Showing posts with label Arianism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Arianism. Show all posts

Saturday, December 6, 2025

From the Fist of Faith to the Echo of Eternity: St. Nicholas, Arius, and Pope Leo XIV's Warning Against the New Arianism

From the Fist of Faith to the Echo of Eternity: St. Nicholas, Arius, and Pope Leo XIV's Warning Against the New Arianism

In the crisp December air, as families around the globe prepare for Christmas with visions of a jolly, gift-giving Santa Claus, few pause to remember the real man behind the myth: St. Nicholas of Myra, the fourth-century bishop whose life was a testament to bold faith, unyielding charity, and a legendary defense of Christ's divinity. Today, on his feast day, we are reminded not just of the saint who inspired legends of secret generosity, but of the warrior of orthodoxy who once resorted to physical confrontation to safeguard the eternal truth of the Incarnation. This story of a punch thrown in the halls of Nicaea resonates profoundly with the words spoken just weeks ago by Pope Leo XIV in Turkey – words that diagnose a creeping "new Arianism" in our own time, where Jesus is all too often stripped of his divine glory and reduced to a mere footnote in human history.

As we mark the 1,700th anniversary of the Council of Nicaea, the birthplace of the Nicene Creed, it's fitting to revisit these ancient battles of belief. Pope Leo XIV, the first American pontiff, born Robert Francis Prevost in Chicago and elected on May 8, 2025, chose the historic sites of Istanbul and Iznik (ancient Nicaea) for his inaugural apostolic journey from November 27 to December 2, 2025. There, amid the ruins of basilicas and the echoes of early Christian councils, he issued a clarion call: The Church must confront the resurgence of heresies old and new. In a address at the Cathedral of the Holy Spirit in Istanbul on November 28, 2025, Leo warned of a "new Arianism" that diminishes Jesus to "a great historical figure, a wise teacher, or a prophet who fought for justice – nothing more." This modern echo of an ancient error, he argued, overshadows Christ's "divinity, his lordship over history," treating the Incarnation as a mere metaphor rather than the scandalous reality that God became man to redeem us.

In this blog post, we'll journey back to the sands of Myra and the heated debates of Nicaea, unpacking the heresy of Arianism, the fiery intervention of St. Nicholas, and the profound parallels Pope Leo XIV drew during his Turkish pilgrimage. We'll explore how this "new Arianism" manifests today – in Protestant circles that emphasize Jesus as moral exemplar over divine Savior, in secular academies that relegate him to philosopher or philanthropist, and even in pockets of the Catholic Church where faith risks becoming a diluted humanism. At roughly 3,000 words, this reflection aims not just to inform but to ignite a renewed devotion to the homoousios – the consubstantiality of Father and Son – that St. Nicholas defended with his fists and Pope Leo now proclaims with pastoral urgency. Let us begin where it all started: in the bustling port city of Myra, with a bishop whose legacy transcends tinsel and toys.


 The Humble Origins of a Heavenly Defender: The Life of St. Nicholas

St. Nicholas, born around 270 AD in the Greek-speaking region of Lycia (modern-day Turkey), entered a world still raw from the persecutions of the Roman Empire. His parents, wealthy Christians named Epiphanius and Johanna, perished in a plague when he was young, leaving him under the care of his uncle – the bishop of Myra. This early loss forged in Nicholas a profound empathy for the vulnerable, a trait that would define his ministry. Tradition holds that, upon reaching manhood, Nicholas was ordained a priest and swiftly elevated to bishop, perhaps even miraculously so, when his uncle had a vision naming him successor.

Myra, a thriving seaport on the southern coast of Asia Minor, was a crossroads of cultures and creeds. As bishop, Nicholas immersed himself in the spiritual and material needs of his flock. The stories of his miracles abound: He is said to have calmed a violent storm at sea, saving sailors' lives; resurrected three murdered boys from a pickling barrel, outwitting a wicked innkeeper; and, most famously, anonymously tossed bags of gold through the window of a despairing father's home to provide dowries for his three impoverished daughters, preventing their fall into prostitution. These acts of stealthy benevolence – performed on the eve of the feast of the local saint – birthed the custom of St. Nicholas Day gifts, evolving in the West into the Santa Claus we know today.

But St. Nicholas was no mere miracle-worker or philanthropist; he was a shepherd of souls in an era when heresy threatened to devour the flock. The late third century saw the rise of Arianism, a theological poison spreading from Alexandria like wildfire through dry tinder. As bishop, Nicholas preached tirelessly against it, but his true moment of legend came not in quiet counsel, but in the imperial summons to Nicaea in 325 AD. Emperor Constantine I, seeking to unify his fractured empire, convened the first ecumenical council to settle the Christological debates tearing at the Church's seams. Over 300 bishops gathered, including the weathered Nicholas of Myra, to confront the teachings of Arius – a presbyter whose ideas, if unchecked, would redefine Christianity forever.

