Posts by aqwsed12345

posted

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..
aqwsed12345
@Blotty
You argue that I am "overruling a dictionary," but this reflects a misunderstanding of how dictionaries and lexicons function. Dictionaries provide definitions based on common usage, but they do not determine meaning in specific contexts, particularly in specialized fields like biblical Greek. Lexicons and dictionaries, including the one you cited, are tools that assist in understanding the range of possible meanings for a word. However, their entries must be applied with contextual and grammatical precision. The definition you referenced—"of one who is the author of the action as well as its instrument, or of the efficient cause"—supports my argument, not yours. It acknowledges that dia can indicate (active) agency (or instrument) as well as cause (efficient cause). The distinction between these uses depends entirely on the context, which I addressed in my earlier response. Ignoring this nuance while appealing to a general definition does not strengthen your case.
You also question my credibility versus that of a dictionary or lexicon. Credibility in this context is not about authority but about the ability to engage with the linguistic and contextual data accurately. Theological motivations are irrelevant if the argument is grounded in proper exegesis and scholarly methodology. Rather than dismissing my points based on assumptions about motive, it would be more constructive to engage with the substance of the argument. Ironically, your own appeal to the authority of dictionaries without engaging the broader exegetical context undermines your criticism of theological bias.
Regarding your claims about Wallace and A.T. Robertson, you misunderstand their points. Wallace does not argue that Christ is not the Creator; rather, he explains the relational distinctions within the Godhead. When he notes that dia with the genitive indicates agency, he is highlighting the instrumental role of the Son in creation as distinct from the Father's role as the ultimate source (ek ou). This is consistent with Trinitarian theology, which maintains that all three persons of the Trinity are involved in creation but with distinct relational roles. Similarly, A.T. Robertson’s comment that the Son is the "intermediate agent" aligns with this view. Being an intermediate agent does not diminish Christ’s deity or role as Creator; it simply reflects the Trinitarian economy of roles in divine action. Your argument that these scholars "contradict" me overlooks this nuance and conflates the relational distinctions within the Trinity with ontological subordination, which neither Wallace nor Robertson supports.
Your dismissal of my point about "passive instruments" as irrelevant is misplaced. The distinction between a passive and active instrument is critical to understanding the Logos's role in creation. A passive instrument is merely a tool that acts at the behest of an external agent, while an active participant is inherently involved and integral to the action. Christ, as the Logos, is not depicted in Scripture as a passive instrument but as an active and divine agent through whom all things were created (John 1:3, Colossians 1:16). Your acknowledgment that Christ is "involved in creation" aligns with this understanding, even if you attempt to minimize its theological implications.
You accuse me of misunderstanding your rhetorical devices and idioms, but this is a distraction from the substantive issues. Resorting to rhetorical flourishes, ad hominem attacks, or irrelevant comparisons does not address the argument. If you have substantive critiques of my points, they should focus on the linguistic, grammatical, or theological evidence, not on my perceived inability to grasp idioms or rhetoric.
Your hyperbolic statement about Christ returning and denying the Trinity is not a meaningful argument but an emotional appeal. If we are to discuss the Trinity or Christ's deity, the discussion must be grounded in the biblical text, historical context, and theological tradition. Speculative scenarios or personal assumptions about my intentions do not contribute to the debate.
Hart’s acknowledgment that Arius was considered “orthodox” before the Council of Nicaea does not mean that Arius represented the apostolic tradition or the dominant theological consensus of early Christianity. To say that Arius was within the bounds of orthodoxy before Nicaea simply reflects the fact that theological language and definitions were still being developed and that there had not yet been a formalized creedal condemnation of Arianism. This does not mean that Arius’ views faithfully reflected the teachings of the apostles or that his Christology was consistent with the broader trajectory of early Christian worship and theology. Hart’s comment highlights the historical reality that theological disputes often take time to reach formal resolution, not that Arius’ subordinationist Christology was the authentic view of the early Church.
You cite Jerome’s statement about Origen’s writings containing references to Christ as a created being as evidence that this view was “traditional.” However, this misses a crucial point: Origen’s theology was highly speculative and complex, and his writings contain apparent tensions and contradictions. While Origen occasionally described Christ in terms that could be interpreted as subordinating Him to the Father, he also affirmed the eternal generation of the Son and rejected the idea that Christ was created in the sense that creatures are created. Origen’s influence on later Arian thought does not mean that Arianism represents Origen’s theology in its entirety, nor does it make Arianism reflective of the broader Christian tradition. Church Fathers like Athanasius vigorously critiqued Arianism precisely because it deviated from what they saw as the apostolic and biblical teaching about Christ’s eternal deity. Origen’s theology was highly complex and multifaceted, and while his writings influenced later theological thought, including elements that Arians appropriated, his views are not equivalent to those of Arianism. Origen affirmed the eternal generation of the Son, which sets his theology apart from Arianism. For Origen, the Son is co-eternal with the Father, sharing in the divine nature. He described the Son as a “ktisma,” but this was not in the sense of being part of creation; rather, it referred to the Son as the first expression of God’s creative act within the divine life itself. Key points in Origen’s theology include his use of the term “epinoiai” (aspects of the Logos' function), his understanding of the Son as eternally generated from the Father, and his attempts to avoid anthropomorphism by explaining the relationship between the Father and the Son in metaphysical terms. While Origen described the Son as “subordinate” to the Father, this was a subordination within the Godhead, emphasizing relational distinctions rather than ontological inequality. Origen also rejected the idea that the Son was derived from non-existence (ex nihilo), a hallmark of Arian theology. I quote Hanson:
We can note also that both Origen and Arius described the Son as a ‘creature’ (ktisma). But here we encounter a difficulty. It is indeed pretty clear, in spite of the efforts of Rufinus in his translation of the Peri Archon to disguise the fact, and of those of Jerome to exaggerate it, that Origen did in the Peri Archon describe the Son both as ‘having come into existence’ (γενητός) and as a ‘creature’ (κτίσμα), at a period when nobody distinguished ‘having come into existence’ (γενητός) from ‘begotten’ (γεννητός).22 For Origen ποιεῖν (to make) was an appropriate word to apply to the production of everything invisible and spiritual, whereas πλάσσειν (to mould) was the correct term to use for the creation of whatever is visible and material.23 The Son could therefore be described as ‘made’ in this sense. But at the same time he declares his belief in the eternity of the Son as a distinct entity from the Father, even in the Peri Archon,24 and frequently elsewhere in his works. For Origen the Logos/Wisdom is coeternal with God, and he only calls him a creature because in him God had formed the ideas of future creation and of all creatures.25 This is a very different concept from Arius’ doctrine of a Son who is created at a certain point, though apparently before time, who did once not exist, who is the highest of the creatures but still part of creation rather than within the Godhead.
