Posts by aqwsed12345

posted

167
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 objection rests on the claim that the anarthrous "theos" (without a definite article) in John 1:1c is qualitative, and you emphasize that the New World Translation (NWT) reflects this understanding correctly by rendering it as "a god." You also argue that calling the Word "divine" is merely describing a quality of the Word rather than identifying Him as God.

It is essential to understand that the absence of the article does not automatically mean "theos" should be translated indefinitely as "a god." In fact, many scholars agree that in John 1:1c, the anarthrous "theos" is best understood qualitatively, which highlights the nature of the Word rather than creating a distinction between a "God" and "a god."

You mentioned that the NWT committee believed the translation "divine" was appropriate. However, even if we accept the qualitative understanding, translating it as "a god" implies a subordination that is not present in the Greek. Translating "θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος" as "the Word was God" conveys that the Word shares in the divine essence without suggesting polytheism or subordination.

Contextually, John's prologue consistently refers to the Word's pre-existence, divine authority, and identity as the agent of creation (John 1:3). The use of "theos" in verse 1:1c cannot be interpreted as introducing a second, lesser deity because the entire passage stresses that the Word (Logos) was intimately involved in the creation, a role ascribed to God alone. Furthermore, John 1:18 emphasizes that no one has ever seen God except the only-begotten Son, who has revealed Him. It would make little sense to speak of a "lesser god" who fully reveals the one true God.

You accuse Catholic theologians of being influenced by Neo-Platonism, suggesting that this influence is what drives their theological conclusions. However, this is a misrepresentation of Church doctrine. The affirmation of the Word's full divinity in John 1:1c is rooted in the biblical and historical understanding of the Christian faith, long predating Neo-Platonism. While some philosophical terms were later adopted to clarify the nature of the Trinity, the core belief that the Word is fully divine (not "a god") comes from the apostolic teaching itself.

The NWT’s translation "the Word was a god" introduces theological confusion by implying that there are multiple divine beings or gods, which is contrary to the strict monotheism of both Old and New Testaments. Isaiah 43:10 clearly states that no god existed before YHWH, nor will there be one after Him. This statement is incompatible with the idea that the Word could be "a god" separate from YHWH.

By rendering John 1:1c as "a god," the NWT conflicts with the broader context of Scripture, which consistently affirms the uniqueness of YHWH as God and the full divinity of Christ.

You mention that the Church's teaching confuses the Word with the Father. This reflects a misunderstanding of the doctrine of the Trinity, which maintains the distinction between the persons of the Father and the Son while affirming that both share in the same divine essence. The Word is fully God, but distinct from the Father as a person within the Godhead. This is precisely why John says that the Word was "with [the] God" (referring to the Father) and "was God" (referring to the Word’s divine nature).