Nicholas arrived not as a distant scholar, but as a man of the people: battle-scarred from Diocletian's persecutions (he had been imprisoned and tortured for his faith), his body marked by chains, his spirit unbroken. Little did he know that within those council walls, his passion would lead to an act so human, so raw, that it has inspired art, debate, and devotion for 1,700 years.


 The Poison of Division: Unpacking the Heresy of Arianism

To grasp the stakes of Nicaea – and why St. Nicholas's intervention was no mere temper tantrum – we must first dissect Arianism. Named after Arius, an ascetic and eloquent presbyter in Alexandria, this heresy didn't emerge in a vacuum. The early Church grappled with profound questions: How could the eternal God enter time as a man? What does "Son of God" truly mean? Arius, influenced by a strict monotheism and Greek philosophical notions of an unbegotten, immutable divine essence, sought to protect God's oneness (the Shema of Deuteronomy 6:4) from any hint of polytheism.

Arius taught that the Father alone is truly eternal and uncreated. The Son – Jesus Christ – is not co-eternal or of the same substance (homoousios) as the Father. Instead, the Son is a created being, the first and highest of God's creations, begotten "before time" but not from eternity. In Arius's infamous poetic jingle, "There was a time when He was not," implying the Son had a beginning, albeit a primordial one. Jesus, then, is divine in a subordinate sense – a perfect creature, the Logos through whom all else was made, but not God Himself. He could suffer, die, and be exalted, but His divinity is derivative, not equal to the Father's.

This wasn't abstract theology; it was explosive. Arianism appealed to the empire's intellectuals for its rationalism and to the masses for its simplicity. It spread rapidly: Emperor Constantine's own sister favored it, and missionaries carried it to the Goths and Vandals, turning "barbarian" tribes into Arian Christians who later sacked orthodox cities. If Arianism prevailed, the Incarnation – God truly becoming man in Jesus – crumbles. Salvation becomes impossible: How can a creature redeem creation? The sacraments lose their divine efficacy; the Church becomes a human society debating ethics rather than dispensing grace. As Athanasius of Alexandria later thundered, "The Son is not God, but He through whom God made the world; therefore, He is a work of God."

The Council of Nicaea, convened in May 325 AD in the lakeside town of Nicaea (modern Iznik, Turkey), was Constantine's bid for imperial unity. But for the bishops, it was a battle for the soul of faith. Arius arrived with supporters, including Eusebius of Nicomedia, armed with scrolls and sophistries. The debates raged for weeks: Was the Son "of the same substance" as the Father? Arius argued no – the Son is homoiousios (similar substance), a nuanced but devastating distinction. The majority, led by Alexander of Alexandria and his deacon Athanasius (future "Father of Orthodoxy"), insisted on homoousios: same essence, co-eternal, begotten not made.

Into this fray stepped St. Nicholas. Tradition, preserved in Byzantine hagiographies and medieval icons, recounts that during one heated session, Arius expounded his views with smug eloquence. Nicholas, unable to bear the blasphemy – the denial of Christ's full divinity – rose in fury. Crossing the hall, he confronted Arius directly, delivering a resounding slap (or punch, in some accounts) to the heretic's face. The chamber fell silent. Outraged, Arius's allies seized Nicholas, stripping him of his bishop's symbols – his omophorion (stole) and Gospel book – and dragging him before Constantine in chains. The emperor, torn between admiration for Nicholas's zeal and the need for order, reportedly ordered him imprisoned or even executed.

Miraculously, visions intervened: Mary the Mother of God appeared to Constantine and other bishops, advocating for Nicholas. He was released, restored to his seat, and the council pressed on. On June 19, 325 AD, the bishops promulgated the Nicene Creed: "We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father." Arius was exiled, his books burned. Nicaea triumphed – but Arianism lingered, resurfacing in councils and emperors for centuries, until Theodosius I's Edict of Thessalonica in 380 AD made Nicene faith the empire's law.

Why did Nicholas strike? Not from mere anger, but from love – agape turned to righteous indignation. For him, Arianism wasn't a debatable opinion; it was an assault on the God-man whose blood he had seen in icons and whose presence he felt in the Eucharist. As one medieval text puts it, Nicholas acted "for the honor of the Creator," embodying the biblical call to "contend for the faith once delivered" (Jude 1:3). His punch, apocryphal or not, symbolizes the Church's visceral defense of mystery against reductionism. In an age of emperors and councils, one bishop's fist reminded all: Christ's divinity is worth fighting for.


 Echoes Across Millennia: The Punch Heard 'Round the Church

The legacy of Nicaea and Nicholas didn't fade with the council's adjournment. Arianism mutated, influencing barbarian kingdoms and even prompting semi-Arian compromises at councils like Antioch (341 AD). It took Athanasius's exiles and the Cappadocian Fathers' clarifications to fully entrench orthodoxy. St. Nicholas, canonized swiftly after his death on December 6, 343 AD, became a touchstone of fidelity. His relics, enshrined in Bari, Italy, since 1087, draw pilgrims seeking his intercession as protector of children, sailors, and the orthodox faith.

