Posts by aqwsed12345

46

What makes a cult (in the pejorative sense)?

by Vanderhoven7 in

michael moore writes:.

a cult is an organization that enslaves minds and destroys families using cult mind control.

cult mind control involves orchestrated deception, social pressure, psychological abuse, and repetitive indoctrination (brainwashing) centering around an unchallengeable ideology enforced in a totalitarian way in a closed socially-separatist community setting.

aqwsed12345

Is the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses a cult?

Part 1: A theological-congregational approach

"Are they a cult or God’s servants?" – this was the question posed by Jehovah’s Witnesses on the cover of the February 15, 1994, issue of The Watchtower. That article, in a few pages and with lighthearted thoughts, explained to all readers that Jehovah’s Witnesses are not a cult but God’s servants. Those who deal with the issue of cults are aware that there are several perspectives by which a denomination can be classified as a cult.

Why is it important whether a denomination is a cult or not? Theologically speaking, the classification of a religion as a cult is based on its teachings and religious worldview. "Christian" denominations whose teachings contradict the fundamental truths of the Bible, distort or exploit those truths for their own benefit, and whose religious worldview is focused on promoting obedience to the upper leadership’s rule, are clearly classified as cults. This theological standpoint, however, has no further significance except that other Christian denominations may engage in missionary work for members of such cult-classified denominations. Naturally, this principled stance could lead to discriminatory treatment toward the organization of the given denomination, but as the operators of this website have expressed in the past, they do not consider this to be a good or Christian method for missions aimed at cult members.

For former Jehovah’s Witnesses, the question posed in the title is important because it justifies the activity we engage in. If Jehovah’s Witnesses were not a cult, we would have no reason to continue our struggle for those trapped in The Watchtower. In the first part of our writing, we want to show that from a theological-congregational perspective, Jehovah’s Witnesses can indeed be called a cult.

Since the foundation of the Christian faith cannot be other than Christ, we ask the question primarily in light of the approach to Christ: Does The Watchtower organization teach the truth of Christ, or does it distort the teaching about Christ for its own benefit?

The primary issue for most former or doubting Jehovah’s Witnesses is not the Trinity or the divinity of Jesus. The distortion of grace and the forgiveness of sins, as well as the subordination of Christ, are the teachings that clearly highlight what role Jehovah’s Witnesses’ leaders assign to Christ.

First, the word “grace” does not even appear in the Bible of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Instead, they use the word “undeserved kindness,” which is clearly not the same as grace. According to their teaching, salvation does not depend solely on belonging to Christ but also on organizational affiliation. The publication Knowledge That Leads to Everlasting Life discusses the steps one must take to achieve eternal life. Starting from page 173, the following are listed:

Acceptance of "accurate knowledge" (which, of course, cannot be achieved without Watchtower publications),
Application of God’s laws in one’s personal lifestyle (this is repentance),
Preaching alongside Jehovah’s Witnesses’ organization,
Attending Jehovah’s Witnesses’ meetings,
Baptism as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Jesus Christ is nowhere in this path. He simply exists, He is merely there. Watchtower theology naturally assigns Him certain tasks and titles, such as Ransom, King, Anointed One, etc., but:

They do not address Jesus in prayer.
If someone prays to Jesus in the congregation, they are punished.
If someone teaches publicly in the congregation that one can pray to Christ, they can be expelled from the congregation with the intent to "come to their senses."

As a result, individuals thank only God the Father for the redemption by Jesus. This is akin to a situation where a neighbor’s child helps carry something upstairs, and we consider it an insult to thank the child for the help rather than the parent. Wouldn’t this also offend the parent? If we owe Jesus much more than this (even according to Watchtower theology), why is addressing Jesus in prayer so sinful? It is forbidden to the extent that it risks one’s salvation—at least according to the teaching of the Watchtower Society. This prohibition resembles a situation where Jesus is present in the congregation as if He were disfellowshipped (since He promised to be present, He is there), yet no one is allowed to speak to or greet Him.

The organization argues that it gives Jesus the respect He is due. A quote from The Watchtower (March 15, 2002) shows how this is carried out:

"How reassuring to know that Jesus Christ provides leadership to his disciples today through the Governing Body, the holy spirit, and the angels!"

In other words, according to them, Jesus Christ uses only one visible and tangible (and primarily followable) means of leadership: the Governing Body. The leadership of the Governing Body embodies and fulfills Jesus Christ's leadership. It was this Body’s decision to exclude Christ from prayers, to assert that eternal life has no tangible connection to Christ, and to list a series of steps tied to the organization as the path to eternal life.

The Bible assigns a central role to Jesus, as He is the truth, the way, and the life. This fundamental teaching, as demonstrated, has been entirely appropriated by the leadership of Jehovah’s Witnesses for their own benefit. They exploit the faith of those who sincerely seek to connect with Christ, redirecting their obedience from Christ to the leadership of an organization—specifically, the Jehovah’s Witnesses. The leaders are so reliant on this teaching (that salvation is not solely due to God’s grace but also tied to organizational affiliation) that if they abandoned it, their membership base would collapse, as people joined for salvation.

Thus, considering the foundations of Christian faith, the organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses can be classified as a cult. Those working on the theological definition of cults are not coincidentally focused on examining the relationship to salvation and Christ as a starting point.

Cults share common traits in their other teachings, and our readers will likely be able to decide whether these are true of the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ organization or not.

The common traits:

Opposition to institutional churches (Great Babylon; the Great Harlot)

Without this opposition, there would be no reason for the cult’s formation, which typically stems from the perceived apostasy of these traditional churches.

Claim to be the only true religion

All others are either apostate or illegitimate. Since the cult views itself as the restored truth, any group founded after its own emergence is considered an independent, God-less attempt, as they believe God can only act through them. They claim to be God’s organization, the modern-day Noah’s ark. This leads to religious arrogance, paired with a behavior typical of those with a privileged mindset (e.g., the prayer of the proud Pharisee and the sinful tax collector).

