https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/opth-2020-0158/html?lang=en
https://philarchive.org/archive/HAEOSA
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04165.htm
Origen writes in Contra Celsum:
For we indeed acknowledge that angels are ministering spirits, and we say that they are sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation; and that they ascend, bearing the supplications of men, to the purest of the heavenly places in the universe, or even to supercelestial regions purer still; and that they come down from these, conveying to each one, according to his deserts, something enjoined by God to be conferred by them upon those who are to be the recipients of His benefits. Having thus learned to call these beings angels from their employments, we find that because they are divine they are sometimes termed god in the sacred Scriptures, but not so that we are commanded to honour and worship in place of God those who minister to us, and bear to us His blessings. For every prayer, and supplication, and intercession, and thanksgiving, is to be sent up to the Supreme God through the High Priest, who is above all the angels, the living Word and God. And to the Word Himself shall we also pray and make intercessions, and offer thanksgivings and supplications to Him, if we have the capacity of distinguishing between the proper use and abuse of prayer.Was Origen a polytheist? Moreover, to counterbalance Origen's thoughts on prayer, see his work by the same name that deals with the subject.
32 comments:
Origen had the understanding of monotheism of the time, not modern day where only 1 exists and all others are false
YHWH is called the most high God
And God of gods
And in the psalms gods are commanded to worship him
Surely this doesn’t mean idols or non existent gods..
Moses is made a god, in a shiliach tool sense, higher then pharaoh but not to be worshipped
That's right, in my view the term monotheism is not really helpful in reconstructions of ancient theologies.
Origen's use of terms like "gods" when referring to angels does not imply. In 'Contra Celsum', Origen makes it clear that while angels may be referred to as "gods" in a metaphorical sense because of their divine nature and roles, they are not to be worshipped as God. Origen strictly maintains that worship and prayer are due only to the Supreme God through Jesus Christ, the High Priest.
Origen's language must be understood in the context of early Christian theological vocabulary, where "gods" could be used to describe beings of a higher order without implying equality with the one true God. This is consistent with his broader theological framework, where he affirms strict monotheism while acknowledging the existence of spiritual beings who serve God.
Moreover, Origen's theology consistently distinguishes between the created nature of angels and the uncreated nature of God. He did not see angels as rivals to God but as beings created by and subordinate to Him, fulfilling roles assigned by divine command. Therefore, Origen’s references to "gods" do not support the notion of polytheism but rather reflect a complex understanding of divine hierarchy within a monotheistic framework.
The key takeaway is that Origen’s usage of "gods" aligns with the broader context of his writings, where he consistently upholds the primacy of the one true God and rejects any form of worship directed towards beings other than God.
@Anonymous
Origen, like many early Church Fathers, maintained a strict monotheism, affirming that there is only one true God, Yahweh, who is the supreme, uncreated being. Any references to other "gods" in his writings or in the Bible do not imply belief in multiple true gods, but rather point to beings that are lesser or created (like angels or judges) and are not gods in the same sense as Yahweh.
These titles affirm Yahweh's supremacy over all other beings, including those that may be referred to as "gods" in a symbolic or representational sense. For example, "God of gods" in Psalm 82 does not suggest polytheism but rather emphasizes God's superiority over any being that might be metaphorically or analogically referred to as a "god," such as human judges or angels.
The psalmic command for "gods" to worship Yahweh refers to created beings acknowledging the sovereignty of the one true God. It does not imply that these beings are deities in their own right, nor does it contradict monotheism.
When Moses is referred to as a "god" in Exodus 7:1, it is a figurative expression meaning that he is God's representative to Pharaoh, endowed with divine authority to carry out God's will. It does not mean Moses is a deity to be worshipped, but that he acts with authority granted by Yahweh.
In Jewish tradition, Psalm 82 has traditionally been interpreted as referring to human judges, not to divine or spiritual beings. The term "gods" in this context is understood metaphorically, emphasizing that these judges hold positions of authority granted by God. The psalm criticizes them for failing to administer justice properly, reminding them that they are mortal despite their lofty titles.
When Jesus cites Psalm 82 in John 10:34-36, He does so to highlight the inconsistency in His accusers' logic. If human judges could be metaphorically called "gods" due to their role as God's representatives, how much more fitting is it for the one true Son of God, who is ontologically divine, to be called "God"?
