Posts by aqwsed12345

posted

1
Even the CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA got it wrong about JW's!
by BoogerMan in
1. watchtower
2. bible
w12 3/1 p. 4 “remain in my word” - "regarding jehovah’s witnesses, the new catholic encyclopedia states: “they regard the bible as their only source of belief and rule of conduct.”" .

time for a revised new catholic encyclopedia to include, "and their g.b.".

w12 4/1 p. 3 in search of answers - "is there one reliable source of information that can give authoritative answers to our questions about jesus?
aqwsed12345

New Catholic Encyclopedia
JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES
A sect, originally called Russellites, founded in the early 1870s by Charles Taze RUSSELL. In 1931 the title Jehovah’s Witnesses was proclaimed by Joseph F. RUTHERFORD, the second president of their legal corporation, the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, at their convention in Columbus, Ohio.
‘‘Judge’’ Rutherford introduced important changes in the Witnesses’ creed and transformed the congregational structure of the sect as it was under ‘‘Pastor’’ Russell into a rigid theocracy. The third leader, ‘‘Brother’’ Nathan H. Knorr, gradually replaced the offensive convert-making tactics of the Rutherford era by suave manners that have gained the Witnesses their current reputation as one of the best-behaved groups in the world. In legal battles that they have often carried to the highest courts of many free countries—and by appealing to freedom of speech and religion—they have acquired the right to exercise their proselytism without interference. They hold that other religions and worldly power are the devil’s instruments in keeping people away from the Truth.
Doctrine. According to Witness doctrine, there is but one God, and since 1931 they have insisted that He should be called Jehovah (Ex 3:15; Is 42:8). They condemn the Trinity as pagan idolatry and accordingly deny Christ’s divinity.
They consider Jesus as the greatest of Jehovah’s Witnesses, ‘‘a god’’ (so they translate John 1:1), inferior to no one but to Jehovah. Before existing as a human being, he was a spirit creature called the Logos, or Word, or Michael the Archangel. He died as a man and was raised as an immortal spirit Son. His Passion and death were the price he paid to regain for humanity the right to live eternally on earth. Indeed, the ‘‘great multitude’’ (Rev 7.9) of true Witnesses hope in an earthly Paradise; only 144,000 faithful (Rev 7:4; 14:1, 4) may enjoy heavenly glory with Christ. The wicked will undergo complete destruction.
Russell had announced that Armageddon—the ﬁnal clash between the forces of good and evil—could not happen later than 1914. From 1920 on Rutherford proclaimed that ‘‘millions now living will never die’’; he also expected the princes of old, Abraham, Isaac, and the others, to come back to life by 1925 as rulers over the New World. The Watch Tower Society of the mid-20th century no longer speciﬁed an exact date; but it repeated that ‘‘this generation will by no means pass away until all things occur’’ (Lk 21:32). Thus, Witnesses are deeply convinced that the end of the world will come within a very few years. This vivid belief appears to be the strongest driving force behind their indefatigable zeal.
Way of Life. The fundamental obligation of each member of the sect is to give witness to Jehovah by announcing His approaching Kingdom. He may do this by door-to-door calling, by meeting with others for home Bible studies, or by standing at street corners to display Watch Tower literature. Preaching the good news is the only means of salvation. Baptism—which Witnesses practice by immersion and usually in mass demonstrations—is in no way a Sacrament but only the exterior symbol of their dedication to the service of Jehovah God.
Jehovah’s Witnesses have attracted publicity by refusing blood transfusions even when it meant death to themselves or to their children. Except for birth control, which they leave to the couple’s own decision, their conjugal and sexual morality is quite rigid. They abide by taboos such as those against smoking and the celebration of any kind of feast.
They regard the Bible as their only source of belief and rule of conduct, but the Witnesses’ Bible aids are apparently used more abundantly than the Bible itself. They are allowed no other books than the Bible and the society’s own publications, which includes its own translation of the Bible with an impressive critical apparatus. The work is excellent except when scientiﬁc knowledge comes into conﬂict with the accepted doctrines of the movement. In their so-called New World Translation, the term Kyrios is rendered Jehovah instead of Lord everywhere in the New Testament (237 times) except at Philippians 2:11, where St. Paul refers the word to Christ. In their book Jesus’ words at the Last Supper become: ‘‘Take, eat. This means my body’’ (Mt 26:26). And they add but one word to the phrases of Col 1:16–17: ‘‘By means of him [Christ Jesus] all other things were created in the heavens and upon the earth. . . . All other things have been created through him and for him. Also he is before all other things and by means of him all other things were made to exist.’’
The rate of growth of the movement reached a peak in the late 1930s, when membership increased almost 25 percent annually: from 1938 to 1942 it grew from less than 50,000 to more than 100,000. Since then, growth has slowed somewhat.
Bibliography: Sources. Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures (rev. ed. Brooklyn 1961); Let God Be True (rev. ed. Brooklyn 1952), 18,900,000 copies in 54 languages; From Paradise Lost to Paradise Regained (Brooklyn 1958). Yearbook of Jehovah’s Witnesses (1926–). The Watchtower (1879–), pub. semi-monthly or monthly in 68 languages; Awake! (Brooklyn 1919–), pub. semi-monthly or monthly in 26 languages. Literature. H. H. STROUP, The Jehovah’s Witnesses (New York 1945). W. J. WHALEN, Armageddon Around the Corner: A Report on Jehovah’s Witnesses (New York 1962). G. HÉBERT, Les Témoins de Jéhovah: Essai critique d’histoire et de doctrine (Montréal 1960).
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 presents a complex and interesting array of ideas, drawing on sources like Philo, the Ascension of Isaiah, and other Jewish and early Christian traditions to argue that the concept of the Logos or "second power" was prevalent in Second Temple Judaism and provided the foundation for later Christian ideas about Christ. Philo's understanding of the Logos as an intermediary is an important point of discussion, but it must be noted that Philo's Logos is fundamentally different from the Christian Logos. Philo saw the Logos as a mediating principle, not as a person who could incarnate. The Logos in Philo’s system is more of an abstract concept, an impersonal force through which God interacts with the world. It is not fully divine in the same sense that the Christian Logos is, nor does Philo's Logos ever take on human form.
In contrast, the Christian understanding of the Logos, particularly as articulated in John 1:1-14, is that the Logos is both fully divine and fully personal. The Logos "was with [the] God, and the Logos was God" (John 1:1). This Logos became incarnate in the person of Jesus Christ (John 1:14), which is a significant departure from Philo's abstract and impersonal Logos. For Christians, the Logos is not merely an emanation or intermediary but is fully God, co-equal and co-eternal with the Father, capable of becoming flesh and dwelling among humans.
You mention that various Jewish traditions, including the "second power" concept, influenced early Christian thought. While it is true that some Jews, particularly those influenced by Hellenistic thought, explored ideas about intermediaries or emanations, this should not be confused with the Christian doctrine of the Trinity or the divinity of Christ.