In conclusion, the qualitative understanding of "theos" in John 1:1c should be maintained, but translating it as "a god" introduces unnecessary theological confusion. The traditional rendering "the Word was God" is the most faithful to the Greek text and context, affirming the full divinity of the Logos without equating Him with the Father.
@peacefulpete
The idea that Jesus did not exist as a historical figure is a fringe theory, lacking solid support among professional historians and biblical scholars. While it is true that some scholars, such as Richard Carrier, Raphael Lataster, and Robert M. Price, advocate for "mythicism" (the belief that Jesus was entirely a mythical figure), their views remain outside the scholarly mainstream. It is important to recognize that the overwhelming consensus among historians and scholars is that Jesus of Nazareth existed as a historical figure. This is not simply an "assumption" as suggested but a conclusion based on rigorous analysis of early Christian, Jewish, and Roman sources.
Renowned scholars like Bart Ehrman, an agnostic and a critical New Testament scholar, maintain that mythicism is an extreme and unsupported position. Ehrman, in his book Did Jesus Exist?, asserts that virtually all scholars, regardless of religious affiliation, accept the historical existence of Jesus. He writes: "The view that Jesus did not exist is demonstrably false, and professional scholars generally regard it as having been settled in serious scholarship long ago." This is a key point: mythicism is considered "settled" in mainstream scholarship because it lacks sufficient evidence and relies on speculative interpretations.
Mythicism rests on several flawed premises. Some of the common criticisms against it include:
- Arguments from silence: Mythicists often argue that because certain ancient writers did not mention Jesus, he must not have existed. However, as historians point out, the absence of a mention is not evidence of non-existence. Many other historical figures, especially non-elite individuals, are not mentioned in contemporary writings but are still accepted as real.
- Selective use of evidence: Mythicists tend to dismiss or distort key sources that mention Jesus. For example, they often argue that the references to Jesus in the works of the Jewish historian Josephus are later Christian interpolations, but most scholars agree that, although parts of the text may have been altered, the core reference to Jesus is authentic.
- Misunderstanding historical method: Many proponents of mythicism are not trained historians, and they apply flawed historical methodologies. According to Ehrman and others, mythicists typically lack the necessary expertise in ancient languages, textual criticism, and historical research methods required for making authoritative claims about Jesus' existence.
The historical existence of Jesus is supported by a variety of sources, both Christian and non-Christian:
- Paul's Letters: Paul's authentic letters, written within decades of Jesus' death, make multiple references to Jesus as a real person. Paul knew James, the brother of Jesus (Galatians 1:19), and refers to Jesus' crucifixion. Paul's writings are among the earliest evidence we have of Jesus' existence.
- The Gospels: While the Gospels were written several decades after Jesus' death, they contain independent traditions that can be traced back to earlier oral traditions about Jesus.
- Non-Christian Sources: Roman historians such as Tacitus and Pliny the Younger also mention Jesus (or "Christus"), adding further evidence to the historical existence of Jesus. Tacitus refers to Jesus' execution by Pontius Pilate, and Pliny discusses early Christians who worshipped Christ as a divine figure.
The Christ Myth Theory has been extensively debunked by scholars across a variety of fields. Michael Grant, a prominent classical historian, stated: "Modern critical methods fail to support the Christ myth theory," and added that "no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus—or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary."
Graeme Clarke, Professor of Ancient History, similarly said: "Frankly, I know of no ancient historian or biblical historian who would have a twinge of doubt about the existence of a Jesus Christ—the documentary evidence is simply overwhelming." These are not isolated opinions but reflect the broader academic consensus.
While mythicists like Richard Carrier have gained some attention, their arguments remain outliers. Carrier's use of Bayesian probability to argue against Jesus' existence has been widely criticized by historians and scholars for applying a mathematical approach that is inappropriate for historical inquiry. Carrier's work, while peer-reviewed, has not shifted the academic consensus, which continues to affirm Jesus' historical existence.
Carrier and others argue that because some elements of Jesus' story resemble mythological patterns, Jesus must also be mythical. However, historians point out that analogies to mythology do not negate the existence of historical individuals. Mythologizing historical figures after their deaths is common in many cultures, but this does not mean the individuals themselves never existed.
In conclusion, the claim that Jesus did not exist is overwhelmingly rejected by mainstream scholars. The Christ Myth Theory is considered fringe, speculative, and largely unsupported by credible historical evidence. While a few scholars entertain the possibility of mythicism, the vast majority of experts affirm the historical existence of Jesus based on the available documentary evidence. The mythicist position fails to account for the strong textual, archaeological, and historical data that supports Jesus' existence.
167
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
Peacefulpete’s assertion that the biography of Jesus is entirely mythic, and drawn from Old Testament stories and prophecies, is a position associated with the mythicist view, which argues that Jesus was not a historical figure but a constructed character based on previous myths. However, this view has been widely rejected by the majority of scholars, including secular historians, who affirm Jesus' historical existence.
As slimboyfat correctly pointed out, the mainstream scholarly consensus maintains that Jesus was indeed a historical person. The evidence for Jesus’ existence is strong from multiple sources, including non-Christian references (e.g., Tacitus, Josephus). Bart Ehrman, who is often cited by mythicists for his critiques of Christian doctrine, has written against the mythicist position, affirming that "Jesus certainly existed" in his book Did Jesus Exist?. The existence of Jesus is not a matter of controversy among serious historians; the debate typically centers around the theological claims made about him, not his historicity.
The claim that Jesus is portrayed “as an angel” (?) in Paul’s letters is a position held by some scholars, but it remains a minority view. Scholars like Bart Ehrman have indeed explored this possibility, yet the broader theological and scholarly community does not universally support this interpretation. Let's examine a few key points:
- Galatians 4:14: The passage that suggests, "You received me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus," is often used to support the angelic Christ theory. However, interpreting "angel" here in a strict sense (as a created being like Michael the Archangel) may not be accurate. In the biblical context, the term "angel" (Greek: angelos) can refer to any messenger of God, and is sometimes used more metaphorically or exaltedly to describe Jesus as the ultimate messenger or agent of God without implying that Jesus is a created angelic being.
- Philippians 2:6-11: While some scholars have argued that this passage depicts Jesus in angelic terms, the overwhelming majority see it as an expression of Jesus’ pre-existent divinity and incarnation. The passage explicitly states that Jesus "did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant." This text suggests a descent from divine status, not an identity as an angel. The kenosis (self-emptying) theology points to Jesus' pre-existence as God and his voluntary humility, which makes the angel theory less plausible here. I would still like to know where in Philippians 2 Christ's hymn anyone read about any kind "angel", or maybe the person who claims this was taking some kind of hallucinogen?
- Hebrews 1:4-14: This passage decisively refutes the notion of Jesus being an angel. The author of Hebrews explicitly contrasts Jesus with angels, stating that Jesus is superior to them. It says, "For to which of the angels did God ever say, 'You are my Son; today I have become your Father'?" (Hebrews 1:5). The text is clear that Jesus' sonship and authority far surpass that of any angelic being.
Peacefulpete claims that the Pauline letters show a "complete lack of interest" in the life of the Jesus of the Gospels. This is a common critique, but it overlooks a critical aspect of Paul's writings. Paul’s letters are not biographical; they are pastoral letters written to address specific theological issues in the early churches. His focus is on the significance of Jesus’ death, resurrection, and exaltation, which are the central elements of the Christian faith.
Paul does refer to key events in Jesus' life, such as his birth (Galatians 4:4), crucifixion (1 Corinthians 2:2), and resurrection (1 Corinthians 15). He also emphasizes the historical reality of Jesus’ death and resurrection as foundational to the Christian message: "If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile" (1 Corinthians 15:17). So, while Paul's letters are not gospel narratives, they are deeply rooted in the historical events of Jesus' life, particularly his death and resurrection.
The development of Christology in the early church was not the product of mythicization or later theological invention. The early Christians, particularly in Paul’s writings, were grappling with the implications of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection. The notion that Jesus was divine emerged organically from their experiences, the teachings of Jesus, and the Scriptures.
In conclusion, while some scholars explore alternative theories like the angelic Christology, the majority of biblical scholarship—both historically and theologically—affirms that Jesus was a historical figure, distinct from angels, and that his divinity is clearly attested in the New Testament. The Suffering Servant of Isaiah and the pre-existent Logos of John’s prologue (John 1:1) both point to the divinity of Christ within a monotheistic framework that is consistent with the overall teaching of Scripture.
167
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
Your argument that the use of nomina sacra (sacred abbreviations) does not justify capitalizing "God" in English translations unless we are consistent and capitalize all instances, even those referring to false gods, overlooks a crucial distinction in theological context and usage. While the uncial manuscripts do indeed capitalize all instances of the word "god" (ΘΕΟΣ) or "lord" (ΚΥΡΙΟΣ) due to the nature of their script, context and meaning determine how the word should be understood and translated in modern languages.
The practice of using nomina sacra was not about creating ambiguity between true and false deities. It was a theological and scribal convention aimed at reverence for divine names, including terms like "God" (ΘΣ) and "Lord" (ΚΣ). The use of nomina sacra does not mean that these terms were treated equivalently when referring to the true God versus false deities. In fact, the early scribes demonstrated care when distinguishing between true and false gods, as seen in manuscripts where false gods are often spelled out in full (e.g., θεοὶ or κύριοι), while nomina sacra was reserved for references to the true God or Christ.
In John 1:1, the context clearly refers to the divine nature of the Word (Logos). The statement "καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος" ("and the Word was God") affirms the deity of Jesus Christ. The capitalization of "God" in English reflects the qualitative nature of the Greek construction, where "theos" without the article is used to emphasize divine essence rather than to suggest a second, lesser god.
In contrast, passages like 2 Corinthians 4:4 (“the god of this world”) or Acts 28:6 (“a god”) use the term "god" in a different context—referring to false gods or beings wrongly regarded as divine. These instances do not convey the same theological weight as when the term refers to the one true God or Jesus Christ in His divine nature. The use of nomina sacra does not eliminate this distinction.
In the uncial Greek manuscripts, where no distinction is made between uppercase and lowercase letters, every word looks "capitalized" to modern eyes. However, translation into modern languages requires interpreting the text according to its context and meaning. This is where capitalization in English comes into play: to help readers understand the theological significance of the term. For example:
- In John 1:1, "God" is capitalized because the context refers to the divine nature of Jesus as fully sharing in the essence of the Father.
- In 2 Corinthians 4:4, "god" is lowercase because it refers to Satan, a false god or power, not equal to the one true God.
The decision to capitalize "God" when referring to the Father or the Son in passages like John 1:1 or Philippians 2:6 is based on the divine nature attributed to them in those passages. In contrast, false gods or lower beings are rendered with lowercase "god" to distinguish them as inferior or false deities.
If we were to follow your suggestion and capitalize all instances of "god" where nomina sacra occur in those later manuscripts, we would lose the critical theological distinction between the one true God and the false gods mentioned in Scripture. This would obscure the clear biblical teaching that there is one true God, and others are falsely called gods (cf. 1 Corinthians 8:5-6).
Thus the use of nomina sacra in early Christian manuscripts reflects reverence for divine names, but it does not imply that every use of the term "god" should be capitalized in modern translations. The context of each passage determines whether the term refers to the one true God or a false god, and the capitalization in English reflects that theological distinction. In passages where Jesus' deity is affirmed, such as John 1:1, capitalization is appropriate to convey His divine nature. Conversely, when referring to false gods, lowercase is used to reflect their inferior status. Thus, context and theological meaning guide translation decisions, and the distinction between true and false gods remains intact in both the original manuscripts and modern translations.
The suggestion that John 1:1, by using "a god" or "godly," somehow introduces henotheistic overtones misrepresents both John's theological intent and the audience's understanding. Henotheism implies the belief in many gods, with only one being worshipped. However, John's Gospel was written within a strict monotheistic Jewish context. The opening verses of John affirm that the "Word" (Logos) was not merely a lesser deity but was intrinsically divine—sharing in the very nature of God Himself. The phrase "the Word was God" is not a statement that leaves room for multiple gods, nor does it fit into a henotheistic framework. John explicitly establishes that the Logos has the same divine nature as God. Early Christian theologians, including the author of John, were extremely careful to preserve Jewish monotheism, while also affirming Christ's deity. There is no evidence that John’s audience—comprising Jews and early Christians—would have interpreted "the Word was God" as anything other than a monotheistic statement about the nature of Jesus.
You emphasize that because "God" lacks the article in John 1:1c, it must be translated as "a god" or something implying a qualitative aspect ("godly"). However, this interpretation misunderstands Greek grammar. In this context, the absence of the article does not necessarily mean that "theos" should be indefinite. In Greek, when a noun like "theos" is placed before the verb, its article can be omitted to focus on the quality of the noun rather than introducing a new entity. This is known as the qualitative use of "theos" in John 1:1c. Greek scholars widely agree that the lack of an article here does not suggest "a god" in the sense of a lesser deity, but rather emphasizes the Word’s divine essence. The Logos is fully God, though distinct person from the Father.
The translation "What God was, the Word was" (as found in the Revised English Bible) is sometimes offered as a more accurate rendering. While this might be a useful paraphrase to explain the relationship between the Father and the Word, it still affirms that the Word shares in the full divinity of God. This translation emphasizes that the Word possesses the full essence and attributes of God, which aligns with the traditional understanding that "the Word was God." Saying "what God was, the Word was" affirms that the Logos was fully divine, not a separate or lesser being. While this may clarify the qualitative aspect of theos, it does not support an indefinite reading like "a god."
The claim that John's audience, particularly the Jews of the time, were henotheists is historically inaccurate. Judaism was strictly monotheistic, and any references to other gods were either polemical or metaphorical, often referring to false gods or idols worshipped by surrounding nations. John's Gospel was written to affirm Jesus' divine nature in the context of strict Jewish monotheism. The idea that the audience would have been comfortable with a statement suggesting multiple gods ("a god") contradicts the theological background of the Gospel. John was addressing both Jewish and Hellenistic audiences, and his purpose was to affirm the Word’s full divinity, not introduce henotheistic notions.
While John makes a distinction between the Word and the Father (the Word was "with [the] God"), this distinction is about their persons, not their essence. The doctrine of the Trinity resolves this by teaching that the Father and the Son are distinct persons but share the same divine nature. The traditional translation ("the Word was God") does not confuse the Word with the Father. Rather, it affirms the unity of their essence while preserving the distinction of their persons. The Greek construction makes this clear by using "pros ton Theon" (with [the] God) to indicate distinction, and then stating "the Word was God" to affirm the Word’s deity. This affirms the core of Trinitarian theology: one God in three distinct persons.
The claim that John 1:1 introduces henotheistic ideas or implies a separate deity for the Word is unfounded. The qualitative use of "theos" in John 1:1c affirms the Word's full divinity, not a lesser or separate deity. The traditional translation, "the Word was God," properly reflects this without confusing the persons of the Father and the Son.
@slimboyfat
While it might seem, at first glance, that Philippians 2:9-11 indicates an elevation of Jesus from a lower position to a higher one, this interpretation does not fully align with the deeper theological context of both the passage and the entirety of Christian doctrine. When Paul writes in Philippians 2:9 that "God exalted him to the highest place," this is not implying that Jesus was inferior in nature to the Father and then promoted to a higher status after His earthly ministry. The exaltation is a public declaration and a restoration of the glory Jesus already possessed before His incarnation. Consider Jesus' prayer in John 17:5:
"And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began."
Here, Jesus clearly indicates that He shared the Father’s glory before the Incarnation and asks for its restoration. The exaltation in Philippians 2:9, then, refers to the acknowledgment of Christ’s divine authority and glory after His humble, obedient mission on earth—not a promotion to a higher status.
Your point that Paul did not know about the Trinity is a common claim, but it does not hold up under closer examination of his writings. Paul clearly distinguished between the Father and the Son, but he also ascribed divine characteristics and titles to Jesus that would be blasphemous if Jesus were not God. Let’s take 1 Corinthians 8:6 as an example:
“Yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.”
Here, Paul parallels Jesus Christ with God the Father, ascribing to Him roles in creation and sustenance of life—functions that belong exclusively to God. The term “Lord” (κύριος, kyrios) in this context reflects the same usage in the Greek Old Testament (the Septuagint), where it is used as a title for Yahweh. Paul, then, is equating Jesus with Yahweh, affirming His full divinity. The same affirmation is found in Romans 10:9-13, where Paul declares that confessing Jesus as Lord is a confession of His divine status.
Philippians 2:6-8 describes Christ's kenosis, or self-emptying. It is critical to understand that this emptying was not a loss of His divine nature but a voluntary concealment of His divine glory. Jesus, in taking on human nature, did not cease to be God; rather, He chose not to exploit His divine status for His own advantage during His earthly life. The exaltation that follows in verses 9-11 is a vindication of His humility and obedience, as God the Father declares to all creation that Jesus is Lord. Hebrews 1:3 echoes this understanding:
“The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of His being, sustaining all things by His powerful word.”
Jesus did not lose this divine nature during His time on earth. His exaltation is not a promotion, but rather the revelation of the glory that was veiled during His earthly ministry.
In Philippians 2:9-11, Paul says that God “gave him the name that is above every name” and that “every knee should bow... and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.” This exaltation points to Christ’s universal reign and authority as both God and man. However, it's important to note that the title of “Lord” is already inherent in Jesus due to His divine nature. What happens here is a public recognition and acknowledgment of His universal Lordship by all creation.
The worship of Jesus described in these verses—“every knee should bow”—is drawn from Isaiah 45:23, where God declares that every knee will bow and every tongue will swear allegiance to Him alone. For Paul to apply this text to Jesus without any qualification shows that he understood Jesus to share in the divine identity of Yahweh.
One common misunderstanding is that because Jesus is exalted and subject to the Father, this somehow implies He is ontologically inferior. This is a confusion between functional subordination and ontological equality:
- Functional subordination refers to Jesus’ voluntary submission to the Father’s will during His earthly ministry and in the economy of salvation (John 6:38, Luke 22:42). This does not imply a difference in nature but in role.
- Ontological equality affirms that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are equal in their divine nature. Jesus’ voluntary submission does not mean He is a lesser being than the Father. This distinction is central to understanding the dynamics of the Trinity, where the Son eternally submits to the Father in His role, yet shares the same divine essence.
In 1 Corinthians 15:28, where it says, "the Son himself will also be subjected to Him who put all things under Him," this is describing the end of Christ’s mediatorial role in redemption. Once His work of redemption is complete, He delivers the Kingdom to the Father, not because He is inferior in essence, but because the work of the Son as mediator between God and humanity has been fulfilled.
Finally, Paul’s view of Jesus in Philippians 2 fits squarely within the broader Pauline Christology, where Jesus is repeatedly described as preexistent and divine:
- Colossians 1:15-20 presents Christ as the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation, through whom all things were created.
- 1 Corinthians 8:6 presents Christ as the agent of creation, a role attributed to God alone in Jewish monotheism.
- Romans 9:5 explicitly calls Christ “God over all, forever praised.”
Paul consistently views Jesus not as a mere subordinate being, but as the divine Son, fully participating in the divine identity and work.
In conclusion, Philippians 2 does not depict Christ as being promoted from a lower status to a higher one in a hierarchical sense. Rather, it celebrates His voluntary humility, His role as the suffering servant, and His subsequent exaltation as the public acknowledgment of His divine authority and lordship. Jesus is not elevated because He was inferior; He is exalted because He humbled Himself for our sake, while remaining fully God. This passage, far from undermining the doctrine of the Trinity, reinforces the profound mystery of the Incarnation—God becoming man, yet never ceasing to be God.
167
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