Sense of accomplishment that lacks repentance

Members believe that as long as they remain within the church, no problems can arise. Naturally, there is no collective repentance, as they claim their church is led by God or Christ, who cannot err. If issues do arise, they are presented as human imperfections, but they do not grant such leniency to others.

Christ is not sufficient for salvation—something else is required

This is characterized by legalism, or rule-based religiosity. Cults create rules that can only be fulfilled through their religious organization, thus binding members to them and demanding constant obedience. They punish members for breaking these rules and exercise control over private lives, not just to enforce these rules but to hide behind the guise of maintaining the purity of the congregation. The boundaries of salvation coincide with the boundaries of the organization, so separation from the organization equals exclusion from salvation.

Apocalyptic mindset

Their worldview and recommended lifestyle are dominated by the imminence of the end. This becomes a cultish trait when it serves as the driving force and primary rationale for their actions. This often includes setting specific dates for the end, and even after such dates fail, most members remain because they believe the end is truly near.

Opposition to culture and the arts

The most dangerous enemy of the cult is the member who begins to think independently and critically. Culture is particularly dangerous because it undermines their system from within. Cults do not trust their members to decide for themselves what aspects of cultural diversity suit them or what is genuinely harmful—indeed, many members are incapable of this because their rational judgment has been eroded.

Propagandistic methods

Cults cannot openly admit the truth about themselves and resort to negative propaganda. They must embellish everything good, conceal what is bad, and highlight what appears beneficial (a far cry from Jesus' teaching that what one hand does for good, the other should not know). They also disguise harmful activities by promoting their socially beneficial actions.

These seven characteristics generally describe most cults. A particular denomination is not labeled a cult solely due to these seven traits (as they may appear in religions not classified as cults from a theological perspective) but because they distort the fundamental teachings of the Bible and place them in the service of their leaders. As shown regarding Christ, this applies to Jehovah’s Witnesses, and most of the seven traits fully characterize their organization.

Finally, we would like to draw the attention of our readers and visitors to a striking contradiction as a reminder:

"Because if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." (Romans 10:9)

From The Watchtower, May 1, 1994, page 13, paragraph 17:

"If we were to sing our Kingdom songs with our minds on other things, not fully appreciating the meaning of the words, would we not be somewhat like the unfaithful Israelites who were reproved because, while they praised God with their lips, their hearts were far removed from him? (Matthew 15:8)"

Part 2: A psychological and sociological approach, or examining the cult-like behavior demonstrated by Jehovah's Witnesses

The issue of cults in society primarily appears as a sociological problem. Joining "non-traditional" religions has been the subject of numerous sociological studies, and many countries have implemented legal restrictions to curb the expansion of destructive cults. According to sociologists, approximately 2–5% of the total population is susceptible to such influence. It is, therefore, understandable to worry whether a close friend or family member has become involved in a cult. This concern also matters to us, former Jehovah's Witnesses, as we question whether Jehovah's Witnesses' organization qualifies as a cult from a non-religious perspective.

From a sociological standpoint, groups that shifted the desire for success away from the present earthly life were historically classified as cults. However, as time passed, cults and their teachings modernized. Financially driven religions or religious imitations emerged, encouraging members to pursue influence, material wealth, and ultimately sustain the cult organization and its leaders. As the understanding of cults needed redefinition, it became clear that cult members exhibit characteristic behaviors due to the mind control practiced within such groups. Since Jehovah's Witnesses (both members and the organization) deny the existence of high-level mind control behind the scenes, we find it necessary to present these common behavioral traits and confront them with Jehovah's Witnesses.

Cults teach that their organization originates from God and that its members are God's chosen people. This doctrine forms the foundation of every cult. It legitimizes their leaders and organization, demanding obedience and total control over private lives. Consequently, a cult-like behavior emerges: questioning, criticizing, or doubting is not allowed. The cult rationale states that this is unnecessary because it is "God's organization."

Cults identify themselves and their belief systems as "the Truth," elevating their members to a special status as the only ones worldwide who have responded to God's call. Members repay this elevation with diligent work and dedication to the impersonal organization. This, of course, is self-deception and self-suggestion. Members develop a sense of elitism ("I am different, better than the other sinful people"). Outsiders are initially encouraged to critically examine their current faith and church. The prospective member is given the impression that the cult (though its members do not call it that) practices religious tolerance individually and as an organization. After recruitment, this critical thinking and tolerance disappear. The cult protects its members from independent thought. In the organization's terminology, critical thinking is conflated with a critical spirit (to clarify: critical thinking evaluates evidence supporting claims, while a critical spirit constantly looks for faults). Criticism, they say, is inspired by the Devil. Independent thinking and critical reasoning are equated with pride, the Devil's primary sin. Cults require this to safeguard their power from their members.

Thus, mental health professionals and sociological researchers warn: if you cannot review your religion's teachings and history or ask uncomfortable questions, you are on the path to becoming a victim and being exploited. Cult groups treat those who leave as enemies, especially if they had principled issues with the religion. Even the smallest group leaders within a cult-like organization are granted absolute power over their surroundings. Expulsion from the cult community impacts family life, as the cult wields authority even within families and marital relationships. This is justified by the need to "keep the congregation clean" and enforce discipline (the cult does not trust God to act; it intervenes on God's behalf).

Another cult-like behavior identified by these researchers is the merging of the organization with salvation. Although not always explicitly stated, the teachings imply that the boundaries of the organization coincide with the boundaries of salvation. Members are constantly warned and reprimanded, ostensibly for their own well-being, to remain within the organization. This entails constant emphasis on identifying the legitimate leader(s) whose words members must heed and obey. Everything strengthens those in power.

