Posts by aqwsed12345

posted

164
How did JWs arrive at a clearer understanding of what the Bible teaches than other Christian denominations?
by slimboyfat in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
for jws who believe that jehovah had a hand in reviving the truth in the nineteenth century this is enough explanation for how jws managed to achieve a closer approximation to early christian beliefs and practices than other groups.

but is there an explanation for this phenomenon that doesn’t rely on supernatural intervention?

new testament scholar james dunn explains the difficulty of interpreting the biblical texts in this way:.
aqwsed12345

You didn’t say if that was you in the bookshop.
Nope...
How many people are there wandering around looking for Garrigou-Lagrange in Latin?
Some of them are, but as I mentioned, most of his writings are also available in English.
164
How did JWs arrive at a clearer understanding of what the Bible teaches than other Christian denominations?
by slimboyfat in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
for jws who believe that jehovah had a hand in reviving the truth in the nineteenth century this is enough explanation for how jws managed to achieve a closer approximation to early christian beliefs and practices than other groups.

but is there an explanation for this phenomenon that doesn’t rely on supernatural intervention?

new testament scholar james dunn explains the difficulty of interpreting the biblical texts in this way:.
aqwsed12345

@slimboyfat
You mentioned encountering a Catholic searching for a Garrigou-Lagrange book in Latin and expressed confusion as to why someone would still write in Latin in the 20th century. This is a significant misunderstanding of the role Latin has played—and continues to play—in Catholic theology and broader scholarship. Latin was (and still is) the official language of the Roman Catholic Church. Many significant theological works, especially in scholastic philosophy and theology, were composed in Latin because it was a precise and universal language among scholars. This allowed for clearer communication of complex theological concepts across linguistic barriers. In fact, most of his works are available in English:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%A9ginald_Garrigou-Lagrange#Works
As for Hans Küng, it's well-documented that the Catholic Church declared some of his teachings heretical, and his theological views diverge significantly from Catholic orthodoxy. His disagreements with central doctrines, such as papal infallibility, led to his removal from teaching as a Catholic theologian in 1979. So, it's not "derogatory" to refer to him as a heretic within Catholic circles; it's simply stating a historical fact based on official Church positions. Disagreements over theological positions don't automatically constitute an ad hominem attack—they are part of legitimate scholarly discourse.
Regarding Adela Yarbro Collins, I understand your frustration with dismissing such scholars, and perhaps I could have used less charged language. In fact, this is my opinion of liberal theologians for a good reason, most of them simply aim to spit on mainstream Christianity with some sensational "expose". “Jesus didn't even exist, and he was even gay!” “God was invented by the priests to take money from the poor people, as Dr. PhD X also stated.” Wow, what a discovery! Applause! Just to clarify, I don't consider all researchers with whom I disagree to be quacks, but I do consider such liberal theologians who present bold claims in a sensationalist style.
It’s important to engage critically with scholarship rather than simply accepting every theory on equal footing. Scholarship in theology isn’t just about proposing novel ideas; it's also about remaining faithful to the core tenets of the faith, which have been handed down through centuries of tradition. Read what Karl Bart said about the biblicists, for example.
I’m glad you found the page on scholars commenting on the NWT useful. However, I think it’s crucial to note that while some scholars may find certain elements of the NWT commendable in terms of linguistic accuracy, this doesn't imply wholesale endorsement of its theological interpretations. Most respected scholars within traditional Christian circles, especially Trinitarian theologians, recognize significant doctrinal departures in the NWT, particularly in its rendering of verses like John 1:1. Just because there’s some academic respect for the translation’s Greek handling in certain places doesn’t mean it’s accepted within the mainstream Christian understanding of theology.
Ultimately, I think it's important to remain consistent in how we engage with different scholars. It's not a deterioration to challenge the views of theologians who depart from historic Christianity; it's part of the intellectual process of evaluating ideas in light of scripture and tradition. The goal is to uphold the truth as best we understand it while critically engaging with contrary views.
You correctly note that Kraft was open to the possibility that the practice of nomina sacra may have originated among Jews, particularly in reference to their treatment of the divine name (the Tetragrammaton). His suggestion was that Jewish scribal practices, especially surrounding the reverence for God's name, could have predated Christian usage of such abbreviations. Kraft proposed that Jewish scribes might have developed some form of sacred abbreviation, or nomina sacra, and awaited further manuscript evidence to substantiate this claim.
Hurtado’s argument, on the other hand, asserts that the first known Christian nomina sacra originated with the abbreviation of "Jesus" and "Christ." This practice likely emerged within the Christian community as an expression of reverence for the person of Jesus, influenced by early Christian theology that identified Jesus as divine. Hurtado's position is based on textual and numerological evidence from early Christian writings, particularly in the use of the name "Jesus" as a sacred term.
It is important to recognize that Kraft and Hurtado are addressing two different aspects of the development of the nomina sacra practice. Kraft’s suggestion that Jewish scribal tradition around the divine name might have influenced the Christian practice does not contradict Hurtado’s argument that Christians were the first to apply the nomina sacra specifically to Jesus and other sacred Christian titles.
Kraft’s position could still hold in the sense that Jewish scribal reverence for the divine name (by either using special marks, abbreviations, or simply avoiding its pronunciation) influenced how early Christians approached sacred names. This influence could have laid the groundwork for the Christian development of nomina sacra. Hurtado's view that Christians were the first to use nomina sacra for Jesus does not negate Kraft’s hypothesis. Instead, it suggests that early Christians adapted Jewish practices into a distinctively Christian context, expanding the use of sacred abbreviations to include not only "Yahweh" or the Tetragrammaton but also "Jesus," "Christ," and other titles central to Christian theology.
These positions complement each other: Jewish scribal traditions might have influenced the Christian practice, but it was within the Christian community that the practice of abbreviating sacred names like "Jesus" was fully developed and expanded.
Your statement that "Jewish Christians" are simply "Christians" in this period overlooks an important transitional phase in early Christianity. Jewish Christians were not simply "Christians" in the general sense—they were the first Christians, and their Jewish background deeply influenced how they practiced and expressed their new faith. These early Jewish Christians likely retained aspects of their Jewish religious heritage, including reverence for the divine name, while also integrating new Christian theological concepts, such as the divinity of Jesus.
It is plausible that Jewish Christians, who were steeped in both Jewish and Christian thought, played a pivotal role in the early development of nomina sacra. They could have been influenced by Jewish traditions surrounding the Tetragrammaton while innovating the abbreviation of Jesus' name as a form of sacred reverence.
Lastly, acknowledging that Jewish scribal practices may have influenced Christian nomina sacra is not the same as saying that Jews themselves originated the practice as it was known in Christian manuscripts. Influence and direct origination are distinct concepts. The Jewish practice of avoiding the divine name could have provided a model that Christians adapted for their own purposes, creating something new in the process. Hurtado's claim that the first Christian nomina sacra was "Jesus" does not conflict with the idea that Jewish scribal practices influenced early Christian scribes.
The positions of Kraft and Hurtado do not need to be seen as mutually exclusive. Jewish scribal reverence for the divine name could have influenced early Christian scribes, particularly Jewish Christians, in developing the practice of nomina sacra. At the same time, the distinctively Christian use of nomina sacra—especially for names like "Jesus"—marks a Christian innovation rooted in their unique theological context.
Thus, Kraft’s and Hurtado’s arguments can be understood as focusing on different parts of the same historical and theological process: Jewish traditions influencing early Christian practices, while Christian innovation shaped how those practices were applied in a distinctly Christian context.
59
Proof of two destinies for believers in the Bible, heavenly and earthly
by slimboyfat in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
the jw idea that believers are destined either for heavenly life or for endless life on earth comes in for significant criticism by critics of various kinds.