Therefore, the title "God" applied to Jesus is not in the same metaphorical sense as the human judges in Psalm 82 but points to His true divine nature, as affirmed in the broader context of the New Testament. Jesus' divinity is not merely functional or symbolic but is intrinsic to His identity as the Son of God, coequal and coeternal with the Father.
@Anonymous
In addressing your comparison between John 10:33 and Acts 28:6, it's essential to understand the different contexts in which "theos" is used. In John 10:33, the Jews accuse Jesus of claiming to be "God" (with a capital "G"), a direct assertion of His divine nature, as understood in the context of Jewish monotheism. In contrast, in Acts 28:6, the pagan inhabitants of Malta mistake Paul for "a god" (lowercase "g") based on their polytheistic worldview, where they believe in multiple deities.
The difference in translation reflects the context and understanding of the term "theos" within each passage. In John 10:33, the focus is on Jesus' claim to divinity within a monotheistic framework, while in Acts 28:6, the term is used within a polytheistic context to describe what the people thought Paul was. This is why the same Greek construction can lead to different translations, and it highlights the importance of context in understanding and translating biblical Greek.
I allowed a comment about John 10:33/Acts 28 here, but a relitigation of John 1:1 will not be permitted. The verse has been discussed to death anyway.
"The verse has been discussed to death anyway" - indeed, but it's an amusing mental exercise, isn't it? :)
Certainly, I don't disagree, my point was only the use of the term "monotheism" in the way it started to be used in the early modern period where the term "god" became univocal just isn't helpful when reconstructing theologies of the ancient world.
Nincsnevem, the logic of Jesus's argument makes no sense of the point he's making is that he's ontologically the most-high God, the whole point of citing Psalm 82 (be it referring to humans or divine creatures, I think the latter, but point is the same), is that calling one's self "god" cannot be blasphemy, much less God's son, if he was ontologically the most-high God citing Psalm 82 would make absolutely no sense.
It would be like if I was charged with claiming to be the King of Norway, and in defending myself I said "yeah well people call Elvis the King, but they don't mean it in a political sense, so why is what I'm doing bad?" and then I went on to say "but yeah I actually mean it in a political sense."
@Roman
Look up the following term: Kal va-chomer (קל וחומר).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_a_fortiori
To address the argument regarding John 10:34-36 and Psalm 82, it's important to understand that Jesus' reference to "gods" in Psalm 82 is not meant to suggest He is merely one of these "gods" in the same sense as the beings mentioned in the Psalm. The beings in Psalm 82, whether human judges or divine beings, are described as "gods" in a metaphorical sense, emphasizing their authority and responsibility under God's law. Jesus uses this reference to highlight that if Scripture could refer to these beings as "gods" due to their received authority, how much more appropriate is it to refer to Him as the Son of God, who uniquely shares in the divine nature and mission of the Father.
Jesus isn't downplaying His divinity; rather, He's making a rhetorical argument (a form of kal va-chomer reasoning) that if those with lesser roles can be called "gods," then His claim to divinity is even more justified. This is further supported by the context of John 10, where Jesus makes profound statements about His unity with the Father ("I and the Father are one," John 10:30), which the Jewish audience clearly understood as a claim to divinity, leading them to accuse Him of blasphemy.
The Jewish leaders' reaction—attempting to stone Jesus—confirms that they understood His claim to be far beyond what Psalm 82 describes. If Jesus were merely claiming a lesser divinity, akin to the judges in Psalm 82, there would have been no reason for the accusation of blasphemy.
In conclusion, Jesus’ citation of Psalm 82 serves to justify His use of divine titles while also affirming His unique and superior relationship with the Father, which goes beyond any metaphorical "god" in the Psalm. This argument does not undermine His divinity but rather reinforces the legitimacy of His divine claims within the Jewish theological framework.
@Roman
Your example should rather be said as "if people call all kinds of people, for example Elvis, a king, how much less justified is it to call me a king, who is a prince?"
In John 10:34-36, Jesus uses kal va-chomer reasoning, a common Jewish rhetorical device, to defend His claim to being the Son of God. He references Psalm 82:6, where human judges are called "gods" (elohim) because they act as God's representatives.
