Non-Trinitarian The God or a god

[ViaCrucis]

So, where in the text does it use the terms "Father" and "Son" to draw a distinction?

Do you disagree that τὸν θεόν refers to the Father and θεὸς refers to the Logos in John 1:1?

Because it seems to me that you consider that distinction pretty important, and I can't imagine that arguing against it will help your case.

Also, it's not esiegesis, the text is pretty clear that the Logos is the Son (John 1:14), and that the One which the Logos is with is the Father (John 1:18).

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Grammatically I mean?

No. Saying "the Word was a god" is an interpretation as to the meaning of the text, no less so than "the Word was God"; both of these renderings are interpretations of the meaning of the text. About the most literal rendering of θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος would be "God was the Word".

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Tyndale New Testament > John 1 John 1 Tyndale New Testament. 1 In the beginning was that word, and that word was with god: and god was that word.

And that's a pretty literal rendering of θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. Similarly the Vulgate has Deus erat Verbum, which Wycliffe translates pretty literally as "God was the word".

That said, you're incorrect, Tyndale renders the phrase as "and the worde was God."
John 1 - TYN Bible - Bible Study Tools
http://wesley.nnu.edu/fileadmin/imported_site/tyndale/joh.txt

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Ratiocination]

The Trinity is NOT extra-Biblical, nor did it appear in the 4th century. It's taught in the Bible, it's in the writings of the Church fathers. There is abundant evidence for this.

So what I mean is a full unequivocal explaination and laying out of Trinitarian theology. The trinity is easy to explain at least in the terms that are used by modern theologians. My point is, why do these explainations not arrive until the 4th century? More on this below....

want to say that Jesus is not God, that he is a creation, then that is a teaching that originated in the 4th century. One interesting thing is that Christians were persecuted for worshiping Jesus as God. There is a painting from the early second century (I read about this a while back) done by a Roman mocking Christians. It depicts Christians worshiping a donkey on a cross. Now why would they do that if early Christians were not worshiping Jesus? And what Christian would worship someone other than the Almighty God?

I do not want to say that Christ is not God (theos) In fact it's something that I assert frequently.
Is there a way to know what conclusions were being drawn in the first few centuries with regards to this new Jewish sect called Christianity? I believe there is, and its by seeing what the effect was on the people of the time. And nowhere in the early church father's writings do they assert Trinitarian understandings until the 4th century. The point here is that different conclusions are drawn from the same scriptural text today, so why would that have been different back then. It's not as simple as saying "see, this verse calls Jesus "God", therefore what this verse means is that Jesus is the second person of a consubstantial trinue being!!" This is clearly an overstatement of what the verse is saying.
I think in the next post you object to my objection that language used to define God and Jesus in terms of the Trinity doesn't exist in scripture. It's clearly not the same thing as using modern language to talk about how to organise a group of worshippers in the 21st century. The very Being/nature and relationship between the objects of our worship do not fall into this bracket at all. If the first century Christians had of meant to teach the strict monotheistic Jews that their God had now been revealed as trinue, then they would have said so. All we have instead is a few statements that can be understood in a very different way.
The point is that you need to prove what conclusions they were drawing at the time, and to be frank, no Trinitarian explainations exist until the 4th century. For example open a Trinitarian text book in reference of Philippians 2:6, if the explainations you find there are what was meant at the time, then why didn't these first century followers say that instead? You've got to recognise the difference between biblical statements and theology. As Jehovah's Witnesses we can explain the relationship between the father and the son USING the language used in the bible, Trinitarians cannot!

 

[he-man]

And that's a pretty literal rendering of θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. Similarly the Vulgate has Deus erat Verbum, which Wycliffe translates pretty literally as "God was the word".
That said, you're incorrect, Tyndale renders the phrase as "and the worde was God."
John 1 - TYN Bible - Bible Study Tools
http://wesley.nnu.edu/fileadmin/imported_site/tyndale/joh.txt
-CryptoLutheran

See the Tyndale Bible.

 

[DW1980]

Hi

I do not want to say that Christ is not God (theos) In fact it's something that I assert frequently.

If you do not want to say Christ is not God, are you saying he is? If so, that's not what other JWs have said to me before. For example:
Close With the Father, But Not Equal to God | Life of Jesus

Is there a way to know what conclusions were being drawn in the first few centuries with regards to this new Jewish sect called Christianity? I believe there is, and its by seeing what the effect was on the people of the time. And nowhere in the early church father's writings do they assert Trinitarian understandings until the 4th century. The point here is that different conclusions are drawn from the same scriptural text today, so why would that have been different back then. It's not as simple as saying "see, this verse calls Jesus "God", therefore what this verse means is that Jesus is the second person of a consubstantial trinue being!!" This is clearly an overstatement of what the verse is saying.