Most cults conceal their harmful mental influence by showcasing the honest civil lives of their members. However, leading an honest, decent, and exemplary civil life is not exclusive to members of any specific cult organization. A significant portion of society upholds similarly high moral standards. Cult publications often acknowledge that others also live morally upright lives, not just their members (e.g., Questions Young People Ask and Awake! magazine regularly point out that half of American teenagers abstain from premarital sex). Even if individuals within a cult organization live morally or honestly at a higher rate than the societal average, this does not absolve the organization of its flaws.

Some members' lives do improve significantly as they abandon harmful habits and adopt more humane behavior, but these individuals essentially shift from one abnormal lifestyle to another. While their surroundings may find them easier to deal with, the impact on the personality remains almost equally harmful. There are methods for leaving harmful habits and antisocial behaviors behind that do not involve manipulation and result in much more lasting effects on the individual. The cult notion that "those who leave will return to their sins" proves that the cult’s sobering, life-improving influence was not profound enough, leaving the underlying mental mechanisms unchanged and failing to provide a true solution.

For those who know Jehovah’s Witnesses well, perhaps even from the inside, the above points are sufficient to determine whether Jehovah's Witnesses’ organization can be considered a cult from a psychological and sociological perspective. It is worth noting that the statements above were not specifically written about Jehovah’s Witnesses but about general characteristics of cult behavior.

The fact that Jehovah’s Witnesses grow by some 300,000 members annually demonstrates that society needs reliable education and protection against cults. Since former cult members know cults from up close, they should not be excluded from future missions, movements, or actions aimed at addressing cults—including Jehovah's Witnesses.

Unity and Conformity: Why Are They Achieved Only by Cults?

What common thread connects Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Mormon Church, the Moonies, and other cults? What do these organizations offer that even the most successful churches cannot? Why is it so difficult to leave these groups? The key to the answer lies in unity.

This unity, however, is not the kind Paul referred to in 1 Corinthians 1:10:

"I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another in what you say and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly united in mind and thought."

Cults frequently use this scripture to argue that they are the one true Christian congregation because this unity is only achieved among them. New members are shown unique signs of unity, which are claimed to be evidence of God’s blessing on the organization. Naturally, new recruits are unaware that many other cult-like religious organizations present the same evidence to assert that their group is the one true faith.

Cults do indeed create a form of unity that is not found in other denominations, but the question is how they achieve this unity and whether it is even desirable in such a form. Another question is whether this is the same unity Paul was talking about.

What Was Paul Really Talking About?

There is no evidence that the Corinthians, to whom Paul wrote his letter, ever achieved complete unity in faith and personal perspectives about God. Nor did Paul aim to accomplish this, as some might assume. If Paul had sought such an outcome, he would have needed to create a systematic theology and a code of conduct. Instead, in his letters, Paul emphasizes unity based on love and urges tolerance for one another rather than doctrinal conformity (where conformity means unquestioning obedience without thought or deliberation). Paul viewed the Corinthians’ issues as signs of spiritual weakness because they sought to please men, engaged in idolatry, and so on, as detailed in his letter (which Watchtower publications often analyze, highlighting the immoral and idolatrous nature of Corinthian society and its negative influence on Christians living there).

If we examine Christians from the first three centuries, it is clear that they held differing opinions on minor matters. Their understanding of Christ, the Father, and the Holy Spirit was still in a childish, undeveloped stage. If we view the seven congregations addressed by Christ in the Book of Revelation as representing Christianity (the fullness of the Church) at the end of the first century, it becomes evident that these congregations were struggling with immorality, false teachings, and worldly behavior, depending on the culture in which they lived. The truth is that Paul had to rebuke congregations regularly, much like a parent disciplines a child, yet he never established rules for things like dress codes. Human nature has not changed in 2,000 years, so modern Christianity (as the Church) faces the same problems as the seven congregations of Asia Minor described at the beginning of Revelation. Immorality, false teaching, and worldly behaviors will always be characteristic problems of Christian congregations operating in this world. However, cults aim to change this by creating their own organizations and separating themselves from all other denominations.

Noble Beginnings, Sad Endings

Most Christian or biblically rooted cults began with an idealistic leader. This founder saw themselves as God’s chosen spokesperson, tasked with restoring true worship among Christians. The path of such self-appointed messengers (or saviors) is fairly predictable and generally follows these steps:

Disillusionment with the general state of Christianity at the time.
The newly forming group claims to receive divine revelation and to "restore" the "true worship" on Earth so that God can again accept His people.
A small group of loyal followers submits to the new message, and from among them, the movement’s leaders emerge. These leaders are endowed with power and an elitist mentality, reinforced by attributing excessive importance to missionary activities.
The new leaders produce writings and scriptural interpretations treated as practically inspired but not officially declared so, to present a better image to the outside world. Outsiders doubt these writings, but the chosen insiders treat them as law.
Mandatory proselytizing is introduced as a sign of faithfulness to God. New members often join for questionable reasons, such as a desire for a new world, power over others, or simply an increased sense of security (instead of being directed toward Christ and the cross). Interestingly, cults that promote strange and socially unacceptable teachings (e.g., abstaining from blood transfusions or setting dates for the end of the world) constantly need new members to reaffirm their beliefs and replace those who leave.
The leader interprets any resistance to their teachings or practices as persecution, effectively vetoing well-founded criticism of the group. Their goal becomes a "righteous mission" (as opposed to a true mission), and they perceive God as being at war with all who oppose them. At this stage, the cult leader’s ego fully manifests, displaying egotistic tendencies that are easy to observe. Lifton’s eight criteria of mind control take form, such as the specialized language used by the group, interrogation techniques, environmental and informational control, etc. Former members are deemed unworthy of acknowledgment and are avoided or even treated poorly.