Jesus’ argument is: if Scripture can use the term "gods" for those to whom the word of God came (i.e., human judges), how much more legitimate is His claim to be God's Son, He who was sanctified and sent by the Father? This reasoning does not diminish His divine nature; rather, it underscores it. By aligning Himself with the divine mission and authority that far surpasses that of the judges in Psalm 82, Jesus affirms His unique relationship with the Father, ultimately leading to His acknowledgment as fully divine.
Furthermore, the Jews understood Jesus' statement as blasphemy because He was not merely claiming to be "a god" in the sense that the Psalm refers to, but was making a higher claim to unity with the Father, which is why they sought to stone Him (John 10:31-33). The logic of this argument, when properly understood in its Jewish context, actually reinforces the concept of Jesus' divinity rather than undermining it.
@Roman
Do rabbinical sources, or the Talmud call the angel as "elohim"? So, does this (btw. rare) terminology of the First Temple period OT books have a continuation in the time of Christ, and after that?
The argument you presented touches on an important aspect of understanding ancient theologies, but it makes a fundamental misstep by overly separating ancient concepts from those developed in later periods like the early modern era. While it’s true that the term "monotheism" was later formalized, the essence of monotheism—belief in one supreme God—was deeply rooted in ancient thought, including in Jewish and early Christian contexts. The Bible itself presents a clear and continuous emphasis on the unique sovereignty and divinity of one God, even amidst a world of polytheistic beliefs.
Instead of playing with this definite-indefinite stuff, which goes with John 1:1c, I would rather put the emphasis on whether, assuming an audience with a Hellenic polytheistic cultural background, it was surely the most adequate thing for the apostles to use the word θεός to apply the Son, if they only wanted to state that "only such a powerful spiritual being, who is the creature and representative of the one God", when many other expressions would have been available for this, like θεῖος, ἡμίθεος, ἥρως, θεϊκός, θεϊνός, θεώτερος.
Because in classical Greek, θεός meant one of the great Olympian gods, the proper gods, while many other terms were available for mythological beings of lesser weight compared to these.
The same question is why did the translators use the Greek "hades" for the Hebrew "sheol" in the LXX, when the Israelites were supposed to be annihilationists? If this term was found to be the most appropriate, and the Greek term "hades" does not mean "grave" or "non-being", but rather associated this term with the place of conscious afterlife (netherworld), this, in my opinion, indicates that "sheol" was understood to be people consciously exist there.
Btw. originally δαίμων simply used to mean an inferior deity, whether good or bad, not a demon, an evil spirit.
While you are correct in a possible meaning for δαίμων
According to Biblehub: in the NT it only ever means an evil spirit or demon
https://biblehub.com/greek/1142.htm
Why you don’t disclose this to readers I’m not sure, however since most lexicons cover all instances of a word usage ( funfact) and no credible lexicon lists any such meaning - just like with your alternative theos suggestion, you are simply being misleading
As neither term designated what the writers is trying to say..
“ In John 10:33, the Jews accuse Jesus of claiming to be "God" (with a capital "G"), a direct assertion of His divine nature, as understood in the context of Jewish monotheism. In contrast, in Acts 28:6, the pagan inhabitants of Malta mistake Paul for "a god" (lowercase "g") based on their polytheistic worldview, where they believe in multiple deities.”
- Greek is only written in capital letters, there is no difference in koine Greek itself - there are other factors that decide a proper noun v common noun
Moreover there is NO linguistical justification to translate these differently either they are both definite or indefinite
Context is a factor, yes - however any competent ( not you) Greek “scholar” will agree with me, that even tho the context decides, the construction leads us to believe that the Jews meant “a god” as in a foreign god who could override Gods law. Jesus’ claim was that he was the messiah..
And the usage of “gods” as I have said has nothing to do with divinity… there is nothing in the context that we what was meant..
Christ is also a judge.. who were called gods
You are interpolating your own personal bias into the text rather than reading what’s there
If John had wanted to write “ God” he could simply have used the article and distuihished the persons… he proved he was capable of this aswell.
You also clearly have done cherry picked research otherwise you would bore than willing to point out another aspect to Jewish monotheism which you are on noting to mention
@Anonymous
Your question was about why in English there is a small initial letter in one place and a capital letter in the other. Well, that's why you need to look not only at that half-sentence, but at the context. For example, we translate "Zeus en theos" as "Zeus was a god", and "ho pater en theos" as"the Father was God". Why? Because the point is not only the grammatical structure, but the theological framework of the given text.