I agree that we can know - enough writings from the early Church exist to know! The other comment here is "this verse calls Jesus God", well, how many true "Gods" are there? I know you'll agree, just one (Jn 17:3).

The point is that you need to prove what conclusions they were drawing at the time, and to be frank, no Trinitarian explainations exist until the 4th century.

This is simply not true. Irenaeus wrote this in c175 AD:

The Church, though dispersed through our the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His [future] manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father "to gather all things in one," and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Saviour, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father... (Against the Heresies 10.1)​

The very term "trinity" comes from Tertullian (160-215AD) who used the term "trinitas" to describe God.

Dionysus (Bishop of Rome, 260 AD) said, "For these indeed rightly know that the Trinity is declared in the divine Scripture, but that the doctrine that there are three gods is neither taught in the Old nor in the New Testament."

190 AD Clement Of Alexandria:

"When [John] says: 'What was from the beginning [1 John 1:1],' he touches upon the generation without beginning of the Son, who is co-equal with the Father. 'Was,' therefore, is indicative of an eternity without a beginning, just as the Word Himself, that is the Son, being one with the Father in regard to equality of substance, is eternal and uncreated. That the word always existed is signified by the saying: 'In the beginning was the Word' [John 1:1]."
​

200 AD Hippolytus

"As far as regards the power, therefore, God is one. But as far as regards the economy there is a threefold manifestation, as shall be proved afterwards when we give account of the true doctrine"​

There are many, many more like this.

For example open a Trinitarian text book in reference of Philippians 2:6, if the explainations you find there are what was meant at the time, then why didn't these first century followers say that instead? You've got to recognise the difference between biblical statements and theology. As Jehovah's Witnesses we can explain the relationship between the father and the son USING the language used in the bible, Trinitarians cannot!

We certainly do recognise the difference between non-Biblical writings, and Scripture. I would say that as a Trainitarian, I do use the language of the Bible - but we attach different meanings when we allow the Bible to interpret itself.

In a similar way, the WT teaches Jesus is Michael the Archangel. That's a unique teaching to the WT, can you show me references from the first century that say this? Surely you need to apply the same standards?

 

[Ratiocination]

Do you disagree that τὸν θεόν refers to the Father and θεὸς refers to the Logos in John 1:1?

Because it seems to me that you consider that distinction pretty important, and I can't imagine that arguing against it will help your case.

Also, it's not esiegesis, the text is pretty clear that the Logos is the Son (John 1:14), and that the One which the Logos is with is the Father (John 1:18).

-CryptoLutheran

It seems clear that John meant 'The God' who the Word is 'with' is distinct from the Word on the basis of theos, not these personal terms like Father and Son. You keep demonstrating just how easy it is to write down the thing you say this verse means, so why didn't john write it? Let's focus on what the verse actually says, rather than your theology which is clearly being inserted into the text.
The argument is not what is the identity of the two distinct god's in John 1:1, or that the identity of these two is somehow distinct from each other! Are you suggesting that toward the end of the first century there was some confusion among people who thought that Jesus was the father? And to 'clear' things up John would use the word theos, which would take more explaining to draw out the meaning that he really meant Persons?

This verse has become absurd!

Jesus had a preexistance, John points this out by stating that Jesus is a god, like they referred to angels past in the abundance of Jewish literature of the time. It was the preexistance of Christ that was challenged in the first century! It was to that challenge that John was responding.

 

[Kaon]

Which God is it?

There is One God - The Father - The Most High God.

All other entities are gods by comparison to lesser entities. So, a principality or archon may be a god to an angel, and an angel is a god to a human.

But, there is only one God.

 

[ViaCrucis]

See the Tyndale Bible.

I linked to two websites which have Tyndale's translation in my post. Tyndale's translation of John 1:1 is

"In the beginnynge was the worde and the worde was with God: and the worde was God."

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Sanoy]

God's triune nature is explicitly portrayed in the OT.

Genesis 19:24
Then Yahweh rained on Sodom and Gomorrah sulfur and fire from Yahweh out of heaven.

 

[Ratiocination]

Hey DW1980...

Apologies for the delay, I plan to respond but something has come up at work. I'll try and get back you later today, if not tomorrow...

Great conversation and post's though

Cheers

 

[Ratiocination]

If you do not want to say Christ is not God, are you saying he is? If so, that's not what other JWs have said to me before. For example:

Jesus is Theos which can be translated “God”. I have stated alredy that Jesus is my God, I’m not trying to be confusing, I’m just highlighting the extent of the argument to you. The argument is NOT is Jesus God, but in what way can he be God and still be a created being.

Other J dubs are right to say NO to this question, because in our modern tongue, and the Trinitarian context of which we live, it’s less confusing to say NO to this question. However, I perceive you to be a very intelligent person who will grasp our position in it’s entirety by the end of this conversation.