even some groups, such as the christadelphians, who share belief in a future paradise earth, don’t share the view that some christians are destined for life in heaven.

yet there is surprisingly quite a lot of evidence in the bible for the existence of two distinct groups of believers.
aqwsed12345

@Rattigan350
Being "before the throne" is indeed a specific reference to the heavenly setting in the Book of Revelation. Revelation 7:9 describes the "great crowd" standing "before the throne and before the Lamb, dressed in white robes." In the apocalyptic imagery of Revelation, the throne of God is consistently depicted as being in heaven, not on earth. This is clearly laid out in Revelation 4:2-3, where John describes seeing "a throne set in heaven." Therefore, "before the throne" indicates a heavenly scene, and not an earthly one, confirming that the great crowd is in heaven. This directly challenges the Jehovah's Witnesses' teaching that the great crowd remains on earth.
Historically, the JW organization originally interpreted the "great crowd" as a heavenly group. However, starting in the 1930s, the doctrine shifted to place the "great crowd" as an earthly group, distinct from the 144,000 anointed Christians who rule with Christ in heaven. This interpretation is foundational to their two-class theology, which separates those destined for heaven from those who will remain on earth. Jon Mitchell emphasizes the importance of accurately interpreting terms like naos (temple) and enopion (before the throne) in Revelation. The JW interpretation relies on differentiating between heavenly and earthly service to God, but some of the theological and linguistic arguments presented question the validity of separating the "great crowd" from the heavenly context found in the text. Mitchell, a former member of the JW Governing Body, outlines concerns about the doctrinal shift regarding the "great crowd" and its service to God. He highlights inconsistencies in JW interpretations of Revelation, particularly the way they apply biblical terms differently in various contexts to support their unique doctrine.
The New Testament, particularly Paul's writings, emphasizes the hope of being with Christ after death. In Philippians 1:23, Paul explicitly says, "I am torn between the two: I desire to depart and be with Christ, which is better by far." Similarly, 2 Corinthians 5:8 states, "We are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord." These verses show that being with Christ is a central aspect of the Christian hope after death. The idea that the resurrection to heaven is "not to be with Jesus" is in direct contradiction to these clear biblical statements. The purpose of the resurrection is not merely functional, as the Jehovah's Witnesses suggest (i.e., for ruling), but relational—being with Christ in eternal fellowship is paramount.
The limitation of 144,000 to a literal number is a symbolic interpretation, not a literal one. Revelation is filled with symbolic numbers (e.g., 7 represents completeness, 12 represents God’s people, etc.). The 144,000 in Revelation 7:4-8 represents the fullness of God’s people, from all tribes of Israel, and is likely symbolic of the entire Church. Moreover, immediately after the mention of the 144,000, Revelation 7:9 speaks of "a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne." This "great crowd" is part of the redeemed in heaven, not separate. The attempt to restrict heaven to 144,000 people contradicts the inclusive nature of salvation as depicted throughout the New Testament (e.g., Romans 10:12-13, Galatians 3:28).
The phrase "no part of this world" (John 18:36) is mistranslated in the New World Translation (NWT). The accurate translation from the Greek is "My kingdom is not from/of this world," meaning that Christ's kingdom does not derive its authority from worldly powers or human institutions, but from God. This does not imply that Christ's kingdom has no impact on the world. Jesus clearly instructs His disciples to pray for God’s kingdom to come "on earth as it is in heaven" (Matthew 6:10). This suggests that while the kingdom originates in heaven, it will also transform the earth. Revelation 21:1-3 shows the union of heaven and earth in the New Jerusalem, where God will dwell with His people. The claim that Jesus’ kingdom "rules from heaven" without affecting the earth misunderstands the scope of the kingdom, which includes the transformation and renewal of creation.
The argument that the resurrected "do a job" in heaven and that heaven is not a destiny reflects a functional misunderstanding of the biblical vision of heaven. The New Testament depicts the resurrected saints as both rulers and worshipers in heaven. Revelation 5:9-10 indicates that the saints will "reign on the earth" as part of their role in God's kingdom. However, their ultimate destiny is not just to "work," but to enjoy eternal life in the presence of God. The idea that the resurrected merely have "jobs" in heaven diminishes the grandeur of what the Bible describes as eternal communion with God, the ultimate fulfillment of Christian hope (Revelation 21:3-4).
Jeremiah 31:31 speaks of a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. The New Testament, particularly Hebrews 8, reveals that this new covenant was fulfilled through Christ and is extended to all believers, not just ethnic Israel. Galatians 3:28-29 makes it clear that "there is neither Jew nor Greek... for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise." The concept of "spiritual Israel" includes both Jews and Gentiles who are united in Christ under the new covenant. The Jehovah's Witnesses' separation of this covenant to apply only to a select group (144,000) contradicts the inclusive nature of the gospel message.
The Jehovah's Witnesses' interpretation of the 144,000 and the great crowd is built on selective readings of Scripture and symbolic passages taken out of context. The Bible consistently teaches that the hope of resurrection, being with Christ, and ruling with Him is extended to all believers. The distinctions made between the 144,000 and the great crowd do not hold up under careful examination of the biblical text, and the mistranslation of key passages in the NWT distorts the full biblical narrative of God's kingdom and the role of believers within it.
164
How did JWs arrive at a clearer understanding of what the Bible teaches than other Christian denominations?
by slimboyfat in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
for jws who believe that jehovah had a hand in reviving the truth in the nineteenth century this is enough explanation for how jws managed to achieve a closer approximation to early christian beliefs and practices than other groups.

but is there an explanation for this phenomenon that doesn’t rely on supernatural intervention?