It's true that ancient Greek was written in capital letters, but the argument about capitalization is not central to the distinction in meaning. The critical issue is the context and how titles or descriptions are used within that context. While you claim there is no linguistic justification for translating "θεός" differently in John 10:33 and Acts 28:6, this overlooks the nuance of context. The context in John 10:33 suggests the Jews understood Jesus as claiming a unique, divine identity (God with a capital "G"), which was considered blasphemous. In contrast, Acts 28:6 involves pagans mistaking Paul for one of many deities in a polytheistic framework, hence "a god."
Your suggest I'm ignoring aspects of Jewish monotheism, but this accusation fails to consider that Jewish monotheism is strictly non-polytheistic. The Jews would not casually refer to any being as "a god" in the same sense as pagan cultures. Jesus being accused of making Himself "God" would indeed be understood as a claim to be the one true God, not merely "a god."
The accusation of cherry-picking is unfounded. The distinction I draw between John 10:33 and Acts 28:6 is based on the different cultural and theological contexts of Jewish monotheism versus pagan polytheism, which is a legitimate and necessary consideration in interpreting these passages.
Anonym: Biblehub is incorrect, even if we only take the bible as a source, Paul praises the Athenians for being fearers of the Diamons.
The Talmud largely comes post 130, of course some materials come from early sources, but post 130 large swaths of Jewish thinking slowly faded, especially the apocalyptic thinking. So one has to be careful with taking later (post 130) rabbinic materials in reconstructing first century Judaism.
I'm not disagreeing with you about the early Israelite belief of a uniquely sovereign God (YHWH), so if the argument is that monotheism is not just that there is only one god, but that there is one ultimate supreme divinity then it goes way back in Israelite thinking, and is also present in many non-Jewish theologies.
In classical Greek theos did mean one of the Olympian gods, but, again, as you know, when Greek became more cosmopolitan, the term became more flexible.
Especially once you get philosophical theologies such as is found among the middle-Platonists.
The language of John 1:1 parallels middle platonist, especially Philo, grammar perfectly.
As far as hades, again, greek is a flexible language, especially as it became cosmopolitan.
@Anonymous
You're right that in the New Testament, δαίμων (daimōn) generally refers to evil spirits or demons, but this is a narrowed usage reflecting the development of language over time, particularly within a Christian context. In classical Greek, δαίμων indeed had a broader meaning, often referring to lesser deities or spiritual beings, both good and bad. The Bible's New Testament writers, influenced by the prevailing Jewish and Christian thought, used δαίμων in a more specific way, reflecting their theological emphasis.
However, this doesn't negate the broader point that Greek terms had flexible meanings that evolved over time. This flexibility is crucial to understanding how terms like θεός (theos) could be used to refer to different types of divine beings in different contexts, including in the New Testament. The New Testament writers, especially in a Hellenistic context, had to navigate these linguistic nuances when describing Jesus' divinity.
@Roman
As for the use of Hades, its translation from Sheol does reflect a certain flexibility in language, but also in theological interpretation. The fact that Hades was used for Sheol in the Septuagint suggests that the Jewish translators saw a meaningful overlap between these concepts, even if they didn't align perfectly. This demonstrates that ancient Jews and Christians were not bound to a single, rigid interpretation but were engaging dynamically with the languages and ideas around them.
Regarding the Talmud and Rabbinic literature, it's true that much of it was compiled post-130 CE, and this must be taken into account when using these sources to understand first-century Judaism. However, early Rabbinic thought can still provide valuable insights into the theological and linguistic context of the New Testament, especially when combined with other contemporary sources.
“In classical Greek, δαίμων indeed had a broader meaning, often referring to lesser deities or spiritual beings, ” - we focus on how the authors used a word, not it’s general usage…
Any word for demigod or lesser divine being would NOT have been used of Logos - simply because those terms generally denote worship, false worship - which is not what was intended.
“this accusation fails to consider that Jewish monotheism is strictly non-polytheistic.” - it does not, there clearly existed a place for other non-worshippable gods who were not the one true creator.. who could not fortell the outcome.
For the angels to be metaphorical “gods” they would also have to be not divine… it’s pretty safe to say anything “divine” is called a god
Or anything someone is fully devoted too.
