Posts by aqwsed12345

406

Is Jesus the Creator?

by Sea Breeze in

that's what the word says.

.

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

aqwsed12345

@slimboyfat

I still don't understand why we're still and only arguing about Hart and not the issue itself, and why you can't argue without mentioning authority figures...

1. "Hart believes the prologue was written by a different author than the gospel."

Hart, in his writings and interviews, has indeed discussed the possibility of textual layers or differing Christological emphases within the Gospel of John. However, this does not mean Hart views the prologue as fundamentally contradictory to the rest of the Gospel. Instead, he acknowledges a literary and theological development within the text, where the full divinity of Jesus is progressively revealed. Even if Hart entertains a difference in authorship, this does not imply that he considers the prologue to promote an Arian Christology. Rather, Hart emphasizes the prologue's nuanced theological language, particularly the qualitative use of theos in John 1:1c, which underscores the Logos’ divine nature.

2. "Hart does ascribe a subordinationist view to the prologue and argues for a full ascription of divinity to Jesus at John 20:28."

This claim oversimplifies Hart’s position. While Hart may acknowledge a development in how Jesus’ deity is revealed across the Gospel, he does not argue that the prologue presents a subordinationist Christology, He only asserts that the revelation of the coequality of the Logos is yet withheld in the prologue. Hart explicitly states that the anarthrous theos in John 1:1c emphasizes the Logos’ continuity of divinity with the Father. This continuity excludes the idea of a subordinate or derivative divinity, as Hart rejects the JW/Arian reading of “a divine being,” which would imply such Arian subordination. Hart’s commentary on John 20:28 aligns with this view, portraying it as the narrative’s climactic moment where Jesus is explicitly acknowledged as ho theos (God in the fullest sense). However, this does not negate the Logos’ deity as stated in John 1:1c.

3. "Hart allows for the possibility that Thomas is praising God, not Jesus."

This is incorrect. Hart explicitly addresses the grammar of John 20:28, pointing out that the phrase eipen auto (“he said to him”) leaves no ambiguity: Thomas is directly addressing only one person: Jesus. The possessive pronoun mou (“my”) further underscores Thomas’ personal recognition of Jesus as “my Lord and my God.” Hart does discuss historical debates around the interpretation of this verse, but his own conclusion is clear—Thomas’ confession directly ascribes full divinity to Jesus, aligning with the Gospel’s broader theological framework.

4. "What part of 'there is not co-equality' do you not understand?"

This is a misrepresentation of Hart’s statements. When Hart says the prologue does not explicitly assert co-equality, he refers to the limitations of the prologue’s language and conceptual framework relative to later Nicene formulations. And you still haven't grasped the elementary logical principle that denying a statement is not the same as asserting its negation. This does not mean the prologue negates co-equality; it simply means that the language of Nicene orthodoxy was developed later to articulate what is already implicit in the Johannine text. Hart’s rejection of the term theios and his emphasis on the qualitative use of theos in John 1:1c affirm the Logos’ full participation in the divine essence, excluding subordinationism.

5. "Hart’s whole point is that John 1:1 has a different view of the Logos than later Nicene orthodoxy."

Hart acknowledges that the theological language of the prologue is not identical to that of Nicene orthodoxy because the latter represents a more developed doctrinal articulation. However, this does not mean Hart views the prologue as incompatible with Nicene orthodoxy. On the contrary, Hart argues that the prologue presents the Logos as fully divine, participating in the same essence as the Father. This is consistent with Nicene theology, which builds upon the Scriptural foundation provided by texts like John 1:1.

6. "Hart describes Arius holding the traditional view and Nicaea representing novelty."

This claim misrepresents Hart’s position. Hart acknowledges the diversity of early Christian theological thought but does not endorse the view that Arianism represents the traditional apostolic faith. Instead, he situates Arianism within the broader spectrum of early Christological debates and recognizes the Nicene Creed as a formal clarification of the apostolic tradition. Hart explicitly rejects the reduction of the Logos to a created being, which is central to Arianism, affirming instead the Logos’ full divinity and continuity with the Father.

7. "Stop trying to ventriloquise him to support your theology."

This accusation is unfounded. Your argument carefully distinguishes between Hart’s grammatical observations and his theological conclusions. You have demonstrated that Hart rejects the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ reading of John 1:1c (Psalm 82-sense “divine being”, which is basically: nothing special) and affirms the Logos’ full divinity. Your use of Hart’s commentary is not ventriloquism but a faithful representation of his views.

73

Rekindled Light — The Narrative Structure of the Hexaemeron (Genesis 1:1–31)

by Mebaqqer2 in

i used to comment here many years ago when i had an interest in biblical research in relation to jehovah’s witnesses.

these days my biblical research is little concerned with jehovah’s witnesses.

i feel my time is better spent researching the diachronistic development of the biblical text and ascertaining what the biblical writers and editors intended in the times in which they lived.. i have recently placed a summary diagram for a paper that i have written with original research entitled the narrative structure of the hexaemeron on academia.edu.

aqwsed12345

While the aim of your work is clearly not theological but structural, the Catholic tradition allows for a synthesis of theological insight with literary and exegetical precision, thus providing a comprehensive framework for evaluating your ideas. Your critique of symmetrical arrangements and the proposal for a more textually inherent narrative structure is insightful and commendable in its methodological rigor. The emphasis on understanding the text through its own internal markers, such as the "And Elohim said" formula and the division into twenty-two works, is consistent with the Catholic tradition's respect for the integrity of Scripture. This respect aligns with the Church's teaching that the sacred author intended to communicate profound truths, even while using the literary and cultural tools of his time.

Your analysis of textual divisions and thematic patterns aligns with the idea that Genesis may reflect a visionary revelation given to Adam, Moses, or the sacred author. The structuring of days into thematic aliquots of preparation and population corresponds to a logical and revelatory sequence that is conducive to both theological reflection and narrative coherence. This vision theory, as espoused by Church Fathers like St. Augustine and later commentators, supports the notion that the six days may represent a divinely ordered framework of understanding rather than a purely historical chronology.

However, your explicit dismissal of theological concerns such as the concordance between Genesis and other parts of Scripture may overlook the integral unity of biblical revelation. While your focus on narrative structure is valuable, a Catholic exegete would argue that the Hexaemeron cannot be fully understood in isolation from its theological context. The Church teaches that Scripture, inspired by the Holy Spirit, is unified and consistent in its purpose of revealing divine truths. By setting aside questions of how the Hexaemeron relates to other biblical passages, your approach risks fragmenting the unity of divine revelation.

