"In passing, sophia, wisdom, is grammatically feminine in Greek, as is also Hebrew hochmah. But to anyone with even a slight knowledge of the languages, these are purely artificial grammatical genders, and have nothing whatever to do with sex or gender. Further, Christ is the wisdom of the Father, and He is not feminine" (William Most).
While I do not advocate all or the majority of his beliefs and ideas, here is a site that contains writings by Most: https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/most/browse.cfm
Wednesday, October 02, 2024
Quote From William Most Dealing With Grammatical Gender
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
105 comments:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophia_(wisdom)
https://justpaste.it/aisrx
https://docdro.id/5scufme
ἐγενήθη https://biblehub.com/text/1_corinthians/1-30.htm
https://biblehub.com/text/luke/7-35.htm
https://www.sefaria.org/Proverbs.3.19?lang=bi
Proverbs 8:11 Cf. Proverbs 31:10
Logos and Memra - First century Christians section
https://www.academia.edu/39812028/Logos_and_Memra
Both of these links are full of garbage and not at all accurate information…
1 Peter 2:13 “kings” isn’t even a direct object of the verb
@T
The argument seems to hinge on the assertion that because theos lacks the definite article in John 1:1c, it should be translated as "a god" rather than "God." However, this interpretation misreads Koine Greek grammar and early Christian context. While the lack of the article MAY suggest an indefinite reading in SOME contexts, this is not an absolute rule. Greek syntax and context often dictate that an anarthrous noun (a noun without a definite article) should be understood qualitatively. For instance, "theos" in John 1:1c emphasizes the divine nature of the Word, not that the Word is a lesser god. Greek scholars, including Harner and Wallace, argue that this construction points to the Word possessing the very essence of deity.
John 1:1 is not a simple philosophical abstraction but is rooted in the monotheistic beliefs of early Christianity. While some interpret John 1:1 as suggesting a distinction between "God" (with the article) and "a god" (without the article), early Christian theology firmly rejected polytheism. This means that John was not introducing a separate deity but affirming the divinity of the Word in a monotheistic framework.
The qualitative understanding aligns with early Christian teachings that Jesus shares in the divine nature but remains distinct in person from the Father. This was confirmed in early church councils, such as Nicaea, which affirmed that the Son is "begotten, not made" and is of the same substance (homoousios) as the Father.
The reference to the Logos' pre-human existence and divine nature is accurate. The use of terms like "only-begotten God" in some ancient manuscripts further emphasizes the unique status of Christ. However, this does not imply that Christ is a lesser deity. Instead, it reflects the Son's eternal relationship with the Father, co-sharing in the same divine nature.
It’s true that the term logos was present in Greek philosophy, particularly among the Stoics. However, early Christian use of the term was rooted in Jewish thought and Scripture, not Greek dualism. John adapted logos to express profound theological truths about Christ’s divinity, emphasizing both His pre-existence and His role in creation as the incarnate Word of God.
In summary, John 1:1c, when understood in its historical, grammatical, and theological context, does not support the translation "a god" but rather affirms the divinity of the Word. The qualitative understanding better captures the full theological intent of the passage, aligning with early Christian beliefs about the nature of Christ.
“ This means that John was not introducing a separate deity ” - how does “a god” affirm a seperate deity?
Especially when there was a place for other other divine beings alongside God.. who were not to be worshipped
Polytheism is the WORSHIP or honour of multiple Gods via human self interest.. NOT a belief in other divine beings
As I have said before you have to twist a lot of meanings and write a lot of garbage before you come to your conclusions..
You don’t need to bother calling on “metaphorical gods” either because from my research this is not an actual credible argument… the church fathers would agree with me. + Jesus’ whole argument had nothing to do with his divinity it was about being the messiah or Son of God ( which doesn’t mean he is “God” as he is neither the trinity nor the essence itself)
Seeing as John 1:1 has been litigated often on this forum, I am not going to allow an extended discussion of that verse. This thread was about grammatical gender, not John 1:1c. Thank you.
@Anon
https://justpaste.it/g9t9p
John 1:1 has been over-litigated all over the place. And it seems that most roads come back to it when using circular arguments.
Nics, https://youtu.be/2gvsLBl3m4E?si=Dph0E78zzxrhkDYN
Wisdom in proverbs 8 is probably feminine, as its contrasted with the strange woman from the previous chapter. Jesus was a man, the preexistent logos was not biological animal and thus not sexed. Any gendered language used is thus metaphorical.
@Duncan
...regarding John 17:11:
https://justpaste.it/h4pcq
Nics, CF John 5:30, 6:38, 18:11. - co equal?
Nics, John 8:58 -
"The Claim vs. The Facts
The Problems with the Claims
1. The Impossibility of the Trinitarian Interpretation
The Trinitarian interpretation directly contradicts Jesus' own words in at least four explicitly obvious ways:
(1) Jesus had just said that if he testified about himself, his testimony is not true (Jn 5:31; 8:17-18). But that is precisely what Trinitarians have Jesus doing at John 8:58 in direct contradiction to what he said.
(2) Jesus also had just said that if he glorified himself concerning who he is, his glory would mean absolutely nothing (8:54). But Trinitarians contradict Jesus again insisting that he did indeed glorify himself at John 8:58 and he did so in the highest way possible, and instead of meaning nothing as Jesus insisted, Trinitarians contradict him and insist it means everything.
Trinitarians talk about of both sides of their mouth concerning Jesus. On one hand, they will admit that Philippians 2:5-9 says that Jesus made himself nothing and humbled himself. On the other hand, they have Jesus glorifying himself as God Almighty.
(3) Trinitarians also say the Jews wanted to stone Jesus because they knew exactly what he was saying at John 8:58. But yet again, Trinitarians directly contradict Jesus who had just said these Jews could not understand what he was saying because they were not of God and were children of the devil (8:43-47).
(4) Jesus warned his disciples not to tell anyone he was God's Anointed One (Matthew 16:20; Luke 9:20-21). But we are expected to believe that Jesus was going around Israel declaring himself to be Yahweh their God. It's a ridiculously absurd contradiction.
Jesus' own testimony in this selfsame dialogue decisively demonstrates to us that the Trinitarian interpretation of John 8 is absolutely impossible since their interpretation violently contradicts what Jesus had just said. Trinitarians are effectively demonstrating that they do not hear Jesus anymore than the Jews did in this dialogue nor do they even care. They care far more about promoting their false doctrine than hearing Jesus."
John 5:30: Here, Jesus is speaking of His role as the Son, who submits to the will of the Father. The fact that Jesus submits to the Father’s will does not negate His deity or equality with the Father in essence. Rather, it demonstrates the functional subordination within the Trinity. This is a key distinction in Trinitarian theology: ontological equality (equal in being or nature) and economic subordination (different roles in the plan of salvation).
Jesus, though fully God, took on the role of the obedient Son to carry out the work of redemption. Philippians 2:6-7 clarifies this by saying Jesus, “who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant.” His subordination to the Father’s will is part of His mission to save humanity, not a reflection of inequality in nature.
In John 5:30, the judgment that follows the resurrection will not be carried out separately from the Father, because it is a divine act. All divine acts of Jesus are performed through His divine nature and the power of the Father, from whom He has eternally received His divinity. Therefore, His judgment is based on divine knowledge, which He has from the Father. This makes the judgment necessarily just and free from any personal bias, as Jesus' will is the same as the Father's will, and His knowledge is the same as the Father's knowledge. In summary: Jesus' judgment is divine, grounded in divine knowledge and will, shared with the Father, and therefore must be just. When Jesus speaks of His divinity and the authority and power to raise the dead and execute judgment, He perceives from the reactions of the listeners that they question how He can prove that He possesses such authority. He responds that if He were to testify about His dignity and power alone, without the Father, His testimony would not be valid. However, this is not the case, as the Father testifies alongside Him through His works.
John 6:38: Again, this passage reflects Jesus’ submission to the Father’s will. In the economy of salvation, the Son carries out the will of the Father. The entire mission of Christ was to accomplish what the Father sent Him to do: to save sinners (cf. Luke 19:10). This submission reflects Jesus’ role within the Trinity, but it does not suggest He is of a lesser nature than the Father. Rather, it shows the loving relationship between the persons of the Trinity, where the Son voluntarily submits to the Father’s will for the sake of our redemption. Jesus emphasizes that coming to Him and believing in Him depends on the Father's grace. Those whom the Father grants grace are accepted into His kingdom, and He will not reject them. Jesus has no will other than the Father's, and His human will always submits to the divine will, fulfilling the Father's plan—this is His purpose.
John 18:11: In this verse, Jesus acknowledges that He must fulfill the Father’s plan, which includes His suffering and death. This again highlights His obedience and submission in His earthly ministry. However, this submission does not imply inferiority but rather unity of purpose in the work of redemption.
The verses you cited are often interpreted to suggest a form of inequality within the Trinity. However, in Trinitarian theology, they are understood as reflecting the different roles that the persons of the Trinity play in salvation history. The Son’s submission to the Father is part of His incarnational mission and does not contradict His co-equality with the Father in terms of divine nature. Thus, Jesus remains fully God, equal with the Father, yet submits to the Father’s will in His role as the Redeemer of humanity.
Nics, That's not the point as well you know. Jesus does not know all the father knows and that is simply it. Substance talk is not going to cut it as that is not in GJohn. If you try do differentiate what the human jesus knows Vs the god head, that is not going to cut it either. " I judge as I hear" - so is jesus a schizophrenic ??? I don't think so.
@Duncan
The objection here is that Trinitarians claim Jesus testified about himself in John 8:58 ("Before Abraham was, I am"), contradicting his earlier statement that self-testimony is invalid (John 5:31). However, this is a misunderstanding of the context. In John 5:31, Jesus refers to the Jewish legal principle that requires the testimony of two or three witnesses to establish truth (Deuteronomy 19:15). Jesus is not denying his own divine authority, but rather adhering to the Jewish requirement of multiple witnesses for legal verification. He goes on to explain in John 5:32 that there is another witness who testifies on his behalf—God the Father.
In John 8:17-18, Jesus reiterates this principle, stating that both he and the Father testify to his identity. This context shows that Jesus is not contradicting himself in John 8:58. His statement "Before Abraham was, I am" aligns with his divine identity, which the Father has also confirmed throughout the Gospel of John. Thus, this does not contradict his earlier statements about testimony; rather, it affirms the dual witness of both Father and Son to Jesus' divine nature.
The objection argues that Trinitarians contradict Jesus' statement that self-glorification is meaningless, claiming that John 8:58 is an act of self-glorification. This misinterprets Jesus' words. In John 8:54, Jesus states, "If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me." The point here is that Jesus does not seek to glorify himself in a self-serving way—his glory comes from the Father.
John 8:58 is not about self-glorification, but rather a declaration of Jesus’ eternal existence and divine nature. The term "I am" (Greek: ego eimi) echoes the divine name revealed to Moses in Exodus 3:14, where God identifies himself as "I AM WHO I AM." Jesus is revealing his identity as God, not exalting himself. His divine nature is glorified by the Father, not by his own doing. Therefore, there is no contradiction here between Jesus’ humility and the recognition of his divinity.
The objection claims that Trinitarians assert the Jews understood Jesus in John 8:58, but this contradicts Jesus' statement that they could not understand him because they were "children of the devil" (John 8:43-47). This claim confuses two different aspects of understanding.
The Jews in John 8:58 did understand that Jesus was making an extraordinary claim about his identity—they were ready to stone him because they recognized his statement as blasphemous. However, they did not truly "understand" in the spiritual sense. Jesus explains in John 8:43-47 that their inability to hear and understand his words spiritually stems from their opposition to God and their enslavement to sin. They may have grasped the surface level of Jesus' claim ("I am"), but they lacked the spiritual insight to comprehend his divine nature and mission.
Thus, there is no contradiction here. The Jews understood that Jesus was claiming something divine, but their spiritual blindness prevented them from accepting it.
The objection asserts that it is absurd to believe that Jesus declared himself to be Yahweh when he commanded his disciples not to reveal his identity as the Messiah (Matthew 16:20). This argument misunderstands the context of Jesus’ ministry. Jesus' instructions to his disciples not to reveal his messianic identity in Matthew 16:20 were given to manage the timing of his revelation. Jesus had a specific mission and timetable, and revealing his identity as Messiah too early could have interfered with the fulfillment of his mission. However, his declaration of divine identity in John 8:58 is not about publicizing his messianic role, but about revealing his eternal existence and unity with the Father.
Jesus gradually revealed his identity throughout his ministry, and John 8:58 is one of the climactic moments where he identifies himself with the divine name "I AM." This declaration is not a contradiction of his earlier instructions to keep his messianic identity discreet; rather, it is a revelation of his divine nature, which is distinct from the specific role of Messiah.
It's important to acknowledge that during Jesus' earthly ministry, He voluntarily assumed a human nature with its inherent limitations. Philippians 2:6-7 explains that although Jesus is "in very nature God," He "made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness." This is known as the doctrine of the Incarnation, where Christ, while retaining His divine nature, limited the independent exercise of His divine attributes, including His omniscience, during His earthly life.
However, this self-limitation does not negate His divinity. Jesus voluntarily chose not to exercise His full divine knowledge while on earth, yet He still retained His divine nature. The distinction between what Jesus knew in His human capacity and what He knew as divine is rooted in the mystery of the Incarnation, where He is both fully God and fully man. When Jesus speaks of not knowing certain things, such as in Matthew 24:36, He is speaking from His human nature, which operated under the limitations of humanity.
This does not imply that Jesus is not God or that He is not omniscient in His divine nature. Rather, it reflects His humility in submitting to the Father's will and voluntarily taking on human limitations. The relationship within the Trinity is one of roles, not of inferiority. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are co-equal in divine nature, but they carry out different roles in salvation history. The Son's submission to the Father does not diminish His divinity.
While it's true that John’s Gospel does not explicitly use the philosophical language of "substance," it clearly presents Jesus as fully divine. For instance, in John 1:1, we read, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” This passage explicitly affirms the deity of Christ, making it clear that Jesus (the Word) shares the same divine nature as the Father. Later, in John 8:58, Jesus says, “Before Abraham was, I am,” claiming the divine name that God revealed to Moses in Exodus 3:14 (“I AM WHO I AM”), which His audience understood as a declaration of divinity, leading them to attempt to stone Him for blasphemy.
Furthermore, John 10:30 says, "I and the Father are one." This statement again affirms Jesus’ divine unity with the Father. The unity here is not merely one of purpose but also of essence. The Greek word for "one" (ἕν, hen) indicates an essential unity, not merely an agreement in purpose. So while John’s Gospel may not use the specific term "substance," it certainly affirms the ontological equality of the Son with the Father.
You mention that differentiating between what the human Jesus knows versus the Godhead "is not going to cut it." However, this distinction is central to orthodox Christian theology regarding the person of Christ. According to the doctrine of the Hypostatic Union, Jesus has two natures—divine and human—united in one person. These two natures are distinct yet inseparably joined.