I agree that we can know - enough writings from the early Church exist to know! The other comment here is "this verse calls Jesus God", well, how many true "Gods" are there? I know you'll agree, just one (Jn 17:3).

(John 17:3) This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ.

Assuming we agree that Jesus is directing these words to the Father, then the question is;

Who is the ONLY TRUE God according to Jesus?

And if the Father is the ONLY TRUE God, then what kind of God does that make Jesus, a false God??? Origen answers this question quite nicely…His comments are further down…

The point is that you need to prove what conclusions they were drawing at the time, and to be frank, no Trinitarian explanations exist until the 4th century.

This is simply not true. Irenaeus wrote this in c175 AD:

The Church, though dispersed through our the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His [future] manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father "to gather all things in one," and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Saviour, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father... (Against the Heresies 10.1)

This sounds like a sermon at the kingdom hall!

I should have been more specific when I said “trinitarian explanations”. What I meant was the same explanation you find in virtually every modern scholarly work today.

The very term "trinity" comes from Tertullian (160-215AD) who used the term "trinitas" to describe God.

Why’d it take so long?

Dionysus (Bishop of Rome, 260 AD) said, "For these indeed rightly know that the Trinity is declared in the divine Scripture, but that the doctrine that there are three gods is neither taught in the Old nor in the New Testament."

Where is the doctrine which is so clearly stated in the 4th Century in this writing? You know, that God the Father and Jesus are the same inseparable being? That they are Co-equal in every sense? Co-eternal as conscience beings? Etc. Etc. that’s the trinity I don’t believe…

I believe in the trinity too. In my Trinity the Father is the God of Israel, uncreated and Eternal. The Son/Word is the firstborn creation, subordinate to the Father, his God. The Holy spirit is the power of God, used in the creation of the world. All three can be referred to as “God” in my Trinity, because all three are “God” in some sense. Finding reference to A trinity doctrine, doesn’t automatically mean that it’s YOUR trinity which wasn't formulated and written down until much later on in time.

190 AD Clement Of Alexandria:

"When [John] says: 'What was from the beginning [1 John 1:1],' he touches upon the generation without beginning of the Son, who is co-equal with the Father. 'Was,' therefore, is indicative of an eternity without a beginning, just as the Word Himself, that is the Son, being one with the Father in regard to equality of substance, is eternal and uncreated. That the word always existed is signified by the saying: 'In the beginning was the Word' [John 1:1]."

Worthwhile to point out that the early church went to great lengths to understand the “stuff” out of which God (apologies, I’m not a metaphysical scholar lol) was made, and how this related to the Word. I don’t see the above comment being outside of that topic. Therefore, to assert that this in some way suggests that the Father and the Son are the same ontologically [Specifically, inseparable from one another as per trinitarian theology] according to Clement is a stretch.

You and I are made out of the stuff called “Human”, but we are not the same being. My patio is made out of Indian Sandstone which is millions of years old, but the patio is only 5 years old. The “stuff” Jesus is made out of is the subject of much discussion in the early church, and if Jesus is made out of the same “stuff” as the Father, then Jesus is indeed Eternal on that basis… And this fits with my Trinity as well…

The question in the early church was not simply is Christ “God”… but how is Christ an Angel, and still God. You need to read all their writings and not just pick out small statements in isolation that seem to support a conclusion that they were NOT YET drawing. For Example:

Clement of Alexandria,

Formerly the older people [the Israelites] had an old covenant, and the law disciplined the people with fear, and the Word was an angel; but the fresh and new people [the Christians] has also been given a new covenant, and the Word has appeared, and fear turned into love, and that mystic angel is born—Jesus.—The Instructor, Book I, chapter VII (7); ANF, Vol. II, p. 224.

So I can fit Jesus being “God” into my theology (I hate that word… THE/my truth). The questions are; (1) Why is Jesus called an Angel by virtually all the early church writers? (2) How does this fit with your conclusions? (3) Why do Trinitarians today never call Jesus and Angel today?

200 AD Hippolytus

"As far as regards the power, therefore, God is one. But as far as regards the economy there is a threefold manifestation, as shall be proved afterwards when we give account of the true doctrine"

Not sure on the point being asserted here?