Moreover, the exclusion of theological implications, such as the relationship between the Hexaemeron and the Sabbath, is problematic from a Catholic standpoint. The Sabbath is not merely a thematic or structural conclusion to the Hexaemeron but a theological anchor, deeply intertwined with the liturgical and moral life of the faithful. This connection underscores the Hexaemeron's role in revealing not only the origins of creation but also the ultimate purpose of rest and worship in God.

Your criticism of earlier attempts to harmonize the Hexaemeron with Platonic or scientific cosmologies is valid in highlighting the dangers of eisegesis—imposing external frameworks on the text. However, the Catholic tradition values the interplay of faith and reason. Theological interpretation is not a distortion but an endeavor to understand the text in light of both natural and supernatural knowledge. The Church does not demand a rigid concordism but encourages interpretations that respect the sacred text while engaging with scientific and philosophical insights.

The division of the six days into thematic compartments and the emphasis on textual patterns offer valuable contributions to understanding the Hexaemeron. However, these insights should be integrated with the theological depth that Catholic tradition insists upon. The Catholic perspective would see your structural analysis as reinforcing, rather than diminishing, the theological richness of Genesis, affirming its role as a visionary depiction of divine action that communicates timeless truths about creation, order, and God's sovereignty.

In conclusion, your work represents a significant step in literary and structural analysis of the Hexaemeron. Still, a Catholic response must emphasize the need to engage these insights within the broader theological and doctrinal context that sees Genesis not merely as a narrative but as divine revelation. The tardema-vision approach, with its synthesis of historical and theological elements, offers a framework where your structural insights can illuminate, rather than detract from, the spiritual and doctrinal depth of the 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

@slimboyfat

You didn't react to the fact that you can't move on from waving the names of authority figures, like a dog that has always been chained and, although the chain is no longer there, doesn't dare to leave its familiar place. You don't dare to make an independent statement without bringing up some authority figure, do you need someone to hold your hand?

You don't even understand elementary logic: the assertion that, according to Hart, the Johannine prologue does not clearly declare the constubstantiality does not mean that it negates it, nor does it mean that it asserts Arian subordinationism. You cite Hart as saying:

“It is still saying the Logos is ‘god’ but is not equating it there with God most high...”

The phrase "is not equating" simply means that it does not assert it, but does not mean it also negates it. Not asserting is not the same as negating. Elementary logic, do you understand what that is? Hart also says that it is asserted later, so he could not have understood the statement "is not equating" as a negation, it is just an assertion of the yet lack of clear assertion. This statement reflects Hart’s acknowledgment of the anarthrous (lacking the definite article) theos in John 1:1c, a grammatical feature that emphasizes the qualitative nature of the Logos’ divinity. Hart explicitly rejects the interpretation that this means the Logos is a subordinate or lesser being. In fact, he clarifies:

“The text clearly means to assert some kind of continuity of divinity between God the Father and the Logos, not merely some sort of association between ‘God proper’ and ‘a divine being.’”

Thus, Hart’s point is that the Logos shares in the divine nature of the Father, even while maintaining distinct personhood. He rejects the idea that the Logos is “God most high” in the sense of being the Father but affirms the Logos’ full divinity, which rules out subordinationist readings like those promoted by the JWs.

You reference Hart’s statement:

“…you can read say Eusebius before Nicaea gives you a pretty clear notion of what many consider to be orthodox Christianity in which there is not a co-equality, there is a continuity but it is vague.”

This statement highlights the historical development of doctrinal language, not a denial of the Logos’ full divinity. Early Christian theology was still formalizing the language needed to express the relationship between the Father and the Son. Hart is describing the diversity of pre-Nicene thought, not endorsing subordinationism. He situates this diversity within the broader trajectory that culminates in Nicene orthodoxy. By focusing on Eusebius, you ignore that even he, despite his hesitation about the term homoousios (one in essence), affirmed Christ’s divine pre-existence and unique relationship with the Father. The so-called “vagueness” Hart mentions refers to terminology, not the essential belief in the Logos’ divinity.

You cite John 17:3 as proof of Jesus’ non-deity. John 17:3 proves monotheism at best, not Unitarianism, this does not deny that Jesus is God, although in his state of self-emptying the Son understandably did not emphasize his deity in prayer. This verse says that “the Father is the only, true God” (which is in accordance with Trinitarian teaching), but it does not say that “only the Father is true God alone” (like the JW eisegesis reads it), there is a clear difference between the two propositions. This verse must be read within the broader Johannine context, which repeatedly emphasizes Jesus’ unity with the Father:

John 10:30: “I and the Father are one.”
John 14:9: “Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father.”
John 5:18: Jesus “was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.”

John 17:3 highlights the Father’s role as the source of the divine plan, but it does not negate the Son’s deity. The term “only true God” affirms monotheism, while “Jesus Christ whom you have sent” underscores the relational distinction within the Godhead. It does not reduce Christ to a mere creature or deny his divine nature. The syncategorematical use of "only" (monos) in John 17:3 emphasizes exclusivity without necessitating exclusion of the Son or Spirit. The term "only true God" does not imply that the Father is the only person who can possess divine attributes. In fact, similar restrictive language is used elsewhere in Scripture without excluding other members of the Godhead Jude 4 describes Jesus as “our only Master and Lord.” This does not exclude the Father from being Lord or Master, as seen in Matthew 11:25. In John 10:30, Jesus declares, “I and the Father are one,” emphasizing their shared divine essence and work, particularly in granting eternal life (John 10:28-30). Restrictive terms like “only” are often used in contexts that affirm uniqueness in one sense while allowing shared attributes in another. In John 17:3, the Father is identified as the source of divine authority within the Trinity, while the Son is the mediator through whom eternal life is granted. So a syncategorematical use of "only" (monos), just like for example in Jude 4. So "monos" does not exclude other divine persons from being the true God, but it excludes foreign gods, hence this simply asserts monotheism, not unitarianism.

FYI: Does John 17:3 Disprove the Trinity?