Thus, when Jesus says, “I judge as I hear” in John 5:30, He is not implying schizophrenia. Instead, He is affirming His complete submission to the Father's will in His earthly ministry. The judgment that Jesus executes is always in perfect harmony with the Father’s will because Jesus shares the Father’s divine nature and, as such, shares the same divine knowledge. This unity in judgment does not imply divided personalities but reflects the perfect communion and oneness between the Father and the Son.
In His human nature, Jesus does not independently exercise His divine attributes, but this does not negate His possession of them. His human knowledge is indeed limited, but His divine knowledge remains intact, even if not fully accessed during His earthly ministry. This is part of the mystery of the Incarnation.
The doctrine of the Trinity does not suggest that the persons of the Godhead have separate wills that are in conflict. Rather, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit share a single divine will. Jesus’ submission to the Father during His earthly life reflects His obedience to the Father's will, which is the same as His own will in His divine nature. There is no division or contradiction within the Godhead; instead, there is a perfect unity of will and purpose.
The core issue raised is the mystery of how Jesus, fully God and fully man, can have limited knowledge in His human nature while remaining omniscient in His divine nature. The answer lies in the doctrine of the Incarnation and the Hypostatic Union. Jesus' temporary self-limitation in His human nature does not imply that He is not God or that He is not omniscient in His divine nature. His judgment and actions, as described in John 5:30, reflect His perfect unity with the Father, not a divided or schizophrenic personality.
Understanding the Trinity and the Incarnation requires accepting the complexity and mystery of God’s nature as revealed in Scripture. Just because something is difficult to comprehend doesn’t make it untrue. The Bible affirms that Jesus is fully God, fully man, and in perfect harmony with the Father, even as He fulfills His role in the plan of redemption.
I think the claim about ten (one) is a little overstated. See https://www.billmounce.com/greek-dictionary/heis
Compare 1 Corinthians 3:8. The bible also does not spell out the hypostatic union. It never says he is fully God and fully man.
Nics, Here's the fly in your ointment (theory) translators have inserted "alone" into GJohn 5:31 - it's not there in greek and your assertion about Jewish principles has no proof of place here.
Nics, sorry your arguments are circular and as expected - not cutting it. And If GJohn has something to tell us it's in GJohn, not elsewhere.
Nics, https://www.angelfire.com/space/thegospeltruth/trinity/verses/Php2_6-2.html
@Edgar Foster
You pointed to HEN and referenced Bill Mounce’s definition. Let’s begin with the fundamental role of HEN in the context of John 10:30, where Jesus says, “I and the Father are one (HEN).” The neuter form HEN indicates unity in essence or nature rather than merely personal unity, which would have required the masculine HEIS. As reputable scholars and commentators, such as A.T. Robertson, have pointed out, the choice of HEN over HEIS suggests that Jesus is speaking of unity in essence rather than simply unity in purpose. Compare YACHID vs. ECHAD in Hebrew.
Additionally, Jesus’ assertion must be understood in light of the Jewish reaction in John 10:31-33. The Jews immediately picked up stones to stone Him because they recognized that He was claiming equality with God. If HEN simply denoted agreement in purpose, it’s unlikely they would have reacted so violently. Eventually every person who takes their religion seriously lives in the belief that they are in agreement with God, so saying this is not a big deal at all. Their response demonstrates that they understood Jesus' words as a claim to divine equality.
You mentioned 1 Corinthians 3:8, where Paul says that "he who plants and he who waters are one (HEN)," indicating unity of purpose between Paul and Apollos in their ministry. However, this passage and John 10:30 differ significantly in context. In 1 Corinthians 3:8, the context involves co-laborers in ministry serving under God's ultimate sovereignty, which clearly denotes a shared purpose or goal.
In contrast, John 10:30 is set in the context of Jesus’ divine power and authority. Jesus had just said that no one could snatch His sheep from His hand or the Father’s hand, which is a claim to divine omnipotence. The unity expressed in John 10:30 is not about a shared goal like in 1 Corinthians 3:8, but about sharing the very power and essence that belong to God alone. The Jewish leaders’ response makes it clear that they understood this as a blasphemous claim to divinity, not merely a statement about cooperating with God’s purposes.
You also mentioned that the Bible does not spell out the hypostatic union—Christ being fully God and fully man—explicitly. While it’s true that the term "hypostatic union" itself is not used in Scripture, the concept is derived from various passages that emphasize both Christ’s divinity and humanity.
For instance, Philippians 2:6-8 demonstrates the dual nature of Christ, stating that although He was "in very nature God" (v. 6), He took on "the nature of a servant" and became human (v. 7). John 1:14 also affirms that "the Word became flesh"—a clear statement of the incarnation, in which the eternal Logos (who is God) took on human nature. In Colossians 2:9, we are told that "in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form," which clearly implies the unity of divine and human natures in one person.
These passages collectively support the doctrine of the hypostatic union, even though the precise term isn't used in the Bible. The early Church Fathers used these biblical truths to formulate the doctrine to articulate what Scripture affirms about Christ's nature. The absence of specific terms like "hypostatic union" doesn't negate the reality of the doctrine; it simply shows that theological terminology has developed to express the truths found in Scripture.
Returning to John 10:30, it’s important to note that even if we were to accept that HEN could sometimes denote unity of purpose, this interpretation fails to explain the full context of the passage. The unity Jesus speaks of must encompass more than purpose, given that it involves divine power and authority—qualities inherent to God’s nature, not something that can be "shared" without participating in the divine essence.
When we examine the full passage, including the Jews’ reaction, Jesus’ claim cannot merely be about agreement with God's purpose but about possessing the same divine nature. The Jews’ charge of blasphemy underscores that they perceived Jesus as making a claim to equality with God.
Nincsnevem, this is one place where Robertson is not correct. With all due respect, you bring a number of assumptions to John 10:30, then seem to read them into the text. However, when we look at how hEN is used throughout the NT, the unity of nature (essence) argument does not hold up, not even in the book of John where Jesus prayed that his followers would be one just as he and his Father are one (John 17:20ff). In view of that text, how could he have meant a unity of essence? Furthermore, I know at least two early fathers who did not interpret John 10:30 as a unity of substance.
You appeal to the charge of blasphemy, but that is not necessarily conclusive as studies on ancient blasphemy have shown. But when I examine how hEN is employed in the NT, I see no basis for the unity of essence assertion.
@Edgar Foster
In John 10:30, when Jesus says, “I and the Father are one,” the Greek word hEN is indeed used. You pointed out that this word is used in John 17:20-23, where Jesus prays that his disciples “may be one just as we are one.” On the surface, it might seem like Jesus is speaking about a unity of purpose or mission rather than essence. However, context is key.
John 17: In this chapter, the oneness Jesus prays for among his disciples is certainly a unity of purpose, love, and mission. This makes sense in the context of a diverse group of individuals being united in their faith and devotion to God.
John 10:30: The context here is different. Jesus' claim to oneness with the Father directly follows a discussion about his divine works and the Father’s divine works being identical (John 10:25-29). The Jews understood this as a claim to divine authority and essence, which is why they accused him of blasphemy. They explicitly state in verse 33 that they are accusing him because “you, a mere man, claim to be God.” The charge of blasphemy here is based on their understanding that Jesus is making himself equal with God, which implies a claim to divine essence, not just a unity of purpose.
Thus, while hEN can refer to unity of purpose in certain contexts (as in John 17), the context of John 10:30 suggests that Jesus is referring to a deeper, ontological unity with the Father, which the Jews interpreted as a claim to divinity.
Check this on John 17:11: https://justpaste.it/h4pcq
You mentioned that the charge of blasphemy is not necessarily conclusive, and I agree that charges of blasphemy were often complex in the ancient world. However, the specific accusation made against Jesus in John 10:33 makes the context clear. The Jews are accusing him of making himself equal with God, which aligns with the claim of unity in nature, not just mission. Blasphemy here refers to Jesus’ perceived violation of monotheism by asserting that he shares in God’s divine essence.
It’s true that some early Church Fathers debated the meaning of John 10:30. However, the majority consensus among the Fathers, especially in the ecumenical councils, was that John 10:30 supports the doctrine of the unity of essence between the Father and the Son. For example, Athanasius, in his defense against Arianism, consistently used John 10:30 to support the consubstantiality (homoousios) of the Father and the Son.
https://www.catholiccrossreference.online/fathers/index.php/John%2010:30
While there may have been divergent interpretations among a few early theologians, it’s important to note that the eventual orthodoxy, which became widely accepted in Christian theology, affirmed that John 10:30 speaks to the unity of divine essence. Even if some early Fathers had different views, the broader theological tradition—shaped by Scripture, tradition, and reason—came to affirm the doctrine of the Trinity, with John 10:30 as one of its key scriptural supports.
Other passages in the Gospel of John also reinforce this understanding. For example:
John 14:9-11: Jesus says, “Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father,” and explains that “I am in the Father and the Father is in me.” This intimate indwelling language suggests a profound unity that goes beyond purpose alone.
John 5:18: The Jews accuse Jesus of making himself equal with God after he refers to God as his own Father, again highlighting the unique and divine relationship between the Father and the Son.
In conclusion, while hEN can indeed refer to unity of purpose in some cases, the context of John 10:30, combined with other passages in John’s Gospel, strongly supports the interpretation that Jesus is claiming a unity of essence with the Father. This is why the Jews reacted as they did, and why the Church Fathers, particularly in their defense of Trinitarian doctrine, saw John 10:30 as affirming Christ’s divinity.
@Duncan
The non-Trinitarian interpretation asserts that the passage does not teach Christ's divinity because it avoids using explicit terms like "God" (Θεός) to describe Christ. It interprets the term MORPHE (form) as merely a functional status, rather than an ontological reality of divinity. The term μορφῇ Θεοῦ (form of God) in Philippians 2:6 is not simply about function or outward appearance; it carries deeper ontological connotations. In ancient Greek, MORPHE *can* signify the outward appearance that reflects an internal reality or essence. In this context, Christ being in the "form of God" indicates His pre-existent divine nature. This interpretation is consistent with Paul's theological outlook, as seen in other passages like Colossians 1:15-20 and John 1:1-18, where Christ's divinity is affirmed. The text presents Christ as voluntarily not clinging to this equality with God, highlighting His humility and willingness to become incarnate for humanity's salvation. Furthermore, Philippians 2:6-11 echoes the language of Isaiah 45:23, where Yahweh is described as receiving universal worship. Paul applies this passage directly to Christ, stating that "every knee shall bow" to Him. This act of worship directed toward Christ implies His divinity because worship in Jewish theology is reserved for God alone. Thus, the passage asserts Christ's divine identity while emphasizing His humility in the incarnation.
The argument posits that MORPHE (form) is about Christ’s social status rather than His divine essence. It is argued that MORPHE should be interpreted in the sense of external appearance or role rather than intrinsic nature. While MORPHE *can* refer to outward appearance, it is not limited to this superficial meaning. The context of Philippians 2 suggests a deeper interpretation. Paul's use of MORPHE in connection with both "God" and "servant" (slave) emphasizes a change not merely in function but in the mode of existence. Christ, who existed in the form of God—implying His divine nature—took on the form of a servant, meaning He entered into a state of human existence, assuming the limitations and suffering associated with humanity. This kenotic act (self-emptying) involves a profound ontological shift from the divine mode of existence to a human one, without abandoning His divine identity. Moreover, interpreting MORPHE purely as social status fails to explain why Paul juxtaposes Christ's pre-existence in the form of God with His incarnation in the form of a servant. The passage highlights the humility of Christ, who, though being fully divine, willingly took on the limitations of human nature. This interpretation aligns with the broader New Testament portrayal of Christ’s incarnation as a profound mystery involving both His divine and human natures (cf. John 1:14; Hebrews 2:14-17).
The argument suggests that the term HARPAGMOS (translated as "something to be grasped" or "exploited") indicates that Christ did not seek equality with God, thus implying a subordinationist Christology. The term HARPAGMOS has been the subject of extensive scholarly debate, and its meaning in this context must be carefully considered. The most consistent interpretation within the passage is that Christ, though possessing equality with God, did not regard it as something to be “grasped”, retained the DOXA at any cost, or exploited for His own advantage (cf. RES RAPTA ET RETINENDA). Rather, He willingly chose to "empty" Himself, taking on the form of a servant. This understanding fits with the broader theme of the passage, which emphasizes Christ’s voluntary humility and self-sacrifice. The key point is that Christ did not NEED to grasp at equality with God because He already possessed it. His choice to not exploit His divine status highlights His humility, not His subordination. The exaltation of Christ in Philippians 2:9 does not suggest that He was being elevated to a status He did not previously have, but rather that His human nature, through the resurrection, was glorified and recognized universally.
It is argued that since Christ is "exalted" by God in Philippians 2:9, this “must” mean that He is inferior to the Father and cannot be fully divine in the same sense as God the Father. The exaltation of Christ in Philippians 2:9 refers to His glorification following His resurrection and ascension. In Trinitarian theology, this does not imply that Christ was somehow less than divine before His exaltation. Rather, it reflects the glorification of His humanity. In His pre-incarnate existence, Christ already possessed equality with God (Philippians 2:6). After His self-emptying and obedient death on the cross, His human nature was glorified and universally acknowledged as Lord (κύριος), a title that in the Septuagint (LXX) refers to Yahweh. The exaltation, therefore, pertains to Christ's human nature being recognized and honored alongside His divine nature. This does not diminish His divinity but underscores the mystery of the incarnation: Christ, fully God, became fully man, and in His resurrection, His humanity is glorified. The Father exalts the Son as an affirmation of the Son's mission and victory over sin and death.
The claim is made that the Trinitarian interpretation “imposes” meanings on the terms MORPHE (form) and KENOSIS (self-emptying) that are not supported by the text. Trinitarian theology does not “impose” foreign meanings on these terms but seeks to understand them within the context of the text and the broader biblical witness. The KENOSIS of Christ involves Him voluntarily limiting the independent use of His divine attributes while fully assuming human nature. This does not imply a loss of divinity but a willing self-humiliation in order to accomplish the work of salvation. The term MORPHE in Philippians 2:6-7, as discussed earlier, refers not just to outward appearance but to Christ's essential nature. Christ, who was in the form of God (possessing the divine nature), took on the form of a servant (assuming human nature). This is entirely consistent with the Trinitarian understanding of the incarnation, where Christ, without ceasing to be divine, became truly human for our sake.
@Duncan
You mention that the word "alone" is not in the Greek text of John 5:31, and that translators have added it. It is true that the word "alone" does not appear explicitly in the Greek of this verse. The verse reads:
"If I testify about myself, my testimony is not true" (John 5:31).
However, the addition of "alone" in some translations reflects the context and meaning, rather than a literal rendering of the Greek. Jesus is referring to the Jewish legal principle that a testimony must be confirmed by more than one witness to be valid. This principle is rooted in Deuteronomy 19:15:
"A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses."
Jesus’ statement reflects this broader legal and cultural context of multiple witnesses. The word "alone" is added in some translations to clarify the idea that if Jesus were testifying by Himself, without any corroborating testimony, it wouldn’t be legally valid according to Jewish law.