The "second power" traditions were often speculative and did not have the same theological weight as later Christian formulations. For example, the "Angel (Messenger) of the Lord" or "Wisdom" in Jewish texts is not equated with full divinity as Christians understand the relationship between the Father and the Son. The early Christian identification of Jesus with the Logos and the Son of God went beyond these Jewish ideas, asserting that Jesus is not just an intermediary but shares in the full divine nature of the one true God.
Additionally, the concept of a "second power" was eventually condemned within mainstream Judaism as heretical, particularly by figures like Rabbi Akiva in the 2nd century. This shows that while some Jewish sects may have speculated about intermediary beings, these ideas were not universally accepted and were later rejected as incompatible with strict monotheism.
Your argument suggests that early Christians viewed Jesus as an emanation of God, similar to figures like the Logos or Wisdom in Jewish thought. However, the Christian doctrine of the incarnation is fundamentally different from the idea of emanation.
In Neoplatonic or Gnostic thought, emanations are usually understood as lower, derived beings that come forth from a higher source. These emanations are often imperfect copies of the original and are not co-equal with the divine source. In contrast, the Christian understanding of the incarnation, as developed in the New Testament and by the early Church Fathers, is that Jesus, the Logos, is not a lower or derivative being but fully God. The Logos does not emanate from the Father in a way that diminishes its divinity; rather, the Logos is eternally begotten, meaning that the Son is of the same divine essence as the Father and not a subordinate or lesser being.
The doctrine of the Trinity further clarifies that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct persons but share the same divine essence. This is not an emanationist framework, where the Son or Spirit is seen as a lower or created being. Instead, it emphasizes the full equality and unity of the three persons in the one Godhead.
The Ascension of Isaiah is an interesting text that provides insight into early Christian apocalyptic thought, but it is important to recognize that this text is not representative of mainstream Christian theology. The Ascension of Isaiah contains elements of mysticism and symbolism that were not adopted into the canonical New Testament writings. While it reflects early Christian interest in heavenly journeys and the interaction between heavenly beings, its portrayal of Christ's descent through the heavens is highly symbolic and should not be taken as a literal account of Christian beliefs about Christ's nature.
The New Testament, particularly the Gospels and Pauline epistles, presents a much more grounded and historical understanding of Christ's life, death, and resurrection. The focus is on Jesus' historical actions and their salvific significance, rather than on mystical or esoteric journeys through the heavens. The Ascension of Isaiah represents a more fringe theological tradition that did not shape the core doctrines of Christianity as articulated by the early Church Fathers and the ecumenical councils.
Your argument suggests that worship of the Logos as God in early Christianity was influenced by Hellenistic Jewish thought and that this does not necessarily imply polytheism. While it is true that early Christians, including Justin Martyr, spoke of the Logos in terms that would have been familiar to Hellenistic Jews, it is important to emphasize that this worship was monotheistic.
The early Christians worshiped Jesus as the incarnate Logos, fully divine and fully one with the Father. This was not seen as polytheism because Christians affirmed that Jesus shares the same divine essence as the Father. The doctrine of the Trinity later formalized this understanding, ensuring that the Christian belief in one God was maintained even while affirming the distinct persons of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
In conclusion, while your argument raises some interesting points about the influence of Jewish and Hellenistic thought on early Christian theology, it ultimately misrepresents the core Christian understanding of the Logos and the Trinity. The Christian Logos is not an emanation or lower deity, but fully God, co-equal with the Father and the Holy Spirit. The doctrine of the Trinity, far from being a departure from monotheism, is a deepening of the understanding of God's nature as revealed in Jesus Christ. This belief is firmly rooted in the New Testament and the early Church's reflection on the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.
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 assertion that there is "no misunderstanding" of the qualitative force of theos in John 1:1c needs further examination. Qualitativeness in Greek grammar, especially in John 1:1c, signifies that theos describes the nature or essence of the Word—expressing full divinity without introducing a secondary, lesser god. The NWT's rendering of "a god" misses this point, implying an inferior deity rather than the full divine nature John was emphasizing. The qualitative meaning here shows that the Word shares in the essence of deity, not as a second god, but in unity with the Father.
the NWT's translation "a god" is theologically problematic because it implies the existence of more than one divine being, which contradicts the strict monotheism found in both the Old and New Testaments (e.g., Deuteronomy 6:4, Isaiah 43:10). The traditional translation, "the Word was God," does not introduce the idea of multiple gods but affirms that the Word shares in the same divine nature as the Father. Saying "a god" introduces theological confusion by creating the possibility of subordination or henotheism—an idea John did not intend to convey.
The claim that Trinitarianism is "rooted in Neo-Platonism" oversimplifies the historical development of Christian theology. While some early Church Fathers employed philosophical terminology to explain theological doctrines, the concept of the Trinity is based on biblical texts such as John 1:1, Philippians 2:6-11, and Colossians 1:15-20, which reveal Christ’s divine identity. The Nicene Creed affirmed that the Son shares the same divine essence as the Father, and this was not merely "a product of Greek philosophy" but a reflection of the Church's scriptural understanding of Jesus' deity. The homoousios ("same essence") of the Nicene Creed encapsulates this understanding of Christ’s full divinity and eternal nature.
The assertion that Trinitarianism represents a "great apostasy" and "stems from paganism", as propounded by Alexander Hislop's Two Babylons, has been widely debunked by both historical and theological scholars. Hislop's thesis was based on selective and often misinterpreted historical evidence, and reputable scholarship no longer supports his conclusions. The development of the doctrine of the Trinity was a response to various heresies and was deeply rooted in scriptural exegesis. It was not a pagan "invention", but a theological clarification aimed at safeguarding the Church's teaching on Christ's true nature. Early Christian writings such as those by Athanasius and the Cappadocian Fathers directly counter Arianism and defend the full divinity of the Son, indicating a continuity with the apostolic faith rather than a deviation. FYI: Did the Trinity Come from Paganism?
You referenced Daniel B. Wallace’s view on theos in John 1:1c. Wallace’s work emphasizes the qualitative nature of theos in this context, affirming that the Word shares fully in the divine essence without implying henotheism or a lesser deity. Wallace’s rejection of the NWT rendering "a god" is based on his understanding that the qualitative theos emphasizes the nature of the Word as divine. By contrast, the NWT introduces theological ambiguity by suggesting that the Word is a separate, subordinate god—a view that contradicts both Wallace’s interpretation and the broader context of John’s Gospel, which emphasizes the unity and full divinity of the Word.
In conclusion, the NWT’s translation "a god" introduces unnecessary theological confusion by suggesting a subordinationist or henotheistic framework inconsistent with the monotheistic message of both the Old and New Testaments. The qualitative rendering, "the Word was God," properly reflects the nature of the Word as fully divine without implying a second, lesser god. This is the most accurate translation in line with the intent of John's Gospel and the monotheism of early Christianity.
By addressing these points, the argument that the NWT rendering is "superior" falls apart under scrutiny, revealing theological misinterpretations and inconsistencies with both the biblical and historical understanding of Christ's deity.
