But now, archeological evidence helps verify this claim. A film crew has been given access to an ancient Christian prayer hall in Megiddo Israel, that dates from the late second century to early third century. The inscriptions prove that early Christians worshiped Jesus as God. Of course, for those knowledgeable in Patristic literature, many Church Fathers call Jesus theos, including Justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Novatian, Hippolytus, Origen, and Ignatius of Antioch, even if some of them didn’t necessarily clearly and articulately espouse a Nicene conception of the Trinity. So for us, that early Christians thought of Jesus as divine is not news. However, the discovery helps further prove our point. Below are some interesting observations from the article:
“The inscriptions on the mosaic floor are remarkable,” Dr Dickson says…
“One of them names a benefactor called Gaianus who is described as a centurion. Another mentions a woman called Akeptous who ‘…offered this table in memorial of the God Jesus Christ’…”
The evidence indicates that this prayer hall served a gentile congregation, showing just how quickly the Christian faith moved from becoming a Jewish sect to a truly international faith.
Next time the Jehovah’s Witness at your door tells you that Constantine “invented” the Trinity and the divinity of Christ, you will have even more evidence that this is not true.
David Bennett
Jennifer
asimplesinner
Fr. J.
Chad Toney
Jorge Flores
Jonathan B
carmelbennett
nicenehobbit
Jason S
jaybird68
papaz
October 10, 2008 at 12:19 pm
fascinating find.
Athenagoras of Athens (2nd century) gives an unusually robust account of the holy spirit, which makes him one of the earliest to sound fully trinitarian.
October 10, 2008 at 4:15 pm
That’s wonderful. Thank you for sharing this.
October 11, 2008 at 11:19 am
Let’s go even earlier, to the end of the First Century AD:
“In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the WORD WAS GOD…and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us…”
Those sects and doubters who try so hard to convince us that the dogma of the Divinity of Christ is a “late addition” had better reread St. John’s Prologue.
October 12, 2008 at 4:58 am
“Constantine invented the Trinity”? Certainly not. As reported by scholarly readers of the relevant historical mss., Constantine convened a conference at Nicaea to resolve some controversies that were impeding his efforts to expand and unify his “eastern” Roman Empire. Out of that came the idea that Jesus was ‘of the same substance’ as Jehovah. (Which, by the way, is the proper name that Anglicans Edward Gibbon and Isaac Newton use to designate the God of the Bible; Catholic and noted historian Arnold Toynbee uses the alternative Yahweh.)
Nothing from Nicaea about the Trinity. Gibbon’s account of the proceedings and their aftermath is well worth reading as an example of ‘theology by committee’, including his sometimes-humorous explanation of “homoousios” vs. “homoiousios”.
Interested Catholics are invited to read “Homoousion” at http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07449a.htm
I notice yet another use of John 1:1 as proof text, suitably emphasized. Here’s my version, from newadvent’s Douay:
“In the beginning was the Word: and THE WORD WAS WITH GOD: and the Word was God.”
You see? WITH, which indicates to most readers above fourth grade that TWO SEPARATE nouns are discussed; one WITH another. (More Douay: “Behold a virgin shall be WITH child”. Could we say that Mary IS Jesus?)
Or we can agree to drop John 1:1, and use a less ambiguous scripture. It’s a quote of the glorified Lord Jesus himself by that same John, in Revelation 3:12, ibid.:
“He that shall overcome, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God: and he shall go out no more. And I will write upon him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God, and my new name.”
Four times the glorified Lord calls someone [not himself] capital-G “God”. We Witnesses of “the only true God” (John 17:3, ibid.), can be confident, then, that we are worshipping the same God our Lord Jesus worships. And isn’t the duty of a Christian to be … Christlike?
October 15, 2008 at 12:49 pm
You’re kidding, right?
To copy your quote:
“”In the beginning was the Word: and THE WORD WAS WITH GOD: and the Word was God.”. Now…right after the portion you proof-text…doesn’t it say that “…the Word [capital T] was God.”
