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

@TTWSYF

Check out these:

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

Your claim that "reapplications identify someone" misunderstands the theological framework of Hebrews. The use of proskyneō in Hebrews 1:6 reflects the unique role of Christ in salvation history, not merely as one who inherits worship but as one who inherently deserves it because of His divine nature. Hebrews establishes that Jesus is far superior to the angels (Hebrews 1:4), explicitly stating that He has "inherited a more excellent name than they." This inheritance does not imply a lack of prior worship but highlights Christ's preeminence in the unfolding revelation of God's plan. The angels are commanded to worship Him, not as a newly exalted being but as one whose divine status is progressively revealed to creation (Philippians 2:9-11).

You assert that the command for angels to worship Jesus suggests He is not God. This conclusion is based on a false dichotomy. In Jewish monotheism, worship (proskyneō) is reserved for Yahweh alone (Exodus 34:14). By applying Deuteronomy 32:43 (from the Septuagint) to Jesus, the author of Hebrews identifies Jesus with Yahweh. This is not idolatry, as you suggest, because the worship of Jesus is presented as consistent with the worship of God. In Revelation 5:13-14, all creation worships "the one seated on the throne" (the Father) and "the Lamb" (Jesus) in a unified act of adoration, demonstrating their shared divine status. Revelation 5 explicitly presents the Lamb as receiving the same worship as the One seated on the throne. In verses 12-13, the Lamb is ascribed "blessing, honor, glory, and power forever and ever," terms consistently reserved for divine worship throughout Scripture. The juxtaposition of the Lamb with the One seated on the throne, both being praised equally by "every creature in heaven, on earth, under the earth, and in the sea," indicates their shared divine status. The claim that this worship is analogous to obeisance given to kings in the OT (e.g., 1 Chronicles 29:20) ignores the unique context of Revelation. In the OT, homage to kings is clearly distinguished from worship of God, often accompanied by warnings against idolatry (Exodus 20:3-5). Revelation 5, however, unites God and the Lamb in a singular act of worship, with no indication of distinction in the nature or degree of reverence.

The argument that John in the Book of Revelation avoids directly calling the Lamb "God" (theos) does not diminish the Lamb’s divine identity. Revelation’s literary style employs rich symbolism and a high Christology, portraying Jesus as the Lamb who possesses divine attributes such as omnipotence ("seven horns"), omniscience ("seven eyes"), and the authority to execute divine judgment (Revelation 5:6; 6:16-17). Furthermore, the phrase "the Lamb in the midst of the throne" (Revelation 5:6) places Jesus in the same spatial and functional relationship with God, affirming their unity. Quoting P.M. Casey, who argues that the Lamb "almost approaches deity," reflects an interpretive bias rooted in a limited understanding of Jewish monotheism. Second Temple Judaism allowed for a complex monotheism in which intermediary figures like the Angel of the Lord or the "Son of Man" could bear divine authority. Revelation 5 situates the Lamb firmly within this framework, transcending mere kingship to assert divine prerogatives. The argument that John 17:5 denies shared glory between the Son and the Father is linguistically and contextually flawed. Jesus prays to the Father to restore the glory he had "before the world existed," signifying his pre-existent divine status. This shared glory is intrinsic to the Trinitarian relationship, not a bestowed honor limited to Jesus' role as the Lamb. The Lamb’s glorification in Revelation reflects this eternal divine reality, not merely an acquired function.

The emphasis on the textual variant παντοκράτωρ (pantokrator) in Codex Sinaiticus attempts to create theological ambiguity, suggesting a diminished role for the Lamb. However, this variant, even if genuine, does not contradict the Lamb’s divinity. Whether "dominion" (κράτος) or "almighty" (παντοκράτωρ) is used, the focus remains on the Lamb’s shared authority with God. The broader textual tradition and the consistent ascription of divine worship to the Lamb in Revelation render the variant inconsequential to the theological argument. The claim that the Lamb receives "relative worship" deflects from the clear evidence in Revelation 22:3. The singular pronoun ("him") refers jointly to God and the Lamb, underscoring their unity. The Greek term latreuo, reserved for divine worship (e.g., Matthew 4:10), is applied to the Lamb, affirming his deity. Attempts to limit this service to God the Father fail to account for the context, where the Lamb is equally included in the singular worship. Revelation consistently portrays Jesus as equal to God. The Lamb shares the throne with God (Revelation 3:21; 22:1-3), is the light of the New Jerusalem (Revelation 21:23), and receives universal worship (Revelation 5:13-14). The use of singular pronouns and verbs further reinforces this unity, as seen in Revelation 11:15, where the kingdom is said to belong to "our Lord and his Christ," yet described with a singular verb.

Regarding your comments on translation inconsistencies, the accusation against "Trinitarian translations" requires nuance. Translation choices are complex and context-dependent. However, the NWT has been widely criticized for systematic inconsistencies that reflect theological bias, particularly in passages related to Christ's divinity. For example, the NWT translates proskyneō as "worship" when referring to God but as "do obeisance" when referring to Jesus (e.g., Hebrews 1:6). This selective approach undermines the integrity of the translation and reflects an effort to deny the divinity of Christ, despite the contextual evidence supporting worship in the divine sense.

Your mention of John 1:1 and John 1:6 as "not parallels" ignores the underlying grammatical and theological issues. The rendering of John 1:1 as "the Word was a god" in the NWT introduces a theological interpretation unsupported by Greek grammar or context. The absence of the definite article before theos in John 1:1 does not make it indefinite; this is a well-established principle in Koine Greek grammar. Contextually, John 1:1 affirms the Word’s full divinity while distinguishing the Word (Jesus) from the Father. Comparing this to John 1:6, where "God" (theos) refers to the Father, reveals no inconsistency in mainstream translations, as the contexts clearly differentiate the persons of the Trinity.