Cult Unity

Unity is relatively easy to achieve within a totalitarian system. An authority is established that is absolute and beyond criticism. Anyone who opposes it is labeled apostate, heretic, or reactionary. Since dissenters are immediately excluded, the organization will always consist solely of individuals who outwardly fully support its teachings, making the cult appear to have total unity. However, this is a forced unity, as questioning anything is tantamount to waging war against God. Cults achieve this unity in the following ways:

Centralizing the source of "the Truth," e.g., a chosen governing body that demands absolute obedience.
Constant indoctrination of members through meetings and study materials.
Instilling fear of questioning the organization, as this supposedly invokes God’s displeasure.
Enforcing rules and laws that govern members’ behavior, even in the smallest matters.
Creating a culture of discouragement and informants, where secret agents expose doubters or those leaving the group.
These techniques foster a sense of brotherly solidarity and develop an elitist mentality: they are God’s chosen people. This creates an elevated sense of belonging, and leaving the cult organization means abandoning this heightened state. Only totalitarian and cult-like systems can create this type of unity.

Jehovah’s Witnesses proudly tell people that they believe the same things worldwide and that their meetings model good behavior. What they fail to mention is that anyone who questions Watchtower doctrine would be immediately expelled. This is far from desirable unity. Good behavior is enforced through fear and intimidation. Can anyone be surprised that Jehovah’s Witnesses behave well and are essentially clones of their leaders regarding doctrinal issues? Doesn’t this fact show that enforced unity is characteristic only of cults and is most harmful to those who practice it?

407

Is Jesus the Creator?

by Sea Breeze in

that's what the word says.

.

colossians 1:16. for by him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through him and for him..

aqwsed12345

@joey jojo

The complexity of the Trinity does not mean it is illogical or nonsensical. Many truths in nature and science are complex and require nuanced explanation, but they are not inherently illogical. For instance quantum mechanics is famously counterintuitive, yet it is a rigorously tested framework in physics. The concept of infinity, while difficult to grasp, is essential in mathematics. Similarly, the doctrine of the Trinity is complex because it deals with the infinite and transcendent nature of God. If finite human beings could fully comprehend God’s nature, that would suggest God is no greater than our limited intellects. As Isaiah 55:8-9 states, “My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways... As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.”

While God’s nature is beyond full comprehension, we can understand what has been revealed in Scripture. The Trinity is not a human invention; it is derived from the totality of biblical teaching:

Monotheism: There is one God (Deuteronomy 6:4, Isaiah 44:6).
Distinct Persons: The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct (e.g., Matthew 28:19; John 14:16-17).
Shared Divine Nature: Each person possesses the fullness of divinity (John 1:1, Colossians 2:9, Acts 5:3-4).

These truths may be difficult to reconcile fully in human terms, but they are not contradictory. The Trinity is a synthesis of biblical data, not an irrational leap.

You ask why I insist on the Trinity being correct if it is so complex. The answer lies in the authority of Scripture and the testimony of the early Church. The Trinity arises from faithfully interpreting the Bible, which Christians accept as God’s revelation. While not every detail is fully explainable, it provides a coherent framework for understanding the relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The doctrine of the Trinity was not a later invention but was discerned by early Christians as they wrestled with the biblical witness. It was articulated to preserve biblical truths about Jesus’ divinity and the Holy Spirit's personhood against heretical distortions.

Rejecting the Trinity does not simplify the biblical evidence; it creates greater problems. For instance, if Jesus is not God, how can He forgive sins (Mark 2:5-7) or receive worship (John 20:28; Revelation 5:13)? If the Holy Spirit is not personal, how can He grieve (Ephesians 4:30) or intercede (Romans 8:26)?

Paradoxically, the complexity of the Trinity may be evidence of its divine origin. Human-made religions often reduce God to something easily comprehensible or relatable (e.g., anthropomorphic gods or deistic simplicity). The Trinity, by contrast, reflects a depth that defies human invention. It captures the balance between unity and diversity in God’s nature in a way that is unparalleled in other belief systems.

The Trinity does not violate logic, because God is one in essence (what God is) and three in persons (who God is). These are not contradictory because “essence” and “person” are distinct categories. For example, a triangle is one shape with three sides. While the analogy is imperfect, it demonstrates how something can be “one” in one sense and “three” in another without contradiction.

407

Is Jesus the Creator?

by Sea Breeze in

that's what the word says.

.

colossians 1:16. for by him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through him and for him..

aqwsed12345

@peacefulpete

You correctly note that Jewish thought occasionally includes depictions of divine "partners" or intermediaries, such as the Memra (Aramaic for "Word") in Targumic traditions or the "Wisdom" (Chokmah/Sophia) of Proverbs 8. These concepts highlight aspects of God’s interaction with the world while maintaining strict monotheism. However, these figures were not seen as distinct persons within the Godhead but rather as personifications of God’s attributes or actions. The Christian doctrine of the Trinity, however, does not merely describe a "partner" or an abstract personification but asserts the existence of three distinct persons who share the same divine essence. This is not merely a "new arrangement to an old tune" but a significant development grounded in the life, ministry, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, as witnessed and recorded by the apostles. The New Testament provides evidence of the distinctiveness of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit while maintaining monotheism (e.g., Matthew 28:19, John 1:1, 2 Corinthians 13:14). This is not a philosophical construct imported from Hellenistic thought but a response to the unique revelation of God in Christ.

While there are surface-level similarities between Philo's Logos and the Johannine Logos, significant differences reveal that they are not identical. For Philo, the Logos was an intermediary between the transcendent God and the material world. It functioned as a bridge or emanation and was not considered fully divine in the sense of sharing God's essence. Philo’s Logos is often described in metaphorical or allegorical terms, influenced by Greek philosophical traditions, particularly Platonism and Stoicism. The Gospel of John begins with a striking declaration: "In the beginning was the Word (Logos), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (John 1:1). This is not allegorical language but a profound theological assertion. The Logos is presented as eternal, fully divine, and incarnate in the person of Jesus Christ (John 1:14). Unlike Philo, John describes the Logos not merely as a bridge but as God Himself entering creation. Thus, while early Christian theologians used language familiar from Greek thought to express their ideas, they adapted it to fit the unique claims of Christian revelation. The Logos theology in John and the early Church represents a radical innovation, grounded not in philosophy but in the person and work of Christ.

