How did JWs arrive at a clearer understanding of what the Bible teaches than other Christian denominations?

by slimboyfat 164 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

scholar

aqwsed12345
Your assertion that there is "no misunderstanding" of the qualitative force of theos in John 1:1c needs further examination. Qualitativeness in Greek grammar, especially in John 1:1c, signifies that theos describes the nature or essence of the Word—expressing full divinity without introducing a secondary, lesser god. The NWT's rendering of "a god" misses this point, implying an inferior deity rather than the full divine nature John was emphasizing. The qualitative meaning here shows that the Word shares in the essence of deity, not as a second god, but in unity with the Father.
---
Your assertion that "Qualitativeness in Greek grammar especially in John 1:1 c, signifies that theos describes the nature or essence" is correct but your comment that it "expresses full divinity without introducing a secondary, lesser god' reflects a theological interpretation. The NWT' rendering 'a god' does imply inferiority but defines his relationship to his Father as His Son harmonizing well with John 1:1b and sharing in the same essence or substance as the Father with Deity and Divinity- 'godlike' or having divine quality exemplified by the expression 'a god' or 'divine' as rendered in other translations of John 1:1.
NB: Theological terms such as 'essence' and 'substance' are non-biblical.
==================
he NWT's translation "a god" is theologically problematic because it implies the existence of more than one divine being, which contradicts the strict monotheism found in both the Old and New Testaments (e.g., Deuteronomy 6:4, Isaiah 43:10). The traditional translation, "the Word was God," does not introduce the idea of multiple gods but affirms that the Word shares in the same divine nature as the Father. Saying "a god" introduces theological confusion by creating the possibility of subordination or henotheism—an idea John did not intend to convey.
-----
I disagree. The NWT's rendering 'a god' is consistent with many other translations. It affirms not implies Biblical monotheism of the OT and the NT. The traditional rendering 'the Word was God' is meaningless and contradicts the previous statement that the 'Word was with God' hence becoming theologically problematic. If you argue that this rendering affirms that the 'Word was God' shares in the same divine nature with God then I would agree and further I would also agree that the 'Word was a God' is equally applicable- the Word shares the same nature as God having divine quality or being a god or godlike. The expression 'a god' harmonizes with the context of the Prologue -John 1: 2-3, 14. showing subordination to the Father as 'God's Son.
=====
The claim that Trinitarianism is "rooted in Neo-Platonism" oversimplifies the historical development of Christian theology. While some early Church Fathers employed philosophical terminology to explain theological doctrines, the concept of the Trinity is based on biblical texts such as John 1:1, Philippians 2:6-11, and Colossians 1:15-20, which reveal Christ’s divine identity. The Nicene Creed affirmed that the Son shares the same divine essence as the Father, and this was not merely "a product of Greek philosophy" but a reflection of the Church's scriptural understanding of Jesus' deity. The homoousios ("same essence") of the Nicene Creed encapsulates this understanding of Christ’s full divinity and eternal nature.
---
It is not a claim that 'Trinitarianism is rooted in Neo-Platonism but a well-accepted fact of Historical Theology and Philosophy attested by numerous scholars. By your acquiescence, you admit to this fact that the Church Fathers adopted philosophical terminology in defence and explanation of this new doctrine introduced into the Church in the latter periods. The concept of the Trinity is not found in the OT and the NT which widely recognized by scholars even Catholic scholars who would argue is that it is implied only but not directly stated. Your proof texts such as John 1: 1, Philippians 2: 6-11 and Colossians 1: 15-20 are contestable as shown by how these are rendered in many translations which all attest to Christ's Deity and Divinity as God's Son and not fully God. The Nicene Creed was first written not in Latin but in Greek and thus was well suited to such philosophical vocabulary by its use of such terms and language not found in the Greek NT. The Greek term homoousios is an example of using a foreign concept to the NT to affirm a teaching or doctrine not explicitly found in the OT and the NT. The meaning of this word and its use is controversial as was its adoption at Nicea. The word can mean 'of the same essence', same 'substance', 'reality', 'being' and 'type'.Much can be said about the Nicene adoption of this word during and after the Council as it is flexible in meaning according to one's theological disposition.
===
The assertion that Trinitarianism represents a "great apostasy" and "stems from paganism", as propounded by Alexander Hislop's Two Babylons, has been widely debunked by both historical and theological scholars. Hislop's thesis was based on selective and often misinterpreted historical evidence, and reputable scholarship no longer supports his conclusions. The development of the doctrine of the Trinity was a response to various heresies and was deeply rooted in scriptural exegesis. It was not a pagan "invention", but a theological clarification aimed at safeguarding the Church's teaching on Christ's true nature. Early Christian writings such as those by Athanasius and the Cappadocian Fathers directly counter Arianism and defend the full divinity of the Son, indicating a continuity with the apostolic faith rather than a deviation. FYI: Did the Trinity Come from Paganism?
----
One does not need to rely on Hislop's Two Babylons in order to prove that the Trinity is of pagan origin but simply to read a wide variety of reference books that deal with this subject and if possible read the primary sources such as that of Plato, Philo and Plotinus and of course the patristic literature. Your claim that the Trinity 'is rooted in scriptural exegesis' is nonsense for it arose from a pagan Emperor who sought to unify the squabbling Bishops trying to resolve Christological heresies then widely debated within the State- a matter of political expediency.
Your article that you cited of some 22 pages by an unknown author is merely a diatribe against the WT publications on the Trinity and offers no proof that the Trinity was not derived from Paganism.
===========
You referenced Daniel B. Wallace’s view on theos in John 1:1c. Wallace’s work emphasizes the qualitative nature of theos in this context, affirming that the Word shares fully in the divine essence without implying henotheism or a lesser deity. Wallace’s rejection of the NWT rendering "a god" is based on his understanding that the qualitative theos emphasizes the nature of the Word as divine. By contrast, the NWT introduces theological ambiguity by suggesting that the Word is a separate, subordinate god—a view that contradicts both Wallace’s interpretation and the broader context of John’s Gospel, which emphasizes the unity and full divinity of the Word.
--
I only referred to Wallace because you introduced him into this debate. Wallace believes in the Trinity which has coloured his opinion on the translation of John 1:1. His criticism of the NWT reflects his bias and the fact that he did not bother to discuss the Appendix on John 1:1 by the NWT Committee in the 1950 edition reflects poorly on his scholarship. The only theological ambiguity is not created by NWT scholars but by Trinitarian scholars who seek to introduce definitiveness on an anarthrous noun -theos in John 1:1 c. Contrariwise, the NWT in its brilliance preserves both the indefintiveness and the qualativeness of that theos- 'a god' rather than 'God'.
=======
In conclusion, the NWT’s translation "a god" introduces unnecessary theological confusion by suggesting a subordinationist or henotheistic framework inconsistent with the monotheistic message of both the Old and New Testaments. The qualitative rendering, "the Word was God," properly reflects the nature of the Word as fully divine without implying a second, lesser god. This is the most accurate translation in line with the intent of John's Gospel and the monotheism of early Christianity.
By addressing these points, the argument that the NWT rendering is "superior" falls apart under scrutiny, revealing theological misinterpretations and inconsistencies with both the biblical and historical understanding of Christ's deity.
--
The NWT has withstood the test of time since 1950 and has proved to be most accurate in its translation for both the OT and the NT. It is an intellectually honest translation giving the Reader abundant information as to reasons for its approach and methodology in its translation work such as its numerous Appendices, marginal references and textual sources, its multi-lingual facility is truly outstanding and reflects the Pentecostal spirit described in the book of Acts.
Its same publishing agency has published an excellent brochure on the Trinity- Should You Believe in the Trinity? 1989, which gives many references to sources whereby the Reader can check and examine in detail. The more one studies the origin, history and present-day status of this doctrine will readily see that it is non-biblical, pagan in origin and a manifestation of Platonism.
scholar JW
=
Rattigan350

To scholar and aqwsed12345.
Why are you talking about the NWT and the trinity?
I can and do disprove the trinity without using the NWT at all. The KJV has so many spurious added text to support the trinity. 1 John 5:7; Matt 28:19; Rev 1:11; 1 Tim 3:16 to name a few. Many other translations point that out with footnotes and the exclusions of those texts.
The trinitarians have their pet scriptures.
They connect John 8:58 with the I AM with Ex 3:14 I AM. I ask people who was the first person to make that connection. No one knows. I know that the apostles didn't make that connection. Many times the apostles will add commentary stating that Jesus was quoting scripture. But they don't do that with this, because there was no connection. It's all made up.
But yet they ignore the connections that have many supports.
Such as Ps 110:1 ASV "Jehovah saith unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, Until I make thine enemies thy footstool."