…

Origen on John 1:1

Origen - 185 CE - 251 CE

2. In What Way the Logos is God. Errors to Be Avoided on This Question.

We next notice John’s use of the article in these sentences. He does not write without care in this respect, nor is he unfamiliar with the niceties of the Greek tongue. In some cases he uses the article, and in some he omits it. He adds the article to the Logos, but to the name of God he adds it sometimes only. He uses the article, when the name of God refers to the uncreated cause of all things, and omits it when the Logos is named God. Does the same difference which we observe between God with the article and God without it prevail also between the Logos with it and without it? We must enquire into this. As the God who is over all is God with the article not without it, so “the Logos” is the source of that reason (Logos) which dwells in every reasonable creature; the reason which is in each creature is not, like the former called par excellence The Logos. Now there are many who are sincerely concerned about religion, and who fall here into great perplexity. They are afraid that they may be proclaiming two Gods, and their fear drives them into doctrines which are false and wicked. Either they deny that the Son has a distinct nature of His own besides that of the Father, and make Him whom they call the Son to be God all but the name, or they deny the divinity of the Son, giving Him a separate existence of His own, and making His sphere of essence fall outside that of the Father, so that they are separable from each other. To such persons we have to say that God on the one hand is Very God (Autotheos, God of Himself); and so the Saviour says in His prayer to the Father,4665 “That they may know Thee the only true God;” but that all beyond the Very God is made God by participation in His divinity, and is not to be called simply God (with the article), but rather God (without article). And thus the first-born of all creation, who is the first to be with God, and to attract to Himself divinity, is a being of more exalted rank than the other gods beside Him, of whom God is the God, as it is written,4666 “The God of gods, the Lord, hath spoken and called the earth.” It was by the offices of the first-born that they became gods, for He drew from God in generous measure that they should be made gods, and He communicated it to them according to His own bounty. The true God, then, is “The God,” and those who are formed after Him are gods, images, as it were, of Him the prototype. But the archetypal image, again, of all these images is the Word of God, who was in the beginning, and who by being with God is at all times God, not possessing that of Himself, but by His being with the Father, and not continuing to be God, if we should think of this, except by remaining always in uninterrupted contemplation of the depths of the Father.

The question is; Can you agree with these words here? Do you agree with Origen’s interpretation of Jesus as one of the “gods”? This is essentially the J dub position on Jesus as God.

As to whether the Early Church spoke of Jesus as Michael; There are a few references to this in the early church but I’d rather stay on topic. Suffice to say if the early church taught that Christ is an Angel, then by extension they would be equating him with Michael as Jesus is the “Chief” of the angels, by the fact that Archangel is only in the singular in scripture.

Regards

 

[he-man]

Jesus is Theos which can be translated “God”. I have stated alredy that Jesus is my God, I’m not trying to be confusing, I’m just highlighting the extent of the argument to you. The argument is NOT is Jesus God, but in what way can he be God and still be a created being. (John 17:3) This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ. Who is the ONLY TRUE God according to Jesus?
And if the Father is the ONLY TRUE God, then what kind of God does that make Jesus, a false God??? Origen answers this question quite nicely…His comments are further down…
Worthwhile to point out that the early church went to great lengths to understand the “stuff” out of which God (apologies, I’m not a metaphysical scholar lol) was made, and how this related to the Word. I don’t see the above comment being outside of that topic. Therefore, to assert that this in some way suggests that the Father and the Son are the same ontologically [Specifically, inseparable from one another as per trinitarian theology] according to Clement is a stretch.
You and I are made out of the stuff called “Human”, but we are not the same being. My patio is made out of Indian Sandstone which is millions of years old, but the patio is only 5 years old. The “stuff” Jesus is made out of is the subject of much discussion in the early church, and if Jesus is made out of the same “stuff” as the Father, then Jesus is indeed Eternal on that basis… And this fits with my Trinity as well…


…

Origen on John 1:1

Origen - 185 CE - 251 CE

2. In What Way the Logos is God. Errors to Be Avoided on This Question.ngs, and omits it when the Logos is named God. Does the same difference which we observe between God with the article and God without it prevail also between the Logos with it and without it? We must enquire into this. As the God who is over all is God with the article not without it, so “the Logos” is the source of that reason (Logos) which dwells in every reasonable creature; the reason which is in each creature is not, like the former called par excellence The Logos. Now there are many who are sincerely concerned about religion, and who fall here into great perplexity. They are afraid that they may be proclaiming two Gods, and their fear drives them into doctrines which are false and wicked. Either they deny that the Son has a distinct nature of His own besides that of the Father, and make Him whom they call the Son to be God all but the name, or they deny the divinity of the Son, giving Him a separate existence of His own, and making His sphere of essence fall outside that of the Father, so that they are separable from each other. To such persons we have to say that God on the one hand is Very God (Autotheos, God of Himself); and so the Saviour says in His prayer to the Father,4665 “That they may know Thee the only true God;” but that all beyond the Very God is made God by participation in His divinity, and is not to be called simply God (with the article), but rather God (without article). And thus the first-born of all creation, who is the first to be with God, and to attract to Himself divinity, is a being of more exalted rank than the other gods beside Him, of whom God is the God, as it is written,4666 “The God of gods, the Lord, hath spoken and called the earth.” It was by the offices of the first-born that they became gods, for He drew from God in generous measure that they should be made gods, and He communicated it to them according to His own bounty. The true God, then, is “The God,”
Regards

Proverbs 1:23; 2 Peter 1:19-21

 

[Ratiocination]

Proverbs 1:23; 2 Peter 1:19-21

Hi, Not sure I understand!