You dismiss Richard Bauckham and Larry Hurtado as engaging in “Trinitarian apologetics.” However, their work is grounded in rigorous scholarship and reflects the historical and theological realities of Second Temple Jewish monotheism. Bauckham demonstrates that early Christians included Jesus within the unique identity of Yahweh, a key marker of monotheism. Hurtado’s concept of “cultic devotion” highlights the unprecedented worship of Jesus alongside the Father in the earliest Christian communities, which is incompatible with subordinationism. Their conclusions are based on historical evidence, not mere apologetics, as you claim. Dismissing their work without substantive engagement is not a valid critique.

Hart does not argue that the Logos’ divinity is “vague” in an ontological sense but rather that pre-Nicene terminology lacked precision. He affirms that the Johannine prologue (John 1:1) and Thomas’s confession (John 20:28) present the Logos as fully divine:

“The withholding of the full revelation of Christ as ho theos, God in the fullest sense, until Thomas confesses him as such in the light of Easter, must be seen as an intentional authorial tactic.”

This climactic revelation aligns with the prologue’s declaration that “the Word was God.” Hart explicitly rejects the idea that the Logos is a lesser being or a created entity.

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

Aren't you tired of arguing about authority? Why don't you respond to my arguments instead of insisting on what Hart thought or understood, as if the truth depended on Hart's opinion. I've argued with you about this many times, that I don't want to argue with the names you throw around, but with you directly. Or should I call you Dr. Ad Verecundiam?

Or is this how you work? When you sit down to read a book, do you always have a highlighter in your hand? You actually read books to find yummy quotes that you can throw at your interlocutors during online discussions, making it easy work for you, since you are able to list three, four, or even five very smart professors, and then your interlocutors can wrestle with them instead of you from then on. "They can't be wrong, huh? They are many, they have PhDs, do you?"

Well, this has made it certain that you are incapable of independent thought, nor are you capable of any substantive refutation. You are a kind of glossator, a compiler, from whom the Middle Ages extracted a cartload. They did not need great independence, a sharp mind, or knowledge of the Bible - only a few books of the Church Fathers, from which he could write another. Such people were needed in centuries of spiritual and material decay, but in today's age these glossators are certainly not of much use.

Hart acknowledges historical debates about the interpretation of Thomas’s confession but ultimately argues that John 20:28 presents Jesus as ho theos in the fullest sense of divinity. Hart describes this moment as a deliberate narrative culmination in John’s Gospel:

"The withholding of the full revelation of Christ as ho theos, God in the fullest sense, until Thomas confesses him as such in the light of Easter, must be seen as an intentional authorial tactic."

"John’s prologue does not give us a co-equal Son. John 20 does."

This statement clearly indicates that Hart views Thomas’s confession as theologically definitive within the Johannine narrative. While he may acknowledge alternative interpretations discussed historically, he himself aligns with the traditional understanding that Thomas explicitly addresses Jesus as "my Lord and my God." The grammatical construction, particularly the phrase εἶπεν αὐτῷ ("he said to him"), confirms that Thomas is speaking directly to Jesus, ruling out the possibility of it being an exclamation directed to the Father. Hart's recognition of historical debates is not the same as affirming ambiguity. Rather, he situates these debates within the broader theological framework of early Christian thought. His description of alternative views is meant to provide historical context, not to endorse those views as equally valid. When he states that Thomas's confession reveals Jesus as ho theos, he emphasizes its climactic role in confirming the Logos’ divine identity, consistent with the Gospel's prologue.

Hart’s use of "continuity of divinity" in John 1:1 does not imply (ontological) subordination or inequality between the Logos and the Father. Instead, it reflects the Logos’ intrinsic participation in the divine essence. Hart explicitly contrasts the anarthrous theos in John 1:1c with the Greek term theios, which would have suggested derivative or subordinate divinity. By choosing theos, the evangelist emphasizes the Logos’ full divine nature, albeit distinct in personhood from the Father:

"The text clearly means to assert some kind of continuity of divinity between God the Father and the Logos, not merely some sort of association between ‘God proper’ and ‘a divine being.’"

Hart’s rejection of the term theios underscores his view that the Logos is not merely "godlike" or a created being, as subordinationists claim. Instead, the Logos fully participates in the divine essence, consistent with Nicene orthodoxy. Hart’s comment about pre-Nicene theology being "vague" regarding co-equality reflects the historical development of doctrinal language, not a rejection of the Logos’ divinity. Early Christian thinkers, such as Eusebius, may have lacked the precise terminology later formalized at Nicaea, but this does not negate the underlying belief in the Logos’ divine nature. Hart situates these early theological discussions within the broader trajectory that culminates in Nicene orthodoxy, affirming the Logos’ full divinity as consistent with the apostolic tradition.

Hart explicitly rejects interpretations that subordinate the Logos to the Father, including the Arian and Jehovah’s Witnesses’ reading of John 1:1 as "a god":

"Some other scholars have chosen to render the inarticular form of theos as ‘a divine being,’ but this seems wrong to me... The text clearly means to assert some kind of continuity of divinity between God the Father and the Logos."

By rejecting subordinationist readings, Hart affirms that the Logos shares the same divine essence as the Father, consistent with the Johannine prologue’s declaration that "the Word was God." I'll write it in all caps this time so you understand: What I'm basically saying that

HART MAYY NOT UNIVOCALLY AND EXPLICITLY REJECTS WHAT THE NWT WRITES, BUT HE DOES REJECT WHAT THE WTS MEANS BY IT, AND HOW THE JWS EAD IT.

Could you finally please shift the focus to this?

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

It’s true that Hart lists "god" and "a divine being" separately, but this is not to suggest they are categorically distinct. Hart's commentary reflects nuanced grammatical and theological considerations, where both terms relate to possible, though contextually problematic, interpretations of the anarthrous theos in John 1:1c. You also make the mistake of focusing on superficial differences, the lowercase of the word "god," and not considering that the JWs would mean something completely different than Hart. Hart's lowercase of the word "god" means that one whose coequality is not yet fully revealed, that is, still unclear. The JWs read this precisely in the sense of "a divine being," as Psalm 82 uses it. But in fact, the JWs view all unfallen angels as "gods," and even all humans who act in God's behalf, so in effect, the JWs read John 1:1c as "the Logos was [or used to be] an unfallen archangel representing Jehovah." Well, Hart's translation footnote explicitly rejects this interpretation. He writes:

"Some other scholars have chosen to render the inarticular form of theos as ‘a divine being,’ but this seems wrong to me... The text clearly means to assert some kind of continuity of divinity between God the Father and the Logos."