Fast-forward 1,700 years, and the anniversary of Nicaea coincides with a pontificate uniquely poised to reclaim its spirit. Pope Leo XIV, a Augustinian friar with missionary roots in Peru and a Chicago upbringing, embodies the "logic of littleness" he preached in Istanbul. Elected amid the Jubilee Year of Hope inaugurated by Pope Francis, Leo's early months have been marked by a reserved yet resolute style – less polarizing than his predecessor, but no less committed to doctrinal clarity. His choice of name honors Leo XIII's social teachings, adapting them to AI and inequality, but his Turkish journey revealed a theologian's heart, steeped in patristics.

Leo's pilgrimage to Turkey and Lebanon, from November 27 to December 2, 2025, was no ordinary trip. It commemorated Nicaea while addressing contemporary fractures: ecumenical divides, refugee crises, and cultural secularism. In Istanbul's Holy Spirit Cathedral, before a tiny Catholic flock (0.05% of Turkey's 85 million), Leo invoked Nicaea's three enduring challenges: grasping faith's essence, rediscovering Christ's face as the Father's, and the organic development of doctrine. But it was his diagnosis of "new Arianism" that electrified listeners.

"There is also another challenge, which we might call a 'new Arianism,' present in today’s culture and sometimes even among believers," Leo declared. "This occurs when Jesus is admired on a merely human level, perhaps even with religious respect, yet not truly regarded as the living and true God among us. His divinity, his lordship over history, is overshadowed, and he is reduced to a great historical figure, a wise teacher, or a prophet who fought for justice – but nothing more." Echoing Arius's error, this modern variant denies the Incarnation's fullness: God didn't merely appear as man (Docetism's opposite), nor was He a superhuman intermediary. No – the Word became flesh (John 1:14), consubstantial with us in humanity, yet homoousios with the Father in divinity.

Leo's words, delivered with a Midwestern steadiness, carried the weight of Nicaea's ghosts. At the ancient Basilica of St. Neophytos in Iznik on November 29, he joined Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I for an ecumenical prayer, reciting the Creed sans Filioque to honor Eastern sensibilities. There, overlooking ruins where bishops once clashed, Leo called for unity: "Overcome the scandal of the divisions," he urged, linking Nicaea's victory over Arianism to today's quest for Christian oneness. In a voice choked with emotion, tears welling, he contrasted Arius's reductionism with the Creed's bold affirmation.

What moved Leo? Perhaps the irony of location: Turkey, once Byzantium's heart, now a secular Muslim-majority state where Christians number fewer than 200,000. Or the timeliness, as global Christianity faces secular headwinds. In his onboard press conference returning to Rome, Leo reflected on the conclave that chose him, entrusting his papacy to God's hands – a humility akin to Nicholas's littleness. His warning isn't alarmism; it's a shepherd's plea, reminding us that without Christ's full divinity, hope unravels.


 The New Arianism Unveiled: Jesus as Mere Man in a Godless Age

Pope Leo's invocation of "new Arianism" isn't hyperbole; it's a precise analog to Arius's crime. Just as the ancient heretic safeguarded a philosophical monotheism at divinity's expense, today's variants prioritize humanism over the supernatural. Jesus becomes an archetype – the ultimate "good guy" – but not the God who shatters graves and storms. Let's examine this heresy in action, as Leo implied, across three arenas: Protestantism, secular institutions, and even the Catholic Church.

Start with Protestantism, a broad tent where Arian echoes resound variably. In liberal mainline denominations, like some United Church of Christ or Episcopal circles, Jesus is often recast as ethical revolutionary: a first-century Gandhi championing the poor, whose "kingdom of God" is social justice sans miracles. The Resurrection? Metaphor for hope. The Eucharist? Symbolic meal. This mirrors Arius's subordinate Son – admirable, but not worthy of worship. Even in evangelical strains, prosperity gospels or moralistic therapeutic deism reduce Jesus to life coach: "What would Jesus do?" about budgets or breakups, eclipsing "Who is Jesus?" as Second Person of the Trinity. As theologian Carl Trueman notes, modern Protestantism risks "Arian functionalism," where Christ's work matters more than His being. Leo's words sting here: Such views admire Jesus "with religious respect," but deny His lordship, turning pulpits into TED Talks.

Secular institutions amplify this to caricature. In universities and media, Jesus is philosopher-philanthropist par excellence: a Stoic sage like Epictetus, or a Marxist precursor railing against Rome's one percent. Bart Ehrman's bestsellers portray Him as apocalyptic prophet whose divinity was a later invention; documentaries like Netflix's The Bible's Buried Secrets frame miracles as myth. Here, Arianism secularizes: No need for a created-but-superior Logos when He's just Homo sapiens with charisma. Public schools teach Jesus as historical figure in world religions units – "good guy" who inspired Christianity – but omit the claims that got Him crucified: "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30). Philanthropy nods abound: Jesus as original soup-kitchen volunteer, archetype of compassion. Yet, as Leo warns, this strips "his lordship over history," reducing salvation to self-help. In boardrooms and TED stages, He's motivational speaker, not Messiah – a "mere human" whose Sermon on the Mount is ethics, not eschatology.