Jesus, Peter and Paul quoted that several times, acknowledging that Jesus was the Lord in that sentence, not Jehovah. Stephen said " I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God."
(Standing, sitting. Even spirit beings need to change positions every once in a while.)

I hold Jesus, Peter and Paul above some unknown pastor in their references.
They use such weak support such as the Jews and pharisees wanted to kill him from what he said. The pharisees wanted to kill him because he overturned the tables in the temple and was a threat to their lifestyle. They just needed to invent a means to have him killed by the Romans. But why would people accept the reasonings of non-believers?
They say that Thomas' statement 'My Lord and My God' proves that Jesus was God. Again, why take the statement of a doubter? Jesus' identity wasn't the topic there. They say because Jesus didn't refute that. Jesus didn't go around correcting everything and everyone. He mainly corrected the pharisees.
However they dismiss Matt 16:15,16 where Jesus directly asks Peter who he thought Jesus was and "Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”". I give that much more weight than the statement by Thomas.
So forget John 1:1 and the NWT. There are numerous translations other than the NWT that do not translate it as 'the Word was God'.
aqwsed12345
@scholar
You acknowledge that qualitativeness signifies the nature or essence of the subject in Koine Greek. But where they misunderstand is the suggestion that this quality does not reflect "full divinity." The qualitative reading of theos in John 1:1c does not imply "godlike" in a diminished or lesser sense but points to the full nature of divinity. Many respected scholars, like Wallace and Harner, argue that the qualitative sense implies that the Word shares in the very essence of deity—fully divine, not just some “divine quality” in a vague or partial sense.
The issue is that the NWT’s rendering “a god” introduces ambiguity. The indefinite “a god” implies subordinationism, suggesting that Jesus is a separate deity, which contradicts the strict monotheism seen throughout both the Old and New Testaments (e.g., Deuteronomy 6:4). The qualitative reading, however, supports the understanding that Jesus shares in the same divine nature, maintaining monotheism while affirming the Word’s full divinity.
The NWT’s rendering of John 1:1 as "the Word was a god" introduces theological confusion by suggesting that there is more than one "god" or that the Word is a lesser, subordinate deity. This interpretation is inconsistent with the monotheism that pervades the entire Bible, including the Old and New Testaments. The Bible explicitly teaches that there is only one God (Deuteronomy 6:4; Isaiah 45:5; 1 Timothy 2:5). Introducing "a god" into this context breaks with this clear monotheistic teaching, implying either polytheism or henotheism, which is foreign to biblical revelation.
Furthermore, the qualitative force of theos in John 1:1c, as highlighted by scholars like Wallace, emphasizes that the Word shares fully in the divine nature without implying a lesser or secondary god. Wallace, along with other respected Greek scholars, argues that the qualitative nature of theos in John 1:1 indicates that the Word is fully and truly God. To translate this phrase as "a god" misrepresents the original Greek and distorts the theological message that John intended to communicate.
The absence of the definite article in front of theos in John 1:1c (theos ēn ho logos) is not an indication of indefiniteness but rather a grammatical structure emphasizing the qualitative aspect of theos. In Greek, an anarthrous noun (a noun without an article) can often denote the nature or essence of something, as is the case here. The Word, being theos, is fully divine—sharing the same nature as God the Father.
Wallace and other scholars rightly point out that John 1:1b ("the Word was with [the] God") shows a distinction in person between the Father and the Word, while John 1:1c emphasizes the Word’s participation in the divine nature. The absence of the article before theos does not suggest that the Word is "a god" among many or a lesser divine being, but rather that the Word possesses all the attributes of deity. The translation "the Word was God" is the most accurate rendering in this case, affirming the full divinity of the Word without implying polytheism or subordinationism.
NWT’s rendering ‘a god’ is consistent with other translations and affirms Biblical monotheism. The traditional rendering 'the Word was God' contradicts 'the Word was with God.'
The NWT's rendering is not consistent with the majority of credible scholarly translations. No major scholarly Bible translation (RSV, ESV, NIV, NASB, etc.) renders John 1:1c as “a god.” This is because such a translation implies polytheism or henotheism, both of which contradict the monotheistic foundations of Christianity. The traditional rendering, “the Word was God,” does not contradict the phrase “the Word was with [the] God.” Rather, it affirms that the Word, though distinct in person, shares in the same divine nature as the Father. This reflects the Trinitarian understanding that there is one divine essence shared by the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, without confusing their distinct persons.
The argument that "a god" would imply subordination is well-illustrated by scholars such as Bruce Metzger and Daniel Wallace. They both argue that John 1:1 highlights the unique relationship between the Father and the Son in terms of equality in essence, not in a hierarchy of deities.
Trinitarianism is rooted in Neo-Platonism and is not found in the OT or NT.
Your assertion that the Trinity is a "pagan" invention or a product of Neo-Platonism misunderstands the historical development of Christian theology. This argument is historically inaccurate. While it’s true that early Church Fathers used some philosophical language (like homoousios) to describe theological truths, this does not mean that the Trinity is rooted in pagan philosophy. The development of the Trinity doctrine was a response to various heresies (e.g., Arianism) and is based on careful exegesis of biblical texts that demonstrate Christ’s deity (John 1:1, Colossians 2:9, Philippians 2:6-11). Scholars widely recognize that the biblical texts laid the groundwork for Trinitarian theology, which became more clearly articulated over time, especially at the Council of Nicea.
Moreover, scholars, including Larry Hurtado, have shown that early Christians worshipped Jesus as divine from the very earliest stages of the faith. This worship, centered on Christ’s deity, directly contradicts the idea that Jesus was merely a created, subordinate being.
The doctrine of the Trinity was not "invented" in the later centuries but developed as the early Church reflected on the biblical data and sought to articulate the mystery of God’s nature as revealed in Scripture. The Trinitarian formula—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—is already present in texts like Matthew 28:19, 2 Corinthians 13:14, and John 1:1.
While the early Church Fathers used philosophical language to explain theological truths (such as homoousios at the Council of Nicaea), this does not mean that the doctrine of the Trinity was derived from Greek philosophy. Rather, they used the tools available to them to defend the faith against heresies, particularly Arianism, which denied the full divinity of the Son. The Nicene Creed was a response to these heresies, affirming the scriptural teaching that the Son is "of the same essence" (homoousios) as the Father, fully God and eternally begotten, not made.
The accusation that the Trinity is a pagan concept, popularized by Alexander Hislop’s The Two Babylons, has been thoroughly debunked by scholars across various theological and historical disciplines. Hislop’s methodology was flawed, relying on superficial comparisons and unsupported historical claims. The Trinity is rooted in Scripture and reflects the Christian understanding of God’s nature as revealed in both the Old and New Testaments.
Contrary to the claim that the Trinity is "not found" in the Bible, the doctrine is rooted in biblical texts that reveal the deity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. For example:
- John 1:1 affirms the full divinity of the Word (the Son).
- Philippians 2:6-11 shows that Jesus, though in the form of God, did not grasp equality with God but humbled himself, which implies that he was already divine.
- Colossians 2:9 says that "in Christ, all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form," emphasizing that Jesus is fully God.
Moreover, Matthew 28:19 provides the Trinitarian formula for baptism ("in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit"), showing the equal standing of these three persons in the Godhead.
The claim that Jesus is "subordinate" to the Father, based on passages like John 5:30 or 1 Corinthians 11:3, misunderstands the distinction between functional subordination and ontological equality. While Jesus, in his role as the incarnate Son, submitted to the Father’s will during his earthly ministry, this does not imply that he is ontologically inferior to the Father. The doctrine of the Trinity teaches that the Son and the Holy Spirit are co-equal and co-eternal with the Father, sharing the same divine nature, even though they may have different roles in the economy of salvation.
The NWT preserves both the indefiniteness and qualitativeness of ‘theos.’
The NWT fails to convey the intended meaning of John 1:1c. The indefinite article, "a god," implies polytheism or henotheism—both of which are foreign to Christian monotheism. The traditional qualitative interpretation does not create ambiguity but stresses that the Word possesses the very nature of God. Even Jason BeDuhn, while sympathetic to the NWT in some respects, acknowledges that the Word was divine (not “a god”) better captures the original Greek intent and is open to Trinitarian interpretation.
Daniel Wallace and other scholars have shown that the qualitative force of theos in John 1:1c emphasizes the full divine nature of the Word, not that the Word is a lesser god.
In conclusion, the NWT’s translation of John 1:1c as “a god” introduces theological confusion and contradicts biblical monotheism by implying that Jesus is a lesser or subordinate deity. The qualitative reading of John 1:1c, affirmed by the majority of respected scholars, demonstrates that the Word shares fully in the divine nature of the Father, not as “a god” but as God in essence.
Some resources for you:
@Rattigan350
You argue that texts like 1 John 5:7, Matthew 28:19, Revelation 1:11, and 1 Timothy 3:16 have been altered to support the Trinity doctrine. It is easy to see that these are not deliberate falsifications in the KJV, but come from the Textus Receptus before the age of modern textual criticism, unlike the NWT, which deliberately mistransaltes to support the theological agende of the WTS. Let's examine this claim more closely.