By pointing out the problematic nature of rendering theos as "a divine being," Hart effectively critiques any interpretation that treats the Logos as less than fully divine. Although "a god" and "a divine being" may carry slight semantic differences, both terms fail to align with the Logos' theological significance in John's Gospel, as Hart himself emphasizes the Logos' continuity with the Father's divinity. Hart’s rejection of "a divine being" applies equally to the JW reading of the rendering "a god" because both introduce a subordinationist or henotheistic framework. While the words differ, the theological implications overlap. His critique is broad enough to encompass both phrases, invalidating the Jehovah's Witnesses' rendering of "a god."

Hart acknowledges that the lowercase "god" is grammatically possible due to the anarthrous theos. However, grammatical possibility does not equal theological endorsement. Hart explicitly critiques the theological premise behind the NWT’s rendering in the way JWs read it. The NWT’s translation fundamentally undermines this "continuity of divinity" by relegating the Logos to a subordinate "god." Hart’s rejection of this premise is clear, even as he discusses the grammatical flexibility of the Greek. Recognizing a possibility is not the same as endorsing it. For instance, grammatically, “John ran quickly” could mean “John sprinted,” but it could also mean “John dashed off in a hurry.” Hart explores potential meanings while grounding his interpretation in theological and contextual coherence. He explicitly avoids readings that contradict the overarching theology of John's Gospel.

The claim that Constantine sought "a united statement of faith" at Nicaea is historically accurate, but Hart’s acknowledgment of this fact does not imply that Constantine introduced Trinitarian theology. Hart critiques simplistic narratives about Constantine’s involvement, but he does not argue that the Nicene Creed represents an imposition of Roman politics. Instead, Hart situates the Nicene Creed within the broader context of doctrinal development. While Hart acknowledges pre-Nicene diversity, this does not equate to dismissing the Nicene settlement as illegitimate or unorthodox. His historical observations do not endorse Arianism or the Jehovah's Witnesses' concept of a "Great Apostasy." They reflect the complexities of theological evolution. Some resources for you:

Hart’s comparison between John’s Logos and Philo’s is nuanced and does not imply equivalence. Philo’s Logos is a metaphysical intermediary, while John’s Logos is explicitly identified as divine (theos). Hart observes shared terminology, but he also highlights differences in theological context. For example, Philo’s Logos does not carry the incarnational or salvific dimensions present in John’s Gospel. Hart acknowledges parallels but does not reduce John’s Logos to Philo’s framework. This distinction is critical, as the Logos in John’s Gospel possesses divine continuity with the Father, a concept absent from Philo’s writings.

You claim Hart does not view Thomas’s confession as definitive evidence of Christ’s divinity. However, Hart explicitly identifies John 20:28 as a climactic moment in the Gospel:

"The withholding of the full revelation of Christ as ho theos, God in the fullest sense, until Thomas confesses him as such in the light of Easter, must be seen as an intentional authorial tactic."

"John’s prologue does not give us a co-equal Son. John 20 does."

Hart does not assert that this passage is ambiguous. He affirms that Thomas addresses Jesus as ho theos ("the God"), recognizing Jesus' divine identity, and that John 20 does give us a co-equal Son. The phrase "εἶπεν αὐτῷ" ("he said to him") confirms that Thomas's confession is directed solely to Jesus, not to the Father. Hart’s acknowledgment of historical debates does not negate his conclusion that John presents Thomas’s confession as the culmination of the Logos’ full revelation.

You claim Hart relies solely on evidence and not theological motivations. However, Hart’s approach integrates linguistic analysis, theological context, and historical tradition. He critiques the NWT’s rendering because it fails both linguistically and theologically. Linguistically, the anarthrous theos in John 1:1c functions qualitatively, emphasizing the Logos’ divine essence rather than denoting a separate deity. Theologically, Hart rejects subordinationism, affirming the Logos’ continuity of divinity with the Father. Hart’s rejection of the NWT’s interpretation stems from its incompatibility with John’s monotheistic framework and its reduction of the Logos to a lesser deity.

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 the doctrine of the Trinity was “imposed” on Christianity through a “great apostasy” orchestrated by the Roman Empire, as some groups like Jehovah’s Witnesses argue, encounters significant historical challenges. This perspective posits that the Roman state, beginning with Constantine, allegedly sought to “paganize” Christianity by “forcing” a Trinitarian theology upon the Church. However, examining the historical and theological developments of early Christianity reveals that this theory is highly implausible and inconsistent with the evidence available from diverse and geographically distant Christian communities, far from the cultural and political influence of Greco-Roman civilization.

Before the so-called Constantinian shift in the early 4th century, the Christian faith had already spread widely beyond the boundaries of the Roman Empire into regions such as Mesopotamia, Persia, India, and parts of Africa. These Christian communities developed in cultural and political contexts far removed from Roman influence and often existed in isolation from one another. Despite their distance, these communities—such as the Church of the East in Persia, the Saint Thomas Christians in India, the Ethiopian Church, and others—demonstrated striking theological unity on core doctrines, including belief in the deity of Christ and the triune nature of God.

The idea that Constantine or later Roman emperors could have successfully imposed a Trinitarian theology on these distant and independent communities is historically untenable. Many of these churches were already established long before Constantine's reign and functioned under the political control of rival empires, such as the Sasanian Empire in Persia, which was often hostile to Rome. The Persian Church, for instance, had no political motivation to align itself with Roman theological developments. Yet, despite their separation, these Christians shared theological views that aligned with Trinitarian Christianity, suggesting that the doctrine's acceptance was organic and rooted in the early apostolic tradition, not a later political imposition.

The claim of a "great apostasy" further fails to account for the strong opposition Constantine faced even within the Roman Empire regarding theological controversies. Constantine himself, though influential in convening the Council of Nicaea in 325, did not dictate theological outcomes. The council's participants were bishops from various regions, many of whom had suffered persecution under previous emperors and were unlikely to acquiesce to imperial dictates against their theological convictions. The debates at Nicaea focused on clarifying longstanding theological issues, not introducing novel ideas. The Nicene Creed articulated the Church’s understanding of Christ's divinity, an understanding that predated Constantine and is evident in earlier writings, such as those of Ignatius of Antioch (c. 35–108), Justin Martyr (c. 100–165), and Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 130–202).

