Posts by aqwsed12345

posted

60
The Question of the "Great Apostasy" and the Historical Continuity of Christianity
by aqwsed12345 in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
1. the continuity and visibility of the church.

the true church must be continuous from the apostolic age.

there is no room in christianity for a "gap" or interruption of thousands of years during which true christianity ceased to exist and then was revived in the form of another movement.
aqwsed12345

There are modern churches and movements that, while not explicitly subscribing to Donatism, reflect similar ideas in their attitudes toward the Catholic Church. Many fundamentalist, neo-Protestant, and Restorationist communities emphasize their identity by contrasting themselves with what they perceive as the moral failures of the Catholic Church. A key part of this identity is anti-Catholicism, often expressed through a narrative that says, "They are so bad, but look how good we are."
This is why such groups frequently focus on leyenda negra myths, painting a black-and-white picture of the "evil" Catholic Church, especially during the so-called "Dark Ages." They often emphasize historical episodes like the Inquisition, portraying the Church as morally corrupt without nuance or historical context. Similarly, they take satisfaction in modern clergy scandals—particularly those involving sexual misconduct—amplified by the mainstream media’s sensational coverage.
This moral judgment of the Church, where its legitimacy is assessed solely on the personal sins of its members or leaders, is very much a form of modern Donatism. In Donatist thinking, the moral purity of the Church's members or leadership determines the Church's legitimacy. This is the same underlying principle many of these movements apply when they claim that the Catholic Church's historical sins or scandals invalidate its authority or teachings.
However, in contrast to this mindset, the Catholic Church teaches the doctrine of the corpus permixtum—that the Church is a "mixed body" of both sinners and saints. The moral failings of individual members or leaders do not affect the Church’s overall legitimacy or the truth of its doctrines. Christ established the Church with the understanding that sin would exist within it, yet He also promised that the Church’s mission and foundation would remain intact, regardless of human failure (cf. Matthew 16:18).
So, while these modern movements may not officially label themselves Donatists, their approach to assessing the Church’s validity based on moral grounds reflects the same error the Donatists made centuries ago.
152
Do JWs believe Jesus is an angel?
by slimboyfat in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
i would suggest:.

the short answer is yes.. the longer answer is a qualified yes, with some caveats.

the short answer is yes because jehovah’s witnesses teach that jesus is michael the archangel, their leader, eldest and most powerful, and have taught this since the very beginning of the religion.
aqwsed12345
@peacefulpete
You argue that the term "tekton" (craftsman or builder) may have been used in the Gospels to align Jesus with the prophetic figure of Messiah ben Joseph, a messianic figure from later Jewish tradition who was expected to suffer and die, with Messiah ben David emerging later as the conquering figure.
While this is an interesting interpretation, it lacks solid historical evidence. The idea of a Messiah ben Joseph is not attested in Jewish writings until much later, primarily in rabbinic literature. By the time the Gospels were written, there was no unified, widespread belief among Jews that the Messiah would take on these two distinct roles. The suffering servant figure in Isaiah 53 was not universally understood to be a messianic figure, and the notion of a suffering Messiah was, in fact, a significant stumbling block for Jews (1 Corinthians 1:23). The idea that Jesus could be both a suffering Messiah and the triumphant Messiah ben David was an unexpected and radical claim for early Christians, not a literary device drawn from the OT.
You mention the common literary trope of a humble beginning followed by a reversal of fate, as seen in figures like David and Moses, and suggest that this might have influenced the portrayal of Jesus in the Gospels. While it’s true that such reversals are common in literature, it doesn’t undermine the historical reliability of the Gospels. In fact, if the Gospel writers were simply crafting a story to fit OT expectations, they would have likely portrayed Jesus in ways that better aligned with the Jewish messianic hopes of their time. However, Jesus' life and ministry repeatedly contradicted those expectations.
For instance:
- Many Jews expected the Messiah to be a political and military leader who would overthrow Roman rule, yet Jesus rejected political power (John 6:15).
- The idea of a crucified Messiah was not only unexpected but scandalous, as crucifixion was a humiliating and cursed form of death (Deuteronomy 21:23). The evangelists would not have invented such an idea if they were simply trying to "flesh out" a messianic narrative.
The Gospels consistently portray a Messiah who defies conventional expectations, not one who neatly fits into pre-existing tropes or OT patterns. This unexpectedness actually supports their authenticity, as it is unlikely that early Christians would fabricate a story that would be so difficult for both Jews and Gentiles to accept.
You suggest that the expectation that the Messiah would rebuild the Temple may have influenced the portrayal of Jesus as a builder. While it’s true that there was an expectation that the Messiah would restore or rebuild the Temple, Jesus reinterpreted this expectation in a radical way, claiming that His own body was the true Temple (John 2:19-21). This reinterpretation of messianic expectations would not have been a typical or easy narrative to accept, especially for Jewish audiences deeply attached to the physical Temple.
You imply that the Gospel writers were using OT material to craft a story, suggesting a kind of literary artistry rather than historical reporting. However, the Gospels’ inclusion of unfavorable details about Jesus and the apostles supports their credibility. For instance:
- The apostles are often portrayed as misunderstanding Jesus, arguing about who is the greatest, and abandoning Him in His final hours.
- Jesus Himself is portrayed as being rejected by His own people, mocked, and crucified—a humiliating and cursed form of death.
If the Gospel writers were merely crafting a story to fit OT expectations or literary conventions, they would have likely omitted these unflattering details to present a more convincing, triumphant narrative. Instead, they faithfully recorded these difficult and embarrassing details, which suggests a commitment to accurately reporting the events rather than constructing a neatly packaged story.
You mention that the Gospels were anonymous works and that the names of the authors were assigned later. While it’s true that the Gospels do not explicitly name their authors within the texts themselves, the consistent and early tradition of attributing the Gospels to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John is strong. Early Church Fathers such as Papias, Irenaeus, and others provide external testimony linking these figures to the Gospels.
Moreover, if the early Church had simply invented authorship to lend credibility to these texts, they likely would have chosen more prominent apostles like Peter or James. The fact that two of the Gospels are attributed to non-apostles (Mark and Luke) and that Matthew and John were not the most prominent apostles supports the authenticity of the traditional authorship rather than a deliberate fabrication.
@slimboyfat
You cite passages from the New Testament, such as Mark 10:18 and 13:32, to support the idea that Jesus is subordinate to God. It’s important to note that these passages, while they may seem to suggest subordination, do not imply an essential inequality in divine nature. Rather, they highlight the distinct roles within the Godhead.
· Mark 10:18 ("Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone."): Here, Jesus does not deny His divinity but redirects the focus to God the Father. In context, this is a rhetorical device that invites the person to consider who Jesus truly is. Jesus often spoke in ways that were not immediately clear, leading to deeper reflection.
· Mark 13:32 ("But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."): This reflects the voluntary limitation of Jesus in His human incarnation. Philippians 2:6-7 explains that Jesus "emptied Himself" and took on the form of a servant. This self-limitation in knowledge is not an indication of inferiority in essence but a reflection of His role in the economy of salvation.
These verses point to a distinction in the roles of the Father and the Son, but they do not necessarily imply subordination in terms of nature or essence. Early Christian belief, as evidenced in the New Testament, did not simply view Jesus as a high-ranking angelic being but as divine.
The idea that early Christians conceived of Jesus as merely a "high angelic being" is not supported by the broader New Testament evidence. In fact, the New Testament repeatedly affirms Christ’s divine status in ways that go beyond any angelic or created being:
· John 1:1-3: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through Him all things were made; without Him nothing was made that has been made." This passage places Jesus (the Word) as eternally existing with God and being fully divine. He is not a created angel but the one through whom all things were created.
· Hebrews 1:3: "The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of His being, sustaining all things by His powerful word." This verse clearly shows that the Son is not an angelic being, but the very expression of God’s essence, sharing in the full nature of God.
· Colossians 1:15-17: Jesus is described as "the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by Him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by Him and for Him." This does not imply that Jesus is a created being but rather that He is supreme over creation, through whom all creation came into being.
These passages present Christ as fundamentally divine, co-equal with God the Father, and far surpassing the role of an angelic figure. The argument that Jesus was merely a high-ranking angelic being misinterprets key New Testament texts.
Werner’s argument that the early Church only developed the doctrine of the Trinity due to philosophical influence and the abandonment of the "original" subordinationist view overlooks the fact that the early Christians grappled with the divinity of Christ from the beginning. The Trinitarian doctrine emerged as a way to understand and systematize the biblical witness to Christ’s divinity alongside monotheism.
As early as the first century, Christians were debating the nature of Christ, not because they were imposing new ideas on the faith, but because they were trying to make sense of the revelation of Christ as fully divine and yet distinct from the Father. The Gospel of John (John 1:1) already places Christ in direct equivalence with God, and the early Church Fathers like Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus explicitly affirm Christ’s divinity long before the Councils of Nicaea or Constantinople.
The development of the doctrine of the Trinity was a response to heresies like Arianism, which denied the full divinity of Christ. The Church was not introducing new ideas but was defending the belief that had been present from the start: that Jesus is both fully God and fully man. The use of philosophical terminology (like "homoousios") was a way to clarify the Church’s position in the face of heretical challenges, not an abandonment of earlier teaching.
The doctrine of the Trinity is not „a later invention” but a clarification of what was already present in the apostolic witness. Even pre-Nicene Fathers like Tertullian (late 2nd century) used Trinitarian language, describing God as "one in substance, three in persons" (Adv. Praxeas, ch. 2). This shows that the seeds of the doctrine were already present well before the formal definitions of the fourth century.
While some early theologians, particularly in the pre-Nicene period, expressed a form of subordinationis, this view was not universal or permanent. Many of these early thinkers were still grappling with how to articulate the relationship between the Father and the Son. The Nicene Creed clarified this by affirming that the Son is "of one substance" (homoousios) with the Father, fully God.
Theological developments like this do not represent a departure from earlier Christian belief but rather a more precise articulation of the mystery of God’s nature in response to theological challenges. The early Christians believed in the divinity of Christ, but it took time to fully develop the language and framework to express this belief within the bounds of monotheism.
152
Do JWs believe Jesus is an angel?
by slimboyfat in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
i would suggest:.

