@Blotty
The assertion that Ps. 82 and 2 Cor. 4:4 use “gods” metaphorically to refer to human judges and Satan’s authority, respectively, is well-supported by mainstream biblical scholarship and early Christian interpretation. Ps. 82 clearly speaks of human judges, as evidenced by the context of their rebuke for failing to uphold justice. The phrase “you will die like men” underscores their mortality and distinction from God. This metaphorical use is not new or controversial and aligns with Jesus’ usage in John 10:34-36 to argue from the lesser to the greater—if mere humans can be called “gods,” how much more appropriate is it for Him, the Son of God, to claim divine prerogatives? As for 2 Cor. 4:4, Satan being referred to as “the god of this age” denotes his temporary authority over the fallen world, not divinity in the ontological sense. This metaphorical use is standard in biblical language and does not conflict with monotheism.
Regarding Wikipedia, dismissing its utility entirely is not valid. The platform often provides accurate summaries, and while it is not an academic source, it can lead readers to scholarly references. The critique that I rely on Wikipedia is misplaced, as my arguments draw from well-established scholarly sources, including linguistic and theological studies, not mere online encyclopedias. Your insistence on citations is valid, but dismissing arguments solely due to their perceived association with Wikipedia reflects a lack of engagement with their substance.
On John 1:1, the grammatical structure of the Greek text—theos ēn ho logos—emphasizes the qualitative nature of the Logos as fully divine. The absence of the definite article does not imply indefiniteness but highlights the Word’s essence as God. This is not merely my interpretation but a conclusion supported by scholars like Daniel Wallace and Bruce Metzger. Rendering it as “a god” imposes a theological bias, introducing a polytheistic-henotheistic nuance incompatible with the monotheistic framework of John’s Gospel.
Your claim that “dia” in John 1:3 and Col. 1:16 suggests Jesus was merely an intermediary is incorrect. The preposition “dia” indicates agency, but the broader context clarifies that Jesus is the Creator. John 1:3 explicitly states that “all things were made through Him,” and without Him, “nothing was made that has been made.” This affirms Jesus’ direct and indispensable role in creation. Origen, while using subordinationist language reflective of his era, still affirmed the Logos’ divine status and creative work. His speculative theology must be interpreted within the historical development of Trinitarian doctrine.
The claim that John 1:3 merely attributes creation to God acting through the Logos misunderstands both the language of the passage and the broader theological context of the Gospel of John. The verse explicitly states that "all things were made through Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made." The phrase "without Him" categorically excludes the possibility of the Logos being merely a passive instrument, or a created being himself. The Logos is presented as integral and active in the creation process. The preposition dia (through) in this context does not diminish the Logos’s role but highlights His divine agency within the unity of the Godhead. The context of John 1:1-3 establishes that the Logos is not subordinate but fully God: "The Word was God." This directly associates the Logos with the creative power of Yahweh in Genesis 1.
The argument that dia inherently implies subordination is a misunderstanding of its semantic range. While dia can indicate agency, it does not imply inferiority or dependence. In John 1:3 and Col. 1:16, dia highlights the relational dynamic within the Trinity: the Father is the source, the Son is the agent, and the Spirit is the perfecting force. This dynamic does not imply ontological inequality but reflects the distinct roles of the divine persons. The assertion that Origen denied Christ’s role as Creator is incorrect when his works are properly understood. Origen recognized the Logos as the agent of creation, fully divine and distinct in person but not inferior in essence. His descriptions are rooted in the relational economy of the Trinity, not subordinationism.
The objection to the term "intermediary" relies on a semantic confusion. While "intermediary" can mean "in-between," this does not imply inferiority when applied to the Logos. In Trinitarian theology, Christ as the Logos acts as the mediator of creation, reflecting His unique role within the Godhead. This mediation does not suggest that He is less than the Father; instead, it highlights the distinct personal roles within the unity of divine essence. Human intermediaries, such as prophets or angels, act externally and dependently on God. In contrast, the Logos acts internally and inherently as God.