Your assertion that "you cannot worship if you doubt" reflects a misunderstanding of faith and worship. Worship often coexists with human doubt and uncertainty, as exemplified by the disciples in Matthew 28:17: "When they saw him, they worshipped him; but some doubted." Worship here reflects recognition of Jesus' worthiness and divinity, even as the disciples grapple with the profound reality of His resurrection. Faith is not the absence of doubt but trust in the presence of unanswered questions.

Your critique of Trinitarian scholarship as inherently biased overlooks the rigor and diversity of mainstream biblical translation committees. These committees often include scholars from various denominations and theological perspectives, ensuring checks and balances. By contrast, the NWT was produced by a small, theologically uniform group lacking formal expertise in biblical languages, which has raised concerns about its reliability.

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

Your appeal to translations like Goodspeed’s or Young’s Bible does not invalidate my argument regarding the NWT's theological bias. Translation choices often depend on context, and while proskyneō indeed has a semantic range, its specific meaning is determined by the context in which it is used. Goodspeed's rendering of Matt. 4:10, "do homage," might seem similar to the NWT's "obeisance," but the comparison is superficial. The NWT consistently renders proskyneō as "obeisance" when applied to Jesus, while it translates the same word as "worship" when referring to God the Father or even false idols (e.g., Matt. 4:10; Rev. 9:20). This selective translation reveals a clear theological motivation to deny the deity of Christ, a motivation not present in Goodspeed's broader body of work. Goodspeed's translation reflects early 20th-century idiomatic preferences, not a systematic theological bias.

Regarding proskyneō itself, it is incorrect to claim that the word’s "full extent goes to the Father, NO ONE else." The NT repeatedly demonstrates that Jesus receives worship consistent with divine honor, not merely homage. In Matt. 14:33, the disciples worship Jesus after He calms the storm, declaring, "Truly, you are the Son of God." This worship transcends mere respect or homage for a human figure, as it acknowledges Jesus' divine identity. Similarly, in John 20:28, Thomas exclaims, "My Lord and my God!" in direct address to Jesus. The claim that such acts are limited to homage fails to account for the divine implications of these contexts. Additionally, Rev. 5:13-14 portrays both "the One seated on the throne" (God the Father) and "the Lamb" (Christ) receiving identical worship from all creation. If proskyneō here merely meant homage, the shared adoration would undermine the exclusive worship due to God, as emphasized throughout Scripture.

The reference to 1 Chron. 29:20 as a supposed parallel misunderstands the context and semantics of proskyneō. In that passage, both God and Solomon are recipients of proskyneō, but the nature of the act differs. The assembly blesses Yahweh, recognizing His supreme deity, while they bow to Solomon as a gesture of homage acknowledging his anointed kingship. The distinction lies in the intent and the object of the act. When directed toward Yahweh, proskyneō signifies divine worship. When directed toward Solomon, it reflects respect for his God-given authority. The NT, however, consistently presents Jesus as receiving worship in divine contexts (e.g., Matt. 28:9, 28:17; Rev. 5:13-14), not as a subordinate human king.

As for your assertion that "obeisance" and "worship" are synonyms, while true in certain contexts, this oversimplifies the issue. Theologically, "obeisance" implies respect or submission to a superior, whereas "worship" in biblical contexts often denotes adoration due exclusively to God. The NWT's selective use of "obeisance" when referring to Jesus diminishes His divine status, contrary to the broader NT witness. This selective translation is not consistent with the principle of letting context determine meaning, as evidenced by the NWT's inconsistent rendering of proskyneō across various passages.

Your claim that Heb. 1:6 involves a "reapplication" misunderstands the text's theological intent. Heb. 1:6 explicitly commands all angels to worship Jesus, quoting the Septuagint's version of Deut. 32:43. In its original context, this passage refers to worship directed toward Yahweh. By applying it to Jesus, the author of Heb. unmistakably affirms His divine identity. The NWT's rendering of proskyneō as "do obeisance" here is inconsistent with its own principles, as the same word is translated as "worship" when applied to God in other passages.

The claim that it is impossible to doubt while worshiping something (Matt. 28:17) misunderstands the nature of faith and human experience. Doubt and worship are not mutually exclusive; in fact, they often coexist in the journey of faith. Matt. 28:17 describes the disciples' reaction to encountering the risen Christ. It captures a deeply human moment, where awe and reverence (expressed through worship) exist alongside hesitation or uncertainty (described as doubt). This tension is not only understandable but expected when individuals confront something as extraordinary as the resurrection of Jesus. Doubt does not necessarily negate worship. It is possible to worship while grappling with questions or confusion. Worship arises from recognition of worthiness and reverence for God, while doubt reflects the natural struggle to fully comprehend divine mysteries. In this case, some of the disciples may have struggled to reconcile the reality of Jesus' resurrection with their prior understanding, but this did not prevent them from worshiping him as Lord. The Bible frequently portrays faith as a dynamic process, not a static state. For example, Thomas initially doubted Jesus' resurrection until he saw and touched him (John 20:24-29). Yet, Thomas’s doubt ultimately led to one of the most profound declarations of faith in Scripture: "My Lord and my God!" Similarly, the disciples’ moment of doubt in Matt. 28:17 did not disqualify them from their mission; Jesus immediately commissioned them to make disciples of all nations in the following verses (Matt. 28:18-20). Far from being an "oxymoron," this passage reflects the authenticity of the disciples' experience. It demonstrates that faith does not require the absence of doubt but the willingness to trust God despite uncertainty. The inclusion of this detail in Matthew's Gospel also highlights the integrity of the biblical narrative, which does not shy away from portraying the disciples' struggles honestly.