Even the Catholic Church isn't immune, as Leo candidly admits: "sometimes even among believers." Post-Vatican II, liberation theology's zeal for the poor occasionally veered into Marxist materialism, portraying Jesus as Zealot revolutionary over divine King. Today, "inclusion" discourses can soft-pedal sin and divinity, emphasizing Jesus's humanity to affirm LGBTQ+ dignity while downplaying the hypostatic union. Homilies that dwell on "Jesus as friend" without "Jesus as God" echo Arius's intermediary. Liturgical minimalism – stripped altars, casual catechesis – risks making the Mass a humanitarian rite, not divine banquet. As Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI (echoed by Leo) observed, Western Christianity faces a "dictatorship of relativism" where truth bends to tolerance, birthing a polite Arianism: Jesus as nice guy, not narrow way.

This new heresy thrives on modernity's allergens: rationalism (doubting miracles), individualism (faith as feeling), and activism (salvation as progress). Like Arius's poetry, it's catchy – "Jesus was a refugee; follow His example!" – but lethal, severing the vine from its root (John 15:5). Leo's Turkish cry revives Nicaea: We need homoousios now, lest Christ become archetype in a pantheon of influencers.


 Punching Through the Fog: Lessons from Nicholas for Today

St. Nicholas's slap wasn't license for violence – the Church condemns that – but a prophetic sign: Sometimes, truth demands confrontation. In our era of "live and let live," his fist calls us to bold witness. Imagine Nicholas at a TED Talk, decking a speaker who calls Jesus "wise teacher." Or in a seminary, challenging curricula that sideline Chalcedon. His legacy urges laity and clergy alike: Defend divinity with charity, but don't dilute it.

Pope Leo XIV channels this in his "logic of littleness." To Turkey's remnant Church, he quoted Luke 12:32: "Do not be afraid, little flock." Like Nicholas amid 300 bishops, we few faithful must trust God's kingdom grows like mustard seed. Leo's journey – meeting refugees, dialoguing with Patriarch Bartholomew – models this: Small acts, rooted in Christ's full reality, leaven the world.


 A Call to Creedal Courage: Reclaiming the God-Man This Christmas

As December 6 dawns, St. Nicholas whispers: Faith fights. Pope Leo XIV proclaims: Heresy hides in plain sight. The new Arianism – Jesus as mere man, philosopher, philanthropist, archetype – robs us of joy. Only the true God-with-us conquers death, fills emptiness, transforms littleness.

This Christmas, revisit the Creed. Punch through reductions with prayer, study, witness. Honor Nicholas not with socks, but souls aflame. And heed Leo: In a world of diminished Christs, proclaim the full One – begotten, not made, God from God.

May St. Nicholas pray for us, and Pope Leo guide us, to the homoousios heart of Christmas.

Friday, April 12, 2024

John 1:1 "Word was God" or "Word was a god"?

Exploring the Depth of John 1:1

The opening verse of the Gospel of John, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God," is a profound statement that has captivated theologians, scholars, and believers for centuries. This verse, which establishes the eternal existence and divine nature of the Word, is a cornerstone of Christian theology.

The term "Word" (Logos in Greek) carries significant philosophical and theological weight. In Greek philosophy, Logos referred to the principle of order and knowledge. In the context of John's Gospel, it is a title for Jesus, identifying Him as the divine, self-expression of God. Through Him, the invisible God is made visible and accessible to humanity.

John 1:1 counters the notion that the universe is eternal by affirming that there was a beginning, and God existed from that beginning. It also establishes the distinct yet unified relationship between God and the Word, implying a complex unity within the Godhead. This verse sets the stage for the rest of the Gospel, which unfolds the identity and mission of Jesus as the incarnate Word who reveals God to the world. This was defined (homoousios) in the Council of Nicaea against the heresies of Arianism and Sabellianism which sought to degrade Jesus into a mere human, a lesser god, or not an equal to God. 

The depth of John 1:1 lies in its affirmation of creation, revelation, and redemption all found in the person of Jesus Christ. As the Word, He is the agent of creation, the source of life and light, and the ultimate revelation of God's love and truth. This single verse invites readers to ponder the mystery of God's eternal plan and the central role of Christ in the cosmos and human history.

For those exploring the Christian faith, John 1:1 serves as an invitation to consider the claims of Jesus and the implications of His identity as the Word made flesh. It challenges us to reflect on the nature of God and the meaning of existence, leading us to a deeper understanding of our purpose and destiny in relation to the divine.

The Gospel of John continues to reveal the character and works of Jesus, demonstrating how the Word, which was with God in the beginning, became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth. This profound truth has the power to transform lives and shape destinies, as it has done throughout the ages.

Jehovah's Witnesses/Watchtower: The Word was "a god." 