the short answer is yes.. the longer answer is a qualified yes, with some caveats.

the short answer is yes because jehovah’s witnesses teach that jesus is michael the archangel, their leader, eldest and most powerful, and have taught this since the very beginning of the religion.
aqwsed12345

While it’s true that the Gospels were technically anonymous in the sense that their original manuscripts do not explicitly name the authors, early Christian tradition is quite strong in attributing these works to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. By the second century, church fathers such as Irenaeus and Papias, who had close connections to the apostolic age, clearly identify these figures as the authors. The idea that the names were assigned arbitrarily or as part of a later scheme to lend credibility lacks solid historical evidence. Unlike many apocryphal gospels, which emerged later and were quickly recognized as pseudonymous, the four canonical Gospels were widely accepted early on.
While there were indeed other gospels—such as those attributed to Thomas, Judas, and Barnabas—these texts do not hold the same historical credibility as the canonical Gospels. The apocryphal gospels typically emerged well after the New Testament period and exhibit Gnostic or heterodox teachings that differ significantly from the core beliefs of early Christianity. Early Christians rejected these works precisely because they did not align with the apostolic tradition that was passed down by those who had direct contact with Jesus or His close followers. The Gospel of Thomas, for example, is dated much later and contains Gnostic elements that were foreign to the apostolic teaching.
The reason the four canonical Gospels are distinguished from these other texts is not due to some arbitrary attachment of names but because they were tied to recognized apostolic authority. Mark, while not an apostle himself, was a close associate of Peter. Luke, though not one of the Twelve, was a companion of Paul and carefully investigated the events he recorded. These were not random assignments but deliberate connections to figures who had credible access to eyewitness testimony.
It’s often argued that Matthew and John, being fishermen, would have been illiterate. However, this is an oversimplification. The idea of total illiteracy among the apostles is speculative. Even if Matthew and John had limited formal education, it does not preclude them from composing or dictating their Gospels later in life, as literacy and educational opportunities could have expanded with their ministry. Additionally, writing through scribes (amanuenses) was a common practice in the ancient world, including for those who were literate but preferred to dictate.
As for Mark and Luke, both had backgrounds and associations that make their authorship credible. Mark, linked to Peter, could have relied on Peter’s firsthand accounts. Luke was a physician, and the literacy expected of his profession supports the idea that he had the skills necessary to compile his Gospel and Acts.
The claim that the Gospels are simply mythologized revisions of earlier documents lacks strong historical backing. The early Christian belief in Jesus’ bodily resurrection and His earthly ministry is deeply rooted in historical claims, not abstract or purely spiritual ideas. Paul’s letters, written before the Gospels, affirm a real, historical Jesus who was crucified under Pontius Pilate (1 Corinthians 15:3-8). Paul’s references to eyewitnesses, including himself, Peter, and the other apostles, show that the early Christian faith was grounded in real events.
The idea that "early" Christians (in your view, those before the Gospels) believed in a purely spiritual or heavenly Christ is not supported by the evidence. The earliest Christian texts, including the letters of Paul, consistently speak of Jesus’ earthly life, His death, and His bodily resurrection. The Gospels then build on this foundation, providing more detailed accounts of His ministry, teachings, and miracles. The Gospel accounts were not later fabrications but are deeply tied to the early apostolic witness.
The Ascension of Isaiah, as you rightly point out, presents a vision of Christ's passion and descent through the heavens. However, this text belongs to the genre of apocalyptic literature, which is highly symbolic and visionary. It is not intended to provide a literal, historical account of Christ’s life and death on earth but to offer a mystical vision of heavenly realities. Apocalyptic literature often uses symbolic language to convey theological truths, which does not mean it reflects the everyday understanding of early Christians about Jesus’ life and death.
Paul's references to spiritual realms or mystical experiences (such as in 2 Corinthians 12:2-4) do not suggest that he believed the passion of Jesus took place only in the heavens. Paul’s theology consistently affirms the historical crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus (Philippians 2:6-8, Romans 6:4), which is central to his gospel message. The Ascension of Isaiah reflects one strand of early Christian mysticism, but it does not negate the historical realities affirmed in the canonical Gospels and the broader New Testament tradition.
You mention that what I consider “early” Christians are, in your view, the "2nd or 3rd layer of the onion." However, the writings of Paul, the early creeds, and the apostolic fathers demonstrate that from the earliest stages of the Christian movement, Jesus was understood as both fully human and fully divine. The Gospel narratives, far from being mythologized layers added later, reflect the core beliefs that had already been firmly established by the apostolic community.
The Gospels were not later creations meant to mythologize Jesus or place Him in an earthly context to make Him more relatable. Rather, they faithfully record the testimony of those who were closest to Him, rooted in both eyewitness accounts and divine inspiration. The attempts to discredit the Gospels based on claims of anonymity or apocryphal parallels fail to consider the strong historical and theological evidence for their authenticity and apostolic origin. The early Christians firmly believed in a Jesus who lived, died, and rose again in history—not merely as a spiritual or mythical figure.
Let me offer you the following apologetic notes on the matter:The fact of divine revelation can be proven in two ways:

Among all religions, we can use motives of credibility to determine which one is divinely revealed by God.