@peacefulpete
Your response raises some important and interesting points regarding the development of the concept of the Logos and its treatment by Philo and early Christians. However, I believe there are key differences between Philo's Logos and Paul's Christ as the divine Logos that are essential for understanding how the two are not the same. Philo’s Logos operates as a conceptual, almost abstract, intermediary between God and the world. He draws heavily from Greek philosophy, especially Stoicism and Platonism, using the Logos as a way to explain the relationship between the divine and the material world without compromising the absolute transcendence of God. Philo never understood the Logos as an incarnate being or one that could die; rather, for him, it is more like an emanation or aspect of God’s rational power and order. Philo’s Logos has no personal identity as a being who could suffer or die, which starkly contrasts with the Christian understanding of Jesus Christ.
Paul’s depiction of Christ, particularly in Colossians 1:16-17, goes far beyond what Philo envisaged. Paul writes not merely about a cosmic principle but about a personal being who is fully divine and fully human. In this passage, Christ is portrayed as the agent of creation, through whom all things were made and in whom all things hold together. This is not just a Logos that orders the universe, but a personal, divine being intimately involved in creation, sustaining it, and redeeming it through incarnation, death, and resurrection.
Unlike Philo's Logos, which is an impersonal intermediary, Paul's Christ is personal and relational, involved directly in the salvation of humanity. Paul declares that Christ’s incarnation, death, and resurrection were necessary for reconciling the world to God (Col. 1:20). This "innovation" among Christians isn't just a theological novelty but rather a unique claim about God’s intervention in history through the person of Jesus.
Philo’s Logos mediates God’s power in a philosophical sense—an ordering principle of the cosmos. In contrast, Paul's Christ is a mediator in the personal sense, reconciling sinful humanity to God through his sacrificial death. For Paul, the Logos is not merely a force but a person who actively takes on human flesh (Phil. 2:6-8) and enters into human history in order to restore creation.
You raise the question of whether a reader could understand Paul’s Christ as an intermediary, creative, and pervasive force. While Paul certainly presents Christ as the one in whom all things hold together, this is not in the detached, philosophical sense of Philo’s Logos. For Paul, Christ is not a distant intermediary but rather the incarnate Son of God who reconciles and redeems the world through His death and resurrection (Col. 1:19-20). This personal engagement in creation, redemption, and final reconciliation is what makes Paul’s understanding of the Logos fundamentally different from Philo’s.
You mentioned Philo's concept of God and His two powers appearing as a triad. However, Philo's triad is not analogous to the Christian Trinity. Philo's triadic concept reflects an allegorical interpretation of God's powers (beneficence and rulership) rather than distinct persons in one divine essence. Christian Trinitarian theology speaks of three distinct persons—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—who are consubstantial and co-eternal, sharing one divine essence, but each is a distinct person with relational roles in creation and redemption.
Philo’s allegorical framework never reaches the level of personal relationships or roles within the Godhead that the Christian Trinity articulates. While Philo might be seen as using triadic language, it lacks the relational and incarnational dimensions central to Christian Trinitarian thought. Thus, any parallels between Philo's triad and the Christian Trinity remain superficial.
In Colossians 1:16-17, Paul describes Christ as not only the agent of creation but also as pre-existent and eternally divine. The Amplified Bible rightly emphasizes that Christ is "before all things" and that "in Him all things hold together." This language goes beyond a simple intermediary force; it ascribes to Christ the active, sustaining role in creation, a role that only God can fulfill. This understanding of Christ as divine is at the heart of Christian belief in His pre-existence and equality with the Father.
So while Philo and early Christians both use the term Logos, they diverge in profound ways. Philo's Logos is a philosophical concept, a mediator in a more abstract sense. Paul's Christ is a personal, divine, incarnate Logos—not just a cosmic force, but the Savior and Redeemer of humanity. The Christian understanding of the Logos as fully divine and personal was indeed a development beyond Philo, but it was grounded in the revelation of Jesus Christ, not in appropriations of pagan or philosophical myths.
@slimboyfat
While the authorship of Colossians is debated among some scholars, it is not universally rejected. Many reputable scholars defend Pauline authorship, citing stylistic and theological continuity with other undisputed letters of Paul. But even if one were to grant, for the sake of argument, that Paul didn’t write Colossians, this does not affect the interpretation of Philippians 2:5-11, which is universally accepted as Pauline. This means that the discussion should focus on Philippians, not on disputed letters like Colossians.
You argue that Philippians 2:5-11 shows Christ as a "heavenly being" distinct from and subordinate to God. While it’s true that Philippians 2 refers to Christ’s pre-existence, it does not support the conclusion that Christ is a lesser heavenly being or an angel. In Philippians 2:6, Paul uses the phrase morphe theou, which refers to Christ being in the "form of God." The word morphe does not merely mean outward appearance but refers to the intrinsic nature of something. This has been demonstrated by various scholars who argue that morphe refers to Christ’s possession of divine attributes. Paul’s use of morphe theou asserts that Jesus had divine status and nature before His incarnation, not that He was a mere spirit or angelic being.
The passage states that Christ "did not regard equality with God as something to be grasped" (harpagmon). This indicates that Christ already possessed equality with God, yet chose not to cling to it for His own advantage. The phrase "equality with God" points to Christ's divine status, not to a subordinate or angelic status. The idea that Christ was subordinate to God in essence contradicts this notion of equality, which Paul affirms.
The term "emptied Himself" refers to the Incarnation, where Christ, though fully divine, chose to take on human nature and become obedient to death. This self-emptying involves the voluntary renunciation of divine privileges, not the divine nature itself. The passage does not imply that Christ was a lesser being who later received a higher status; rather, it speaks of the eternal Son of God humbling Himself and becoming man for the sake of humanity.
You assert that the JW interpretation of Philippians 2 makes the best sense because it portrays Jesus as a subordinate heavenly being who is rewarded for His humility. This interpretation, however, is deeply flawed. While Philippians 2 does describe Christ as pre-existent, the text does not support the notion that He was merely a subordinate spirit or angelic being. The passage explicitly emphasizes Christ's equality with God (isa theo), making it clear that He possessed divine nature before the Incarnation. This equality is not something Jesus sought to exploit but something He voluntarily set aside to take on human form.
The exaltation of Christ in Philippians 2:9-11 is not an indication that He was elevated from a lower status to a higher one in the divine hierarchy. Instead, it reflects the glorification of Christ’s humanity after His death and resurrection. The exaltation is the recognition of Christ’s lordship and the public acknowledgment of His divine authority by all creation. This glorification is given to Christ’s human nature, not His divine nature, which He already possessed. The JW interpretation confuses the exaltation of Christ’s humanity with a change in His divine status, which the passage does not support.
Your argument relies heavily on the interpretation of harpagmos as something that is seized, implying that Christ did not have equality with God but refrained from trying to seize it. However, this is a misunderstanding of the term. The word harpagmos can refer to something that is seized or exploited for personal advantage. In the context of Philippians 2:6, it means that Christ, although equal with God, did not consider His equality with God something to be exploited for personal gain. This demonstrates Christ’s humility, not His inferiority. He did not grasp at divine privileges but emptied Himself by becoming human and humbling Himself to the point of death. This shows Christ's willingness to forgo His rightful divine prerogatives for the sake of humanity’s salvation, which aligns with Trinitarian theology.
You claim that Jesus was exalted to a higher position than He originally had, implying that He was not fully divine before His exaltation. Philippians 2:9-11 speaks of God exalting Christ and giving Him the name above every name. This exaltation does not mean that Christ was elevated to divinity after being a lesser being. Rather, the exaltation refers to the glorification of Christ’s human nature. Christ, as the eternal Son of God, always possessed divine status, but in His incarnation, He took on human nature and, after His death and resurrection, was exalted in His humanity. The exaltation is the recognition and public acknowledgment of Christ’s universal lordship.
The "Name above every name" is the name "Lord" (κύριος, kyrios), which is a divine title. This title signifies that Christ is the ruler over all creation, which aligns with the Old Testament title for God (YHWH). The exaltation of Christ as "Lord" is not a sign of inferiority but an acknowledgment of His divine authority over all creation, further confirming His divinity.
The argument that Philippians 2:5-11 supports a non-Trinitarian reading where Christ is a subordinate heavenly being collapses under closer scrutiny. The passage affirms Christ’s pre-existence, equality with God, and voluntary humility in becoming human. The exaltation of Christ does not indicate that He was inferior to God but rather highlights the glorification of His humanity after His redemptive work.