 

[DW1980]

Hi

Thanks for taking the time to get back on this - I have a lot on this week too, so I'll make brief comments for now, but happy to do more as soon as I can

Jesus is Theos which can be translated “God”. I have stated alredy that Jesus is my God, I’m not trying to be confusing, I’m just highlighting the extent of the argument to you. The argument is NOT is Jesus God, but in what way can he be God and still be a created being.

Other J dubs are right to say NO to this question, because in our modern tongue, and the Trinitarian context of which we live, it’s less confusing to say NO to this question. However, I perceive you to be a very intelligent person who will grasp our position in it’s entirety by the end of this conversation.

If I understand JW theology, Jesus is "a god" but not Almighty God - is that right? Jesus is the first creation of Jehovah?

(John 17:3) This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ.

Assuming we agree that Jesus is directing these words to the Father, then the question is;

Who is the ONLY TRUE God according to Jesus?

And if the Father is the ONLY TRUE God, then what kind of God does that make Jesus, a false God??? Origen answers this question quite nicely…His comments are further down…

This made me smile as it is a question I have asked JWs before in the light of John 17:3. If Jehovah is the only true God, then by definition doesn't that make Jesus a false god?

This sounds like a sermon at the kingdom hall!

I should have been more specific when I said “trinitarian explanations”. What I meant was the same explanation you find in virtually every modern scholarly work today.

In reading these quotes I do see the same teaching, if not worded the same way

Why’d it take so long?

The Watchtower uses specific language, for example, Governing Body, Publisher, Disfellowshipping. None of these words are in the Bible. But they describe concepts that the WT teaches. In the same way, early Christians came up with terms to describe what they believed. This was often in response to some heretical teaching. The fact remains that just because a phrase is used to describe a Biblical teaching, doesn't mean that the concept is unbiblical.

Where is the doctrine which is so clearly stated in the 4th Century in this writing? You know, that God the Father and Jesus are the same inseparable being? That they are Co-equal in every sense? Co-eternal as conscience beings? Etc. Etc. that’s the trinity I don’t believe…

I believe in the trinity too. In my Trinity the Father is the God of Israel, uncreated and Eternal. The Son/Word is the firstborn creation, subordinate to the Father, his God. The Holy spirit is the power of God, used in the creation of the world. All three can be referred to as “God” in my Trinity, because all three are “God” in some sense. Finding reference to A trinity doctrine, doesn’t automatically mean that it’s YOUR trinity which wasn't formulated and written down until much later on in time.

While I see the Trinity in early Christian writings (including the NT) the main issue is, is this what the Bible teaches? I don't think I would ever come away from the Bible and think "yeah, Jesus is Michael". It seems clear to me that Jesus is God.

Worthwhile to point out that the early church went to great lengths to understand the “stuff” out of which God (apologies, I’m not a metaphysical scholar lol) was made, and how this related to the Word. I don’t see the above comment being outside of that topic. Therefore, to assert that this in some way suggests that the Father and the Son are the same ontologically [Specifically, inseparable from one another as per trinitarian theology] according to Clement is a stretch.

You and I are made out of the stuff called “Human”, but we are not the same being. My patio is made out of Indian Sandstone which is millions of years old, but the patio is only 5 years old. The “stuff” Jesus is made out of is the subject of much discussion in the early church, and if Jesus is made out of the same “stuff” as the Father, then Jesus is indeed Eternal on that basis… And this fits with my Trinity as well…

[Jesus] being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage. (Philippians 2:6)​

The question in the early church was not simply is Christ “God”… but how is Christ an Angel, and still God. You need to read all their writings and not just pick out small statements in isolation that seem to support a conclusion that they were NOT YET drawing. For Example:

Clement of Alexandria,

Formerly the older people [the Israelites] had an old covenant, and the law disciplined the people with fear, and the Word was an angel; but the fresh and new people [the Christians] has also been given a new covenant, and the Word has appeared, and fear turned into love, and that mystic angel is born—Jesus.—The Instructor, Book I, chapter VII (7); ANF, Vol. II, p. 224.

So I can fit Jesus being “God” into my theology (I hate that word… THE/my truth). The questions are; (1) Why is Jesus called an Angel by virtually all the early church writers? (2) How does this fit with your conclusions? (3) Why do Trinitarians today never call Jesus and Angel today?

