Posts by aqwsed12345

406

Is Jesus the Creator?

by Sea Breeze in

that's what the word says.

.

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

aqwsed12345

@slimboyfat

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Earnest

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

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

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

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

@peacefulpete

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

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

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

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

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

406

Is Jesus the Creator?

by Sea Breeze in

that's what the word says.

.

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

aqwsed12345

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

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

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

406

Is Jesus the Creator?

by Sea Breeze in

that's what the word says.

.

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

aqwsed12345

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jesus Is Called God:

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

Jesus Is Worshiped:

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

Jesus Has Divine Attributes:

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

Jesus Is the Creator:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

406

Is Jesus the Creator?

by Sea Breeze in

that's what the word says.

.

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

aqwsed12345

@slimboyfat

1. The Claim: Jesus Was an Angelic Being

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

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

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

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

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

2. The Claim: Jesus Is the Firstborn

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5. The Role of 1 Corinthians 2:16

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

406

Is Jesus the Creator?

by Sea Breeze in

that's what the word says.

.

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

aqwsed12345

@Blotty

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

406

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

Canonical biblical texts were widely recognized and preserved by early Christian communities, supported by extensive manuscript traditions and internal consistency. Their transmission history differs significantly from extrabiblical texts, which often lack the same level of communal oversight and authoritative recognition. While scribal errors and variations exist in both biblical and extrabiblical texts, the canonical texts underwent rigorous scrutiny by diverse communities, leading to an unparalleled level of textual reliability. The New Testament texts are heavily attested in early Christian writings and supported by thousands of manuscript witnesses. Extrabiblical texts, such as Tatian’s works, lack comparable attestation and were often contested or even rejected by early Christians themselves. The reliability of canonical texts is not merely assumed but demonstrated through extensive textual criticism, which confirms their integrity despite centuries of transmission.

While Tatian’s theology was unconventional and eventually considered heretical, labeling him an Adoptionist oversimplifies his Christological views. Tatian’s association with the Encratites (a rigorist sect) and his Diatessaron (a harmony of the Gospels) show his commitment to the Gospel narratives but do not explicitly support Adoptionism. Tatian’s theology leaned toward dualism, influenced by his mentor Justin Martyr’s Logos Christology, but there is little evidence that he adhered to a strict Adoptionist framework. Adoptionism was indeed one of the early Christological models, but it was a minority position rejected by the mainstream Church. The early Christian community overwhelmingly affirmed the preexistence and divinity of Christ, as seen in the writings of Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp, and Justin Martyr. The assertion that Adoptionism was a “brilliant solution” ignores its fundamental theological flaw: it failed to account for the full divinity and humanity of Christ as revealed in Scripture (e.g., John 1:1, Philippians 2:6-11).

Logos theology is not a post-Gospel development but a direct interpretation of Scripture. John 1:1-14 identifies the Logos as both preexistent and fully incarnate in Jesus Christ, providing the foundation for orthodox Christology. Paul’s epistles (e.g., Colossians 1:15-20, Philippians 2:6-11) affirm the preexistence and divine nature of Christ, consistent with the Logos theology developed by early Church Fathers like Justin Martyr and Irenaeus. Early heresies like Adoptionism and Docetism arose from attempts to rationalize the mystery of Christ’s divine and human natures. Adoptionism denied Christ’s preexistence and divinity, while Docetism denied His humanity. The Church’s rejection of these views reflects its commitment to the apostolic teaching of Christ as fully God and fully man. Logos theology, far from being a compromise, offered a coherent framework to articulate this mystery.

Early Christians engaged in vigorous theological debates, but this does not imply a lack of coherence in their beliefs. The core tenets of Christ’s divinity, humanity, and salvific role were consistently upheld by the mainstream Church. The diversity of thought seen in the second century reflects the process of theological development, not the absence of foundational truths. These debates ultimately clarified and safeguarded the apostolic faith. Despite differing Christological emphases, early Christian worship consistently acknowledged Jesus as Lord and God (e.g., Philippians 2:10-11, Revelation 5:13). This unity in worship underscores the shared belief in Christ’s divinity and central role in salvation.