The Trinitarian interpretation remains consistent with the broader witness of Scripture, affirming that Christ, though fully divine, humbled Himself and took on human nature for the sake of humanity’s salvation. Far from undermining His divinity, Philippians 2:5-11 underscores both Christ’s divine status and His extraordinary humility.
167
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
@peacefulpete
Philo of Alexandria indeed had some influence on early Christian thought, particularly in his development of the concept of the Logos (Word). However, while some of Philo's language may bear resemblance to later Christian doctrines, there are significant differences that show why Philo's Logos is not the same as the Christian understanding of Christ as the divine Logos.
Philo's Logos is primarily a philosophical concept, heavily influenced by Greek thought, particularly Platonism and Stoicism. For Philo, the Logos was an intermediary between the transcendent God and the material world. It was a tool that helped God create and govern the universe, but it was impersonal, abstract, and did not become incarnate in the way that the New Testament describes.
In contrast, the Christian understanding of the Logos, particularly as presented in John 1:1-14, is that the Logos is not merely an intermediary force or principle but is personal, fully divine, and became incarnate as Jesus Christ. John explicitly states that "the Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us" (John 1:14). This is a clear assertion that the Logos took on human nature, something Philo never suggested. While Philo entertained the possibility of God appearing in human form in legends, this is very different from the Christian doctrine of the Incarnation, where the Logos actually becomes a human being.
Philo may have speculated on legends of God taking human form, but he did not commit to this idea in a theological sense. His Logos remained an abstract mediator, never fully taking on flesh. Philo’s musings about God visiting cities in human form are purely speculative and not central to his philosophy. In contrast, the Incarnation is the cornerstone of Christian belief. The Logos, as understood by Christians, became fully human in the person of Jesus Christ while remaining fully divine. This is a decisive departure from Philo's understanding.
While there are some parallels between Philo’s thoughts and early Christian writings, especially in the use of the term Logos, Philo’s ideas do not directly inform the Christian doctrine of the Trinity or the Incarnation. The Nicene Creed’s statements, such as "God from God, Light from Light, True God from true God," are not quoting Philo but are part of the Church's development of its Christological doctrine in response to heresies like Arianism. These phrases affirm that Christ is of the same divine substance as the Father, fully equal to God, which Philo never claimed about his Logos.
Philo does indeed refer to the Logos as a "high priest" in an allegorical sense, but this is not to be confused with the Christian understanding of Christ as the true High Priest. In Hebrews 4:14-15 and 7:26-27, Christ is described as the High Priest who offered himself as a perfect sacrifice for sins. This is a unique role that Philo’s Logos never assumes. For Philo, the Logos is an abstract principle, whereas for Christians, Jesus Christ, the Logos, is a person who performs a real, historical act of redemption through his death and resurrection.
So Philo's writings, particularly his use of the concept of the Logos, are fascinating, but they require careful interpretation, especially when viewed in light of later Christian theology. While Philo's Logos concept was influential, it is essential to distinguish between Philo's philosophical ideas and the Christian understanding of the Logos, as articulated in the New Testament. Philo’s Logos is not equivalent to the Christian understanding of Jesus Christ as the divine Logos. Philo was a Hellenistic Jewish philosopher who employed the concept of the Logos as an intermediary between the transcendent God and the created world. For Philo, the Logos was more of a philosophical abstraction, a mediator between God and the material world, a divine reason or order, but not a distinct person who took on flesh as Jesus did in Christian theology.
In contrast, the New Testament's portrayal of the Logos (John 1:1) presents the Logos as not only preexistent but as God Himself, who "became flesh and dwelt among us" (John 1:14). This identification of the Logos with Jesus Christ is crucial and sets the Christian understanding apart from Philo's. While Philo speaks of the Logos as an intermediary or even a "suppliant" to God on behalf of humanity, Christian theology teaches that Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man, not just an intermediary or high priest.
The idea of Jesus as the High Priest, as articulated in Hebrews 4:14-16, goes far beyond what Philo suggests in his writings. Philo’s understanding of the Logos as a "suppliant" or intermediary fits more into a philosophical framework, while the Christian understanding of Jesus as the High Priest is deeply rooted in Jewish sacrificial traditions and fulfilled in the New Covenant. Hebrews emphasizes that Christ is the perfect High Priest who not only intercedes but also offers Himself as the ultimate sacrifice for sin (Hebrews 7:27). This role is unique and transcends the role of any human or abstract mediator.
It is true that early Christian theologians were aware of Philo's writings and that his ideas about the Logos may have influenced some of their vocabulary. However, Christian theology developed its own distinct understanding of the Logos, which is deeply Christocentric. The Logos, in Christian theology, is not merely a philosophical intermediary but the Second Person of the Trinity, coequal with the Father and the Holy Spirit.
Finally, Philo's Logos remains an impersonal force in his writings, never incarnating or becoming a man. In contrast, the New Testament presents the Logos as a personal, divine being who took on human nature (John 1:14), a key doctrine of Christianity. The High Priestly role of Jesus as presented in the New Testament is deeply relational, tied to the unique identity of Jesus as both God and man. Philo’s abstract Logos never becomes personal in this way.
While Philo’s ideas may have provided some philosophical tools that early Christian thinkers could utilize, his concept of the Logos is fundamentally different from the Christian understanding. Philo’s Logos is an intermediary, impersonal force, while the Christian Logos is a person—Jesus Christ—who is fully God and fully man. The Nicene Creed's language about the relationship between the Father and the Son, and the Incarnation, does not draw directly from Philo but from the biblical revelation and the Church's theological reflection on that revelation.
Thus, while Philo might have paved the way for some intellectual groundwork, his Logos remains a distant, philosophical concept, whereas the Christian Logos is the personal, incarnate Son of God, who is worshipped as one with the Father and the Holy Spirit.
In summary:
- Philo's Logos is a philosophical concept, a mediating force between God and the world.
- Christian Logos (Jesus Christ) is the incarnate Word of God, fully divine, fully human, and the perfect High Priest who offers Himself as the ultimate sacrifice.
- While Philo's writings are intellectually interesting and may have influenced early Christian terminology, Christian doctrine of the Logos, particularly in terms of Christ's role as High Priest, goes far beyond anything Philo suggested. The Christian belief in the Logos is not just about mediation but about the incarnation of God Himself in the person of Jesus Christ, fulfilling the ultimate High Priestly role.
Thus, while Philo’s writings may have “personified” the Logos to some degree, they never approached the full Christian understanding of the Logos as God made flesh, who is not only an intermediary but the Savior and High Priest of the world.
167
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