We can prove that:

A) The four Gospels, believed by Christians to be divinely revealed, are authentic historical sources.

B) According to the four Gospels, Christ claimed to be God.

C) Christ demonstrated His divinity and mission through miracles and prophecies.

D) Therefore, Christ's teachings must be considered God's revelation.

The first method would be too lengthy and is unnecessary. Since it is certain that God cannot provide multiple, contradictory revelations, the second method is entirely satisfactory. Therefore, we must first prove the historical authenticity of the Gospels!

A) The Historical Authenticity of the Gospels

Like any literary work, the Gospels' historical authenticity is assured if the following are established:

a) Contemporaneity (i.e., the Gospels were written within a lifetime of the events they describe). In this case, the authors were either eyewitnesses or received direct information from such witnesses. They were therefore capable of writing the truth and could not intentionally distort the facts, as a large number of eyewitnesses were still alive at the time of the Gospels' creation, who would have objected.

b) Credibility (i.e., the authors did not intend to falsify).

c) Textual integrity (i.e., the Gospels we have today are essentially identical to those originally written by their authors).

Thus, we must prove the contemporaneity, credibility, and textual integrity of the Gospels!

a) Contemporaneity of the Gospels

The origin of any literary work can be proven by two types of arguments: external (other writings that refer to or quote from the work) and internal (the style, language, and content of the work itself). External arguments are more decisive since the creation of a work is a historical fact, and historical facts are supported by historical documents (in this case, external arguments). Internal arguments play only a supplementary role.

External Arguments:

The Papyrus Egerton and Papyrus Rylands, found in Egypt and dating to around 130 AD, contain literal fragmentary quotes from the Gospel of St. John. Therefore, St. John's Gospel could not have been written after 100 AD, as it was written in Ephesus (a historical fact), and given the primitive transportation and communication conditions of the time, it would have taken at least 30 years for it to be known well enough in Egypt to be quoted.

In the letter of Pope St. Clement to the Corinthians (95 AD), the Didache (95 AD), the letters of St. Ignatius the Martyr (+110 AD), and the Shepherd of Hermas (150 AD), we find literal or content-based quotes from the Gospels.

Bishop St. Papias (a disciple of St. John) wrote around 130 AD: "Mark, the interpreter of Peter, accurately recorded the sayings and deeds of the Lord, as he remembered them, but not in order... Matthew composed the sayings in Hebrew" (Papias: "De interpretatione oraculorum dominicorum").

Bishop St. Irenaeus of Lyons (a disciple of St. Polycarp, who was a disciple of St. John) wrote in his book "Adversus haereses" (174-189 AD): "When Peter and Paul preached the Gospel in Rome and founded the Church, Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew. After their death, Mark, Peter's disciple and interpreter, recorded what Peter had preached. Luke, a follower of Paul, wrote down the Gospel that Paul preached. Then John, the Lord's disciple, who leaned on Jesus' breast, also wrote his Gospel while residing in Ephesus in Asia."

From the third century onwards, references to the Gospels are countless.

It is also a fact that every heretic of the first three centuries tried to support their teachings with the four Gospels.

This large number of external textual witnesses is particularly valuable when we consider that Herodotus's name is first mentioned 100 years after his death by Aristotle and then 400 years after his death by Cicero, yet no one doubts the historical authenticity of his writings. How much more absurd it would be to doubt the historical authenticity of the Gospels!

Internal Arguments:

St. Matthew's Gospel must have been written before the destruction of Jerusalem (67 AD), because after 67 AD, the author could have easily separated the prophecy about the destruction of Jerusalem from the one about the end of the world (chapter 24).

Although St. Matthew originally wrote his Gospel in Aramaic ("Hebrew") (see the testimonies of St. Papias and St. Irenaeus), he later also wrote it in Greek. Only the Greek version has survived. This Greek version of St. Matthew and the Gospel of St. Mark are full of Hebraisms, indicating that their authors were simple, uneducated Jews. Nevertheless, both Gospels provide detailed accounts of the places and customs of first-century Palestine. All this requires that these two Gospels were written in the first century, as decades after the destruction of Jerusalem, these primitive authors would have been incapable of describing all this.

The Hebraisms in St. John's Gospel indicate that its author was a Jew. This is further supported by the explanation of messianic ideas and Jewish customs. The vivid character descriptions of the figures indicate that the author was an eyewitness. The author also knows about the "secret" events in Jesus' life (e.g., the nighttime conversation with Nicodemus). This suggests that the author was one of the apostles. Moreover, since instead of the name of St. John the Apostle, this Gospel always refers to "the disciple whom Jesus loved," it follows that the author was St. John himself. In this case, the use of this phrase is understandable (St. John's modesty explains it!), while everything else would be inexplicable. Moreover, the last chapter explicitly states: "This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them."

The internal arguments also point to the first-century origin of the Gospels. Therefore, David Strauss's (19th century) claim that the Gospels were written around 150 AD and contain myths is untenable.

b) Credibility of the Gospels

The Gospel of St. Mark, whose author was the interpreter of St. Peter, candidly recounts St. Peter's fall.

The Gospels also describe the human frailties of the other apostles: they cannot keep watch with Christ for even one hour; after His arrest, they all flee, except for Peter and John, who follow from a distance; St. Thomas doubts Christ's resurrection; they are cowardly during the storm at sea (Mt. 8:28); they compete for supremacy (Lk. 9:46-48); they often do not understand Christ's words (e.g., Lk. 18:34); they harbor thoughts of revenge (Lk. 9:52-54); they are jealous (Lk. 9:49).

The evangelists do not idealize Jesus: they describe how some people despise Christ because He is the carpenter's son (Mt. 13:54), etc.

However, if the evangelists were frauds, as Bauer (19th century) claimed, they would have certainly omitted these unfavorable details!

Their credibility was sealed by the fact that — with the exception of St. John — they all gave their lives for the content of these books!

c) Textual Integrity of the Gospels

The oldest textual witnesses: Papyrus Egerton and Papyrus Rylands, the two nearly complete Gospel texts: the 4th-century Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, and the mentioned Church Fathers essentially provide the same text as the Gospels we have today. The various textual variations (the so-called lectio varians) mostly pertain to word order, synonymous words, and copying and spelling errors. The approximately 10 (!) substantive lectio varians do not affect the facts narrated by the Gospels or the essence of their teachings!

The textual integrity of the Gospels is a unique phenomenon in literary history!
152
Do JWs believe Jesus is an angel?
by slimboyfat in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
i would suggest:.

the short answer is yes.. the longer answer is a qualified yes, with some caveats.

the short answer is yes because jehovah’s witnesses teach that jesus is michael the archangel, their leader, eldest and most powerful, and have taught this since the very beginning of the religion.
aqwsed12345