new testament scholar james dunn explains the difficulty of interpreting the biblical texts in this way:.
aqwsed12345
@slimboyfat
First of all, check this:
The New World Translation: What the Scholars Really Said
Adela Yarbro Collins is not at all one of "the most reputable scholars", but simply a liberal theologian, such people embrace any crazy view, it is not new, some even write that Jesus was gay, etc. I don't consider such people to be scholars, but quacks, and you still haven't addressed why you aren't willing to read the early Christian text corpus on its own, and why you come with what one of your favorite quack authors think that particular church father thought, not even leaving him himself get a word in?
I think the greatest theologian of the 20th century is Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, I think you haven't even heard of him because you're only looking for Dan Brown-style authors.
While some may acknowledge that the Greek could, in theory, be translated in an indefinite sense, the overwhelming consensus of reputable scholars, both Trinitarian and non-Trinitarian, emphasizes the qualitative nature of the term theos in John 1:1c. The phrase is not merely saying that the Word was “a god” among others, but rather that the Word possessed the very nature of God. This qualitative understanding is widely accepted among Greek linguists and theologians, as it best reflects the overall context of the Gospel of John and the New Testament’s portrayal of Christ’s divine nature.
To say that Jesus is simply "a god" introduces theological problems that undermine the monotheistic foundation of both Jewish and Christian belief. It opens the door to polytheism, which is inconsistent with the broader biblical narrative. John 1:1 is making a profound theological claim about the nature of the Word—namely, that the Word is fully divine and shares in the very essence of God.
Moreover, your appeal to John 17:3, where Jesus refers to the Father as the "only true God," does not contradict the doctrine of the Trinity. Rather, it reflects the relational distinction within the Godhead. The Father, as the source of the Godhead, is indeed the "only true God," but this does not exclude the Son or the Holy Spirit from being fully divine. Jesus is emphasizing the Father's unique role without denying His own divinity. This relational distinction within the Trinity has been understood for centuries by Christian theologians without negating the full divinity of the Son.
Your interpretation of John 10 and Psalm 82 misunderstands the point Jesus is making. When Jesus quotes Psalm 82:6, where certain human judges are called "gods," He is not equating Himself with these creatures in terms of His divinity. Instead, Jesus is pointing out the inconsistency of His accusers. If the Scriptures could apply the term "gods" in a loose and metaphorical sense to mere humans, how much more does the title apply to Him, the one whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world? The passage is not an admission of "limited divinity" but a defense of His unique divine identity as the Son of God.
Additionally, when Jesus refers to the Father as the "only true God" in John 17:3, He is affirming the monotheistic belief that God is one, but this does not imply that Jesus is somehow a "lesser god." Within Trinitarian theology, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct persons who share one divine essence. The term "only true God" does not exclude the Son or the Spirit from being divine; it highlights the Father’s role within the Godhead.
In fact, the theological framework of the NT does not recognize this "lesser god" category, which the Arian Watchtower theology wants to stuff the Son into, and Psalm 82 and its evocation in John 10:34-35 does not establish it. Some resources:
- https://justpaste.it/fe6vi
- "I Said Ye Are Gods:" Psalm 82:6 and John 10 Jerome Neyrey
- An Apologetic Study of John 10:34-36 W. Gary Phillips
- John 10:34-39
You suggest that my references to Robert Kraft and Larry Hurtado present a contradiction regarding the origin of nomina sacra. However, there is no inherent contradiction between the two propositions. While it is true that certain scribal practices, such as the reverence for the divine name (Tetragrammaton), originated in Jewish tradition, it is equally true that early Christians adapted and developed their own unique scribal conventions. Hurtado’s argument is that the nomina sacra as a specifically Christian practice likely began with the abbreviation of the name of Jesus, reflecting the centrality of Christ in Christian worship. Kraft, on the other hand, notes that some elements of this practice, such as the treatment of sacred names, may have been inherited from Jewish scribal traditions.
Larry Hurtado’s thesis, which suggests that nomina sacra originated with the abbreviation of "Jesus" and expanded to include other sacred terms such as "Lord" and "God," does not conflict with the idea that Jewish scribal traditions influenced this Christian practice. Hurtado's argument suggests that the early Christians borrowed the concept of showing reverence for sacred names through abbreviation, a practice possibly inspired by Jewish treatment of the divine name, and then applied it to Christian worship, beginning with Jesus.
Robert Kraft’s view that nomina sacra might have originated among Jews and been adopted by Christians is not necessarily contradictory. It is possible that early Jewish-Christian communities (including those familiar with Jewish traditions) initiated this practice. However, it was among Christians that the practice expanded and took on its distinctively Christocentric form, with the abbreviation of "Jesus" being prominent.
The key point here is that early Christians were not simply copying Jewish practices; they were innovating in ways that reflected their unique theological convictions, particularly regarding the divinity of Christ. The nomina sacra were a deliberate Christian innovation that emphasized the sacredness of Jesus’ name and His divine status, something distinct from the Jewish reverence for the divine name.
The use of nomina sacra reflects more than a mere scribal practice; it conveys theological meaning. Early Christians used nomina sacra to demonstrate their reverence for key figures, particularly Jesus, who was central to their faith. The fact that both God the Father and Jesus Christ are designated with sacred abbreviations indicates that early Christians regarded both as divine, though distinct persons within the framework of Trinitarian theology.
This practice aligns with the broader New Testament teachings, where Jesus is consistently given titles, honors, and prerogatives associated with God (e.g., worship, the power to forgive sins, and dominion over creation). The early Christian use of nomina sacra for Jesus would be unthinkable unless they believed in his divine status, even if they maintained a distinction between Jesus and God the Father.
164
How did JWs arrive at a clearer understanding of what the Bible teaches than other Christian denominations?
by slimboyfat in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
for jws who believe that jehovah had a hand in reviving the truth in the nineteenth century this is enough explanation for how jws managed to achieve a closer approximation to early christian beliefs and practices than other groups.

but is there an explanation for this phenomenon that doesn’t rely on supernatural intervention?

new testament scholar james dunn explains the difficulty of interpreting the biblical texts in this way:.
aqwsed12345

@scholar
Your assertion that the NWT rendering of John 1:1 as "the Word was a god" is grammatically correct is not supported by most reputable Greek scholars. The NWT interpretation is based on a selective application of Greek grammar, particularly regarding the use of the article. The key problem is that John 1:1 does not use "theos" (God) in an indefinite sense that would imply Jesus is "a god" among others, but rather in a qualitative sense, which affirms that the Word shares in the full divine nature of God.
The insertion of "a god" in the NWT introduces a theological bias rather than reflecting a neutral translation. It suggests polytheism and undermines Christ's full divinity, which mainstream Christianity has upheld through centuries of linguistic, theological, and doctrinal study. Scholars who argue for a qualitative understanding of "theos" in John 1:1c emphasize that John was identifying the Logos as fully divine, not as one among many lesser gods.
Regarding Colossians 1:16-17, the NWT similarly distorts the meaning by inserting the word "other" where it is absent in the Greek. This changes the intended meaning of the passage, which affirms Christ as the uncreated creator of all things. The insertion of "other" implies that Christ himself is a created being, which is inconsistent with the broader context of the New Testament and orthodox Christian teaching, according to which the Son is begotten/born of the Father, not created/made by Him.
While your studies under Dr. John A Lee may have emphasized that grammar alone cannot settle the issue, the overwhelming scholarly consensus rejects the NWT's interpretation as being faithful to either the Greek text or to the theological message of the New Testament.
A puzzle question: would you also translate the expression "kai theos en ho pater" as "the Father was a god"?
164
How did JWs arrive at a clearer understanding of what the Bible teaches than other Christian denominations?
by slimboyfat in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
for jws who believe that jehovah had a hand in reviving the truth in the nineteenth century this is enough explanation for how jws managed to achieve a closer approximation to early christian beliefs and practices than other groups.

but is there an explanation for this phenomenon that doesn’t rely on supernatural intervention?

new testament scholar james dunn explains the difficulty of interpreting the biblical texts in this way:.
aqwsed12345