The claim that Isa. 44:24 excludes the Son from creation is based on a misinterpretation of the text. Isaiah emphasizes Yahweh’s exclusive role as Creator to deny the existence of rival gods. The NT writers, including John and Paul, consistently apply OT creation texts to Christ, identifying Him as Yahweh. For instance, Heb. 1:10 applies Ps. 102:25-27, which describes Yahweh’s creative work, directly to the Son. This affirms the Son’s full participation in the divine essence. Tertullian’s writings, while not using the developed terminology of Nicaea, affirm the Son’s role in creation. In Against Praxeas, Tertullian states that the Father created "through His Word," acknowledging the Son’s divine agency in creation. His writings are consistent with the broader Trinitarian framework that ascribes creation to the Father, Son, and Spirit as one God. Tertullian, in Against Praxeas, affirms that the Father and Son are united in essence and act inseparably in creation. His analogy of the sun and its rays illustrates the Son’s consubstantiality with the Father. While Tertullian emphasizes the Father’s primacy in order, he does not deny the Son’s role as Creator.
The demand for an explicit passage calling Jesus "Creator" overlooks the cumulative witness of Scripture. John 1:3, Col. 1:16, and Heb. 1:10-12 explicitly attribute creation to the Son, presenting Him as the agent through whom all things exist. The insistence on a single, formulaic statement ignores how Scripture reveals truth progressively and through a synthesis of passages. The same approach applies to doctrines like the Trinity, which are derived from the entirety of biblical revelation rather than isolated proof texts.
The analogy comparing the Logos’s unity with the Father to the unity of angels or humans with God is flawed. While believers and angels may act in alignment with God’s will, this unity is moral and functional, not ontological. Christ’s unity with the Father, as described in John 10:30 ("I and the Father are one"), refers to their shared divine essence, not merely cooperative action. This is why the Jewish audience accused Jesus of blasphemy—they understood His claim to be ontological. Similarly, when Christ prayed for believers to be "one" with Him and the Father (John 17:21), He spoke of relational unity through grace, not equality of essence. Angels and humans remain created beings, whereas Christ, as the Logos, is uncreated and fully divine.
The claim that the angel in Rev. 22:13 speaks as "Alpha and Omega" misrepresents the text. The angel does not use this title for itself but conveys the words of God. Revelation carefully distinguishes between God, the Lamb (Jesus), and angels. The "Alpha and Omega" title is used exclusively for God and the Lamb (Rev. 1:8, 22:13), emphasizing their divine nature. Unlike angels, who reject worship (Rev. 19:10, 22:8-9), Christ consistently receives worship in the NT (Matt. 14:33, John 20:28, Rev. 5:13-14). This worship underscores His divine identity, as worship is reserved for God alone (Exod. 34:14). The angel’s role in Revelation demonstrates submission to God, whereas Christ’s role reveals His divine authority and identity.
The criticism of the use of ego eimi in John 8:58 misunderstands Greek grammar and the context of the passage. Jesus’ declaration, “Before Abraham was, I AM,” uses the present tense ego eimi to assert eternal existence, evoking the divine name revealed in Exod. 3:14 (ehyeh asher ehyeh, “I am who I am”). This connection is reinforced by the reaction of the Jews, who sought to stone Him for blasphemy, recognizing His claim to deity. The argument that ego eimi could mean “I have been” ignores the theological implications of Jesus’ statement and the broader Johannine context.
Your reference to Jason BeDuhn and his critique of Trinitarian translations does not undermine the linguistic and theological validity of traditional renderings. While BeDuhn praises the NWT for its literal approach, he also critiques its theological bias, particularly in passages like John 1:1. His preference for “divine” rather than “a god” underscores the qualitative nature of theos, which aligns with the traditional understanding of the Logos as fully God. BeDuhn’s preference for "divine" as a rendering of theos in John 1:1c stems from his focus on the qualitative aspect of the Greek term in its context. This usage reflects the Logos’ sharing in the nature of deity, emphasizing what the Word is (its essence) rather than introducing an indefinite or subordinate interpretation such as "a god." BeDuhn himself, though not a Trinitarian, does not advocate for the Arian interpretation implied by the NWT ("a god"). Instead, his argument aligns with the broader scholarly consensus that the absence of the article in theos does not suggest indefiniteness but rather highlights the qualitative nature of the term.
Your appeal to Origen's usage of "divine" to describe angels misses the mark. Origen's occasional use of such terminology does not undermine the distinctive application of theos to the Logos in John 1:1c. When Origen applies theos to the Logos, he explicitly affirms its ontological distinction from created beings and its unique participation in the divine essence, as seen in Contra Celsum and other writings. His nuanced theological language—though predating Nicene orthodoxy—aims to clarify, not dilute, the Logos' deity. Origen never equates the Logos with angels or lesser divine beings but instead affirms its superior and eternal relationship with the Father.