You suggest that the Trinity was not the result of divine revelation but rather the culmination of a theological process. While it is true that the precise language of the Trinity (e.g., homoousios, "one substance") was articulated over time in response to heresies, the foundational elements of the doctrine are firmly rooted in the New Testament. The New Testament frequently speaks of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in ways that reveal their distinctness and unity. For example Jesus commands baptism "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" (Matthew 28:19), indicating equality and shared authority; Paul writes that "in [Christ] the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily" (Colossians 2:9), affirming Christ’s full divinity; Jesus prays to the Father and promises the Spirit (John 14–16), revealing the relational dynamics within the Godhead. The doctrine of the Trinity was not an arbitrary “invention” but a necessary framework to make sense of the biblical data. The Church Fathers, including Tertullian, Athanasius, and the Cappadocians, articulated the doctrine to safeguard the integrity of monotheism while affirming the divinity of Christ and the Holy Spirit.

You note that Philo and later Christian theologians employed apophatic (negative) language to describe the divine. This is true, but it reflects a broader theological principle: the finite human mind cannot fully comprehend the infinite God. The paradoxes inherent in Trinitarian theology—such as the simultaneous distinction and unity of the three persons—are not contradictions but mysteries that transcend human logic. The use of apophatic language does not mean that the Trinity is illogical or unsupported by Scripture. Instead, it acknowledges the limitations of human language in describing divine realities. The Church Fathers emphasized that the doctrine of the Trinity is grounded in divine revelation, not human speculation.

Finally, while you rightly reject the claim that the Trinity is a "shocking pagan deviation," it is important to note that the parallels often drawn between the Trinity and pagan triads (e.g., Egyptian, Babylonian, or Roman) are superficial and misleading. Pagan triads represent multiple gods with distinct roles and personalities, whereas the Trinity describes one God in three persons who are co-equal, co-eternal, and of one essence.

407

Is Jesus the Creator?

by Sea Breeze in

that's what the word says.

.

colossians 1:16. for by him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through him and for him..

aqwsed12345

@joey jojo

You noted that if the Trinity were "cut and dry," it wouldn’t require extensive explanation. However, the complexity of the Trinity arises because it attempts to articulate the nature of God—a being beyond full human comprehension. The Church Fathers recognized this difficulty and admitted that the Trinity is a mystery, but one based on revealed truths in Scripture. The extensive explanations, charts, and discussions are not because the doctrine is baseless, but because God’s infinite nature requires careful articulation to avoid misunderstanding. Concepts like God's eternity, omnipresence, and omniscience also require effort to explain, but that does not negate their validity.

You express concerns about the reliance on John’s Gospel and the role of commentators. The Gospel of John is particularly theological, emphasizing Jesus' divine nature (e.g., John 1:1, John 8:58, John 10:30). While John’s Gospel has a unique style, it is consistent with the rest of Scripture (cf. Philippians 2:6, Colossians 2:9, Hebrews 1:3). Bible commentators are not “inventing” the Trinity; they are explaining how Scripture, taken as a whole, supports the doctrine. The Trinity is a synthesis of biblical teaching, not a single verse.

The statement “the Father is greater than I” (John 14:28) often raises questions, but it is not contradictory to the Trinity when understood in context. During His earthly ministry, Jesus voluntarily took on a subordinate role (Philippians 2:6-8). His statement reflects His role in the incarnation, not an eternal inequality with the Father. The Trinity teaches that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are equal in nature (ontological equality) but distinct in roles (functional subordination). Jesus can say the Father is "greater" in terms of role without denying His own divinity.

The statement “no one knows...but the Father” (Matthew 24:36) is another common objection to the Trinity. Here’s how it can be understood. In His incarnation, Jesus voluntarily limited His knowledge in certain areas. This does not negate His divine nature but shows the humility of His human nature. In the mystery of the Incarnation, attributes of Jesus' divine and human natures are not always fully expressed. While Jesus’ divine nature knows all (John 21:17), His human nature could legitimately say, “I don’t know.”

So these statements reflect different contexts: John 1:1 establishes the eternal, divine nature of the Word (Jesus) as God, John 14:28 reflects Jesus’ incarnational role and submission during His earthly ministry. Both truths coexist without contradiction when we understand the hypostatic union: Jesus is fully God and fully man.

The doctrine of the Trinity is complex, not because it is untrue, but because it grapples with the infinite nature of God. Statements like "the Father is greater than I" and "no one knows but the Father" reflect Jesus' incarnate role, not a denial of His deity. The early Christians, through careful exegesis of Scripture, articulated the Trinity to preserve the biblical truths about God, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

407

Is Jesus the Creator?

by Sea Breeze in

that's what the word says.

.

colossians 1:16. for by him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through him and for him..

aqwsed12345

Credo quia absurdum?
Is the Trinity unreasonable?

*

Trinity vs. Islam

407

Is Jesus the Creator?

by Sea Breeze in

that's what the word says.

.

colossians 1:16. for by him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through him and for him..

aqwsed12345

@peacefulpete

You stated that Philo described the Logos as uncreated yet distinct from God, drawing a parallel with the Christian description of Jesus as "begotten, not made." While this might seem similar on the surface, there is a crucial theological distinction, since Philo's Logos is simply a philosophical construct that serves as a mediating principle between the ineffable God and creation. It is an abstract, intermediary concept rooted in Hellenistic Judaism and influenced by Greek philosophy, particularly Stoicism and Platonism. Philo's Logos lacks personhood in the way Christianity understands Jesus Christ and is more akin to a divine tool or emanation than a co-equal divine person within the Godhead. In John 1:1-18, the Logos is explicitly personal and divine. "The Word was God" (kai theos ēn ho logos) is a categorical statement of the Logos' full divinity. The Logos becomes flesh in Jesus Christ (John 1:14), something entirely absent in Philo's framework. While Philo's writings provide useful context for understanding how Jewish thought interacted with Hellenism, they fall short of the unique revelation of Jesus as the incarnate Word.