22 At Peri Archon 1.2.2 (Crouzel and Simonetti Traité I, 112, 114) Rufinus’ long paraphrase probably disguises the fact that Origen applied the word κτίζειν to the Logos; so Simonetti Studi, 23 (Lorentz, Arius Iud. 69 however defends Rufinus’ integrity here); and at Peri Archon IV.4.1 (28) (402) the Greek preserved by Justinian is probably correct in representing Origen as applying ktisma to the Son; so Simonetti Studi 23, 24; see note on this in Crouzel and Simonetti (Traité IV.9, 242–246). For Origen’s use of γενητός see Crouzel and Simonetti Traité I Introd., n2–n3.
23 So Origen explains Comm. on John XX.22. 24I.2.10 (132, 138); IV.4.1 (28) (402); cf. Gregory Thaumaturgus, whose Expositio (Hahn Bibliothek der Symbole 253–255) clearly declares the eternity of the Son, but who (according to Basil, Epistle 210.5) could, elsewhere, call the Son κτίσμα and ποίημα.
25 This is clearly enough expressed in Peri Archon 1.2.2 (112, 114) and in Comm. on John, frag. 1; see Lorentz op. cit. 69.
Your reference to John 1:1 and Hart’s comment about the phrase “a god” being a possible rendering is taken out of context. Hart’s point in such discussions is not to affirm Arianism but to highlight the challenges of translating ancient texts and the complexities of early Christian theological language. The overwhelming weight of scholarship, however, recognizes that the grammatical and theological context of John 1:1 supports the traditional rendering, “the Word was God,” as a statement of the Word’s full divinity. To argue that Hart’s acknowledgment of a possible alternative rendering somehow endorses an Arian interpretation is to misrepresent the purpose of his remarks.
Your accusation that I have not watched the video is unfounded and irrelevant. Engaging with the content of Hart’s arguments, as well as the broader historical and theological context, does not require slavish repetition of every statement made in a video. The crux of the discussion is not whether Hart acknowledges diversity in early Christology—this is uncontroversial and well-documented—but whether Hart endorses the view that Arianism represents the authentic apostolic tradition. He does not. Instead, Hart critiques the oversimplification of early Christological development and the tendency to view doctrinal articulation as purely linear or static.
The reference to Eusebius’ supposed “change” before and after Nicaea is another misinterpretation. Hart’s observation about Eusebius reflects the fact that the Arian controversy forced theologians to clarify their positions and align with the Nicene Creed’s precise terminology. This does not imply that Eusebius fundamentally changed his belief about Christ’s deity. Though his language may have lacked the precision that the Council of Nicaea later required, Eusebius stopped short of fully embracing Arianism. He rejected the idea that the Son came from non-existence and affirmed that the Son is unique. His theology represents an intermediary position between Origen’s eternal generation and Arius’s stark separation of the Son from the Father. The “change” in Eusebius’ writings after Nicaea reflects his acceptance of the Creed’s language, not a wholesale revision of his theology.
Finally, your inflammatory tone and ad hominem attacks undermine your credibility and the strength of your argument. Accusing me of being a “fraud” or dismissing my comments as “trash” does not engage with the substance of the discussion. Hart’s work, like any scholarly contribution, invites interpretation, critique, and dialogue. Resorting to personal attacks instead of engaging with the theological and historical issues at hand does nothing to advance understanding or resolve disagreement.
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..
aqwsed12345

@slimboyfat
Hart’s acknowledgment that Arius was part of a broader theological tradition and not a fringe figure does not mean that Hart sees Arianism as faithfully preserving the apostolic teaching. Instead, his comments highlight the diversity of early Christian thought and the complex theological landscape that culminated in the Council of Nicaea. To conflate Hart's nuanced observations with an endorsement of Arianism as the "traditional view" is to oversimplify his position and ignore the broader context of his argument.
Hart’s point about homoousios being a "new grammar" or a "new word" does not imply that Nicene theology itself was a departure from apostolic faith. Rather, it reflects the reality that theological precision often requires new terminology to address contemporary challenges and heresies. The term homoousios was introduced to clarify and safeguard the Church's understanding of Christ’s divine nature, not to invent it. Hart’s commentary on this development acknowledges the historical reality that Arian views had some roots in earlier theological trends, but it does not follow that he sees Arius as more representative of apostolic tradition. Instead, Hart recognizes that the Council of Nicaea articulated and defended what the Church had long believed about Christ’s divinity, even if the specific term homoousios was new.
Your appeal to scholars like Paula Fredriksen, E.P. Sanders, Geza Vermes, and Adela Yarbro Collins does not substantiate the claim that Arianism represented the traditional view. These scholars, while valuable contributors to the study of early Christianity, often approach the subject from a historical-critical perspective that may emphasize diversity in early Christological thought. However, highlighting theological diversity does not equate to validating Arianism as the dominant or original understanding of Christ. Historical theology, including the work of scholars like Larry Hurtado and Richard Bauckham, demonstrates that worship of Jesus as divine was present from the earliest stages of Christianity, making Arianism's subordinationist view a deviation rather than a continuation of apostolic faith.
Furthermore, the claim that Hart sees Nicaea as an "innovation" ignores the distinction between theological articulation and theological invention. The Nicene Creed did not introduce new beliefs but clarified the Church’s existing faith in response to Arianism’s challenge. The Church had always confessed Christ’s divinity, as evidenced by pre-Nicene writings like those of Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus. These authors affirmed the eternal and divine nature of Christ, demonstrating that Nicene theology was not a departure but a formalization of long-held beliefs.
It is also important to note that Hart’s broader theological and philosophical work consistently affirms the centrality of Nicene theology to Christian orthodoxy. While he recognizes the historical complexity of the Arian controversy, he does not suggest that Arianism better reflects the apostolic faith. Instead, he critiques overly simplistic narratives about the development of Christian doctrine, emphasizing the importance of understanding historical context without undermining the theological validity of Nicene conclusions.
In conclusion, the assertion that Hart unequivocally sees Arius as representing the traditional view and Nicaea as an innovation misrepresents his position. Hart’s comments on theological diversity and the historical development of doctrine do not equate to an endorsement of Arianism or a rejection of Nicene theology. His acknowledgment of the complexity of early Christological debates underscores the need for nuanced understanding, not the wholesale dismissal of Nicene orthodoxy. The Nicene Creed, far from being an innovation, articulated and defended the Church’s apostolic faith against the distortions of Arianism.