· 1 John 5:7 (Comma Johanneum): It’s true that the longer version of this verse, which explicitly mentions the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit as being one, is a later addition. Most modern scholars agree on this. However, the Trinity does not rest on this verse alone. In fact, the Trinity is grounded in the broader teaching of Scripture, not on one debated verse. The absence of the explicit Comma Johanneum does not remove the Trinity, as the concept is built on many scriptural passages.

· Matthew 28:19: You claim that Matthew 28:19, where Jesus commands his disciples to baptize “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,” is spurious. Yet, the textual evidence overwhelmingly supports this verse. It appears in all early manuscripts of Matthew, including Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, and has strong patristic support. Early Church Fathers like Eusebius of Caesarea quoted it extensively, and there is no evidence of its alteration. The triadic formula here is part of Jesus' Great Commission and clearly demonstrates the early Christian understanding of the Trinity, where the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are mentioned equally.

· Revelation 1:11: This verse in the KJV does include the phrase “I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last,” which is absent in some earlier manuscripts. However, this does not change the overall message of the book of Revelation that presents Christ as divine (Rev 22:13, 22:16) and part of the Godhead, referred to as the "Alpha and Omega."

· 1 Timothy 3:16: The phrase “God was manifest in the flesh” appears in later manuscripts, and earlier versions have “He was manifest in the flesh.” But this phrase still refers to Jesus, and whether we read "God" or "He," the implication is that Jesus, being divine, took on human flesh. The deity of Christ is still strongly supported by many other scriptures, such as John 1:1 and Colossians 2:9.

You claim that the connection between John 8:58 (“Before Abraham was, I am”) and Exodus 3:14 (“I AM WHO I AM”) is made up, and that the apostles didn’t connect the two.

However, Jesus' use of "I AM" in John 8:58 is a clear echo of God's self-identification in Exodus 3:14. The Jewish leaders clearly understood Jesus' claim to deity here, as evidenced by their immediate reaction to stone Him for blasphemy (John 8:59). Jesus' "I AM" statement is an explicit claim to eternal existence and divine identity.

In Exodus 3:14, God reveals His name to Moses as “I AM” (YHWH), expressing His eternal and self-existent nature. When Jesus uses the same phrase, “I AM,” in John 8:58, He is directly identifying Himself with YHWH. The reaction of the Jewish leaders confirms that they understood His claim to be God, which is why they sought to stone Him. This connection is not "made up," but deeply rooted in both Jewish and Christian understanding.

You reference Psalm 110:1, where it says, "Jehovah said to my Lord, ‘Sit at my right hand.’” This verse is often used by non-Trinitarians to claim that Jesus is a lesser Lord, distinct from YHWH (Jehovah).

However, Psalm 110:1 is one of the most quoted Old Testament verses in the New Testament because it points to the Messiah's exaltation. When it says "Yahweh said to my Lord," it refers to a divine dialogue between God the Father (YHWH) and the Messiah (Jesus), acknowledging Jesus’ divine lordship and authority.

Jesus Himself uses this passage to assert His divine status in Matthew 22:44. The New Testament consistently presents Jesus as exalted to the Father’s right hand, sharing in divine authority (Hebrews 1:3; Philippians 2:9-11). Psalm 110 does not deny Jesus' deity; rather, it affirms His unique role as the Messianic King who shares in God’s rule.

You argue that the Pharisees wanted to kill Jesus not because of His claims to deity, but because He overturned tables in the temple and was a threat to their lifestyle.

While it is true that Jesus’ actions in the temple angered the religious leaders, the Gospel accounts clearly state that they sought to kill Him for blasphemy because He claimed to be equal with God. In John 10:30-33, Jesus says, “I and the Father are one.” The Jews understood this as a claim to deity, as they responded, “You, a mere man, claim to be God.” This passage clearly shows that the Jewish leaders saw Jesus' claims as blasphemous because they believed He was equating Himself with God.

You dismiss Thomas’ declaration, “My Lord and my God” in John 20:28, arguing that because Thomas was a doubter, his statement holds less weight. This is a misunderstanding of the significance of this event.

Thomas' confession is the climactic declaration of faith in the resurrected Jesus. Far from being insignificant, it is one of the strongest affirmations of Jesus' divine identity in the New Testament. Thomas, who had previously doubted, was convinced by Jesus’ resurrection and declared Him both “Lord” (kyrios) and “God” (theos). Jesus does not correct Thomas but accepts the worship, further affirming His divine status. This is not a statement to be dismissed but one that directly affirms the belief that Jesus is God.

You argue that Peter’s confession in Matthew 16:16, where he declares Jesus as “the Christ, the Son of the living God,” holds more weight than Thomas’ statement. However, Peter’s confession does not contradict the deity of Jesus.

In calling Jesus "the Christ, the Son of the living God," Peter acknowledges Jesus as the promised Messiah and Son of God. "Son of God" in Jewish thought often meant sharing in the divine nature of God. In fact, Jesus’ response to Peter—“Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven” (Matthew 16:17)—shows that this recognition of Jesus’ divine identity came directly from God.

You dismiss John 1:1, stating that there are translations other than the NWT (New World Translation) that do not translate the passage as "the Word was God." However, the overwhelming majority of translations and biblical scholars agree that John 1:1 affirms the deity of Jesus.

The Greek phrase in John 1:1, "kai theos ēn ho logos", is most accurately translated as "the Word was God." The construction of the Greek text, particularly the use of the definite article with "ho theos" and the anarthrous (without an article) "theos" in the predicate position, shows that the Word (Jesus) shares the same divine essence as God.