@KalebOutWest

You argue that the Trinity is incompatible with Jewish monotheism, citing the Emet Ve-Emunah statement from Conservative Judaism as evidence. However, this point conflates contemporary Jewish theological positions with the broader and more diverse spectrum of Second Temple Jewish thought, which forms the context of early Christianity. During the Second Temple period, Jewish thought was not monolithic. Texts like Daniel 7:13-14 (the "Son of Man" receiving worship and dominion) and the concept of the "Two Powers in Heaven," explored by Alan Segal, suggest that early Jewish thought could accommodate a complex understanding of God's unity. The Angel of the Lord passages (e.g., Exodus 3:2-6, Genesis 16:7-13) also depict a figure who is both distinct from and identical to Yahweh, laying a foundation for Trinitarian thought. While modern Jewish groups like Conservative Judaism reject the Trinity, this is rooted in post-Christian polemics and developments within Judaism that sought to distinguish themselves from emerging Christian theology. This historical divergence does not negate the compatibility of Trinitarian doctrine with the biblical texts shared by both traditions.

You mention interfaith families and the blending of Jewish and Christian practices, suggesting that theological beliefs in these contexts are highly individual. While true on a sociological level, this point does not address the core theological issue. The question of the Trinity's compatibility with Jewish monotheism rests on scriptural and historical evidence, not contemporary interfaith practices.

You cite Acts 21, Acts 10, and Galatians 2 to argue that early Christians, including Paul, observed Jewish Law. This is a valid observation about the early Church's Jewish roots, but it does not undermine the development of Trinitarian doctrine. In fact, the New Testament reveals a tension between the continuity of Jewish practices and the transformative revelation of Jesus as the divine Son of God. Jesus reinterprets and fulfills the Law (Matthew 5:17-18), claiming authority over it as the divine Lawgiver (e.g., "Lord of the Sabbath" in Mark 2:28). While Paul respects the Law's role, he emphasizes faith in Christ as the ultimate fulfillment of God's covenant (Romans 10:4, Galatians 3:24-25). Paul's Christology, as seen in Philippians 2:6-11 and Colossians 1:15-20, affirms Jesus' divinity, consistent with Trinitarian theology.

407

Is Jesus the Creator?

by Sea Breeze in

that's what the word says.

.

colossians 1:16. for by him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through him and for him..

aqwsed12345

While Philo's writings and Jewish traditions contribute valuable context, they do not negate the unique revelation of the Trinity in Christian theology. Philo of Alexandria's description of the Logos as an intermediary between the uncreated God and creation reflects Hellenistic Jewish thought but falls short of the Christian understanding of the Logos. Philo presents the Logos as a created being, a "suppliant" or "hostage" between God and humanity.

In contrast, the Christian view of the Logos, as articulated in John 1:1-18, identifies Jesus Christ as fully God (theos) and fully man, not a mere intermediary or subordinate entity. The Johannine Logos is not "in the middle" as Philo describes but is intrinsic to the divine essence. John’s prologue states unequivocally: “The Word was with God, and the Word was God” (kai theos ēn ho logos), affirming both distinction and unity within the Godhead.

This surpasses Philo's framework and reflects the unique revelation of Christ's divine nature. While Jehovah’s Witnesses might align with Philo’s view of the Logos as neither fully divine nor fully created, this interpretation fails to account for the New Testament's depiction of Christ. The Bible ascribes to Jesus divine prerogatives—creation (Colossians 1:16-17), worship (Hebrews 1:6), forgiveness of sins (Mark 2:5-7), and eternal existence (John 8:58)—that go beyond Philo’s conception of the Logos as a subordinate entity.

You argue that the Trinity contradicts Jewish monotheism because Judaism emphasizes God's ineffability and often does not conceive of God as personal. However, this reflects modern Jewish philosophical interpretations (e.g., Spinoza or Kaplan), not necessarily the biblical or Second Temple Jewish context. In fact, Two Powers in Heaven by Alan Segal and related scholarship demonstrate that early Jewish thought entertained concepts of divine plurality. For instance:

Daniel 7:13-14 describes a "Son of Man" receiving eternal dominion and worship, which parallels New Testament Christology.
Exodus 3:2-6 and other passages depict the Angel of the Lord speaking as God Himself, yet distinct from God.
Genesis 1:26 uses plural pronouns ("Let us make man in our image"), hinting at complexity within God's unity.

These elements do not undermine monotheism but show that Jewish thought had categories that could accommodate a plurality within God. The Christian doctrine of the Trinity builds on these scriptural foundations, interpreting them in light of Christ's life, death, resurrection, and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit.

You claim the Trinity was not developed in consultation with Jewish writings, implying it lacks a basis in biblical revelation. This overlooks how early Christians, who were predominantly Jewish, wrestled with the implications of Jesus’ divinity and the New Testament’s testimony. John 10:30 ("I and the Father are one") and John 20:28 ("My Lord and my God") directly affirm Jesus’ divine nature. Paul’s writings, such as Philippians 2:6-11, describe Jesus as existing in the "form of God" (morphē theou) and being exalted to the divine name ("Lord," kyrios, a title used for Yahweh). The baptismal formula in Matthew 28:19 places the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit on equal footing, indicating shared divine authority. The early Church Fathers, far from “inventing” the Trinity, sought to articulate the faith handed down to them in Scripture. Their formulations were responses to heresies (e.g., Arianism) that distorted the biblical witness about God’s nature.