@peacefulpete
Your perspective highlights an interesting approach to understanding early Christianity, particularly in how you emphasize a mystical origin model and the possibility that early Christians viewed the death and resurrection of Christ in a different, more spiritualized way before the Gospel narratives took shape. While it's true that some early Christian texts, such as The Ascension of Isaiah, reflect a mystical or spiritualized understanding of Christ's descent and ascent, this does not negate the historical claims of early Christianity regarding the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. The foundational Christian belief, as articulated by the apostles, particularly Paul, was firmly rooted in the historicity of Jesus’ death and resurrection.
Paul, for example, consistently emphasizes the historical nature of the resurrection in his letters. In 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, he lists specific individuals who witnessed the resurrected Christ, underscoring that this event was not merely a spiritual or metaphorical occurrence but a real, historical event verified by eyewitnesses. Paul's focus is not on a mystical Christ hidden in the heavens but on a risen Christ who physically appeared to his followers.
While the mystical elements in early Christian thought are certainly intriguing, they do not represent the core message of the earliest Christian communities, which centered on the tangible, historical reality of Jesus’ death and resurrection.
You suggest that Paul’s Christology is more aligned with the Ascension of Isaiah than with the Gospel narratives, implying that Paul’s understanding of Christ was more spiritual and less grounded in historical events. However, this overlooks Paul’s own statements about the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.
In Philippians 2:5-11, Paul speaks of Christ’s incarnation in very concrete terms, describing how Jesus, "being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness." This passage explicitly refers to Christ’s earthly life and humiliation, followed by His exaltation. Paul’s Christology includes both the historical Jesus and the exalted Christ, making it clear that these two aspects are not mutually exclusive.
Moreover, the idea that Paul did not discuss Jesus’ earthly life in detail does not imply that he viewed Jesus merely as a spiritual being. Paul’s letters were written to address specific theological and pastoral concerns, and the Gospel accounts, which detail Jesus’ life and ministry, complement Paul’s theological reflections. Together, they present a coherent picture of Jesus as both fully human and fully divine.
You argue that the Gospel narratives, with their focus on a corporeal Jesus performing miracles, gave Christianity a competitive advantage by creating a more accessible and relatable figure than abstract, metaphysical ideas. However, this interpretation downplays the central role of the Gospels as historical testimony rather than as mere theological constructs.
The Gospels were written by or based on the accounts of eyewitnesses who knew Jesus and followed Him during His ministry. Luke, for example, makes it clear in the prologue to his Gospel (Luke 1:1-4) that he carefully investigated everything from the beginning and based his account on the testimony of those who were eyewitnesses. The Gospels are not simply literary creations to promote a new religious movement; they are historical accounts meant to preserve the teachings and actions of Jesus for future generations.
It’s important to recognize that while early Christianity did indeed interact with pre-Christian Jewish and Greco-Roman thought, it did not simply “adopt” these ideas wholesale. The early Christians reinterpreted Jewish messianic expectations and transformed Greek philosophical concepts like the Logos into a radically new understanding of God’s revelation in Christ. The Logos in the Gospel of John is not just a philosophical abstraction but is identified as God Himself who became flesh (John 1:1, 14). This is a significant departure from both Jewish and Hellenistic thought, demonstrating the uniqueness of early Christian theology.
The suggestion that Christianity merely borrowed from Jewish and Hellenistic ideas and evolved them into a more accessible narrative overlooks the revolutionary nature of early Christian claims. Christianity did not simply adapt existing metaphors and mythological frameworks; it introduced a radically new understanding of God, salvation, and the role of Jesus Christ.
Early Christians proclaimed a historical event—the resurrection of Jesus—that grounded their faith in something tangible and verifiable. The resurrection was not a mystical abstraction or a spiritual metaphor but a public event witnessed by many. This focus on the historical Jesus set Christianity apart from other religious movements, including Gnosticism and the various mystery religions of the time.
You mention that the evolution of Christianity from Judaism and other cultural influences was similar to how other faiths evolved over time. While there is truth to the fact that all religions develop within their cultural context, Christianity's foundation in historical revelation makes it distinct. The belief in Jesus as the incarnate Son of God was not the result of gradual mythologization but a conviction rooted in the eyewitness accounts of His life, death, and resurrection.
While the Ascension of Isaiah and other early Christian texts reflect theological development and diverse perspectives, they do not replace or negate the historical core of the Christian faith. The early church’s theological development, such as the doctrine of the Trinity or the understanding of Jesus' dual nature (fully God and fully man), was based on what the earliest Christians believed was revealed through Christ’s life, teachings, and resurrection. These developments were not mere philosophical constructs but an attempt to understand the implications of what they believed had been revealed through Jesus.
Your argument that Christianity initially may have been more of a mystical or spiritual movement before becoming historicized through the Gospel narratives downplays the importance of historical claims in early Christian belief. Christianity's break from Judaism was not simply a conceptual evolution but a radical, historical claim about Jesus' identity as the resurrected Messiah, which redefined Jewish monotheism in light of His divinity.
The Gospels are not just creative adaptations to make Christianity more accessible; they are rooted in the eyewitness testimony of those who knew and followed Jesus. Early Christians did not believe in an abstract Christ who existed only in the spiritual realm—they believed in a real, historical person whose life, death, and resurrection transformed their understanding of God and salvation.
While there are elements of continuity with Jewish and Hellenistic thought, Christianity’s core message—centered on the historical reality of Jesus—represents a dramatic and unique theological development that cannot be reduced to mythologization or mere philosophical adaptation.
60
The Question of the "Great Apostasy" and the Historical Continuity of Christianity
by aqwsed12345 in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
1. the continuity and visibility of the church.

the true church must be continuous from the apostolic age.

there is no room in christianity for a "gap" or interruption of thousands of years during which true christianity ceased to exist and then was revived in the form of another movement.
aqwsed12345

@LauraLynn
First of all, let me offer you an article:
How Does the Watchtower Organization Differ from the Catholic Church?
Your argument highlights an important concern regarding the role of tradition and apostolic succession in the Catholic Church, drawing parallels between the religious leaders of Jesus' time and the Church today. However, there are several key distinctions that address this issue, especially when comparing the Pharisees' misuse of tradition with the legitimate role of apostolic succession and tradition in the Catholic Church.
It’s important to clarify the nature of apostolic succession in the Catholic Church. Unlike the Pharisees, who distorted the Law of Moses with legalistic traditions that obscured God’s will, apostolic succession is not about adding human traditions that nullify God's commandments. Instead, apostolic succession is about preserving the faithful transmission of the teachings of Jesus Christ as handed down through the apostles, without distortion.
Jesus condemned the Pharisees for creating extra laws and traditions that contradicted the spirit of the Law. However, the apostles received direct teachings from Christ, and the Catholic Church sees itself as the custodian of those teachings, faithfully transmitting them throughout history, without altering their essence.
The difference here is that while the Pharisees built a legalistic system that obscured God’s love and mercy, the Catholic Church, through apostolic succession, is committed to guarding and teaching the core truths of the Gospel as given by Christ Himself.
The Catholic Church doesn’t view tradition as something that contradicts or adds to Scripture, but rather as something that works in harmony with it. The Church teaches that Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture are two sources of divine revelation, both of which originate from Christ and are guided by the Holy Spirit. This understanding is derived from passages like 2 Thessalonians 2:15, where Paul tells the believers to "stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter."
The Pharisees, on the other hand, were criticized for traditions that directly contradicted the Word of God, like creating loopholes that allowed people to avoid caring for their parents (Mark 7:10-13). Catholic Tradition, however, never contradicts Scripture; rather, it complements it by providing the interpretive framework handed down from the apostles, which helps believers understand and apply Scripture properly.
When Jesus criticized the religious leaders of His time, He wasn’t condemning the idea of authority or succession itself. In fact, Jesus affirmed the legitimate authority of the scribes and Pharisees when He said, “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat, so practice and observe whatever they tell you—but not what they do. For they preach, but do not practice” (Matthew 23:2-3). His condemnation was directed at their hypocrisy and failure to live according to the spirit of the law they claimed to represent.
The Catholic Church recognizes the danger of hypocrisy and has always taught that its leaders are not infallible in their personal actions but only when teaching doctrine in union with the Holy Spirit. Apostolic succession, in the Catholic view, is not about power or status; it is about faithfully guarding and passing on the Gospel.
One central misunderstanding is the idea that faith in Christ alone, without any ecclesial or communal dimension, is sufficient. While faith in Christ is essential for salvation, Christ explicitly founded a visible Church on Peter and the apostles to guide His followers (Matthew 16:18). He didn’t leave the interpretation of Scripture and His teachings up to individuals alone. Instead, He gave His apostles authority to “bind and loose” (Matthew 18:18) and to teach in His name, promising that the Holy Spirit would guide them into all truth (John 16:13).
This visible, structured Church is necessary to prevent division and ensure unity in the faith. Without it, Christianity becomes subject to countless interpretations, leading to confusion and division—as we see in the many different Protestant denominations today. Apostolic succession ensures that the Church remains united in faith and teaching, as Christ intended.
The Catholic Church’s claim to be the "one true church" is rooted not in any self-imposed authority but in its historical continuity with the apostles. This continuity is not something the Church invented to maintain power, but something that goes back to the earliest centuries of Christianity, recognized by early Church Fathers like St. Irenaeus, who wrote extensively on the importance of maintaining apostolic teaching and succession to guard against heresies.
The argument that the Catholic Church’s claims resemble those of Jehovah’s Witnesses is flawed because the Catholic Church’s claims are based on historical and scriptural continuity that has been recognized and upheld throughout Christian history. The claims of Jehovah’s Witnesses, on the other hand, are a relatively modern invention that deviates from both historical Christianity and biblical teaching.
Finally, while the Catholic Church teaches that it is the visible body of Christ on earth, it does not teach that salvation is tied to mere membership in the Church. The Church emphasizes that salvation comes through Christ alone, by His grace, through faith. However, the Church also teaches that Christ uses His Church as the ordinary means of salvation, through the sacraments, teaching, and community life. The Church exists to point people to Christ and to help them live out their faith in communion with Him and with one another.
In conclusion, the Catholic Church’s claim to be the true Church rests on the foundation of apostolic succession, continuity of teaching, and fidelity to Christ’s commands. This is fundamentally different from the claims of groups like Jehovah’s Witnesses, who have introduced novel interpretations and have no historical connection to the apostolic faith. The Catholic Church is not substituting Christ for an institution, but rather, it is the instrument Christ Himself established to preserve His teachings and guide His followers throughout history.
152
Do JWs believe Jesus is an angel?
by slimboyfat in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
i would suggest:.