@peacefulpete
Thank you for your detailed response. Let me address the points you've raised regarding Yahweh's identity, the "Most High," and how these ideas evolved within the Hebrew and early Christian traditions. I'll provide a clear refutation of the notion that Yahweh was originally viewed as subordinate to El Elyon and that this distinction was foundational for centuries, followed by a discussion on the development of monotheism in the Hebrew Bible.
You mention that the idea of Yahweh being subordinate to El Elyon (the Most High) is a misunderstanding based on passages like Deuteronomy 32:8-9. Let’s clarify this context. Deuteronomy 32:8-9 refers to the division of the nations according to the "sons of God" or divine beings, with Yahweh receiving Israel as His inheritance. This passage does reflect an early worldview where Yahweh was particularly associated with Israel. However, it does not imply that Yahweh was ontologically inferior to El Elyon or that He was merely one of many deities, with El Elyon presiding over Him.
In the broader biblical narrative, especially as monotheism developed, Yahweh is increasingly identified as the one true God—not simply the God of Israel but the sovereign ruler of all nations and the Creator of the universe. This is evident in prophetic books, especially in Isaiah, where Yahweh declares: "I am the Lord, and there is no other; apart from me, there is no God" (Isaiah 45:5). Such texts unequivocally affirm the supremacy of Yahweh as the only God. What you describe as obfuscation in other texts likely reflects a process of theological development where Israel moved from a form of henotheism (acknowledging the existence of other gods but worshiping only Yahweh) to a fully monotheistic belief, where Yahweh is not just Israel's God but the God of all creation.
You point to examples such as Exodus 23:20-21, where the "Angel of the Lord" is said to bear God's name and authority. This passage and others like it have been interpreted in various ways, but they do not establish Yahweh as subordinate to a higher god, nor do they imply a fundamental duality within the Hebrew understanding of God. The "Angel of the Lord" is often understood as a manifestation of Yahweh Himself, not a separate deity or intermediary.
The notion of the "second power" in early Jewish thought is an intriguing concept, but it is not evidence of a persistent belief in Yahweh's subordination. Rather, the "second power" refers to a divine figure or agent who functions with God's authority, often viewed in hindsight as foreshadowing the New Testament revelation of the Logos (the Word) or Christ. This interpretation does not contradict the monotheism of Deutero-Isaiah or other parts of the Hebrew Bible. Instead, it can be understood as part of the complex and rich theological development that eventually culminated in the Christian understanding of the Trinity.
In early Christian texts, such as Philippians 2:9-11, Jesus is explicitly identified with Yahweh, demonstrating that the New Testament writers did not see a tension between Jesus being the Son of God and being fully divine. The "Angel of the Lord" motif was often interpreted by the Church Fathers as a pre-incarnate appearance of the Logos (the Son), showing continuity between the Old Testament concept of divine agency and the New Testament revelation of Christ's divinity.
You reference Clementine Recognitions and the Ascension of Isaiah as examples of texts that preserve a diversity of theological outlooks, where angels or intermediaries are seen as governing nations. However, these are later apocryphal works that reflect speculative theology rather than mainstream biblical or Christian orthodoxy. While these texts provide insight into various streams of thought circulating in antiquity, they should not be taken as representative of the core biblical or early Christian view of God.
In both of these examples, the role of angels or intermediaries is highlighted, but neither text presents a coherent alternative to the monotheism that was established in the Hebrew Scriptures and fully developed in the New Testament. Instead, they reflect speculative interpretations that ultimately do not challenge the foundational belief that Yahweh is the Most High God. The New Testament and the early Church Fathers made clear that Christ, as the Logos, was co-equal and co-eternal with the Father, a position solidified in the Nicene Creed.
You argue that the monotheism of Deutero-Isaiah was not universally adopted and that early Hebrew thought preserved theological diversity. While it's true that Israel's theological understanding evolved over time, the trajectory of the Hebrew Scriptures points decisively toward absolute monotheism. The development from an early form of henotheism (where Yahweh was seen as one God among others) to monotheism (where Yahweh is the only true God) is well documented.
By the time of the exilic and post-exilic prophets, the belief in Yahweh's exclusive divinity had become firmly established. Passages like Isaiah 44:6 ("I am the first and I am the last; besides me, there is no god") make it clear that Yahweh alone is God, and this belief became foundational for both Judaism and Christianity. The New Testament writers fully embraced this monotheistic framework, while also revealing the triune nature of God in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Your argument that Yahweh was once considered subordinate to El Elyon is based on speculative interpretations of certain texts and does not hold up against the broader biblical canon. The development of Israel's understanding of God moves from a context where Yahweh is the national deity of Israel to one where Yahweh is recognized as the one true God of all creation. This theological evolution does not undermine monotheism but instead affirms it. Additionally, later Jewish and Christian interpretations, particularly the doctrine of the Trinity, are not rooted in polytheism or angelic subordination, but in the consistent biblical teaching that God is one in essence and three in personhood.
The texts you cite, such as the Clementine Recognitions and the Ascension of Isaiah, reflect later theological speculation and should not be confused with mainstream Jewish or Christian theology. They may provide interesting perspectives, but they do not represent the biblical or orthodox Christian understanding of Yahweh as fully divine and the Most High God. The Christian doctrine of the Trinity, as affirmed in the Nicene Creed, maintains that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct persons but share the same divine essence, fully in line with biblical revelation.
Thus, the claim that Yahweh was originally subordinate to El Elyon is not supported by the totality of Scripture or by early Christian doctrine.
167
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