113

Luke 23:43 the NWT

by Ade in

luke 23:43 - and jesus said to him, "positively i say to you, today you will be with me in paradise.

nwt places comma here , giving a totally different meaning to the verse.

now the average jw uses this to back their doctrine and it seems in itself virtually impossible to reason with them on it.

aqwsed12345

@Rattigan350

“The thief could not have gone to heaven that day because Jesus had not yet ascended”

The "Paradise" mentioned by Jesus in Luke 23:43 then does not refer to the final state of heaven but to the "Abraham's bosom" (or limbus patrum), the place within Sheol (Hades) where the righteous awaited the opening of heaven after the redemption accomplished by Christ. This aligns with Ephesians 4:8-10, which states that Christ "descended into the lower parts of the earth" to "lead captivity captive." This passage refers to Jesus freeing the souls of the just from Sheol and bringing them to heaven upon His ascension. The thief, therefore, entered "Paradise" — Abraham's bosom — on the same day, in fulfillment of Jesus’ promise. Heaven was opened to the righteous after Christ's resurrection and ascension.

“Jesus was the Firstfruits, so no one could go to heaven before Him” (1 Cor 15:22-23)

Jesus is the "Firstfruits" of the resurrection, meaning He is the first to rise in a glorified body. However, this does not contradict the thief’s entry into Paradise (Abraham's bosom). The thief was not resurrected in a glorified body on that day but joined the righteous dead in the intermediate state of Abraham's bosom, awaiting the opening of heaven after Christ's victory over sin and death. The concept of Christ being the Firstfruits pertains to His unique role in leading humanity into eternal life through His glorified resurrection. The thief’s soul being in Paradise (Abraham's bosom) does not conflict with this order.

“Jesus ascended to prepare a place; therefore, no one could go before Him” (John 14:2)

John 14:2 refers to Jesus preparing the fullness of heaven for His followers, but this preparation is not a chronological barrier. It refers to the theological reality that Christ's redemptive work and ascension made access to heaven possible for humanity. The thief's entry into Paradise that day does not mean he entered the final state of heavenly glory but rather Abraham's bosom, a temporary place of rest for the righteous. Once Christ ascended, the righteous, including the thief, entered heaven.

“The thief was not baptized by water or the Spirit” (John 3:5)

The Catholic Church teaches that baptism is necessary for salvation (John 3:5), but it also recognizes baptism of desire and baptism of blood for those who cannot receive the sacrament under ordinary circumstances. The thief on the cross, known as the Good Thief, is a powerful example of this exception. In Luke 23:42, he proclaims faith and repentance by saying, “Jesus, remember me when You come into Your kingdom.” This profound act of faith demonstrates his implicit baptism of desire, as he trusted in Jesus’ kingship and sought His mercy. The necessity of baptism stems from Christ’s universal mandate, which was only proclaimed just before His Ascension (Matthew 28:19-20). Before this proclamation, salvation could occur through other means, such as the natural law or faith in God’s promises, as seen in the case of Old Testament figures. The Tridentine teaching clarifies that after the Gospel was proclaimed, justification could not occur without either baptism or the desire for it. However, this proclamation unfolded gradually, as the Gospel was preached to different nations over time. Even after Pentecost, the necessity of baptism applied progressively, as it depended on the availability of the Gospel in various regions. For those who lived before hearing the proclamation of the Gospel or in areas where it had not yet reached, the natural law or faith in God’s mercy sufficed. This understanding emphasizes God’s justice and mercy, as salvation is not withheld from those who are invincibly ignorant of the sacramental requirements. Thus, the Good Thief serves as an extraordinary testament to the mercy of God and the validity of baptism of desire in exceptional circumstances. He was saved not through the normative sacrament of water but through his sincere faith, repentance, and recognition of Jesus as the King and Savior, fulfilling the spirit of baptism.