The claim that Jesus is not uncreated but also distinct from creation reflects a theological middle ground that lacks scriptural support. The Bible consistently portrays Jesus as eternal and uncreated. If all things were made through Christ (John 1:3, Colossians 1:16-17), He cannot be part of creation. Hebrews 1:3 describes Jesus as the "exact representation of God's being," affirming His divine nature. Jehovah's Witnesses’ interpretation imposes a hierarchical distinction not found in the text, diminishing the full deity of Christ and distorting the biblical teaching of His unique relationship with the Father.

407

Is Jesus the Creator?

by Sea Breeze in

that's what the word says.

.

colossians 1:16. for by him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through him and for him..

aqwsed12345

@Blotty

Origen’s condemnation of birthdays is often quoted to argue against their celebration. However, the context reveals limitations in this argument. Origen lived in a time when Christians were distancing themselves from pagan practices. His comment reflects a reaction to the extravagant, often hedonistic birthday celebrations common in Greco-Roman culture, not a blanket prohibition on all birthday observances. His critique focuses on the sinful excesses associated with certain birthday customs, not the concept of commemorating a birth itself. Origen's argument against birthdays based on Pharaoh and Herod's examples (Genesis 40:20; Mark 6:21-28) ignores that the negative aspects of those events (e.g., executions) were due to the individuals' wickedness, not the act of celebrating a birthday. The Bible does not suggest that celebrating a birthday is inherently sinful. Origen's writings are not infallible or binding for all Christians. His personal opinions do not carry the authority of Scripture or Church teaching. While influential, his views on birthdays reflect his own cultural and theological framework, not a universal Christian mandate.

Arnobius’ objection to birthdays must also be understood in context. Arnobius criticized the idolatrous and excessive practices associated with Roman birthday celebrations, which often involved sacrifices, feasting, and homage to pagan gods. His argument does not apply to modern Christian birthday celebrations, which are free from such pagan connotations. Modern birthday celebrations do not include idolatry or pagan rituals. Celebrating the gift of life given by God is not inherently sinful and can be done in a God-honoring way, focusing on gratitude rather than excess.

The argument that traditional Jewish culture avoided birthdays, and that the Bible only mentions Pharaoh’s birthday, does not provide a sound basis for forbidding birthdays. While traditional Jewish culture did not emphasize birthdays, this was a cultural choice rather than a divine command. The Mosaic Law does not explicitly forbid birthdays. Josephus’ comment about sobriety and birthdays reflects his cultural bias, not a biblical mandate. The Bible is silent on many modern customs but allows freedom in matters not explicitly commanded or forbidden (Romans 14:5-6). Pharaoh and Herod's negative actions on their birthdays are not a condemnation of the birthday itself but of the sinful behavior associated with their celebrations. The Bible contains examples of God’s people celebrating life events (e.g., weddings, feasts) with joy and gratitude. Jesus Himself attended celebrations, such as the wedding at Cana (John 2:1-11). Birthdays can be an opportunity to thank God for the gift of life and reflect on His blessings.

The claim that birthdays are rooted in paganism and therefore should be avoided is a flawed generalization. Just because a custom may have pagan roots does not mean it retains those associations. Many practices, such as wedding rings or using calendars, have historical ties to pagan cultures but are not inherently sinful. Jehovah's Witnesses themselves acknowledge this distinction in other contexts, such as their use of calendars with pagan origins (e.g., days of the week named after Norse gods). The supposed link between birthdays and Mithraism or Saturnalia is tenuous. There is no evidence that modern birthday customs, such as cakes and candles, are directly derived from these pagan festivals.

Modern birthdays bear no resemblance to the extravagant or idolatrous practices critiqued by Origen and Arnobius. Recognizing and celebrating the gift of life with gratitude to God is entirely consistent with biblical principles. Birthdays can be occasions for reflection, gratitude, and prayer, making them God-honoring events. Jehovah's Witnesses reject birthdays but celebrate anniversaries and other milestones. This inconsistency undermines their argument, as both practices commemorate significant life events.

The argument that Christians should strictly adhere to Jewish customs and calendar dates, such as Kislev 25 or Nisan 14, is problematic. Colossians 2:16-17 teaches that Christians are not bound by Jewish festivals, Sabbaths, or regulations. These were shadows of what was to come, fulfilled in Christ. Christians are free to commemorate significant events, like Jesus’ birth, without being restricted to the Jewish calendar. Quartodecimanism was an early heresy insisting that Easter must be celebrated on Nisan 14, in alignment with Jewish Passover. The Church rejected this view because it subordinated Christian celebrations to the Jewish calendar, undermining the freedom brought by Christ’s fulfillment of the Law. Similarly, insisting that Christian celebrations like Christmas align with Jewish dates misunderstands the purpose of Christian liberty. The date of December 25 was chosen based on theological symbolism (e.g., the "integral age" theory and the symbolism of light after the winter solstice), not because of adherence to a Jewish or pagan calendar.

407

Is Jesus the Creator?

by Sea Breeze in

that's what the word says.

.

colossians 1:16. for by him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through him and for him..

aqwsed12345

It is true that Judaism does not affirm the doctrine of the Trinity, but this does not invalidate its truth for Christians. The doctrine of the Trinity is a theological conclusion based on the totality of Scripture, including the New Testament revelation. While the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) emphasizes the oneness of God (Deut. 6:4), it also contains elements that hint at a complex unity in God's nature. In Genesis 1:26, God says, "Let us make man in our image," which implies a form of plurality within the divine nature. Throughout the Old Testament, the ‘Angel’ (messenger) of the Lord appears as distinct from God yet speaks and acts as God (Exod. 3:2-6; Judg. 13:21-22). Proverbs 8:22-31 describes Wisdom as a distinct person who was with God in the beginning, a passage often interpreted as prefiguring Christ. While these do not articulate the Trinity explicitly, they provide a framework that aligns with the later revelation of the Trinity in the New Testament. The full revelation of God’s triune nature came through Jesus Christ (John 1:1-18) and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit (John 14:26; Acts 2:1-4).