In conclusion, your arguments against the Trinity, based on select interpretations and supposed spurious texts, fail to undermine the solid biblical foundation for the doctrine. The Trinity is not based on a few isolated verses or later textual additions, but on the full testimony of Scripture, which presents God as one in essence, yet three in persons—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

The early Church did not "invent" this doctrine. It was a natural conclusion drawn from the teachings of Jesus and the apostles, as well as from the Hebrew Scriptures. Far from being a later "invention" or "borrowed" from pagan sources, the Trinity reflects the mystery of God's nature as revealed in both the Old and New Testaments.
Rattigan350

" the NWT, which deliberately mistranslates to support the theological agenda of the WTS."
What is the agenda of the WTS? And how can it mistranslate when the result is correct?
As for Matt 28:19. I forgot to quote Eusebius "“Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in my name, teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I commanded you.”"

But I find that the main problem with that is that if Jesus said to baptize in the name of the 3, why is there no record of anyone doing that. But on the contrary, just 10 days later in Acts 2:34 "Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ". He has a short memory because he forgot about the name of the father and Holy spirit.

That says alot right there.
"Is the phrase “in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit” used elsewhere in Scripture? NOT ONCE!
Did Jesus use the phrase “in my name” on other occasions? YES! 17 times! (Matthew 18:5, 20; 24:5; Mark 9:37, 39, 41; 13:6; 16:17; Luke 9:48; 21:8; John 14:13, 14, 26; 15:16; 16:23, 24, 26, etc..) "
Evidence of Parallel Accounts
Now it happens that Matthew was not alone in recording the words of Jesus before his ascension. Let us compare the parallel accounts of Luke and Mark.
Luke, who writes in the third person: “And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached IN HIS NAME among all nations” —Luke 24:46-47. This passage therefore restores the correct text to Matthew 28:19 “in my name.”
Furthermore, Mark records the last discourse of Jesus before His ascension. Here, we have yet another witness to the correct text, for Mark, after using similar words to Matthew: “go ye ...all the world ...preach ....Every creature...baptize...” (Mark 16:15-17), includes not the triune formula but the phrase—“in my name.
I'm getting this information from a Catholic Bishop who wrote "As uncomfortable as it is for this writer, doctrinal integrity compels us to look at the canonicity of both texts, but especially Matthew 28:19."
You rely on (which I denounced) "The Jewish leaders clearly understood Jesus' claim to divinity here, as evidenced by their immediate reaction to stone Him for blasphemy (John 8:59). Jesus' "I AM" statement is an explicit claim to eternal existence and divine identity."
The Jewish leaders are your teachers you are saying.
"In Exodus 3:14, God reveals His name to Moses as “I AM” (YHWH), expressing His eternal and self-existent nature. When Jesus uses the same phrase, “I AM,” in John 8:58,"
Jesus never said "I AM" as he did not speak English.
"He is directly identifying Himself with YHWH. The reaction of the Jewish leaders confirms that they understood His claim to be God, which is why they sought to stone Him. This connection is not "made up," but deeply rooted in both Jewish and Christian understanding."

Again, the reliance on "The reaction of the Jewish leaders".
I didn't say that Ps 110:1 denies his divinity. I stated that it shows Jesus, Peter and Paul recognizing that Jesus is not Jehovah in that passage.
You said " Peter’s confession does not contradict the deity of Jesus." Ah, but son of God means that he is not the God that begot him. That's the difference. I'm not mixing in words like deity in the equation.
""the overwhelming majority of translations and biblical scholars agree that John 1:1 affirms the deity of Jesus."
And those translators have agendas too. Right.
"select interpretations and supposed spurious texts,". No. I dismiss the trinity because it does not go along with the equation for salvation. I heard that statement that under no temple arrangement, whether Pre-Christian, Christian or pagan has God ever acted as his own high priest. And Paul affirmed that in Heb 5-10 and that agrees with the what was given in Lev-Deut about the function of the priests and the 1500 year use of the temple which overshadows anything that Jesus or the apostles said.
John 10:30-33??? Really? Heb 8:5 holds more weight. "They serve at a sanctuary that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven. This is why Moses was warned when he was about to build the tabernacle: “See to it that you make everything according to the pattern shown you on the mountain.”"
aqwsed12345

@Rattigan350
You asked, "What is the agenda of the WTS (Watchtower Society)? And how can it mistranslate when the result is correct?" The agenda of the WTS, reflected in their translation choices, particularly in the NWT, is to support Jehovah’s Witnesses' doctrine that denies the deity of Christ and the Trinity. The NWT is often critiqued for mistranslating key texts to fit their theology. For example, in John 1:1, most translations read, "the Word was God" (θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος), but the NWT reads, "the Word was a god," suggesting that Jesus is a lesser deity, which is inconsistent with the rest of Scripture and the grammatical structure of the original Greek.
The definitive issue is that the NWT alters key verses to diminish Christ's deity, which fits the WTS's theological stance. Other examples include Colossians 1:15-17, where the word "other" is added multiple times, changing the meaning to suggest that Christ was created, rather than pre-existing and being the Creator.
You cited Eusebius' quote from his earlier writings, where he records Jesus' commission as "Go ye and make disciples of all nations in my name." However, Eusebius' later writings reflect the full Trinitarian formula as seen in Matthew 28:19: "baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit."
The textual evidence supporting Matthew 28:19 is substantial. The earliest manuscripts, including the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, contain the full Trinitarian formula. Furthermore, church fathers such as Tertullian, Hippolytus, and Origen all reference the Trinitarian formula, which shows it was part of the accepted text long before any alleged alterations.
Regarding your point about Acts 2:38, where Peter says to baptize "in the name of Jesus Christ," this does not contradict Matthew 28:19. The phrase "in the name of Jesus" is shorthand for the authority and commission of Jesus, which includes the Trinitarian formula. The early church understood that baptizing in Jesus' name meant invoking the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as Jesus Himself commanded.
The baptism "in the name of Jesus" does not express the form of the sacrament but its nature: it distinguishes it from John's baptism and is meant to convey that it is done by the authority and commission of Christ, and it obligates the baptized person to Christ. Indeed, if during the time of the apostles they had baptized only by invoking the name of Jesus, Saint Paul could not have responded to the Ephesians, who had never heard of the Holy Spirit, with: "Into what then were you baptized?" (Acts 19:2–3). Early Christian tradition knows of no other form than the mention of the name of the Holy Trinity.
You argued that Jesus never said "I AM" because He did not speak English. This, however, misses the point. In John 8:58, Jesus uses the Greek phrase "ἐγώ εἰμι" (egō eimi), which translates to "I am." The language used is not the issue; rather, it is the meaning of the phrase.
When Jesus says, "Before Abraham was, I am," He is directly echoing Exodus 3:14, where God reveals Himself to Moses as "I AM WHO I AM" (Hebrew: אהיה אשר אהיה, Greek Septuagint: ἐγώ εἰμι). The reaction of the Jewish leaders—immediately trying to stone Him—shows that they understood this as a claim to deity. They recognized that Jesus was identifying Himself with YHWH, the eternal, self-existent God.
You claim that Psalm 110:1 shows that Jesus is not Jehovah (YHWH), but this misses the full context of how the New Testament writers interpret this passage.
Jesus quotes Psalm 110:1 in Matthew 22:41-46, asking the Pharisees, "If David calls him Lord, how can he be his son?" This challenges their understanding of the Messiah. The point Jesus is making is that the Messiah (Jesus) is greater than David and shares in divine authority with YHWH. The New Testament repeatedly shows Jesus exalted to the right hand of the Father, not as a separate or lesser being, but sharing in the divine nature and rule (Hebrews 1:3, Philippians 2:9-11).
You dismiss Thomas' confession, "My Lord and my God," as the statement of a doubter. However, this moment in John 20:28 is one of the clearest affirmations of Jesus’ deity in the New Testament. Thomas, after doubting, is convinced by the resurrected Jesus and exclaims to him, "My Lord and my God!" (Greek: Ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου). This is a direct declaration of Jesus' deity, and importantly, Jesus does not correct him. Instead, Jesus affirms Thomas' belief.
You assert that being the "Son of God" means Jesus is not God. However, in Jewish culture, the term "Son of" often implies equality or shared nature. For example, calling someone the "Son of Man" (Daniel 7:13-14) implies humanity and dominion. Likewise, the title "Son of God" in Jesus' case implies that He shares the divine nature with the Father.
In John 5:18, the Jews sought to kill Jesus because He was "making Himself equal with God" by calling God His Father. Thus, in the context of Jesus' unique sonship, being the Son of God means being equal with God, not inferior. By the way, I will tell you something that may surprise you: when Trinitarians say the Son is God, they do not mean that he is the same person as whose Son He is.
You claim that many translators have "agendas" and that the Trinity is not supported by Scripture. However, the overwhelming majority of biblical scholars and translators, across denominations, agree that John 1:1 and other key texts affirm the deity of Christ. The textual evidence is robust, and the doctrine of the Trinity is not based on a few select verses, but on the entire testimony of Scripture.
You dismiss the Trinity because it doesn't fit your "equation for salvation." However, the Trinity is foundational to the Christian understanding of salvation. Jesus, as fully God and fully man, is the only one who could mediate between God and man, offering a sacrifice that is sufficient to redeem humanity (Hebrews 9:14-15). The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit work together in the plan of salvation, with the Father sending the Son, the Son offering Himself as a sacrifice, and the Spirit applying the work of salvation to believers.
Your argument that Hebrews 8:5 ("a shadow of what is in heaven") somehow outweighs Jesus' direct claims to deity is a misunderstanding. The temple rituals were a shadow pointing to the reality of Christ's heavenly ministry, but Christ Himself is the substance, not just a shadow.
In conclusion, the Trinity is not a later invention or a misunderstanding. It is the biblical revelation of the nature of God, grounded in the teachings of Jesus and the apostles, affirmed by the early church, and defended throughout Christian history.
peacefulpete