“The thief is dead and awaiting resurrection to the earth” (Rev 20:13)

Revelation 20:13 refers to the resurrection of the dead at the final judgment, which Catholics also affirm. However, this final resurrection pertains to the reunion of body and soul at the end of time. Until then, the souls of the righteous are alive and conscious in the presence of God, as evidenced by Jesus' words in Matthew 22:32: "He is not the God of the dead but of the living." The thief on the cross, like other righteous souls, is not "unconscious" but enjoys the beatific presence of God in heaven, as demonstrated by passages like Philippians 1:23 ("to depart and be with Christ is far better") and Revelation 6:9-11 (the souls of the martyrs cry out to God from under the altar).

"Paradise" before Christ’s resurrection referred to Abraham's bosom within Sheol. The distinction between Sheol and heaven was temporary, lasting only until Christ's victory over sin and death. After His ascension, Abraham's bosom was no longer necessary, as the righteous dead were brought into heaven. The term "Paradise" is therefore used both for Abraham's bosom (before the resurrection) and for heaven (after the resurrection), as reflected in Revelation 2:7, where the tree of life is said to be in "the Paradise of God."

@Earnest

While this is technically true, translators are not free to impose arbitrary punctuation but must consider linguistic and syntactical evidence. In this case, the phrase "Truly I say to you" (ἀμὴν λέγω σοι) occurs 69 times in the Gospels, always introducing a significant statement. In none of these occurrences is an adverb of time (like "today") used to qualify the phrase "I say to you." If "today" were intended to qualify the act of speaking, the Greek syntax would have placed it before "I say" (λέγω). For instance, "Truly today I say to you" (ἀμὴν σήμερον λέγω σοι) would be the expected construction. Instead, "today" follows "I say to you," naturally linking it with the promise "you will be with me in Paradise." This is why virtually all Greek scholars, regardless of theological perspective, punctuate the verse traditionally, as does the vast majority of ancient manuscript traditions.

While it is true that the Curetonian Syriac places "today" with "I say to you," this is an isolated textual tradition.The Sinaitic Syriac, an earlier and more reliable Old Syriac manuscript, supports the traditional rendering, as does the Peshitta, the standard Syriac Bible. Bentley Layton's interpretation of the Sahidic Coptic as supporting the NWT is a minority position. Most Coptic scholars and translations (e.g., Horner’s and Lambdin’s) render the verse traditionally. Layton’s work, while respected in other contexts, represents a subjective interpretation not reflective of broader scholarship. Thus, the overwhelming textual and scholarly consensus (Greek, Latin, Syriac, and Coptic) supports the traditional placement of the comma before "today."

While Hesychius acknowledges that some placed the comma after "today," his commentary does not endorse this interpretation. He merely notes its existence, likely influenced by theological speculation rather than textual evidence. The fact that this alternate reading is sparsely attested and lacks support in the vast majority of manuscripts underscores its marginality. It reflects a post-biblical interpretive development, not the original intent of the text.

"The interpretation of Luke 23:43 is a matter of exegesis, not textual criticism."

This argument is only partially correct. While exegesis determines meaning, the textual evidence overwhelmingly favors the traditional rendering. Context further supports the immediacy of the promise. Jesus’ use of "today" emphasizes the thief's immediate entry into blessedness, a direct response to his request, "Remember me when you come into your kingdom." The promise surpasses the thief’s expectation by affirming an immediate reward. Catholic theology harmonizes the immediacy of the promise with Christ's descent to the righteous dead (e.g., Abraham's bosom, or limbus patrum). The thief would join Jesus in this blessed state that very day.

The hypostigme (low dot) in Codex Vaticanus is most likely an ink blot or scribal error. Even if intentional, punctuation in early manuscripts was inconsistent and not definitive for textual interpretation. Textual scholars (e.g., Bruce Metzger and Wieland Willker) dismiss the hypostigme as irrelevant to the punctuation of Luke 23:43. The correct placement of the comma is determined by grammar, syntax, and context—not speculative punctuation marks.