There's a wealth of theological work on this - simply put, Jesus was sometimes called "THE Angel of the Lord" in Jewish writings - and this carried on into Christian writings. However, they recognised that this wasn't an angel per se, but a divine being. For example, Tertullian says in De Carne Christi 14, "He (Jesus) is not however on this account to be understood as an actual angel, like Gabriel or Michael".

This isn't actually that controversial - from what I understand, the issue was whether Jesus was created. Early Christians seem to have seen this as part of a wider evidence for Jesus pre-existence, eternal nature (i.e. without beginning) and full deity. In the 4th century, Arius used this as evidence for Jesus being a literal angel, with a beginning (i.e. created).

Not sure on the point being asserted here?

Hyppolytus said "As far as regards the power, therefore, God is one. But as far as regards the economy there is a threefold manifestation, as shall be proved afterwards when we give account of the true doctrine".

In other words, only one God exists, but in a threefold manifestation. Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

…

Origen on John 1:1

Origen - 185 CE - 251 CE

2. In What Way the Logos is God. Errors to Be Avoided on This Question.

We next notice John’s use of the article in these sentences. He does not write without care in this respect, nor is he unfamiliar with the niceties of the Greek tongue. In some cases he uses the article, and in some he omits it. He adds the article to the Logos, but to the name of God he adds it sometimes only. He uses the article, when the name of God refers to the uncreated cause of all things, and omits it when the Logos is named God. Does the same difference which we observe between God with the article and God without it prevail also between the Logos with it and without it? We must enquire into this. As the God who is over all is God with the article not without it, so “the Logos” is the source of that reason (Logos) which dwells in every reasonable creature; the reason which is in each creature is not, like the former called par excellence The Logos. Now there are many who are sincerely concerned about religion, and who fall here into great perplexity. They are afraid that they may be proclaiming two Gods, and their fear drives them into doctrines which are false and wicked. Either they deny that the Son has a distinct nature of His own besides that of the Father, and make Him whom they call the Son to be God all but the name, or they deny the divinity of the Son, giving Him a separate existence of His own, and making His sphere of essence fall outside that of the Father, so that they are separable from each other. To such persons we have to say that God on the one hand is Very God (Autotheos, God of Himself); and so the Saviour says in His prayer to the Father,4665 “That they may know Thee the only true God;” but that all beyond the Very God is made God by participation in His divinity, and is not to be called simply God (with the article), but rather God (without article). And thus the first-born of all creation, who is the first to be with God, and to attract to Himself divinity, is a being of more exalted rank than the other gods beside Him, of whom God is the God, as it is written,4666 “The God of gods, the Lord, hath spoken and called the earth.” It was by the offices of the first-born that they became gods, for He drew from God in generous measure that they should be made gods, and He communicated it to them according to His own bounty. The true God, then, is “The God,” and those who are formed after Him are gods, images, as it were, of Him the prototype. But the archetypal image, again, of all these images is the Word of God, who was in the beginning, and who by being with God is at all times God, not possessing that of Himself, but by His being with the Father, and not continuing to be God, if we should think of this, except by remaining always in uninterrupted contemplation of the depths of the Father.

The question is; Can you agree with these words here? Do you agree with Origen’s interpretation of Jesus as one of the “gods”? This is essentially the J dub position on Jesus as God.

Erm... this says that Jesus IS God in the same way that I would understand it?

We next notice John’s use of the article in these sentences. He does not write without care in this respect, nor is he unfamiliar with the niceties of the Greek tongue. In some cases he uses the article, and in some he omits it. He adds the article to the Logos, but to the name of God he adds it sometimes only. He uses the article, when the name of God refers to the uncreated cause of all things, and omits it when the Logos is named God…But the archetypal image, again, of all these images is the Word of God, who was in the beginning, and who by being with God is at all times God, not possessing that of Himself, but by His being with the Father, and not continuing to be God, if we should think of this, except by remaining always in uninterrupted contemplation of the depths of the Father.​

The other thing to note about Origen is that he isn't always considered "authoritative" as he did hold some views that were out of step with his contemporaries. He's a useful resource though. Ultimately the authority is the Bible, not early Church writings!

As to whether the Early Church spoke of Jesus as Michael; There are a few references to this in the early church but I’d rather stay on topic. Suffice to say if the early church taught that Christ is an Angel, then by extension they would be equating him with Michael as Jesus is the “Chief” of the angels, by the fact that Archangel is only in the singular in scripture.

I agree - but this is within a certain context rooted in Jewish and early Christian writings.

The main issue is what the Bible teaches - as far as I can see, this is consistent with Trinitarian belief, and what the early Christians believed. In contrast, I see the Watchtower's Jesus clearly in Arius' teachings from the 4th century.