Sarah Brightman & Andrea Bocelli - Time to Say Goodbye (1997) [720p] (youtube.com)
scholar
aqwsed12345
You acknowledge that qualitativeness signifies the nature or essence of the subject in Koine Greek. But where they misunderstand is the suggestion that this quality does not reflect "full divinity." The qualitative reading of theos in John 1:1c does not imply "godlike" in a diminished or lesser sense but points to the full nature of divinity. Many respected scholars, like Wallace and Harner, argue that the qualitative sense implies that the Word shares in the very essence of deity—fully divine, not just some “divine quality” in a vague or partial sense
----
Nowhere in John's Prologue is there mention or description of 'full divinity'. The qualitiveness of the APN is simply the sharing of something in common, divine quality or divinity best rendered as ' a god, 'divine' or 'what God was the Word also was'.or '; godlike'.Even if as some scholars suggest this means having or sharing in the same essence of Deity this would be compatible with the preceding comment..
=============
The issue is that the NWT’s rendering “a god” introduces ambiguity. The indefinite “a god” implies subordinationism, suggesting that Jesus is a separate deity, which contradicts the strict monotheism seen throughout both the Old and New Testaments (e.g., Deuteronomy 6:4). The qualitative reading, however, supports the understanding that Jesus shares in the same divine nature, maintaining monotheism while affirming the Word’s full divinity.
---
The NWT' rendering is not ambiguous but literal. simple and clear for any Reader. The anarthrous theos is both indefinite and qualitative showing subordination having a separate deity as to a Son to a Father which reflects what is stated in both the OT and NT as the Word and Jesus being the Son of God preserving strict Biblical Monotheism, unlike the polytheism of the Trinity with its pagan concept of triads.
=====
The NWT’s rendering of John 1:1 as "the Word was a god" introduces theological confusion by suggesting that there is more than one "god" or that the Word is a lesser, subordinate deity. This interpretation is inconsistent with the monotheism that pervades the entire Bible, including the Old and New Testaments. The Bible explicitly teaches that there is only one God (Deuteronomy 6:4; Isaiah 45:5; 1 Timothy 2:5). Introducing "a god" into this context breaks with this clear monotheistic teaching, implying either polytheism or henotheism, which is foreign to biblical revelation.
---
The NWT's rendering 'a god' is a faithful and literal rendering of the APN -theos showing that Word is different to God as the Word was with God so the Word must be a separate identity to God in terms of relationship -subordination as a Son to a Father. Yes, the OT speaks of only One God and not three Gods, which is the triadic concept of the Trinity, polytheism. Regarding Biblical Monotheism, JW's believe that the Bible teaches there is only one God in the absolute sense, but that others are considered 'god's in a secondary sense thus preserving strict Biblical Monotheism. Biblical Monotheism involves the recognition, acceptance and worship of only one true, uni-personal God, the Father -Jehovah God the Almighty God. Other beings can and are rightly considered 'gods' in a different, lesser sense than the true God. This is true of them either collectively or as individuals, so long as their position and glory preserve or further enhances the uniqueness of God.
===
Furthermore, the qualitative force of theos in John 1:1c, as highlighted by scholars like Wallace, emphasizes that the Word shares fully in the divine nature without implying a lesser or secondary god. Wallace, along with other respected Greek scholars, argues that the qualitative nature of theos in John 1:1 indicates that the Word is fully and truly God. To translate this phrase as "a god" misrepresents the original Greek and distorts the theological message that John intended to communicate.
---
There is no dispute that the APN theos is qualitative. Still, the NWT in its Appendix it is also indefinite and hence properly rendered as 'a god' which Wallace and his ilk do not like and have not bothered to read or discuss the Appendix which is an unscholarly approach. The belief that the qualatitiveness of theos refers to the Word as 'fully and truly God' is not what John says but is simply a belief or opinion for John states that the Word was with God and that he was like God or 'a god' hence 'divine'.
===
The absence of the definite article in front of theos in John 1:1c (theos ēn ho logos) is not an indication of indefiniteness but rather a grammatical structure emphasizing the qualitative aspect of theos. In Greek, an anarthrous noun (a noun without an article) can often denote the nature or essence of something, as is the case here. The Word, being theos, is fully divine—sharing the same nature as God the Father.
--
False. The absence of the article in this instance shows the APN theos as indefinite which was John's intention for if John wished to make the APN definite then he could have used to definite article.Its grammatical structure or placement before the verb shows the quality of theos. Thus, we see in this instance an APN with an indefinite and qualitative aspect or sense .There is no evidence that the APN theos is fully divine but does have the same divine quality or nature as God.
===
Wallace and other scholars rightly point out that John 1:1b ("the Word was with [the] God") shows a distinction in person between the Father and the Word, while John 1:1c emphasizes the Word’s participation in the divine nature. The absence of the article before theos does not suggest that the Word is "a god" among many or a lesser divine being, but rather that the Word possesses all the attributes of deity. The translation "the Word was God" is the most accurate rendering in this case, affirming the full divinity of the Word without implying polytheism or subordinationism
---
Correct. John 1:1 b shows the difference in the relation between God and the Word and the latter clause shows that the Word and God have something in common that of being in the same class of being or having a common essence described in English as divine, godlike or 'a god etc. The absence of the article shows that the theos is indefinite and qualitative rendered properly as 'a god', 'divine' or 'what the God was the Word was also. The translation 'Word was God' is ambiguous, polytheistic, grammatically and theologically challenged.
====
The NWT's rendering is not consistent with the majority of credible scholarly translations. No major scholarly Bible translation (RSV, ESV, NIV, NASB, etc.) renders John 1:1c as “a god.” This is because such a translation implies polytheism or henotheism, both of which contradict the monotheistic foundations of Christianity. The traditional rendering, “the Word was God,” does not contradict the phrase “the Word was with [the] God.” Rather, it affirms that the Word, though distinct in person, shares in the same divine nature as the Father. This reflects the Trinitarian understanding that there is one divine essence shared by the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, without confusing their distinct persons.
--
Utter nonsense. There are scores of Bible translations that support the NWT's rendering of the APN in John 1:1, the earliest in 1808. The reason why most modern translations have adopted the traditional rendering is because they believe in the Trinity which is a polytheistic and pagan teaching. The words 'essence' or 'nature' are terms not used by John and not found in the NT, such terms are philosophical and reflect Neo-Platonism or other philosophies current at the time of Nicea. John's description of the Word as a god' or 'divine' describes his quality only and not identify the Word as the same as God himself.
===
The argument that "a god" would imply subordination is well-illustrated by scholars such as Bruce Metzger and Daniel Wallace. They both argue that John 1:1 highlights the unique relationship between the Father and the Son in terms of equality in essence, not in a hierarchy of deities.
--
The rendering 'a god' certainly can imply subordination and this is shown by the context and does describe also the unique relationship that the Word as the Son had with his Father , God. John has nothing to say about 'equality in essence' for this is just theological 'mumbo=jumbo'.