Moreover, the claim that Trinitarian doctrine was a “paganization” of Christianity does not hold up under scrutiny. While the term "Trinity" was formally defined in later theological discussions, the concept of one God existing in three persons—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—has biblical roots. Scriptural passages such as Matthew 28:19, where Jesus commands baptism "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," reflect an early Trinitarian understanding. Likewise, the writings of early Church Fathers often emphasize the divinity of Christ and the Holy Spirit alongside the Father, long before Constantine's involvement in Christian affairs.

It is also essential to note that many non-Trinitarian interpretations, such as Arianism, were not a result of early Christian purity but were instead theological innovations that emerged in the 4th century. Arianism's claim that Christ was a created being and completely separate from God the Father was rejected by the majority of the Church because it deviated from the apostolic tradition and scriptural testimony. The widespread rejection of Arianism among Christian communities, even those outside Roman political control, further undermines the argument that Trinitarianism was a later Roman "fabrication."

Finally, the notion that Trinitarian belief was "imposed" overlooks the martyrdom and resilience of early Christians who upheld their faith against imperial persecution. If the Roman state had sought to "paganize" Christianity, it is difficult to reconcile this with the fact that Christian believers, including many bishops and theologians, willingly endured imprisonment, torture, and execution rather than compromise their beliefs. The commitment of early Christians to their faith, even in the face of death, suggests that their theology was deeply rooted in conviction and tradition, not political convenience.

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

I primarily relied to the footnote in Hart's Bible translation, and I also looked up what he wrote in other places, and it is clear that Hart explicitly negates the way JWs read and understand the NWT rendering, and asserts that the evangelist avoided the word theios precisely because it would imply a derivative or subordinate divinity, akin to how the JWs read and understand the rendering “a god.” Instead, Hart argues that the anarthrous theos in John 1:1c emphasizes the Logos' continuity of divinity with the Father. This rules the JW reading of a “a god,” which reduces the Logos to a lesser being, and Hart explicitly rejects the theological premise behind the NWT's rendering.

Didn't you read my criticism about focusing not on the words and typography, but on what Hart means by it? What Hart says is a mere grammatical possibility taken in itself, JWs consider an undoubted fact, and Hart means something completely different by the lowercase "god" than JWs do. You simply ignore the critical distinction between mere grammatical possibility and theological validity as well. Hart discusses the grammatical flexibility of the Greek but unequivocally rejects the JW (Arian) reading of the rendering “a god” as a theologically accurate interpretation. According to Hart, this is not contextually or theologically appropriate:

1. On Theological Context:

“The text clearly means to assert some kind of continuity of divinity between God the Father and the Logos, not merely some sort of association between ‘God proper’ and ‘a divine being.’”

2. On Grammatical Precision:

“If that were all the evangelist were saying, he could have used the perfectly serviceable Greek word theios.”

Hart explicitly rejects the JW interpretations of the NWT’s “a god” because they fail to capture the Logos’ qualitative divinity and its continuity with the Father. While Hart acknowledges mere grammatical possibilities, he does not endorse them as valid theological readings.

Your quote is also a mere historical observation about the diversity of early Christian theology ("what many [not everyone, not even the majority] consider to be orthodox Christianity"), not an endorsement of Arianism or subordinationism. Hart is describing how early Christian thinkers, prior to the formalization [not the "introduction", or "imposition"] of Nicene orthodoxy, grappled with the relationship between the Logos and the Father. This does not mean Hart agrees with subordinationist or Arian interpretations or the JW notion of an alleged "Great Apostasy"; rather, he situates those views within the broader historical context. While Hart acknowledges that early Christian thought included a spectrum of views, but he firmly rejects the reduction of the Logos to a created or subordinate being, which is central to Arianism and the JW theology, nor does it argue that the original apostolic faith was replaced as part of some imperial conspiracy.

Regarding John 20:28, Hart acknowledges historical debates but ultimately affirms that Thomas’s confession reveals Jesus as ho theos in the fullest sense. He writes:

“It seems to me that the withholding of the full revelation of Christ as ho theos, God in the fullest sense, until Thomas confesses him as such in the light of Easter, must be seen as an intentional authorial tactic.”

Hart recognizes that John’s Gospel builds toward a climactic revelation of Jesus’ divine identity. While he notes that some early Christians debated the meaning of Thomas’s confession, Hart himself affirms its theological significance. He explicitly rejects the idea that Thomas’s declaration is merely an exclamation or honorific, as it directly addresses Jesus:

The phrase εἶπεν αὐτῷ (“he said to him”, not not "to them", not one for Christ, the other for some kind of "Jehovah") confirms that Thomas is speaking only to one person, to Christ, not the Father.
The possessive pronoun μου (“my”) emphasizes Thomas’s personal recognition of Jesus as both Lord and God.

Hart situates John 20:28 within the Gospel’s overarching narrative, where the Logos is progressively revealed as fully divine. This culminates in Thomas’s confession, which mirrors the prologue's declaration that “the Word was God.”

A religious Jew might use the phrase "מָרֵי וֵאלָהָי" (Marei w-Elohai) in prayer, meditation, or Torah study when addressing God directly, expressing profound gratitude, submission, or awe. It could also be uttered in moments of introspection or during a heartfelt plea for guidance or forgiveness. This phrase is directed solely to God, as it would not be appropriate to use it for addressing a human being in the Jewish faith due to its sanctified nature. In an ancient Jewish context, it would have at least extremely unlikely for the phrase "Marei w-Elohai" to be used casually or directed toward another person in moments of surprise or emotional outburst, as phrases involving the name of God (Elohai) were treated with great reverence. Jewish tradition, both ancient and modern, generally avoids casual or irreverent use of God's name or titles (cf. Exodus 20:7). This phrase, specifically meaning "My Lord and my God," would have been reserved for solemn, prayerful, or deeply devotional contexts, always directed exclusively toward the Almighty God. Using it in a way similar to expressions like "Oh my God!" in modern everyday English to address a human being in surprise or emotion would likely have been considered inappropriate or even blasphemous within Jewish religious norms. Cultural norms of the ancient world also emphasized the sacred nature of God's name, making it unlikely for such phrases to be used informally or without careful intention.

406

Is Jesus the Creator?

by Sea Breeze in

that's what the word says.

.