@peacefulpete
While it’s true that Philo of Alexandria, a Jewish philosopher, introduced the concept of the Logos as an intermediary, the assertion that Philo’s Logos is equivalent to the Christian Logos in the Gospel of John is an oversimplification and misrepresentation of the theological distinctions between the two. Philo’s Logos is rooted in Hellenistic thought, influenced by Platonic and Stoic philosophy. In Philo's system, the Logos serves as an intermediary between the transcendent God (whom Philo calls the Most High God or El Elyon) and the created world. However, Philo’s Logos was not viewed as a personal being, but more as an abstract principle or divine force that represents the rational order and mediation of God’s will in creation. It is an emanation or a bridge between the unknowable God and the material world.
Philo’s Logos was not God in the personal sense but rather a divine agent or intermediary who was a reflection or shadow of the divine. He was inferior to the Most High God and functioned more like an impersonal aspect or an agent that emanated from God, which is far from the Christian understanding of the full divinity of the Logos in John’s Gospel.
In contrast, the Gospel of John presents a Logos that is fully divine and personal. John 1:1 says, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” This is a clear affirmation of the divinity of the Logos. The Logos is not an emanation or abstract intermediary but is identified as God Himself. John’s Logos is not an impersonal force but a personal being who became incarnate in the person of Jesus Christ (John 1:14: “The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us”).
This personal nature of the Logos in Christianity is crucial: Jesus Christ, the Logos, is co-eternal with the Father, co-equal in essence, and possesses full divinity. The Gospel of John affirms the Logos as not merely an agent of God but God Himself, participating in the divine essence without being separate or subordinate in essence, which differs from Philo’s more abstract, non-personalized concept.
Philo’s Logos cannot be equated with John’s Logos because of the fundamental difference in divine identity. In Philo’s writings, the Logos is never described as sharing in the full essence of God. Philo’s Logos mediates between the unknowable God and creation but is distinctly not the same as the Most High God (El Elyon). John’s Logos, however, is clearly declared to be both with God and God Himself. This is a radical departure from Philo’s concept of an intermediary figure.
The doctrine of the incarnation—God becoming man—is foreign to Philo’s understanding of the Logos. In John 1:14, the Logos becomes flesh and dwells among us, which is central to Christian belief. Philo would have found the idea of God becoming incarnate incomprehensible and incompatible with his philosophical framework. For Philo, the Logos did not become human; it remained a distant mediator, a non-personal force that facilitated the interaction between God and the material world.
In conclusion, while Philo’s Logos and John’s Logos share some similarities in the intermediary role, their differences are far more significant. Philo’s Logos is an abstract principle or divine agent that is clearly inferior to God, while the Christian Logos in the Gospel of John is fully divine, personal, and one with God in essence. The identification of the Logos with Jesus Christ as the incarnate Word is a distinctive Christian teaching that goes beyond anything Philo ever envisioned. Therefore, equating Philo’s Logos with the Christian Logos misrepresents both the philosophical and theological context of these two vastly different conceptions.
167
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 mention that the liberal use of nomina sacra in the later manuscripts, even in reference to false gods, undermines the argument that these abbreviations provide theological weight in distinguishing the Father and the Son. However, this view overlooks the fact that early Christian scribes, when applying nomina sacra to Christ, were not merely using it out of convention but to signal reverence for Christ’s divine identity.
Early Christian writers like Justin Martyr, Ignatius of Antioch, and Irenaeus all affirm the divine status of Christ. By the late second and early third centuries, when P66 and P75 were copied, there was already a well-established Christological tradition that recognized Jesus as fully divine. The consistent use of nomina sacra for both the Father and the Son, especially in such foundational texts as John 1:1, reflects this theological understanding. The fact that nomina sacra were also used in mundane contexts does not change the theological significance of their application to Christ in passages affirming His deity.
Your argument that the use of nomina sacra (sacred abbreviations) in John 1:1 does not support the capitalization of "God" in English translations of the verse because of their usage in other contexts, such as in reference to "the god of this world" (2 Corinthians 4:4) or when the Maltese refer to Paul as "a god" (Acts 28:6), warrants a detailed response.
You argue that the use of nomina sacra for both "God" and "the god of this world" implies that no special reverence or distinction was intended for these terms in the original manuscripts. However, we need to be careful about overstating the conclusions drawn from later manuscripts like Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. As I pointed out, these were written after the Edict of Milan (313 AD), when scribal practices had changed, and mass copying of texts became more common. This could indeed result in the widespread use of nomina sacra even for terms like "the god of this world," but it doesn't necessarily reflect the theological weight given to those terms in earlier, more controlled contexts.
2 Corinthians 4:4 is missing from Papyrus 46 for 2 Corinthians 4:4, that portion of the manuscript is damaged, and P46 is the oldest manuscript of 2Cor, if it also contained nomen sacrum there, it would weaken my argument, but unfortunately we cannot verify this. So we cannot definitively argue that the early church applied nomina sacra equally for all instances of "God" or "god," especially in reference to Satan. While later manuscripts show uniformity in this practice, we cannot assume that earlier scribes followed the same convention in all instances.
In any case, even if nomina sacra were used to describe "the god of this world" in later manuscripts, this would be irrelevant to John 1:1, where the theological context clearly dictates a distinction. The term "God" in John 1:1 refers to the eternal, omnipotent Creator, whereas in 2 Corinthians 4:4, "the god of this world" refers to a false or deceptive power (Satan) who blinds unbelievers. The use of nomina sacra does not equate the status of these two figures, and theological nuance remains key in interpretation.
John 1:1 presents a profound theological truth, wherein the Logos (the Word) is not only "with God" but "was God" (theos en ho logos). The use of nomina sacra in early manuscripts underscores the sacred nature of the subject, but it does not diminish the distinction or unity in the Godhead that John emphasizes. While later scribal conventions may have applied nomina sacra to both divine and mundane references to "god," the context of John 1:1 cannot be ignored. The relationship between the Father and the Logos is presented in a manner that affirms both unity and distinction within the Godhead—a central element of Trinitarian theology.
Francis Moloney’s comment that “an identification between the Word and God is to be avoided” is, in a sense, correct, but only when it is understood that John is presenting both distinction (the Logos is pros ton Theon, with [the] God) and unity (the Logos is theos, God). This is the foundational understanding of the Trinity. The Logos shares in the divine essence (not merely a "god" among many), yet is distinct in personhood from the Father.
While Moloney is correct to caution against collapsing the distinct persons of the Godhead, the absence of the article here does not mean the Logos is anything less than fully divine. As many scholars have pointed out, the predicate position of theos here emphasizes the quality of the Word rather than His identity with the Father. In other words, John is not saying that the Word is the same person as the Father, but that the Word shares the divine nature.
Grammatically, the lack of the article before theos prevents a misunderstanding that the Word is numerically identical to the Father (ton theon), but it also strongly affirms that the Word possesses the same divine nature. This is why Trinitarian theology holds that the Father and the Son are distinct persons who share one divine essence. Therefore, modern English translations that capitalize "God" in John 1:1c are doing so to reflect the divine quality that the original Greek grammar conveys.
The argument that nomina sacra support an equal theological status for both the Father and lesser "gods" (like Satan or pagan deities) misunderstands the purpose of these sacred abbreviations. The nomina sacra were employed as markers of reverence, not merely of equality. They highlighted terms of theological significance, but the context and content of the passage determined the meaning and application of those terms. In John 1:1, the use of nomina sacra aligns with the passage’s affirmation of Christ’s divine nature, while in 2 Corinthians 4:4, the reference to the "god of this world" uses nomina sacra to mark significance but does not imply equality with the true God.
In conclusion, the use of nomina sacra in manuscripts like Sinaiticus and Vaticanus for various terms like "God" or "god" does not negate the distinct theological affirmation of Jesus' deity in John 1:1. The textual tradition and the broader theological context both support the understanding that the Logos is fully divine, partaking in the essence of God, while maintaining distinction from the Father. This is in line with the doctrine of the Trinity, not in contradiction to it. The evidence of nomina sacra does not undermine the understanding of Christ's deity, but rather confirms the sacred regard for terms referring to God in various contexts.
@slimboyfat