@Earnest
You state that some papyri treat all references to "Lord" as nomina sacra, regardless of whom it refers to, implying that this undermines the idea that the use of nomina sacra signified equality between the Father and Christ. However, this is not quite accurate. While some later manuscripts might have generalized the use of nomina sacra, the earliest Christian scribes were far more deliberate in their application of sacred names. Nomina sacra were consistently used to distinguish the divine or sacred from the mundane. For example, references to "Lord" (Kyrios) or "God" (Theos) that clearly refer to Christ or the Father were treated as sacred, while mundane uses of the same terms were spelled out in full.
I think that the reason for this is that after the Edict of Milan, the copying of the biblical text became more widespread as a reader read the text aloud in a room, and several scribes present wrote it after hearing it. Thus, the person who did not see the original text, but only wrote after hearing it, simply automatically marked all such expressions as nomina sacra.
This distinction reveals that early Christians made conscious theological decisions when applying these abbreviations. In cases where "Lord" referred to Christ or God, the sacred abbreviation was always applied, signaling that these titles were held in equal reverence. The presence of these abbreviations for both Christ and the Father indicates that the earliest Christian scribes viewed Christ as fully divine, not merely as an honored figure but as one sharing in the divine essence of God.
You argue that because the earliest Christian writers were Jewish, it is reasonable to assume that nomina sacra were not initially used, as Jews did not employ this practice. However, this conclusion overlooks a critical shift that occurred in early Christian scribal practices. While it is true that the Jewish scribal tradition did not initially use nomina sacra, early Christians quickly developed their own practices to reflect their theological understanding, which was distinct from Judaism. Some scholars, like Robert Kraft propose that the practice originated among Jews and was taken over and elaborated by Christians. I think the reason for the lack of Jewish manuscripts using the nomina sacra is that as Christianity became widespread, Diaspora Jewry set aside Greek-language religiosity, and the Septuagint also fell out of Jewish use.
One such development was the introduction of nomina sacra, which likely began with the abbreviation of the name of Jesus and then expanded to include other key titles, such as "Lord" and "God." These abbreviations were not merely copying Jewish tradition but reflected the early Christians' new understanding of Jesus' divine identity and their need to express reverence for sacred terms. As Larry Hurtado has argued, the use of nomina sacra demonstrates a unique Christian innovation aimed at honoring Christ alongside God the Father.
You mention the theory that nomina sacra may have originated as replacements for the divine name (the Tetragrammaton) in the Septuagint (LXX), which, according to your argument, caused “confusion” in distinguishing between references to God and Christ. While it is true that the divine name was often replaced with "Lord" (Kyrios) in the LXX, this practice does not diminish the theological significance of nomina sacra in Christian texts.
The key point is that in the New Testament manuscripts, nomina sacra were not simply a continuation of Jewish scribal practices but a deliberate Christian innovation to reflect the theological significance of Jesus Christ as divine. The use of nomina sacra for both the Father and the Son in the earliest manuscripts signals that the early Christians were expressing their belief in the shared divinity of the Father and the Son. This theological choice is significant because it highlights the early Christian understanding of Christ's divine status in a way that transcends the ordinary distinction between human and divine figures.
Your claim that the use of nomina sacra caused “confusion” between references to God and Christ actually supports the argument that early Christians saw Christ as divine. If there had been a clear and unequivocal distinction between Christ as a created being and God as the Almighty, we would expect the scribes to make that distinction explicit in their writings. However, the fact that they applied the same sacred abbreviations to both Christ and God demonstrates that they did not see Christ as a lesser being, but as sharing in the same divine status as the Father.
The use of nomina sacra for both "God" and "Lord" in reference to Christ is a powerful indicator of the early Christian belief in the divinity of Christ. This was not a confusion or a fallacy, but a reflection of the early Christian understanding that Christ and the Father are of the same divine essence, even though they are distinct persons within the Godhead.
The use of nomina sacra in early Christian manuscripts is a significant theological marker that demonstrates the early Christians' belief in the divinity of Christ. Far from causing confusion, these sacred abbreviations reveal a deliberate and consistent effort to honor Christ as fully divine, in the same way that God the Father is honored. The early Christian practice of using nomina sacra for both the Father and the Son highlights the shared divine status of both persons, and it reflects the development of the doctrine of the Trinity, where the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are understood to be co-equal and co-eternal within the one divine essence.
4
Why do most ordinary Christians agree with JWs that Jesus is God’s first creation?
by slimboyfat in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
in a book which attempts to refute jw christology, the trinitarian scholar greg lanier begins his argument with the surprising admission that a majority of evangelical christians agree with jws that jesus is god’s first creation.

a 2018 survey by ligonier ministries and lifeway research found that nearly 95 percent of self-described evangelical christians affirm the trinity, but simultaneously, about 80 percent believe that jesus christ is the "first and greatest being created by god.

" the shocking thing is that these respondents do not appear to realize the stark contradiction in these two positions.. greg lanier, is jesus truly god?
aqwsed12345
Some resources for you:
Your argument attempts to assert that because a significant percentage of ordinary Christians seem to believe that Jesus is the "first and greatest being created by God," this indicates that the Jehovah's Witness interpretation of Jesus being created is a more natural reading of Scripture. However, this conclusion is deeply flawed for several reasons.
One key misunderstanding in this argument is the interpretation of "firstborn" as found in Colossians 1:15: "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation." The term "firstborn" (Greek: prototokos) does not imply that Jesus is the first created being. Rather, in biblical usage, "firstborn" refers to preeminence and priority in rank, not chronology. For example, in the Old Testament, David is called the "firstborn" even though he was the youngest of Jesse’s sons (Psalm 89:27). "Firstborn" indicates a position of supremacy, honor, and authority. This is consistent with Jesus being described as having all the fullness of deity dwelling in Him (Colossians 2:9).

Therefore, the phrase "firstborn of all creation" is not teaching that Jesus is a created being. Instead, it emphasizes His supremacy over creation. He is preeminent, not because He is created, but because He is the eternal Son of God through whom all things were made (John 1:3).

Several biblical passages explicitly teach that Jesus is eternal and not a created being. John 1:1 declares, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." The Word (Logos) who becomes incarnate in Jesus Christ (John 1:14) is eternal. He was already in existence "in the beginning," which means He was not created but has always existed.

In John 8:58, Jesus says, "Before Abraham was, I am." Jesus’ use of the phrase "I am" here echoes the divine name revealed to Moses in Exodus 3:14, where God declares, "I AM WHO I AM." This self-identification aligns Jesus with the eternal, uncreated God of Israel.

Hebrews 1:3 states that Jesus is "the radiance of God’s glory and the exact imprint of His nature." This passage emphasizes that Jesus shares the same divine nature as the Father, not as a created being, but as the eternal Son who sustains all things by His powerful word. This is incompatible with the idea that Jesus is a created being. A created being cannot sustain all of creation.

In Philippians 2:6, Paul writes of Jesus, "who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage." Here, Paul acknowledges that Jesus, in His pre-incarnate existence, was already in the form of God (Greek: morphe theou). If Jesus were merely a created being, Paul could not speak of Him as having "equality with God." The passage goes on to describe Jesus’ voluntary emptying of Himself by taking on human nature, not by relinquishing divine nature, but by assuming humanity.

The statistics you cite from surveys such as those conducted by Ligonier Ministries and LifeWay Research reflect a theological confusion that exists among many Christians today. Many "ordinary Christians" may indeed have an unclear understanding of key theological doctrines due to insufficient teaching and catechesis, but this does not imply that these beliefs are biblically correct. The fact that some Christians mistakenly believe that Jesus was created does not serve as a valid argument for that belief. Rather, it reflects the need for better biblical education.

It’s important to recognize that the belief in Christ’s eternal divinity and uncreated nature is not a recent invention of dogmatic theologians, but has been a core belief of Christianity from the earliest centuries. The early Church councils, such as Nicaea in 325 AD, were convened to refute the heresy of Arianism, which claimed that Jesus was a created being. The Nicene Creed, a foundational statement of Christian orthodoxy, explicitly affirms that Jesus is "begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father." This was not a new invention, but a formal clarification of what the Church had believed from the beginning.