The NWT’s rendering reflects theological bias, aligning with Jehovah's Witnesses' denial of the soul's immediate existence after death. By contrast, the traditional punctuation—“Truly I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise”—upholds the integrity of the text, the immediacy of Jesus’ promise, and the hope of eternal life with Him.

406

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

Rufinus refers to specific complaints by Origen about corruptions in his writings, but these are limited to certain instances where people deliberately altered his works. This cannot be generalized to claim systematic corruption across all early Christian texts. Origen lived during a time of theological disputes, which occasionally led to opponents distorting works to misrepresent theological positions. However, this is not evidence of widespread or pervasive manipulation. Instead, it highlights isolated cases where intentional edits may have been made by Origen’s critics. The distinction between accidental scribal errors and deliberate alterations is well-established in modern textual criticism. While Origen’s complaints reflect occasional deliberate tampering, the vast majority of textual variants in early Christian writings are demonstrably unintentional, as evidenced by manuscript traditions.

The Long Recension of Ignatius’ letters is widely regarded as a fourth-century expansion of the authentic Middle Recension. Scholars such as J.B. Lightfoot and Theodor Zahn demonstrated that the Middle Recension represents the authentic core. This consensus arose because the Middle Recension aligns with early Christian theology and is attested by Eusebius in the fourth century. The lack of widespread objection to the interpolations in the Long Recension can be explained by its limited circulation and later composition. By the time the Long Recension was produced, the authentic Middle Recension had already been widely accepted and revered. The later interpolations, while misleading, did not override the established text. The existence of the Long Recension does not undermine the authenticity of the Middle Recension. Instead, it underscores the need for textual criticism to identify the original form of these writings.

Variants in manuscript traditions are a normal feature of textual transmission. The omission of “and God” in some manuscripts does not necessarily indicate deliberate theological manipulation but could reflect scribal error or differences in regional textual traditions. While some Latin manuscripts omit et deum, the majority include it, and these manuscripts are based on an earlier Greek source no longer extant. The consistency of other elements in the Latin tradition suggests fidelity to the original Greek text. Even if et deum were omitted, the remaining text of Polycarp’s letter reflects a high Christology, including reverence for Jesus as “Lord,” consistent with early Christian theology.

Holmes’ statement that et deum is “more likely a later addition” reflects scholarly caution, not certainty. Textual criticism often involves probability rather than absolutes. Holmes’ position is an opinion, not definitive proof. Other prominent scholars, such as J.B. Lightfoot, have defended the phrase’s authenticity. While Holmes’ perspective is notable, it does not invalidate earlier or contemporary scholarship that supports the inclusion of et deum.

Even if et deum were a later addition, it would represent an isolated case, not evidence of widespread manipulation. The interpolation (if it occurred) does not negate the broader theological consistency of Polycarp’s letter, which reflects a high Christology throughout. Early Christian writings consistently affirm Jesus’ deity (e.g., John 20:28, Ignatius of Antioch). The possible addition of et deum would reflect reinforcement of an already-established belief, not the introduction of a new doctrine.

@Blotty

Please show me, if you have the opportunity, which scholar claimed that John 20:28 means precisely that "Oh my God, this is Michael the Archangel, who will come invisibly in 1914 to appoint Russell!" Until you find this, explain to me what the word αὐτῷ means in this verse.

The problem is that you think of "the scholars" as some universal infallible magisterium who collectively establish The Truth. When in fact they simply work with hypotheses, from available material, argue with each other, and what is fashionable changes roughly every two or three decades. (This is just like during COVID, they published biweekly reports on what "the scientists" say, whether it spreads through handshakes, whether you should elbow each other, etc. In hindsight, we now know that they were mostly just guessing.)

But to be serious... You claim that scholars like Wallace and Robertson have not addressed the issue of alternative terms (e.g., δεσπότης, θεῖος, etc.) because it is an invalid argument. This is not accurate. While scholars may not explicitly focus on hypothetical alternatives, their work establishes why the terms κύριος and θεός were deliberately chosen and why they were uniquely suited to express Christ's deity in the NT.