Francis Moloney's interpretation of John 1:1, while respected in academic discussions, can be misused or misunderstood in broader theological debates. It’s true that John 1:1 distinguishes between the Word and God in the phrase "the Word was with [the] God" (Greek: pros ton theon). This distinction emphasizes the relationship between the Word (identified as Jesus Christ in John 1:14) and God. However, the second part of the verse—"and the Word was God" (Greek: kai theos ēn ho logos)—equally affirms the Word's divine nature. The key point is that John is presenting the Word as fully divine, but distinct in person from God the Father.
In the Greek text, the lack of the definite article before "God" (theos) in the second clause (kai theos ēn ho logos) indicates that the Word shares in the divine essence but is not the same person as the Father. This is an essential nuance in Trinitarian theology: the Father and the Word (the Son) are distinct persons, but they share the same divine essence.
The phrase “the Word was God” directly supports the full divinity of the Word, not a mere association or divine quality. The Word is not presented as a separate lesser deity or being, but rather as fully God, co-existing eternally with the Father. This aligns with traditional Christian teaching that the Father, Son (the Word), and Holy Spirit are distinct persons but one in essence (the doctrine of the Trinity).
The argument that the Bible writers did not know of the Trinity and that Trinitarians retroactively imposed a new definition on terms like "God the Father" ignores the development of theological understanding over time. The New Testament writers often used terms like "God" and "Father" with specific references in mind. For example, when the term "God" is used without further specification, it often refers to God the Father, but this does not deny the deity of the Son or the Holy Spirit.
John 1:1, for example, does not collapse the identity of the Word into the Father but affirms the deity of the Word while maintaining the personal distinction. This distinction is foundational for the later articulation of the Trinity doctrine, but it is grounded in the biblical text itself. The New Testament is filled with passages that point to the deity of Christ (John 20:28, Colossians 2:9, Hebrews 1:8), alongside the deity of the Father and the Spirit (Acts 5:3-4).
John's Gospel clearly distinguishes the Word from God the Father, but this distinction does not imply that the Word is not God. It affirms the coexistence and unity of the Word with the Father, a unity that is explained by the doctrine of the Trinity. John 1:1 maintains a careful balance: the Word is distinct in person from the Father (hence, "with [the] God") but fully shares in the divine nature (hence, "was God").
When you argue that "God" means only the Father, and therefore, the Word is excluded from deity, you overlook the full scope of biblical revelation. John consistently portrays Jesus not only as distinct from the Father but also as fully divine. For example:
- John 10:30: "I and the Father are one."
- John 20:28: "Thomas answered him, 'My Lord and my God!'"
- Colossians 1:19: "For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell."
The claim that the Trinity is “a later imposition” on Scripture is also unfounded. The Church Fathers did not invent the Trinity doctrine out of thin air; rather, they sought to systematize and articulate what was already present in Scripture. The term "Trinity" is not found in the Bible, but the reality it describes—the triune nature of God—is clearly reflected in the New Testament. Early Christians, including the Apostles, were confronted with the reality of Jesus' deity, the Father’s deity, and the presence of the Holy Spirit, leading them to formulate the doctrine over time. Moreover, the Bible contains many passages where all three persons of the Trinity are presented in unity:
- Matthew 28:19: "Baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."
- 2 Corinthians 13:14: "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all."
These passages support the co-equality and co-eternality of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, which are foundational to the doctrine of the Trinity.

You fail to account for the biblical evidence that supports both the distinction of persons within the Godhead and the shared divine nature of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. John 1:1 does not deny the deity of the Word but affirms it, while maintaining a personal distinction from the Father. The Trinity doctrine is not "a later imposition" but a faithful interpretation of the biblical revelation of God as triune.
@peacefulpete
Philo of Alexandria, a Jewish philosopher, did indeed distinguish between "The Most High God" (El Elyon) and the "Logos," which he viewed as an intermediary figure. However, Philo’s conception of the Logos is heavily influenced by Greek philosophical categories and is not equivalent to the Christian understanding of the Logos (Word) as presented in the New Testament, particularly in John 1:1–14. While Philo saw the Logos as a created intermediary between God and the world, Christianity, particularly from the time of the Nicene Creed, has firmly rejected this subordinationist view.
John 1:1 states unequivocally, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." This verse does not present the Logos (Jesus) as a lesser deity or intermediary but rather as fully and eternally divine. The Nicene Creed affirms that the Son is "consubstantial" (homoousios) with the Father, meaning of the same essence. Thus, Philo's view of the Logos is incompatible with Christian orthodoxy.
The claim that "God the Father" and "God" are synonymous and interchangeable in Scripture is an oversimplification that overlooks the Trinitarian context of the New Testament. While it is true that in many instances "God" refers to the Father (e.g., 1 Corinthians 8:6), this does not negate the fact that the Son and the Holy Spirit are equally "God" in Christian theology. The early Church Fathers, particularly at Nicaea, were clear that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct persons, yet they share the same divine nature.
Matthew 28:19 commands baptism "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit," putting the three persons on equal footing. The Nicene Creed reflects this understanding by stating that the Son is "begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father." This means that the Son is not a separate or lesser god, but shares in the fullness of deity with the Father.
The idea that some ancient traditions viewed Yahweh as subordinate to El Elyon (The Most High) is rooted in speculative interpretations of early Hebrew texts. This theory often emerges from a misunderstanding of passages like Deuteronomy 32:8-9, where Yahweh is seen as receiving his inheritance from the Most High. However, within the broader biblical canon, especially in the prophetic and wisdom literature, Yahweh is clearly identified as the Most High God, Creator, and Sovereign of all (see Isaiah 45:5-7, Psalm 83:18).
The New Testament explicitly identifies Jesus with Yahweh. For example, Philippians 2:9-11 quotes Isaiah 45:23, a passage about Yahweh, and applies it directly to Jesus. This demonstrates that Jesus, the Son, is fully and completely identified with the God of Israel, who is Yahweh, the one true God.
The Nicene Creed formalized the belief that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are co-equal and co-eternal. The creed was not an innovation but a formal recognition of what the early Church had always believed: that Jesus, the Logos, is fully God, as is the Holy Spirit, and that the three persons are united in one divine essence. Any interpretation that tries to subordinate Jesus or the Holy Spirit to the Father or present them as separate gods contradicts this fundamental doctrine. The creed states:
"We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth... And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds... very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father..."
This confession affirms that the Son is of the same divine essence as the Father, not a created being or inferior entity. While Philo's philosophical ideas about the Logos are historically interesting, they do not align with the Christian doctrine of the Trinity as revealed in Scripture and affirmed by the Nicene Creed. The Bible, particularly in the New Testament, makes clear that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all fully God, distinct in personhood but united in essence. The idea that Yahweh is a "subordinate" to El Elyon or that Jesus is a lesser deity is inconsistent with the clear biblical testimony and the Church's historic understanding of the nature of God.
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