If we look at other scriptures, such as John 20:28, where Thomas calls the resurrected Jesus, "My Lord and my God," we see that Jesus accepts worship and the title of God. In Hebrews 1:6, the angels are commanded to worship the Son, something that would be blasphemous if He were merely a created being.

Moreover, in Revelation 1:8, Jesus refers to Himself as the "Alpha and Omega," titles used exclusively for God, indicating His eternal existence. The same titles are used for God in Revelation 21:6 and 22:13, reinforcing Jesus’ divinity and eternal nature.

In conclusion, the idea that Jesus is a created being, as espoused by Jehovah's Witnesses and misunderstood by some Christians, is not supported by the clear teaching of Scripture. The Bible consistently affirms the eternal divinity of Jesus Christ and His role as Creator, not as a creation. The confusion among some Christians today regarding this issue highlights the need for deeper theological education, not a validation of erroneous beliefs. The Trinity, though complex, is the doctrine that best fits the whole witness of Scripture regarding the relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
The Ligonier survey findings indicate that many evangelical Christians hold contradictory beliefs, affirming the Trinity while also mistakenly believing Jesus was created. This highlights a lack of theological understanding rather than an endorsement of JW Christology. It suggests the need for better catechesis rather than implying widespread agreement with non-Trinitarian views.

The argument that Jesus is a created being, based on misinterpretations of terms like "firstborn" or surveys of confused believers, falls short of the biblical testimony that reveals Christ as the eternal, uncreated Word of God who shares in the divine essence of the Father and the Spirit.
164
How did JWs arrive at a clearer understanding of what the Bible teaches than other Christian denominations?
by slimboyfat in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
for jws who believe that jehovah had a hand in reviving the truth in the nineteenth century this is enough explanation for how jws managed to achieve a closer approximation to early christian beliefs and practices than other groups.

but is there an explanation for this phenomenon that doesn’t rely on supernatural intervention?

new testament scholar james dunn explains the difficulty of interpreting the biblical texts in this way:.
aqwsed12345