 

[Starcomet]

I say the proper translation was a god or was divine. The thing about koine Greek was that EVERYTHINGWASWRITTENLIKETHIS. And you had to rely heavily on context in order to understand what was said. In Greek, when referring to God or THEOS, an article usually appears before the word to show that it is referring to God. When it is without this article, it just refers to any divine being.

 

[DW1980]

I say the proper translation was a god or was divine. The thing about koine Greek was that EVERYTHINGWASWRITTENLIKETHIS. And you had to rely heavily on context in order to understand what was said. In Greek, when referring to God or THEOS, an article usually appears before the word to show that it is referring to God. When it is without this article, it just refers to any divine being.

From Explanation of John 1:1
Another common confusion in John 1:1 comes from the fact that in Greek there is no definite article in front of the word ‘God’ (‘theos’) in the phrase ‘and the Word was God’. The confusion arises from an assumption that if there is no definite article in the Greek, then it must have an indefinite meaning and thus should be translated with the indefinite article "a". Based on this understanding, some argue that this phrase in John 1:1 should be translated "the word was a god," rather than "the word was God." It is important at this point to understand that the Greek language has a definite article (‘the’), but does not have an indefinite article (‘a’ or ‘an’). In certain instances, when the Greek omits a definite article, it may be appropriate to insert an indefinite article for the sake of the English translation and understanding. But we cannot assume that this is always appropriate. Greek does not operate in the same way as English does in regard to the use of the words ‘the’ and ‘a’. In many instances in which English would not include the word ‘the’, the Greek text includes it. (We don’t see it in the English translations because it would sound non-sensible in our language.) (See Note 1, below.) And in many cases where the Greek omits the definite article, the English translation requires it to convey the correct meaning of the Greek. (See Note 2, below.) Therefore it cannot be assumed that if the definite article is absent, then an indefinite article should be inserted. (For a clear illustration of this, see an example of the use of the word ‘God’ and the definite article in John chapter one.) Furthermore, even though the Greek language does not have an ‘indefinite article’ like we think of in English, there is a way in Greek for the writer to indicate the indefinite idea and thus avoid confusion. This is done in Greek by using the Greek indefinite pronoun ‘tis’.

In John 1:1 there is no definite article in front of the word ‘God’ in the phrase, ‘and the Word was God’. However, in this instance, it cannot just be assumed that the word ‘God’ is meant to be ‘indefinite’, and therefore an indefinite article used in the English translation. Because the first use of the word ‘God’ in John 1:1 (‘the Word was with God’) clearly refers to the Only True God, the Eternal Pre-existent Creator, more than likely John would have used a different Greek construction than he did if he had meant for this next phrase (‘and the Word was God’) to refer to a ‘lesser’ god, and did not want us to confuse this with the True God he had just mentioned. If John meant to avoid confusion, when making such a definitive statement, he could have done so by using this ‘indefinite pronoun’ (‘tis’) as an adjective. This would have made it clear that the Word was ‘a certain god’, but not the one he was just referring to. For examples of this, see the verses Mark 14:51, Luke 8:27, Luke 1:5, and Luke 11:1 (among many, many other examples). So, it seems that by the Greek grammatical structure in this statement, John is indicating that the Word (Jesus Christ - John 1:14) is the same essence and nature as God the Father.

(For a more thorough explanation of the function and use of the Greek article (and meaning of its absence), see ‘Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics’, by Daniel Wallace. He includes fifty pages - entitled ‘The Article, Part I’ - which is a more complete treatment of the subject that many grammar books present and explains all the general uses of the article. He actually has a ‘Part II’ which discusses some special issues with the article. Fifteen pages of this second section apply directly to understanding this passage in John 1:1. It is highly recommended for those who really desire an honest and thorough understanding of this passage.)

 

[Starcomet]

From Explanation of John 1:1
Another common confusion in John 1:1 comes from the fact that in Greek there is no definite article in front of the word ‘God’ (‘theos’) in the phrase ‘and the Word was God’. The confusion arises from an assumption that if there is no definite article in the Greek, then it must have an indefinite meaning and thus should be translated with the indefinite article "a". Based on this understanding, some argue that this phrase in John 1:1 should be translated "the word was a god," rather than "the word was God." It is important at this point to understand that the Greek language has a definite article (‘the’), but does not have an indefinite article (‘a’ or ‘an’). In certain instances, when the Greek omits a definite article, it may be appropriate to insert an indefinite article for the sake of the English translation and understanding. But we cannot assume that this is always appropriate. Greek does not operate in the same way as English does in regard to the use of the words ‘the’ and ‘a’. In many instances in which English would not include the word ‘the’, the Greek text includes it. (We don’t see it in the English translations because it would sound non-sensible in our language.) (See Note 1, below.) And in many cases where the Greek omits the definite article, the English translation requires it to convey the correct meaning of the Greek. (See Note 2, below.) Therefore it cannot be assumed that if the definite article is absent, then an indefinite article should be inserted. (For a clear illustration of this, see an example of the use of the word ‘God’ and the definite article in John chapter one.) Furthermore, even though the Greek language does not have an ‘indefinite article’ like we think of in English, there is a way in Greek for the writer to indicate the indefinite idea and thus avoid confusion. This is done in Greek by using the Greek indefinite pronoun ‘tis’.