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
I would like to clarify both the context of Justin's writing and the broader theological implications of his thought. In Dialogue with Trypho 56, Justin writes about Christ as "another god and lord subject to the Maker of all things," using the Greek term hupo (ὑπό), which you correctly translate as "under" or "subject." However, Justin's use of the term "subject" does not imply that Christ is ontologically inferior or a created being. Instead, this language reflects the relational distinction between the Father and the Son in terms of their roles within the Godhead, which is consistent with early Trinitarian thought.
In the broader context of Justin's writings, Christ is clearly recognized as divine and shares the same essence as the Father. Justin frequently affirms that Christ is "God" (Theos) and is worshipped alongside the Father, which indicates a high Christology. For example, in First Apology 63, Justin explicitly calls Christ "God" and affirms that He is begotten from the Father before all creation. He also uses the analogy of fire to describe the relationship between the Father and the Son, noting that just as one flame kindled from another does not diminish the original, so the Son shares fully in the divine essence without diminishing the Father's deity.
The key distinction that must be made here is between subordination of role and subordination of essence. Justin is not implying that the Son is of a different or lesser essence than the Father. Instead, he is describing the Son’s functional subordination in His role as the mediator and messenger (angelos, or messenger, in Greek) between God and humanity. This functional subordination reflects the economy of salvation, where the Son voluntarily takes on a role of submission to the Father's will for the purpose of redeeming humanity (see Philippians 2:6-8).
In this sense, hupo does not imply ontological inferiority but refers to the Son's role in the divine mission. The early Church Fathers, including Justin, maintained the distinction between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in terms of their roles while upholding their ontological unity as one God. The Son's role as the "Messenger of the Lord" in Old Testament theophanies (as described by Justin) highlights His role as the divine messenger but does not diminish His deity.
Justin's Dialogue with Trypho is an apologetic work aimed at a Jewish audience, and part of his strategy is to demonstrate that the Logos (the Word) of God, who is Christ, appeared in the Old Testament as the divine messenger. When Justin refers to Christ as "another god and lord," he is engaging with Jewish monotheism, which rejected the idea of the Son's deity. By using this language, Justin is emphasizing both the distinction of persons within the Godhead and the unity of essence.
While Justin uses the term "another god," this must be understood in light of his broader theology. He is not introducing polytheism or suggesting that the Son is a lesser deity. Instead, he is using relational language to describe the distinction between the Father and the Son. This is consistent with early Trinitarian thought, where the Father and the Son are distinct in personhood but united in essence.
Justin Martyr frequently affirms Christ's full divinity. For instance, in Dialogue with Trypho 128, Justin states that the Son is "begotten from the Father" and is "God," sharing in the divine essence. He describes Christ as the "first-begotten Word of God," and explicitly affirms that the Son is worthy of worship, which would be blasphemous if Christ were merely a subordinate or created being.
Furthermore, Justin's analogy of fire from fire, mentioned earlier, demonstrates that he understood the Son to share fully in the divine nature of the Father. This analogy was later echoed in Nicene Trinitarian theology to affirm the co-equality of the Father and the Son in essence, even as they are distinct in personhood.
While Justin Martyr uses the language of subordination in describing the relationship between the Father and the Son, it is important to recognize that this subordination pertains to role and mission, not essence. Justin clearly affirms that Christ is divine, begotten from the Father before all creation, and worthy of worship. His use of hupo in Dialogue with Trypho 56 does not imply that Christ is a lesser god or a created being but reflects the early Christian understanding of the relational distinction within the Trinity.
Justin's theology lays the groundwork for what would later be fully articulated in the Nicene Creed: that Christ is "begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father." This understanding is consistent with Justin's teaching, and his use of relational language should not be misconstrued as an argument for ontological subordination. Therefore, Justin's description of Christ as "another god" must be understood in the context of Trinitarian theology, where the Father and the Son are distinct in personhood but fully united in essence.
FYI: Did Constantine Invent the Trinity?
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

@slimboyfat
Your interpretation of Justin Martyr’s First Apology 6, particularly the phrases "who came forth from Him" and "the other good angels," requires a careful examination of Justin’s overall theology, as well as the precise language he uses.
The phrase “came forth from Him” does not necessarily imply that Justin considered the Son to be a created being. In fact, Justin’s usage of such language needs to be understood within the framework of his broader Christology, where he repeatedly refers to the Son as begotten, not made. For instance, in Dialogue with Trypho 128, Justin explicitly states that Christ was "begotten" from the Father before all creation. This language reflects the early Christian understanding of the eternal generation of the Son, a concept that was further developed in later Trinitarian theology but is still present in Justin's thought. The Son’s origin from the Father is not an act of creation but an eternal relationship, distinguishing Him from created beings like the angels.
To further illustrate this, in Dialogue with Trypho 61, Justin compares the begetting of the Son to the way in which one fire kindles another without diminishing the first fire. This analogy shows that Justin understood the Son to be of the same divine nature as the Father, not a lesser or created being. The Son “comes forth” from the Father in an eternal, non-temporal sense, as the radiance from a source, not as a creature distinct in essence.
The phrase "the other good angels" might seem to equate Jesus with the angels, but this interpretation does not align with Justin's full teaching. In First Apology 63, Justin makes it clear that the Son is worshiped and called “God,” affirming His divine status far above that of the angels. Additionally, Justin explicitly states that the Son is distinct from created beings, which includes angels: "This Offspring, which was truly brought forth from the Father, was with the Father before all the creatures" (Dialogue with Trypho 62). Here, Justin emphasizes that the Son was with the Father before any creation, including angels, which clearly sets Jesus apart from them.
When Justin refers to Christ as an "ángelos" in some contexts, he is using the term in its literal Greek sense, meaning "messenger," rather than suggesting that Christ is an angelic being like those who were created. He uses this title to emphasize Christ’s role in revealing God’s will to humanity, especially in Old Testament theophanies (appearances of God). However, Justin always maintains the Son's unique divine status, as seen in his description of the Son as "God" and "Lord" in Dialogue with Trypho 128.
Justin sometimes calls the Son an "angel" (Greek: ἄγγελος, which means "messenger") to highlight His role in God's revelation to humanity, particularly in the Old Testament. For example, in Dialogue with Trypho 60-61, Justin identifies the figure who appeared to Moses in the burning bush as both "God" and "Angel," which is consistent with Christian belief that the pre-incarnate Christ appeared in these Old Testament theophanies. However, Justin does not mean that Christ is a created angel like Gabriel or Michael. Rather, he uses the term “ángelos” to describe Christ's function as a divine messenger. This usage of "angel" does not imply that Christ is a creature but emphasizes His role in delivering God’s message, while His nature remains fully divine.
Justin makes it clear throughout his works that Christ is distinct from and superior to the angels. For example, in Dialogue with Trypho 56, Justin uses Psalm 45:6 ("Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever") to argue that Christ is God and worthy of worship, which clearly places Him above the angels. Additionally, in Dialogue with Trypho 128, Justin explains that the Son shares in the Father’s divine nature and is distinct from the created order, which includes angels.
