@Blotty
The claim that Trevor R. Allin and others like him are "massive liars" undermines the spirit of constructive dialogue. Instead of addressing the substance of their arguments, such personal attacks fail to contribute meaningfully to the debate. If Allin’s claims are flawed, they should be addressed with evidence and reasoned arguments, not ad hominem attacks.
Regarding the citation of Wikipedia, while it is true that Wikipedia is not a primary academic source, referencing it in a broader discussion is not inherently invalid, especially if the content cited is accurate and supported by other reliable sources. The dismissal of Allin’s arguments purely because of a Wikipedia reference is an overreach and does not negate his broader critiques. The focus should be on the substance of the claims, not the citation medium.
Your assertion that "a god" in John 1:1c cannot be faulted linguistically is partially correct; it is a grammatically possible rendering. However, the key issue is not mere grammatical possibility but theological and contextual accuracy. John’s Gospel, steeped in Jewish monotheism, does not support the interpretation of the Logos as a lesser god. The qualitative understanding of theos in John 1:1c—affirming the Word’s divine nature—better aligns with both the grammar and the theological context of the text. Simply because “a god” is linguistically possible does not mean it is the most accurate or contextually appropriate translation.
While it is true that certain early Church Fathers, such as Justin Martyr, used terms like "theos kai kurios eteros" to describe the Logos, their intent must be understood within the context of their writings and their adherence to monotheism. Origen, for example, is not introducing a second deity but rather expressing the distinction of persons within the unity of the divine essence. This relational distinction is foundational to Trinitarian theology, which affirms one God in three persons.
The term allos theos is not equivalent to the claim that the Logos is "a god" in a polytheistic/henotheistic or subordinate sense. Origen himself clarifies this point in Contra Celsum (Book 2, Chapter 70), where he insists that the Logos shares fully in the divine nature and does not represent a separate or lesser deity. His use of such terms reflects the challenge of articulating the relational dynamics within the Godhead before the formalized terminology of the Nicene Creed. To accuse Origen or other Fathers of literal polytheism is to ignore their explicit commitment to monotheism.
Similarly, Justin Martyr uses phrases like "theos kai kurios eteros" in a way that underscores relational distinction without compromising divine unity. Justin’s aim is apologetic: he seeks to demonstrate to a Jewish audience that the pre-incarnate Logos, active in creation and Old Testament theophanies, is distinct in person yet shares in the divine essence. Justin explicitly denies any division or multiplication of the divine essence, as seen in Dialogue with Trypho (Chapter 56), where he rejects the idea of abscission, affirming instead the eternal generation of the Son.
The attempt to equate theos in John 1:1 with "a god" relies on a fundamental misunderstanding of Greek grammar and Johannine theology. The anarthrous theos in John 1:1c ("the Word was God") emphasizes the qualitative nature of the Logos, not its numerical distinction from the Father. The Logos possesses the same divine essence as the Father, consistent with John’s monotheistic framework. Translating theos as "a god" introduces a polytheistic nuance foreign to the text and undermines the theological coherence of John’s prologue. Moreover, the examples cited—such as Satan being called "a god" (2 Corinthians 4:4) or human judges being referred to as "gods" (Psalm 82:6)—do not support the argument for rendering theos as "a god" in John 1:1. These instances employ metaphorical language to denote authority or dominion, not ontological divinity. The context in John 1:1, however, is explicitly ontological, as the Logos is identified as the eternal Creator (John 1:3), distinct in person yet fully divine.
Early Church Fathers, while operating within the constraints of pre-Nicene terminology, consistently affirm the full divinity of the Logos. Justin Martyr, for instance, asserts that the Logos was eternally with God and distinct in person, as seen in Dialogue with Trypho (Chapter 61). Tertullian similarly speaks of the Logos as proceeding from the Father while remaining fully divine. These writings reflect the embryonic development of Trinitarian theology, not a denial of it. It is also erroneous to claim that Origen or Hippolytus took such descriptions literally in a way that implies polytheism. Their writings must be read in the context of their unwavering commitment to monotheism and their efforts to articulate the mystery of the Trinity in the face of heretical interpretations. For example, Origen explicitly states in Contra Celsum (Book 8, Chapter 12) that the Logos is worshiped along with the Father, reflecting his belief in the Logos’s full divinity.
Theological development over time does not equate to theological innovation. The Nicene articulation of the Trinity clarified and formalized what was already implicit in Scripture and early Christian thought. Subordinationist language in early writings often reflects the relational order within the Godhead, not an ontological hierarchy. This is evident in Justin’s and Origen’s writings, which affirm the unity of essence while distinguishing the persons. Early Christian writers often used such terms to emphasize the distinct personhood of the Son relative to the Father without implying that He was a lesser or separate deity. This language must be understood within the framework of early Trinitarian theology, which maintained the unity of essence (homoousios) between the Father and the Son. The Church Fathers did not endorse a polytheistic interpretation but affirmed the Son’s full divinity within the monotheistic understanding of God.