Polytheism is the worship of multiple gods
Henotheism seems to mean the belief in more than one creator ( God)
I use creator and God interchangeably
Side note: I can’t 100% verify this but the term Angel may be present in the lxx because of the translatiors theological position I.e not strictly Jewish
And some have suggested it’s an interpretation and the authors were free to add and take away as they please.. because other biblical sources call angels “ gods”
As Origen said because they are divine, not because they are meant to be worshipped in replacement of God - there exists a class for perceived higher beings in a secondary class
As kings were also seen as “God” or a god
See NET footnote for Hebrews 1:8
“Therefore, Origen’s references to "gods" do not support the notion of polytheism but rather reflect a complex understanding of divine hierarchy within a monotheistic framework.” - Witnesses do not advocate for a polytheistic framework or imply the NT authors were polytheistic either.
The trinity while not polytheistic, to a modern day Jew implies it- no trinitarian will say God is made up of multiple gods.. except you, because that is livery what you have said before..
Roman: I have no bone to pick with you, as you are credible
However “Paul praises the Athenians for being fearers of the Diamons.” overlooks one thing, is the word fear used in the bible in the traditional English sense?
About Paul:
“In contrast, Acts 28:6 involves pagans mistaking Paul for one of many deities in a polytheistic framework, hence "a god."” - mistaking? Or thinking it’s divine revelation?
“For example, we translate "Zeus en theos" as "Zeus was a god", and "ho pater en theos" as"the Father was God".” - I hope Edgar will comment here, but that is a bias way of translating..
The raw Greek would both indicate that both should be translated as “a god”
Worshippers of Zeus would translate with a capital G and it would function as a proper noun not a common noun.
There is nothing in those sentences to indicate definiteness to a neutral reader.
“The Jews would not casually refer to any being as "a god" in the same sense as pagan cultures.” - pagans would in a sense of worship, the Jews wouldn’t.. that’s the important distinction anyway
Calling Jesus “a god” would be no different than how human kings were referred as “God” or “a god” as a representative of God, exactly what Jesus claimed to be..
And “making himself equal to God”
By “calling God his own father” would be seen by trinitarian standpoint as making himself equal with the trinity NOT with the Father.. unless you are going to selectively choose when theos means the trinity and when it only means the father… in which case I can crush that..
Father is not synonymous with God ( the trinity) either… and is never used as such . That is another bogus tactic of your own theological invention
The authors could simply mark which person they meant.. but they only ever explicitly use Father and God interchangeably
And the jews accused Jesus of this, Jesus defended himself with said scripture…. If he was God, why did he defend himself - why not just confirm?
Anonymous, please see https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2014/12/hebrews-12-and-semantic-forces-or-son.htmlv
There are a few things to consider when one encounters anarthous constructions. Hope this link helps, but we come back to context here and that cannot be easily dismissed.
@Anonymous
While it’s true that in the NT, δαίμων often refers to evil spirits, the term had a broader meaning in classical Greek, referring to lesser deities or spiritual beings. However, this broader classical usage isn't directly relevant to the specific theological context of the NT, where the term is consistently used in a negative sense. Your argument that δαίμων would not have been used to describe the Logos is correct because the authors aimed to convey the divine nature of Jesus, which is distinct from the negative connotations of δαίμων in the NT context.
The argument that Jewish monotheism allows for non-worshippable "gods" is problematic. While terms like "elohim" might be applied metaphorically to angels or judges in the oldest OT books, these beings were not considered gods in any true sense in Jewish theology. They were not divine in essence but were merely representatives of God’s authority. The distinction is crucial: these beings were never worshipped or considered divine in the same way that YHWH was. The idea of "other gods" in Jewish monotheism doesn't imply that there were beings with divine essence alongside YHWH; instead, it emphasizes YHWH's unique, unparalleled sovereignty.
Origen did refer to angels and other beings as "gods" in a metaphorical sense, but this was always within a strictly monotheistic framework where these beings were not worshipped. They were recognized as having divine attributes or roles in a derivative sense, not as independent deities. Origen's theology does not support the notion of polytheism or henotheism but rather underscores the unique divinity of the one true God, with all other "gods" being subordinate and dependent on Him.