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

aqwsed12345

@Earnest

No one has argued for a modalist/Sabellian reading of John 20:28, the Gospel of John consistently distinguishes between the Father and the Son (e.g., John 1:1-2; 5:19-23; 17:1-5). Thomas’s declaration does not conflate Jesus with the Father but acknowledges Jesus's fully divine nature as the Son who shares in the essence of God. The Greek phrase εἶπεν αὐτῷ (“he said to him”) indicates that Thomas is addressing Jesus directly. The nominative forms ὁ κύριός μου (“my Lord”) and ὁ θεός μου (“my God”) function as vocative forms in Koine Greek. Thomas’s words are not directed to the Father but directly to Jesus. Modalism claims that God is a single person who appears in different "modes" (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). This heresy is contradicted by the relational distinctions consistently presented in John's Gospel.

In first-century Jewish culture, invoking God's name flippantly, as in “Oh my God!” would constitute blasphemy (Exodus 20:7; Leviticus 24:16). Thomas, a devout Jew, would not utter such an exclamation. Jesus does not rebuke Thomas for blasphemy or a mistaken declaration. Instead, He commends Thomas’s belief: "Because you have seen me, you have believed" (John 20:29). This affirmation confirms that Thomas’s words were a true confession of faith. The phrase “my God” is used over 100 times in the Bible, and in every instance, it refers to YHWH, the one true God of Israel (e.g. Psalm 35:23, Revelation 4:11). For a pious Jew like Thomas to call Jesus "my God" signifies his recognition of Jesus as fully divine. In John 20:28, Thomas applies this language directly to Jesus, aligning with the Gospel's high Christology.

In Psalm 35:23, the Hebrew phrase אֱלֹהַ֖י וַאדֹנָ֣י (’ĕlōhay wa-’ăḏōnay, "My God and my Lord") demonstrates a close parallel to the Peshitta's rendering of John 20:28. The Psalmist's invocation of God combines two divine titles, indicating both a personal relationship ("my God") and reverence for God’s sovereign authority ("my Lord"). The Targum to this verse also uses אֱלֹהַי וּמָרֵי (Ĕlohāy ū-Mārēy), confirming the use of these terms in a similar liturgical or devotional context. The Peshitta’s Aramaic translation of John 20:28 reads: ܡܳܪܝ ܘܰܐܠܳܗܝ (Mari w-Alahi), which directly translates to "My Lord and my God." Psalm 35:23, in both its Hebrew form (’ĕlōhay wa-’ăḏōnay) and its Targumic translation (Ĕlohāy ū-Mārēy), serves as a linguistic and theological precedent. The structure and terminology in John 20:28 align with the Psalm’s pairing of divine titles. This suggests that Thomas’ exclamation was not an innovation but was deeply rooted in the Jewish linguistic and theological tradition of addressing God. In first-century Palestine, the conversation between Thomas and Jesus likely occurred in Aramaic. Based on the Peshitta’s rendering and the linguistic evidence from the Hebrew Bible and its Targum, Thomas may have said something like: "מָרֵי וֵאלָהָי" (Marei w-Elohai). This reflects the natural way an Aramaic-speaking Jew would declare devotion and recognize divine authority. The declaration in John 20:28 is extraordinary because it is addressed directly to Jesus. In Jewish monotheism, such titles were reserved exclusively for Yahweh. By invoking both "My Lord" and "My God," Thomas expresses not just respect but worship, equating Jesus with the God (Yahweh). This aligns with Christian theology, affirming Jesus’ divine nature as fully God (as in John 1:1) and fully man.

The text explicitly states that Thomas "said to Him" (εἶπεν αὐτῷ), meaning the whole statement is directed at Jesus, not at the Father. There is no grammatical or contextual basis for redirecting Thomas's words to the Father. The context of John 20:24-29 focuses entirely on Jesus’s resurrection and Thomas's doubt. When Jesus invites Thomas to touch His wounds, Thomas responds with a direct confession of Jesus's identity: "My Lord and my God." This moment reflects Thomas's recognition of Jesus as both his risen Lord and his divine God. Thomas’s confession serves as the climactic conclusion of John’s Gospel, paralleling the prologue: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Thomas’s declaration reaffirms the divine identity of Jesus as introduced in John 1:1. The direct object pronoun ("to him") in both Greek (αὐτῷ) and Aramaic (ܠܶܗ) unambiguously points to Jesus as the recipient of the declaration. The immediate context—Thomas addressing Jesus after seeing his wounds—reinforces that this exclamation is directed at Jesus, not the Father.

While ho theos generally refers to the Father (just like ho kyrios generally refers to Christ in the NT), it is also used for Jesus in contexts that affirm His divine nature (cf. Hebrews 1:8). In John 20:28, Thomas uses ho theos to acknowledge Jesus’s divine essence, consistent with these other passages. It was only the ignorant linguists of the Watchtower Society who invented that the anarthrous theos necessarily means some kind of minor “god” (that can only be understood in some henotheistic framework), i.e. essentially a good archangel, while only ho theos denotes the proper sense God. As we see, there are also examples where the Son is called ho theos - and of course the Father is also called anarthrous theos in the NT. The possessive pronoun μου (“my”) emphasizes a personal relationship and allegiance to Jesus as his Lord and God. For Thomas, a devout Jew, to address Jesus this way unequivocally affirms Jesus's full divinity.

@Blotty

You claim Hart’s critique is "only" about rendering “theios” as ‘a divine being,’ not about “theos” in John 1:1c. This misreads Hart's intent. Hart does not address “theos” and “theios” as isolated concepts here but uses the absence of “theios” to argue that John 1:1c (which uses “theos”) is not describing the Logos as “a divine being” in the sense of a subordinate or lesser deity. Hart's key point is that if John had intended to describe the Logos as a lesser, derivative divinity (the kind implied by the NWT’s “a god”), the Greek word “theios”—commonly used in Greek for something divine, godlike but not fully God—would have been the appropriate choice. The absence of “theios” and the use of “theos” instead, even in its anarthrous form, underscores the qualitative divine nature of the Logos, rather than relegating it to the category of a secondary or lesser deity. Hart states, “Some other scholars have chosen to render the inarticular form of “theos” as ‘a divine being,’ but this seems wrong to me on two counts.” This is explicitly about the anarthrous “theos” in John 1:1c, not a general comment on “theios.” The inclusion of “theios” in his critique serves to highlight why the evangelist’s choice of “theos” carries deeper theological implications.