Your assertion that the principle of multiple witnesses has no place in John’s Gospel or that it shouldn't be applied from other sources like Deuteronomy misses the way the Gospel of John integrates Jewish thought and law. John’s Gospel frequently engages with Jewish traditions, and understanding these contexts is crucial for interpreting the text.
For example, later in John 8:17-18, Jesus explicitly states:
"In your own Law it is written that the testimony of two witnesses is true. I am one who testifies for myself; my other witness is the Father, who sent me."
Here, Jesus affirms the same principle that He alludes to in John 5:31—that His testimony is valid because it is confirmed by another witness, the Father. The point is not that Jesus’ testimony is false, but that according to Jewish law, additional witnesses are required for a valid legal testimony. Thus, John 5:31 and John 8:17-18 work together to underscore that Jesus' testimony is indeed valid, because it is corroborated by the Father.
You claim that my argument is circular. However, the argument presented is not circular but is grounded in a consistent interpretation of John’s Gospel in light of Jewish law and practice. The reason I referenced other parts of John’s Gospel is because John’s Gospel needs to be understood as a whole. It’s essential to interpret any specific verse within the broader context of the entire Gospel. When John 5:31 is read in conjunction with John 8:17-18, it becomes clear that Jesus is explaining why His testimony is valid—because it is supported by the Father’s witness.
You argue that what John’s Gospel tells us should be confined strictly to John’s Gospel. While it’s true that the interpretation of any specific book of the Bible should primarily focus on its own content, it’s also a well-established practice in biblical interpretation to consider the broader context of Scripture. John's Gospel itself consistently draws on Old Testament themes and ideas, and so referencing the broader Jewish legal context is not only appropriate but necessary to understand what Jesus is saying.
For instance, when Jesus speaks about witnesses in John 5:31 and John 8:17-18, He is drawing from Jewish legal tradition, which is rooted in the Old Testament. Understanding this helps clarify the meaning of the text. Ignoring the Old Testament background would result in a superficial reading of John’s Gospel.
unless Ninc is going to try to say "Kathos" means "identically" for another passage they themselves use to assert Christ being "God" but in this case means "similar" etc
checkmate Ninc - compare John 17:20 with John 5:23 - it either means one or the other cant mean both..
Honoring the son, would be like people "honoring" the prophets so they are honoring The Father (God) in the process.. as the prophets did not speak their own words (sound familiar)
Look just before John 10:30 :)
Otherwise if it means "identically" then Christs follows would also be part of the "divine essence"
Why are you now suddenly citing AT Robertson? I did that a while back and you said I was looking for "yummy" quotes - make up your mind, don't be a hypocrite..
I question your integrity in these conversations
Nics, see Myth 7 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MOeBnnoX0Q
@Anon
You seem to suggest a contradiction between these two passages by stating that honoring the Son is akin to how people "honor" prophets, implying that it’s not honoring Christ in a unique divine sense. John 5:23 explicitly states: "That all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him." Here, Jesus makes it clear that the honor given to Him is the same in nature as the honor given to the Father. This is a strong statement of Christ's divinity because it suggests that the honor due to Him is equivalent to the honor due to God the Father. The idea of IDENTICAL honor reinforces the equality of the Son and the Father in essence and nature. The phrase "just as" (Greek: kathos) points to equivalence, not mere similarity.
In John 17 Jesus prays for the unity of believers, that they may be one just as He and the Father are one. The unity Jesus prays for among believers is a unity of purpose, mission, and love, not of essence. Christians are united in love and mission as Christ and the Father are united, but this does not mean that believers share the divine essence. Instead, it points to the profound unity in spirit, reflecting the perfect harmony between the Father and the Son. So KATHOS here presents a pattern, a model, an idea, which we must follow and converge to as far as is possible, but this should be interpreted as Matthew 5:48.
There is no contradiction between these passages. John 5:23 speaks about the honor due to Jesus, which is on par with the Father, indicating equality in divinity. In John 17:20-23, Jesus is praying for believers to be united in purpose and love, not in divinity. To suggest that honoring the Son is similar to honoring the prophets misses the point of the unique relationship between Jesus and the Father, which is not shared by any prophet.
You raise the question of whether the term KATHOS (translated as "just as" or "like") means "identically" or "similar." In the context of John 5:23, KATHOS is used to emphasize that the honor given to the Son is the same kind of honor that is given to the Father. This is not merely a similarity of honor, but an identical kind of honor because Jesus shares the divine nature with the Father. This is consistent with the Trinitarian understanding that Jesus is fully God.
In John 17, the term is used to describe the kind of unity Jesus desires among believers, which reflects the unity between the Father and the Son. However, this unity is not ontological (pertaining to their being or essence), but relational and functional (pertaining to their relationship and mission). So, kathos can be translated as "just as" in both passages without implying that believers share the same divine essence as Jesus and the Father. The context of each passage clarifies the intended meaning.
You suggest that honoring the Son is like honoring the prophets, as the prophets didn’t speak their own words but God’s. However, this comparison is inadequate. Prophets were messengers, but Jesus is far more than a messenger. He is the very Word of God made flesh (John 1:1, 14). When Jesus says that honoring the Son is the same as honoring the Father (John 5:23), He is making a claim to equality with God, something no prophet ever did. While the prophets pointed to God, Jesus declares Himself to be God (John 8:58). This is why the religious leaders of His day accused Him of blasphemy—because He claimed to be equal with God.
You mention that I cited A.T. Robertson after previously criticizing you for looking for "yummy" quotes. Let me clarify: engaging with scholarship is vital in theological discussions. However, selectively quoting scholars without considering their broader theological framework can lead to misrepresentation. My point was not to dismiss scholarly sources but to encourage thoughtful engagement with the context of their arguments, rather than cherry-picking quotes that fit a preconceived position.
You accuse me of not engaging with contrary ideas and simply reasserting the orthodox position. I understand your frustration, but I believe I have consistently provided reasoned arguments based on Scripture, tradition, and scholarly interpretation. Engaging with opposing views does not mean accepting them; it means critically analyzing them.
But I will explain more specifically what my problem is with your methodology: I am Catholic, I believe that we are not obliged to prove our doctrines, as Tertullian said in “On the Prescription of Heretics”, the burden of proof is on the heretics, and the defendant position belongs to the Church. If you've ever seen a Catholic book on Dogmatics, you'd see that it always looks like it outlines the article of faith first, then explains it. This is followed by an explanation of its scriptural and then holy tradition foundations. So when I engage in a "biblical ping-pong" with you, I am already deviating from the standard methodology of my church, since I do not believe in "sola Scriptura", let alone "nuda Scriptura".
Sometimes it's fun, sometimes it's frustrating, but if I'm going to play biblical ping-pong," I aim to keep it that way. However, a common method of JW apologists is to divert the debate into some kind of quotation and authority contest. It is certain that you can find some "yummy" quote for everything, and the opposite as well, but this deviates the discussion from its normal course. I find it especially ironic that, according to the JW view, the mainstream world is in the hands of Satan, but at the same time they are happy to rely on liberal theologians, and skeptical, often atheistic authors, as it is useful to have some authors (cf. “unholy alliance”) who also claim that (mainstream) Christianity has misunderstood the person and message of Christ. And then you don't even argue with me anymore, you just threw the names of Bart D. Ehrman, Peter Schäfer, Adela Yarbro Collins, Hans Küng, Dan Brown whatever, at me, and then I would have to argue with THEM instead of you. This is unfair because I set aside (or at least put in the background) my own standard methodology for the sake of arguing with you, and I do not argue like Augustine and Thomas Aquinas said this (ipse dixit), it is already so.
My goal has always been to present the biblical and historical evidence for the doctrines of the Christian faith, including the Trinity or the deity of Christ. If you feel that your arguments haven’t been addressed fully, I encourage you to raise specific points for further discussion. I am here to engage constructively and respectfully.
First and foremost, Jesus never made himself equal to God. Secondly, I still think you're trying to extract too much from hEN, the neuter adjective. How a word is used should play a role in ascertaining what it could mean in particular settings. Even some Trinitarians have recognied that the "unity of essence" reading could be off. The Trinitarian theologian John Calvin later wrote concerning John 10:30: "The ancients made a wrong use of this passage to prove that Christ is (homoousios) of the same essence with the Father. For Christ does not argue about the unity of substance, but about the agreement which he has with the Father, so that whatever is done by Christ will be confirmed by the power of his Father."
Based on the lexical data, I respectfully disagree that hEN communicates the idea, "unity of essence" in John 10:30 and the context of the passage could equally support another understanding when we consider what blasphemy entailed in antiquity.
Nics, again your assertions are not going to cut it - "However, the addition of "alone" in some translations reflects the context and meaning, rather than a literal rendering of the Greek. Jesus is referring to the Jewish legal principle that a testimony must be confirmed by more than one witness to be valid. This principle is rooted in Deuteronomy 19:15" THERE IS ABSOLUTLEY NO EVIDENCE THAT THIS VERSE IS IMPLYING THAT, AND IF IT WERE THEN WHY WAIT UNTIL 8:17 to say " Also, in your own Law it is written: ‘The witness of two men is true.’ I am one who bears witness about myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness about me.”
Think you should read this: https://www.ministryvoice.com/kathos-in-greek/
One of many I can cite..
doesn’t mean “identically”- so hoboring Christ would be similar to how the prophets were listened too and heeded as they “carried”Gods word
“ However, selectively quoting scholars without considering their broader theological framework can lead to misrepresentation.” - please cite where anyone on this blog has selectively quoted..
The Watchtower has never selectively quoted anything, I have checked every single one you have cited.. none are actually misleading..
what about you citing Watchtower publications on firstborn out of their context? How’s that any different..
If your belief is true - then simply prove it, should be easy to debunk JWs if your belief is explicitly stated in scripture..
Easier to play defence than offence is why burden of proof is on everyone else.
@Edgar Foster
The claim that Jesus "never made himself equal to God" is contradicted by the Jewish reaction in John 10:31-33. The Jews picked up stones to stone Him, explicitly accusing Him of making Himself God: "You, a mere man, claim to be God" (John 10:33). If Jesus had not made such a claim, He could have easily corrected them, but He does not. Instead, He explains the deeper truth about His relationship with the Father. This is a significant point. If Jesus was only claiming a functional unity or agreement with the Father, why would the Jews interpret this as a claim to divinity, and why would Jesus not correct them if they were wrong? The reaction of the Jews shows they understood His claim as one of divinity, which would be blasphemy if Jesus were not, in fact, divine.
You argue that hEN (the neuter form of "one") does not necessarily imply "unity of essence." While it is true that hEN *can* sometimes mean unity of purpose, context is key. In John 10:30, Jesus has just said that no one can snatch His sheep out of His hand or the Father's hand. The context is about divine power and protection, not merely cooperation. This implies that Jesus and the Father share the same omnipotent power, which can only belong to God. Therefore, the unity Jesus speaks of in John 10:30 must refer to more than just purpose—it involves shared divine authority.
Furthermore, the use of hEN in John 10:30 is crucial because if Jesus had meant to refer to a personal unity, He would have used the masculine form heis (which denotes personal unity). The fact that He used the neuter hEN emphasizes a unity in essence or nature, not merely function. This is why the Jews understood Him as claiming divinity and why they accused Him of blasphemy.
You suggest that blasphemy in antiquity might not always entail a claim to divinity. However, in this particular context (John 10:33), the Jewish leaders specifically accuse Jesus of claiming equality with God. Their reaction shows that they understood Jesus’ words in a way that went beyond mere cooperation with God’s will. The context of the charge—Jesus claiming to have divine authority over His sheep, the ability to give them eternal life, and to safeguard them—demonstrates that the blasphemy they perceived was rooted in His claim to share God's divine attributes.
Finally, when interpreting any biblical passage, we must consider the entire context. John 10:30 is part of a larger discourse in which Jesus repeatedly demonstrates His divine prerogatives—He speaks of His authority to give eternal life (John 10:28), His ability to protect His sheep (John 10:29), and His shared power with the Father. These are divine functions that no mere human or created being could claim. The oneness between the Father and the Son in this context is not just a oneness of purpose, but of divine nature and power.
While it’s true that hEN can sometimes refer to unity of purpose, in John 10:30, the context strongly supports a unity of essence between the Father and the Son. Jesus’ claims to divine power, the reaction of the Jews, and the broader biblical context affirm the interpretation that Jesus is asserting His ontological equality with the Father. Therefore, John 10:30 aligns with the doctrine of the Trinity, in which the Father and the Son are distinct persons who share the same divine essence.
In the provided excerpt, Calvin remarks that the "ancients" made a wrong use of John 10:30 to argue for the unity of substance between the Father and the Son. However, Calvin is not denying the ontological unity between the Father and the Son. Rather, he is specifically discussing the context of this passage, where Jesus speaks not explicitly about the metaphysical nature of the Trinity but about His divine mission and the agreement between Him and the Father.
Calvin clearly affirms the divinity of Christ elsewhere in his writings. In fact, the full commentary clarifies that Christ’s divinity is evident through His works and miracles, which display divine power. Calvin rejects the Arian (or Jehovah’s Witnesses’) interpretation that Jesus has "borrowed divinity" or is merely a creature. You selectively quote Calvin without recognizing that his argument actually supports Christ’s deity. He says:
"They argue, therefore, that Christ is a blasphemer and a sacrilegious person, because, being a mortal man, he lays claim to Divine honor. And this would be a just definition of blasphemy, if Christ were nothing more than a man."
"They only err in this, that they do not design to contemplate his Divinity, which was conspicuous in his miracles."
"For we can never comprehend his eternal Divinity, unless we embrace him as a Redeemer, so far as the Father hath exhibited him to us."
This clearly shows that Calvin did not reject Christ’s deity. Instead, he argued that while Christ’s full divine essence may not be the direct subject of John 10:30, His divinity is evident in other ways. Even if Calvin sought to clarify that John 10:30 speaks more to the unity of action between the Father and Son, this does not negate the broader biblical evidence of Christ’s ontological equality with the Father (e.g., Philippians 2:6, Colossians 2:9, John 1:1-3). The passage can simultaneously convey both unity of purpose and unity of essence, depending on the context.
@Duncan
The objection raised about the interpretation of John 5:31 and 8:17-18 needs to be addressed by clarifying the contextual and theological significance of Jesus’ statements regarding testimony. In John 5:31, Jesus states, "If I testify about myself, my testimony is not true." The context of this statement is important because, immediately before and after this verse, Jesus is defending His authority. The surrounding verses clarify that He has the authority to judge, to give life, and to carry out the Father's will (John 5:19-30). However, John 5:32 immediately follows with, "There is another who testifies in my favor, and I know that his testimony about me is true," referring to the Father as the additional witness.
The reference to "testimony" in John 5:31-32 must be understood within the framework of Jewish law and tradition. According to Deuteronomy 19:15, “A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.” This principle was deeply embedded in Jewish legal practices and would have been known to Jesus’ audience. Jesus' use of the word "testimony" and His allusion to witnesses immediately invites a legal interpretation, which His audience would have recognized. Thus, John 5:31 is not a denial of His divine authority but an adherence to Jewish legal standards.