However, there are some, namely the Watchtower or more commonly known as the "Jehovah's Witnesses" sect that claim that John 1:1's proper translation is, "In the beginning was the Word, the Word was God and the Word was a god."  They have their own heavily edited version of the Bible called the New World Translation and often cite Coptic and Syriac texts to justify their edit.  

Here are the problems with this:

1) The Gospel of John was NOT written in Coptic but in Koine Greek.  Syriac, Coptic, and Latin translations were written later around 200 AD. 

2) Suppose the Watchtower translation is correct, hypothetically speaking. This brings about a lot of problems.  

a. If the Word is a god, which god is the Word supposed to be? 

b. How can there be other gods co-existing with God? This would be polytheism. This would contradict Exodus 20:3-5 in which God says not to have other gods before Him.

c. Jesus says that He and the Father are ONE (John 10:30), how can this be possible?   

3) Only the New World Translation has this translation. No other Bible translations have this. Some use other variations such as, "the Word was Divine." 

4) If this translation is correct, why do the Greek Orthodox not use it in their Gospel of John text? The Greek Orthodox Church is older than the Watchtower which is a sect founded in the United States by Charles T. Russell. 

5) How can Jesus be "Imanu-El/Emanu-El" or "God among us/God with us" but not be God and just "a god?" This goes back to number 2. How can there be more than One God?

So as you can see, this translation disrupts the entire Bible and reason in general.  Thankfully, we know how Koine Greek words and exegesis work.  

Greek lacks what is called the indefinite article (a and an). When translating to other non-Greek languages, discretion must be used to add it in order for the translated language to flow semantically and grammatically. However, before "a or an" can be added, the context of the text must be taken into account.  

The words used are "theos en ho logos." This can be translated literally as "God is logos," "Logos is God," "Word was God," and "God was word" due to the absence of the indefinite article. In light of this, the translation must be made carefully and accurately to the context of the text. John is introducing Jesus Christ to readers. He begins by telling us about this word or logos and then mentions John, but clearly states that John was just a witness and was not the light. 

In verse 14 John tells us who is this word or logos and is stating that this word or logos took on flesh and dwelled among us (Immanu-El). So we know John is introducing Jesus Christ as the subject here.  If a translator adds "a or an" to John 1:1, problems arise. This word or logos becomes a created being, a finite being (in this case, a god), and inferior to the One True God. The Gospel of John emphasizes greatly the divinity of Christ. In John 5:18 John tells us that the Jews sought to kill Jesus because he allegedly broke the sabbath and called God His Father and even made Himself equal to God.  John does not dispute this nor correct the Jews' accusation.  So the translation stating that the "Word was a god" is erroneous and does not fit the context of John 1:1 and the entire Gospel of John. (Daniel Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 255–70).  

John 1:2 and 3 go further saying the Word/Logos was with God and all was created through this Word/Logos. This Word/Logos is referred to as a He/Him. Let us go back to verse 1. It says, "en arche 'en o logos" literally "In beginning was the Word." Notice that there is no definite article before arche. Even the New World Translation puts the article there. That is how it is supposed to read. Toying with it would cause confusion in the English translation of the text which would read "In a beginning was the Word..." That implies that there were multiple beginnings to the universe, which is false (biblically & cosmogonically speaking) and not consistent with the rest of the Scriptures. 

So we can see how the New World Translation deliberately edited some of the text while leaving the rest untouched showing inconsistency and lack of thought behind the translation.  The translator either made a mistake, did it intentionally to try to lessen the divinity of Christ, or simply was not an expert in Koine Greek and exegesis. It is interesting to note that the names of the alleged committee that made the translation were kept anonymous. Names of individuals assumed to possibly have had a hand in the translation are from individuals who lacked proper education in Greek, Hebrew, and Biblical studies.   

Now it is important to note that the early Hebrews were henotheists or believed in henotheism or the worship of one Supreme God or deity while acknowledging others exist. However, the Hebrews moved beyond that to monotheism and Christians definitely have never subscribed to this.  Clearly the Jews in Jesus' time did not subscribe to henotheism either. 

So again, this is why the translation "The Word was God" is the best translation semantically, exegetically, theologically, and grammatically. Even Google Translate translates it in this manner.  See the attached screenshot and photos of my Koine Greek New Testament. 

Some argue that Colwell’s rule which is a linguistic rubric is outdated, or obsolete. Not necessarily.  We see this when a definite predicate nominative when linked to the article and when a verb follows it. With John 1:1, the question is in regards to the clause are και θεος ην, the verb and now ην, θεος.  In regards to Koine Greek and how sentences are structured, there is no expectation for a definite article to be present when a verb is consecutive to the aforementioned noun.  This is why the Jehovah's Witness New World Translation is the only text that does something differently that makes no sense. They are inconsistent because, in other verses that lack an article, they replace it with "Jehovah" when the original text does not have a noun or this name or any name specifically. 