If you are really interested in the history of Arianism, and don't just want to read the summary opinions of subversive liberal theologians and second-hand authors who throw in bold claims only to confirm your existing theological preconceptions, and to collect yummy punchlines to flaunt to those filthy "apostates," I suggest you read some more nuanced work, like this one:
Hanson - The search for the Christian doctrine of God : the Arian controversy, 318-381

@Blotty
First, dia does not intrinsically mean "source"; its meaning depends on the grammatical construction and context. When dia is used with the genitive case (as in John 1:3, Colossians 1:16, and Hebrews 1:2), it typically denotes active agency—the means or instrument by which an action is accomplished. This is distinct from the concept of "source," which is more commonly indicated by prepositions like ek ("from") or apo ("out of"). For example, Romans 11:36 uses ek autou ("from Him") to describe God as the source, followed by dia autou ("through Him") to describe the means or agency, and eis auton ("to Him") to indicate the purpose or goal. These prepositions highlight distinct aspects of God's relationship to creation, and dia in this context emphasizes active agency rather than origin or source.
In Hebrews 2:10, dia is again used with the genitive ("through whom all things exist"), referring to God's role as the one through whom creation and redemption are accomplished. While dia with the genitive can sometimes imply a close relationship between the agent and the origin of the action, it does not equate to the concept of "source" in the sense of ultimate causation. Instead, it highlights the instrumental or mediatory role in the act described. This distinction is vital to understanding passages like John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16, where Christ is presented as the divine agent of creation, not as a subordinate or separate source.
Your assertion that I have "acknowledged" dia can mean "source" misunderstands my argument. In cases where dia refers to active agency, it does not imply that the agent is the ultimate source or origin of the action. In Trinitarian theology, the Father is often described as the ultimate source (ek ou), while the Son is the agent (dia hou), and the Spirit is the perfecting force. This relational economy within the Trinity reflects distinct roles in divine action without implying ontological subordination or inequality. Therefore, acknowledging that dia can describe agency does not contradict my earlier points; rather, it reinforces the proper understanding of Christ's role in creation as the active and integral divine agent. You should read about Perichoresis.
The claim that I have inconsistently argued that dia "only means channel" is a strawman. My argument has been that dia with the genitive in these contexts emphasizes agency, not that it "only means channel" in every usage. The phrase "channel of an act" you invoke is not a dismissal of Christ’s role but an accurate description of how dia functions to highlight relational distinctions within the Godhead. To conflate this with denying Christ's divinity or agency is a misrepresentation of both my argument and the broader theological framework.
Your concession that dia in Hebrews 2:10 can describe the "channel" of creation aligns with my argument rather than refuting it. Christ, as the Logos, is the divine agent through whom all things exist, and this is entirely consistent with the language of Scripture and the theology of the early Church. The Logos is not a passive conduit or subordinate instrument but an active and integral participant in creation, fully divine and inseparable from the Father in essence and action. This distinction between agency and source does not diminish Christ’s role but affirms His unique position within the Trinitarian framework.
Finally, your appeal to "basic English grammar" as a rhetorical flourish does not address the substantive issues at hand. Greek prepositions like dia do not operate identically to English prepositions, and their meanings are shaped by grammatical case and context. Dismissing the nuanced theological implications of dia in favor of oversimplified or incorrect analogies betrays a lack of understanding of both Greek grammar and the biblical texts in question. If your critique is based on a superficial reading of the text without engaging the linguistic and theological nuances, it fails to undermine the consistency of my argument or the traditional understanding of Christ’s role as Creator.
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..
aqwsed12345

@slimboyfat
Hart’s acknowledgment that Arius was not a "strange, curious anomaly", "was regarded by many as" etc., and that his views were rooted in earlier theological currents does not equate to explicitly claiming that Arius "more faithfully represented the apostolic faith." Hart’s analysis focuses on the complexity of early Christian theological diversity, not on affirming the superiority or fidelity of Arian theology to apostolic teaching. There is a critical distinction between recognizing Arius as part of a broader theological tradition and suggesting that his views were closer to the apostolic faith than those of the Nicene "party."
Hart's comment about the Nicene party proposing "a new grammar" and introducing terms like homoousios reflects the historical fact that theological language developed over time to address specific controversies. However, Hart does not suggest that this development constitutes a departure from apostolic teaching. Rather, the adoption of homoousios was a necessary response to Arianism, which sought to redefine Christ’s relationship to the Father in a way that contradicted the apostolic understanding of His full divinity. The use of precise terminology like homoousios was not a creation of new doctrine but an articulation of the belief already embedded in the worship, prayers, and confessions of the early Church. To argue that a theological term is not in the Bible is as pathetic, primitive, and foolish an exegesis as the Amish logic that since cars are not mentioned in the Bible, only horse-drawn carriages can be used.
To interpret Hart’s comments as a wholesale endorsement of Arius is to ignore the broader thrust of his argument, which is concerned with the historical and theological dynamics of the early Church. Hart’s acknowledgment of Arianism’s historical roots does not negate the fact that he recognizes the Nicene Creed as a defense of the Church’s understanding of Christ’s divine nature against a theological innovation. Arianism’s claim that the Son was not begotted, but a created being ("there was a time when he was not") represented a deviation from the apostolic teaching that Jesus was eternal, divine, and of the same essence as the Father. This is precisely why Arianism was rejected by the broader Christian community and condemned as heretical at Nicaea.
Moreover, the argument that homoousios was "not in scripture" does not diminish its theological validity. Hart himself, in other writings and discussions, acknowledges that theological development is an inherent part of the Church’s life as it seeks to clarify and defend the truths revealed in Scripture. The Nicene party did not invent Christ’s divinity; they articulated it in precise terms to safeguard the apostolic faith against misinterpretations like Arianism. The fact that homoousios was a "new word" does not mean it introduced a new concept. The term encapsulated the biblical witness to Jesus’ divine nature, as seen in passages like John 1:1, Philippians 2:6-11, and Colossians 1:15-20.
Additionally, Hart’s observation that some bishops and priests adhered to what they believed was an "older view" does not imply that this view was correct or representative of the apostolic faith. Early Christian theology was marked by a diversity of thought, but not all theological currents were equally faithful to the apostolic witness. The early Church, through councils like Nicaea, discerned and defended the truth of Christ’s divinity against deviations like Arianism. The persistence of Arian and semi-Arian views after Nicaea reflects the complexity of theological disputes in the fourth century, not the validity of Arianism as a more authentic representation of the apostolic faith.
Hart’s acknowledgment of this historical complexity does not amount to a repudiation of Nicene theology or an explicitt endorsement of Arianism as the "orthodoxy of centuries." The claim that the Nicene "party" introduced a "new grammar" does not undermine the fact that this grammar faithfully expressed the substance of apostolic teaching. Hart’s discussion highlights the need for historical and theological nuance, not the wholesale rejection of Nicene orthodoxy in favor of Arianism.