The reference to Paul praising the Athenians for their religiosity (Acts 17:22) does not imply endorsement of their beliefs but rather serves as a rhetorical strategy. Paul was using their religiosity as a starting point to introduce them to the true God. The Athenians mistook Paul for a deity (Acts 28:6) out of ignorance, and this serves to highlight the contrast between the polytheistic beliefs of the pagans and the monotheistic faith that Paul was preaching.
The translation of Greek phrases like "X en theos" should be contextually determined. When referring to the God of Israel, the use of "theos" would typically be monadic, because it refers to the one true God, while for a pagan god like Zeus, "a god" is appropriate because it aligns with the polytheistic context. The distinction is not about bias but about accurately reflecting the theological context.
The idea that Jesus was called "a god" in the same sense as human kings or judges is a misunderstanding. When Jesus was accused of making Himself equal with God (John 5:18), He was claiming a unique divine status far beyond that of any human or angelic representative. His defense in John 10:34-36 doesn't diminish His divinity but rather argues that IF even lesser beings could be called "gods," how much more appropriate is it for the only-begotten Son to be called God in the fullest sense.
In Acts 28:6, the pagans indeed mistook Paul for a deity because of their polytheistic framework, which readily accepted the idea of many gods manifesting in various ways. This does not imply that their reaction was due to divine revelation; rather, it was a misunderstanding based on their pre-existing religious beliefs. Paul consistently refuted such misunderstandings, redirecting glory to the one true God and making clear that he was not divine. The context of Acts shows that Paul was not affirming their belief but correcting it, thereby underscoring the distinction between the monotheistic message of Christianity and the polytheistic assumptions of the pagans.
The translation of "Zeus en theos" as "Zeus was a god" and "ho pater en theos" as "the Father was God" reflects the nuances in Greek usage and the theological context. In Greek, "ho theos" (with the definite article) typically refers to the one true God, especially in Jewish and Christian texts. Without the article, "theos" could be interpreted more generally as "a god" in pagan contexts. The definite article in "ho pater en theos" emphasizes that the Father is the one true God, consistent with monotheistic theology. In contrast, "Zeus en theos" reflects a polytheistic context, where "a god" is appropriate. The translation choices thus respect the different theological frameworks rather than imposing a bias.
The New Testament's reference to Jesus as "God" (e.g., John 1:1, 20:28) goes beyond the metaphorical use of "god" for kings or judges. Jesus is described as sharing in the divine essence and possessing divine attributes, such as eternality, omnipotence, and the authority to forgive sins—qualities that were never ascribed to human kings. When Jesus is called "God," it is in a unique and ontological sense, affirming His divinity, not merely His role as a representative. The Jewish reaction to Jesus' claims (e.g., John 5:18, where they sought to kill Him for making Himself equal with God) shows that they understood His claims as asserting divine status, not just a metaphorical or representative role.
I wasn’t dismissing context as such…
Whether it is admitted or not EVERY pre verbal nominative ( I.e exact parallel to 1:1 by every bible is rendered with an indefinite article )
But even you must admit on strictly grammatical grounds both nominatives with nothing to suggest definiteness the correct rendering for both would be “a god”
Then I suppose my question becomes: how would you differentiate the two?
And Ninc points out things that are not fair ( apparently)so so will I
It is not fair that they dismiss scholarly study such as John’s regular usage and call it “witness bs” or a “made up rule” when even credible academics acknowledge John’s writing pattern. ( Wallace for instance)
It is not fair that every point we make seems to be converted to nincs position and can’t be any other way… seems like we are talking to a brick wall tbh..
What part of this do you not understand?:
“we find that because they are divine they are sometimes termed god in the sacred Scriptures, but not so that we are commanded to honour and worship in place of God those who minister to us”
Origen literally here DENIES polytheism or henotheism…
“because they are divine they are sometimes termed god in the sacred Scriptures”
Literally the reason is because they are divine so they are termed “gods”
Where does Origen say that being “a god” has to be in a true sense?
Where does Origen say that being “a god” has to be in a false sense?
Where does Origen say that being “a god” is because you are beyond human and divine? Literally the text I quoted..
the sense doesn’t come into it for Origen;
“but NOT so that we are commanded to honour and worship in place of God those who minister to us”
Far too theologically motivated to see any point but your own..
