling the "Logos" with the monotheistic God of Jewish tradition. Translating theos as "a god" risks conflicting with the monotheistic framework of John's Gospel, potentially introducing a theological bias of Arianism. BeDuhn critiques the application of Colwell’s Rule by arguing it presupposes definiteness rather than proving it. While his criticism has validity, Colwell’s Rule remains a significant framework in Greek syntax, particularly when analyzing predicate nominatives like theos in John 1:1. Many scholars argue that the absence of the article does not automatically make theos indefinite but emphasizes its qualitative aspect, supporting the translation "the Word was God" as a categorical affirmation of the Logos’ divine nature. BeDuhn views John 1:1 as an initial step in the development of Christological thought, which later led to doctrines like the Trinity. While this perspective aligns with historical-critical approaches, it risks downplaying the high Christology evident throughout John’s Gospel.

  BeDuhn highlights the inconsistency in various translations’ handling of theos, noting that all translations exhibit some bias. However, he overlooks the inconsistency within the NWT itself, particularly its selective use of "Jehovah" in the NT. As BeDuhn acknowledges in his appendix critique, the insertion of "Jehovah" lacks textual support in the Greek manuscripts and is based on conjectural emendation. This practice undermines the NWT’s claim to objectivity and introduces a significant theological bias aligning with JW doctrine. BeDuhn’s dismissal of prominent scholars’ critiques of the NWT as "biased" or "theological rather than linguistic" can itself be seen as overly dismissive. While bias exists in translation, his blanket critique of traditional interpretations risks downplaying legitimate scholarly concerns about the NWT’s theological motivations. For instance, his dismissal of Metzger’s and Westcott’s criticisms as “theological” overlooks the fact that theological coherence and linguistic fidelity are often intertwined in biblical exegesis.

  While BeDuhn defends the NWT's rendering as "grammatically possible", most scholars argue it fails to reflect the qualitative nuance of theos in the text, which suggests divine nature rather than indefiniteness. The qualitative sense of theos in John 1:1 is supported by the immediate context (e.g., John 1:3, 1:18) and the larger narrative of John’s Gospel, which culminates in Thomas’s confession of Jesus as “My Lord and my God” (John 20:28). Rendering theos as “a god” not only creates theological ambiguity but also introduces an interpretation that aligns more closely with Jehovah’s Witness theology than with the text’s intent.

  BeDuhn’s treatment of John 20:28 (“My Lord and my God!”) as an interpretive issue rather than a clear affirmation of Christ’s deity is also problematic. While he correctly notes that the context of John’s Gospel must inform the interpretation, his reluctance to acknowledge this verse as a culmination of the Logos theology presented in John 1:1 appears to reflect his own theological hesitancy rather than an unbiased analysis.

  BeDuhn suggests that "divine" might be a preferable translation to "a god" in John 1:1c, as it captures the qualitative nature of the term. This suggestion underscores a valid point that a qualitative understanding of theos aligns with John’s theology. However, the NWT’s choice of "a god" implies henotheism to many English readers, creating a disconnect with both the text's Jewish monotheistic roots and its intended meaning.

  Examples like Colossians 1:15 (“firstborn of all creation” with “other”), Philippians 2:6 (“gave no consideration to a seizure”), and Titus 2:13 (rendering that separates “God” and “Savior”) highlight interpretive choices that align with JW doctrine. These choices go beyond grammatical fidelity, often reshaping the text to fit a pre-existing theological framework. Such renderings are at odds with mainstream scholarship and the broader consensus of early Christian interpretation.

  BeDuhn points out that mainstream biblical scholars rarely review the NWT, not because of unanimous condemnation but due to its peripheral status in academic circles. While the lack of scholarly reviews may limit informed critique, the absence of positive scholarly consensus is also telling. The NWT’s idiosyncrasies and theological biases have prevented its acceptance as a reliable translation outside JW circles.

  BeDuhn’s concern that his praise for the KIT might be misused by the Watchtower to bolster its religious claims is valid. The organization’s history of presenting scholars’ comments out of context, as seen in other cases, underscores the need for caution. While his defense of the NWT against blanket condemnation is fair, his critiques often fail to fully address the theological and doctrinal motivations behind the NWT’s most controversial renderings. The NWT’s systematic alignment with JW theology in key texts—especially concerning the deity of Christ and the insertion of “Jehovah” in the NT—raises legitimate concerns about its reliability as an unbiased translation. BeDuhn’s observations remind us of the importance of critical engagement with all translations, recognizing both their strengths and their limitations. However, the broader scholarly and theological critiques of the NWT remain valid and should not be dismissed as merely biased reactions.
• 
  406

  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..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  aqwsed12345

  @TTWSYF

  Check out these:

  • The New World Translation: What the Scholars Really Said
  • Truth in Translation, Jason BeDuhn
  • A review of Dr Jason BeDuhn’s “Truth in Translation”
  • A comprehensive review of Truth in Translation by Jason BeDuhn