The suggestion that I am driven by theological motivation rather than objective scholarship is ironic, given the demonstrable theological bias of the NWT. Objective scholarship evaluates translation choices in their literary, historical, and theological contexts. While all translations involve interpretive decisions, the consistent pattern of the NWT to downplay the divinity of Jesus, even when the original text does not warrant such a reading, points to deliberate theological revisionism.

"How many of those organizations are Trinitarian dominated? All of them? Well, there's our answer to that one."

This statement implies that the predominance of Trinitarianism automatically invalidates their conclusions. However, the widespread acceptance of Trinitarianism is not simply due to its popularity but is rooted in historical, theological, and biblical scholarship. Trinitarian theology emerged from deep engagement with Scripture and was affirmed by early church councils (e.g., Nicaea and Constantinople) based on their collective understanding of biblical texts. The claim here is akin to dismissing all modern science because most scientists might agree on a particular principle (like gravity). Agreement does not imply collusion but rather consensus based on evidence. Similarly, the dominance of Trinitarianism among Christian organizations reflects the overwhelming biblical and theological support for this doctrine, not arbitrary groupthink.

"How many Bible translations add words? NEWSFLASH: ALL of them!"

It is true that all Bible translations involve interpretation. However, "adding words" in translations often results from the necessity of making texts intelligible in the target language. For instance, Greek and Hebrew use structures and idioms that require adjustment for proper understanding in English or other languages. The critical issue is whether these additions clarify or distort the original meaning. Trinitarian translations generally strive to remain faithful to the context and grammatical nuances of the original languages. The accusation here oversimplifies translation work and assumes malicious intent, which is not a fair critique.

For example, the NWT introduces interpretations not supported by mainstream biblical scholarship (e.g., "a god" in John 1:1). Critics of the NWT argue that these changes reflect theological bias rather than linguistic necessity. Mainstream translations like the NIV, ESV, or NASB undergo rigorous academic scrutiny and rely on broad scholarly input, reducing the likelihood of significant doctrinal bias.

"How many Bible translations are inconsistent in translation? NEWSFLASH: ALL of them!"

No translation is perfect because languages evolve, and no two languages are identical in structure, idioms, and cultural context. That said, some translations are more consistent than others. Mainstream Trinitarian translations undergo extensive peer review by experts in ancient languages, history, and theology to ensure consistency and fidelity.

On the other hand, the NWT has been rightly criticized for being inconsistent specifically in verses relevant to Jehovah’s Witness theology. For example, John 1:1 is rendered as "a god" in the NWT, but other similar grammatical constructions (like John 1:6) are not translated with "a" in front of "God." Or, Col. 1:16 adds the word "other" to make Jesus a created (while He is begotten) being ("all [other] things"), despite the absence of this word in Greek manuscripts. Thus, while all translations face challenges, some are deliberately inconsistent to promote specific doctrinal views.

You basically argue that if even one Trinitarian translation translates something like the NWT, then from then on I am forbidden to question the NWT! This is a logical fallacy known as tu quoque ("you too", like “but you farted too!”), which suggests that if others commit similar errors, your errors are excused. The issue is not whether some Trinitarian translations might share linguistic choices with the NWT but whether those choices are justifiable based on the original texts. For example if a Trinitarian translation renders something erroneously like the NWT, it would also face the same scholarly critique as the NWT. The point is whether the translation aligns with the grammatical and contextual evidence. However, mainstream translations like the NIV, NASB, or ESV do not adopt such a rendering because it fails the test of Greek grammar and context. A tu quoque defense does not address the primary issue: Does the NWT accurately reflect the biblical manuscripts? Pointing out hypothetical errors in other translations does not validate the NWT’s theological deviations.

Your argument hinges on a relativistic view of translation, suggesting that all translations are equally flawed, and therefore none can be critiqued. However, this approach avoids the real question: Which translation most accurately conveys the meaning of the original texts? Trinitarian translations have centuries of scholarly rigor behind them, while the NWT has been criticized for theological bias. Rather than deflecting criticism with "tu quoque," the focus should remain on the evidence for or against the accuracy of specific translations.

Regarding the dismissive tone in the second part of your comment, respectful dialogue is essential for meaningful engagement. Constructive criticism is welcome, but dismissing others' views without addressing the substance of their arguments undermines the opportunity for genuine discussion. Fact-checking and thoughtful analysis are integral to meaningful discourse, and this response aims to provide both.

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

Goodspeed’s translation as "bow before him" does not negate the possibility of divine worship. The Greek word proskyneō can signify various levels of reverence, from bowing in respect to full worship depending on the context. Goodspeed’s choice of wording reflects linguistic flexibility rather than theological dismissal of Christ's deity. Heb. 1:6 applies the phrase "let all God's angels worship him" directly to Jesus. This is a quotation from the Septuagint version of Deuteronomy 32:43, where the context clearly refers to Yahweh receiving worship. By applying this to Jesus, Hebrews elevates Christ to the same divine status as Yahweh, necessitating a reading of proskyneō as worship, not mere homage. The NWT systematically translates proskyneō as "worship" whenever it refers to God the Father but as "obeisance" whenever it refers to Christ. This inconsistency reveals theological bias rather than fidelity to the text. For instance, proskyneō is translated as "worship" in Matt. 4:10 ("You shall worship [proskyneō] the Lord your God"), but as "do obeisance" in Heb. 1:6 when directed at Jesus. This selective translation undermines the claim of impartiality, particularly when other respected translations (e.g., KJV, NASB, ESV) consistently render proskyneō as "worship" in Heb. 1:6. In Rev. 5:13-14, all creation offers identical worship to "the one seated on the throne" (God) and "the Lamb" (Jesus). The Greek proskyneō is used in the context of both, affirming the Lamb's equality in divine status. If proskyneō were intended to mean mere homage for Jesus, it would contradict the shared divine worship described here.