@Wonderment
The claim that the indefinite rendering "a god" does not violate standard Greek grammar and that John 4:19 and Acts 28:4 prove this is misguided. The Greek construction in John 1:1c is unique because it involves an anarthrous predicate nominative before the verb, which is a key point in Colwell's analysis. Colwell’s Rule states that when a predicate nominative precedes the verb, as in John 1:1c, the lack of an article does not imply indefiniteness but rather definiteness or a qualitative sense. This rule has been widely accepted and applied by many scholars, even if later analyses like those of Harner focused more on the qualitative aspect of nouns.
You suggest that Colwell's Rule is not widely accepted. This claim is an oversimplification. While some scholars have critiqued Colwell's rule, it remains a useful tool for understanding the Greek grammatical structure. Colwell's work demonstrates that a predicate nominative without an article preceding the verb is often definite. Therefore, in John 1:1c, the absence of the article before "theos" doesn’t imply "a god," but rather a qualitative sense, affirming the Logos' divine nature.
Your argument relies heavily on the notion that the indefinite rendering "a god" in John 1:1 is linguistically and theologically valid based on examples like John 4:19 and Acts 28:4. However, these comparisons are misleading because the grammatical context of John 1:1 differs significantly from these examples. John 1:1c is not simply a qualitative or indefinite predicate nominative in casual speech but a highly theological statement meant to emphasize the nature of the Logos. In John 4:19, the Samaritan woman is making a situational judgment, referring to Jesus as "a prophet." In John 1:1, the theological focus on the Word's eternal divine nature contrasts with the woman’s recognition of Jesus as "a prophet." Acts 28:4 is not grammatically parallel either, as the context is entirely different.
The examples of John 4:19 and Acts 28:4 involve different grammatical structures. John 4:19 uses "προφήτης εἶ" (you are a prophet), where the predicate noun ("prophet") follows the verb and lacks an article. This can be translated as "a prophet" because it is describing a quality or category that the woman attributes to Jesus based on her experience. However, John 1:1c's construction, θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος, is different because the predicate noun θεὸς precedes the verb. This change in word order alters the grammatical expectations. In this case, the anarthrous θεὸς functions qualitatively, indicating that the Word possesses the full nature of God. The absence of the article does not imply "a god" in the sense of a lesser or separate deity but rather emphasizes the fully divine essence of the Word.
Colwell’s Rule has not been discarded by the majority of scholars. While it is true that Colwell referred to his work as a "theory," his conclusions regarding Greek syntax and the use of the article have been foundational to biblical Greek studies. The dismissal of Colwell’s Rule by some individuals is often rooted in theological bias rather than objective linguistic analysis.
The structure of John 1:1, specifically “kai theos ēn ho logos”, emphasizes the qualitative nature of the term "theos," meaning that the Word possesses the divine nature, not that the Word is a separate or lesser god. The anarthrous "theos" here is best understood qualitatively, as scholars like Harner, Dixon, and Wallace point out. The translation "the Word was a god" introduces theological ambiguity inconsistent with the broader Johannine context, which asserts a clear monotheistic framework. Furthermore, the absence of the article does not necessarily imply indefiniteness in Greek; rather, it emphasizes the nature of the subject, which is divine in this case.
The suggestion that qualitative and indefinite nouns overlap frequently in Greek is an oversimplification. While there can be some overlap, the context and word order in a sentence are critical for determining the correct interpretation. In John 1:1c, the lack of an article before θεὸς does not suggest indefiniteness ("a god") but rather a qualitative sense ("the Word was [fully] divine"). This is supported by the context of the prologue of John, where the Word is consistently portrayed as having divine attributes and preexisting creation.
In linguistic terms, the qualitative use of a noun emphasizes the nature or essence of the subject. In John 1:1, θεὸς describes the Word’s divine nature, not a lower or separate category of being. The argument that "a god" is an acceptable translation relies on an incorrect understanding of Greek syntax and ignores the context of John's Gospel, which is monotheistic and affirms the divinity of Christ.
But IMHO instead of playing with this definite-indefinite stuff, which goes with John 1:1c, I would rather put the emphasis on whether, assuming an audience with a Hellenic polytheistic cultural background, it was surely the most adequate thing for the apostles to use the word θεός to apply the Son, if they only wanted to state that "godlike, only such a powerful spiritual being, who is the creature and representative of the one God", when many other expressions would have been available for this, like θεῖος, ἡμίθεος, ἥρως, θεϊκός, θεϊνός, θεώτερος. Btw. originally δαίμων simply used to mean an inferior deity, whether good or bad, not a demon, an evil spirit.
You cite examples from other languages, such as French and Spanish, where indefinite or qualitative translations are used. However, the grammatical rules of those languages do not necessarily apply to Koine Greek. The Greek construction in John 1:1c does not demand an indefinite article like "a god," as the context of the passage is not introducing a new or different god but affirming the divine nature of the Logos within the framework of Jewish monotheism.
Your reliance on the Sahidic Coptic translation to argue for "a god" in John 1:1c is problematic. Scholars like Jason BeDuhn have pointed out that the Coptic translation can be understood qualitatively, meaning "divine" rather than "a god." The Coptic translators were not advocating an Arian view, and the use of the indefinite article reflects grammatical distinctions in Coptic, not Greek.
While some translations render John 1:1c as "the Word was divine," most mainstream scholars reject the translation "a god" as inconsistent with both the grammatical structure of the Greek and the theological context of John's Gospel. The vast majority of scholars affirm that John 1:1c expresses the divine nature of the Logos, rather than presenting the Word as a separate, lesser deity.
The argument that "upwards of a hundred Bible versions" translate John 1:1 as "a god" or "divine" is misleading. The overwhelming majority of biblical translations, across various denominations and theological traditions, render John 1:1c as "the Word was God." This is not a result of theological bias but a consistent application of Greek grammar, context, and theological interpretation. Versions that deviate from this, such as the New World Translation, are often criticized for theological motives rather than linguistic accuracy.
The suggestion that many scholars or translations reject Colwell's Rule or support the indefinite rendering "a god" is inaccurate. Prominent scholars like Wallace, Harner, and Dixon continue to support the qualitative interpretation of θεὸς in John 1:1c. Harner and Dixon, who have analyzed the qualitative nature of anarthrous predicate nouns, affirm that the Word shares in the divine essence, not that it is a separate, lesser god.
The argument that Jesus being called "a god" aligns with the biblical concept of the Son of God is a theological misunderstanding. In Jewish monotheism, the title "Son of God" is not used to suggest that Jesus is merely a lesser or subordinate deity. Instead, it affirms His unique relationship with the Father and His participation in the divine nature. The context of John's Gospel emphasizes the Logos's preexistence and divine status, aligning with the doctrine of the Trinity, not with a polytheistic or henotheistic framework.
The comparison to John 8:48, where Jesus is called a Samaritan without an article, is irrelevant to the discussion of John 1:1. In John 8:48, the term "Samaritan" is being used as an insult, reflecting a different context and usage. The absence of an article in this case has no bearing on the theological and grammatical structure of John 1:1, where the focus is on the nature and identity of the Word.
You claim that scholars are biased in defending the traditional Trinitarian view. However, scholarly methodology is based on linguistic evidence, not theological agendas. The qualitative reading of John 1:1c aligns with the monotheistic framework of John's Gospel and the broader New Testament. It reflects the understanding that the Logos is fully divine without being identical to the Father, which fits the broader Christian theological tradition.
The consistent use of nomina sacra (sacred abbreviations) for both the Father and the Son in early manuscripts, as you mentioned, shows that early Christians understood Jesus as sharing fully in the divine nature. This practice undermines the argument that the Logos is merely "a god."
Moreover, your argument suggests that because certain translations use qualitative or indefinite renderings in other contexts, John 1:1c could also be translated as "a god." This overlooks the fact that the theological implications of John 1:1 are far more significant than in the examples you provide. Translating the phrase as "a god" introduces theological henotheism, which is entirely foreign to John's monotheistic worldview.
Finally, your dismissal of Colwell's rule as outdated or flawed is misleading. While Colwell's rule has been debated, it still holds significant value in understanding Greek grammar, especially in cases like John 1:1c. The rule's application to this verse helps clarify that the absence of the article before "theos" does not imply an indefinite meaning but rather points to the qualitative nature of the term.
The attempt to undermine the standard translation of John 1:1 as "the Word was God" is based on a misunderstanding of Greek grammar, syntax, and theological context. The qualitative nature of "θεὸς" in John 1:1c affirms the full divinity of the Word, not a lesser status. The scholarly consensus supports this interpretation, and attempts to translate the verse as "a god" reflect theological bias rather than linguistic accuracy.
In conclusion, translating John 1:1c as "the Word was God" aligns with both the linguistic and theological context of the passage. The rendering "a god" not only misinterprets the Greek grammar but also introduces unnecessary theological confusion inconsistent with John's intention to affirm the divine nature of the Word.
@slimboyfat
Doesn't it rally bother you that those are not Philo's words, but Schäfer's interpretations? You really can't touch the original body of text without some liberal modernist author telling you what to think about it?
@Earnest
Your argument hinges on the assumption that English readers might confuse "the Word was God" (John 1:1c) with an implication of "the Word was *the God," conflating the Logos with the Father due to a presumed lack of distinction between definite and indefinite nouns. But in Greek, John makes a clear distinction between "ho theos" (the God) in 1:1b and the anarthrous "theos" in 1:1c. The absence of the article in 1:1c is not random but serves a specific grammatical function. Theos is used qualitatively here to describe the nature or essence of the Word, meaning that the Word possesses full divinity without being identical to the Father. Translating it as "the Word was God" properly reflects this qualitative distinction.
English readers do not need to infer a definite article in John 1:1c because "God" in this context already implies the nature of the Logos, not a separate deity. The traditional rendering, although not inserting "the" before "God," accurately conveys the qualitative sense in line with John's theology. To translate it as "a god" or even "the God" would mislead readers into thinking of either henothism or modalism, which John's Gospel clearly rejects.
In John 1:1b, the phrase "πρὸς τὸν θεόν" (pros ton theon) has a definite article "ton" (the God), which distinguishes it as a reference to the Father. In John 1:1c, "θεὸς" (theos) lacks the article. However, this absence does not imply "a god" but rather serves a qualitative function, indicating the Word's divine nature. The lack of the article emphasizes the nature or quality of divinity rather than pointing to a specific god. If it causes the kind of issue you mentioned, it is not due to the traditional rendering of John 1:1c, it should not be touched upon, but to 1:1b, which indeed should be translated as "and the Word was with the God".
Translating John 1:1c as "the Word was God" affirms the Logos' full participation in divinity without confusing the Logos with the Father, who is referred to as "the God" in 1:1b. The problem with the translation "the Word was a god" (as in the NWT) is that it introduces henotheistic overtones, suggesting the existence of multiple gods, which is incompatible with the monotheism that undergirds John's Gospel. You argue that English readers would confuse the two references to God, but this confusion only arises if they misunderstand the qualitative nature of "theos" in 1:1c. The phrase "the Word was God" (without the definite article) emphasizes what the Word is—fully divine—without implying that the Word is "the God" (the Father). Translators do not supply "the" in John 1:1c because that would misrepresent the qualitative nature intended in the Greek.
As for the NEB's "what God was, the Word was," this is a valid paraphrase emphasizing the same theological point: the Logos shares fully in divine essence. However, "the Word was God" retains this meaning in a more concise form, and any perceived confusion arises not from the translation but from a misunderstanding of how Greek articles function to convey essence rather than identity.
Therefore, while translating John 1:1c as "the Word was God" accurately captures the qualitative nature of the Logos, it does not confuse the Logos with the Father, as John's Gospel is careful to distinguish between the persons of the Trinity while affirming their shared divine essence.
164
How did JWs arrive at a clearer understanding of what the Bible teaches than other Christian denominations?
by slimboyfat in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
for jws who believe that jehovah had a hand in reviving the truth in the nineteenth century this is enough explanation for how jws managed to achieve a closer approximation to early christian beliefs and practices than other groups.

but is there an explanation for this phenomenon that doesn’t rely on supernatural intervention?

new testament scholar james dunn explains the difficulty of interpreting the biblical texts in this way:.
aqwsed12345