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..
aqwsed12345
@Blotty
Regarding dia in Romans 11:36, your claim that it refers to "source" rather than "channel" misunderstands the distinction between the prepositions ex (from) and dia (through). Paul uses ex for the Father as the ultimate source ("from Him") and dia for the Son as the means or agent ("through Him"). This distinction highlights relational roles within the Godhead rather than ontological subordination. Dia consistently denotes agency rather than origination in the Pauline corpus when applied to Christ (e.g., John 1:3, Colossians 1:16, Hebrews 1:2). Your interpretation conflates these relational nuances, undermining the Trinitarian understanding of shared divine essence and distinct personal roles.
The claim that in Romans 11:36, dia refers to God as the source rather than as a channel misunderstands the preposition's semantic range and the specific context of this passage. In Romans 11:36, Paul uses three prepositional phrases: "from Him" (ex autou), "through Him" (dia autou), and "to Him" (eis auton). These prepositions highlight distinct aspects of God's relationship to creation: ex autou indicates that God is the ultimate source, dia autou emphasizes His active agency or means, and eis auton denotes the goal or purpose. The use of dia in this context does not imply inferiority but underscores the unity of the Godhead in creation. In Johannine theology, dia similarly reflects Christ’s active role in creation as the divine Word, not a subordinate instrument, but one who fully participates in the work of creation as God.
Your question about a "passive instrument" reveals a misunderstanding of the term and the argument. A passive instrument would imply something used by another without agency or self-determination, akin to a tool wielded by a craftsman. However, John 1:3 explicitly negates this interpretation by stating that "all things were made through Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made." This clause establishes the Logos as the necessary and active agent of creation. The Logos is not passive but integral to the creative process, as indicated by the phrase "without Him" (choris autou), which excludes any possibility of creation occurring apart from Him. This absolute negation leaves no room for the Logos to be a mere instrument or created being.
The idea that "absolute negation" was idiomatic in the biblical era lacks textual evidence in this context. While hyperbolic or idiomatic language exists in Scripture, the construction in John 1:3 is precise and unambiguous. The use of choris autou—combined with the double negation in the Greek text ("without Him was not... anything that was made")—intensifies the exclusivity of the Logos's role in creation. This language rules out the notion that the Logos is part of creation or a secondary agent.
Your assertion that Christ could be both "created" and "uncreated," drawing on Philo's concept of the Logos, reflects a misunderstanding of both Philo's philosophy and John's theology. Philo's Logos is a philosophical abstraction, a mediator between the divine and the material, whereas John's Logos is a person—Jesus Christ—who is fully divine and eternal. John’s description of the Logos as "with God" (pros ton Theon) and "was God" (theos ēn ho logos) affirms the Logos's full divinity and eternal existence. Unlike Eve, who was derived from Adam and is ontologically subordinate to him, the Logos is of the same divine essence as the Father, as clarified by the Nicene Creed's term homoousios ("of the same substance"). The analogy you propose is therefore incompatible with Johannine and Nicene theology. Philo's Logos concept is philosophical speculation, while John's Logos is firmly grounded in Jewish monotheism and the revelation of Christ as fully divine. The Logos is not created "from God's substance" in the manner you describe; such a view parallels Arianism, which was condemned as heretical by the early Church. The Nicene Creed clarifies that the Son is "begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father." The analogy of Eve being formed from Adam misunderstands the distinction between human derivation and divine begetting. The Son's "begetting" is eternal, not a temporal or contingent event, emphasizing His equality and consubstantiality with the Father.
Your claim that creation is attributed solely to the Father reflects a selective reading of the Church Fathers. While the Father is often described as the "source" of creation (ex ou), the Son is consistently portrayed as the agent (dia hou), and the Spirit as the perfecting force. This Trinitarian framework is evident in Scripture (e.g., John 1:3, Col. 1:16-17, Heb. 1:2, 1 Cor. 8:6) and upheld by patristic theology. For instance, Irenaeus, in Against Heresies (Book 4, Chapter 20), refers to the Son and Spirit as the "two hands of God" in creation. This imagery underscores the collaborative and unified work of the Trinity in creation, without suggesting any ontological hierarchy.
Regarding Daniel Wallace and A.T. Robertson, your citations do not contradict my argument but rather reinforce it. Both scholars affirm that dia in John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16 emphasizes the Logos’s role as the divine agent in creation. Wallace, in Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, explains that dia can indicate agency without implying inferiority, particularly when the context involves divine action. Similarly, Robertson acknowledges that the Son functions as the "intermediate agent" in creation, which is consistent with Trinitarian theology. Your attempt to use these scholars to suggest subordination misrepresents their positions, as neither Wallace nor Robertson denies the Logos’s full divinity or eternal nature. So your citation of Daniel Wallace and A.T. Robertson supports my argument, not yours. Wallace explicitly identifies dia as indicative of agency in John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16, emphasizing the Son's role in creation without implying inferiority. Robertson similarly recognizes the Logos as the active, sustaining agent in creation. Your selective interpretation of their works misrepresents their conclusions, which consistently affirm the high Christology of these texts.
The appeal to the intermediate agency of the Logos as a basis for subordination is a category error. In Trinitarian theology, "agency" reflects the relational distinctions within the Godhead, not an ontological hierarchy. The Father, Son, and Spirit act inseparably in all divine works, including creation. The Son’s role as the agent of creation (dia hou) does not imply subordination but highlights the relational economy of the Trinity, where the Father is the source, the Son the agent, and the Spirit the perfecter.
Your interpretation of the Logos as "created from God’s substance" contradicts the biblical and theological witness. The Nicene Creed explicitly rejects the idea that the Son is "made" (poiētos), affirming instead that He is "begotten, not made" (gennētos, ou poiētos). This distinction underscores that the Son is eternally generated from the Father, sharing the same divine essence, rather than being a creation. The analogy of Eve's derivation from Adam fails to capture the eternal and consubstantial relationship between the Father and the Son, which is foundational to Trinitarian theology.
On your point that the Church Fathers attribute creation solely to the Father, this is inaccurate. While the Fathers emphasize the Father's role as the source of creation, they also affirm the Son's active participation as Creator. For example, Irenaeus states in Against Heresies (Book 2, Chapter 30): "The Father, indeed, is above all, and He is the Head of Christ; but the Word is through all things and is Himself the head of the Church." This statement aligns with Hebrews 1:2 and Colossians 1:16, where the Son is described as the agent of creation. The relational distinctions in these descriptions reflect the economic Trinity, not subordination.
Regarding BeDuhn, his acknowledgment of theos as qualitative does not negate Christ's divinity. While BeDuhn prefers "divine" as a translation, he recognizes that this aligns with the Logos's divine nature as described in John 1:1. The qualitative use of theos emphasizes the Logos's full participation in the divine essence, not a lesser or created status. Your claim that I selectively omitted information is unsubstantiated; BeDuhn’s linguistic analysis supports the traditional understanding of John 1:1 as affirming the Logos's divine nature, even if he does not personally endorse Trinitarian theology.