The objection notes that if Jesus was referring to Jewish legal principles in John 5:31, He should have introduced the idea of two witnesses earlier, not waiting until John 8:17-18 to mention it explicitly. However, this critique misunderstands the literary flow of John's Gospel and the way Jesus gradually reveals His identity.
In John 5:31, Jesus is defending His divine authority and referencing the Father's testimony without explicitly invoking the legal principle of two witnesses. This sets the stage for the deeper discourse on His relationship with the Father that unfolds later. By the time we reach John 8:17-18, Jesus is in the midst of another confrontation with the Pharisees, and here He explicitly cites the law to highlight His dual witness with the Father.
John’s Gospel is not a legal textbook; it’s a theological narrative. Jesus is not bound to introduce all concepts at once but rather reveals them progressively, adapting to the growing tension between Himself and His opponents. John 8:17 does not negate John 5:31 but complements it, offering further clarification as the conflict escalates. This is why the two passages should be read together—John 5:31 sets up the idea of testimony, while John 8:17 explicitly ties it to Jewish law.
The argument that "there is no evidence" that John 5:31 implies the principle of two witnesses is unfounded when we consider the broader context of the Gospel. John repeatedly emphasizes the relationship between the Father and the Son, with the Father serving as a witness to the Son's divine mission. For example:
John 5:37: "And the Father who sent me has himself testified concerning me."
John 8:18: "I am one who testifies for myself; my other witness is the Father, who sent me."
These verses, taken together, form a coherent argument: Jesus' testimony about Himself is valid because it is corroborated by the Father. This dual witness aligns with the Jewish principle that a claim must be established by two or more witnesses.
The use of "alone" in some translations of John 5:31 is not an arbitrary addition but a clarification based on the context of Jewish legal practices. In the original Greek, the verse reads, "Ἐὰν ἐγὼ μαρτυρῶ περὶ ἐμαυτοῦ, ἡ μαρτυρία μου οὐκ ἔστιν ἀληθής," which translates directly to "If I testify about myself, my testimony is not true."
While the word "alone" does not appear in the Greek text, some translations add it to reflect the cultural and legal background, where multiple witnesses were required. The addition of "alone" helps clarify that Jesus is not dismissing His own authority but adhering to the legal standards of His time. This practice of clarifying meaning is common in Bible translation, especially when dealing with cultural contexts that may not be immediately clear to modern readers.
The key to understanding both John 5:31 and John 8:17-18 is recognizing the relationship between Jesus and the Father as it is presented throughout the Gospel. Jesus does not act independently of the Father but in perfect unity with Him. This unity is reflected in their shared testimony. Jesus’ words and actions are the Father’s words and actions. Therefore, His testimony about Himself is validated by the Father’s testimony.
In John 10:30, Jesus says, "I and the Father are one," underscoring the unity of their divine will and purpose. This unity includes their mutual testimony, which fulfills the requirement for multiple witnesses in Jewish law.
In conclusion, John 5:31 and John 8:17-18 are not contradictory but complementary. Jesus introduces the concept of testimony in John 5:31 and expands on it in John 8:17, referencing Jewish legal principles to explain why His testimony is valid. The Father serves as the second witness, fulfilling the requirement for multiple witnesses. Far from undermining the doctrine of the Trinity or Jesus' divinity, these passages affirm His divine identity and His perfect unity with the Father.
"Here, then, they take their stand, too infatuated, nay, too blind, to see in the first place that there is in this passage an intimation of Two Beings—“I and my Father;” then that there is a plural predicate, “are,” inapplicable to one person only; and lastly, that (the predicate terminates in an abstract, not a personal noun)—“we are one thing” Unum, not “one person” Unus. For if He had said “one Person,” He might have rendered some assistance to their opinion. Unus, no doubt, indicates the singular number; but (here we have a case where) “Two” are still the subject in the masculine gender. He accordingly says Unum, a neuter term, which does not imply singularity of number, but unity of essence, likeness, conjunction, affection on the Father’s part, who loves the Son, and submission on the Son’s, who obeys the Father’s will. When He says, “I and my Father are one” in essence—Unum—He shows that there are Two, whom He puts on an equality and unites in one. [...] Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent Persons, who are yet distinct One from Another. These Three are one (unum) essence, not one Person (unus), as it is said, 'I and my Father are One,' in respect of unity of substance not singularity of number." (Tertullian)
"In these two words, in that He said 'one', He delivers thee from Arius; in that He said 'are', He delivers thee from Sabellius. [...] When He says “one,” let the Arians listen; when He says, “we are,” let the Sabellians give heed, and no longer continue in the folly of denying, the one, His equality [with the Father], the other, His distinct personality. " (Augustine)
Nincsnevem, I try to exercise patience as the scriptures exhort us to do, but I see no need for me to comment further on this thread. However, I would like to make a brief comment: it should have been clear that I was not denying Calvin believed in the tres personae. I even spoke of him as a "Trinitarian," so it was never my intent to claim that Calvin denied the Trinity. Rather, he did not think John 10:30 described or articulated a unity of essence. That is why I quoted him. I was not attempting to gainsay Calvin's Trinitarian beliefs.
"You selectively quote Calvin without recognizing that his argument actually supports Christ’s deity." - But Edgar never made such a claim. You should try reading, it helps
You are imposing this idea...
trinitarians have redefined "Divinity" to mean "Gods essense" when infact Angels are considered "Divine"
"that Jesus has "borrowed divinity" or is merely a creature." - neither of which The JWs assert.. try reading (or improve your comprehension in What they assert, because you are so far wrong its actaully laughable - tried reading Staffords book? he has a good explanation focus on ALL his explanation not part of it).
"Christ’s ontological equality with the Father (e.g., Philippians 2:6, Colossians 2:9, John 1:1-3)" - the context of all of these do not assert anything of the sort. esp when the church fathers and other bible parallel John 1:3 with Proverbs 8:30 (want a list?) which uses a term that implies inferiority of some sort.
Justin Martyr: "God alone is unbegotten" (In other places he says "The Father")
Origen "the unbegotten God COMMANDED the firstborn of all creation"
Daniel Wallace: "God (The Father) is thought to be the creator, The Logos is thought as having a more :hands on" role"
please also cite where ANY of the church father claim "levels of divinity"
"The passage can simultaneously convey both unity of purpose and unity of essence, depending on the context." - this is a fairy tale you have made up yourself - a reputable scholar who makes this claim please? (A.T Robertson def doesn't, and he is far more credible than you.)
The early church father, Novatian, also interpreted John 10:30 in this manner:
"But since they frequently urge upon us the passage where it is said, 'I and the Father are one,' in this also we shall overcome them with equal facility. For if, as the heretics think, Christ were the Father, He ought to have said, 'I and the Father are one.' But when He says I, and afterwards introduces the Father by saying, 'I and the Father,' He severs and distinguishes the peculiarity of His, that is, the Son's person, from the paternal authority, not only in respect of the sound of the name, but moreover in respect of the order of the distribution of power, since He might have said, 'I the Father,' if He had had it in mind that He Himself was the Father. And since He said 'one' thing, let the heretics understand that He did not say 'one' person. For one placed in the neuter, intimates the social concord, not the personal unity. He is said to be one neuter, not one masculine, because the expression is not referred to the number, but it is declared with reference to the association of another. Finally, He adds, and says, "We are," not "I am," so as to show, by the fact of His saying" I and the Father are," that they are two persons. Moreover, that He says one, has reference to the agreement, and to the identity of judgment, and to the loving association itself, as reasonably the Father and Son are one in agreement, in love, and in affection . . . In receiving, then, sanctification from the Father, He is inferior to the Father. Now, consequently, He who is inferior to the Father, is not the Father, but the Son; for had He been the Father, He would have given, and not received, sanctification" (De Trinitate XXVII.16ff)
Nics, your points I have heard before, but that is not the Jewish law of two or more witnesses. Jesus said his claims would not be relevant, they mean nothing. The fathers word counts, not his. So tell me, if this is at the word of two or more witnesses then why did jesus never say "OUR WORD"???
Its easy to know why - John 12:49-50.
Jesus speaks the fathers words, just as he does when he I telling them that the Father takes priority over Abraham , "before Abraham I have been". They really did not like being told that.
Nics, just to be clear on your approach to trinity - "The Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Father" ????
@Anon
You claim that Trinitarians have "redefined" divinity to mean "God's essence," whereas angels are also considered "divine." This point misses a crucial distinction. When Trinitarians speak of divinity in relation to the Trinity, they refer to God's unique, uncreated essence — the very nature of God that is shared equally by the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
While angels may be called "divine" in a sense of being heavenly or spiritual beings, they do not share in God's essence. They are created beings, not eternal, uncreated beings like the persons of the Trinity. Hebrews 1:5-14 draws a clear distinction between Jesus and the angels, emphasizing that Jesus is vastly superior to them and that angels are ministering spirits, not equal in divinity with God. Hebrews 1:3 directly states that Jesus is “the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of His being” (Greek: hypostasis), which means Christ shares the very essence of God, something no angel can claim.
You claim that Trinitarians wrongly accuse Jehovah’s Witnesses of teaching that Jesus has "borrowed divinity" or that He is merely a creature. This is not a misrepresentation of Jehovah’s Witness theology; it’s an accurate reflection of their teaching. Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that Jesus is Michael the Archangel, a created being, and that He was the first of God's creations. They explicitly deny that Jesus is co-eternal and co-equal with the Father. They teach that Jesus has divine authority given to Him by God, but they do not believe He is God by nature. This is the crux of the theological disagreement between Trinitarians and Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Moreover, your reference to Greg Stafford’s book (likely Jehovah’s Witnesses Defended) does not support your argument. While Stafford may offer a defense of JW theology, the central claim remains that Jesus is a created being, which is fundamentally at odds with orthodox Christianity. Trinitarian theology insists on the full divinity of Jesus, meaning He is eternal, uncreated, and shares in the same divine essence as the Father and the Holy Spirit.
You argue that Philippians 2:6, Colossians 2:9, and John 1:1-3 do not assert Christ’s equality with the Father. However, these passages explicitly affirm Christ’s divine nature:
• Philippians 2:6 states that Christ, “being in very nature God” (Greek: μορφῇ Θεοῦ, morphe Theou), did not consider equality with God something to be grasped or clung to. The passage affirms Christ’s pre-existent divinity. The “form of God” in Greek means Christ possesses the essential nature of God.
• Colossians 2:9 says that “in Christ, all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form.” The word used for "Deity" here is θεότης (theotēs), meaning the full and complete essence of God, not simply divine qualities. This verse directly affirms that Jesus possesses the fullness of the divine nature.
• John 1:1-3 clearly establishes Christ as eternal and uncreated: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." The Word (Christ) is identified as fully divine and the agent of creation. This parallels the Old Testament understanding of God's Word as His powerful, active self-expression, but John applies this directly to Christ.
You mention that some Church Fathers paralleled John 1:3 with Proverbs 8:30, which describes "Wisdom" as being present with God at creation. While some early Fathers used Wisdom as a type of Christ, it does NOT imply inferiority. Rather, Wisdom in Proverbs 8 is personified as an attribute of God, and early Christians understood this as a way to speak of Christ’s role in creation.
Justin Martyr and others indeed affirmed that the Father is "unbegotten," but this speaks to the distinction of persons within the Trinity, not to the inferiority of the Son. The Son is eternally begotten of the Father, meaning He shares the same divine nature but derives His personhood from the Father. This does not imply inequality or temporal inferiority.
Your citation of Daniel Wallace stating that the Father is the creator while the Logos (the Son) plays a "hands-on" role is consistent with Trinitarian theology. Wallace’s point is that creation is a work of the entire Trinity, with the Father as the source, the Son as the agent, and the Spirit as the one who sustains creation. This is not evidence of Jesus being inferior to the Father but of the distinct roles within the Godhead.
You claim that saying John 10:30 can convey both "unity of purpose and essence" is a fairy tale. However, many reputable scholars, including those from the early Church, have affirmed both the unity of essence (one divine nature) and the distinct persons of the Trinity. John 10:30, where Jesus says, "I and the Father are one," reflects both this unity of essence and the harmony of purpose in their divine mission. A.T. Robertson, whom you cite, supports this understanding in his analysis of John 10:30, where he acknowledges that "one" here refers to a unity of nature, not just purpose. This interpretation is consistent with Trinitarian thought, as many scholars affirm both aspects.
Since you elaborated on your issue with the view of JW's, allow me to thank you for finally elaborating your personal position:
"But I will explain more specifically what my problem is with your methodology: I am Catholic, I believe that we are not obliged to prove our doctrines, as Tertullian said in “On the Prescription of Heretics”, the burden of proof is on the heretics, and the defendant position belongs to the Church. "
It reminds me of the Frost/Nixon interview, when Nixon said "when the President does it, that means that it is not illegal." It's not just that the Catholic church is the defendant, it also sets itself as judge in the same case. Thank you for the 'orthodox' perspective and also why it can be so frustrating reading these interactions.
-NC
Without picking on Nincsnevem, I have to admit that the position advanced seemed surprising to me. I have long been taught as a Witness and in academia, that it's not enough to set forth a belief or thesis. One's belief/thesis needs to be proved, whether a person is Catholic, JW, Eastern Orthodox or an atheist.
@Anon
Tertullian's argument isn't about exempting the Church from proving its doctrines altogether, but rather about placing the burden of proof on those who introduce new or divergent teachings—namely, heretics. The argument stems from the belief that the Church has preserved the teachings passed down directly from the apostles, ensuring doctrinal continuity. In this view, the Church doesn't claim to be beyond scrutiny, but rather asserts that those who deviate from apostolic teachings must provide substantial evidence for their claims.
The Church’s position is analogous to legal principles in secular courts: when a party asserts a claim contrary to established precedent or legal ownership, it bears the burden of proof to show why the status quo should be changed. The Church's claim to doctrinal continuity is based on historical, theological, and scriptural grounds, not merely a power assertion.
A key element of Catholic theology is the notion of apostolic succession, which is believed to preserve not just the form of the faith but also its substance. The Church, by claiming to trace its teachings back to the apostles, asserts continuity with the very origins of Christianity. In contrast, heretical movements (as understood in early Christianity) often arose later, proposing teachings not traceable to apostolic sources.
This is why the Church historically viewed itself as the guardian of truth rather than the claimant in new theological propositions. To ask the Church to "prove" what it already received and safeguarded for centuries would be like asking a custodian to justify the preservation of something that has been in their care since the beginning.
The analogy to Nixon's statement ("when the President does it, that means it’s not illegal") misrepresents the role of the Church. Nixon's statement implied that his actions were beyond legal scrutiny simply because of his office, which was an authoritarian claim without legal basis. In contrast, the Catholic Church’s claim to doctrinal truth is based on its continuity with the original apostolic teachings, not on an arbitrary or authoritarian principle. The Church does not declare its teachings to be true just because it says so, but because it sees itself as the bearer of a consistent, traceable tradition. The role of the Church is more akin to a caretaker of a centuries-old trust than to a self-appointed judge who is above the law.