While proskyneō can also signify homage or respect (e.g., Matt. 18:26, where a servant bows before his master), its meaning is clarified by the context. In the case of Jesus, in Matt. 14:33, the disciples worship Him after He calms the storm, declaring, "Truly, you are the Son of God!" This context goes beyond respect, as it attributes divine identity to Jesus. Similarly, in Matt. 28:9 and 28:17, the disciples worship the risen Jesus. This act is framed as religious veneration, aligning with the recognition of His deity. Jesus' acceptance of worship sets Him apart from others. Angels and apostles consistently reject worship (e.g., Rev. 19:10; Acts 10:25-26), directing it to God alone. Jesus, however, accepts worship without correction, demonstrating His divine status. The original Hebrew of Deuteronomy 32:43, reconstructed from the Dead Sea Scrolls, includes "let all the angels of God worship him," which the Septuagint renders with proskyneō. In its OT context, this refers to Yahweh.

Harnînû šāmāyim ʿammô wəyištaḥăwû lô kol malʾăk̲ê ʾĕlōhîm harnînû g̲ôyim ʿammô wayḥazqû lô kol bənê ʾĕlōhîm kî d̲am-b̲ānāyw yiqqôm wənāqām yāšîb̲ ləṣārāyw wəlimśanʾāyw yəšallēm wayk̲appēr ʾad̲mat̲ ʿammô

Rejoice, O heavens, with him, and let all the angels of God worship him. Rejoice, O nations, with his people, and let all the children of God strengthen themselves in him. For he will avenge the blood of his children, and he will render vengeancei to his enemies, and he will recompense them that hate him, and he atones for the land of his people.

In the Hebrew text, the equivalent of "to worship" is the word וְיִשְׁתַּחֲווּ [weyištaḥăwû]. This word comes from the Hebrew verb "שָׁחָה" (Šāḥāh) which means "to worship", it is also found in Exodus 20:5 "Thou shalt not worship them nor serve them". It literally comes etymologically from the meaning of bowing down, humbly paying homage to a deity, thus worshiping. So the author of Hebrews applies this divine worship to Jesus, reinforcing the theological claim that Jesus shares in Yahweh's deity.

While "worship" in older English usage could include respect or homage, the modern understanding aligns more closely with the biblical context when referring to Jesus. For instance, in Rev. 5:13-14 and Heb. 1:6, proskyneō clearly implies divine worship, as it is directed toward God and the Lamb in a unified context of adoration. Reducing proskyneō to mere "obeisance" in references to Jesus undermines the consistent NT witness to His divine identity. The disciples' worship of Jesus in Matt. 14:33 and 28:17, the blind man's worship in John 9:38, and the angels' worship in Heb. 1:6 collectively affirm Jesus' worthiness of divine honor. The NWT’s selective translation of proskyneō reflects theological bias. It translates the term as "worship" when directed toward God or false idols but as "obeisance" when directed toward Jesus. This inconsistency lacks linguistic justification and serves to deny Jesus' divine status, contrary to the biblical text.

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 claim that Hebrews 1:6 and the use of proskyneō in Scripture do not imply worship of Jesus as God is fundamentally flawed. The argument rests on a misunderstanding of the Greek term proskyneō, a selective approach to biblical texts, and an inconsistent treatment of worship as it pertains to Jesus. While proskyneō can also signify homage or obeisance to a superior, its usage in the NT often implies worship in a divine sense, particularly when directed toward Jesus. The context determines whether proskyneō signifies mere reverence or true worship. For instance, when the wise men "fell down and worshipped" the child Jesus (Matthew 2:11), this act is presented in a religious context, signaling recognition of Jesus' divine status. Similarly, the disciples worshipped Jesus after He calmed the storm, exclaiming, "Truly you are the Son of God" (Matthew 14:33). These are not acts of mere respect but of divine worship. The Watchtower's claim that proskyneō does not indicate worship when applied to Jesus contradicts its own translation principles. In Revelation 5:13-14, both God the Father and the Lamb (Jesus) receive identical worship from all creation: "To the one seated on the throne and to the Lamb be blessing and honor and glory and power forever and ever." The parallel construction demonstrates that Jesus is worshipped as God.

Hebrews 1:6 quotes the Septuagint's rendering of Deuteronomy 32:43 or Psalm 97:7, applying it to Christ: "And let all God’s angels worship Him." In its original OT context, this passage refers to Yahweh. By attributing this divine worship to Jesus, the author of Hebrews unequivocally identifies Him as God. The Watchtower’s alteration of "worship" to "do obeisance" in its New World Translation reflects theological bias rather than linguistic fidelity. Notably, the same term proskyneō is translated as "worship" when referring to Jehovah in the NWT (e.g., Matthew 4:10). The argument that proskyneō in Hebrews 1:6 means only homage collapses under the weight of its biblical and theological context. The angels are commanded to worship Jesus as part of their acknowledgment of His divine status, not as a mere created being.