BeDuhn acknowledges that theos can denote a category or class, but he does not reduce the Logos to being merely "a god" in the sense of polytheism or henotheism. Instead, his preference for the term "divine" reflects the qualitative nature of theos in John 1:1c, aligning with the broader Johannine context that emphasizes the Word's intrinsic divinity. This interpretation does not equate to an endorsement of the JWs’ theological stance, as BeDuhn himself critiques their translation's theological bias elsewhere.
Regarding the claim that theos as a "count noun" undermines its qualitative force, this argument misunderstands Greek syntax and semantics. While theos can function as a count noun, its role in John 1:1c aligns with qualitative usage. As noted by Harner and other scholars, the anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb often emphasizes the nature or essence of the subject. In this case, it attributes divinity to the Word, consistent with the Gospel's prologue and broader theological framework. The qualitative interpretation of theos here does not necessitate subordination or categorical division but underscores the Word's shared essence with God. Check these:
- Revisiting the Colwell Construction in Light of Mass / Count Nouns Don Hartley
- Theos is a Count Noun: "God" or "a god" in John 1:1c Robert Hommel
The criticism that the neuter hen in John 10:30 does not indicate unity of essence due to the Incarnation is also misplaced. Theological nuances of Christ's dual nature (divine and human) do not negate His ontological unity with the Father. The use of hen emphasizes unity of will and essence, not mere functional agreement. This is corroborated by the immediate context, where Jesus’ claim leads to accusations of blasphemy, indicating that His audience understood Him to assert divine identity, not merely cooperative action.
On the claim that God as "spirit" (John 4:24) precludes Jesus’ shared essence during His earthly ministry, this reflects a misunderstanding of Trinitarian theology. The Incarnation does not diminish or alter Christ's divine essence; rather, it affirms the hypostatic union, where Christ is fully God and fully man. Describing God as "spirit" emphasizes His immaterial and eternal nature, which Jesus shares as the Logos.
The appeal to theos as a "count noun" fails to refute its qualitative application in John 1:1c. The argument presupposes a rigid linguistic framework that dismisses established grammatical insights. Scholars like Wallace and Harner demonstrate that theos in this context functions to attribute the essence of divinity to the Word without implying numerical separation or inferiority. The argument that theos must always be definite or indefinite overlooks the nuanced qualitative category evident in Koine Greek.
The critique conflates BeDuhn’s linguistic analysis with theological conclusions he does not make. His acknowledgment of the grammatical possibility of “a god” does not mean he endorses it as the most accurate or contextually appropriate rendering. BeDuhn’s focus on qualitative nuance supports a reading that recognizes the Word’s divinity in harmony with monotheistic Jewish theology. Mischaracterizing his position as aligning with JW theology misrepresents his work and the broader academic consensus.
Your assertion that ego eimi in John 8:58 simply indicates existence before Abraham but not eternal existence fails to account for the linguistic and contextual factors. The phrase ego eimi (I am) is not merely a statement of past existence but a present-tense declaration of ongoing being. This present tense, coupled with the temporal clause prin Abraam genesthai (“before Abraham came to be”), creates a contrast that goes beyond the simple claim of existence at a specific point in time. The use of the present tense where a past tense (e.g., ēmēn, “I was”) might be expected indicates a timeless, ongoing existence. This is consistent with how John presents Jesus in the Prologue (John 1:1), where the Logos is described as eternally pre-existent and divine.
Your suggestion that eternal existence could have been conveyed another way ignores the flexibility of Greek grammar. The structure of ego eimi uniquely emphasizes existence in a way that transcends time, which is precisely what John intended to communicate. It aligns with the Prologue's declaration that “the Word was with God, and the Word was God” and reflects a deliberate theological choice to present Jesus as the eternal Logos.
The dismissal of the connection between ego eimi in John 8:58 and the divine name in Exodus 3:14 is unfounded. While it is true that the LXX renders Exodus 3:14 as ego eimi ho on (“I am the Being”), the theological resonance between the two passages cannot be ignored. The use of ego eimi in John 8:58, without the qualification of ho on, emphasizes the immediacy and simplicity of Jesus’ claim to divinity. The reaction of the Jews—attempting to stone Him—confirms that they understood this as a blasphemous assertion of deity, paralleling God’s self-revelation to Moses. The assertion that ego eimi in John 8:58 carries the same resonance as ho on in Exodus 3:14 is supported by the broader Johannine context. The use of ego eimi in John consistently affirms Jesus’ divine identity, as seen in statements like “I am the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6) and “I am the resurrection and the life” (John 11:25). These declarations align with the divine self-revelation in Exodus and reflect Jesus’ unique role in salvation history.
The argument that ho on is emphasized in Exodus 3:14 rather than ego eimi overlooks the broader significance of God’s self-identification. While the phrase ho on (“the Being”) is present, ego eimi remains integral to the passage’s theology as it introduces God’s eternal and self-sufficient existence. The absence of ho on in John 8:58 does not diminish the theological connection but reflects John’s focus on Jesus’ appropriation of the divine name. The Gospel of John consistently portrays Jesus as embodying the divine identity, as seen in His other “I am” statements (e.g., John 6:35, John 14:6).
The claim that the Jews’ reaction was merely “perceived blasphemy” does not weaken the argument. Throughout the Gospel of John, the Jewish leaders accuse Jesus of blasphemy specifically because He claims equality with God (John 5:18; 10:30-33). The stoning attempt in John 8:59 is consistent with their understanding that Jesus was asserting divinity, whether or not they accepted the claim.
Your argument regarding the question “Who are you?” (John 8:25) as evidence that the Jews did not initially understand ego eimi as a divine claim overlooks the developing narrative. The question reflects their confusion and resistance to Jesus’ identity, not a denial of His claims. By the time of John 8:58-59, their reaction indicates that they did understand the theological weight of His words, even if they rejected the claim.
The idea that ego eimi could have been expressed differently to imply eternality misunderstands the nuance of Greek grammar. Using a past-tense verb like ēmēn (“I was”) would imply that Jesus’ existence before Abraham was finite or had ceased, which contradicts the intended meaning. The choice of the present tense conveys a continuous and timeless existence, aligning with the divine self-identification in Exodus 3:14.
Your argument that “Son of God” implies equality with God but not divinity in Jewish thought oversimplifies the theological context. While it is true that Son of God could be used for righteous individuals or the Davidic king, Jesus’ usage consistently goes beyond this. In John 5:18, the Jews understand His claim as making Himself “equal with God,” which they consider blasphemy. This equality is not merely functional but ontological, as evidenced by Jesus’ further claims of unity with the Father (John 10:30) and His acceptance of divine worship (John 20:28).