Wallace’s analysis of θεός in Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics emphasizes that the qualitative use of θεός in John 1:1c affirms the Word’s full deity. This choice of terminology reflects the apostles' theological intent. Wallace also examines κύριος in the context of its LXX usage, demonstrating that it is the standard term used to translate the Tetragrammaton, signifying its divine connotations. The absence of a need to consider alternatives like δεσπότης or θεῖος stems from their unsuitability to convey the same theological weight.

A.T. Robertson, in A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, supports the theological significance of θεός and κύριος, noting that their usage aligns with the apostles’ intention to ascribe full deity to Christ. The suggestion that δεσπότης or θεῖος could serve as equivalents overlooks the theological implications and cultural context of the NT writers.

Your point about δεσπότης being used in the NT (e.g., 2 Peter 2:1; Jude 1:4) and LXX is acknowledged. However, δεσπότης is not a term commonly associated with Yahweh in the LXX, nor does it convey the same divine authority as κύριος. κύριος is the LXX standard for translating the Tetragrammaton (YHWH), whereas δεσπότης often conveys a master-slave relationship. When κύριος is applied to Christ, it invokes Yahweh's divine authority, as in Philippians 2:10-11, where Paul quotes Isaiah 45:23 and applies it to Jesus, affirming His equality with Yahweh. δεσπότης does not carry this association.

You ask for clarification on "Christ’s full divinity" and whether it is synonymous with "deity." In this context:

Deity refers to the state of being God—possessing the attributes and essence of the one true God.
Divinity may sometimes refer to divine qualities but, in theological discourse, it often functions as a synonym for deity when applied to Christ.

For example:

John 1:1: "The Word was God" (θεός ἦν ὁ λόγος) asserts Christ’s full deity, not merely divine attributes.
Colossians 2:9: "In Him all the fullness of the Deity [θεότης] dwells bodily" explicitly ties Christ's incarnate nature to the full essence of God, not a lesser divinity.

The Church Fathers, like Athanasius in On the Incarnation, frequently used "divinity" as a synonym for "deity" when discussing Christ. Any distinction between the terms must be contextualized rather than assumed to reflect a lower status for Christ.

You argue that JWs claim Jesus was "fully divine" before His earthly life. This interpretation, however, diverges from their theology, which denies the consubstantiality of Christ with the Father. They argue Jesus is a created being, akin to "a god" but not fully God. JWs render John 1:1 as "the Word was a god," which is grammatically and contextually flawed. Greek grammar, particularly the lack of an article before θεός, supports the qualitative interpretation: "The Word was fully God in essence." By "fully divine" I mean the identity of the quiddity with that of the Father: what is the Father, is the same as the Son. The rendering "a god" is precisely the explicit denial of this identity of the quiddity: "it's kind of godlike, but it's not really that, it’s not a big deal, you know, just like Psalm 82 and Exodus 7:1." And the Greek text does not make this denial, on the contrary, it affirms it.

The apostles intentionally avoided ambiguous terms like θεῖος or ἡμίθεος to describe Christ because these terms could imply partial divinity or subordination, contrary to their theological intent:

θεῖος (divine): Used adjectivally, it could imply a lower-tier divinity, akin to heroes or demigods in Greco-Roman culture.
ἡμίθεος (demigod): Explicitly denotes partial divinity, inconsistent with the NT portrayal of Christ as fully God.
κύριος and θεός: These terms directly affirm Christ's divine identity and unity with the Father, avoiding the polytheistic connotations of alternative terms.

Your suggestion that "divinity" and "deity" may be used differently by different groups requires careful examination. The NT and early Church Fathers consistently affirm that Christ’s divinity means He shares fully in the essence of the one true God. This is not mere wordplay but the logical consequence of biblical revelation.