The phrase “other good angels” in First Apology 6 does not mean that Jesus is simply one among many angels. Rather, it reflects Justin’s understanding of the hierarchy within the divine and created order. Christ, as the Logos, is pre-eminent and divine, while the "other good angels" are part of the created order, subordinate to Him. Justin’s worship of Christ, alongside the Father and the Spirit (First Apology 13), further demonstrates that he did not consider Christ to be merely an angelic being but fully divine and worthy of worship.
Justin explicitly identifies Christ as God on numerous occasions. In First Apology 63, he states: "The Father of the universe has a Son, who also, being the first-begotten Word of God, is even God." This statement affirms that Justin viewed Jesus as fully divine, not a mere created being. Additionally, Justin argues that Christ was involved in the creation of the world, another clear indication of His divine status (Dialogue with Trypho 61).
In conclusion, the claim that Justin Martyr viewed Jesus as a created angel or a being subordinate and inferior to God the Father, as the JWs teach, is not supported by the full context of his writings. While Justin occasionally uses the term “ángelos” to describe Christ’s role as a divine messenger, he consistently affirms the Son’s deity and eternal relationship with the Father. Justin’s Christology is far more compatible with later Trinitarian theology than with the Arian or JW view that Christ is a created being.
@Earnest
Justin Martyr does indeed refer to Christ using terms like "angel" and "god", but it is crucial to understand how he uses these terms. In Greek, the word "angelos" simply means "messenger," and Justin's use of the term is not to suggest that Christ is ontologically a created angel or a lesser deity, but rather to emphasize His role as the divine messenger of God to humanity. Justin specifically says in Dialogue with Trypho that Christ is the "Angel of the Lord" who appeared to figures such as Abraham and Moses, but he clarifies that this is the pre-incarnate Christ, who is the divine Son of God, not a created being.
When Justin refers to Christ as "god" (or "another god"), it is important to remember that he is engaging with a pagan and Jewish audience who would have understood "god" in various ways. Justin uses "god" in the sense of one who possesses divine authority and essence, but always in the context of the strict monotheism that he held. He makes it clear that Jesus is distinct from the Father but shares in the same divine nature. As you rightly noted, Justin says that Christ is "not the God above whom there is no other god" (Dialogue with Trypho 56), but this does not imply subordination in essence. Instead, it reflects the distinct persons within the Godhead, a concept that would later be formally articulated in Trinitarian theology.
You suggest that Justin's Christology does not align with later Trinitarian formulations and that he saw Jesus as a subordinate god. However, this is a misreading of Justin's overall theology. While it is true that Justin lived in the second century and did not use the technical language of the Nicene Creed, his writings clearly lay the groundwork for what would become orthodox Trinitarian doctrine. For example, Justin consistently affirms that Jesus is the "only-begotten Son" and "the Word of God" who is "even God" (First Apology 63). He refers to the relationship between the Father and the Son as one of "begetting," not creation, and uses the analogy of fire from fire to emphasize that the Son is fully divine and shares the same essence as the Father.
Justin's theology reflects the early Christian struggle to articulate the relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in a way that is faithful to Scripture. While he may not have used the precise language of later Trinitarian theologians, the key elements of Trinitarian thought—one God in three persons, with the Son sharing the same divine essence as the Father—are present in his writings. To suggest that Justin believed in a subordinationist view of Christ is to ignore these foundational ideas.
In Dialogue with Trypho, Justin is primarily engaging with a Jewish audience that rejected the deity of Christ. His argument is focused on showing that Christ, the "Angel of the Lord" who appeared in Old Testament theophanies, is indeed divine. When Justin refers to Christ as "another god," he is not introducing polytheism or a subordinationist theology. Instead, he is emphasizing the distinction between the persons of the Father and the Son, which is a cornerstone of Trinitarian theology. Justin's language reflects the early Christian attempt to navigate Jewish monotheism while affirming the divinity of Christ.
Justin's writings do not support the idea that he saw Christ as a lesser or created being. In fact, he argues the opposite: Christ is eternal, pre-existent, and fully divine, sharing in the Father's essence. The use of terms like "angel" and "another god" in Dialogue with Trypho must be understood in their theological context, which points to a high Christology that anticipates the later development of the doctrine of the Trinity.
You noted that Justin does not directly reference the Gospel of John in Dialogue with Trypho, but his Logos Christology clearly reflects John's Prologue. Justin identifies Christ as the eternal Word (Logos) of God, who is "with [the] God" and "was God" (John 1:1). He emphasizes that the Logos is not a created being but is begotten of the Father and shares the Father's divine nature. This understanding aligns with the Johannine theology of Christ's pre-existence and divinity.
Justin's use of the term "monogenes" (only-begotten) also reflects John's Gospel (John 3:16), further indicating his familiarity with the Logos theology of the New Testament. While Justin may not explicitly cite John, his writings are steeped in the same theological framework that would later be formalized as part of orthodox Christian doctrine.
Justin Martyr's writings are an important bridge between the apostolic age and the later development of Trinitarian theology. While the full articulation of the Trinity would not come until the fourth century, Justin's work laid the foundation by affirming the divinity of Christ and His distinction from the Father. His use of language such as "another god" reflects the early Church's effort to explain the relationship between the Father and the Son within the context of strict monotheism.
In conclusion, Justin Martyr did not believe in a subordinationist or Arian Christology. His writings affirm the divinity of Christ, using language that anticipates later Trinitarian doctrine. The claim that Justin saw Christ as "another god" in a way that supports a non-Trinitarian theology is a misunderstanding of his work. Justin's theology is consistent with the Christian belief in one God in three persons, with the Father and the Son sharing the same divine essence.
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, based on the writings of Justin Martyr, hinges on the misrepresentation that Justin saw Christ merely as "another god" or a created angelic being. However, Justin's own writings, when considered in full context, contradict this assertion, showing that Justin recognized Jesus Christ as the fully divine Son of God, who was not merely a created being, but who shares in the divine nature. The claim that Justin referred to Jesus as "another god" or "an angel" is based on a misunderstanding of his use of these terms. Justin uses the terms "angel" and "apostle" to describe Jesus not in the sense of being a mere angelic or subordinate being, but to highlight his role as the messenger (Greek: angelos simply means "messenger") and representative of God. Justin explicitly clarifies that Jesus is the Son of God, and in several passages, he affirms that the Son is divine. In First Apology, Chapter 63, Justin writes:
"The Jews, accordingly, being throughout of opinion that it was the Father of the universe who spake to Moses, though He who spake to him was indeed the Son of God, who is called both Angel and Apostle, are justly charged, both by the Spirit of prophecy and by Christ Himself, with knowing neither the Father nor the Son."
Here, Justin is clear that the "Angel" who spoke to Moses was not a mere created being but the Son of God, who is also God. The term "angel" here does not imply an ontological subordination or creation but is used to denote Jesus' role as a divine messenger. Justin was engaging with Jewish critiques that identified the Father as the one speaking to Moses and correcting them by stating it was actually the pre-incarnate Christ who interacted with humanity in these Old Testament theophanies.