In essence, the Church isn't setting itself as the "judge" of truth arbitrarily but is relying on what it considers a divinely instituted mission passed down through apostolic succession. This is not a claim to immunity from challenge but a recognition of its historical role.
Catholics don’t abandon reason or the need for evidence; the difference lies in what constitutes sufficient evidence. For Catholics, the Church’s unbroken history of apostolic teaching, supported by Scripture, councils, and the writings of early Church Fathers, forms the foundation of its doctrinal authority. The Church is not arguing for a blind adherence to doctrine but is emphasizing the legitimacy of a tradition that has been scrutinized and debated throughout centuries. Thus, the challenge for those who oppose the Church’s teaching is to provide substantial reasons for why the Church’s long-held beliefs should be discarded in favor of newer, unproven interpretations.
The Catholic position, as articulated by Tertullian, is not an authoritarian rejection of dialogue or proof, but rather a recognition of the Church's role as a steward of apostolic tradition. The burden of proof, in this case, falls on those who seek to change or challenge what has been consistently taught for centuries. This doesn’t eliminate the need for theological discussion or evidence; it simply emphasizes that new teachings must be held to a high standard of scrutiny, especially when they diverge from what the Church believes to be the apostolic faith.
Rather than a claim of unchecked authority, this view reflects the Church’s belief in its continuity with the origins of Christianity. Therefore, far from being a Nixon-like claim that "when the Church says it, it's true," the Catholic Church sees itself as defending a heritage that it has carefully preserved, and those who seek to change it must justify their claims.
When the Gnostics began to refer to secret traditions in support of their own teachings, Irenaeus and Tertullian, in due order, set forth apostolic succession as the criterion of orthodoxy: "We can list those whom the apostles appointed as bishops and their successors, all the way to our own time; and they did not teach or know anything like what these (the Gnostics) are claiming" (Iren. III 3:1; cf. IV 26:2). Tertullian then built upon this idea with the brilliant argument of prescription (praescriptio): in disputes with heretics, the Church does not need to prove its own truth; due to apostolic continuity, by virtue of prescription, it is in lawful possession of the doctrine, and the burden of proof (onus probandi) lies with the heretics. This argument was later echoed by Origen; Pope Stephen used it against Cyprian, and Augustine used it against the Pelagians (Tertul. Praescript. haeret. 20; 32; 37; especially 34; cf. Iren. IV 33:8; 26:2; Origen. Princip. praef. 2; August. Epist. Manich. fund. 4; 5; c. Faust. XXXII 19; Ctra Iulian. II 34; Nazianz. Or. 21:8).
Tertullian's argument of prescription (praescriptio) regarding the Church's lawful possession of its teachings is indeed based on legal grounds, as Tertullian himself had legal training. Tertullian's classic work in anti-heretical literature is ‘De praescriptione haereticorum’ (On Prescription Against Heretics). The title is quite difficult to translate properly. The term praescriptio is taken from Roman legal terminology, meaning an order, command, stipulation, or limitation. A praescriptio was a legal provision invoked by a claimant to preempt a lawsuit, preventing the case from being initiated in the first place. At the core of Tertullian’s writing is the question of who can even claim the right to interpret Scripture, and who can interpret it authentically. Tertullian outright forbids heretics from appealing to Scripture, as he does not believe it is possible to engage them in successful debate. His argument hinges on two essential points: Christ entrusted the preaching of the Gospel to the apostles, and the apostles entrusted it to the churches they themselves founded. Heretics, therefore, have no grounds to claim authority against the Church, as they are later than both the apostles and the apostolically founded churches. The crux of the argument is that the Church received its teachings from the apostles, and this continuity ensures the truth. It is the heretics who must prove that their teachings are consistent with those of the apostles, which is, of course, impossible since they hold differing views.
The notion that "Absolute Truth" would always be required to prove itself fails to take into account the weight of apostolic tradition and the Church's historical continuity. The Church’s teachings are neither novel nor arbitrarily constructed but directly derived from apostolic teachings, faithfully preserved by the Church. As a result, the possession of authentic doctrine rests with the Church, and it is up to the heretics to prove that their divergent views are true.
Regarding appeals to Scripture, Tertullian rightly asserts that heretics have no right to claim Christian scriptures, as their teachings are not in line with apostolic teaching. The apostolic churches, by their origin, validate their legitimacy, something heretical groups cannot do.
Thus, Tertullian’s legal argument is not just a convenient solution but a logical consequence of the Church preserving apostolic traditions. Proving the truth is unnecessary when continuity and apostolic inheritance already serve as evidence. It is not for the Church to prove its teachings, but for the heretics to justify their doctrines, which they are unable to do from either a historical or theological perspective.
I hope it doesn't come across as picking-- I have learned a lot about the so-called orthodox positions from his posts. So while disagreeing, I do appreciate that and have added to my knowledge of many of these subjects.
For me personally, it's 1 Corinthians 13:5 that comes into the picture regularly.
-NC
Nincsnevem, all I'm going to say is from the perspective of Jehovah's Witnesses, the Church is the institution that fills the role of heretic/deviant. I don't say that to be disrespectful, but to just illustrate how one person's heresy is another's orthodoxy. For Witnesses and many Protestants, the first Christians were not Catholic or RC. But I really don't want this thread to become about which form of Christianity was first: we've already gotten away from the original focus of the OP.
I couldn't agree more with the observations about what one can learn from divergent perspectives and how we should manifest the spirit of love.
Ninc- John 8:39.
And if I'd read only the last few months of comment threads here, I'd say the 'heretics' have done just fine justifying scriptural doctrines from a theological perspective.
Finally, just because Tertullian rightly argued against the Gnostics doesn't grant the Catholic church carte blanche to distort truth in the name of tradition.
That's all I have to say on that matter. Have a good evening.
-NC
@Edgar Foster
You rightly point out that different groups may view each other through the lens of heresy versus orthodoxy. This is certainly true historically, but it’s important to understand that this doesn’t simply reduce the matter to personal perspective. Throughout Christian history, orthodoxy has been established through the discernment of Scripture, apostolic tradition, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit, as expressed in ecumenical councils and Church teaching.
The early Church did not function in theological isolation. From the very beginning, the Apostles were entrusted with preserving and transmitting the faith they had received directly from Christ (Acts 2:42). They appointed bishops and leaders to ensure that this faith was guarded and passed down (2 Timothy 2:2). This process is what we call apostolic succession, which is a key concept in understanding why the Catholic Church believes it holds the authentic deposit of faith. It is not a matter of personal opinion but a continuity that can be traced back to the Apostles themselves.
The divergence in views, as seen in various Protestant or non-Trinitarian movements, came much later, and these groups do not have the historical continuity that the Catholic Church claims. This difference isn’t merely a matter of preference but of historical and theological grounding.
You mentioned that the first Christians were not "Catholic or RC." This is partially correct in the sense that the term "Roman Catholic" as a label came much later. However, the term catholic (from the Greek katholikos, meaning "universal") was used very early to describe the Christian Church. The first recorded use of the term comes from Ignatius of Antioch in his letter to the Smyrnaeans around AD 107, where he writes about "the Catholic Church" as the universal body of believers in Christ.
The structure, beliefs, and practices of the early Church, as seen in the writings of the Church Fathers like Ignatius, Clement, and Polycarp, are much more aligned with what became known as Catholic Christianity than with the teachings of later movements like Jehovah’s Witnesses or Protestantism. Key doctrines such as the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the role of bishops, and the belief in the Trinity are already present in these early writings, long before the doctrinal developments you refer to in the 3rd century.
@Anonymous
You referenced John 8:39 and mentioned that heretics, in your view, have done a fine job of justifying their doctrines from a theological perspective. However, it’s important to differentiate between a selective use of Scripture and the consistent theological tradition passed down from the Apostles. Jehovah’s Witnesses, for example, reject key doctrines such as the Trinity and the divinity of Christ, both of which are deeply rooted in Scripture and were articulated clearly in the early ecumenical councils like Nicaea in AD 325.
The notion that these doctrines are later "distortions" is historically inaccurate. For instance, the Gospel of John (1:1, 20:28) and Paul’s letters (Colossians 2:9, Philippians 2:6) make clear references to Christ’s divinity, which were understood and affirmed by early Christians. The councils did not invent these teachings but clarified them in response to heretical challenges, much like the way Tertullian argued against the Gnostics. This is why the Catholic Church sees itself as the guardian of apostolic truth rather than a creator of new doctrines.
Finally, you suggest that the Catholic Church may distort truth "in the name of tradition." I would argue that the Catholic understanding of Tradition (with a capital T) is not about "distorting" or "adding" to the faith but about faithfully preserving what has been handed down from the Apostles. As I mentioned before, Scripture and Tradition are not in opposition but complement one another. The Church teaches that the fullness of revelation is found in both the written Word of God and the oral tradition passed down through the centuries (2 Thessalonians 2:15).
Tradition in the Catholic sense is not simply customs or practices "invented" over time, but the living transmission of the faith under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. This is why the Church holds to doctrines like the Trinity, the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and the authority of the papacy—not because they are distortions of the Gospel, but because they are part of the faith that was entrusted to the Apostles and has been preserved through apostolic succession.
I respect that you may view things differently from your position as a Jehovah’s Witness, but I encourage you to consider the historical and theological roots of Catholicism. The Catholic Church’s claim to doctrinal continuity is not a matter of arbitrary tradition but is deeply grounded in the early Christian experience, Scripture, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit through the Church. The Church’s role is not to distort the truth but to safeguard it and ensure that it is faithfully transmitted across generations.
Thank you again for the conversation, and I appreciate the respectful tone you’ve maintained throughout. I look forward to continuing this dialogue if you’d like to discuss further.
I will keep this thread open for 24 hours. Thank you.
"When Trinitarians speak of divinity in relation to the Trinity, they refer to God's unique, uncreated essence" - then they need to go back 2000 years and tell the apostles and the councils to go back to the drawing board with their terminology because it is ambiguous and really sucks .
" This is not a misrepresentation of Jehovah’s Witness theology; it’s an accurate reflection of their teaching. " - is it tho? you claim that they claim Christ was made from nothing - cite a source for this claim, they never claimed such a thing, They said he was "created" from what? they never say
& so what if they claim he is Micheal the archangel? many trinitarian theologians have come to the same conclusion. So does Clement..
"They explicitly deny that Jesus is co-eternal and co-equal with the Father. They teach that Jesus has divine authority given to Him by God" - he is co eternal after his ressurection (I guess) just not before.
as for authority - literally what the bible says...
"Rather, Wisdom in Proverbs 8 is personified as an attribute of God" - tell that to the church Fathers... even Atha took it quite literally and never disputed that it was literally Christ - else why try to refer it to the incarnation instead if it wasnt literal? makes no sense.
"The “form of God” in Greek means Christ possesses the essential nature of God." - morphe means no such thing, we have gone over this - Jesus coming down from a glorious state beside his father to die for sinful humans is humility at its finest. & the verb used has no meaning that implies what one already possesed..
and I would love to see other citations where it means "nature"
"Hebrews 1:3 directly states that Jesus is “the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of His being” (Greek: hypostasis), which means Christ shares the very essence of God" - according to trinitarian theology yes, is this what the word literally means tho? and a "representation" would indicate its something other than the original.
"not simply divine qualities" -"theotēs" and "theiotēs" (if thats the correct spelling) are literally synoymous, I can prove this aswell
"clearly establishes Christ as eternal and uncreated" - perhaps the uncreated, the eternal is doubtful and this (exact) interpretation is held by none of the church fathers.
"Fathers used Wisdom as a type of Christ, it does NOT imply inferiority." - tried reading? Why does Origen literally state "The unbegotten God COMMANDED the firstborn of creation"? and Christ is by nature not a different PERSON from Wisdom
- so we can take proverbs 8:25 literally? because he "begot" Wisdom eternally right? but begot is synonymous with "created" "established" and "possessed"
and what about AMON?
you should address the whole points not just part of them.
@Anonymous
You claim that Trinitarians need to “go back 2000 years” and reconsider their terminology. However, the terminology surrounding the Trinity—like “divinity” and “essence”—was developed carefully by the early Church Fathers over centuries to precisely articulate what the Bible teaches about the nature of God. It’s important to understand that they were working with human language to describe a divine mystery, so there may be complexities, but this doesn't imply that the teaching is unclear or flawed. The development of terms like "homoousios" (same substance) in the Nicene Creed was designed to eliminate ambiguity, affirming that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit share the same divine essence.
The apostles themselves used language that pointed to the divinity of Christ, even if they didn’t use later technical terms like "Trinity." For example, the prologue of John’s Gospel (John 1:1) speaks to Christ’s deity and role in creation. The language of the councils clarified the understanding of what the apostles witnessed and taught, based on scripture.
You contest my characterization of JW theology by saying they never claimed Christ was “made from nothing” (ex nihilo) and that they don’t specify what He was created from. JWs do, in fact, teach that Jesus is a created being and that He is not co-eternal with the Father. This is fundamentally at odds with orthodox Christian belief, which holds that Christ is uncreated and eternal.
Their official teachings explicitly state that Jesus was the first creation of Jehovah. While they might not say Jesus was made from “nothing,” this is a semantic distinction without a difference in theological terms. The key issue is that JWs reject the co-eternity and the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father, which contradicts the core Trinitarian belief that the Son is eternal and not a created being.
As for the claim that *some* Trinitarian theologians believed Jesus is Michael the Archangel, that’s a misrepresentation. The vast majority of orthodox Trinitarian theologians reject this idea. Figures like Clement of Alexandria never equated Christ with Michael in the way JWs do. Michael the Archangel is a created being, whereas Jesus, according to orthodox Christian theology, is the eternal Son of God.
You argue that Jesus is only "co-eternal" with the Father after His resurrection. However, this idea doesn’t align with biblical texts that affirm the pre-existence and eternity of the Son. Philippians 2:6 clearly says that Christ existed “in the form of God” before His incarnation, and John 1:1-3 declares that the Word was with the God and was God "in the beginning." This indicates that Christ’s existence as God is not tied to His resurrection but is an eternal reality.
You mention that Athanasius and other Church Fathers understood Proverbs 8 as referring to Christ and ask why they would interpret this literally if it wasn’t meant to be so. The answer lies in their understanding of the relationship between God and His Wisdom (identified with Christ). The Fathers did not see Proverbs 8 as proving that Christ is a created being; rather, they used it as a type or figure pointing to the pre-existent Logos. Christ is eternally begotten, not created, and this distinction is crucial. When the Fathers referred to Christ as Wisdom, they were affirming His role in creation and His eternal generation from the Father, not suggesting He was a created being like the rest of creation.
You claim that MORPHE doesn’t mean “nature” and doesn’t imply pre-existing divinity. However, this interpretation is widely accepted by scholars. The Greek word morphe in Philippians 2:6 refers to the essential nature or form of something, not merely an external appearance. When Paul writes that Christ was in the MORPHE of God, he’s affirming that Christ shares in the divine nature. This is supported by the fact that Paul contrasts this with Christ taking on the MORPHE of a servant (v. 7), indicating a change in role, not in essential being. Thus, Christ did not cease to be divine when He became human.