Psalm 37:29 states, “The righteous shall inherit the earth, and dwell upon it forever.” While this is a powerful verse, it is part of a broader poetic expression within the Psalms about the blessings of the righteous in contrast to the fate of the wicked. The term "inherit the earth" is echoed in Matthew 5:5 ("Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth"), spoken by Jesus during the Sermon on the Mount. In both cases, the term “inherit the earth” refers more to the concept of God's people receiving blessings from God, including the earth as part of God's creation, rather than the exclusion of a heavenly hope for the righteous.
Matthew 5:5, which is part of the beatitudes of the Sermon on the Mount, is often quoted by JWs, but is Christ really introducing the concept of a secondary salvation "class" here? "Blessed are... for they..." is said nine times here, do they all refer to different "classes"? And if "the meek" really refers to an alleged "earthly class", then is Christ part of this "class" Himself too, since He calls Himself “meek” in Matthew 11:29? Or if the "paradise" in the Bible denotes the earthly inheritance of a secondary salvation "class", then why does Christ say to the thief that he will be "with him" in Luke 23:43?
The Hebrew word for "earth" (אֶרֶץ eretz) can refer both to the literal land and to a broader notion of territory or blessing. It doesn't automatically imply that all of the righteous will only live on earth and never enter heaven. In the larger biblical narrative, the final hope for believers includes a "new heavens and a new earth" (Isaiah 65:17, Revelation 21:1). This new creation is a harmonized union of both heaven and earth under God's perfect reign.
Revelation 21:1-3 presents a vision of "a new heaven and a new earth," where God dwells with His people, and this heavenly Jerusalem descends to earth. The key point here is not that believers are divided into two separate classes (those in heaven and those on earth), but that God's ultimate plan is the unification of heaven and earth. In this new creation, all believers—those who are "righteous" and have placed their faith in Christ—share in eternal life with God, wherever He dwells.
167
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

@Rattigan350
You suggest that the earliest Christian beliefs, as recorded in Acts, didn't include the deity of Jesus, pointing to passages where Jesus is distinct from God the Father, such as Stephen's vision of Jesus at God’s right hand (Acts 7:56) and Peter’s sermon (Acts 2), where God raises Jesus. However, this interpretation misunderstands the full theological picture, particularly how early Christians understood the relationship between Jesus and God.
The claim that John’s Gospel, written 65 years after Jesus’ death, introduces “new” theology that contradicts Acts misunderstands early Christian Christology. The deity of Jesus is not invented later. While it’s true that different writings emphasize various aspects of Jesus’ identity, early Christian preaching, especially in Acts, reveals the early belief in the pre-existence and exaltation of Jesus. For example Acts 7:56 shows Jesus in a position of supreme authority at the right hand of God, a reference to Psalm 110, which is understood in early Christianity to affirm Jesus’ unique status alongside God. This doesn’t deny His deity but affirms His unique role in salvation history.
The idea that John’s Prologue emphasizes “only” the pre-existence of the Word (Jesus) and not His deity also doesn’t hold. The term “Logos” and the opening of the Gospel (“the Word was God”) points directly to the fully divine nature of Christ, not merely His pre-existence. The distinction between the Father and the Son is consistent with Trinitarian theology, where Jesus is distinct in person but one in essence with God.
It’s a mistake to say Acts denies Jesus’ deity. While Acts often emphasizes Jesus’ resurrection and the Father raising Him from the dead, this fits into the overall New Testament framework that sees Jesus as both fully divine and fully human. The resurrection doesn’t negate Jesus’ deity but shows His authority over life and death, affirming His divine power.
The claim that “The Word became flesh” in John 1:14 means that only the Word, and not God, became flesh is also incorrect. The phrase doesn’t imply that the Word is separate from God; rather, it affirms that the divine Logos took on human nature in the person of Jesus Christ. This is the foundational doctrine of the Incarnation in Christian theology, where God became man.
Early Christian writings, including Paul’s letters and hymns, already reflect a high Christology, acknowledging Jesus’ pre-existence and divine role in creation (see Philippians 2:6-11, Colossians 1:15-20). This isn’t an invention of later theology but a consistent witness across the New Testament, showing the early belief in Jesus' deity.
In summary, the argument misinterprets both the texts of Acts and John, and misunderstands how early Christians understood Jesus as both distinct from the Father and yet fully divine, an understanding that becomes more explicit in John but is not a contradiction of earlier writings.
@Wonderment
You claim that John 1:1 shares the same grammatical structure as John 4:19 and Acts 28:4, where the predicate noun precedes the verb. However, in Koine Greek, the construction in John 1:1c, "theos en ho logos", involves a crucial difference: the anarthrous predicate nominative precedes the verb, which significantly alters its grammatical function. Colwell’s Rule demonstrates that an anarthrous predicate nominative placed before the verb typically emphasizes a qualitative sense rather than definiteness or indefiniteness. The context is also very important, as John 1:1 is found in the prologue of the Gospel, while the other examples are in everyday conversations. Furthermore, it is clear that from a prophet, an Israelite, etc. there are more, but there is only one God, and thus "Logos" can only be "theos" if and only if He is one God is with "the God" (i.e. the Fathere), since it is a monadic term.
In the case of theos en ho logos ("the Word was God"), the absence of the article is not meant to suggest indefiniteness (i.e., "a god") but rather to emphasize the divine nature of the Word. This is a qualitative construction that underscores the Word’s full participation in divinity.
You suggest that the Coptic rendering of "a god" in John 1:1 can be interpreted qualitatively, but this is a misunderstanding. In Coptic, as in Greek, the indefinite article does not automatically imply a qualitative sense, and the context here in John's Gospel points toward a qualitative rather than indefinite understanding of theos. The qualitative rendering emphasizes that the Logos fully shares in the divine nature, without implying that the Word is "a (lesser) god" among many.
Your argument against Colwell’s Rule overlooks its continued relevance in Koine Greek syntax. Colwell’s Rule has been applied to John 1:1c precisely because of its specific construction. Many modern scholars, including Wallace and Harner, have emphasized the qualitative nature of theos in John 1:1c, affirming that it refers to the deity of the Word without confusing the Word with the Father. They reject both an indefinite reading ("a god") and a definite reading ("the God").
You state that because the Word was "with" (the) God in John 1:2, the Word cannot be God. However, Trinitarian theology affirms that the Father and the Son are distinct persons who share the same divine essence. Being "with" God (the Father) does not imply that the Logos is a separate or lesser god. Instead, it reflects the personal distinction within the Godhead, while maintaining the full divinity of the Word.
You argue that John’s Gospel does not indicate that Christ is at the same level as God. However, throughout John’s Gospel, Jesus is presented as possessing divine attributes (see John 1:3, John 5:23, John 8:58), and His identification as the "Son of God" in no way diminishes His full divinity. The term "Son of God" within the Johannine context emphasizes His unique relationship with the Father, not subordination in essence.
In conclusion, the structure of John 1:1c and its theological context clearly point toward a qualitative reading that affirms the full divinity of the Logos. Attempts to translate it as "a god" misunderstand the Greek syntax and introduce theological confusion inconsistent with John’s monotheistic framework.