Justin makes it explicit that Jesus is divine and distinguishes him from mere angels or created beings. In Dialogue with Trypho, Justin identifies Jesus as the "only-begotten Son of the Father" and calls Him God: "The first-begotten Word of God, is even God" (First Apology, Chapter 63). This shows that Justin held a Trinitarian view, where the Father and the Son are distinct persons, but both are fully divine. This is far from the subordinationist or Arian-like theology that some try to project onto Justin.
Moreover, Justin’s theology was clearly progressing toward the Trinitarian theology formalized later. His understanding of Christ as fully divine refutes any suggestion that Justin believed Jesus to be a lesser, created god. He argues that the Son is God alongside the Father but distinct in personhood. This demonstrates a high Christology, not a belief in a "created" Christ as the JWs often claim.
The Watchtower Society often quotes early Church Fathers selectively, giving the impression that these figures supported Arian or subordinationist views, but this is a distortion of their teachings. As shown in the excerpt from Dialogue with Trypho and First Apology, Justin explicitly acknowledges Jesus as God, a view entirely incompatible with Arianism or the theology of the JWs. In fact, Justin argues that Jesus was worshipped alongside the Father, indicating that he did not view Jesus as a mere creature but as worthy of divine worship.
Justin's writings were aimed at refuting the Jewish view that denied the deity of the Son. He was arguing that Jesus, the Word of God, had always been present and active in the Old Testament as the one who appeared to figures like Moses. To interpret Justin’s statements about the Son as supporting Arianism or a lower Christology is to ignore the very purpose of his argument: to defend the deity of Christ against Jewish critiques.
In conclusion, Justin Martyr’s writings affirm that Jesus Christ is fully divine, not a mere created angel or subordinate god. While Justin uses the term "angel" (messenger), this term describes Jesus’ role in delivering the message of God, not his nature. Justin’s references to Jesus being "God" and his role in theophanies such as the burning bush underscore his belief that Jesus was indeed God, not a lesser being. The argument that Justin believed Jesus was "another god" or a created angel is not supported by the full context of his writings.
Thus, it is incorrect to claim that Justin's view aligns with Arian theology or the theology of the JWs. Justin recognized the pre-existent, divine nature of Christ and argued for his eternal relationship with the Father.
@peacefulpete
You suggest that Philo, Justin Martyr, and the writer of the Ascension of Isaiah held a belief in the Logos as an "emanation" of the Most High, and that this is fundamentally different from the Christian understanding of the Logos as fully God. However, this is a misunderstanding of early Christian theology. Philo of Alexandria, a Jewish philosopher, did indeed speak of the Logos as a kind of intermediary through which God interacts with the world. For Philo, the Logos was an abstract principle, a divine intermediary that did not possess full personhood or equality with God. Philo’s understanding of the Logos is more akin to a philosophical bridge between the transcendent God and the material world. It was not personal, and it certainly was not incarnate.
The Christian concept of the Logos, particularly in the Gospel of John (John 1:1-3, 14), is fundamentally different. John affirms that the Logos is not merely an emanation or intermediary, but fully personal and fully divine. "The Word was with God, and the Word was God" (John 1:1). This is not an emanation in the Neoplatonic sense but an ontological statement about the divine nature of Christ. Moreover, John emphasizes the incarnation—"The Word became flesh and dwelt among us" (John 1:14)—which is entirely absent from Philo’s conception. The Logos in Christianity is not an abstract intermediary; it is the eternal Son of God who took on human nature without ceasing to be fully divine.
While Justin Martyr uses the language of the Logos and defends the pre-existence of Christ, he does not depict the Logos as a mere emanation or lower divine being. In his Dialogue with Trypho, Justin affirms that the Logos is eternal, generated by the Father, and shares the same divine essence (οὐσία) as the Father. Justin’s analogy of fire from fire is crucial: just as one flame kindled from another does not diminish the original, so the Logos, eternally begotten from the Father, shares the same divine nature without being a separate or lesser deity. Justin’s understanding aligns with what later became formalized in the Nicene Creed, even though the specific term "Trinity" was not yet in use.
The claim that Philo’s Logos is fundamentally similar to the Christian Logos does not hold. While early Christian writers, including John and Justin, were influenced by Hellenistic thought, they significantly reinterpreted the concept of Logos in light of the revelation of Jesus Christ.
You mention that Gnostic branches of Christianity regarded themselves as monotheistic and that they were attracted to the concept of divine emanations. It’s important to differentiate mainstream Christian theology from Gnosticism, which was ultimately rejected by the early Church as heretical. Gnostic systems indeed posited multiple emanations (often referred to as aeons) from a singular divine source. These emanations were not seen as co-equal with the source but were increasingly imperfect as they descended. In many Gnostic systems, the material world was viewed as corrupt or flawed, created by a lesser, malevolent being (often identified with the God of the Old Testament), and salvation involved escaping the material world.
Mainstream Christianity, as expressed in the New Testament, holds to a strict monotheism inherited from Judaism. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not emanations in a Gnostic sense, but three distinct persons who share one divine essence. The early Christians rejected Gnostic dualism and the notion that the material world is inherently evil. The incarnation—God becoming flesh in the person of Jesus—was a direct challenge to Gnostic beliefs.
While Gnosticism drew from certain Jewish and Hellenistic traditions, it fundamentally diverged from the teachings of Jesus and the apostles. The Christian concept of the Trinity—one God in three persons—is not an emanationist framework but a relational understanding of the one God revealed in Scripture.
You draw a comparison between the Gospel of Mark and Greek mythological dramas like The Bacchae, suggesting that the Gospel of Mark could be a myth or dramatization. This is a misunderstanding of the genre and intent of the Gospel writers. The Gospels, particularly Mark, are written as historical narratives, not mythological allegories. They include concrete references to historical figures like Pontius Pilate, Herod Antipas, and Caiaphas, and they locate events in real places such as Jerusalem and Galilee. These are not the hallmarks of mythological literature but of historical narrative. While the Gospels certainly convey theological meaning, they are rooted in historical claims about the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.
Unlike mythological stories like The Bacchae, which are clearly framed as allegory or symbolic drama, the Gospels present themselves as eyewitness testimony to real events. The early Christian belief in the resurrection of Jesus was not based on allegory but on the conviction that Jesus physically rose from the dead, as seen by many witnesses (1 Corinthians 15:3-8). This is a claim about historical reality, not myth.
Your suggestion that the Gospels could be myths like The Bacchae is undermined by the fact that early Christians did not treat their texts as mythological but as reliable testimonies to historical events. The early Church, including figures like Justin Martyr, vigorously defended the historical reality of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection against pagan critiques.