the short answer is yes.. the longer answer is a qualified yes, with some caveats.

the short answer is yes because jehovah’s witnesses teach that jesus is michael the archangel, their leader, eldest and most powerful, and have taught this since the very beginning of the religion.
aqwsed12345

@peacefulpete
Your response reflects an interesting perspective, especially in how religious movements evolve over time and borrow from their cultural and theological contexts. However, I think the crux of our disagreement lies in how we understand the origins of Christianity and the nature of its development from Judaism and the surrounding Hellenistic culture.
You argue that Christianity’s break from Judaism was real but not as radical as some might think, comparing it to other movements like Docetism or various heterodoxies. While it’s true that Christianity emerged from Second Temple Judaism, the break was not simply a result of gradual conceptual development. Instead, it was a theological rupture, centered around the belief in Jesus’ resurrection and His divine identity. This belief, and the accompanying Christological claims, were fundamentally different from what most Jews of the time would have accepted.
For example, the Apostle Paul—himself a Jewish Pharisee—acknowledged that the Christian message of a crucified Messiah was a “stumbling block to the Jews” (1 Corinthians 1:23). This shows that the early Christian understanding of Jesus’ divinity and messianic role was radically new and not merely a continuation of previous Jewish thought.
You mention the Johannine Christians as responding to some of these developments, and indeed, the Gospel of John reflects a high Christology where Jesus is identified with the Logos. However, the idea of the Logos in John is not merely a borrowing from Greek philosophy (as seen in Philo of Alexandria) but a reinterpretation within a distinctly Jewish monotheistic framework. In John 1:1, the Logos is not an intermediary deity or mere personification of divine wisdom; the Logos is God and becomes flesh. This reflects a bold theological move that transforms previous Jewish and Hellenistic ideas in ways neither tradition had fully anticipated.
You suggest that Christianity may have begun as a concept rather than a historical event, which is a perspective often explored by those who see the mythologization of religious figures. However, early Christian belief was deeply rooted in historical claims about Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection. For the early Christians, Jesus' resurrection was a pivotal, real event that validated His claims to divinity and messianic role. The apostles and early Christians did not merely perceive Jesus as a metaphorical or spiritual figure; they staked their faith on His bodily resurrection, an event they saw as historical fact (1 Corinthians 15:3-8). This belief is what caused Christianity to diverge so significantly from both Judaism and Hellenism.
Comparing this development to how Hinduism may have turned metaphors into literal stories overlooks the unique emphasis that Christianity places on historical revelation. While there are metaphorical elements in Christian teaching, the core of the faith is grounded in historical claims about Jesus’ actions and identity.
You correctly point out that all religions are influenced by their precedents, and Christianity is no exception. However, Christianity’s transformation of previous ideas wasn’t simply an adaptation; it was a revelatory event that dramatically reshaped how Jews and Gentiles alike understood God, salvation, and human history. This transformation involved not just borrowing, but also a radical re-interpretation and even rejection of some previous concepts. The Nicene Creed and later theological developments were not efforts to homogenize for the sake of political power but were responses to real theological challenges and debates within the Christian community, affirming what the church believed had been revealed through Jesus and the apostles.
While there is certainly room for exploring how faith traditions evolve, Christianity, from its earliest days, was centered on Jesus as a historical and divine figure. The transformation from Judaism wasn’t merely a philosophical shift; it was a claim to new revelation, grounded in the life, death, and resurrection of Christ.
152
Do JWs believe Jesus is an angel?
by slimboyfat in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
i would suggest:.

the short answer is yes.. the longer answer is a qualified yes, with some caveats.

the short answer is yes because jehovah’s witnesses teach that jesus is michael the archangel, their leader, eldest and most powerful, and have taught this since the very beginning of the religion.
aqwsed12345