The Trinity was not “invented” by the Church but articulated in response to the revelation of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. Early Christians, who were predominantly Jewish, struggled to reconcile Jesus' divinity with the strict monotheism they inherited. The doctrine of the Trinity emerged as the Church wrestled with the Scriptural data, seeking to remain faithful to both the Old and New Testament teachings about God. The Trinity is not a foreign addition to Scripture but a coherent explanation of how the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are fully God while maintaining God's oneness. As Jesus declared in John 10:30, "I and the Father are one," demonstrating both distinction and unity.

Philo's writings indeed reflect Hellenized Jewish thought and describe the Logos as a divine intermediary, but they fall short of the Christian understanding of the Logos. The New Testament identifies the Logos as Jesus Christ (John 1:1, 14), who is not a mere intermediary or emanation but fully God and fully man. Philo's ideas show that the concept of divine plurality was not alien to Jewish thought, even if it was not fully developed in Judaism. The Christian understanding of Jesus as the Logos builds upon and surpasses these earlier ideas, showing a fuller revelation of God's nature as triune.

Jews historically expected a political deliverer who would restore Israel's national sovereignty. However, the Christian understanding of the Messiah as a spiritual Savior who redeems humanity from sin is deeply rooted in the Old Testament. The Suffering Servant is portrayed as one who bears the sins of many and is crushed for our iniquities—a role fulfilled by Jesus (Isaiah 53). Psalm 22 describes the suffering of the Messiah in terms strikingly similar to the crucifixion of Jesus. The "Son of Man" is given eternal dominion, a title Jesus frequently applied to Himself (Daniel 7:13-14). The divergence between Jewish and Christian views on the Messiah reflects differing interpretations of these texts, not an absence of Scriptural basis for the Christian perspective.

Christianity sees itself as the fulfillment of Jewish expectation, not a departure from it. The New Testament does not discard Jewish monotheism but expands it to include the fuller revelation of God through Christ and the Spirit. This is why early Christians, including Paul—a devout Jew—could affirm both the Shema ("The Lord our God, the Lord is one") and Jesus' divinity. Paul, for example, explicitly applies Old Testament passages about Yahweh to Jesus, such as Philippians 2:9-11, where he states that every knee will bow to Jesus, echoing Isaiah 45:23.

Jesus directly claimed divine authority, forgave sins (Mark 2:5-7), accepted worship (John 20:28), and equated Himself with the Father (John 10:30). These actions would have been blasphemous if Jesus were not truly God. The early Christians did not "make" Jesus God; they recognized Him as such based on His teachings, miracles, and resurrection.

The doctrine of the Trinity is indeed distinct from Jewish monotheism as understood today, but it is not contradictory to it. The Trinity is a deeper revelation of the same God who spoke through the Jewish Scriptures. It acknowledges the complexity and mystery of God's nature without abandoning the core monotheistic truth.

407

Is Jesus the Creator?

by Sea Breeze in

that's what the word says.

.

colossians 1:16. for by him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through him and for him..

aqwsed12345

@Earnest

You refer to Richard Carrier's argument that Polycarp likely never met the Apostle John. While it is true that some modern scholars question this connection, Carrier's conclusion is based on speculative assumptions, not concrete evidence. Carrier dismisses the possibility of John's long life because of the average lifespan of people in antiquity. However, many historical figures lived well beyond the average lifespan, especially in positions like apostleship, which involved less manual labor and better care. Tradition holds that John lived into the late first century, which aligns with Polycarp's timeline. Carrier argues that because Polycarp does not explicitly mention meeting John in his letter to the Philippians, this proves he never did. However, the purpose of Polycarp's letter was not to recount his own biography or associations but to encourage the Philippians in their faith. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Carrier dismisses Irenaeus’s testimony as "telephone-game" legend. Yet Irenaeus specifically states he personally knew Polycarp and recounts Polycarp’s connection to the apostles. This is firsthand testimony from someone in a position to know. To dismiss this without solid evidence is speculative at best.

You suggest that groups like the Gnostics could also claim lineage back to the apostles, making such claims unreliable. While it is true that many groups appealed to apostolic authority, their claims often lacked credibility for the following reasons. The proto-orthodox Christians (like Irenaeus) emphasized teachings that aligned with the apostolic writings and the Hebrew Scriptures, while groups like the Gnostics introduced esoteric and contradictory teachings. For example, Marcion rejected the Old Testament entirely, a position utterly incompatible with the teachings of Jesus and the apostles. The Gnostics often relied on later, non-apostolic texts, such as the Gospel of Thomas or other pseudepigrapha, which were written well after the apostolic era. The proto-orthodox tradition, on the other hand, preserved the apostolic writings that form the New Testament.

You correctly note that early Christianity included diverse theological views, such as adoptionism, modalism, and docetism. However, this diversity does not negate the existence of a dominant theological trajectory. The New Testament itself provides a strong foundation for the belief in Christ's deity. Passages like John 1:1-14, Philippians 2:6-11, and Colossians 1:15-20 all affirm Christ's divine nature. These texts predate the theological debates of the second and third centuries, indicating that belief in Christ’s deitywas not a later invention. Groups like the Gnostics, Marcionites, and modalists were deemed heretical not because of political expediency but because their teachings deviated from the apostolic faith. For example, modalism denies the distinct persons of the Trinity, contradicting passages like Matthew 3:16-17 (Jesus' baptism) and John 14:16-17 (Jesus promising the Spirit).

You mention that figures like Tertullian and Origen were later deemed heretical, suggesting that early orthodoxy was unstable. However Tertullian's alignment with Montanism occurred late in his life and pertained to issues of prophecy and church discipline, not core doctrines like Christ's deity or the Trinity. His earlier writings, which defended the Trinity, remain influential and orthodox. Origen was criticized centuries later for speculative theological ideas, such as the preexistence of souls, but his contributions to Trinitarian theology were foundational. Even his opponents respected his scholarship.