Now, in *third grade*, I believe, we learned that concepts in a sentence, separated by commas, are related concepts. Can’t stop reading in the middle of the sentence; “The Word” being referred to in all three subordinate clauses is the same: Jesus Christ. The sentence identifies Him as three things: 1) present “in the beginning”; 2) co-existent “with God, therefore co-eternal and not created; 3) of the same nature as God (”…was God”). Why twist it up or ignore words? He is God. No proof-texting, or making up new theology, required.
October 16, 2008 at 2:50 am
Chip, I agree. “Can’t stop reading in the middle of a sentence” is a good idea; don’t start there, either. (”the word was God”)
“Capital T” is a typo, I think; s/b W. Anyway, the “oldest and fairest” mss. were all-caps; modern typography must always be added by the translator(s). Yours say “was God”; mine say “was [a] god”. And the Greek orthography at John 1:1 is exactly that of Acts 28:6 (”they said that he was a god”; Douay.)
John 1:1, therefore, isn’t a Trinity proof text (no third person) and isn’t a consubstantial proof text (one clause says “with God”).
So … Revelation 3:12 is much more useful, as I suggested. It’s a record of the died AND resurrected AND glorified Jesus; it’s a quote from the Lord himself; it features two separate people by any grammatical standard: The speaker and someone he calls (4X) “My God”. Based on that, then,
Q: Who is the God that Jesus worships?
Q: Is that one your God, as well?
Or this one:
And I saw: and behold a white cloud and upon the cloud one sitting like to the Son of man, having on his head a crown of gold and in his hand a sharp sickle. And another angel came out from the temple, crying with a loud voice to him that sat upon the cloud: Thrust in thy sickle and reap, because the hour is come to reap. For the harvest of the earth is ripe. And he that sat on the cloud thrust his sickle into the earth: and the earth was reaped. (Rev 14:14-16; ibid.) Based on this, then,
Q: Who is the one “like to the Son of man”, sitting outside [God's] temple?
Q: Who gives orders to that one?
Q: From what source were the orders?
October 16, 2008 at 4:22 am
Um, Chip, Doug, grammar does not prove or disprove anything other than how some cultures that use that language conceptualise things.
The Trinity is a concept radically different from most concepts of God or anything else and violates our ability to rationalise it for the most part.
It seems to say that a thing can be categorised as one thing and as its apparent opposite as well. That is why it is called a mystery and each Christian struggles to understand it in their own way, but it really moves beyond normal human comprehension and requires a great deal of open minded thought.
Dont strain yourselves.
October 16, 2008 at 6:53 am
BBob, you’re right about grammar, especially when going from one very old language to another relatively new one. That’s another reason I like to use Rev 3 and 14, because virtually all translators agree on the English meaning. In fact, they’re my deal breakers; those who can’t accept them as true I put in the file box marked “Matthew 10:14″.
One last comment: You mention a common characteristic of the Trinity among RC and many others: ‘It’s a mystery.’ I agree; the Trinity is. But Jesus says, again in the Douay:
“Now this is eternal life: That they may KNOW thee, THE ONLY TRUE GOD, AND Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” (John 17:3; emphasis added.)
Jesus talks to someone else and calls Him “the only true God” AND says it’s our very lives to get to know that God, AND Jesus does not have the reputation of a practical joker (Pr 26:18,19; 19:9), SO God must be knowable by humans. Jehovah is the father of Jesus. It’s no more mysterious than that, so the reader can go on to learning about the two from the 1500-odd pages of God’s word.
The reader can go on to find out what God requires of us in these critical times, hard to deal with. In fact, Jesus says it’s our life to find out, and rejection by him if we neglect to do so. (Mt 7:21-23)
Do you know what God wants of us?
October 16, 2008 at 7:33 am
What I find interesting about those who deny the Trinity, especially Jehovah’s Witnesses, is that they will grant that the early Christians called Jesus “theos” frequently (just read the Church Fathers), but the Witnesses themselves don’t ever call him that. So even if we grant the apostles and Fathers meant “a god” in every instance they used “theos” (which I won’t grant), why don’t we see modern Jehovah’s Witnesses compose hymns to Jesus calling him god (lower case)? After all, John 1:1-18 is a hymn, and it calls Jesus “theos.” Why don’t we see plaques on walls in Kingdom Halls like that one on the recently discovered church, which say “so-and-so was a pioneer of the Watchtower, in dedication to Jesus Christ our god.”