You argue that Christianity is rooted in Neo-Platonism and that figures like Paul and the writer of John were influenced by this philosophical tradition. While it is true that early Christian thinkers engaged with Greek philosophy, it is misleading to claim that Christianity is rooted in Neo-Platonism. Neo-Platonism, particularly as developed by Plotinus (3rd century), posited a single, transcendent One from whom all things emanate. However, Christianity does not present God as an impersonal force or as a being from whom the world emanates in a hierarchical chain. Instead, Christian theology teaches that God is personal and relational, that He created the world ex nihilo (out of nothing), and that He entered into history through the incarnation of Jesus Christ.
Early Christian thinkers like Justin, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen did engage with Greek philosophical ideas, but they did so critically, adapting certain concepts while rejecting others. For instance, while they borrowed the language of "Logos" from Greek philosophy, they redefined it in light of the revelation of Christ. The Logos in Christian theology is not an impersonal principle but the second person of the Trinity, eternally begotten of the Father.
While Greek philosophy influenced the intellectual framework of the early Church, the core beliefs of Christianity—creation, incarnation, and resurrection—are profoundly different from Neo-Platonic thought. Christianity is rooted in the historical revelation of God in Jesus Christ, not in the speculative metaphysics of Greek philosophy.
In conclusion, your argument suggests a continuity between Hellenistic philosophical concepts and early Christian theology, but it overlooks the ways in which Christianity fundamentally reinterpreted these concepts in light of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. The Christian doctrine of the Trinity, far from being an emanationist or Gnostic system, is a monotheistic understanding of one God in three persons. This is not rooted in Neo-Platonism or Greek myth but in the revelation of God through Christ, as witnessed by the apostles and early Church.
@scholar
Your argument relies heavily on a misunderstanding of what the qualitative force of "theos" means in John 1:1c. The commentary you cited from Sacra Pagina acknowledges that the qualitative "theos" describes the nature of the Word—“what God was, the Word also was.” This means that John is affirming that the Word shares fully in the divine nature of God, but not confusing the Word with the Father. The NWT rendering "a god" misinterprets this qualitative force by suggesting a distinction in divinity between the Word and the Father. The NWT's translation implies a secondary, lesser deity, which is not what the qualitative meaning entails. If the Word possesses the nature of God, then the rendering "a god" diminishes this very nature by introducing a subordinationist framework inconsistent with John's intent.
The NWT introduces a theologically problematic reading by translating "theos" as "a god," suggesting the existence of multiple gods, which contradicts the monotheism presented in John and throughout the Bible (e.g., Deuteronomy 6:4, Isaiah 43:10). The qualitative force means that the Word possesses the very nature of God, not as a second or lesser god, but fully participating in God's divine essence. Trinitarianism holds that the Father and the Word (Son) share the same divine nature without being identical persons, which avoids the confusion that the NWT translation introduces.
The claim that Trinitarianism is “rooted” in Neo-Platonism oversimplifies the development of Christian theology. While some Church Fathers used philosophical terminology to articulate their doctrines, the core concepts of the Trinity are rooted in Scripture and the early Church’s understanding of Jesus' divine identity. The idea that Trinitarian theology simply “adopted” Neo-Platonism ignores the biblical evidence for Christ's deity found in texts like John 1:1, Philippians 2:6-11, and Colossians 1:15-20. Moreover, the Nicene Creed, which affirmed the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father, was not simply a product of Greek philosophy, but of theological debates that sought to remain faithful to the apostolic tradition.
The qualitative rendering, as supported by scholars such as Daniel B. Wallace, emphasizes the divine nature of the Word without introducing henotheism. The NWT's translation "a god" distorts the meaning by suggesting that the Word is not fully God but a lesser divine being. This interpretation is inconsistent with the broader context of John’s Gospel, which consistently affirms the full divinity of the Word (John 1:3, John 1:18) and aligns with the monotheistic faith of Israel.
In conclusion, the NWT translation "a god" misrepresents the qualitative nature of "theos" in John 1:1c by introducing theological confusion and contradicting the monotheistic message of both the Old and New Testaments. The traditional rendering, “the Word was God,” is the most accurate and consistent translation that preserves the full divinity of the Word.
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
You suggest that early Christianity emerged from disenfranchised or marginalized Jewish groups and that it drew upon ideas that included a belief in multiple divine powers or intermediaries, such as the Logos, as found in Philo and other "second power" traditions. While it is true that Philo of Alexandria and other Hellenistic Jewish thinkers introduced the concept of the Logos as an intermediary, it is important to note that mainstream Jewish monotheism by the first century was overwhelmingly committed to the Shema, the declaration that "the Lord our God, the Lord is one" (Deuteronomy 6:4). Any departure from strict monotheism would have been met with resistance within this cultural and religious framework.
While it’s true that Christianity emerged from a milieu where various Jewish groups held differing beliefs, it’s important to note that Christianity was deeply rooted in Second Temple Jewish monotheism. The early followers of Jesus, including the apostles and first Christian communities, were Jews who maintained monotheistic beliefs, and they understood Jesus as fulfilling Jewish Messianic expectations.
Even if certain fringe Jewish groups experimented with mystical or esoteric interpretations of scripture, this doesn't mean that early Christianity was detached from mainstream Jewish monotheism. The New Testament authors, particularly in books like Matthew and John, reflect a thoroughly monotheistic worldview, building on Old Testament prophecies. Christianity didn’t arise from syncretistic fringe elements that adopted polytheism or henotheism, but from a strictly monotheistic environment that viewed Jesus as the fulfillment of Israel's Messianic hopes.
The writings of early Christians, including the Gospels and Pauline epistles, are firmly rooted in this monotheistic tradition. Even in the Gospel of John, where Jesus is identified as the Logos (John 1:1), the understanding is not that Jesus is a separate or lesser deity but that he shares fully in the divine nature of the one God. This is why John emphasizes both the distinction ("the Word was with [the] God") and the unity ("the Word was God"). The early Christians, including Paul and John, did not see themselves as departing from monotheism but as expanding the understanding of God's nature to include the incarnate Word, Jesus Christ, as fully God.
The Ascension of Isaiah and other apocryphal texts present complex theological ideas, often in highly symbolic or mystical language. However, these texts were not part of the New Testament canon and represent particular sectarian beliefs that differ from mainstream early Christianity. The canonical Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) present a much more straightforward narrative about Jesus’ life, ministry, death, and resurrection, focusing on his historical actions rather than purely mystical interpretations.
The Ascension of Isaiah describes Christ's descent and crucifixion in symbolic terms, which can be seen as part of an apocalyptic worldview that was common in certain Jewish and Christian sects. However, it doesn't negate the historicity of Jesus but emphasizes the theological significance of his incarnation and redemptive mission.
The given interpretation of Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho is problematic. While it is true that Justin Martyr speaks of Christ as "another god" in a sense, it is important to understand the context in which he uses this language. Justin is defending the Christian belief in Christ's divinity to a Jewish audience, and he does so using the language of divine agency that was familiar to his Jewish interlocutors. However, Justin does not propose a separate or lesser god in opposition to the one true God of Israel. Instead, he emphasizes that the Logos is eternally begotten from the Father and shares the Father's divine essence.