Wallace on pp. 5-6 writes, “One of the most well-known rules of NT grammar articulated in this century encompassed just such an approach [i.e. beginning with semantics and involving what Wallace calls “the prescriptive fallacy”]. What became known as ‘Colwell’s Rule’ was first published in 1933…. The rule is valid as far as it goes, though it is relatively worthless for syntactical purposes since it presupposes a certain semantic force for the predicate nominatives in question.” 

Wallace explains and makes note that Colwell’s rule was in criticism of text or semantics rather than in grammar. Moreover, on pp. 256-271, Wallace explains the rule more intensely and admits that some scholars misinterpreted the rule on page 257 and explains how this led to the resurrection of Arianism and other heresies on page 258 due to the misinterpretation of the rule.  A predicate nominative when it comes before a verb can be anarthrous when no article that is definite is present, however, in the case of John 1:1 that is not the case.  I.E. "In the beginning."  

A book from 1982 authored by the Jehovah's Witness (The Jehovah’s Witnesses NT: A Critical Analysis of the NWT of the Christian Greek Scriptures Philipsburg: P&R, 1982) even admits to the erroneous translation.  It notes the inconsistencies found in the New World Translation where there are 282 references to the anarthrous θεος.  They admit that the New World Translation was only consistent with the translation as such only 16 of those 282 locations.  In regards to θεος and how it is translated, the New World Translation uses it 6 times as "God," one time for "a god," and two times for "the god." 

So we see how the Jehovah's Witnesses play around with "a god."  As stated, the New World translation has inconsistencies - in other places where we have anarthrous "theos", the translators do NOT use "a god" i.e.:around

John 1:6 -There came a man who was sent as a representative of God; his name was John [notice - no "a" before "God" despite the lack of article]

John 1:12  - However, to all who did receive him, he gave authority to become God’s children [notice - no "a" before "God" despite the lack of article]

John 1:13 - And they were born, not from blood or from a fleshly will or from man’s will, but from God [notice - no "a" before "God" despite the lack of article]

Bruce Metzger writes:

"Some years ago Dr. Ernest Cadman Colwell of the University of Chicago pointed out in a study of the Greek definite article that, “A definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb. … The opening verse of John’s Gospel contains one of the many passages where this rule suggests the translation of a predicate as a definite noun. The absence of the article [before θεος] does not make the predicate indefinite or qualitative when it precedes the verb; it is indefinite in this position only when the context demands it. The context makes no such demand in the Gospel of John, for this statement cannot be regarded as strange in the prologue of the gospel which reaches its climax in the confession of Thomas [John 20:28, ‘My Lord and my God’].”

In a lengthy Appendix in the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ translation, which was added to support the mistranslation of John 1:1, there are quoted thirty-five other passages in John where the predicate noun has the definite article in Greek. 20 These are intended to prove that the absence of the article in John 1:1 requires that θεος must be translated “a god.” None of the thirty-five instances is parallel, however, for in every case the predicate noun stands after the verb, and so, according to Colwell’s rule, properly has the article. So far, therefore, from being evidence against the usual translation of John 1:1, these instances add confirmation to the full enunciation of the rule of the Greek definite article."

Daniel Wallace writes:

"The most likely candidate for Θεὸς is qualitative. This is true both grammatically (for the largest proportion of pre-verbal anarthrous predicate nominatives fall into this category) and theologically (both the theology of the Fourth Gospel and the NT as a whole). There is a balance between the Word's deity, which was already present in the beginning (Ἐν ἀρχῇ ... Θεὸς ἦν [1:1], and his humanity, which was added later (σὰρξ ἐγένετο [1:14]). The grammatical structure of these two statements mirrors each other; both emphasize the nature of the Word, rather than his identity. But Θεὸς was his nature from eternity (hence εἰμί is used), while σὰρξ was added at the incarnation (hence γίνομαι is used.)"

So we can see that "a god" is a bad translation and makes no sense in relation to the context of the rest of the text, Gospels, and the beliefs of John being a Christian.  

  • Again, who is "a god"?  This is polytheism, not monotheism. 
  • If the "a god" is correct, why did not the early Church Father adopt this translation or theology behind it?  
  • Why to this day do Greek Christians both in the Eastern and Western Churches not follow this "a god" translation. 
  • Why did in 325, (the Council of Nicaea) define that Jesus Christ was God, "consubstantial with the Father?"  
  • Why did Thomas say, "My Lord and My God"  to Jesus in John 20:28?  (Ἀπεκρίθη Θωμᾶς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ Ὁ Κύριός μου καὶ ὁ Θεός μου.)  Transliterated as:  (Answered Thomas and said to Him, The Lord of Me, and the God of Me!)  "A god" was not used in this text nor does the New World Translation translate John 20:28 using "a god."  

We can go on and on, but we can see the problem "a god" causes and why it does not match with the context of John or the entire Gospel.  