I guess my point is that I have heard many in the Watchtower argue that the early Christians (including John) believed Jesus was “theos,” “a god,” yet I never hear them call him that. Why is that? It seems to me that their historical and grammatical arguments are more damage control (”well, he is called ‘theos’ but they don’t really mean it that way…”) as opposed trying to develop a real theology of it (”yeah, Jesus is called ‘theos’ in Scripture, and we believe this too…in fact, Jesus Christ our god is pretty amazing…do you want to learn about him?)
October 16, 2008 at 8:24 am
Related to John 1:1 (and other passages in the Bible that call Jesus “theos”), grammar alone, argued either way, doesn’t tell us much. It really is an issue of philosophy and theology. I say this as one who has taken 3 quarters of classical Greek in undergrad, and 2 semesters (readings in Scripture and Plato) in graduate school.
Let’s say John called Jesus “ho theos” or “the god,” instead of “theos.” What does that even mean? If I said “the word was with the god” that could mean two things, the word was with the one who is *the* only true God, or it could mean the word was with the deity just spoken of. Let’s say it means the former. Well, we could get both Modalism and Trinitarianism out of that. If it means the latter, that Jesus is divine, we could get Modalism, Trinitarianism, Arianism, Henotheism, Polytheism, etc, from it. In other words, even original Greek readers had to figure out theologically and philosophically what it means when Jesus is called “theos.” Calling Jesus “theos” in a monotheistic context requires a lot of thought on the matter, because a) Jesus can’t be just another deity to God like Apollo is another deity to Zeus (polytheism), b) Jesus can’t even be a lesser deity to God (Henotheism), because the Bible is clear only one God exists, and c) Jesus is obviously more than just another good man, as the gospel of John makes very clear. When you put all of these together, you pretty much see why you get a Trinity (or some other philosophical/theological “solution” like Arianism).
It is not ultimately a grammar issue, which is why you have people arguing in circles about it based on the grammar alone. The ancient Arians and Trinitarians both read Greek as their native language, so obviously the grammar itself isn’t 100% clear. For those of us who study history, the context for understanding the meaning of Jesus’ title “theos” is the Church, since the Church wrote the Bible, compiled it, and has the authority to interpret it.
October 16, 2008 at 8:27 am
David, we insist stubbornly on teaching about Jesus and his father our way. That’s just the way we are- stiff-necked. Get used to it. :-)
If by “Church Fathers” you mean Origen, Augustine, and others from the post-Biblical period, then you may know we don’t hold much with them. Yes, they used “theos” and its declensions, and the bible does. I’ve already mentioned Acts 28:6- should we call Paul “god”? Do you?
Jesus himself referred to Ps 82:6 (at John 10:30)- should we call Samson, Gideon, and hundreds of anonymous judges of Israel “gods”? Do you?
And, if verse 1 of that psalm refers to a heavenly congregation rather than these “older men” of verse 6, should we call the angels “gods”? Do you?
Do you refer to Satan as “god”? Paul does, in 2 Cor 4:4. We often do, just because of that verse. Our teaching from it is that the “world”- the system, not the planet- IS ruled by Satan, just as if he were Jehovah. Jesus and John (!) agree with us: John 12:31, 17:30, 16:11. Therefore we follow Jesus’ counsel to be “not of the world”. (John 17:9,15,16)
Speaking of John 10:30- “I and the Father are one”- are the Eleven listening to John 17 “gods”? (”that they may be one, as we also are”; “That they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us”; “that, they may be one, as we also are one”) Is your “vicar of Christ” also a “god”?
One writer has said that our theology is so peculiar because we don’t believe in the incarnation (that God himself became human in Jesus Christ). He’s right. :-)
What do you make of Rev 3:12 and 14:15?