@peacefulpete
Your response continues to emphasize the idea that early Christians "transformed" Jewish precedents regarding Wisdom, Logos, and other concepts, suggesting that this transformation happened over the course of a few decades rather than centuries. However, this interpretation still doesn't account for the unique theological leap early Christians made in their understanding of Jesus Christ.
You argue that the transformation of terms like Logos or Wisdom into a "God/Man" happened through a literalization of the Gospel narrative. While it is true that early Christians built upon Jewish concepts, the transformation was not merely a process of making an intermediary into a literal God-man. Rather, it was a radical rethinking of the relationship between God and His creation, inspired by their belief in Jesus’ resurrection and divinity.
John's Gospel is a perfect example. When John speaks of the Logos, he isn’t just using Jewish concepts in a way that would make sense to Jewish converts. He radically expands those ideas, presenting the Logos as not just God’s agent but as fully divine and distinct in personhood: "the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (John 1:1). This theological move is more than just a “literalization” of Jewish thought—it is a revelation-based transformation that involved a new understanding of Jesus as both God and man.
Early Christians saw Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection as defining events that revealed something new about God, which goes beyond any Jewish precedent. The language used in the New Testament is contextually influenced by Jewish thought, but the theology—particularly regarding the Incarnation and the Trinity—was fundamentally new.
You suggest that the reuse of Jewish terminology like “Logos” or “Wisdom” implies either intentional continuity or obfuscation. I would argue it implies neither. Early Christians were not simply appropriating Jewish terms to appeal to a Jewish audience. They were reinterpreting these terms in light of their experience of Christ’s divinity.
Terminology doesn’t automatically carry theological equivalence. Just because Christians reused familiar terms doesn’t mean they intended to create a sense of theological continuity with prior Jewish thought. In fact, early Christian writings make it clear that Christians often saw themselves as redefining key concepts—not just reapplying them.
Early Christians were not attempting to confuse their Jewish converts by reusing familiar terms like “Logos.” Instead, they were attempting to explain the new revelation of Christ using language and concepts that their audience could understand, but with radically new theological implications. This was not an obfuscation or a continuation of Jewish thought, but rather a reinterpretation that was intended to express the uniqueness of Christ.
For example Paul’s writings show that early Christians saw the divinity of Christ as a new understanding of God’s revelation. He describes Jesus as the one in whom “the fullness of God was pleased to dwell” (Colossians 1:19). This is not a subtle use of Jewish precedent but an assertion of Christ’s unique status as God incarnate, an unprecedented idea in Judaism.
You suggest that Christian conversion must have been facilitated through familiarity with prior Jewish concepts, implying that there must have been some theological continuity. However, while familiarity with Jewish concepts may have made Christianity more comprehensible, the decisive factor for early Christian conversion was the belief in the resurrection of Jesus and the experience of the Holy Spirit.
For Jewish converts, the familiarity with terms like Logos or Wisdom may have helped them understand certain aspects of Christian theology. However, it’s the new and radical claims about Jesus—His divinity, incarnation, death, and resurrection—that were central to Christian faith. This wasn’t about continuity with Jewish ideas, but about the revelation of Christ and the fulfillment of messianic promises in ways that transcended Jewish precedent.
Consider how Paul, a devout Jew and Pharisee, comes to this transformative realization in his encounter with the risen Christ. He preaches a Gospel that is distinctly Christian, focusing on the death and resurrection of Jesus as the central events that reshape Jewish expectations about the Messiah and salvation.
Your previous claim still hinges on a Hislopian-like genealogy between Second Temple Judaism and early Christian thought. Yes, there are shared terms and concepts, but it doesn’t follow that early Christian theology is just a continuation or literalization of those ideas. As I’ve mentioned before, similarities do not prove dependence. This is the essence of my critique—assuming that because terms like “Logos” or “Wisdom” exist in both traditions, Christian theology must have stemmed directly from Jewish precedents is an oversimplification.
The development of the doctrine of the Trinity and the Incarnation wasn’t just the natural evolution of Jewish ideas of God’s agency but a profound revelation that redefined those categories. Christian theology takes what was implicit or incomplete in Jewish thought and transforms it in light of Christ’s revelation. This transformation is not the result of borrowing but of revelation.
While it’s true that early Christians used familiar Jewish concepts to communicate their message, the theological content of Christianity went far beyond those Jewish precedents. The idea of Jesus as the Incarnate Word, fully God and fully man, was not a mere literalization of pre-Christian Jewish thought. It was a radical rethinking of how God relates to humanity, which came through the experience of Jesus’ resurrection and the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Thus, while there may have been shared terminology, the theology of the New Testament is ultimately a new revelation, not just a reinterpretation of existing Jewish categories.
152
Do JWs believe Jesus is an angel?
by slimboyfat in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
i would suggest:.

the short answer is yes.. the longer answer is a qualified yes, with some caveats.

the short answer is yes because jehovah’s witnesses teach that jesus is michael the archangel, their leader, eldest and most powerful, and have taught this since the very beginning of the religion.
aqwsed12345

@slimboyfat
While Vermes and Sanders are respected scholars, it is crucial to recognize that their interpretations are part of a broader scholarly debate, not the definitive word on the matter. The notion that Jesus' divinity was a late development, only fully realized in the fourth century, is indeed a popular view in some academic circles, but it is far from universally accepted. Moreover, it is not the only perspective, even outside of Trinitarian scholarship.
The divinity of Christ is not a concept that suddenly emerged in the fourth century. Numerous early Christian writings attest to a high Christology long before the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. For example, Ignatius of Antioch, Clement of Rome, and Justin Martyr all display a belief in Christ’s divine status, even if their theological language was not as precise as what later became the formal doctrine of the Trinity.
While you mentioned that some scholars have questioned the authenticity of the Ignatian corpus due to possible later interpolations, it is important to note that the core of Ignatius' writings is widely accepted as genuine. In his authentic letters, Ignatius frequently refers to Jesus as "God" (e.g., in his letter to the Ephesians, chapter 7: "our God, Jesus Christ"). While some argue about later additions, the core belief in the divinity of Christ is present in these early texts.
The Roman governor Pliny the Younger, in his letter to Emperor Trajan around 112 AD, describes Christians singing hymns to Christ "as to a god" (Epistulae 10.96). This demonstrates that the worship of Jesus as divine was a widespread practice in the early second century, well before the fourth century.
Prior to Nicaea, several early Christian creeds, such as the Old Roman Creed, implicitly affirmed Christ’s divinity. These were used in the baptismal rites of early Christians and demonstrate a continuity of belief that long predates the fourth century.
While Vermes and Sanders offer critical perspectives, other scholars, such as Richard Bauckham, Larry Hurtado, and N.T. Wright, argue strongly for the presence of a high Christology from the earliest stages of Christianity. Bauckham’s work, for example, places Jesus within the "divine identity" of God as understood in Second Temple Judaism, indicating that the belief in Jesus’ divinity is not a fourth-century development but part of the earliest Christian faith.
Hurtado’s research on early Christian worship highlights how Jesus was worshiped alongside God in a way that was highly unusual in a strict Jewish monotheistic context. This "binitarian" worship points to an early understanding of Jesus’ divinity that could not have developed gradually over centuries if the Christian communities had been adhering to a purely human Jesus.
Thus, the Council of Nicaea did not invent the divinity of Christ but clarified and formalized what was already believed in the Church. The debates that led to Nicaea arose precisely because many Christians already worshiped Jesus as divine, and they sought to understand how Jesus’ divinity related to the Father in a coherent theological framework. The term "homoousios" (of the same essence) was used to solidify Christ’s divinity in the face of Arian subordinationism, not to introduce a new idea.
152
Do JWs believe Jesus is an angel?
by slimboyfat in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
i would suggest:.

the short answer is yes.. the longer answer is a qualified yes, with some caveats.