Watchtower followers argue over translating Greek into English, not the actual Koine Greek text and the semantics surrounding it.  This is where the confusion lies.  Surely any language can be translated in different ways. For example, I can say "This is cool."  Someone can interpret it as referencing temperature while a younger person may interpret it as meaning something fun, attractive, or exciting. What decides what I mean is the context or main idea behind the statement. If the saying, "This is cool" continues with "I really like that car." Then we know what I am trying to convey.  So "cool" can mean different things but what decides the ultimate meaning is the context. 

The same with John 1:1.  John is introducing Jesus as God and Son of God who came into the world.  So Jesus is God but is not the Father or the Holy Spirit. They are distinct persons but one God substance. Moreover, John specifically uses Hellenistic jargon such as "Logos" to do this. The Greeks believed in the Logos or the great order or mind that runs the universe or is the universe. John was using their jargon to show that the universe is not the Logos, God is the Logos who was there before the universe (In the beginning was the Word) and the one who became flesh (Jesus), is also the Logos (was God) but also a distinct person from the Logos (with God). So here, Logos is the God substance or Divine nature that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are equal with the only difference that they each are distinct persons within this Godhead or God substance. 

This is why all Bibles except the Watchtower's New World Translation say "The Word Was God." It is the only correct translation that connects with the context and corroborates with the Gospels.  Even Biblehub's Greek-English lexicon shows this and why even Google Translate uses a similar translation as demonstrated beforehand. 

"A god" makes no sense at all in this text.  Moreover, as shown, the Watchtowers fails to use the same translation in another 200-plus verses where "a god" could have been placed.  They selectively only made the edit in John 1:1.

This was done to push their false heretical views which are a rehashing of the banal arguments of Arianism and Sabellianism. From here they get stranger in their doctrine. They go as far as to claim that Jesus is a creature and even claim Jesus is St. Michael the Archangel.  This idea is absurd and is of the antichrist as Scripture says (1 John 4:3, 2 John 7, 2 John 1:7).  Those who deny Jesus coming into flesh and His divinity are of the spirit of the antichrist.  

Jesus is God, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity.  Jesus is NOT the Father or the Holy Spirit. All three are one God, three distinct persons in this Godhead.  Jesus and St. Michael the Archangel are also not the same beings.  St. Michael the Archangel is an archangel created by God, Jesus is not. Jesus says that He and the Father are ONE (John 10:30-38).  Think about it. How can Michael and God be ONE while at the same time being an archangel and creation of God?  God is absolute. He has no beginning or end.  Some cite St. Justin Martyr where he uses "Angel of the Lord" alongside Jesus Christ.  They claim that Justin Martyr acknowledges that Jesus is an angel or a creation of God; a lesser god. In Hebrew scriptures, the refers"Angel of the Lord" refers to God. We see different instances where the "Angel of the Lords" is actually God speaking (1st person) see: (Genesis 16:7-12; 21:17-18; 22:11-18; Exodus 3:2; Judges 2:1-4; 5:23; 6:11-24; 13:3-22; 2 Samuel 24:16; Zechariah 1:12; 3:1; 12:8). St. Justin Martyr clearly makes this distinction in Dialogue with Trypho.

Jesus is God. Jesus is the Word of God.  Jesus was with God and is God.  John 1:1 is a crucial theological text that must be believed if one is to be a follower of Jesus.  Jesus Christ is true God and true Man. He was God before creation, at conception, while growing up as a male Jew, and after His crucifixion, death, resurrection, and ascension.  He is a man at conception in the womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary and remains so. He did not lose His divinity. He is God and Man simultaneously with two natures (divine and human) and one personhood (Jesus Christ/Son of God/Second Person of the Blessed Trinity).  This is what the Catholic Church has always believed and taught and formulated in the Nicense Creed which says:

I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages. God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father; through him all things were made. For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven, and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man.

Jesus is not "a god."  Jesus is not Michael or an angel. Jesus is God, the Son of God, and the second person of the Blessed Trinity.  The editing of the Bible by the Watchtower sect shows the extremes that some will go to push lies.  To have the audacity to edit the Bible so it can fit your heresy is sinful and blasphemy. As stated, this edit distorts the entire Scriptures. It defeats the purpose of Jesus even incarnating. It warps theism as presented in the Bible and creates a polytheistic disaster.  




 

Tuesday, October 8, 2019

Scalfari: Pope Does not Believe Christ is Divine

Once again, Pope Francis is being accused of being a heretic indirectly. He again fell victim to the dishonest atheist reporter Dr. Eugenio Scalfari who last year claimed that the pope denied the existence of hell (see: http://www.sacerdotus.com/2018/03/pope-says-hell-does-not-exist.html). Scalfari is known for not taking notes down or not using a recording device during interviews. He relies on memory for his reporting. This has problem devasting because of his misquoting antics and misrepresentation.

In his recent column, he claims that Pope Francis denied the divinity of Christ during a discussion in the past. In other words, Pope Francis came out as believing in Arianism. In the October 9th publication of La Repubblica, Scalfari writes:

"Those who, as it has happened many times with me, have had the luck of meeting him and speaking to him with the greatest cultural intimacy, know that Pope Francis conceives Christ as Jesus of Nazareth, man, not God incarnate."
"Once incarnate, Jesus stops being a God and becomes a man until his death on the cross."
"When I had the chance of discussing these sentences, Pope Francis told me: 'They are the proven proof that Jesus of Nazareth, once having become a man, was, though a man of exceptional virtues, not at all a God.'"