You argue that the word “representation” in Hebrews 1:3 suggests that Christ is something other than God. However, the phrase “the exact representation of His being” (Greek: χαρακτήρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως) means that Christ perfectly reflects the Father’s nature. The term hypostasis refers to God’s underlying reality or essence. Therefore, Hebrews 1:3 affirms that Christ shares in the very essence of God. The fact that Christ is the “exact representation” doesn’t imply inferiority; it indicates that He is the visible manifestation of the invisible God.
You claim that THEOTĒS (θεότης) and THEIOTĒS (θειότης) are synonymous. This is incorrect. THEOTĒS refers to the fullness of divinity or the divine essence, as seen in Colossians 2:9, where Paul writes that “in Christ all the fullness of deity dwells in bodily form.” This emphasizes that Christ is fully and truly God. THEIOTĒS, on the other hand, refers more broadly to divine qualities or attributes, as used in Romans 1:20 to describe God’s power and nature. These terms are not synonymous; THEOTĒS refers to the full divine essence, while THEIOTĒS refers to divine qualities.
From the Cambridge Greek Lexicon:
μορφή ής, dial, μορφα ας, Aeol. μόρφα ας/ 1 physical or visible form; form or appearance (of persons, deities, animals, things) Eleg. Lyr. Parm. Emp. Hdt. Trag. +; (specif.) shape or form (opp. είδος appearance) Arist.
2 attractive form or appearance, beauty (of persons or deities) Pi. E. X. Bion; (of speech) Od.
3 kind, sort or aspect (of non-physical or abstract things, such as calamities, activities, changes, life) E. PL Plu.
“MORPHE … and doesn’t imply pre-existing divinity. “ - no I did not you added this to what I said
I said “Jesus coming down from a glorious state beside his father to die for sinful humans is humility at its finest.”
Where did I deny pre-existing divinity? Where Ninc? Quote me verbatim where I said Jesus did not pre-existed and was not divine
Edgar do you have the study done by I think burney where the conclusion is drawn that theotes and the other word are synonymous?
Only reason I ask is because I can’t find and won’t have access to my copy for the next few days but would like to cite before you close this thread
“You mention that Athanasius and other Church Fathers understood Proverbs 8 as referring to Christ and ask why they would interpret this literally if it wasn’t meant to be so.” - once again no I did not, read my statement again
Do I need to cite the whole portion of Clement where he literally uses Jesus and Micheal interchangeably?
The same Clement who uses begotten and created as synonyms like the lxx
I do have that study, but it will be tomorrow night before I can look for it. My bedtime is near and I have work and a meeting tomorrow. I will help if circumstances permit. Best.
Nash, H. S. “Θειότης: Θεότης, Rom. 1. 20; Col. 2. 9.” Journal of Biblical Literature, vol. 18, no. 1/2, 1899, pp. 1–34. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/3268966. Accessed 3 Apr. 2024.
You claim I misrepresented your position on pre-existing divinity, but your argument does seem to downplay the significance of MORPHE (μορφή) as implying Christ’s divinity. My clarification was that MORPHE refers to Christ’s essential nature—His divine essence—not just His outward form or position. This is important because many non-Trinitarian arguments attempt to suggest that MORPHE simply refers to Christ’s outward appearance or role, not His inherent divinity. However, this interpretation doesn’t align with the broader context of Philippians 2:6-7, where Paul contrasts Christ’s divine MORPHE with His taking on human MORPHE. This emphasizes not a change in essence, but in status, showing the humility of the divine Christ in taking on humanity.
You haven’t denied Christ’s pre-existing divinity outright, but your emphasis on His "glorious state" beside the Father seems to reduce it to a matter of position or glory, rather than the eternal divine nature He shares with the Father. If you accept Christ’s pre-existing divinity, it must follow that His divine essence is unchanging, even as He took on human nature. This is a key point of Trinitarian doctrine.
You argue that I misrepresented your stance on the Church Fathers and Proverbs 8. However, your original statement seemed to suggest that Athanasius and other Fathers viewed Proverbs 8 literally as referring to Christ. This is a common argument among non-Trinitarians, citing Proverbs 8:22 ("The LORD brought me forth as the first of His works") as evidence that Christ is a created being. My clarification was that while Church Fathers like Athanasius did use Proverbs 8 typologically, they did not interpret it to mean that Christ was created. Instead, they understood the passage to point to the eternal generation of the Son, which is distinct from creation. The distinction between "begotten" and "created" is crucial in Trinitarian theology, and Church Fathers consistently affirmed that Christ is begotten, not made.
You suggest that Clement of Alexandria used Jesus and Michael interchangeably, implying that Christ might be equated with an angel. However, Clement’s use of language must be understood within the context of his broader theology. Clement, like other orthodox Church Fathers, affirmed the deity of Christ and would not have reduced Him to the level of an angel. If he uses language that seems to overlap in referring to Christ and Michael, it’s likely a metaphorical or typological usage, not a literal identification. Additionally, orthodox Trinitarian theologians reject the idea that Jesus is Michael the Archangel, as this contradicts the clear biblical teaching of Christ’s unique divinity (see John 1:1, Hebrews 1:1-14). Michael is a created being, but Christ is the eternal Son of God.
You referenced H.S. Nash’s article on THEOTĒS and THEIOTĒS as if they were interchangeable terms. However, as I stated earlier, these terms are not synonymous. THEOTĒS (θεότης) in Colossians 2:9 refers to the fullness of divine essence that dwells in Christ, while THEIOTĒS (θειότης) in Romans 1:20 refers to divine qualities or attributes that are visible in creation. This distinction is well-supported by both ancient and modern scholarship, and conflating the two terms leads to theological confusion. Colossians 2:9 emphasizes that Christ possesses the full, unshared essence of God, not merely divine qualities. Thus, Christ is fully and truly God in every sense.
You mentioned that Bart Ehrman used 1 Corinthians 8:6 to argue that Paul did not believe in the Trinity, and that Dan Wallace supposedly claimed the doctrine had not yet been revealed to Paul. While I cannot verify Wallace’s specific statement in the debate, the point remains that 1 Corinthians 8:6 affirms the unique relationship between the Father and the Son. Paul says, “yet for us, there is but one God, the Father... and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.” This doesn’t deny Christ’s divinity but rather affirms the distinct persons of the Father and the Son within the Godhead.
The title “Lord” (Κύριος) applied to Christ here is a reference to the divine name (YHWH), showing that Paul indeed viewed Christ as divine. Paul’s use of this language mirrors the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4), where the oneness of God is proclaimed, but now it’s expressed in a way that includes both the Father and the Son. This is entirely compatible with Trinitarian doctrine, as it demonstrates the unity and distinction within the Godhead. Far from denying the Trinity, Paul’s writings laid the groundwork for its later articulation.
Nics, https://www.angelfire.com/space/thegospeltruth/TTD/verses/colossians2_9.html
@Duncan
The argument claims that THEOTĒS, translated as "deity" or "Godhead," simply refers to the "God-ness" or divine quality of Christ, and not to his full divinity. The word THEOTĒS indeed refers to deity, but it is crucial to understand that in this context, it refers to the fullness of deity, meaning that all the attributes, nature, and essence of God dwell in Christ. Lexical authorities such as BDAG define THEOTĒS as "the state of being God" or "deity." This indicates that Paul's use of the word refers to the complete divine essence present in Christ, not just a qualitative aspect of deity. It is not enough to say that THEOTĒS refers only to "what" Christ is and not "who" Christ is. The term points to the reality of Christ's divine nature—his being, not just his qualities. Therefore, when Paul says that the fullness of deity dwells in Christ, he is affirming that Christ possesses the complete nature of God.
The argument suggests that Trinitarians are inconsistent in claiming that the fullness of deity dwells in Christ bodily, while also distinguishing between Christ's human and divine natures. This objection misunderstands the doctrine of the hypostatic union, which teaches that Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man, possessing both a divine and a human nature. These two natures are united in the one person of Christ without confusion, change, division, or separation. When Colossians 2:9 says that "all the fullness of deity dwells bodily" in Christ, it affirms that Christ, in his incarnate state, possesses the full divine nature. This does not mean that his human nature is transformed into deity, nor does it imply a confusion of the two natures. Instead, the passage highlights the mystery of the incarnation: God became man in Jesus Christ, and in his bodily form, he fully retains the divine nature. The argument that deity was not on the cross but only humanity is another misunderstanding. In the hypostatic union, Christ's divine nature remained even as he suffered and died in his human nature. His divine nature did not cease to exist or become inactive during his crucifixion. Therefore, there is no inconsistency in saying that Christ's divine nature and human nature are distinct but united in the one person of Jesus.
The claim is made that Paul is only referring to the risen Christ and not the incarnate Christ in Colossians 2:9, based on the present tense of the verb and the surrounding context. While it is true that Paul is referring to the glorified, risen Christ, this does not exclude the fact that Paul is also describing the incarnate Christ. The fullness of deity dwelled in Christ during his earthly ministry as well as in his risen and glorified state. The verb "dwells" (Greek: katoikei) is in the present tense, indicating that the fullness of deity continues to dwell in Christ bodily, even after his resurrection. This affirms that Christ remains fully God and fully man in his glorified state. Furthermore, the idea that we "no longer know Christ according to the flesh" (2 Corinthians 5:16) does not mean that Christ’s divine nature was absent during his earthly life. Instead, Paul is emphasizing that believers now know Christ in his glorified state, having triumphed over sin and death. This does not contradict the fact that Christ, even in his earthly ministry, possessed the fullness of deity.
The argument points out that believers are said to be filled with the fullness of God (Colossians 2:10, Ephesians 3:19), and this fullness does not make them God, so it should not mean that Christ is God either. There is an important distinction between the "fullness" of deity in Christ and the "fullness" believers receive. In Colossians 2:9, Paul is describing the UNIQUE fullness of deity that dwells in Christ, referring to Christ's divine essence. In contrast, when Paul speaks of believers being "filled with all the fullness of God" (Ephesians 3:19), he is referring to believers being filled with the spiritual blessings, grace, and moral attributes of God. Believers partake in God's nature through sanctification and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, but this does not mean they possess the divine essence itself. The fullness of God in believers is a reflection of God's attributes, such as love, holiness, and wisdom, but it does not equate believers with God. Christ, on the other hand, possesses the fullness of deity in his very being. The distinction between Christ and believers is critical: Christ inherently possesses the fullness of God because of his divine nature, while believers are filled with God's fullness through participation in his grace.
The argument suggests that Paul's use of "fullness" refers to the wisdom and knowledge of God, not Christ's divine nature. While Paul does speak of Christ as the repository of "all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge" (Colossians 2:3), this is not the focus of Colossians 2:9. In verse 9, Paul shifts to a broader statement about the fullness of deity dwelling bodily in Christ. The phrase "fullness of deity" goes beyond wisdom and knowledge to encompass the entirety of God's nature. The use of PLEROMA (fullness) in Colossians 2:9 points to the totality of divine being, not just intellectual or spiritual attributes. Therefore, while wisdom and knowledge are certainly aspects of God’s fullness, Paul’s statement in Colossians 2:9 is a theological declaration about Christ's divine identity, not just his possession of divine wisdom.
The argument contends that since the verse does not say "Jesus IS deity" but rather that deity "dwells" in him, it does not affirm Christ's deity. This argument overlooks the fact that the indwelling of deity in Christ is not a temporary or partial indwelling, as it might be in believers. In Colossians 2:9, the phrase "all the fullness of deity" dwells in Christ bodily—this is a statement about Christ's very being. The fullness of deity dwelling in Christ indicates that Christ embodies the complete divine essence. This is not a case of God dwelling in Christ in the same way that the Holy Spirit dwells in believers; rather, it is a declaration that Christ himself is the full embodiment of God in human form.
“ You referenced H.S. Nash’s article on THEOTĒS and THEIOTĒS as if they were interchangeable terms. However, as I stated earlier, these terms are not synonymous.” - did you actually read Nash’s article? I think you will find you are wrong…
Nash presents convincing evidence to the contrary of what you claim and other translations support the WT position
“ Paul’s use of this language mirrors the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4), where the oneness of God is proclaimed” - 1 problem there is a difference in the amount of subjects and kurious is used as a title when appositional to a proper name - hence can drop the article
Not a proper noun
This is another lie you have come up with that was debunked years ago
Nics, I have just checked my Brilldag for the term and it says - divinity, divine nature or essence. However evidence of the use of the word is rather scant and relatively late.
@Anonymous
My original argument, referencing THEOTĒS and THEIOTĒS, distinguishes between the terms and argues that THEOTĒS in Colossians 2:9 refers to the fullness of divine essence in Christ, while THEIOTĒS in Romans 1:20 refers to God's qualities visible in creation. This distinction is well-established in the majority of theological and biblical scholarship. In the Nash article, the author disputes the traditional distinction between THEOTĒS and THEIOTĒS. He argues that this distinction, which modern scholars typically make between God’s divine essence (THEOTĒS) and His attributes or divine qualities (THEIOTĒS), might not be as strong as traditionally held. Nash claims that the two terms cover similar theological territory and criticizes modern scholarship for over-relying on this distinction.
The distinction between THEOTĒS and THEIOTĒS is not arbitrary but grounded in careful linguistic and theological analysis. Biblical scholars and theologians like A.T. Robertson, Bruce Metzger, and many others have upheld the distinction because THEOTĒS speaks of divine essence, while THEIOTĒS denotes divine qualities. This distinction is critical to understanding Paul’s theology in Colossians 2:9 because it emphasizes that Christ embodies the fullness of the divine essence, not just qualities of divinity. Nash’s article, despite attempting to challenge this tradition, lacks substantial evidence to overturn centuries of theological exegesis. His attempt to blur the lines between the two words overlooks the clear lexical differentiation supported by Greek philology.
Nash begins by arguing that the distinction between THEOTĒS (Godhead or divine essence) and THEIOTĒS (divine attributes or divinity) is not valid. He insists that this distinction lacks historical and lexical support, particularly in Paul's writings. However, this argument oversimplifies the deep theological distinctions present in Greek philosophical and biblical traditions. For instance, the theological distinction that THEOTĒS refers to the fullness of the divine essence, while THEIOTĒS refers to divine qualities or attributes, is a well-attested understanding among patristic and medieval scholars. This distinction helps clarify the Christian teaching on the nature of Christ, especially in Colossians 2:9, where it is emphasized that in Christ, "the fullness of the THEOTĒS dwells bodily," thus affirming Christ's divinity in an essential, not accidental, sense.
Nash claims that early Church Fathers did not make a clear distinction between these terms. This is a selective reading of the patristic tradition. Athanasius, Cyril of Alexandria, and John Chrysostom, among others, did recognize a difference in theological context. Athanasius, for instance, uses THEOTĒS to emphasize Christ's co-equal divinity with the Father during the Arian controversy. While Nash argues that terms like THEOTĒS and THEIOTĒS were interchangeable, this misses the nuance in theological debate where precision mattered greatly, especially in the context of Christological and Trinitarian definitions.