October 16, 2008 at 9:02 am
Doug,
Catholics grant that other people were called “god” in the Bible. The king was called “god” in Ps 45, and this verse was applied to Jesus in Hebrews 1:8 (not in the NWT though). However, I don’t know of any other than Jesus who created all things, is “logos,” is the alpha and the omega, etc. Basically, I am saying that we would both agree (I think) that Jesus is clearly somebody beyond everybody else you mentioned who is called “god” in some fashion in the Bible. So I think this means that when Scripture gives Jesus a title, we can assume it has more significance than when others are given it. John 1:1-18 speaks of the logos becoming flesh, through whom all things were created. Even if “theos” there is a title that doesn’t express the logos’ nature, the way the logos is spoken of in the lines that follow clearly indicate whoever this being is, he is superior to humans.
An example I can think of is “Lord” which is used in the Bible to mean “master” but is also applied to yhwh himself in the OT as a euphemism for the divine name.
I appreciate your charitable willingness to discuss this. Even though I doubt we will agree, this discussion has been sane (unlike some on the web!). Unfortunately because of being very busy I am just responding!
October 17, 2008 at 1:28 am
David, you haven’t gone far enough into the scriptures.
> ‘Jesus is clearly beyond everybody else called “god” - ‘his titles are more significant’.
The one I didn’t mention, of course, is Jehovah himself. He is called “god”, and is the only one with the adjective “Almighty” affixed to it. Another translation problem raises its head here: In English, “mighty” and “almighty” have the same root, but in Hebrew “gibbohr” and “shaddai” do not. Only Jehovah is “shaddai”. Now THAT’s significant IMO. (Samson was also “gibbohr”.)
> ‘logos became flesh’
is what we teach also, because the Bible does. God did not become flesh, his “logos” - “word” did.
> ‘Lord for yhwh’.
Probably a typo there; as you know, most Bible introductions explain that they use “LORD” in all- or small-caps as a substitute- not euphemism- for the Name that Jehovah said was to be “my name for ever, … my memorial unto all generations”. (Ex 3:15; Douay. This will be my last use of that translation.) Today’s Jews say “ha-Shem”- The Name. Even with their misplaced piety they understand that God (”G-d”) has a personal name.
> Whatever we can say about Jesus- and that’s plenty- he is always subordinate to Jehovah. Rev 3 and 14 I have mentioned; 1 Cor 15, the teleological chapter, says, “But each one [resurrected] in his own rank: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who belong to the Christ during his presence. Next, the end, when he HANDS OVER the kingdom TO HIS God and Father, when he has brought to nothing all government and all authority and power. For he must rule as king until [God] has put all enemies under his feet. … For [God] “subjected all things under his feet.” But when he says that ‘all things have been subjected,’ it is EVIDENT that it is with the exception of the one who subjected all things to him. But when all things will have been subjected to him, then the Son himself WILL ALSO SUBJECT HIMSELF to the One who subjected all things to him, that God may be all things to everyone.” (NWT; emphasis added.)
Reveleation twice and 1 Corinthians. All show the resurrected, spiritual, glorified Jesus as the SON of God, not God himself.
What do you make of Rev 3:12 and 14:15?
October 17, 2008 at 10:28 am
Doug,
Euphemism means substitute. It means substituting a less offensive term for a more acceptable one, which explains why ancient Jews and Christians called God “the Lord” instead of yhwh to avoid pronouncing the divine name.
We have no problem with Jesus as the Son of God, but what does that mean? What does it mean to be the logos? I just quoted from Ignatius of Antioch on a recent post here, in which Ignatius, who died in 105 AD, called Jesus the “eternal Word.” So it is not far-fetched to suggest that God’s Word can also share God’s nature (being eternal, etc). I know that Ignatius is not Scripture, but it shows that early Christians about 20 years after the Bible was finished (and of course Ignatius was alive during the Apostolic era), had no problem calling the Word “eternal.”
As for the parts of the Bible where Jesus speaks of “my God,” that is not problematic for Trinitarians. Jesus is both human and divine, and part of assuming a human nature meant emptying himself of certain attributes, and assuming humility (see Phil. 2:5-11). The God-Man Jesus can speak of the Father as “my God” and still share the nature of God.