You ask, “Where does Hart explicitly reject the JW interpretation?” The rejection is evident in Hart's broader discussion about the qualitative nature of “theos” in John 1:1c and his critique of subordinationist interpretations. Hart’s commentary addresses the NWT’s rendering, even if he doesn’t name the JWs specifically. Hart rejects a reading of the Logos as merely “a divine being”, as the JWs read the NWT’s rendering (“a god”). Hart: “The text clearly means to assert some kind of continuity of divinity between God the Father and the Logos, not merely some sort of association between ‘God proper’ and ‘a divine being.’” This is a clear dismissal of any interpretation, like the NWT’s, that views the Logos as a subordinate, secondary deity. The NWT explicitly renders “theos” as “a god,” which aligns with what Hart calls “some sort of association” rather than an essential continuity of divinity. The JW interpretation negates this continuity by rendering “theos,” suggesting a separate, inferior divine being. Hart’s emphasis on “continuity of divinity” rules out this possibility.

Hart critiques the JWs’s reading (“If that were all the evangelist were saying, he could have used the perfectly serviceable Greek word ‘theios’.”) By pointing out that “theios” was not used, Hart emphasizes that the author of John intentionally used “theos” to indicate a qualitative divine essence. This directly counters the NWT’s interpretation of “theos” as referring to a lesser divine being, which would have warranted “theios.”

Hart situates his interpretation of John 1:1c within a Trinitarian theological framework, acknowledging the Logos’ divine essence while maintaining a distinction from the Father. This is incompatible with the JW interpretation, which negates the Logos’ full divinity and subordinates it to the Father. The NWT interpretation relies on a misunderstanding of the anarthrous “theos” as indefinite (“a god”), rather than qualitative. Hart explicitly critiques this approach by noting that John’s Gospel does not describe the Logos as a separate or subordinate divine being but as one who shares in the divine essence. The distinction Hart draws between “theos” and “theios” highlights the evangelist’s intention to describe the Logos as fully divine, not as a created or subordinate entity. The NWT’s rendering contradicts this by implying a polytheistic framework, treating the Logos as a lesser deity akin to “a divine being” (out of several other possible similar divine beings, e.g. the “elohim” of Psalm 82).

You seem to focus narrowly on the immediate context of Hart’s discussion about “theios,” without considering its role in his broader argument. Hart uses the absence of “theios” to underscore why the anarthrous “theos” in John 1:1c cannot be rendered as “a god” and/or understood in an Arian sense. Hart’s critique of “a divine being” directly addresses the theological implications of such a reading. While he critiques “a divine being” as a general concept, the JW interpretation of “a god” falls squarely within the scope of his critique, as it reflects the same theological error.

You dismiss Hart’s rejection of the NWT interpretation by claiming he doesn’t “explicitly” say it. This is a misunderstanding of how theological critique operates. Hart’s argument explicitly refutes the premises underlying the NWT’s rendering, even if he does not directly name the NWT. Hart emphasizes the qualitative nature of “theos” in John 1:1c, which describes the Logos’ divine essence. This is antithetical to the NWT’s indefinite rendering and its normative JW reading, which introduces a subordinate deity incompatible with Johannine monotheism. Hart explicitly rejects readings that fail to recognize the continuity of divinity between the Father and the Logos. The NWT’s “a god” interpretation does precisely this, making Hart’s critique directly applicable.

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

While it is true that Jewish and Greco-Roman cultural influences shaped the intellectual and linguistic framework of the New Testament, this does not mean that the concept of the Logos or Christ is merely derivative of these sources. The Gospel of John, for example, adopts the term Logos from Hellenistic thought but radically reinterprets it within a Jewish monotheistic framework, presenting the Logos not as a demiurge but as the eternal, pre-existent Creator fully united with the one true God (John 1:1-3). This is not a passive borrowing but a deliberate theological innovation rooted in divine revelation. The argument assumes a purely human process of religious development, ignoring the self-understanding of early Christians. The early church did not view the figure of Christ as the product of centuries of theological elaboration, but as the fulfillment of divine revelation rooted in the Hebrew Scriptures and confirmed by Christ’s life, death, and resurrection (Luke 24:27, Acts 2:22-36).

Middle Platonism may have provided conceptual tools (e.g., terms like Logos), but Jewish theology was fundamentally resistant to the idea of a demiurge as an intermediary creator distinct from the one true God. The Jewish Scriptures are uncompromisingly monotheistic, affirming that God alone created the heavens and the earth (Isaiah 45:18, Genesis 1:1). Early Christians, including John, explicitly affirm this monotheism while identifying the Logos as fully divine and the agent of creation (John 1:3, Colossians 1:16). The Logos in John’s Gospel is not a demiurge or an emanation in the Middle Platonic sense. Middle Platonism posits a hierarchical metaphysical system where the demiurge is a lower, imperfect being. In contrast, John’s Logos is fully God (theos), not a lesser divine being or an emanation. The Gospel’s theology is fundamentally incompatible with Middle Platonic cosmology.

The Gospels and Pauline letters—written within decades of Jesus’ life—consistently affirm that Jesus claimed divine authority and prerogatives (e.g., forgiving sins in Mark 2:5-7, identifying himself with the divine name in John 8:58). The early Christian belief in Jesus as the Logos was not imposed on him posthumously but arose from his own teachings and actions, which his followers interpreted in light of their Jewish theological framework. The prologue of John’s Gospel (written in the late first century) already presents Jesus as the pre-existent Logos. This is too early for such a sophisticated theological concept to have been artificially imposed on a purely human figure without any basis in his life or teachings. The rapid spread of this belief across diverse Christian communities suggests that it reflects a shared conviction rooted in the apostles’ testimony, not a later theological development. The Gospels provide detailed accounts of Jesus’ life, ministry, and crucifixion, grounded in a specific historical and geographical context. Early non-Christian sources (e.g., Tacitus, Josephus) also affirm Jesus’ historical existence. If Jesus were a fictionalized version of the Logos, it would be inexplicable why his followers would invent a narrative of his humiliating death on a cross—a concept deeply offensive to both Jews and Gentiles (1 Corinthians 1:23). This points to the historical reality of Jesus’ life and crucifixion.

The central claims about Jesus as the Logos are present in the earliest Christian writings, such as Paul’s letters (e.g., Philippians 2:5-11, Colossians 1:15-20). These texts, written within 20-30 years of Jesus’ death, already articulate a high Christology that identifies Jesus as divine and the agent of creation. The theological elaboration of Christ’s identity (e.g., the Council of Nicaea) was not the creation of new ideas but the clarification and defense of apostolic teaching in response to heresies. The Nicene Creed reflects the church’s effort to articulate the mystery of the Trinity, not an invention of the doctrine.