The NT presents Jesus as the object of prayer, worship, and divine attributes. Acts 7:59 records Stephen praying to Jesus: "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." This mirrors OT prayers directed to Yahweh (Psalm 31:5). If Jesus were not divine, this would constitute idolatry. In Mark 2:5-7, Jesus forgives sins, a prerogative that belongs solely to God. The scribes correctly recognized this act as a claim to divinity, yet Jesus does not correct them; instead, He demonstrates His authority by healing the paralytic. Philippians 2:10-11 applies Isaiah 45:23 to Jesus, stating, "At the name of Jesus every knee should bow... and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord." Isaiah’s original passage declares this worship as due to Yahweh alone. Paul’s application to Jesus underscores His divine identity.

The Watchtower Society’s shifting stance on the worship of Jesus undermines its credibility. Early Watchtower publications endorsed the worship of Jesus, as noted in the writings of C.T. Russell and J.F. Rutherford. For instance, the 1945 Yearbook of Jehovah’s Witnesses affirmed, "Let all the angels of God worship Him" in Hebrews 1:6. It was only in 1954 that the Society began prohibiting the worship of Jesus, not based on new biblical insights but on doctrinal revisionism. This inconsistency suggests theological convenience rather than faithful exegesis.

Philo’s Logos is fundamentally different from John’s. For Philo, the Logos is a semi-divine intermediary—neither fully divine nor fully personal. It serves as a bridge between the transcendent God and the material world, functioning as an abstract principle of reason and order. John’s Logos is fully divine, personal, and eternal. John 1:1 explicitly states, “The Word was God.” John 1:14 declares, “The Word became flesh and dwelt among us.” This is a radical departure from Philo’s philosophical abstraction. The Logos in John is not a mere emanation or cosmic principle but the Second Person of the Trinity. The concept of the Logos in John is deeply rooted in the Hebrew Scriptures, particularly the idea of God’s Word (dabar) as active in creation (Genesis 1:3, Psalm 33:6), revelation (Isaiah 55:11), and salvation (Psalm 107:20). John’s Gospel connects this Jewish understanding with the incarnational reality of Jesus Christ. While John may have been aware of Hellenistic philosophical concepts, his Logos theology is firmly anchored in the Hebrew Scriptures and the revelation of Christ. The Stoic concept of the logos spermatikos (a principle of rationality permeating the cosmos) is impersonal and fundamentally incompatible with the personal Logos of John. The Christian Logos is not a universal rational principle but a distinct Person who entered history through the Incarnation. So while Philo and the Stoics provide historical context for the term Logos, John’s theology transcends these frameworks. The Logos in John’s Gospel is a unique and divinely revealed concept, rooted in the Hebrew Scriptures and culminating in the person of Jesus Christ.

Angels in the Hebrew Scriptures are always subordinate to God and serve as His messengers or agents (e.g., Genesis 19, Exodus 3:2). They do not receive worship, as worship is reserved for Yahweh alone (Deuteronomy 6:13). In Revelation 19:10 and 22:8-9, John attempts to worship an angel but is rebuked: “You must not do that! I am a fellow servant with you and your brothers. Worship God.” This explicitly reinforces the NT’s strict monotheism and the prohibition of worshiping angels. Jesus, however, is worshiped throughout the NT (e.g., Matthew 28:17, John 20:28, Hebrews 1:6), highlighting His unique status as God incarnate. The distinction between Jesus and angels is consistently maintained, as seen in Hebrews 1, which declares Jesus as superior to all angels. While apocryphal texts like the Ascension of Isaiah and the Epistle of the Apostles provide fascinating insights into early Christian thought, they are not authoritative Scripture and often reflect speculative or syncretistic ideas. The hierarchical descriptions of angels in these texts do not equate Jesus with angels but rather emphasize His transcendence. For example, in the Ascension of Isaiah, Christ is depicted as descending through angelic ranks, assuming their forms, but ultimately surpassing them in glory and authority. The argument that Jesus is equated with the Angel of the Lord misunderstands the typological and christological connections in Scripture. The Angel of the Lord in the OT often speaks and acts as Yahweh (e.g., Exodus 3:2-6), prefiguring the Incarnation. However, the NT clarifies that Jesus is not merely an angel but Yahweh Himself made flesh (John 8:58, Philippians 2:6-11). So the NT and early Christian theology clearly distinguish Jesus from angels. While angels are servants of God, Jesus is God incarnate, worthy of worship and adoration. Apocryphal texts may provide background for certain theological developments but cannot supersede the authority of Scripture.

The “Two Powers in Heaven” concept in Second Temple Judaism was often used to describe an intermediary figure (e.g., the Angel of the Lord) who acted on behalf of Yahweh. However, this does not imply a belief in two deities but rather highlights the complex ways in which God’s actions were perceived. The NT redefines this concept by presenting Jesus as the unique Son of God who shares fully in the divine identity (John 10:30, Colossians 2:9). Jesus is not a subordinate power but one with the Father. Describing the Logos as an emanation diminishes His full divinity. The NT consistently affirms that Jesus is fully God, not a derived or secondary being. John 1:1-3 identifies the Logos as eternal, uncreated, and the agent of all creation. The claim that Yahweh is absent from the NT is baseless. The NT applies Yahweh’s name and attributes to Jesus (e.g., Philippians 2:10-11 cites Isaiah 45:23). This demonstrates continuity between the OT and NT in affirming the divinity of Christ. So the NT transforms Second Temple Jewish concepts to reveal the full truth of the Trinity. Jesus is not a second power or emanation but the eternal Son of God, fully equal with the Father and the Spirit.