Immediately, the Catholic blogosphere took to the keyboard to write all kinds of reactionary commentaries. Among them is the Catholic tabloid site Rorate Caeli which is bent on slandering the pope and creating narratives painting him to be a heretic of antipope. The blog writes:

"Now, obviously, as it has often happened with Francis' informal interviews with Eugenio Scalfari, some will try to deny the veracity of what Scalfari, a seasoned journalist, affirms.

Let us just recall, for the record of events, that there is no reason to doubt its general accuracy. We are way past the time of doubting the general accuracy of the Scalfari quotes."

Others chose to be charitable and tell the truth. Clerics who are known for their scholarship and orthodoxy defended the pope and showed how the alleged comments do not make sense in light of previous statements:







Immediately, the Vatican denounced the words with a statement:

"As already stated on other occasions, the words that Dr. Eugenio Scalfari attributes in quotation marks to the Holy Father during talks with him cannot be considered a faithful account of what was actually said but represent a personal and free interpretation of what he heard, as appears completely evident from what is written today regarding the divinity of Jesus Christ.”

Matteo Bruni, the director of the Holy See’s press office, said in a statement. However, the statement failed to outright deny that the pope made the statement directly. In any event, we know from previous statements that the pope does not deny the divinity of Christ. Anyone who believes Scalfari is, for lack of a better word, a moron.




What do you think? Post your comment below on Disqus. Be sure to follow the rules for commenting.





Source:

https://rep.repubblica.it/pwa/editoriale/2019/10/08/news/sinodo_francesco_e_lo_spirito_dell_amazzonia-238040628/?ref=RHPPTP-BH-I235134168-C12-P1-S1.4-T1

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/vatican-dont-believe-scalfari-report-that-pope-francis-denied-christs-divinity-52026

https://www.cnsnews.com/blog/michael-w-chapman/scalfari-pope-francis-told-me-jesus-incarnate-was-man-not-all-god

https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2019/10/francis-to-favorite-journalist-jesus.html

https://catholicherald.co.uk/news/2019/10/09/did-pope-francis-really-say-that-jesus-isnt-god/

Sacerdotus TV LIveStream

Labels

Catholic Church (1640) Jesus (765) God (754) Bible (621) Atheism (400) Jesus Christ (378) Pope Francis (347) Liturgy of the Word (324) Apologetics (301) Atheist (280) Science (239) Christianity (203) Theology (152) LGBT (148) Liturgy (139) Blessed Virgin Mary (129) Prayer (99) Abortion (97) Gay (95) Philosophy (93) Pope Benedict XVI (93) Traditionalists (84) Rosa Rubicondior (82) Vatican (77) Physics (74) Psychology (74) Christmas (64) New York City (62) Holy Eucharist (61) Christian (60) President Obama (59) Protestant (53) Vatican II (51) Health (49) Biology (48) Gospel (46) Politics (46) Women (44) Racism (40) Supreme Court (35) Baseball (34) Death (34) Pope John Paul II (33) Illegal Immigrants (32) NYPD (32) priests (32) Priesthood (29) Morality (28) Space (28) Astrophysics (27) Eucharist (27) Jewish (27) Religious Freedom (27) Donald Trump (25) Evangelization (25) Christ (22) Evil (22) First Amendment (21) Pro Abortion (19) Child Abuse (17) Divine Mercy (17) Marriage (17) Pedophilia (17) Pro Choice (17) Easter Sunday (16) Holy Trinity (16) Police (16) Pentecostals (15) Sacraments (15) Angels (14) Autism (14) Gender Theory (14) Poverty (13) September 11 (13) Blog (12) CUNY (12) Cognitive Psychology (12) Muslims (12) academia (12) Hispanics (11) Pope Paul VI (11) Evangelicals (10) Massimo Pigliucci (10) Personhood (10) Evidence (9) Hell (9) Podcast (9) Barack Obama (8) Big Bang Theory (8) Human Rights (8) Humanism (8) Condoms (7) David Viviano (7) Death penalty (7) Eastern Orthodox (7) Ellif_dwulfe (7) NY Yankees (7) Spiritual Life (7) Encyclical (6) Gender Dysphoria Disorder (6) Babies (5) Baby Jesus (5) Catholic Bloggers (5) Cyber Bullying (5) Donations (5) Pope Pius XII (5) The Walking Dead (5) Ephebophilia (4) Plenary Indulgence (4) Pluto (4) Pope John XXIII (4) Founding Fathers (3) Dan Arel (2) Freeatheism (2) Oxfam (2) Penn Jillette (2) Pew Research Center (2) Cursillo (1) Dan Savage (1) Divine Providence (1) Fear The Walking Dead (1) Pentecostales (1)