Theology deals with metaphysical truths and divine revelation, which are not subject to empirical verification in the same way as physical phenomena. However, this does not mean theology is arbitrary or baseless. It is grounded in historical events (e.g., the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus) and coherent philosophical reasoning. The resurrection of Jesus, attested by multiple independent sources and the transformative experiences of his followers, provides a strong historical basis for Christian claims about his divine identity. This is empirical evidence in the historical sense, even if it transcends purely naturalistic explanations.

Your argument reduces the Christ/Logos concept to a purely human and philosophical construct, ignoring the historical and theological evidence that supports the divine revelation and historical reality of Jesus Christ. The Gospel of John’s use of Logos reflects a unique synthesis of Jewish monotheism and divine revelation, not a mere borrowing from Middle Platonic thought. The early Christian belief in Jesus as the Logos was not the result of centuries of theological elaboration but emerged from the lived experiences and testimonies of his first followers. The claim fails to account for the historical, theological, and scriptural evidence supporting the divine identity of Christ as the eternal Logos.

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

David Bentley Hart’s Orthodox Christian background is indeed significant, but it does not undermine the theological coherence of his commentary on John 1:1. As an Orthodox theologian, Hart adheres to the doctrine of the Trinity, and his interpretation of John 1:1 ultimately supports the Logos’ divine nature and continuity with God the Father. While Hart opts for unconventional phrasing to reflect the subtleties of the Greek, his theological conclusions align with Trinitarian orthodoxy.

The point is not the words used and the typography, but what the translator means by it. Hart lowercases “god” (without “a”) in John 1:1c because he believes that the Johannine prologue leaves open the question (i.e. does not state it explicitly) whether the Son Logos is fully God (according to Hart, John reserves this revelation for later), while the NWT renders it as "a god" because according to the JWs, John explicitly negates here (and everywhere else) that the Son is fully and properly God, but allegedly asserts that and only that the Son is "a god" in exactly the same way that the word "elohim" is used in Exodus 7:1 or Psalm 82 - i.e., essentially claiming that it doesn't mean anything special.

You are focusing on a superficial similarity (lowercase here and there) and are not addressing the actual difference in interpretation. So you shouldn't focus on what Hart or the NWT wrote, but on what they meant. Hart asserts "John’s prologue does not give us a co-equal Son. John 20 does.", while JWs assert that John’s prologue does give us a non-co-equal Son, and this is a fundamental difference between the two notions.

Hart explicitly critiques and rejects such an understanding as theologically incoherent within John’s monotheistic framework. He argues that John 1:1c emphasizes the Logos’ divine nature (qualitative theos), not an indefinite divine entity. This aligns with the broader Johannine theology, which consistently presents the Logos as fully divine, not a secondary or derivative being. Hart asserts that in John's prologue it is yet unclear whether the Logos is coequal or not, but according to the JW interpretation it is already clear that He is not. I disagree with Hart, as I believe that henotheism (and henotheistic-sounding terminology) is an atavistic remnant from the First Temple era in certain, older OT books (which we shouldn't revert to), and we have known since Isaiah at the latest that one cannot be theos in a positive and affirmative sense without being Yahweh. Hart writes:

“Some other scholars have chosen to render the inarticular form of theos as ‘a divine being,’ but this seems wrong to me on two counts: first, if that were all the evangelist were saying, he could have used the perfectly serviceable Greek word theios; and, second, the text clearly means to assert some kind of continuity of divinity between God the Father and the Logos, not merely some sort of association between ‘God proper’ and ‘a divine being.’”

This explicitly rejects the JW interpretation of “a god” as a lesser divine being, and rules out the introduction of a henotheistic framework incompatible with Johannine theology. Since the JWs understand of the rendering "a god" precisely as "a divine being" (in the very sense of Psalm 82 and Exodus 7:1), I am quite right to point out that Hart disavows this interpretation. While Hart explores the grammatical and syntactical possibilities of the Greek, he ultimately affirms the Logos’ participation in the divine essence, consistent with Trinitarian theology. What does this mere grammatical possibility mean? For example, if a Hellenic mythical literary work said "Zeus en theos", I myself would translate it as "Zeus was a god," but here the theological context is different, because in monotheism there are no minor gods, there is no such thing as "a" lowercased little "god" next to the big One (cf. Isaiah 44:6).

Hart does suggest that John 20:28 represents a climactic revelation of Jesus’ divinity, where Thomas addresses Jesus as ho theos (“the God”). However, this does not imply that John 1:1c diminishes the Logos’ divine nature. Instead, Hart views the Gospel as presenting a progressive unveiling of Christ’s identity, culminating in the recognition of Jesus as ho theos in light of the resurrection. Hart writes:

“It seems to me that the withholding of the full revelation of Christ as ho theos, God in the fullest sense, until Thomas confesses him as such in the light of Easter, must be seen as an intentional authorial tactic.”

This literary and theological progression does not negate the Logos’ divinity in John 1:1c. Rather, it reflects the narrative structure of John’s Gospel, which gradually reveals the Logos’ divine identity in its fullness. While Hart acknowledges that some have interpreted John 20:28 as an exclamation directed toward God rather than Jesus, this is a recognition of historical debates rather than an endorsement of such a reading. Hart ultimately affirms the traditional understanding of Thomas addressing Jesus as ho theos, consistent with the climactic theological significance of the passage. Hart explicitly notes the importance of this verse in revealing Christ’s divinity:

“It is there that Christ, now risen from the dead, is explicitly addressed as ho theos (by the apostle Thomas).”

The acknowledgment of alternative readings does not diminish Hart’s commitment to the traditional interpretation. Instead, it demonstrates his scholarly honesty in engaging with historical and theological complexities. The assertion that this is just an emotional expression ("Oh my God!") is ruled out by the term αὐτῷ in John 20:28, and by Christ's response to it in the very next verse.

Hart also does not argue that Arius represents the orthodox position or that Nicaea is a heretical innovation. Instead, he acknowledges the historical diversity of pre-Nicene theological thought and the role of Nicaea in formalizing Trinitarian doctrine. Hart critiques simplistic portrayals of early Christian theology but ultimately affirms the Nicene understanding of the Logos’ divinity. The introduction of new theological grammar, including the term homoousios, was a response to a theological need: to safeguard the Church’s understanding of Christ’s full divinity against interpretations that undermined it. Hart views Nicaea as a legitimate development of apostolic teaching, not an innovation or departure from orthodoxy.