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

Hebrews 1:6 states, “And let all God’s angels worship him.” This quotation appears to draw from the Septuagint version of Deuteronomy 32:43, which explicitly calls on the angels to worship Yahweh. The application of this verse to Jesus is not a random or "creative mashup" but a direct affirmation of Jesus’ divinity. Hebrews 1 emphasizes Jesus’ superiority to angels, showing that He is worshiped by them—a role exclusive to God in Jewish monotheism (cf. Exodus 34:14). Psalm 89:27 speaks of David as God’s “firstborn,” which is a typological foreshadowing of Christ as the true “firstborn” (Colossians 1:15, Romans 8:29). This typology does not reduce Christ to a created being but emphasizes His preeminence and royal authority. The invocation of Deuteronomy 32:43 further reinforces the divine status of Christ, as the angels are called to worship Him, a role reserved for Yahweh in Jewish theology. The New Testament authors do not engage in arbitrary "eisegesis" but interpret the OT in light of the revelation of Christ. Their exegesis is typological, seeing Christ as the fulfillment of OT figures and promises. Hebrews consistently portrays Jesus as superior to all OT figures (angels, Moses, the Levitical priesthood) because He is God incarnate. The use of OT texts serves this purpose, not as random or forced reinterpretations. So Hebrews 1:6 affirms Jesus’ deity by applying a verse about Yahweh to Him. This is consistent with the broader NT theology that identifies Jesus as Yahweh incarnate, not as a mere Davidic king or subordinate being.

Both Psalm 2:7 and 2 Samuel 7:14 are applied typologically to Jesus in Hebrews 1:5, affirming His unique sonship. Psalm 2:7’s “You are my Son; today I have begotten you” speaks of the eternal relationship between the Father and the Son, not a temporal act of adoption. This is supported by NT texts like John 1:1-3, which affirm Christ’s eternal preexistence. 2 Samuel 7:14 refers to the Davidic covenant, which finds its ultimate fulfillment in Christ as the eternal King (Luke 1:32-33). The Western text of Luke 3:22 includes the phrase, "You are my Son; today I have begotten you." However, this variant does not undermine Christ's eternal sonship. The phrase reflects the public declaration of Jesus’ divine sonship at His baptism, not the beginning of His existence. Origen and later Church Fathers refuted Adoptionism by emphasizing the eternal begetting of the Son (John 1:18) and the unbroken hypostatic union of Christ's divine and human natures. Hebrews 1:5-6 directly refutes Adoptionism by emphasizing Christ’s eternal sonship and superiority to angels. The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact imprint of His nature (Hebrews 1:3), which is incompatible with the idea of a created or adopted son. So Hebrews 1:5 does not support Adoptionism but affirms the eternal relationship between the Father and the Son. The NT consistently portrays Jesus as fully divine and eternally begotten, not temporally adopted.

Philo’s Logos is a semi-divine intermediary, a metaphysical abstraction influenced by Platonic and Stoic thought. It is not a person but an impersonal principle that bridges the gap between the transcendent God and the material world. John’s Logos, by contrast, is fully divine, eternal, and personal. John 1:1 explicitly states that “the Word was God” (theos), and John 1:14 declares that the Logos “became flesh.” This incarnational theology is foreign to Philo’s framework. John’s Logos is deeply rooted in Jewish Scripture, particularly in the concept of God’s Word (dabar) as a creative and revelatory agent (Genesis 1:3, Psalm 33:6, Isaiah 55:11). The identification of the Logos with Yahweh’s actions (e.g., creation, revelation) underscores the continuity between the OT and NT. John’s Logos is not a Hellenistic borrowing but a fulfillment of Jewish theological themes. So John’s Logos theology is distinct from Philo’s philosophical abstraction. While both use similar terminology, John’s Logos is the divine Word made flesh, fully consistent with Jewish monotheism and revelation.

The doctrine of the Trinity is not an artificial construct but the Church’s articulation of the revealed truth about God’s nature. The NT consistently presents the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as distinct persons who share one divine essence (Matthew 28:19, 2 Corinthians 13:14). The Church Fathers, such as Athanasius and the Cappadocians, developed Trinitarian theology to defend the biblical witness against heresies like Arianism and Adoptionism. The NT frequently applies Yahweh’s divine name and attributes to Jesus, demonstrating continuity with the OT. For example, Philippians 2:9-11 cites Isaiah 45:23 to affirm that Jesus is Yahweh. The alleged “freer conception” of God is unsupported by evidence. The NT authors maintain the strict monotheism of Judaism while revealing the triune nature of God. So the Trinity is a faithful expression of biblical revelation, not an artificial imposition. The NT’s application of Yahweh’s identity to Jesus affirms His full divinity within the unity of the Godhead.

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 claim that Philo’s Logos is the foundation for John’s Logos theology misinterprets both the Jewish philosopher Philo and the Johannine tradition. While Philo and John both use the term Logos, their conceptions of it are fundamentally different. Philo’s Logos is an intermediary principle that bridges the transcendent God and the material world. It functions as a divine agent, akin to an emanation, but it is not a distinct person or fully divine in itself. It is largely an abstraction, informed by Greek philosophical influences, particularly Stoicism and Platonism. Philo often allegorizes the Hebrew Scriptures, attributing symbolic roles to the Logos as the “reason” of God. However, Philo does not identify the Logos as Yahweh or as a concrete, incarnate figure. John in his Prologue (John 1:1-14) identifies the Logos explicitly as God (theos), fully divine, preexistent, and distinct in personhood while remaining one in essence with God. Unlike Philo’s abstraction, John’s Logos becomes flesh in the person of Jesus Christ (John 1:14), revealing a fully incarnate divine being. John portrays the Logos as personal and relational, engaging directly with creation and humanity. John’s theology is firmly rooted in Jewish monotheism, yet it includes the divine Logos within the identity of Yahweh, as seen in John 8:58 ("Before Abraham was, I AM"). The attempt to conflate Philo’s Logos with John’s Logos ignores these critical differences. While Philo’s concept of the Logos may have influenced the Hellenistic language available to John, John’s use is distinctly rooted in Jewish Scripture and the self-revelation of God through Christ. The Logos in John is not a philosophical abstraction but the second person of the Trinity, fully God and fully man.