==
Your assertion that the Trinity is a "pagan" invention or a product of Neo-Platonism misunderstands the historical development of Christian theology. This argument is historically inaccurate. While it’s true that early Church Fathers used some philosophical language (like homoousios) to describe theological truths, this does not mean that the Trinity is rooted in pagan philosophy. The development of the Trinity doctrine was a response to various heresies (e.g., Arianism) and is based on careful exegesis of biblical texts that demonstrate Christ’s deity (John 1:1, Colossians 2:9, Philippians 2:6-11). Scholars widely recognize that the biblical texts laid the groundwork for Trinitarian theology, which became more clearly articulated over time, especially at the Council of Nicea.
----
Nonsense. The Trinity is rooted not just in Greek philosophy but in paganism as shown by its use of triads, a common feature of not only ancient pagan religions but more recent forms such as Hinduism, Buddhism etc. except Islam, Your claim that the Trinity arose out of biblical exegesis at Nicea and that it was a response to heresies at that time is fanciful and is a distortion of the history of the first three centuries of the Church.
====
Moreover, scholars, including Larry Hurtado, have shown that early Christians worshipped Jesus as divine from the very earliest stages of the faith. This worship, centered on Christ’s deity, directly contradicts the idea that Jesus was merely a created, subordinate being.
----
Hurtado has written much on this subject in his book and several JBL articles but you need to cite a specific reference in order to make your case or 'stake your claim'.
===
he doctrine of the Trinity was not "invented" in the later centuries but developed as the early Church reflected on the biblical data and sought to articulate the mystery of God’s nature as revealed in Scripture. The Trinitarian formula—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—is already present in texts like Matthew 28:19, 2 Corinthians 13:14, and John 1:1.
----
There is simply no biblical data in support of the Trinity for it evolved over time and became manifest in the Church of latter periods as an apostate doctrine. There is no such thing as a Trinitarian formula but simply a triadic formula akin to such other texts in the NT which mention God, Christ and the Angels- Matt. 24:36; Mark 8: 38; Mark 13:32; Luke 9:26 etc.
====
While the early Church Fathers used philosophical language to explain theological truths (such as homoousios at the Council of Nicaea), this does not mean that the doctrine of the Trinity was derived from Greek philosophy. Rather, they used the tools available to them to defend the faith against heresies, particularly Arianism, which denied the full divinity of the Son. The Nicene Creed was a response to these heresies, affirming the scriptural teaching that the Son is "of the same essence" (homoousios) as the Father, fully God and eternally begotten, not made.
---
Nonsense. If the debates at Nicea use such terms which are unbiblical and if these terms are philosophical then such influence is well established. Why would other tools be necessary when the Apostle Paul wrote that 'All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for settings straight...that the man of God may be fully competent , completely equipped for every good work" 2 Tim 3: 16-17.
===
he accusation that the Trinity is a pagan concept, popularized by Alexander Hislop’s The Two Babylons, has been thoroughly debunked by scholars across various theological and historical disciplines. Hislop’s methodology was flawed, relying on superficial comparisons and unsupported historical claims. The Trinity is rooted in Scripture and reflects the Christian understanding of God’s nature as revealed in both the Old and New Testaments.
---
So be it. Other reputable references show the pagan sources for the Trinity apart from Hislop. The Encyclopedia of Religion, 1987 and in its latest edition under the subject of 'TRIADS' shows the pagan origins of many religions both ancient and modern. Such reference works all admit that the Trinity was taught or found in the OT and the NT or words to that effect and if the Trinity is so rooted in scripture why is it the case that in its creedal statements, no mention is made of the Divine Name? Scholar smells a rat in the Trinity- a dead rat!
====
Contrary to the claim that the Trinity is "not found" in the Bible, the doctrine is rooted in biblical texts that reveal the deity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. For example:
- John 1:1 affirms the full divinity of the Word (the Son).
- Philippians 2:6-11 shows that Jesus, though in the form of God, did not grasp equality with God but humbled himself, which implies that he was already divine.
- Colossians 2:9 says that "in Christ, all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form," emphasizing that Jesus is fully God.
Moreover, Matthew 28:19 provides the Trinitarian formula for baptism ("in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit"), showing the equal standing of these three persons in the Godhead.
---
Not one of these texts proves the Trinity as shown by the simple fact that there is no consensus by means of other Bible Translations for each text is controversial but nicely rendered by the superior NWT which is the Gold Standard in Bible translation.
====
The claim that Jesus is "subordinate" to the Father, based on passages like John 5:30 or 1 Corinthians 11:3, misunderstands the distinction between functional subordination and ontological equality. While Jesus, in his role as the incarnate Son, submitted to the Father’s will during his earthly ministry, this does not imply that he is ontologically inferior to the Father. The doctrine of the Trinity teaches that the Son and the Holy Spirit are co-equal and co-eternal with the Father, sharing the same divine nature, even though they may have different roles in the economy of salvation.
---
This is simply mumbo jumbo.The Bible uses simple terms or words such as 'Father' and 'Son' which well describe the relationship between the two. I have been schooled in Philosophy so am quite at ease with words such 'ontology' and other theological/philosophical terms. Nowhere does the Bible use the language as co-equal, co-eternal and divine nature which only proves that this doctrine is unbiblical and purely philosophical and mystical in its form and nature.
===
The NWT fails to convey the intended meaning of John 1:1c. The indefinite article, "a god," implies polytheism or henotheism—both of which are foreign to Christian monotheism. The traditional qualitative interpretation does not create ambiguity but stresses that the Word possesses the very nature of God. Even Jason BeDuhn, while sympathetic to the NWT in some respects, acknowledges that the Word was divine (not “a god”) better captures the original Greek intent and is open to Trinitarian interpretation.
---
The NWT does a fantastic job as attested by Jason BeDuhn. Its rendering ' Word was a god' is monotheistic unlike the polytheistic ' Word was God' which creates the mysterious concept of three Gods in One God hence tritheistic' The rendering 'divine' is acceptable as along with 'godlike' which are both synomic to 'a god'.
====
Daniel Wallace and other scholars have shown that the qualitative force of theos in John 1:1c emphasizes the full divine nature of the Word, not that the Word is a lesser god.
---
theos in John 1:1 is both indefinite and qualitative having the same divine nature or quality and in a wholly distinctive relationship of One to the other- Father as God and the Son as his Word.
====
In conclusion, the NWT’s translation of John 1:1c as “a god” introduces theological confusion and contradicts biblical monotheism by implying that Jesus is a lesser or subordinate deity. The qualitative reading of John 1:1c, affirmed by the majority of respected scholars, demonstrates that the Word shares fully in the divine nature of the Father, not as “a god” but as God in essence.
--
In conclusion, the Bible does not teach or allude to the Trinity for it is a false teaching of the Antichrist, reflective of apostasy, sourced from paganism by means of triads and was influenced by neo-platonism and later by mysticism.
scholar JW
aqwsed12345