“When Jesus was accused of making Himself equal with God (John 5:18), He was claiming a unique divine status far beyond that of any human or angelic representative” - but the Jews made the accusation, partially because of a tradition THEY held.. the Jews claimed he was making himself equal to God- Jesus claimed nothing of the sort..
you are putting words into Christ’s mouth here..
“His defense in John 10:34-36 doesn't diminish His divinity” - please quote me verbatim where I argued this was the case.. you can’t because I never made such a ridiculous argument, you are arguing with yourself here ( maybe it’s the second person of nincrinity ( this is a joke))
“The definite article in "ho pater en theos" emphasizes that the Father is the one true God” - but if my observation is correct, this is never written this way in the bible, because “ho pater” could signify anyone..
we get lit: the god and father - but that is connected by “Kai” and naturally understood as definite.. your example on pure linguistic grounds would be indefinite.. ( even qualitative, but hat would be stretching it )
“ In contrast, "Zeus en theos" reflects a polytheistic context” - this example is also flawed as you are using a proper noun
“Jesus is described as
“sharing in the divine essence” - where? Jn 1:1 says nothing of the sort
He was with the God ( assumed: Essense) so therefore could not be the God he was with ( note it doesn’t say he was with the father)
This is one of many arguments I could make.. you are wrong on jn 1:1
That has been proven - case closed
“eternality” - not really.. en arkhe would be locative and “was” doesn’t imply eternality in of itself or in combination with en arkhe…
“omnipotence” - humans are described similar in 1 John..
“possessing divine attributes” - don’t we all technically?
“authority to forgive sins” - this argument has been refuted many times over the years… not even worth my time..
-To be continued-
Anonymous, I agree with very little that Nincsnevem posts. Nincs acts as though it's the Catholic way or the highway and I've heard this line from Trinitarians for more than 40 years (my understanding of the verse or no way at all). I'm still not convinced, but I've learned that one will hardly ever move a Trinitarian from his/her position. It is like talking to a wall, most of the time.
@Anonymous
You argue that, based on grammar alone, both nominatives in John 1:1 should be rendered as "a god" due to the lack of definite articles. However, this overlooks the broader context of Johannine theology and the unique literary style of the Gospel of John. While it's true that the Greek construction in John 1:1c lacks the definite article, translating it as "a god" imposes a henotheistic framework on a text that is firmly rooted in Jewish monotheism. The Gospel of John consistently emphasizes the unique relationship between the Logos (the Word) and God. The phrase "the Word was God" (καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος) is intended to express the full divinity of the Logos, not to suggest that He is “a lesser deity” among many. Scholars like Daniel Wallace have argued that the anarthrous (lacking an article) use of "theos" in John 1:1c is qualitative, emphasizing the nature or essence of the Word rather than merely identifying the Word as one among many gods. The absence of the article does not imply indefiniteness but rather points to the nature of the Logos as fully sharing in the divine essence.
The claim that every pre-verbal nominative in Greek should be rendered with an indefinite article, such as "a god," is not universally accepted and is, in fact, quite controversial. The main issue lies in the understanding of Greek grammar and context. The term "theos" (God) in John 1:1 is anarthrous (lacking a definite article) but should be understood in its qualitative sense, reflecting the divine nature of the Logos rather than indicating an indefinite or lesser deity. Scholars such as C.H. Dodd and others have noted that the qualitative nature of "theos" in John 1:1c stresses the divine nature of the Word, rather than suggesting it was a lesser god.
You cite Origen to argue that being termed "a god" in Scripture could refer to beings that are divine but not in the same sense as YHWH. However, Origen’s understanding must be situated within the broader context of his theology. Origen does indeed use the term "god" for angels or other beings, but this is always within a framework that upholds the uniqueness and supremacy of the one true God. When Origen speaks of beings being "termed gods," he does so in a subordinate sense, emphasizing that they are not to be worshipped or honored as God is. This does not support polytheism but rather underscores the monotheistic belief that while certain beings might share in divine attributes, they do not share in the divine essence in the same way as the one true God. Origen and other early Church Fathers maintained a strict monotheism. Even when acknowledging that certain beings are called "gods" in a limited sense, this does not imply they possess the same nature as YHWH. The divine nature is unique to God, and all other beings are contingent, created, and dependent on God.