The discussion of "Two Powers in Heaven," as presented by Dr. Michael Heiser and others, relates to Jewish debates about divine intermediaries in Second Temple Judaism. This idea is frequently used to argue that early Jewish Christians identified Jesus with an intermediary figure like the "Angel of the Lord." In Jewish tradition, the Angel of the Lord is often described with divine attributes (e.g., Exodus 3:2-6), but it is understood as a manifestation of Yahweh, not a distinct or subordinate being. Some Second Temple Jewish texts suggest a “second power” or divine figure, such as the Son of Man in Daniel 7. However, this does not imply polytheism but rather the complexity of God’s self-revelation. The New Testament identifies Jesus as the Son of Man from Daniel 7, who shares in divine authority and worship (Matthew 26:64; Revelation 1:13-14). This identification places Jesus within the divine identity, not as a subordinate angelic being. The New Testament frequently applies Old Testament passages about Yahweh directly to Christ (e.g., Philippians 2:9-11 cites Isaiah 45:23). This demonstrates that early Christians saw Jesus as fully divine, not a mere intermediary. The "Two Powers in Heaven" concept highlights the complexity of Jewish thought but fails to support the JW claim that Jesus is merely an archangel. Early Jewish Christians, as evidenced in the New Testament, went beyond the “Two Powers” framework by affirming Jesus’ full divinity as one with Yahweh.

Jehovah’s Witnesses claim that Jesus is Michael the Archangel, a created being, ontologically subordinate to God. This view is neither supported by Scripture nor compatible with early Christian theology. In Revelation 5:13-14, Jesus receives worship alongside God the Father. Worship is reserved for God alone (Exodus 34:14), ruling out the idea that Jesus is a mere angel. Hebrews 1:5-6 explicitly denies that Jesus is an angel: "For to which of the angels did God ever say, ‘You are my Son, today I have begotten you’?" The passage also commands the angels to worship Jesus. While JWs argue that “firstborn of all creation” (Colossians 1:15) implies Jesus is a created being, the context refutes this. "Firstborn" (Greek prototokos) signifies preeminence and authority over creation, not temporal origin. The subsequent verses clarify that all things were created "through him and for him," affirming His divine agency in creation. JW Christology reduces Jesus to a created being, denying His full divinity and contradicting both Scripture and the unanimous testimony of the early Church. Their interpretation is anachronistic, projecting modern theological constructs onto ancient texts.

The claim that NT authors understood Yahweh as a second power, distinct from the Most High, reflects speculative interpretations like those of Margaret Barker. This view lacks substantial historical and textual support. The distinction between Yahweh and the messianic Lord in Psalm 110:1 reflects Jesus’ dual nature as both God and man, not subordination to a separate “Most High.” The verse aligns with the Incarnation, where Christ, though fully divine, assumes a human role. Jesus is explicitly identified with Yahweh’s divine name and receives universal worship (Isaiah 45:23 and Philippians 2:9-11), affirming His full divinity.

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

Harnack’s assertion that early views of Jesus were divided between (a) Adoptionism and (b) a form of subordinationism misrepresents the actual theological landscape of early Christianity. Both positions fail to account for the robust and nuanced understanding of Christ’s divinity and humanity as found in the Scriptures and upheld by the Church Fathers.

The Apostolic Fathers and early apologists, such as Ignatius of Antioch and Justin Martyr, clearly affirmed both the full divinity and full humanity of Christ. Ignatius refers to Jesus as "our God" (Letter to the Ephesians 18:2) and emphasizes His eternal existence, saying, "There is one Physician, both flesh and spirit, born and unborn, God in man" (Letter to the Ephesians 7:2). This early testimony demonstrates that the belief in Jesus as fully divine and fully human was not a later theological development but was rooted in the apostolic tradition. It does not align with Harnack's suggestion that Adoptionism or a semi-divine Christ dominated early Christian thought.

Theodotus' view, as described by Hippolytus, is heretical because it denies Christ’s eternal preexistence as the Son of God and reduces Him to a mere human who was later infused with divinity. This idea is incompatible with the Church's teaching on the hypostatic union, as defined in the Councils of Nicaea (325) and Chalcedon (451). The belief that Jesus became the Son of God only at His baptism contradicts clear scriptural affirmations of His eternal Sonship (John 8:58, Colossians 1:15-17, Hebrews 13:8). Sonship pertains to the person of Christ, not merely to His human nature. By asserting that Jesus was merely human and later adopted, Adoptionism effectively divides Christ into two persons (Nestorianism) or denies the true union of the divine and human natures. The Holy Spirit’s descent at Christ’s baptism in the Jordan signifies the inauguration of His public ministry, not the beginning of His divine Sonship. This is evident in Luke 2:49, where the twelve-year-old Jesus already calls God "My Father," long before His baptism. The Council of Chalcedon (451) defined that Jesus Christ is one person in two natures—fully God and fully man. This dogma is rooted in Scripture and Tradition and directly refutes Adoptionism.

Pope Victor I condemned Theodotus’ teaching in the late second century because it undermined the core of Christian faith: the Incarnation of the eternal Son of God. This condemnation was not an isolated act but part of the Church's consistent defense of orthodoxy. The early Church identified Adoptionism as a denial of Christ’s true identity and mission. By reducing Jesus to a mere human elevated to divine status, Adoptionism obscures the salvific significance of the Incarnation, which requires the union of divine and human natures in one person.The Church’s rejection of Adoptionism was reaffirmed in later centuries, notably in the condemnation of Elipandus of Toledo and Felix of Urgel in the eighth century, whose teachings similarly distinguished between a "natural Son" (divine) and an "adopted son" (human).