@scholar
Your response hinges on the interpretation of John 1:1c. The original Greek of this passage is central to understanding the nature of the Word (Logos). When it states, “theos ēn ho logos” (the Word was God), it is crucial to understand that the absence of the definite article before theos (God) does not make it indefinite (“a god”) but rather qualitative. This distinction is recognized by respected Greek scholars, such as Daniel Wallace and Philip Harner, who point out that the phrase emphasizes the nature or essence of the Word being fully divine.
When the theos in John 1:1c is interpreted as qualitative, it affirms the Word’s full participation in divinity. The indefinite article "a god," as rendered in the New World Translation (NWT), introduces theological confusion, suggesting that the Word is a lesser or separate deity, which contradicts the core monotheism presented in Scripture (e.g., Deuteronomy 6:4; Isaiah 45:5).
The qualitative sense of theos in John 1:1c expresses that the Word possesses the same divine essence as God the Father, not as a subordinate deity. Rendering it “a god” implies polytheism or henotheism, which is inconsistent with both the Old and New Testament’s strict monotheism.
The translation of John 1:1 in the New World Translation (NWT) as "the Word was a god" introduces theological confusion and contradicts biblical monotheism. The phrase "a god" implies polytheism or henotheism—both of which are incompatible with the monotheism found throughout the Bible, including the Old Testament (Deuteronomy 6:4, Isaiah 45:5) and the New Testament (1 Timothy 2:5). Scholars like Bruce Metzger and Daniel Wallace have repeatedly emphasized that the qualitative reading of theos in John 1:1c reflects the Word's full participation in the divine nature, not as "a god" but as fully divine.
The Trinity is not polytheistic. It affirms one God in three persons, co-equal and co-eternal, which is distinct from pagan triads. You claim that Jehovah's Witnesses' understanding of "a god" preserves monotheism, but this reduces Christ to a lesser, created being, which contradicts biblical monotheism. Asserting that others can be considered "gods" in a lesser sense is contrary to how John and the New Testament present Christ as uniquely divine.
The anarthrous construction (absence of the article) of "theos" in John 1:1c does not necessarily indicate indefiniteness, but rather qualitative meaning. A.T. Robertson and Wallace both support that "the Word was God" emphasizes the Logos’s divine nature, not merely a secondary divine figure. John 1:1b’s reference "was with God" does not indicate separateness, but rather a distinction of persons within the Godhead.
To claim that the absence of the definite article makes theos indefinite ("a god") is a fundamental misunderstanding of Greek grammar. In Koine Greek, the absence of the article before theos in this specific context is not indicative of indefiniteness, but rather of the qualitative nature of theos, affirming the Word's divinity. The Word (Logos) shares fully in the divine essence of God without being a separate or subordinate deity. This is why the vast majority of scholarly Bible translations render John 1:1 as "the Word was God" (e.g., RSV, ESV, NASB, NIV) and not "the Word was a god."
The lack of an article before "God" (θεὸς) in the Greek text doesn't imply subordination or that the Word is a lesser "god." Rather, this construction emphasizes the nature of the Word. The phrase "θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος" is emphasizing that the Word shares the same divine essence as the Father, while maintaining personal distinction.
The argument that "θεὸς" without an article should be translated as "a god" ignores the basic rules of Greek grammar. In Greek, the presence or absence of an article can affect meaning, but the qualitative nature of the term "θεὸς" here is universally recognized by scholars as pointing to the Word's divine essence, not to a lesser deity. Murray Harris and Daniel Wallace, two leading Greek scholars, argue that this construction makes a clear qualitative statement about the Word’s divinity.
Your argument that the NWT's rendering "a god" maintains biblical monotheism misses the fact that the qualitative sense of theos in John 1:1c, as affirmed by scholars like Wallace and Harner, emphasizes the Word's full divinity. The qualitative force of theos indicates that the Word possesses the same nature as God the Father, not merely a lesser or secondary divine being. The distinction between ho theos ("the God" referring to the Father) and theos in John 1:1c is not one of substance, but of person. John is making a distinction between the persons of the Father and the Word, not suggesting that the Word is a lesser deity.
The New World Translation (NWT)'s rendering of "a god" at John 1:1 is not an accurate reflection of the Greek text. It is an attempt to fit a pre-existing theological framework (Jehovah's Witnesses' denial of Christ’s full divinity) into the biblical text, rather than allowing the text to speak for itself.
Scholars like Jason BeDuhn might support a qualitative rendering of John 1:1c ("the Word was divine"), but BeDuhn does not endorse the NWT’s reading of "a god" as being in line with early Christian monotheism. The NWT’s translation, while claiming clarity, introduces ambiguity regarding Christ's divine nature and separateness from the Father. Wallace and other experts affirm that the qualitative meaning of "theos" in John 1:1c affirms Christ's full participation in the divine nature, not as a separate or lesser deity.
The term "a god" introduces polytheism by implying that the Word is a distinct, lesser divine being than the Father, contradicting the biblical teaching of monotheism. If we were to adopt this view, it would imply that early Christian believers accepted the existence of multiple gods, which contradicts the biblical narrative where both Old and New Testaments affirm that there is only one God (Deuteronomy 6:4, Isaiah 45:5).
Paul affirms Jesus’ divinity in passages such as Philippians 2:6-11, where Christ, “though being in the form of God,” humbles Himself, a clear indication that Jesus possessed divinity before His incarnation. This passage contradicts the notion of subordinationism as it affirms that Jesus, in His pre-incarnate state, shared equality with God.
While it's true that there are roles of functional subordination between the Father and the Son during the Son’s incarnation (as seen in passages like John 5:30 and 1 Corinthians 11:3), this does not imply that the Son is ontologically inferior to the Father. Functional subordination does not undermine the ontological equality of the persons of the Trinity. The doctrine of the Trinity maintains that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are co-equal and co-eternal, each fully sharing in the divine essence, yet fulfilling different roles in the economy of salvation. The relationship between the Father and the Son is one of role differentiation, not ontological inequality.
The claim that the Trinity doctrine derives from pagan "triads" such as those found in ancient Egyptian or Babylonian religions is a common argument, yet it lacks substantial historical evidence. The early Church’s understanding of the Trinity developed out of a reflection on biblical revelation, not pagan philosophy. Scholars, including those who have thoroughly debunked Alexander Hislop’s The Two Babylons (a primary source for this claim), agree that Hislop’s work is riddled with historical inaccuracies and unsubstantiated parallels between paganism and Christianity. Regarding your quote: https://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-Eliade.htm
Your appeal to Alexander Hislop’s The Two Babylons as a source for claiming that the Trinity is rooted in paganism has been thoroughly debunked by modern scholarship. Hislop's book is based on flawed methodology and superficial comparisons between Christian and pagan beliefs. It is not regarded as a credible source by historians or theologians. Moreover, the use of triads in some ancient religions does not prove any direct borrowing or influence on Christian doctrine. The Trinity is fundamentally different from pagan triads, as it asserts that there is one God in three distinct persons, whereas pagan triads often involved three separate gods.
The argument that the doctrine of the Trinity is based on pagan triads misrepresents both pagan religions and Christian theology. Pagan triads (such as in Hinduism or ancient Egyptian religions) consist of separate gods with distinct functions, whereas the Trinity affirms that there is one God in three persons, who are co-equal and share the same essence. These are completely different concepts.
The Council of Nicea (325 AD) was not influenced by pagan ideas. Instead, it clarified the Church’s understanding of the divinity of Christ in response to Arianism, which denied that Christ was of the same essence as the Father. The idea of the Trinity was not invented at Nicea but was developed through biblical exegesis, as seen in early Church writings like those of Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian. They affirmed that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all fully God, based on scriptural revelations (e.g., Matthew 28:19, 2 Corinthians 13:14, John 1:1).
The argument that the Son is subordinate to the Father in a way that denies His full divinity misrepresents the distinction between functional subordination and ontological equality. While Jesus, during His earthly ministry, submitted to the Father’s will (as seen in John 5:30 and John 6:38), this does not imply that He is ontologically inferior. The doctrine of the Trinity maintains that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are co-equal and co-eternal in their essence (or ousia), while they have distinct roles in the economy of salvation.
The argument that because Jesus submitted to the Father, He must be inferior (e.g., John 5:30) misunderstands the difference between functional subordination and ontological equality. While the Son submits to the Father in role and function (during His earthly ministry), this does not imply that He is ontologically inferior. Philippians 2:6 emphasizes that Jesus, "being in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped." This shows that Christ’s submission is voluntary and related to His mission, not an indication of inequality in essence or nature.
Hence Jesus’ submission to the Father was voluntary and temporary, a reflection of His role in salvation history, not an indication of an inferior nature. This distinction is vital to understanding the relational dynamics within the Trinity, without implying a hierarchical or lesser status for the Son or the Spirit.
The development of the doctrine of the Trinity was not a product of Greek philosophy or paganism but arose from the need to articulate the relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in light of biblical revelation. Early Church Fathers, such as Athanasius and the Cappadocians, developed the doctrine in response to heresies like Arianism, which denied the full divinity of the Son. The Council of Nicaea (325 AD) affirmed the biblical teaching that the Son is "of the same essence" (Greek: homoousios) as the Father, ensuring that Christ’s divinity was upheld against those who would reduce Him to a created being.
In conclusion, your arguments rely on a misunderstanding of both Greek grammar and historical theology. The Trinity is not a polytheistic or pagan concept but a doctrine rooted in the biblical revelation of one God in three persons—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Greek text of John 1:1c, when properly understood, affirms the full divinity of the Word, not a lesser or subordinate deity. Similarly, 1 Corinthians 8:6 emphasizes distinct roles within the Godhead without denying the Son’s divinity.
The early Christian understanding of the Trinity developed as a response to heretical challenges and was grounded in Scripture, not in paganism or Greek philosophy.
Rivergang