Your dismissal of the predicate-less ego eimi in John 8:58 as an echo of Exodus 3:14 ignores both the linguistic and theological context. The Septuagint's rendering of Exodus 3:14 as ego eimi ho on ("I am the Being") establishes a connection between ego eimi and divine self-identification. In John 8:58, Jesus deliberately uses ego eimi in a way that transcends temporal constraints, asserting eternal existence. The Jews' reaction—attempting to stone Him—demonstrates their understanding of His claim to deity, consistent with the Gospel's high Christology. The suggestion of an implied predicate in ego eimi based on the NIV translation does not apply to John 8:58. While ego eimi can have an implied predicate in some contexts (e.g., John 6:20, “It is I”), its predicate-less usage in John 8:58 is unique and intentional. It conveys existence rather than identification, reinforcing its theological significance.
Your argument that the Jews' initial question, "Who are you?" (John 8:25), undermines the divine claim of ego eimi in John 8:58 is flawed. The question reflects their ongoing misunderstanding and resistance to Jesus' identity, a recurring theme in John's Gospel. By the time of John 8:58, the context and phrasing of Jesus' statement clearly provoke the Jews to accuse Him of blasphemy, confirming their recognition of His divine claim. The claim that the Jewish reaction in John 8:59 could be explained solely by Jesus’ claim to have seen Abraham is inadequate. While the statement that Jesus existed before Abraham would be provocative, it would not necessarily provoke an accusation of blasphemy and an immediate attempt to stone Him. The context and reaction suggest that the Jews understood Jesus’ words as a claim to divine identity.
On John 5:18, your assertion that the Jews accused Jesus only of equality with God, not being God, misreads the text. Equality with God in this context implies sharing divine prerogatives, which the Jews understood as a claim to deity. Similarly, your claim that the Son's authority to forgive sins (Mark 2:10) was merely given to Him ignores the broader theological context of His divine identity. The authority to forgive sins is a prerogative of God alone (Isaiah 43:25), and Jesus exercises it by His own inherent authority.
Your argument that Jesus’ authority to forgive sins was merely given to Him (e.g., Mark 2:10) misunderstands the theological implications. While Jesus acts in accordance with the Father’s will, His authority to forgive sins reflects His divine identity. The scribes’ reaction in Mark 2:7 (“Who can forgive sins but God alone?”) confirms that they understood this act as a claim to divine prerogative. The argument that the Jews only accused Jesus of claiming equality with God but not of being God misrepresents the text. In John 10:33, the Jews explicitly accuse Jesus of “making [Himself] God,” demonstrating that they understood His claim to be ontological, not merely functional. The distinction you propose between equality and identity does not hold in the context of the Jewish leaders’ accusations.
Your critique of Revelation's use of "Alpha and Omega" fails to account for the consistent application of this title to Christ (Revelation 1:8, 21:6, 22:13), affirming His divine status. While the title also applies to the Father, this reflects the shared divine identity of the Father and the Son, consistent with Trinitarian theology.
Trinitarian theology, as you rightly pointed out, is derived from the cumulative and interconnected evidence of Scripture, not isolated passages. This approach respects the nature of biblical revelation, where truths about God are revealed progressively and holistically across the entirety of Scripture. In contrast, JW theology is built on such one-liner prooftexts and punchlines, and it is entirely fair to point out that this does not actually work.
The reason Trinitarians ask JWs for explicit passages—such as evidence that Jesus is Michael the Archangel—is because the JW position hinges on claims of explicit textual evidence. For example, they assert that Jesus is explicitly Michael, or that God’s name "Jehovah" must appear in the NT, and so the burden of proof naturally falls on them to provide direct support for those assertions.
By contrast, Trinitarian theology doesn’t rest on one isolated verse but on the whole counsel of Scripture. For example:
- John 1:1 describes the divine nature of the Logos, who "was God."
- Philippians 2:6 speaks of Christ’s equality with God.
- Matthew 28:19 demonstrates the unity and shared authority of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
These passages, taken together with others like John 20:28 (where Thomas calls Jesus "My Lord and My God") and Colossians 1:15–20 (describing Christ as the Creator of all things), form a cohesive picture that supports the Trinity.
When JWs or other non-Trinitarians challenge the Trinity, they often focus on denying its cumulative basis, insisting instead on isolated, explicit texts that they feel undermine it. Yet, when challenged on their own teachings (e.g., that Jesus is Michael), they cannot provide cumulative evidence—let alone explicit texts—to substantiate their position.
Thus, the request for explicit passages is not a double standard; it’s a logical response to specific claims. Trinitarian doctrine has never claimed to rest on a single verse but on the consistent and harmonious testimony of Scripture as a whole. I would encourage you to apply the same standard of cumulative evidence to your own theology and ask whether it aligns with the breadth of biblical revelation.
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..
aqwsed12345

@Blotty
Regarding the Wikipedia issue, your critique misrepresents my position. I did not claim you accused me of relying on Wikipedia; I addressed your dismissal of its validity. Your own "blanket policy" acknowledges its utility if corroborated by reliable sources, which undermines the general rejection you initially implied.
The claim that "without Him was not anything made" (John 1:3) doesn't exclude the possibility of the Logos being a created entity misunderstands the passage's construction. The statement categorically excludes anything made without the Logos. This would include the Logos if He were created, creating a logical impossibility.
The Greek phrase choris autou ("without Him") is an absolute negation, leaving no room for exceptions. This grammatical structure ensures that the Logos was not merely a passive tool but an essential, active agent in creation. The text explicitly places the Logos in a position of indispensable creative authority, refuting any notion of passivity.
You challenge the claim that dia (through) does not imply inferiority or dependence and demand an exception. In Greek, dia often denotes agency, indicating the means by which an action is accomplished. Its use does not inherently imply subordination or inferiority. For instance, in Romans 11:36, Paul writes, "For from Him and through [dia] Him and to Him are all things." Here, dia is used for God’s agency in creation, clearly not implying inferiority. Similarly, in John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16, dia highlights the Son’s role as the divine agent in creation, functioning within the unity of the Godhead. It emphasizes the relational distinction between the Father as the source and the Son as the agent without suggesting ontological subordination. Dia ("through") often indicates active agency without implying inferiority. For example, Hebrews 1:2 describes the Son as the one "through whom" God made the universe, affirming His divine role without subordination. If you demand citations, the works of Daniel Wallace or A.T. Robertson on Greek prepositions provide ample evidence.