Theodotus' view that Jesus received the Spirit at His baptism misunderstands the purpose of the Spirit’s anointing. This event is not about adoption but about equipping Jesus for His public mission as the Messiah. Jesus, as the eternal Son of God, already possessed the fullness of divine nature. The descent of the Spirit at His baptism is a Trinitarian manifestation that inaugurates His public ministry, as seen in Matthew 3:16-17: "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." Adoptionism mistakenly assumes that the Spirit's descent adds something to Jesus’ identity. In reality, the Spirit’s descent reveals His divine identity to others and empowers His human nature for His salvific mission.

So Harnack’s dichotomy and Theodotus’ Adoptionism fail to account for the scriptural and theological evidence of Christ’s eternal Sonship and the unity of His divine and human natures. The Catholic Church, from the apostolic age to the present, has consistently upheld the truth that Jesus is the eternal Son of God, fully divine and fully human, who assumed our human nature to redeem us. Adoptionism, in all its forms, is a reductionist heresy that distorts the mystery of the Incarnation and contradicts the clear teaching of Scripture and Tradition.

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

While there may be linguistic and conceptual overlap between Philo’s use of Logos and John’s Gospel, the Logos in Christianity is fundamentally distinct. Philo’s Logos was a philosophical and intermediary concept, bridging the gap between an utterly transcendent God and creation. It was not personal, nor did it possess the qualities of incarnation or full divinity as the Christian Logos does. John’s Gospel explicitly identifies the Logos as fully divine (theos) and co-eternal with the Father, culminating in the remarkable claim of incarnation: “The Word became flesh and dwelt among us” (John 1:14). This is a profound departure from Philo, whose Logos was neither incarnate nor a person but rather an abstraction or intermediary principle. Philo’s idea of the Logos walking on earth is speculative and allegorical, whereas John’s proclamation of the Logos becoming flesh is historical and literal. Philo’s Logos could not genuinely unite divinity with humanity as Christianity claims in the hypostatic union. The doxa (glory) referenced in John 1:14 refers not only to the divine presence but to the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies regarding God’s indwelling with His people (e.g., Ezekiel 43:5). Unlike Philo’s abstract concept, this fulfillment is realized in Jesus Christ.

While it is true that Hellenistic Judaism, including Philo, influenced early Christian theology, the Christian Logos doctrine transcends these influences. The idea that John’s Logos is merely a continuation of Philo’s concept is reductionistic. The uniqueness of the Christian claim lies in the identification of the Logos with Jesus Christ, who is fully God and fully man, as affirmed by the hypostatic union. Moreover, the Philonic Logos lacks the central salvific role ascribed to the Christian Logos. The Logos of John is not only the agent of creation but also the Redeemer, reconciling humanity to God through His death and resurrection. This salvific role is entirely absent in Philo’s framework. Any similarities between Philo’s and John’s conceptions of the Logos must be understood within the broader context of progressive revelation. The divine revelation often employs terms and concepts familiar to the audience but elevates them to express deeper truths (Summa Theologiae, I, q. 1, a. 9). Thus, while the language of Logos was accessible to Hellenistic audiences, its Christian meaning is entirely unique and rooted in divine revelation.

Adoptionism, whether in its classical form (e.g., Theodotus of Byzantium) or in its broader implications, fundamentally denies the eternal pre-existence of Christ as the divine Son of God. This contradicts the clear teaching of Scripture (John 1:1–3, Colossians 1:16–17). Adoptionism’s claim that the eternal Logos merely “inhabited” Jesus at baptism reduces Christ to a human vessel, severing the constant hypostatic union between the divine and human natures in Christ. This denies the full unity of Christ’s divine and human natures, as affirmed by the Council of Chalcedon (451), which declared Christ to be “one person in two natures” without confusion or separation. The claim that the virgin birth narratives are later “additions” to Mark’s Gospel is unfounded and lacks textual and historical support. While it is true that Mark’s Gospel does not explicitly include the virgin birth, the Gospels of Matthew and Luke independently attest to this event, affirming its significance. Far from being fabricated to refute Adoptionism, these narratives are integral to the Gospel’s proclamation of Christ’s divine identity. The virgin birth highlights the initiative of God in salvation history and underscores the unique role of Christ as the God-man.

The argument that early Christians modeled the incarnation on Greek myths of gods becoming human is both historically and theologically untenable. Early Christians were adamant about distinguishing their faith from paganism, particularly in rejecting the polytheistic and morally questionable portrayals of gods in mythology. St. Justin Martyr, for example, explicitly contrasted the Christian doctrine of the Logos with pagan myths, arguing that Christianity reveals the truth that Greek philosophy and religion only dimly apprehended (First Apology, chs. 20–22). While superficial parallels may exist, the incarnation of the Logos in Christianity is radically distinct. In Greek mythology, the gods’ interactions with humanity are often capricious and self-serving. In contrast, the Christian Logos became incarnate out of love, humility, and a desire to save humanity (cf. Philippians 2:6–8). The incarnation is not an arbitrary act but the culmination of God’s salvific plan

The statement attributed to Tatian, “God was born in the form of a man,” does not support Adoptionism but rather aligns with the doctrine of the hypostatic union. Tatian’s Address to the Greeks affirms the uniqueness of Christ’s incarnation, contrasting it with pagan myths. Far from implying a mere indwelling of divinity, Tatian’s statement highlights the profound mystery of God taking on human nature.

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.