Comparisons to modern definitions of "divine," as suggested by your reference to a Google search, lack the necessary theological precision to engage with this discussion. In the context of John 1:1c, "divine" reflects the qualitative divine essence of the Logos as articulated by the Evangelist. This is not a generic or diluted sense of "divine," but one rooted in the Jewish monotheistic tradition and its fulfillment in Christology. BeDuhn's preference for "divine" acknowledges this qualitative aspect without endorsing subordinationism or polytheism.
Moreover, your claim that BeDuhn’s non-Trinitarian stance necessarily colors his interpretation of "divine" as something other than the full divinity of the Logos is speculative. While BeDuhn critiques traditional Trinitarian interpretations, his linguistic observations are grounded in the grammar and context of the Greek text. The qualitative understanding of theos in John 1:1c is not inherently anti-Trinitarian; rather, it underscores the Logos’ intrinsic participation in the divine essence, as affirmed by both Trinitarian and non-Trinitarian scholars.
Your argument conflates BeDuhn’s linguistic analysis with theological conclusions that he does not explicitly endorse. His critique of the NWT is not an unqualified defense of its theological interpretations but an acknowledgment of its grammatical possibilities within a narrow framework. The broader context of John 1, as well as the Gospel's high Christology, supports the traditional understanding of the Logos as fully divine, a point that BeDuhn’s linguistic observations do not negate.
The claim that the Greek present tense conveys timeless or continuous existence is not a baseless assertion. The use of ego eimi in John 8:58 is unique because it stands in contrast to the temporal clause (prin Abraam genesthai—"before Abraham came to be"). This contrast demonstrates that Jesus' existence transcends temporal limitations. While examples of present tense verbs conveying continuous existence may be rare, they are not unprecedented. Linguists and theologians such as A.T. Robertson and Nigel Turner have noted that the Greek present tense can describe an action that began in the past and continues into the present, as in what is known as the "Present of Past Action Still in Progress" (PPA). Instances like John 14:9 (“I have been with you so long”) demonstrate this usage. However, John 8:58 goes beyond mere continuity, implying eternality, as the predicate-less ego eimi conveys existence unbounded by time—a hallmark of deity.
Your assertion that claiming Jesus' deity in John 8:58 is "opinion, not fact" fails to account for the Gospel's broader context. While differing scholarly opinions exist, the Catholic Church interprets Scripture holistically, guided by Tradition. In John 5:18, Jesus is accused of "making Himself equal with God," and in John 10:30-33, the Jews again accuse Him of blasphemy for claiming unity with the Father. These passages reinforce the interpretation that John 8:58 is another assertion of deity. While some scholars may disagree, such disagreements do not invalidate the interpretation but highlight theological debates that have been resolved within the Church's Magisterium.
Regarding John 8:58 and other "I am" statements, it is incorrect to equate this phrase with ordinary expressions like those in John 14:9. The absence of a predicate in John 8:58 emphasizes the ontological nature of Jesus' claim. When Jesus declares ego eimi without further qualification, He asserts an identity that transcends time, which is distinct from everyday usages like "I am the light of the world" or "I am the bread of life." This theological significance is why the Jews reacted with an attempt to stone Him—an act reserved for perceived blasphemy.
The contention that Jesus’ statement in John 8:58 merely denotes preexistence rather than deity ignores the context and linguistic nuances. The choice of ego eimi rather than a past tense verb like ēmēn (“I was”) underscores Jesus' continuous, eternal existence, not merely a past origin. This is consistent with the Prologue of John's Gospel, where Jesus is described as the eternal Logos who "was with God, and was God" (John 1:1). Furthermore, the connection to Exod. 3:14 in the Septuagint (ego eimi ho on, “I am the Being”) is significant. While the wording differs slightly, the theological resonance between the passages is clear: both declare the speaker’s eternal, self-existent nature.
Your suggestion that the NWT offers a linguistically superior rendering of John 8:58 as “I have been” reflects theological bias rather than linguistic accuracy. The NWT's rendering obscures the text's theological depth to conform to Jehovah's Witnesses' rejection of Christ's deity. Reputable scholars, including non-Catholics like R.E. Brown and Leon Morris, recognize the unique theological weight of ego eimi in John 8:58. Rendering it as “I have been” diminishes its connection to Exod. 3:14 and its affirmation of Jesus’ divine identity.