You assert that the Trinity as a whole is the Creator and accuse me of misleading language by distinguishing the roles of Father, Son, and Spirit. However, Trinitarian theology does not deny that the entire Godhead acts in creation. Instead, it affirms that each divine person participates in creation according to their unique roles: the Father as the source, the Son as the agent, and the Spirit as the sustainer. This relational distinction does not imply inequality but reflects the harmonious operation of the one divine essence. While early writers like Tertullian or Origen may not have used later Nicene terminology, their writings affirm the Son’s divine agency in creation. For example, Tertullian states in Against Praxeas: "The Father created the world through His Word," acknowledging the Son’s active role as Creator. The development of Trinitarian language over time does not negate this foundational truth but clarifies it.
You claim that I misrepresented your position on Isaiah 44:24, suggesting you never said it excludes the Son. However, the implication of your argument—that creation is attributed solely to the Father—contradicts the NT’s consistent application of OT creation texts to the Son. Hebrews 1:10 applies Psalm 102:25-27 to the Son, directly attributing Yahweh’s creative work to Him. The unity of Father and Son in creation is a fundamental aspect of Trinitarian theology, underscoring the Son’s full participation in the divine identity. If you agree that the Son participates in creation, then you align with the Trinitarian understanding that creation is the work of the one God involving all three persons.
Calling something "a god" in metaphorical terms (e.g., Psalm 82 or 2 Corinthians 4:4) itself does not equate to polytheism or henotheism. These passages use "god" as a metaphor to describe authority or divine representation, not divinity in the ontological sense. In John 1:1, however, the term theos qualitatively describes the Logos as possessing the divine essence, which aligns with Jewish monotheism and the broader context of John's Gospel. This is a theological and linguistic distinction. The metaphorical use of "gods" in contexts like Psalm 82 or 2 Corinthians 4:4 does not equate to polytheism or henotheism because it does not involve ontological divinity. In Psalm 82 human judges are called "gods" (elohim) because they act as representatives of God’s authority, not because they are divine beings. Jesus uses this argument in John 10:34-36 to demonstrate the appropriateness of His claim to divine sonship. In 2 Corinthians 4:4 Satan is referred to as "the god of this age" metaphorically, denoting his temporary authority in a fallen world, not literal deity. By contrast, John 1:1c uses "theos" qualitatively to affirm the Logos' divine nature, not metaphorically. The Word is not likened to a godly figure or representative but is described as sharing fully in the divine essence. The NWT's rendering of "a god" imposes an interpretation that introduces a polytheistic nuance foreign to the Johannine text.
If you equate "a god" with "a divine person," you misunderstand the theological implications. The phrase "a god" introduces ambiguity and suggests separateness or subordination, which is inconsistent with John’s monotheistic framework. The qualitative reading of "theos" in John 1:1c does not present the Word as "a divine person" among many but as possessing the full essence of divinity. BeDuhn has clarified his stance in his works. While he prefers "divine" as a translation, his use of the term does not align with the Trinitarian understanding of Christ's full divinity. However, his critique of traditional translations like the NWT does not amount to an endorsement of their theological implications. His linguistic analysis must be distinguished from theological conclusions. BeDuhn’s "divine" emphasizes the qualitative nature of the Logos without explicitly endorsing the Arian interpretation of "a god." His preference for "divine" reflects the Logos' nature as distinct but does not reject Trinitarian possibilities, as he has acknowledged that his translation leaves room for multiple interpretations.
Your critique of applying modern meanings to "divine" ignores how BeDuhn’s preference for "divine" reflects the qualitative nature of theos in John 1:1c. BeDuhn does not endorse a polytheistic/henotheistic interpretation; rather, he acknowledges the qualitative aspect of the Logos’ divinity. Your claim that you could email him to clarify underscores the need for rigorous analysis over speculation. If you choose to contact BeDuhn, it would be prudent to frame your questions carefully, distinguishing between his linguistic analysis and his personal theological views. However, his prior work already suggests that his preferred translation, "divine," is open to interpretation and does not necessarily support Jehovah’s Witness theology. Even if BeDuhn is non-Trinitarian, this does not invalidate Trinitarian scholarship or early Christian interpretations affirming Christ's full divinity.
Your insistence on focusing solely on linguistics while disregarding theological context is problematic. Greek grammar operates within the framework of meaning, which includes theological nuances in texts like John 1:1 and John 8:58. Stripping these texts of their theological context results in incomplete interpretations. Your personal theological preferences are noted, but this debate is not about personal preferences; it is about textual, historical, and linguistic analysis. The discussion hinges on what the original Greek text and early Christian interpretations indicate, not on whether you personally accept Trinitarian theology.
The term "worship" as applied to Christ in the New Testament (e.g., Matthew 28:17; Hebrews 1:6) reflects the veneration due only to God. In Greek, the word proskyneō (worship) can indicate varying levels of reverence, but when directed toward Christ, it is consistently within a divine framework, affirming His full deity. Modern definitions of "worship" align with this understanding, emphasizing supreme reverence, which is inconsistent with Jehovah’s Witness theology that restricts worship to the Father.
John 10:30’s statement, "I and the Father are one," uses the neuter hen to express unity in essence, not merely cooperative action. The reaction of the Jews—attempting to stone Jesus for blasphemy—indicates they understood this as a claim to divinity, not just moral unity. The broader context of John 10 supports this interpretation.
On Revelation 22:13, you misconstrue my argument. The angel quoting "Alpha and Omega" does not attribute this title to itself but conveys the words of Christ, as seen in the consistent use of the title for God or Jesus in Revelation (1:8, 21:6, 22:13).
Your dismissal of the connection between John 8:58’s ego eimi and Exodus 3:14 reflects a misunderstanding. The Septuagint’s rendering of Exodus 3:14 as ego eimi ho on ("I am the Being") underscores God’s eternal self-existence. While the phrase "I am" in John 8:58 doesn’t replicate the exact wording, its predicate-less structure conveys eternal existence. The Jewish reaction—attempting to stone Jesus—indicates they understood His claim as divine.
On John 8:58, translating ego eimi as "I have been" diminishes the statement's theological significance. Jesus’ use of ego eimi without a predicate conveys a timeless existence, aligning with the Prologue’s declaration of His eternal nature. The broader context of John’s Gospel consistently affirms Jesus’ divinity, making the claim of eternal existence fitting.
The predicate-less ego eimi is a deliberate echo of the divine name revealed in Exodus 3:14, where God declares, "I AM WHO I AM" (Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh). The Septuagint renders this as ego eimi ho on ("I am the Being"), linking ego eimi to God’s self-identification. In John 8:58, Jesus’ use of ego eimi contrasts with the temporal clause "before Abraham was" (prin Abraam genesthai), emphasizing His eternal existence. The reaction of the Jews—attempting to stone Him—confirms their understanding of this as a claim to deity, not merely preexistence. Your assertion that ego eimi could have been expressed differently to indicate eternality ignores the theological weight of Jesus’ words and the broader Johannine context, where His divine identity is a recurring theme (e.g., John 1:1, John 20:28).