406

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

Rufinus does acknowledge editing Origen’s works, but this cannot be extrapolated to claim systematic falsification of all early Christian texts. Rufinus’ harmonizations were limited in scope and did not reflect a widespread pattern of deliberate textual corruption across early Christian writings. Origen lamented textual corruption during his time, but this refers primarily to errors from scribal transmission, a common phenomenon in ancient texts, not deliberate theological manipulation. Polycarp and Ignatius were widely venerated as martyrs and early witnesses to apostolic faith. Any significant textual corruption of their writings would have provoked objections from the Christian communities safeguarding these texts.

The survival of Polycarp’s letter in incomplete Greek manuscripts and a full Latin translation is not unusual for ancient works. Many classical and early Christian texts survive in later manuscripts, and textual critics rely on these with established methodologies to reconstruct the original text. The Latin manuscripts are based on an earlier Greek text no longer extant. While there are some variations, the general consistency of the text across traditions supports its authenticity. The phrase "our Lord and God Jesus Christ" is theologically consistent with the high Christology of Polycarp’s contemporaries, such as Ignatius of Antioch and the Gospel of John (e.g., John 20:28).

Scholars generally agree that the Middle Recension represents the authentic core of Ignatius’ writings. The Short Recension is a summary, and the Long Recension contains later interpolations. However, these interpolations do not undermine the authenticity of the Middle Recension. The Middle Recension is well-supported by Greek, Latin, Syriac, and Armenian manuscripts. While many manuscripts date to later centuries, this reflects the preservation process rather than the composition date. Eusebius of Caesarea, writing in the early fourth century, explicitly mentions the seven authentic letters of Ignatius. His documentation provides strong evidence for their authenticity before any alleged fourth-century manipulations. Ignatius’ high Christology ("our God Jesus Christ") aligns with the theology of his time. It reflects continuity with New Testament teaching (e.g., John 1:1, Colossians 1:15-20) and other early Christian writings.

While Michael Holmes has expressed caution regarding the phrase "our Lord and God Jesus Christ", he has not definitively ruled it an interpolation. Textual criticism often involves debates, but the phrase’s presence in multiple Latin manuscripts and its theological consistency argue for its authenticity. The expression aligns with Ignatius’ description of Christ as "our God" and John 20:28, where Thomas directly calls Jesus "my Lord and my God." This phrase reflects early Christian belief, not a fourth-century theological development. Even if "et deum" were a later addition, the rest of Polycarp’s letter reflects a high Christology consistent with early Christian faith, undermining claims of later doctrinal manipulation.

The Christology in Ignatius’ letters is not uniquely fourth-century but reflects the developing theology of the second century, grounded in apostolic teaching. Ignatius’ emphasis on Christ’s divinity and his role as Savior echoes New Testament themes (e.g., Philippians 2:6-11, John 1:1-14). Despite some scholars questioning Ignatius’ letters in the 19th and 20th centuries, most patristic scholars today accept the Middle Recension as authentic, as noted by recent studies and critical editions (e.g., Paul Hartog, Polycarp’s Epistle to the Philippians and the Martyrdom of Polycarp).

The apostles used "Kyrios" (Lord) precisely because it connoted the divine Lordship of Yahweh. For example, Paul applies Joel 2:32 ("everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved") to Jesus in Romans 10:13. The apostles and early Christians used "Theos" (God) to affirm Jesus’ full divinity, as seen in John 1:1 ("the Word was God") and Titus 2:13 ("our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ"). Avoiding ambiguous terms like "theios" or "hemitheos" underscores their intention to present Jesus as fully divine. In both Jewish and Greco-Roman contexts, using "Kyrios" and "Theos" for Jesus directly affirmed His divine nature in terms intelligible to their audiences. Other terms, like "hemitheos," would have implied partial or subordinate divinity, contradicting their message.