@slimboyfat
First, it’s important to address the assertion that scholars who support JW readings are somehow “more objective” because they are not themselves JWs, and that Trinitarian scholars are invariably biased because they hold to the doctrine of the Trinity. This framing presents a false dichotomy that oversimplifies the complexity of scholarship and theological interpretation.
You claim that non-Trinitarian scholars are “more objective” because they are “free” from “faith commitments” like those of Trinitarian scholars. Every scholar, regardless of their background, brings presuppositions to their work. Non-Trinitarian scholars, including atheists, liberal Christians, or others, are not inherently more objective just because they reject traditional Christian doctrines. Their own worldviews influence their interpretations of the biblical text. For instance, liberal theologians and agnostics might have biases against traditional Christian beliefs, just as Trinitarian scholars are influenced by their theological commitments.
The idea that only Trinitarian scholars are “biased” ignores the fact that historical interpretation is shaped by a multitude of factors, including philosophical, cultural, and theological assumptions. No scholar is completely free of these influences. Therefore, objectivity should not be determined by whether someone holds a specific theological position but by the rigor, coherence, and depth of their analysis.
The suggestion that the doctrine of the Trinity is merely read back into the Bible by “Trinitarian believers” is an oversimplification of the development of Christian doctrine. The church fathers did not simply invent the Trinity by imposing later theological constructs onto the text. Instead, they wrestled with the scriptural witness and the theological implications of the New Testament’s teachings on God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit.
The doctrine of the Trinity was not “invented” out of thin air; it developed as the early church sought to faithfully articulate what was already present in the biblical witness. For example, the New Testament presents clear evidence that Jesus was worshiped as divine, prayed to, and understood to share in the divine nature with the Father and the Holy Spirit (e.g., John 1:1, Philippians 2:6-11, Matthew 28:19, 2 Corinthians 13:14). The church fathers synthesized these scriptural affirmations into the formal doctrine of the Trinity to express the unity of the Godhead while preserving the distinctiveness of the three persons.
Even before the formal articulation of the Trinity at Nicaea, Christians were already worshiping Jesus as God, which would be blasphemous under strict Jewish monotheism if Jesus were not divine (Revelation 5:13-14, Philippians 2:9-11). This practice reflects the early Christian recognition of Jesus' divine status, laying the groundwork for later doctrinal formulations like the Trinity.
The claim that Philippians 2:6-11 presents a "Jewish angel Christology" and does not support Nicene Christology is another point of contention. For example, I can’t see any mention of “angels” in Philippians 2, you and the authors you promote may have hallucinated this, but there is no mention of angels there. Paul’s hymn in Philippians 2:6-11 speaks of Jesus as one who was "in the form of God" (μορφῇ θεοῦ), yet did not grasp at equality with God but emptied Himself, taking on human form. The exaltation of Jesus to the point where every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that "Jesus Christ is Lord" (κύριος) echoes the language used for Yahweh in the Old Testament (Isaiah 45:23). Far from implying that Jesus was merely an angel, this passage affirms His divine status, as worship and the attribution of the title “Lord” are reserved for God alone in Jewish monotheism.
Holloway’s assertion that Philippians 2:6-11 reflects a "Jewish angel Christology" and not Nicene orthodoxy overlooks the early church's understanding of this text. The hymn depicts Christ’s pre-existence, His incarnation, and His subsequent exaltation. The early church fathers, including those leading up to Nicaea, saw this passage as supporting the idea of Christ’s divinity and His eternal relationship with the Father. The idea of Christ being a mere angelic figure does not account for the depth of Paul’s theological reflection in this passage, which emphasizes both His humility and divine authority.
The author claims that Philippians 2:6-11 represents a “Jewish angel Christology” rather than Nicene theology. This assertion hinges on the idea that Paul's Christology is shaped by Jewish apocalyptic traditions that depict Christ as a kind of exalted angelic figure, and this contrasts with Nicene Christology, which presents Christ as of one essence with the Father (homoousios). This argument is built upon a flawed understanding of early Christology. While it's true that early Jewish and Christian thought shared some common apocalyptic themes, including angelic figures, Paul’s Christology in Philippians 2:6-11 is far more developed and cannot be reduced to angelomorphic categories. The text describes Jesus as being “in the form of God” (ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ), which is not merely about status but about His divine nature. The concept of μορφῇ (form) here transcends mere appearance and points toward His essential nature. Paul's usage of “being in the form of God” reflects an understanding of Christ’s pre-existence and His participation in the divine identity, which is consistent with later Nicene orthodoxy. To claim that Paul viewed Christ as a high angel downplays the fullness of the term μορφῇ and ignores the theological trajectory evident in Paul's writings.
Holloway’s argument suggests that μορφῇ θεοῦ (form of God) in Philippians 2:6 is merely a status marker and does not have ontological significance. He asserts that μορφῇ should be interpreted as referring to Christ’s outward appearance as a powerful angel, rather than His essential divine nature. While μορφῇ can refer to external form in some contexts, it also has deeper connotations, especially in theological usage. In Philippians 2:6, μορφῇ θεοῦ implies more than just an outward appearance; it refers to the pre-existent Christ sharing in the very nature of God. This is evident from the fact that the passage speaks of Christ not grasping at equality with God, which would be nonsensical if He did not already possess it. Furthermore, the passage continues to describe Christ emptying Himself and taking on the form of a servant (μορφὴν δούλου). This indicates that Christ's kenosis (self-emptying) involved a real change in status without a change in His divine nature. Therefore, μορφῇ in this context has both ontological and functional aspects.
Holloway criticizes Gerald O'Collins for reading Philippians 2:6-11 as anticipating Nicene Christology, arguing instead that the passage does not support the later theological developments of homoousios (of one substance) and instead reflects a pre-Nicene, Jewish angel Christology. The Nicene understanding of Christ as homoousios with the Father is not an „imposition” on the text of Philippians 2:6-11 but a faithful development of the Christology that Paul presents. The idea that Christ existed “in the form of God” before His Incarnation and then “emptied Himself” presupposes His divine status. The passage articulates a pre-existent Christ who is fully divine and voluntarily takes on human nature without relinquishing His divinity. This is entirely consistent with the Nicene declaration that Christ is of the same substance as the Father. The Nicene Creed did not invent this theology but codified what was already implicitly present in Paul's writings and other New Testament texts, which depict Christ as fully God and fully man.
Holloway posits that the kenosis described in Philippians 2:7 refers to Christ undergoing a transformation similar to the shape-shifting found in Jewish and pagan myths, where divine beings take on various forms. The kenosis of Christ in Philippians 2:7 is not a mere metamorphosis or change in outward form. Rather, it involves a profound act of humility where Christ, though fully divine, assumes the limitations of human nature. The emptying does not imply a loss of divinity but a relinquishing of divine prerogatives. Christ's incarnation involves taking on the full reality of human existence, including suffering and death, while remaining divine. The Nicene understanding captures this beautifully by affirming that Christ is fully God and fully man. The idea of Christ merely undergoing a superficial metamorphosis undermines the depth of the incarnation and the full scope of the redemption that He accomplished.
Holloway argues that Paul’s citation of Isaiah 45:23 in Philippians 2:10-11, which speaks of every knee bowing to Christ, reflects Jewish angelology where exalted angels bear the divine name and execute divine judgment on behalf of God. He rejects the idea that this points to Christ’s divine nature. Paul’s application of Isaiah 45:23 to Christ in Philippians 2:10-11 is a clear indication of his belief in Christ’s divinity. The passage from Isaiah speaks of universal worship directed to Yahweh, and Paul applies this to Christ, thereby identifying Christ with the God of Israel. This is not merely an exaltation of an angelic being but a recognition of Christ's divine status. The language used here, particularly the confession that "Jesus Christ is Lord" (κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστός), resonates with the divine title for Yahweh (κύριος in the LXX). Paul’s Jewish monotheism is not compromised by including Christ in the divine identity; rather, it is redefined to account for the full revelation of God in Christ.
The footnote from Holloway that you mentioned introduces the idea that "conservative apologists" claim that critical historians are no less biased than themselves. Holloway’s assertion that critical historians are pursuing objectivity while apologists are ideologues with unchallenged agendas creates an unjustified dichotomy. It is important to recognize that both Trinitarian scholars and critical historians are engaging with the same texts, but they do so with different interpretative frameworks. Trinitarian scholars are not simply “ideologues” attempting to protect a dogma at all costs; they are often scholars of great intellectual rigor who have carefully examined the historical and theological evidence in favor of the Trinity. Similarly, non-Trinitarian scholars may have their own interpretative biases that shape their conclusions. The pursuit of objectivity is not exclusive to one camp, and both sides contribute to the ongoing theological conversation.
In conclusion, your argument that non-Trinitarian scholars are inherently “more objective” because they lack a “faith commitment” is fundamentally flawed. Every scholar brings their own set of presuppositions to the table, and the task of biblical interpretation requires careful examination of both the text and its theological implications. The development of the doctrine of the Trinity was a response to the whole biblical narrative and was not imposed on the text by later dogma. Moreover, Philippians 2 and other key passages reflect the early Christian belief in the divinity of Christ, not merely an angelic or secondary figure. The interpretation of these texts must be rooted in the historical context of early Christian worship and theological reflection, not in modern revisionist theories that dismiss the rich theological tradition of the church.
164
How did JWs arrive at a clearer understanding of what the Bible teaches than other Christian denominations?
by slimboyfat in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
for jws who believe that jehovah had a hand in reviving the truth in the nineteenth century this is enough explanation for how jws managed to achieve a closer approximation to early christian beliefs and practices than other groups.