Your point that Satan is called “a god” (e.g., 2 Corinthians 4:4) and human judges are referred to as “gods” (Psalm 82:6) does not support the NWT’s rendering of John 1:1c as “a god.” In both cases, the terms are used metaphorically or analogically, not ontologically. The judges in Psalm 82 are called “gods” because of their role as representatives of divine authority, not because they possess divinity. Similarly, Satan is called “the god of this age” to highlight his influence over the fallen world, not because he shares in God’s nature. The use of theos in these contexts does not equate to the qualitative use of theos in John 1:1c, where the Logos is identified with the very essence of deity.
Origen’s writings must also be understood in their historical and theological context. While Origen recognized a distinction between the Father and the Son, he affirmed the Son’s divinity and pre-existence. His theology is complex and was later deemed speculative in some areas, but he never taught that the Logos was a created or lesser god in the sense implied by the NWT. Instead, Origen’s writings contributed to the development of orthodox Trinitarian theology.
Isaiah 44:24 emphatically declares that Yahweh alone is the Creator: "I am the LORD, who made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself." The Hebrew terms "alone" (levadí) and "by myself" (mē’ittí) underscore the absolute exclusivity of God's creative work, leaving no room for any secondary agents—whether false gods, angels, or any other beings. This passage asserts the divine uniqueness and monotheism foundational to the Old Testament, directly contradicting the idea that creation involved a created intermediary like the JW "Michael-Jesus."
John 1:3 explicitly states, "All things were made through Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made." The Greek verb egeneto (came into being) highlights Jesus' active participation in bringing all creation into existence. The preposition dia (through) does not indicate that Jesus was a mere tool or intermediary, as in the case of a subordinate agent, but rather emphasizes the unity and distinct relational roles within the Trinity. Jesus, as the Logos, was the direct agent of creation, fully sharing in the divine essence. Similarly, Colossians 1:16-17 affirms: "For by Him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible... all things were created through Him and for Him." The phrase "for Him" (eis auton) emphasizes Christ's ultimate supremacy and purpose in creation—attributes that can belong only to God. Paul’s language here reflects Christ’s divine identity, not that of a created being or subordinate agent. Hebrews 1:10 applies Psalm 102:25-27, which speaks of Yahweh as Creator, directly to Jesus: "You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands." This identification of Jesus as Yahweh, the Creator, is clear and unequivocal. If Jesus were merely a creature or an instrument, this attribution would conflict with the exclusive role of Yahweh as Creator in Isaiah 44:24.
Your interpretation of Tertullian misrepresents his theology. Tertullian affirmed the Son's full divinity and role in creation, stating in Against Praxeas: "He [the Father] stretched out the heavens alone, but alone with His Son, even as He is one with His Son." This shows Tertullian’s understanding that the Father and the Son, while distinct persons, share the same divine essence and work inseparably in creation. Tertullian explicitly denied that the Son was a subordinate or separate being. Instead, he described the Son as "undivided and inseparable from the Father" and emphasized their unity in essence and purpose. His analogy of the Father and Son as the sun and its ray illustrates this: just as the ray emanates from the sun without division, so the Son is eternally begotten of the Father, fully God and co-equal in nature. Your claim that Tertullian supported the idea of "alone" excluding only false gods but allowing for the involvement of creatures in creation is inaccurate. Tertullian clearly affirmed that the Son's participation in creation stems from His unity with the Father in divine essence, not as a created intermediary. His writings consistently refute any subordinationist interpretation.
Isaiah 44:24 does not merely exclude false gods but categorically denies the involvement of any being, created or uncreated, other than Yahweh in creation. The Hebrew terms "alone" and "by myself" are absolute, precluding even the possibility of an intermediary. If Jesus were a created being, His involvement in creation would contradict this passage. However, the New Testament's consistent portrayal of Jesus as Creator (John 1:3, Col. 1:16, Heb. 1:10) aligns perfectly with the understanding that Jesus is Yahweh, fully divine.
Your suggestion that a lack of positive scholarly consensus for the NWT is due to a "Trinitarian-dominated world" is speculative and dismissive of legitimate critiques. Many scholars, both Trinitarian and otherwise, have raised concerns about the NWT’s theological bias, particularly in its handling of key Christological texts. Dismissing these critiques as mere bias ignores the substance of their arguments and the weight of evidence against the NWT’s interpretive choices.
BeDuhn’s defense of the NWT focuses on its linguistic fidelity, but he also acknowledges its theological implications. While he argues for the grammatical possibility of “a god” in John 1:1c, he prefers “divine” as a more accurate rendering. This preference underscores the qualitative nature of theos in this context, which aligns with the broader theological intent of John’s Gospel. The NWT’s choice of “a god” introduces ambiguity and theological bias that is not present in the original text or the broader Johannine context.
Your critique of traditional Trinitarian scholarship as inherently biased fails to account for the rigorous academic standards applied in such studies. While all translations and interpretations reflect some level of theological presupposition, the weight of historical, linguistic, and contextual evidence overwhelmingly supports the traditional understanding of John 1:1c as affirming the Logos’s full divinity.