In John 1:1 there is no definite article in front of the word ‘God’ in the phrase, ‘and the Word was God’. However, in this instance, it cannot just be assumed that the word ‘God’ is meant to be ‘indefinite’, and therefore an indefinite article used in the English translation. Because the first use of the word ‘God’ in John 1:1 (‘the Word was with God’) clearly refers to the Only True God, the Eternal Pre-existent Creator, more than likely John would have used a different Greek construction than he did if he had meant for this next phrase (‘and the Word was God’) to refer to a ‘lesser’ god, and did not want us to confuse this with the True God he had just mentioned. If John meant to avoid confusion, when making such a definitive statement, he could have done so by using this ‘indefinite pronoun’ (‘tis’) as an adjective. This would have made it clear that the Word was ‘a certain god’, but not the one he was just referring to. For examples of this, see the verses Mark 14:51, Luke 8:27, Luke 1:5, and Luke 11:1 (among many, many other examples). So, it seems that by the Greek grammatical structure in this statement, John is indicating that the Word (Jesus Christ - John 1:14) is the same essence and nature as God the Father.

(For a more thorough explanation of the function and use of the Greek article (and meaning of its absence), see ‘Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics’, by Daniel Wallace. He includes fifty pages - entitled ‘The Article, Part I’ - which is a more complete treatment of the subject that many grammar books present and explains all the general uses of the article. He actually has a ‘Part II’ which discusses some special issues with the article. Fifteen pages of this second section apply directly to understanding this passage in John 1:1. It is highly recommended for those who really desire an honest and thorough understanding of this passage.)

This would be true, but the fact that a definite article was in the phrase "And the Word was with the THEOS", proves that the author wanted to distinguish this THEOS from the THEOS he then refers to. THEOS without any article just refers to any divine being. Thus it could be translated as "the word was divine or godly".

 

[DW1980]

This would be true, but the fact that a definite article was in the phrase "And the Word was with the THEOS", proves that the author wanted to distinguish this THEOS from the THEOS he then refers to. THEOS without any article just refers to any divine being. Thus it could be translated as "the word was divine or godly".

Not at all - there are numerous examples in the NT where God is THEOS without a definite article! E.g. John 1:18 - "θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε"; do you translate that as "No one has ever seen a god"?

Because the first use of the word ‘God’ in John 1:1 (‘the Word was with God’) clearly refers to the Only True God, the Eternal Pre-existent Creator, more than likely John would have used a different Greek construction than he did if he had meant for this next phrase (‘and the Word was God’) to refer to a ‘lesser’ god, and did not want us to confuse this with the True God he had just mentioned. If John meant to avoid confusion, when making such a definitive statement, he could have done so by using this ‘indefinite pronoun’ (‘tis’) as an adjective. This would have made it clear that the Word was ‘a certain god’, but not the one he was just referring to. For examples of this, see the verses Mark 14:51, Luke 8:27, Luke 1:5, and Luke 11:1 (among many, many other examples). So, it seems that by the Greek grammatical structure in this statement, John is indicating that the Word (Jesus Christ - John 1:14) is the same essence and nature as God the Father.​

 

[he-man]

Not at all - there are numerous examples in the NT where God is THEOS without a definite article! E.g. John 1:18 - "θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε"; do you translate that as "No one has ever seen a god"?

Because the first use of the word ‘God’ in John 1:1 (‘the Word was with God’) clearly refers to the Only True God, the Eternal Pre-existent Creator, more than likely John would have used a different Greek construction than he did if he had meant for this next phrase (‘and the Word was God’) to refer to a ‘lesser’ god, and did not want us to confuse this with the True God he had just mentioned. If John meant to avoid confusion, when making such a definitive statement, he could have done so by using this ‘indefinite pronoun’ (‘tis’) as an adjective. This would have made it clear that the Word was ‘a certain god’, but not the one he was just referring to. For examples of this, see the verses Mark 14:51, Luke 8:27, Luke 1:5, and Luke 11:1 (among many, many other examples). So, it seems that by the Greek grammatical structure in this statement, John is indicating that the Word (Jesus Christ - John 1:14) is the same essence and nature as God the Father.​

in the beginning the word was with regard to God and God was the word Philippians 2:6 not being equal to God but within his grasp...