@Blotty

I did not claim the apostles intended to use terms implying "demi-God" or something less than divine; instead, I highlighted that alternative terms existed to avoid the connotation of full divinity (κύριος for Yahweh and θεός for absolute deity). My point was that the apostles intentionally chose terms that affirm Christ's full divinity. The claim that no other term could "exert the force" of κύριος or θεός only supports my argument. If the apostles selected these terms because they carried the intended divine connotations, it undercuts the notion that they avoided presenting Christ as truly God.

I never suggested that Jehovah's Witnesses view Jesus literally as a demi-God. Rather, I demonstrated that if the apostles had wanted to describe Jesus as less than fully divine, they had linguistic options to do so, such as ἡμίθεος or θεῖος. The absence of these terms, coupled with the consistent use of θεός and κύριος, strongly implies that the apostles affirmed Christ's full divinity.

The claim that θεός in John 1:1c functions adjectivally ("the Word was divine") is not a consensus view. While certain scholars like Goodspeed or Moffatt have proposed this interpretation, their position is highly contested. For example, Daniel Wallace, a respected authority on Greek grammar (ironically cited by you), rejects this interpretation. Wallace argues that θεός in John 1:1c is qualitative, emphasizing that the Word possesses the full nature of deity, not merely some divine qualities partially. Other scholars, including A.T. Robertson, Leon Morris, and Bruce Metzger, affirm that John 1:1c explicitly presents the Word as fully God, not merely divine in some adjectival sense. Therefore, the claim that θεός in John 1:1c functions adjectivally is a minority position, lacking robust support among the majority of Greek scholars.

Both κύριος and θεός are extensively used in the Septuagint and the New Testament. Importantly, κύριος in the LXX frequently translates the Tetragrammaton (YHWH), particularly in contexts affirming God's sovereignty and supreme authority. By applying κύριος to Jesus, the apostles identified Him with the divine Lord of the Old Testament. θεός is consistently used in the LXX and the New Testament to denote the one true God. When θεός is applied to Jesus (e.g., John 1:1, John 20:28, Romans 9:5), it aligns Him with the divine identity of Yahweh, not merely a lesser or figurative deity. You asks for citations of these terms' usage but provide no counterexamples from the LXX or NT that contradict my argument. The overwhelming evidence shows that these terms carry divine connotations, which the apostles intentionally applied to Christ.

My argument already relies on widely accepted lexical and theological studies. However, here are specific examples to reinforce my points:

κύριος: Used for Yahweh in the LXX, e.g., Isaiah 45:23 ("Every knee shall bow..."), applied to Jesus in Philippians 2:10-11.
θεός: Explicitly used for Christ in John 1:1, John 20:28 ("My Lord and my God!"), and Titus 2:13 ("Our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ").
Daniel Wallace: In Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Wallace explains that θεός in John 1:1c has a qualitative force, signifying that the Word possesses the same divine nature as God the Father.

Scholars like Wallace and Robertson have indeed addressed these issues. Wallace, for example, defends the full deity of Christ in his discussion of θεός in John 1:1 and other key passages. The absence of specific objections to alternative Greek terms (e.g., ἡμίθεος) in their writings does not invalidate your argument; it merely reflects the fact that these terms were never seriously proposed as alternatives in early Christian theology.

Altogether, my argument stands firm: if the apostles intended to avoid presenting Christ as fully divine, they had ample linguistic tools to express lesser divinity or divine-like qualities (e.g., θεῖος, ἡμίθεος). Instead, they consistently used θεός and κύριος, terms that unequivocally identify Jesus with the one true God of Israel. Your dismissal lacks substance and misrepresents both your argument and the scholarly consensus. The apostles' choice of language reflects their clear affirmation of Christ's full divinity, aligning with the Nicene doctrine of the consubstantiality.

113

Luke 23:43 the NWT

by Ade in

luke 23:43 - and jesus said to him, "positively i say to you, today you will be with me in paradise.

nwt places comma here , giving a totally different meaning to the verse.

now the average jw uses this to back their doctrine and it seems in itself virtually impossible to reason with them on it.

aqwsed12345

https://archive.org/details/copticversionofn02hornuoft/page/453/mode/1up