For example, Justin's analogy of the Word proceeding from the Father like a fire kindling another fire without diminishing the original source shows that he did not view Christ as a separate or created being but as eternally generated from the Father. This analogy illustrates the relationship within the Godhead: the Father and the Son share the same divine nature, just as a flame kindled from another flame shares the same fire without being lesser. Therefore, Justin's theology aligns with the later Trinitarian formulation, even if the specific terminology of "Trinity" had not yet been fully developed.
You reference Philo's concept of the Logos as a bedrock for early Christian Christology, suggesting that the belief in a "second power" or intermediary influenced Christian beliefs about Christ. While it is true that Philo's Logos concept had some influence on early Christian thought, especially in the Gospel of John, the Christian understanding of the Logos differs significantly from Philo's. Philo's Logos is an abstract, intermediary principle through which God interacts with the world, but it is not fully personal or incarnate in the way that Christ is presented in the New Testament.
In contrast, the Christian Logos is not just an intermediary or abstract principle but the Word who "became flesh and dwelt among us" (John 1:14). The incarnation is a key distinction between Philo's philosophical concept of the Logos and the Christian understanding. For Christians, the Logos is not simply a means by which God relates to the world; the Logos is fully God, who took on human nature in the person of Jesus Christ. This belief is central to Christian theology and is rooted in the early Christian experience and proclamation of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection.
You compare the Gospel of Mark to a play or dramatization, similar to how stories about Greek gods were told through literature and performance. However, this analogy is flawed because the Gospels are not presented as mythological allegories but as historical accounts. While the Gospels are indeed theological texts, they are also rooted in specific historical claims about the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. They contain references to real historical figures (such as Pontius Pilate) and geographical locations (such as Jerusalem), which situate the narrative within a recognizable historical context.
While there is a literary quality to the Gospels, it's essential to recognize that they were written within a historical context and aim to present historical events. The Gospels place Jesus firmly within first-century Judea, referencing specific historical figures like Pontius Pilate, Herod, and Caiaphas, and events like the Roman crucifixion. These are not abstract mythological settings but historical markers that ground the narrative in real-world events.
Comparing the Gospels to dramatizations like the Bacchae of Euripides is misleading because Greek tragedies were explicitly allegorical or mythological, while the Gospels present themselves as accounts of real historical events. The inclusion of mundane details, such as the names of Jesus' family members (e.g., James, His brother) and his interactions with well-known historical figures, points to the Gospel writers’ intention to root their accounts in historical reality.
The early Christians did not treat Jesus as a purely mythological figure, like Dionysus in Greek mythology, but as a real person who lived, taught, was crucified, and rose from the dead. This belief in Jesus' historical reality is central to the Christian faith, and it distinguishes Christianity from the mythological traditions of the surrounding pagan cultures.
You mention that early Christianity included a wide range of beliefs, including Gnostic views, and suggest that the development of the Gospels was influenced by this diversity. While it is true that early Christianity was diverse, the Gnostic movements were largely reactionary to the mainstream Christian belief in Jesus' humanity and divinity. Gnosticism typically denied the full humanity of Christ, claiming instead that he was a purely spiritual being who only appeared to suffer and die.
However, the mainstream Christian tradition, as reflected in the New Testament and the writings of the early Church Fathers, affirmed both the full divinity and full humanity of Christ. The development of the New Testament canon, including the Gospels, was not an arbitrary process of selecting texts that fit a particular agenda. Instead, it was based on the recognition of certain texts as authoritative witnesses to the apostolic teaching about Jesus. These texts consistently affirm the historical reality of Jesus' life and his identity as the incarnate Word of God.
Your argument, while engaging with some interesting historical and philosophical ideas, ultimately misunderstands the core claims of early Christian theology and the historical evidence for Jesus' existence and divinity. The Gospels and early Christian writings are not mythological in nature but are rooted in the historical claims about Jesus' life, death, and resurrection. Justin Martyr and other early Christian writers did not see Christ as a separate or lesser deity but as fully divine, sharing in the essence of the one true God. The development of Trinitarian theology was not a departure from Jewish monotheism but a deepening understanding of God's nature as revealed in Christ.
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 wrote that you agree with me regarding nomina sacra and that they do not imply that every single use of the term "God" should be capitalized in modern translations. However, the distinction you're trying to make here—particularly regarding John 1:1—is incomplete. While nomina sacra were applied to both the Father and the Son, these sacred abbreviations indicate reverence for the divine name, and this same reverence was applied consistently to both the Father and the Son in the manuscripts. The use of nomina sacra signals that the Word (Logos) shares in the same divine status as the Father.
You claim that context and meaning should determine how the word "God" is translated in John 1:1, and I fully agree. But the context of John 1:1 does not support the idea that the Logos is a lesser god or merely has "qualities" of divinity. John 1:1c, where it says, "and the Word was God" (καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος), uses the qualitative form of the noun theos, meaning that the Word possesses the full nature of God, not just divine characteristics. The absence of the article before theos does not imply that the Word is merely "a god" in the sense of a subordinate deity but highlights the essential, divine nature of the Word.
Your assertion that people confuse the Word with ton theon (the Father) because of the traditional translation ("the Word was God") is a misunderstanding of Trinitarian theology. The doctrine of the Trinity teaches that the Father, the Son (the Word), and the Holy Spirit are distinct persons who share the same divine essence. John 1:1 makes it clear that the Word is distinct from the Father ("the Word was with [the] God") but is also fully divine ("the Word was God"). It’s not a matter of confusing the persons of the Trinity but rather affirming the unity of the divine essence and the distinct persons within the Godhead.
Your claim that first-century Jews were henotheistic is historically inaccurate. While archaeological finds, such as the synagogue at Dura-Europos, might suggest some degree of syncretism or pagan influence in certain Jewish communities during the third century, this does not reflect the mainstream monotheism of first-century Judaism. Judaism was firmly monotheistic by the time of the Second Temple period, and the idea of henotheism had been largely eradicated, particularly in Palestinian Judaism. The Shema, the central confession of Jewish faith, states: "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one" (Deuteronomy 6:4). This confession of monotheism remained foundational to Jewish thought in the first century.
Margaret Barker’s argument in The Great Angel that early Judaism retained vestiges of a "second god" is a minority position among scholars and is not widely accepted. Barker’s thesis is speculative and does not reflect the dominant Jewish monotheism at the time of John’s Gospel. Even if there were remnants of earlier polytheistic or henotheistic beliefs in isolated Jewish communities, they were not representative of mainstream Jewish belief in the first century, especially in the context of John's Gospel, which was written within a strongly monotheistic framework.
You reference Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho, claiming that Justin acknowledges the existence of "another god" besides the Creator. However, Justin does not suggest that this "other god" is a separate or lesser deity in the way that JWs argue about Jesus. Justin, like many early Christian writers, uses the term "god" to refer to Christ’s divinity, but always within the context of monotheism. He distinguishes between the persons of the Father and the Son, but not in a way that implies Christ is a separate, subordinate god.