Your appeal to Alexander Hislop’s The Two Babylons as a source for claiming that the Trinity is rooted in paganism has been thoroughly debunked by modern scholarship.
Hislop was also roundly debunked even back in his own time, which was over 160 years ago. (Not in any way surprising - Alexander Hislop was a clergyman, not an historian. He also had a rabid dislike for the Catholic church).
aqwsed12345

@Rivergang
The assertion about the Trinity being of pagan origin, particularly as drawn from Hislop’s The Two Babylons, reflects a broader methodology deeply entrenched in Jehovah's Witness theology. This approach, however, is rooted in a highly selective and often flawed interpretation of history and theology, much like Hislop's own work.
Jehovah’s Witnesses, much like Hislop, tend to frame simply anything they disagree with as stemming from "Babylon," or what they term "Babylon the Great." Hislop’s central thesis — that Roman Catholicism and its doctrines, like the Trinity, are remnants of ancient paganism, particularly from Babylon — forms a critical foundation for many of the Watchtower’s teachings. This technique is a classic case of the genetic fallacy, where an idea is discredited solely based on its alleged origins, regardless of how it functions in its current context.
The Watchtower frequently invokes this argument whenever they critique mainstream Christian beliefs, from Christmas to the Trinity, asserting that any perceived similarity to pagan practices means that these beliefs are fundamentally pagan. This approach, however, fails to account for the fact that resemblance does not equal genealogy. Just because two practices appear similar does not mean one directly caused or influenced the other.
Hislop’s The Two Babylons has been thoroughly debunked by reputable scholars from both historical and theological fields. Hislop’s methodology was deeply flawed. He drew superficial and often ahistorical parallels between Christianity and paganism, particularly when he claimed that the Trinity was borrowed from pagan “triads.” As modern scholars have shown, these triads in pagan religions (such as those in Babylon or Egypt) were not analogous to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, which professes one God in three persons, fundamentally distinct from the separate gods of pagan triads.
Further, the idea that the doctrine of the Trinity originated as a form of political expediency under Constantine is a common misunderstanding perpetuated by both Jehovah's Witnesses and Hislop’s followers. The Council of Nicaea in 325 AD was convened to address theological disputes concerning the nature of Christ, but it did not "invent" the Trinity. Instead, it sought to affirm what was already believed by Christians about Christ's deity in response to Arianism, which denied Christ’s full divinity. The Trinity developed through deep reflection on scriptural exegesis and the early Christian understanding of God as revealed through the Bible, not from paganism.
The claim that the Trinity is merely a repurposed pagan "triad" lacks serious historical evidence. While it is true that some ancient cultures had triadic deities, these were entirely different in both nature and function from the Christian understanding of God. Pagan triads often consisted of three separate gods, each with distinct identities and roles. In contrast, the Trinity is the belief in one God in three co-equal, co-eternal persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. There is a significant theological difference between these concepts, and lumping them together as “similar” betrays a lack of nuanced understanding.
Furthermore, reputable sources, such as the Encyclopedia of Religion, do discuss triads in pagan religions but do not substantiate the claim that the Christian Trinity was derived from these. The Trinity’s roots are clearly in biblical revelation, not in borrowed pagan philosophy. The Christian understanding of the Trinity emerges from scriptural foundations such as Matthew 28:19, where Jesus commands baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and John 1:1, which speaks of the divine nature of the Logos (the Word, identified as Christ).
While Jehovah’s Witnesses often argue that the Trinity cannot be "rooted in scriptural exegesis," early Church Fathers like Athanasius, the Cappadocian Fathers, and others have shown that the doctrine is deeply grounded in the Bible. Passages like John 1:1, Philippians 2:6, and Matthew 28:19 were all interpreted in the early Church to support the understanding of God as three persons in one divine essence. The Church Fathers, in their responses to Arianism (which Jehovah’s Witnesses draw upon for their Christology), consistently defended the full divinity of Christ and the Holy Spirit, ensuring that the doctrine of the Trinity was seen as a faithful representation of the apostolic teaching, not a deviation.
Even in his own time, Alexander Hislop’s work was criticized for its dubious scholarship. His book is filled with sweeping assumptions and historical inaccuracies, and as you mentioned, Hislop was not a historian but a clergyman with an evident bias against the Catholic Church. His lack of credible sources and his tendency to misquote and misinterpret historical documents render The Two Babylons an unreliable source for understanding the historical development of Christian doctrine. It is telling that even some early Protestant scholars rejected Hislop’s conclusions, recognizing the weaknesses in his methodology.
In conclusion, the Jehovah’s Witness reliance on Hislop’s work is part of a broader theological approach that seeks to discredit mainstream Christian beliefs by alleging that they are rooted in paganism. However, this approach is based on a flawed understanding of history and theology. The doctrine of the Trinity was not borrowed from paganism, but developed as a result of careful scriptural exegesis and reflection on the mystery of God’s revelation in Christ. Hislop’s The Two Babylons is widely discredited, and modern Jehovah’s Witness theology would do well to reconsider its reliance on such an unreliable source.

How did JWs arrive at a clearer understanding of what the Bible teaches than other Christian denominations?

Share this