Nash critiques the alleged evolution of the terms in pagan Greek writings and suggests that no clear distinction existed in classical Greek philosophy between the two terms. Yet, this criticism overlooks the shift in language and meaning that occurred within Christian theology, especially during the patristic era. By the 4th and 5th centuries, these terms had become vital to articulating Christ's divine nature in opposition to various heresies, such as Arianism and Gnosticism. The evolution of theological vocabulary in Christian thought was not tied to classical Greek usage but rather adapted to express theological truths.
Nash's argument that the use of the terms in Greek non-Christian writings does not support the distinction overlooks the significant transformation of language that Christianity brought about. In theological debates, especially concerning the nature of the Trinity and the Incarnation, precision in terminology was developed to avoid heretical interpretations. The fact that THEOTĒS became a technical term in Christian discourse reflects this development.
Nash downplays the importance of exegetical tradition by suggesting that the widespread acceptance of the distinction between THEOTĒS and THEIOTĒS is simply a result of entrenched tradition rather than sound exegesis. However, tradition in Christian theology is not something that developed arbitrarily but is based on a long history of theological reflection and debate. The fact that both Eastern and Western Fathers, as well as medieval theologians, maintained this distinction highlights its importance in the proper understanding of Christ's nature and the relationship between God's essence and attributes.
The distinction between THEOTĒS and THEIOTĒS is vital for preserving the full divinity of Christ, especially in light of heretical challenges like Arianism. The term THEOTĒS refers to the fullness of the divine nature, which dwells in Christ bodily (Col. 2:9), while THEIOTĒS refers more broadly to divine attributes or qualities. Contrary to Nash's claims, Church Fathers like Athanasius and Cyril of Alexandria used these terms with precision in theological disputes, particularly to defend the full divinity of Christ against Arianism and other heresies. While the terms may not have been rigidly distinguished in classical Greek philosophy, Christian theology adopted and refined these terms to express the unique nature of Christ's divinity and his relationship to the Father and the Holy Spirit.
Thus, Nash's attempt to undermine the distinction between THEOTĒS and THEIOTĒS fails to account for the theological, historical, and exegetical developments that are central to Christian doctrine.
@Anonymous
Your response seems to misunderstand both the context of 1 Corinthians 8:6 and how Paul uses the title "Lord" (Κύριος) in relation to Jesus. You argue that "kurios" is used only as a title and not as a proper noun, implying that it diminishes Jesus’ deity. However, this overlooks how Paul consistently applies "kurios" to Jesus in a manner that signifies deity. In the Greek Septuagint (LXX), "kurios" is used as a substitute for the Tetragrammaton (YHWH), the divine name of God, throughout the Old Testament. This practice was well established by the time Paul was writing. So, when Paul calls Jesus "kurios" in 1 Corinthians 8:6, he is intentionally invoking the divine name applied to Yahweh, not just using a generic title.
Moreover, in Philippians 2:9-11, Paul explicitly states that Jesus is given the "name above every name" and that "every knee will bow" to Him. This is a direct allusion to Isaiah 45:23, where Yahweh declares, "Before me every knee will bow." Paul, by applying this language to Jesus, identifies Him with the divine status of Yahweh. This further affirms that Paul understood Jesus not just as a created lord, but as sharing in the divine identity.
You claim that "kurios" is not a proper noun and that the title can drop the article, but this ignores the specific theological and contextual use of the word in 1 Corinthians 8:6. In this verse, Paul is distinguishing between "one God, the Father" and "one Lord, Jesus Christ," not in a hierarchical sense, but as a means of expressing the distinct persons within the Godhead.
Paul’s use of the terms "God" (θεός) for the Father and "Lord" (Κύριος) for Jesus reflects his understanding of the Shema, but now expanded to include Jesus within the identity of the one God of Israel. This isn’t a demotion of Christ; rather, it underscores the unity of the Father and the Son in creation ("through whom all things came" – a divine act). In fact, the phrase "through whom all things came" echoes John 1:3, where Christ is affirmed as the agent of creation, a role reserved for God alone.
You argue that there is a problem with "the amount of subjects" in Paul’s use of the Shema. However, Paul is not introducing multiple gods here. Instead, he is showing how the one God of the Shema, who was understood as Yahweh, is now revealed in two persons: the Father and the Son. Both are involved in the act of creation ("from whom" and "through whom"), indicating shared divine prerogatives.
This use of the Shema doesn’t conflict with monotheism; rather, it deepens our understanding of it. The Shema’s proclamation of God’s oneness (Deuteronomy 6:4) is not compromised by this Trinitarian framework, but is instead fulfilled in the revelation of Jesus as "Lord." This is why Paul can use the Shema while affirming both the Father’s and the Son’s divine roles without implying two gods.
Far from being "debunked years ago," this interpretation of Paul’s use of "kurios" and the Shema has strong scholarly backing. N.T. Wright, a well-respected biblical scholar, points out that Paul’s reworking of the Shema to include Jesus is one of the earliest expressions of Christian belief in Jesus’ deity within the framework of Jewish monotheism. Similarly, Richard Bauckham, in his work Jesus and the God of Israel, argues extensively that Paul included Jesus within the unique identity of Yahweh, particularly in texts like 1 Corinthians 8:6.
Your claim that "kurios" is not a proper noun and that Paul’s use of the Shema introduces a problem of multiple subjects is based on a misunderstanding of both the linguistic and theological context of 1 Corinthians 8:6. Far from disproving the Trinity, this passage reinforces the idea that Paul understood Jesus as fully divine, sharing in the unique identity and work of Yahweh, while maintaining the oneness of God.
They also deal with the Nash article here:
https://www.forananswer.org/Colossians/Col2_9.htm
“They also deal with the Nash article here” - while a semi reliable source it should be noted Nash’s study deals with examples pre - Nicea ( pretty sure)
“implying that it diminishes Jesus’ deity.” - again being divine to a JW is “deity” from my understanding and you put words in my mouth again
I will respectfully ask you to stop doing that.
And you still didn’t answer my challenge about proverbs 8:25 ( note the verbs in 23,24) can we take 25 literally? If so why is 25 different to 22?
And Amon implying inferiority of some sort.. like it or not with that and a couple of Origen and Justin’s comments you are in a corner
“In the Greek Septuagint (LXX), "kurios" is used as a substitute for the Tetragrammaton (YHWH), the divine name of God” - you going to mention how they translate all instances or just cherry pick?
It’s also used of humans.. not exclusively the tetra
“in Philippians 2:9-11, Paul explicitly states that Jesus is given the "name above every name" and that "every knee will bow" to Him.” - “to the glory of God the father.” You omit this for some reason
And “given” implying he never had it.
“Far from being "debunked years ago," this interpretation of Paul’s use of "kurios" and the Shema has strong scholarly backing.” - are you sure, because I see a rather large portion of scholars disagreeing with your assertation…
Try Trobish for instance.
Another problem is God and Lord are inverted, in the lxx it says Lord God ( or something similar) and Lord in the lxx does function as a proper noun when appositional to “God” because we know from the Hebrew that it is the Tetragrammaton.
Your conclusion is far from proved..
It has to fit their theological framework yes, not the one you are claiming they have.. which I know 90% of what you claim is untrue..
P.s: I am not the one who bought up 1 Corin 8:6 - if you look at my writing style vs the other anons comment it is totally different.
“in Greek philosophical” - philosophy meaning to words are not valid for how Paul uses a word
Because he was not a philosopher so wouldn’t use them in the sense someone like Justin would.
You clearly have little idea of how to do linguistical analysis without being bias
@Anonymous
Your question about Proverbs 8:25 and its reference to wisdom being "brought forth" (as some interpret it) often arises in Christological debates. Proverbs 8 personifies wisdom and describes it as created or begotten. Some, including early Church Fathers like Origen and Justin, associated this passage with Christ, seeing wisdom as a foreshadowing of Jesus. However, this doesn’t mean Proverbs 8 should be taken as a literal description of Christ’s pre-existence.
When you refer to verbs like "brought forth" in Proverbs 8:23-25, you're arguing that this implies Christ had a beginning. However, Proverbs 8 is Hebrew poetry, and wisdom is personified as a created being. The poetic personification of wisdom here isn't intended to be a literal statement about Jesus' origin, but rather an abstract way of describing God’s attribute of wisdom. It’s important to remember that the New Testament doesn’t interpret Proverbs 8 as a reference to Christ’s pre-existence or creation, and it doesn’t treat wisdom as a literal being.
The early Church Fathers, like Origen and Justin Martyr, did wrestle with such passages, but their theological development does not equate to subordinationism or inferiority within the Godhead. Later doctrinal clarifications, particularly through the Nicene Creed, made it clear that the Son is “begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father,” meaning He shares the same divine essence and is co-eternal with the Father.
You correctly noted that Kyrios in the Greek Septuagint (LXX) is used to translate the Tetragrammaton (YHWH), the divine name of God. However, you're also correct in pointing out that Kyrios is sometimes used of humans. This is true—Kyrios can mean "lord" or "master" in a general sense when referring to human authority. But this doesn’t negate the fact that in key New Testament contexts, Kyrios refers to Jesus in a way that clearly aligns Him with the divine identity of YHWH.
For example, in Philippians 2:9-11, as you referenced, Paul writes that every knee will bow to Jesus, a clear allusion to Isaiah 45:23, where YHWH declares that every knee will bow to Him. By applying this passage to Jesus, Paul identifies Jesus with the divine name and authority of YHWH. Yes, it is "to the glory of God the Father," but this doesn't diminish Jesus' divine status—it underscores the harmonious relationship within the Trinity, where the Father glorifies the Son, and the Son's exaltation brings glory to the Father. This is how the Trinity functions: distinct persons, but one God.
You also pointed out that Jesus was "given" the name above every name, implying that He didn’t always possess it. This can be misunderstood if we don’t consider the context of Jesus' incarnation and exaltation. When Philippians 2 speaks of Jesus being "given" the name, it’s referring to His exaltation after His earthly ministry, death, and resurrection. Jesus didn’t become divine at that point; rather, His human nature was exalted, and He was recognized as Lord in a new way by creation. The name was "given" to Jesus because He humbled Himself, but this doesn’t mean He lacked divinity beforehand—His divine status was simply veiled during His earthly ministry (Philippians 2:6-7).
You mentioned a number of scholars who disagree with my interpretation, specifically Trobisch. While it’s true that there are differing views among scholars, the consensus of mainstream Christian theology, from the early Church to today, supports the interpretation that Paul includes Jesus within the divine identity. Scholars like N.T. Wright and Richard Bauckham have extensively demonstrated that Paul’s reworking of the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4) to include Jesus in 1 Corinthians 8:6 is a powerful affirmation of Christ’s divinity.
Your claim that I "cherry-pick" examples is not accurate—I'm focusing on instances where Kyrios is used in the context of divine authority. Yes, Kyrios can refer to humans, but when it is applied to Jesus in passages that allude to Old Testament texts about YHWH, such as in Philippians 2 or 1 Corinthians 8, it’s clear that Paul is presenting Jesus as more than a mere human or angelic lord. He is divine.
Your concern seems to be that Paul's writings, specifically 1 Corinthians 8:6, don't align with the later Trinitarian doctrine. However, far from denying Jesus’ divinity, this passage reflects Paul’s deep Jewish monotheism, now reworked to include Jesus in the identity of the one God. The title Kyrios (Lord), particularly when linked with allusions to YHWH’s divine actions, confirms that Paul viewed Jesus as divine. This fits within the Trinitarian framework, where Jesus, the Son, shares fully in the divine essence with the Father and the Holy Spirit.
The doctrine of the Trinity is not an invention or later “apostate” teaching—it’s the result of careful reflection on how the Bible presents the relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It’s an articulation of what was always there in Scripture, as the Church Fathers wrestled with passages like those we've discussed, and eventually clarified what was implicit in the Bible all along: that Jesus is indeed God, co-equal with the Father, and worthy of the same worship, honor, and glory.
While it's true that Paul was not a philosopher in the formal sense, it is overly simplistic to assert that his use of Greek terms was entirely disconnected from the broader philosophical or linguistic context of his time. Paul was writing in Greek, and while he was not using these terms in a strict philosophical framework like Justin Martyr, his audience was familiar with Greek language and culture, which had absorbed philosophical ideas. Greek words carried inherent meanings shaped by their usage across different fields, including theology, philosophy, and everyday language.
Paul's use of terms like THEOTĒS and THEIOTĒS would not have been devoid of the semantic nuances present in the broader cultural and linguistic context of the Hellenistic world. In fact, he could have drawn on these terms precisely because of their flexibility and depth to communicate theological truths, especially to an audience familiar with the Greek language. For instance, in Colossians 2:9, Paul’s use of THEOTĒS to describe the fullness of the divine essence dwelling bodily in Christ is a nuanced theological claim, and this term’s distinction from THEIOTĒS (as used in Romans 1:20) is crucial to understanding the unique nature of Christ.
Moreover, the claim that the distinction is not valid because Paul was not a philosopher overlooks the fact that early Christian theology often adopted, adapted, and even transformed language from Greek thought to express Christian doctrines. It’s not about imposing philosophical categories on Paul’s writings, but rather acknowledging that the language he used, though theological, was naturally imbued with meanings familiar to the Hellenistic world.
Theological terms like THEOTĒS became technical and precise as the Church Fathers (Athanasius, Cyril of Alexandria, etc.) developed these distinctions to safeguard orthodox Christology. It’s this careful, historical exegesis that has shaped Christian doctrine, not arbitrary philosophical impositions.
Therefore, suggesting that Paul's usage of words like THEOTĒS lacks connection to broader linguistic or philosophical implications doesn’t hold up, especially when we consider the historical and theological context in which his writings were interpreted.
Your statement that Nash’s study primarily deals with pre-Nicene sources doesn’t invalidate the broader theological distinction between THEOTĒS and THEIOTĒS in the context of Colossians 2:9. While Nash focuses on earlier texts, the theological evolution of these terms, particularly within the post-Nicene framework, is crucial to understanding how Christian theology used them to express specific ideas about Christ's divinity.
The distinction between THEOTĒS (divine essence) and THEIOTĒS (divine attributes) became more precise in the post-Nicene era, largely due to the doctrinal challenges posed by Arianism and other heresies. Church Fathers such as Athanasius and later scholars used THEOTĒS to defend the full divinity of Christ, emphasizing that it refers to the essential nature of God. This usage clearly surpasses any earlier, more general applications of the term in pre-Nicene contexts, where distinctions were not as critically developed due to the lack of theological necessity at that time.
Additionally, Nash’s pre-Nicene focus does not diminish the value of the later distinctions upheld by figures such as Athanasius, Cyril of Alexandria, and subsequent Christian thinkers. Their theological reflections, deeply rooted in the early Christian tradition, show a clear intention to differentiate between the two terms to safeguard the full deity of Christ. It’s essential to consider this development in Christian theology, as it reflects how these terms were applied in precise theological contexts.