When Justin refers to "another god," he is using the language of divine agency to describe Christ's role in the economy of salvation, not to imply a belief in multiple gods. Justin’s theology, like that of the New Testament writers, upholds the belief that Christ shares in the divine essence with the Father. Thus, Justin’s reference to Christ as "another god" is in line with the doctrine of the Trinity, where Christ is distinct from the Father in personhood but shares fully in the divine nature.
You argue that John's audience would have had no problem with the concept of the Word being "a god" or having god-like qualities. This interpretation, however, misunderstands both the linguistic structure of the Greek and the theological intent of the text.
If John's intention in John 1:1 had been to attribute a lesser, ontologically subordinate divinity to the Logos in relation to the Father, he would have likely chosen different terminology. Considering the cultural background of a Hellenic polytheistic audience, there were numerous Greek terms available that could have conveyed the idea of a being with a lower form of divinity or a godlike creature rather than full deity. Words such as θεῖος (divine-like), ἡμίθεος (demigod), ἥρως (hero), θεϊκός, θεϊνός (godlike), or even θεώτερος (more divine) would have been appropriate to signify a lesser status. Additionally, the term δαίμων originally referred to a lower deity, whether good or bad, and not exclusively to an evil spirit. By using θεός (God), John unmistakably communicates the full divinity of the Logos, placing Him on the same ontological level as the Father.
The phrase "καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος" (and the Word was God) does not imply that the Logos is merely "a god." The lack of an article before theos emphasizes the divine nature of the Word, not a lower or subordinate status. As I mentioned earlier, the qualitative use of theos indicates that the Word shares fully in the divine essence. This understanding is consistent with Trinitarian theology, which holds that the Father and the Son are distinct persons who share the same divine nature. To translate this as "a god" would be a misunderstanding of both the Greek grammar and the theological intent of the passage.
In summary:
- The use of nomina sacra in early Christian manuscripts reflects the same reverence with which early Christians regarded both the Father and the Son, affirming their shared divine status.
- The translation "the Word was God" accurately reflects the qualitative use of theos in John 1:1c, indicating the full divinity of the Logos.
- The claim that first-century Jews were henotheistic is historically inaccurate. Mainstream Judaism at the time of John’s Gospel was firmly monotheistic.
- Justin Martyr’s reference to "another god" in his Dialogue with Trypho does not imply a belief in a subordinate or separate god but is consistent with the early Christian understanding of Christ’s fully divine status within the framework of monotheism.
The consistent use of nomina sacra and the grammatical structure of John 1:1 support the traditional understanding that the Word (Logos) is fully God, sharing in the divine essence of the Father, while remaining distinct in person.
@peacefulpete
You mention a “lazy default consensus” that assumes there must be evidence for Jesus’ existence, but this characterization misrepresents the nature of historical scholarship. The consensus among historians is not based on a “lazy assumption” but on rigorous examination of available evidence, including early Christian writings, non-Christian sources, and the cultural context of first-century Judea. The overwhelming majority of scholars, both religious and secular, affirm that Jesus existed because the documentary evidence, although not perfect, is sufficient to establish his historicity. Scholars like Bart Ehrman, who are critical of Christianity, still affirm Jesus’ existence because denying it lacks solid evidential support.
It is not simply about “arguing semantics about indefinite articles.” Historians use established methods, such as textual criticism, comparative analysis, and historical methodology, to assess the credibility of ancient sources. To dismiss this as mere assumption without providing substantial counter-evidence falls short of engaging in serious historical inquiry.
You claim that Paul’s letters and other early Christian writings lack personal details about Jesus, suggesting that this absence implies Jesus was not a historical figure. However, this overlooks the nature of Paul’s epistles. These letters were written to address specific theological issues and practical concerns within early Christian communities, not as biographies of Jesus. Paul’s writings focus on the implications of Jesus’ death and resurrection, which was central to his mission. Furthermore, Paul explicitly mentions Jesus as a real person, referencing his crucifixion and mentioning people like James, the brother of Jesus (Galatians 1:19). These references to Jesus’ family and his death are consistent with a historical figure, not a mythical one.
You mention that the Christ movement was driven by an understanding of Jesus as an emanation of God and that various Gnostic sects incorporated mystic ideas into their beliefs. While it is true that early Christianity was diverse and included various interpretations of Jesus’ nature, this does not mean that Jesus was not a historical figure. Gnosticism emerged later, and many of its ideas were in opposition to the mainstream Christian understanding of Jesus as a human being who lived and died in first-century Palestine.
The existence of differing theological interpretations, such as Gnosticism, does not disprove Jesus’ historicity. Instead, it shows how early Christians interpreted his life and teachings in different ways. The Gospels, especially the Synoptics, provide detailed narratives of Jesus’ life, which were rooted in oral traditions passed down from those who knew him. This is very different from the mythological speculations found in later Gnostic texts.
You compare the understanding of Jesus with the way readers might understand the gods of Plato or the dramatizations in Greek mythology, implying that Jesus could be a fictionalized character. However, this comparison is flawed. The Gospels and early Christian writings are not presented as mythological allegories or philosophical treatises, but as historical accounts of events that occurred in specific times and places. The Gospels mention real historical figures, such as Pontius Pilate, Herod, and Caiaphas, situating Jesus’ life within the political and religious landscape of first-century Judea.
Moreover, the early Christian movement was persecuted and marginalized, which makes it unlikely that it would have been based entirely on a fictional figure. The rapid growth of the Christian movement, despite persecution, suggests that it was rooted in the teachings and life of a real person.
You suggest that the New Testament, including the Pauline letters and the Gospels, was selectively edited and reworked to fit certain theological agendas. While it is true that the New Testament canon was formed through a process of selection, this does not mean that the core message of the texts was fabricated. Scholars have identified layers of tradition within the Gospels, including earlier oral traditions, and while redaction occurred, it was not to the extent that it created a fictional Jesus.
The formation of the canon involved the exclusion of some texts, like those favored by Gnostics, but the core writings included in the New Testament—Paul’s letters and the Gospels—were widely accepted in the early Christian communities long before the formal canon was established. These texts consistently refer to Jesus as a real, historical figure.
While you mention the concept of the Logos and its connection to Jewish mysticism, this does not negate the historical existence of Jesus. The Gospel of John uses the concept of the Logos to describe the divine nature of Jesus, but it also affirms his incarnation as a human being (John 1:14). The doctrine of the incarnation—the idea that the eternal Logos became flesh in the person of Jesus—was a central tenet of early Christian belief and does not undermine the claim that Jesus was a real historical figure.
In conclusion, while there were diverse interpretations of Jesus in early Christianity, and while some Gnostic sects viewed him in mystical terms, this does not disprove his historicity. The consensus among historians is that Jesus existed as a historical figure, and this view is based on substantial documentary evidence, not mere assumptions. The existence of theological diversity within early Christianity, including Gnosticism, actually supports the idea that there was a real historical figure whose life and teachings were interpreted in various ways.
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.