Speaking of Revelation, I did a little historical research on Rev. 1:8 a few years ago, where it speaks of the Lord God Almighty coming. Every Church Father that quotes it, attributes the quote to *Jesus,* which means that those who read the book in the native language (and early Latin translations) believe Jesus is called “almighty” there. Origen uses it the verse to prove that the Father and Son are both all-powerful, since the Son is called Almighty. Tertullian (who spoke Latin) addresses the same passage, and both he and those he is arguing against agree on one thing: Revelation 1:8 is the Son speaking. Tertullian basically says it makes sense the Son is called Almighty there, because he is the Son of the Almighty, just as he is God, because he is the Son of God (see Against Praxeas by Tertullian). I know a Jehovah’s Witness is not going to accept the authority of the Church Fathers, but it does show that those who read the text originally believed the verse referred to Jesus.
A question I have is, what do JWs believe Jesus is in his substance? That is, what is Jesus? Ok, he isn’t Jehovah, that I know. He isn’t a human, right? So what is he? An angel? A god?
October 17, 2008 at 11:54 pm
“God-Man” not scriptural; “God the Son” not scriptural; both have origins in Apollo myths et al. Trinity not true.
Rev 3:12, 14:15: Jesus is once again a spirit creature in the heavens, still worships Jehovah as “the only true God” (John 17:3), still obedient to his Father (Heb 5:8), still the firstborn of creation (Col 1:15)- Jehovah’s son. Rev 1:8 misunderstood by “Church Fathers”, but that’s irrelevant because of the preceding.
‘What JWs believe about Jesus’ is what the Bible says about him.
That’s all I have.
October 18, 2008 at 9:17 am
Doug,
I think we have reached an impasse, because Catholics won’t agree with the way you approach Scripture. Is it possible that the Church Fathers misunderstood Revelation 1:8? Yes, it is possible. However, they *knew Greek,* and lived right after the time of the Apostles (some Church Fathers even *knew Apostles*). I would take someone with this knowledge and authority over what you say, what Charles Taze Russell says, and even what *I* say!
I believe you think the Bible backs Jehovah’s Witness claims, just as Baptists, Pentecostals, Messianics, etc, all come on here and insist the Bible backs what *they* believe. This is one reason I became Catholic, because everybody claims to believe the Bible, yet nobody seems to agree what it says. I read the Bible with the Church, who wrote the Bible, compiled the Bible, and interprets it. Again, it is a matter of how we approach the Bible.
I think this was a good discussion, and thanks for stopping by Per Christum.
October 19, 2008 at 5:27 am
David:
Impasse is correct. However, I did notice you using a statement I’ve heard before from Catholics: ‘The [RC] Church wrote the Bible’.
Aside from the those named writers of various books- not a Finnegan or Caruso among ‘em- :-) we have this, from the Jew Paul:
“What, then, is the superiority of the Jew, or what is the benefit of the circumcision? A great deal in every way. First of all, because they were entrusted with the sacred pronouncements of God.” (Ro 3:1,2) I.e., Jews wrote the Bible. (BTW we take this to include Lucas/Luke.)
… which leads into ‘JWs believe the Bible backs them.’ Well, yes, but we take it the other way ’round. The Bible was written by small-w witnesses of Jehovah.
“’YOU [Israelites] are my witnesses,’ is the utterance of Jehovah, ‘even my servant whom I have chosen, in order that you may know and have faith in me,…’” (Isa 43:10; cf. Ex 24:7, 34:10) I.e., the Jewish religion wrote the Bible. What else can we do- calling ourselves modern-day Christian Witnesses of Jehovah- but “read and heed”?
That’s why you’ll notice (I hope) that our correspondence uses scripture liberally. It’s also why we often begin conversations with, say, the Douay or Jerusalem Bibles; “the truth is in there”, to para- the famous phrase. “For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to THE truth.” (John 18:37) But it’s also why we remember the Lord’s teaching at Mt 7:20 and apply it to ourselves first.
Thanks for the dialogue.