In light of this, simply pointing out that Nash’s study deals with pre-Nicene sources does not negate the validity of the theological distinction upheld by post-Nicene theologians, especially in the specific context of Colossians 2:9, where THEOTĒS clearly points to the fullness of divine essence embodied in Christ, not merely divine attributes or qualities.
Thus, relying solely on Nash's pre-Nicene examples, while helpful in historical analysis, overlooks the more relevant and precise post-Nicene theological developments that clarify the unique significance of THEOTĒS in describing Christ's deity in Colossians.
This comment proves you have not reads Nash's article (I think you claimed you had - that is a bold faced lie) I highly suggest you read it as Atha is one who uses both terms in almost the same breath with almost zero distinction...
The others make no apparent distinction and if there was one - Why wasn't it focused on? (paraphrasing Nash's argument)
you are wrong - fact
Here ill make this easy for you: https://www.google.com.au/books/edition/Journal_of_Biblical_Literature/9j80AQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%CE%B8%CE%B5%CE%BF%CF%84%CE%B7%CF%82&pg=RA3-PA24&printsec=frontcover
search: θεοτης
"Greek words carried inherent meanings shaped by their usage across different fields, including theology, philosophy, and everyday language." - while true Paul would only have to cater to one group.... Ones who already knew what he meant..
& the reason I advise reading the actual article and not "GotQuestions" (what a joke) is because Trevor R Allin (who you cite) blatently misrepresented Beduhns Truth in Translation and gets so much information incorrect its not even funny..
So yeah read the actual articles not peoples interpretations..
again we only know what the Arians believed from their enemies how do we know Atha was being honest? he certainly wasn't in other places ;)
@Anonymous
You accuse me of not reading Nash's article and argues that Athanasius used THEOTĒS and THEIOTĒS interchangeably. This accusation assumes that simply using the two terms CLOSELY together means there is no distinction. However, proximity in usage does not necessarily imply synonymy. It's important to point out that even IF Athanasius used both terms in close proximity, theological context and precision in meaning can still be at play, particularly in doctrinal disputes like the Arian controversy. The claim that Athanasius used both terms interchangeably does not inherently disprove the distinction that later theologians made. Athanasius, and other Church Fathers, often engaged in theological debates where precision was paramount. Even if he did not rigidly distinguish between THEOTĒS and THEIOTĒS in every instance, this does not negate the theological development that led to a clearer distinction in later centuries. The refinement of theological vocabulary, particularly after Nicaea, allowed the Church to express complex doctrines like the Trinity with more precision, which was critical in the fight against Arianism.
You seem to be questioning the reliability of Athanasius's accounts, suggesting that since the Arian beliefs are largely known through their opponents, there is doubt about the accuracy of his writings. While it is true that much (but not all) of what we know about Arian beliefs comes from opponents like Athanasius, this is not a sufficient reason to discredit Athanasius’s theological arguments or honesty. Athanasius was deeply engaged in defending orthodox Christology and wrote extensively against the Arian heresy, a movement that denied the full divinity of Christ. His writings have been scrutinized by centuries of scholars, and while we should always read historical figures critically, dismissing his arguments as dishonest without clear evidence undermines the credibility of centuries of theological scholarship that has built upon his work.
You acknowledge that Greek words carry inherent meanings across fields but argue that Paul would only need to cater to one group — those who already understood him. Paul's use of Greek was undoubtedly shaped by the broader Hellenistic culture. While his immediate audience may have been familiar with his theological usage, it's overly simplistic to assume that this would entirely preclude philosophical or cultural connotations from shaping his choice of words. Theological language, especially in the Greek-speaking world, was dynamic and capable of drawing from a variety of contexts to communicate complex ideas. Paul’s audience would have been familiar with Greek thought, and his choice to use terms like THEOTĒS and THEIOTĒS would have carried the semantic depth available in the language of his time, whether or not he was consciously aligning with specific philosophical schools.
While Nash's article provides valuable insight into the early usage of THEOTĒS and THEIOTĒS, your claim that it deals primarily with pre-Nicene sources does not diminish the post-Nicene theological developments that are crucial for understanding the distinction between the terms. Nash's pre-Nicene focus does not undermine the theological developments that clarified the distinctions between THEOTĒS and THEIOTĒS in later centuries. The usage of these terms evolved as the Church faced doctrinal challenges that required more precise language, particularly in relation to the divinity of Christ. Post-Nicene theologians, such as Athanasius, were instrumental in developing and refining this vocabulary to safeguard orthodox Christology. It is essential to recognize that theological precision was a process, not a static feature of pre-Nicene usage.
You dismiss certain sources like GotQuestions and Trevor R. Allin, suggesting that they misrepresent works like Nash’s or BeDuhn’s. It is always important to critically engage with secondary sources, but dismissing them outright without addressing the content of their arguments is not a sufficient rebuttal. While some sources may indeed misinterpret or misrepresent works, the validity of the arguments should be assessed based on the evidence they provide. Furthermore, engaging with a variety of sources, including primary and secondary scholarship, allows for a more well-rounded understanding of the issue.
Nash’s article, while helpful, does not invalidate the careful theological distinctions that were developed post-Nicaea. The broader context of how terms like THEOTĒS and THEIOTĒS were used by theologians such as Athanasius is crucial for understanding the precision of Christian doctrine. Moreover, while early Christian writings MAY not *always* RIGIDLY distinguish between these terms, their theological development provides critical insight into understanding Christ’s deity, as seen in Colossians 2:9.
"Even if he did not rigidly distinguish between THEOTĒS and THEIOTĒS in every instance" - well have you?
you claimed to read Dixons article but clearly hadnt.. else you would have been more accurate on what he claimed.
"engaging with a variety of sources, including primary and secondary scholarship, allows for a more well-rounded understanding of the issue." - I agree, however I dismiss Allins "rebuttal" of beduhns book because as stated he has proven that he is willing to be blatently lie to invalidate bedhuns claims (Which echos AT Robertsons sentiment, esp on Heb 1:8)
see Mr Foster on thsi subject...
unlike yourself, I want fatcs, not bias rubbish in either direction.
"Nash’s article, while helpful, does not invalidate the careful theological distinctions that were developed post-Nicaea." - kinda does, as its proven the distinction didnt exist until Nicea...
" this is not a sufficient reason to discredit Athanasius’s theological arguments or honesty." - do i need to cite the amount of times he literally contridicts the bible?
"Even if he did not rigidly distinguish between THEOTĒS and THEIOTĒS in every instance" - he NEVER made a distinction... plz cite where he did.
literally uses both in the same sentence with no apparent difference in meaning..
The argument that THEOTĒS refers to the divine essence while THEIOTĒS denotes divine attributes is deeply rooted in theological tradition. Nash's argument attempts to undermine this distinction, but historical theological developments support your view. Church Fathers like Athanasius and John Chrysostom emphasized the significance of this distinction, especially in refuting Arianism, where it was essential to safeguard the full divinity of Christ.
From the Refutation of All Heresies by Hippolytus, we see Colossians 2:9 being applied to the fullness of the Godhead dwelling bodily in Christ, emphasizing the totality of the divine essence in Him. Athanasius also, in his discourses against Arianism, frequently emphasized the fulness of deity, meaning not merely divine qualities, but the divine essence itself that dwelt bodily in Christ. This clear affirmation that Christ possesses the entirety of divinity shows that THEOTĒS in Colossians 2:9 refers to the divine essence, not merely attributes.
You assert that Athanasius made no distinction between THEOTĒS and THEIOTĒS, but this assertion ignores the nuanced use of theological language by Athanasius. In Athanasius’ Orations against the Arians, he contrasts the divine THEOTĒS (essence) of the Son with the creatures who share in divine grace or attributes (THEIOTĒS). He clearly uses THEOTĒS to refer to the unique and essential divinity of Christ, affirming that in Him the "fullness" of the Godhead (not merely divine qualities) dwells. This critical distinction allowed him to defend Christ’s equality with the Father during the Arian controversy.
John Chrysostom provides further clarity in his homilies, stating that all the fullness of the Godhead dwells bodily in Christ, emphasizing the totality of God’s essence (THEOTĒS). Chrysostom, like Athanasius, uses this verse to underscore that Christ was not a being who merely shared in divine qualities, but was fully God in essence.
Your claim that the distinction did not exist until Nicaea is also inaccurate. While the theological terminology became more refined post-Nicaea, the foundational ideas were already present. For example, Irenaeus, in Against Heresies, makes distinctions between divine beings and created beings by using scriptural references that align with this development. He differentiates between the attributes shared by creatures and the ESSENCE of the Godhead, foreshadowing the later development of terms like THEOTĒS.
Nash’s study focuses on early, pre-Nicene usage, but fails to address the post-Nicene theological development that gave rise to the precise distinctions between THEOTĒS and THEIOTĒS. His argument that they were used interchangeably in earlier periods does not invalidate the more nuanced understanding that emerged as the Church refined its Christology. The examples he draws from non-Christian sources do not carry the same theological weight as those from Christian theologians engaged in defining Christ’s nature.
Athanasius, Chrysostom, and others clearly understood the theological importance of THEOTĒS as signifying the divine ESSENCE in Colossians 2:9. The development of this distinction was crucial for refuting Arianism and other heresies, and the post-Nicene precision in theological language does not negate earlier traditions but rather clarifies them. Nash’s arguments, while helpful for understanding pre-Nicene terminology, do not override the theological consensus that emerged in the fourth and fifth centuries regarding the unique significance of THEOTĒS as divine essence in Christ.
Regarding BeDuhn:
* https://t.ly/4bKQh
* https://shorturl.at/YLfC1
* https://shorturl.at/YZ6mL
Okay, I will allow replied to Nincsnevem, but then the thread will be closed. Thank you.
regarding Beduhn: None of those address what I claim...
incase you need help with comprehending what I claim - I specifically restricted the "Liar" to Trevor R Allin
Lundquist may have some points in some areas but as usual your citations are dishonest in a lot of places..
Do you fact check your sources before you cite them?
Edgar has already proven Allin is dishonest (I call him a liar)
Stafford proved Lunduist wrong in some areas (In other areas lundquist has a point)
and you clearly didn't read my argument thoroughly (or are doing your copy paste trick) because you are citing the exact paper Allin is dishonest in.
"The examples he draws from non-Christian sources do not carry the same theological weight as those from Christian theologians engaged in defining Christ’s nature." - you clearly haven't read his article, else you would know that he draws from Atha and other Christian sources aswell.
restricting it to only christian sources is a bias way of proving your point and showing you are not interested in actaul dialouge but proving a theological agenda.
and says specifically about Atha - that he draws no explicit distinction between the terms
(please cite the GREEK (or Latin) text you are referring too - aswell as a link to the source)
""do not override the theological consensus that emerged in the fourth and fifth centuries regarding the unique significance of THEOTĒS as divine essence in Christ." - they kind of do as even the Latin Vulgate translates Col 2:9 as "divinity" (4th century)
Since you have read Nash's study you would also know that in philosophical literature (since you like to cite those meanings) that "THEOTĒS" is also used of Demons (pg 12)
While Nash may indeed refer to Athanasius and other Christian sources, it’s crucial to recognize that the broader theological development, particularly in the post-Nicene era, refined the language of the Church regarding THEOTĒS and THEIOTĒS. While Nash might argue that Athanasius does not draw an explicit distinction between the two terms, the refinement of theological vocabulary came later, during a period of intense Christological debate. Athanasius may not have rigidly defined THEOTĒS and THEIOTĒS, but his writings still align with the post-Nicene understanding that THEOTĒS refers to the divine essence.
The post-Nicene theologians, such as Gregory of Nazianzus and others, built upon the foundation laid by earlier figures like Athanasius. Athanasius himself, though not always explicitly distinguishing between these terms, was instrumental in defending the full divinity of Christ, which is central to the concept of THEOTĒS as used in Colossians 2:9.
Moreover, it is not about restricting the analysis to only Christian sources for bias, but rather understanding how Christian theologians developed the language to combat heresies such as Arianism. Christian theological debates naturally centered on how to define and defend the unique divinity of Christ, which led to these distinctions being emphasized. If we fail to consider the theological context in which these terms were used, we miss the significance of how the Church Fathers employed them in defense of orthodox Christology.
Your claim that Athanasius drew no explicit distinction between the two terms needs to be considered within the broader framework of his writings. For example, in Orations Against the Arians (Oration 3, Chapter 30), Athanasius emphasizes that the fullness of the Godhead (THEOTĒS) dwells in Christ. He argues that Christ is fully God, co-equal with the Father, refuting the Arian position that Christ was a lesser being. The precision with which Athanasius defends Christ’s divinity demonstrates that even if he did not always distinguish THEOTĒS and THEIOTĒS explicitly, he certainly upheld the full divinity of Christ, aligning with the post-Nicene development of these terms.
In terms of Latin sources, Jerome’s Vulgate translates Colossians 2:9 with the word DIVINITAS (“divinity”), but this translation does not weaken the theological argument. The term DIVINITAS in the Latin tradition was often used to convey the concept of the divine essence, not merely attributes. Jerome was following Latin linguistic conventions, but the theological meaning remains aligned with the Greek understanding of THEOTĒS as divine essence. The Vulgate’s use of DIVINITAS does not imply a lesser form of divinity or mere attributes; rather, it reinforces the fullness of divinity present in Christ.
While it is true that THEOTĒS was sometimes used in pagan literature to refer to lesser beings, such as demons, this does not affect the way the term was employed by Christian theologians. The use of THEOTĒS in Christian contexts was adapted and transformed to express specific theological truths about the nature of God. Early Christians often took over Greek terms and repurposed them with new, precise meanings. The fact that THEOTĒS could refer to demonic beings in certain pagan contexts is irrelevant to its specific theological meaning within Christian doctrine.
In Christian usage, especially in the writings of Paul and later Church Fathers, THEOTĒS was never applied to lesser beings or demons but reserved exclusively for the divine essence of the one true God. Nash’s citation of THEOTĒS being used for demons in philosophical literature does not undermine its use in Colossians 2:9 to affirm the full divinity of Christ. In fact, the Christian reappropriation of such terms reflects the early Church's ability to adapt and transform Hellenistic language for doctrinal precision.
Theological consensus around the meaning of THEOTĒS developed over time, especially as the Church faced doctrinal challenges like Arianism. The use of THEOTĒS in Colossians 2:9 by post-Nicene theologians was clearly meant to affirm Christ’s full divinity, not just divine attributes. The argument that Nash’s study somehow undermines the later theological development is flawed. Language, especially theological language, evolves as the Church reflects on Scripture and tradition. The post-Nicene consensus is vital because it represents the Church’s mature understanding of Christ’s divine nature, built upon earlier foundations but expressed with greater clarity.
In conclusion, your claims misrepresent the broader theological context and the development of doctrinal language in the early Church. While Nash’s study might highlight pre-Nicene usage of THEOTĒS and THEIOTĒS, it does not account for the crucial theological refinements that occurred in the post-Nicene period, where these terms were used with greater precision to defend the full divinity of Christ. The theological consensus that emerged in the fourth and fifth centuries is rooted in this development, and it is this understanding that gives Colossians 2:9 its full doctrinal significance.
Post a Comment