You claim that the Jews’ question, "Who are you?" (John 8:25), undermines the significance of ego eimi. However, this question does not diminish Jesus’ declaration but reflects their ongoing confusion and rejection of His claims. Throughout John’s Gospel, the Jews repeatedly misunderstand or resist Jesus’ assertions of His identity (e.g., John 6:41-42, John 10:24-26). Their response highlights their unwillingness to accept the implications of His words, not a lack of clarity on Jesus’ part.
You also argue that the Septuagint’s emphasis on "the Being" (ho on) in Exodus 3:14 undermines the connection between ego eimi and the divine name. However, the distinction is not as stark as you suggest. The phrase ego eimi in John 8:58 carries the same theological resonance as ho on, as both expressions emphasize God’s eternal, self-existent nature. The absence of ho on in John 8:58 does not weaken the connection to Exodus 3:14 but reflects John’s theological focus on Jesus’ personal appropriation of the divine name.
Your dismissal of ego eimi as a declaration of deity because it does not explicitly state eternal existence overlooks the cumulative evidence of John’s Gospel. The Prologue (John 1:1-3) establishes the Logos as eternal and divine, and Jesus’ "I am" statements throughout the Gospel consistently affirm His divine identity (e.g., John 6:35, John 10:11, John 14:6). The use of ego eimi in John 8:58 is a climactic affirmation of this identity, grounded in the broader narrative of the Gospel.
You challenge my interpretation of John 5:18, claiming that equality with God and being God are separate concepts in Jewish thought. While it is true that claiming equality with God does not necessarily equate to claiming to be God, the context of John’s Gospel shows that Jesus’ claims went beyond equality. In John 10:30, Jesus declares, "I and the Father are one," prompting the Jews to accuse Him of blasphemy for "making Himself God" (John 10:33). This reaction confirms that Jesus’ statements were understood as assertions of deity, not merely equality.
Your assertion that a prophet once forgave sins like Jesus overlooks the unique authority with which Jesus forgave sins. In Mark 2:5-12, Jesus forgives the paralytic’s sins and justifies His authority by healing him, stating, "The Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins." Unlike OT prophets, who acted as intermediaries delivering God’s message, Jesus forgave sins by His own authority, a prerogative reserved for God alone. This distinction underscores His divine identity and authority.
Your claim that "Son of God" implies equality but not divinity in Jewish thought is incomplete. In John 5:18, the Jews accuse Jesus of "making Himself equal with God," showing that this title was understood as a divine claim. Additionally, forgiving sins (Mark 2:5-12) and accepting worship (John 20:28) are divine prerogatives, not merely actions of a prophet.
Finally, your claim of double standards regarding explicit passages misunderstands the nature of biblical revelation. Trinitarian doctrine emerges from the cumulative evidence of Scripture, not isolated proof texts. When asking for explicit passages from Jehovah’s Witnesses, the request addresses their specific claims, such as Jesus being Michael the Archangel, which lacks clear biblical support. In contrast, the deity of Christ is supported by the interconnected itness of Scripture.
167
How did JWs arrive at a clearer understanding of what the Bible teaches than other Christian denominations?
by slimboyfat in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
for jws who believe that jehovah had a hand in reviving the truth in the nineteenth century this is enough explanation for how jws managed to achieve a closer approximation to early christian beliefs and practices than other groups.

but is there an explanation for this phenomenon that doesn’t rely on supernatural intervention?

new testament scholar james dunn explains the difficulty of interpreting the biblical texts in this way:.
aqwsed12345

Bart Ehrman’s perspective on the formation of the New Testament canon reflects a common historical-critical approach but requires careful response from a Catholic viewpoint to address misconceptions and inaccuracies. The Catholic understanding of how the New Testament canon was formed is rooted in both historical evidence and theological principles, and it differs significantly from Ehrman’s portrayal. The claim that the New Testament canon was formed solely through centuries of debate among church leaders without any definitive resolution until the Council of Trent (16th century) oversimplifies and misrepresents historical reality. While the canonization process was indeed gradual, the Catholic Church recognizes that the Holy Spirit guided the Church in discerning the canon. Lists of authoritative texts, such as those by St. Athanasius in his Festal Letter (AD 367) or the Synods of Hippo (AD 393) and Carthage (AD 397), show that by the late 4th century, a clear consensus had emerged on the 27 books of the New Testament. These local councils were not isolated but reflected the broader agreement within the universal Church. They affirmed rather than invented the canon. This understanding is consistent with the Church’s teaching authority, which was established by Christ himself (e.g., Matthew 16:18-19) and exercised through Apostolic succession.
Ehrman’s characterization of the canonization process as a "popularity contest" among literate elites neglects the theological foundation of the Church’s decisions. The canon was not determined by human preference but by the recognition of divine inspiration and Apostolic origin. Books like the Gospels and Paul’s letters were accepted not because they were merely popular but because they were understood to bear witness to the true teachings of Christ and the Apostles. The Church rejected texts such as the Gospel of Thomas or the Shepherd of Hermas not arbitrarily but because they either lacked Apostolic authorship or contained teachings incompatible with orthodox Christianity.
Ehrman’s suggestion that Christianity’s exclusivity and insistence on a single truth led to the formation of the canon is accurate to an extent but misses the essential point. The Church’s commitment to one truth stems from Christ’s own claims (e.g., John 14:6) and the Apostolic mission to safeguard and proclaim this truth (e.g., 1 Timothy 3:15). The development of the canon was a natural outgrowth of this mission, ensuring that the faithful would have a reliable record of God’s revelation. The Church’s insistence on preserving orthodoxy was not a form of authoritarianism but a means of protecting the faithful from heresies that could distort the Gospel message.
Finally, the notion that the Council of Trent "invented" the canon in response to the Protestant Reformation is a common misconception. In reality, Trent reaffirmed the canon that had been consistently recognized by the Church for over a millennium. This reaffirmation was necessary to counter the reformers' rejection of certain books, such as the deuterocanonical texts, which had been included in the Septuagint and used by early Christians. The deuterocanonical books were accepted by the Church because they were part of the Scriptures that Jesus and the Apostles used, as evidenced by numerous quotations and allusions in the New Testament.
The Catholic Church understands the canonization of the New Testament as a process guided by the Holy Spirit, rooted in the Church’s Apostolic authority, and confirmed through the discernment of early councils and theologians. Ehrman’s portrayal may resonate with a secular academic audience, but it overlooks the theological and ecclesial dimensions that are essential to understanding how and why the canon was formed. The Catholic Church did not arbitrarily decide the canon but faithfully discerned and safeguarded the books that truly convey God’s revelation to 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..
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..
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..
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..
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.