the short answer is yes because jehovah’s witnesses teach that jesus is michael the archangel, their leader, eldest and most powerful, and have taught this since the very beginning of the religion.
aqwsed12345
@slimboyfat
The idea of "second power" theology or agency (Wisdom, Shekinah, Logos) is indeed a documented theme in early Jewish and Christian literature. These figures, like Wisdom (Sophia) and the Logos (Word), are seen in some Jewish and early Christian texts as expressions of God's presence and activity in the world. However, the argument that these figures were merely agents or personifications of God, rather than distinct persons within the Godhead, requires a closer look at how early Christians interpreted these concepts.
The late Jewish literature sometimes personified the word of God (memra). However, John's terminology bears the greatest similarity to that of the Jewish-Hellenistic Philo of Alexandria, although the content differs significantly. Some see Philo of Alexandria's theological speculations as at least the cradle of the Christian Logos doctrine. Philo, in fact, adopts the Greek philosophical concept of the Logos and uses it to bridge the gap between God and the world. He views the Logos as the mediator of creation, but in his view, it is not a divine person, and the idea of incarnation is absent. Philo, in a Stoic manner, posits semi-personified independent forces within God, sometimes two, sometimes three, five, or even an infinite number; among them is the nous or logos, which he occasionally calls the Son of God and once refers to as a second god. However, Philo's logos is neither God nor a person, but a mediator between God and the world, a tool of creation, similar to the final aeon in Gnostic thought. According to Harnack, John's Logos shares little more than the name with Philo’s Logos. In the case of Philo, the logos is a vague and confused concept—something like an emanation or attribute of God, a tool of creation (demiurge), a mediator between God and the world, but not a distinct person, not incarnate, not a redeemer, not the Messiah. John assumes that his readers had some familiarity with the logos; however, the Christian idea of the Word was neither derived from Jewish theology nor from Greek philosophy, but was received through divine revelation.
The Logos theology in particular, as found in the Gospel of John, does not support a view of the Logos as merely an agent or a created being. John 1:1–3 explicitly states that “the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through Him all things were made; without Him nothing was made that has been made.” This passage establishes the eternal existence of the Logos (Jesus) with God, and it directly states that the Logos is God. There is no suggestion here of subordination in essence, only a distinction of personhood. The Logos is presented as co-eternal and co-creative with the Father.
It’s important to clarify that subordination in function does not imply subordination in essence. In passages like John 17:3, where Jesus refers to the Father as the “only true God,” the context emphasizes Jesus' role in the economy of salvation, not a lesser divinity. In Christian theology, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit have distinct roles or functions (the Father sends, the Son redeems, the Spirit sanctifies), but they share the same divine nature. This is a cornerstone of Trinitarian theology, which was affirmed long before the fourth century.
The early church fathers, even before Nicaea, affirmed Jesus' full divinity. For example:
- Ignatius of Antioch (early 2nd century) referred to Jesus as "our God". In his letter to the Ephesians, he wrote, “There is one Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit; both made and not made; God existing in flesh; true life in death; both of Mary and of God; first passible and then impassible, even Jesus Christ our Lord.”
- Justin Martyr (mid-2nd century) spoke of Jesus as “the Word, who is God” and said that Christians “worship Him” along with the Father.
These examples show that early Christian thinkers, well before the Council of Nicaea, did not subscribe to a purely subordinationist Christology. Instead, they saw Jesus as fully divine, yet distinct in person from the Father.
Slimboyfat references John 10, where Jesus quotes Psalm 82:6 (“I said, you are gods”) to defend Himself against accusations of blasphemy. The argument is made that Jesus is here appealing to the broader use of the term “gods” in a way that supports subordinationist Christology.
However, this passage doesn’t imply that Jesus is simply one among many divine agents. Instead, Jesus is using a lesser-to-greater argument. The context of Psalm 82 refers to human judges or rulers who are metaphorically called “gods” because of their role in executing God’s judgment. Jesus contrasts this with His own identity, which is far superior: He is not merely a human ruler given divine authority but the Son of God, set apart and sent directly by the Father. The Jews understood this as a claim to divinity, as evidenced by their attempt to stone Him for blasphemy (John 10:33). Therefore, rather than denying His divinity, Jesus is reinforcing it in a way that His audience would understand.
In John 10:34-36, Jesus refers to Psalm 82, where human judges are metaphorically called "gods" (elohim) because they were appointed by God to administer justice. The Psalm criticizes these judges for their failure to uphold righteousness. Jesus’ use of this passage does not suggest that He is equating Himself with these human judges. Rather, He is using a kal va-chomer (a fortiori) argument: if mere human judges can be called "gods" in Scripture because of their God-given role, how much more appropriate is it for Him, the one who was sanctified and sent by the Father, to claim a unique divine status as the Son of God?
The use of Psalm 82 is not meant to downplay Jesus’ divinity. Instead, it highlights the inconsistency of His accusers: if they accepted that lesser beings (human judges) could be called "gods," how could they accuse Jesus of blasphemy for calling Himself the Son of God, when His relationship with the Father is far greater than that of human judges? The argument strengthens, rather than weakens, His claim to divinity.
The reaction of the Jewish leaders in John 10:31-33—seeking to stone Jesus for blasphemy—shows that they understood His claim as one of divine equality, not as a mere functional or metaphorical title. If Jesus were only claiming a status similar to human judges, there would have been no grounds for the charge of blasphemy.
The attempt to reduce Jesus' divinity to a mere functional or metaphorical role based on John 10:34-36 or Psalm 82 misunderstands both the rhetorical nature of Jesus' argument and the broader context of John’s Gospel. Jesus' use of Psalm 82 does not diminish His divinity; rather, it highlights the inconsistency of His accusers.
In John 20:28, Thomas refers to Jesus as "my Lord and my God" (Greek: ho theos mou). This is a clear and explicit declaration of Jesus’ divine identity, not a metaphorical or functional use of the term "God." Thomas is recognizing Jesus not as a subordinate being or a mere representative of God, but as truly divine. The context of the Gospel of John makes it clear that Thomas’ exclamation is an affirmation of Jesus’ divinity. Throughout the Gospel, Jesus is portrayed as having a unique, divine relationship with the Father (John 1:1, John 1:18, John 5:18, John 8:58). The Gospel does not present Jesus as a mere "servant of God" in a metaphorical sense, but as God incarnate.
John 17:3 refers to the Father as "the only true God," but this does not exclude Jesus from being divine. In the context of John’s Gospel, Jesus shares in the Father’s divine nature (John 1:1, "the Word was God"), yet the Father remains the source of all divinity. The doctrine of the Trinity affirms that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct persons within the one divine essence. Thus, Jesus being called "God" (John 20:28) and the Father being called "the only true God" (John 17:3) are not contradictory but consistent within Trinitarian theology.
By the time of Second Temple Judaism (and certainly in the time of Jesus), Jewish monotheism had become strict and unequivocal. The worship of one God, Yahweh, was a central and defining feature of Jewish faith. While earlier Old Testament texts may use the term "elohim" in a more fluid or metaphorical sense, by the time of the New Testament, such usage had largely ceased. The term "God" (theos) was applied exclusively to Yahweh, with no acknowledgment of other "gods" in any real or divine sense.
The fact that John 1:1 and John 20:28 refer to Jesus as "theos" in a monotheistic Jewish context is significant. It would be unthinkable for a monotheistic Jew like Thomas to call Jesus "God" unless he truly believed in Jesus’ divinity. John’s Gospel is written within this monotheistic framework, making it clear that Jesus is fully divine and shares in the unique identity of the one true God.
Slimboyfat claims that the idea of Jesus being co-equal with God was a later development, solidified at the Council of Nicaea in the fourth century. While it’s true that the Council of Nicaea clarified and formalized the language of the Trinity, the belief in Jesus’ divinity was not an invention of the fourth century.

As mentioned earlier, early Christian writings consistently affirmed Jesus as divine. The purpose of the Council of Nicaea was to address the Arian controversy, which claimed that Jesus was a created being. The council’s declaration that Jesus is “of the same substance” (homoousios) with the Father was not a new doctrine but a defense of what the church had already been teaching against the novel ideas of Arius.

Slimboyfat argues that terms like Wisdom, Glory, and Shekinah were used to refer to the activity of God rather than distinct persons. However, early Christian thought did not equate these concepts with the distinct personhood of the Logos. The Logos (Jesus) is not merely an abstract principle or force but a person who took on flesh (John 1:14). The early Christians did not worship abstract concepts like Glory or Wisdom but worshiped Jesus Christ as a person who is fully divine and fully human.

Slimboyfat points out that Jesus came to do the will of the Father, not His own (John 6:38), implying that this shows Jesus is subordinate. However, the incarnation involved Jesus taking on a human nature and willingly submitting to the Father’s will to accomplish salvation. This functional subordination during His earthly ministry does not imply an eternal subordination in His divine nature. Philippians 2:6-7 makes it clear that Jesus, though “in very nature God”, “did not consider equality with God something to be used to His own advantage” but “emptied Himself” by taking on human nature.

@peacefulpete

I argued that just because two concepts resemble each other, it doesn’t mean one stems from the other. However, your response seems to misunderstand my critique and continues to assert an equivalence between pre-Christian ideas in late Second Temple Judaism and early Christian thought. You argue that this analysis of late Second Temple Judaism isn't “Hislopian” because the context is different—late Second Temple Judaism is the "soil" of Christianity. While it’s true that Christianity emerged from this milieu, simply highlighting conceptual similarities between Jewish and Christian terms, such as Wisdom or Logos, does not automatically establish a genealogical relationship. This is Hislopian in the sense that superficial similarities are presented as evidence of dependency.