The argument regarding Origen's use of the term "gods" does not imply that he supported a form of polytheism or henotheism. Instead, Origen recognized that beings could be termed "gods" in a metaphorical or functional sense, without equating them with the one true God, Yahweh. Origen’s references to "gods" must be understood within the framework of strict monotheism, where any "gods" (e.g., angels, judges) are subordinate and do not possess divine essence in the same way that Yahweh does. The term "god" is used in a derivative sense, indicating a role or function rather than actual divinity. This usage underscores the uniqueness of Yahweh as the one true God, aligning with the monotheistic belief system Origen adhered to.
@Anonymous
You suggest that Jesus did not claim equality with God, and that the Jews' accusation in John 5:18 was based on their tradition rather than on Jesus' own claims. The claim that Jesus did not claim to be equal with God in John 5:18 or that His use of Psalm 82 in John 10:34-36 diminishes His divinity is not supported by the broader theological context of the New Testament. The text itself provides important insights into how Jesus understood His own identity.
In John 5:18, the Jews accused Jesus of making Himself equal with God because of His claim to be the Son of God. Jesus does not deny this claim; instead, He reinforces it by discussing His unique relationship with the Father (John 5:19-23). He claims the authority to give life and to judge—powers that, in Jewish thought, belong to God alone. The Jews understood Jesus’ actions and statements as a claim to equality with God, a claim that reflects His unique divine status. The context shows that Jesus was indeed presenting Himself as more than just a human or an angelic being. When Jesus references Psalm 82:6 in His defense, He does so not to diminish His divinity but to argue that if Scripture could call human judges "gods" in a metaphorical sense, then it is even more appropriate for Him, the one whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world, to be called the Son of God. This argument actually strengthens His claim to a unique divine status, rather than diminishing it. Jesus' reference to Psalm 82 is a rhetorical defense, emphasizing that if even lesser beings could be called "gods," His claim to divinity is even more valid, given His unique relationship with the Father.
You critique the translation of certain Greek phrases, arguing that terms like "ho pater en theos" could be indefinite and that "Zeus en theos" is a flawed comparison due to Zeus being a proper noun. The argument that "ho theos" should only be applied to Yahweh while "theos" without the article should imply a lesser god does not hold when considering the context and usage in the New Testament.
In Greek, the use of the definite article often serves to specify and identify the subject more precisely. In theological contexts, the definite article with "theos" typically refers to the one true God. The absence of the article does not necessarily make a term indefinite; rather, it can point to the qualitative nature of the subject. The absence of the definite article does not necessarily imply indefiniteness. In John 1:1, "theos" is qualitative, highlighting the divine nature of the Word. In monotheistic texts, "theos" without the article can still refer to the one true God, depending on the context. The example of "Zeus en theos" serves to illustrate the difference between monotheistic and polytheistic contexts. In a polytheistic context, "theos" can be applied to multiple beings. However, in a monotheistic context, like that of the New Testament, "theos" with or without the article is used to refer to the one true God, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise. The New Testament attributes qualities such as eternality, omnipotence, and the authority to forgive sins to Jesus, which are unique to God. This further supports the translation of "theos" in a qualitative sense, affirming the full divinity of Jesus.
@Nincsnevem
You question the attribution of divine attributes to Jesus, such as eternality, omnipotence, and the authority to forgive sins, arguing that these qualities are not unique to Him.
The phrase "en arche" (in the beginning) in John 1:1 is indeed locative, but it implies a pre-existent state before creation, indicating that the Word existed eternally with God. This is not a mere temporal beginning but a reference to the eternal nature of the Logos. While humans can be described as possessing power or authority in limited senses, the New Testament attributes to Jesus a unique authority that goes beyond what is ascribed to any human. For instance, in Matthew 28:18, Jesus claims "all authority in heaven and on earth," a claim that reflects omnipotence, which is an attribute of God alone. The authority to forgive sins is presented in the Gospels as a divine prerogative (see Mark 2:7). Jesus' exercise of this authority is a clear indication of His divine identity, as it was understood that only God could forgive sins.
Mod note: I will allow replies to Nincsnevem on this thread, then it will close tonight. Thank you.
To be honest Edgar, a response by me is a waste of everyone’s time - far too theologically motivated and is reusing arguments Stafford and others dealt with years ago ( even bowman abandoned the forgiving sins argument by my recollection)
And my challenge of quoting me verbatim wasn’t completed
Post a Comment