The suggestion that Jesus’ language may have been constrained by translation limitations (from Hebrew or Aramaic into Greek) misunderstands the theological inspiration of Scripture. While Jesus likely spoke Aramaic or Hebrew, the Gospel writers, guided by the Holy Spirit, chose Greek expressions to convey the intended theological meaning. The use of ego eimi in John 8:58 is not merely a linguistic accident but a deliberate choice to emphasize Jesus’ divine nature.
The argument that “Son of God” does not imply deity is inconsistent with Jewish understanding. In first-century Jewish thought, claiming to be the "Son of God" often implied equality with God, as seen in John 5:18. The phrase “Son of God” is not a mere idiomatic expression for a righteous person but a declaration of unique relationship and identity, as evidenced by Jesus' trial before the Sanhedrin (Mark 14:61-64). When Jesus affirms His identity as the Son of God and the eschatological Son of Man (from Dan. 7:13-14), the high priest accuses Him of blasphemy. This reaction underscores that Jesus' claim was understood as a divine one, not merely a messianic or human title.
The broader argument that Jesus never explicitly claimed to be God overlooks the cumulative evidence of His actions, titles, and statements in the Gospels. Jesus forgave sins (Mark 2:5-12), accepted worship (Matt. 28:17, John 20:28), and declared His unity with the Father (John 10:30). These actions, coupled with the Christological affirmations in the NT epistles, establish His divine identity. Dan. 7:13-14, cited in Jesus’ trial before the Sanhedrin (Mark 14:61-64), portrays the Son of Man receiving worship and authority, further confirming His divine status. The assertion that Jesus' actions, such as forgiving sins and accepting worship, could have parallels in OT figures or practices misses the cumulative weight of these actions. While prophets and judges occasionally acted as agents of God, they never claimed intrinsic authority to forgive sins, nor did they accept worship. In contrast, Jesus forgives sins by His own authority (Mark 2:5-12), accepts worship without rebuke (John 20:28, where Thomas addresses Him as “My Lord and my God”), and declares Himself the ultimate judge of humanity (Matt. 25:31-46). These actions are consistent with deity, not mere agency.
Lastly, your claim that Catholic interpretations are selective or lack credibility ignores the Church's theological consistency and reliance on both Scripture and Tradition. The interpretation of John 8:58 as a declaration of deity is not a modern invention but has been affirmed by Church Fathers like Augustine and Athanasius, as well as ecumenical councils like Nicaea and Chalcedon. These interpretations are rooted in a comprehensive understanding of Scripture, not selective proof-texting.
Your insistence on explicit passages ignores the nature of biblical revelation, which often conveys truths through cumulative and interconnected evidence. The consistency of NT Christology and its roots in OT theology affirm Jesus’ deity beyond reasonable doubt. To dismiss these claims as theological bias or trolling reflects a refusal to engage with the depth of the evidence presented.
@slimboyfat
The claim that early Christology was primarily "angel Christology" and that Jesus was viewed merely as the "highest being in service of God" is a mischaracterization of the evidence found in the NT and the early Church's theological trajectory. While some scholars, like David Bentley Hart, acknowledge that early Christian understanding of Christ developed over time, the assertion that Jesus was considered a mere angel or subordinate being lacks comprehensive scriptural and historical support.
The NT itself unequivocally affirms the deity of Christ. For example, John 1:1 states, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." This is not a portrayal of an angelic figure but of one who shares fully in the divine nature. Moreover, Phil. 2:6-11 presents Jesus as "existing in the morphe of God" and emphasizes His equality with God, even as He humbles Himself in the Incarnation. This passage is far removed from the notion of Jesus as a mere subordinate being. The NT itself provides a clear foundation for the deity of Christ. Passages such as John 1:1-14, Phil. 2:6-11, and Col. 1:15-20 present Jesus as preexistent, divine, and intimately involved in creation. In John’s Gospel, the Logos is explicitly identified as God and described as becoming flesh. Paul refers to Jesus as being "in the morphe of God" and possessing equality with God, a profound affirmation of His divine nature. Far from being conceived as an angel or subordinate heavenly being, Jesus is portrayed as sharing in the divine essence and glory of the Father.
The early Church Fathers, even before the formal articulation of Trinitarian doctrine at Nicaea, also affirmed Christ’s deity. Ignatius of Antioch, writing around 110 AD, referred to Jesus as "our God" in multiple letters. Justin Martyr, in the mid-second century, described the Logos as eternal and divine, distinguishing Him from created beings. While Justin uses the term theos kai kurios eteros, this reflects relational distinction, not ontological subordination. Justin and other Fathers like Irenaeus consistently upheld the unity of God and the full divinity of Christ while emphasizing the personal distinctions within the Godhead.