The distinction between pre-Christian Jewish uses of "Wisdom" or "Logos" and Christian Christology is crucial. While Second Temple Judaism may use terms like Logos or Wisdom as ways of discussing God’s agency, Christian theology took these terms and expanded on them in unique ways. For example, while Philo of Alexandria uses Logos to speak of a divine mediator, it never approaches the incarnational theology present in John 1:14, where the Logos becomes flesh. Acknowledging shared vocabulary does not justify assuming shared theology. By this you fall into the same trap Hislop does—finding a superficial parallel and assuming influence.

The argument that "Wisdom" or "Logos" was subordinate and distinct from God until the fourth century misunderstands both Jewish and early Christian theology. Yes, pre-Christian Jewish literature sometimes personifies Wisdom and speaks of God’s agency through intermediaries, but early Christians did not merely adopt these categories. They transformed them.

Consider the Logos in the Gospel of John: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God (John 1:1). While there is acknowledgment of the Word’s relationship with God, the text also affirms the full divinity of the Logos. This is a radical departure from Jewish concepts of Wisdom or God’s Glory. The Nicene doctrine didn’t create this idea out of thin air—it codified what early Christians already believed, as evidenced by John’s Gospel. I quote:

II. THE CHRISTOLOGICAL FAITH OF THE FIRST COUNCILS
A. From the New Testament to the Council of Nicaea
1. The theologians who in our time raise doubts about the divinity of Christ often argue that this dogma cannot have emerged from genuine biblical revelation; its origins are traceable to Hellenism. Deeper historical inquiries show, on the contrary, that the thought pattern of the Greeks was totally alien to this dogma and that they rejected it with the utmost vigor. To the faith of Christians who proclaimed the divinity of Christ, Hellenism opposed its own dogma of the divine transcendence, which it regarded as irreconcilable with the contingency inherent to the human history of Jesus of Nazareth. Greek philosophers experienced the particular difficulty entailed in accepting the notion of a divine incarnation. In the name of their teaching on the godhead, Platonist philosophers regarded this notion as unthinkable. The Stoics, in turn, could not manage to reconcile the Christological dogma with their cosmological doctrine.
2. It was in order to respond to these difficulties that, more or less openly, many Christian theologians borrowed from Hellenism the notion of a secondary god (deuteros theos), or of an intermediate god, or even of a demiurge. Obviously, this was tantamount to clearing the way to the threat of subordinationism. This subordinationism was already latent in some of the Apologists and in Origen. Arius made a formal heresy of it. He maintained that the Son occupies an intermediate position between the Father and the creatures. The Arian heresy offers a good illustration of how the dogma of Christ’s divinity would have looked had it truly emerged from the philosophy of Hellenism and not from God’s own revelation. At the Council of Nicaea in a.d. 325, the Church defined that the Son is consubstantial (homoousios) with the Father. In so doing, the Church both repudiated the Arian compromise with Hellenism and deeply altered the shape of Greek, especially Platonist and neo-Platonist, metaphysics. In a manner of speaking, it demythicized Hellenism and effected a Christian purification of it. In the act of dismissing the notion of an intermediate being, the Church recognized only two modes of being: uncreated (nonmade) and created.
To be sure, "homoousios", the term used by the Council of Nicaea, is a philosophical and nonbiblical term. It is evident all the same that, ultimately, the Fathers of the Council only intended to express the authentic meaning of the New Testament assertions concerning Christ, and to do this in a way that would be univocal and free from all ambiguity.
In issuing this definition of Christ’s divinity, the Church found support also in the experience of salvation and in man’s divinization in Christ. In turn, the dogmatic definition impressed its own determination and mark on the experience of salvation. There was, then, an in-depth interaction between lived experience and the process whereby theological clarification was achieved.
3. The theological reflections of the Fathers of the Church did not ignore the special problem connected with the divine preexistence of Christ. Note in particular Hippolytus of Rome, Marcellus of Ancyra, and Photinus. Their attempts are bent on presenting the preexistence of Christ not at the level of ontological reality but at that of intentionality: Christ had preexisted in the sense of having been foreseen (kata prognosin).
These presentations of the preexistence of Christ were judged inadequate by the Catholic Church and condemned. Thus the Church gave expression to her own belief in an ontological preexistence of Christ, for which it found support in the Father's eternal generation of the Word. The Church also referred to the clear-cut New Testament affirmations concerning the active role played by the Word of God in the creation of the world. Obviously, someone who does not yet exist, or is only intended to exist, cannot play any such role.
(Source)

To bridge the gap between Greek philosophical concepts and Christian theology, some early Christian theologians borrowed the Greek idea of a "secondary god" (deuteros theos) or a demiurge (an intermediate being between God and creation). This marked a rejection of the Arian compromise with Greek thought and reshaped metaphysical categories in Platonist philosophy. The Church affirmed only two types of beings: uncreated (God) and created (everything else).

Furthermore, figures like Justin Martyr, illustrate that Christian writers in the second century already saw the Logos as divine and distinct from creation, long before the Council of Nicaea. This undermines the claim that the Logos or "second god" (to borrow Philo’s term) only became elevated in the fourth century.

You also claim that emanations of God are “both God himself and subservient to God,” which seems to blur the lines between agency and identity. This view might align with certain Neoplatonist or Gnostic ideas, but it's not representative of classical Christian theology or even Jewish thought.

In Christian doctrine the Son is indeed distinct from the Father, but not in the sense of being subordinate (inferior) in nature. The doctrine of the Trinity clearly affirms the co-equality of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—each fully divine, yet distinct in their relational roles. The concept of homoousios (of the same essence) emerged precisely to combat ideas that relegated the Son to a subordinate, created being. Early Christian theology, especially by the time of the Nicene Creed, rejected subordinationism. Thus, while earlier Jewish traditions might speak of intermediaries, the Christian doctrine of the Trinity developed a much more nuanced and robust theology of divine agency and unity.

You argue that the Gospels should be seen as theological texts rather than historical documents. While it is true that the Gospels carry theological meaning, this does not negate their historical content. Many scholars, both conservative and critical, acknowledge that the Gospels were written with theological intent but still reflect historical claims about Jesus’ life, teachings, death, and resurrection.

Christian doctrine, including the Trinity, is grounded in what Christians believe to be historical revelation. The claim that the Trinity could have had "four or five faces" trivializes the deep theological reflection that went into its formulation. It wasn’t merely a formula for the sake of conceptual neatness; it emerged from grappling with the revelation of God in Christ and the Spirit, within the framework of Jewish monotheism. The Trinity reflects a coherent response to the experience of Jesus and the Holy Spirit as fully divine while maintaining the uniqueness of the one true God.

Finally, you claim that the idea of Jesus being "God" was only elevated in the fourth century. This is demonstrably false. The New Testament itself provides numerous passages where Jesus is ascribed divine status (John 1:1, John 20:28, Colossians 2:9, Titus 2:13, etc.), and early Church Fathers like Ignatius of Antioch and Justin Martyr describe Jesus in explicitly divine terms, long before Nicaea.

The development at Nicaea was not an invention of new theology, but a formalization of what was already widely believed. The council was convened to address the Arian controversy, which had challenged the full divinity of Jesus. Thus, Nicaea did not "overturn" earlier teaching; it clarified and defended what had been part of Christian orthodoxy from the beginning. The early church’s belief in Christ’s divinity and the doctrine of the Trinity was not a later invention or a mere borrowing from Jewish ideas of Wisdom or Logos. Instead, it was a response to the revelation of God in Christ, affirmed by scripture and the early Christian community.