but is there an explanation for this phenomenon that doesn’t rely on supernatural intervention?

new testament scholar james dunn explains the difficulty of interpreting the biblical texts in this way:.
aqwsed12345

@slimboyfat
"experts without any prior faith commitment" - ROTFL, LMAO, come on, you can't be serious. Mainstream Christianity has many enemies, including liberal theologists, atheists, and exotic heresies. Don't they have "prior faith commitment"? This must be a joke, or you are very very naive. The assertion you're making—that an "objective" reading of the biblical texts naturally leads to conclusions similar to those of JWs—needs a closer examination. The claim that scholars who argue against the Trinity are more objective because they lack a "faith commitment" oversimplifies the complexity of biblical scholarship and the variety of perspectives that exist within it. Here's why this argument doesn't hold up:

Your argument implies that scholars who do not hold a prior commitment to Christian dogma (e.g., the Trinity) are more "objective" or "neutral" in their examination of the biblical texts. This dichotomy between "objective" and "faith-based" scholars is, however, a false one. All scholars bring certain assumptions, biases, and perspectives to their work, whether they are religious or not. Simply because a scholar does not adhere to Christian orthodoxy does not make their reading of the text inherently more objective.

Scholars who reject the Trinity are just as likely to be influenced by their own worldviews, presuppositions, or theological commitments—be they skeptical, secular, or aligned with other religious beliefs. The interpretation of ancient texts is a highly complex process that involves not only linguistic and historical knowledge but also philosophical and theological frameworks. There is no purely "neutral" ground from which to analyze these texts.

For example, scholars like Jason BeDuhn or David Bentley Hart may come to different conclusions about certain passages due to their personal intellectual commitments, be they to a low Christology, philosophical pluralism, or other influences. This does not make them more or less objective than Trinitarian scholars, but simply shows that scholarship is a diverse field with various viewpoints.

You suggest that a so-called "objective" reading contradicts the Trinity, but that assumes that the only valid method of interpreting Scripture is a literalist or atomistic approach. In reality, early Christian thinkers and church fathers developed their understanding of doctrines like the Trinity not just by reading isolated biblical texts but by engaging deeply with the theological implications of the entire biblical narrative. They also drew on centuries of Jewish and early Christian thought, Greek philosophical categories, and the lived experience of the Christian community.

For example, the development of the doctrine of the Trinity was a response to questions about how Jesus could be fully God and fully man while maintaining the oneness of God—a central theme throughout the Bible. The church fathers weren't simply inventing new ideas but were wrestling with how to best articulate the full witness of Scripture.

To assert that scholars who don't see the Trinity in the Bible are "more objective" overlooks the historical reality that many of these scholars often read the texts outside of their historical and theological contexts. They may favor more modern philosophical or methodological frameworks that differ from the ones used by early Christians. The fact that some modern scholars reach conclusions similar to JWs reflects their interpretive preferences, not an "objective" superiority.

Let's consider John 1 and Philippians 2, two key texts you mentioned. Scholars throughout history have approached these passages with great care, and Trinitarian interpretations have long recognized the complexity of these texts. The prologue to John's Gospel famously describes the Logos (the Word) as being with the God and being God. The church fathers saw this as a clear expression of the divine nature of Christ, existing eternally with the Father, which directly challenges any subordinationist or Arian interpretation. The phrase "the Word was God" (John 1:1) has been extensively debated, and the overwhelming scholarly consensus—even among those without Trinitarian commitments—acknowledges that the Greek grammar supports the translation "the Word was God," rather than "a god."

Similarly, Philippians 2 describes Christ's pre-existence and his decision to take on human nature while not grasping at equality with God. The passage speaks of Christ's humility in becoming incarnate, but it also affirms his exaltation by God and recognition as Lord, to whom every knee shall bow (Philippians 2:9-11). This text, far from undermining the Trinity, affirms both Christ's divine nature and his distinct personhood within the Godhead.

Finally, it's important to clarify that the presence of church dogma does not invalidate scholarly work. The creeds and doctrines of the church developed over time as theologians, pastors, and church leaders sought to faithfully interpret Scripture in light of challenges, heresies, and differing opinions. To dismiss the Trinity as mere dogma imposed by later councils ignores the fact that early Christians—long before Nicaea—were already grappling with the divine identity of Jesus Christ. The councils did not "invent" the Trinity but rather provided language to articulate the faith that had been confessed since the time of the apostles.

In contrast, JW theology, which emerged in the 19th century, represents a significant departure from historic Christian orthodoxy. Its rejection of the Trinity and re-interpretation of key biblical texts has been roundly critiqued by scholars from a variety of theological backgrounds, not simply because they adhere to "dogma," but because the Jehovah's Witnesses' readings often disregard the full context of the biblical narrative and the early Christian understanding of these doctrines.

In summary, the claim that "objective" scholarship “naturally” leads to anti-Trinitarian conclusions is unfounded. Scholarship is diverse, and different conclusions often reflect different interpretive frameworks, not necessarily greater objectivity. The doctrine of the Trinity is rooted in a careful, holistic reading of Scripture, developed in response to the full biblical witness and the experience of the early Christian community. Far from being imposed dogma, it reflects the church's effort to faithfully articulate the mystery of God's revelation in Christ.