The claim that the doctrine of Christ’s full divinity was a later development, imposed by the Council of Nicaea or influenced by Constantine, is historically unfounded. The Council of Nicaea (325 AD) did not invent the doctrine of the Trinity or Christ’s deity; rather, it clarified and defended the Church’s longstanding beliefs against the Arian heresy, which denied the full divinity of the Son. Arianism itself was a theological innovation that sought to reduce Jesus to a created being, in contradiction to the worship and confession of the early Church. The use of the term homoousios (of the same substance) at Nicaea was not a departure from Scripture but a precise term to articulate the biblical teaching about Christ’s divine nature.
The assertion that early Christianity embraced an "angelomorphic" Christology also misinterprets the evidence. It is true that some early Christian writers, such as Origen, used angelic imagery or titles to describe Christ, but this was often metaphorical or intended to illustrate His role as a mediator, not to equate Him with created angels. For example, when early Christians referred to Christ as the "’Angel’ of the Lord" (drawing on OT theophanies), they understood this title in light of His divine nature and His unique role in salvation history, not as a denial of His deity.
The claim that the doctrine of the Trinity lacks a basis in Scripture also misunderstands the progressive nature of theological articulation. The term "Trinity" is not found in the Bible, but the reality it describes is deeply rooted in the biblical witness. The baptismal formula in Matt. 28:19, the Pauline blessings (e.g., 2 Cor. 13:14), and the Johannine writings reflect a triune understanding of God. The development of Trinitarian language in the early Church was a response to heresies and an effort to faithfully preserve the apostolic teaching about the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
The claim that the Council of Nicaea introduced a "new grammar" and imposed a co-equal Trinity on Christianity misunderstands the historical context. The council formalized and clarified beliefs that were already widely held within the Church, not invented them. For instance, Ignatius of Antioch, writing in the early 2nd century, referred to Jesus as "our God" (Letter to the Ephesians 7:2). Similarly, the Didache and other early Christian writings reflect a Trinitarian understanding in their baptismal formulas. These predate Nicaea by over a century, demonstrating that Trinitarian theology was not a late invention but a natural development of the apostolic faith. Far from being a new invention, the Nicene Creed formalized what had been the consistent belief of the Church: that Jesus Christ is "true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father."
As for angelomorphic Christology, while certain early Christians may have used angelic imagery to describe aspects of Christ's role—such as His position as leader of the heavenly host—this does not imply that He was considered merely an angel. Hebrews 1 directly refutes this interpretation: "To which of the angels did God ever say, 'You are my Son; today I have begotten you'?" The writer of Hebrews explicitly contrasts Jesus with angels, emphasizing His superiority and divine Sonship.
The assertion that the early Church lacked a fully developed Trinitarian theology is technically accurate but irrelevant to the broader claim. Development in theological terminology does not mean the absence of the underlying truth. The doctrine of the Trinity was articulated in response to heresies like Arianism, which sought to diminish Christ's deity. This articulation did not invent new beliefs but sought to defend and clarify the apostolic teaching preserved in Scripture and tradition.
Furthermore, Hart's mention of homoousios as a "new" term is not evidence against the Trinity but rather illustrates how the Church developed precise language to combat doctrinal errors. This term was necessary to affirm that the Son shares the same divine essence as the Father, in contrast to Arian claims that He was a created being.
Lastly, the idea that Thomas’s exclamation "My Lord and my God!" (John 20:28) is merely a fervent expression or misinterpretation is weak. The text directly attributes these words to Thomas in response to the risen Christ. The structure of the Greek text does not support a vocative distinction that would make this a general exclamation rather than an address to Jesus. Additionally, Jesus affirms Thomas's statement by blessing those who believe in His identity without seeing.
In conclusion, while early Christology may have included diverse expressions and images, the NT and early Church writings consistently affirm Christ's deity. The Council of Nicaea and subsequent theological developments did not introduce new beliefs but safeguarded the apostolic faith against heretical distortions. Thus, the claim that angel Christology was the "earliest" or dominant understanding of Jesus is a selective and incomplete reading of history and scripture. The historical development of Trinitarian doctrine was not an imposition or a break from earlier belief but a necessary clarification in response to heresies. The NT and early Christian writings overwhelmingly affirm the deity of Christ, making the claim of a purely "angelomorphic" Christology historically and theologically untenable.