Posts by aqwsed12345

posted

12
Will the G.B. ever give a "new light" on Romans 6:7?
by BoogerMan in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
jehovah' witnesses are taught to believe that romans 6:7 refers to a person's own literal death:.

watchtower may 15th 1982, pp.

8,9 - "the bible explains that at death a person is set free or released from any sins he committed.
aqwsed12345

To address the claim that Romans 6:7 and Romans 6:23 support Jehovah’s Witnesses' teaching that sins committed in this life are wiped clean at death and that future judgment will be based solely on deeds performed after resurrection, a more in-depth examination of the biblical text and context is necessary.
1. Romans 6:7 – A Misinterpretation of Spiritual Death
Jehovah’s Witnesses interpret Romans 6:7 as implying that a person’s physical death wipes away their sins: “For he who has died has been acquitted from sin.” The Watchtower Society teaches that this applies to all humanity, suggesting that physical death erases one’s sinful record, providing a “clean slate” at resurrection. However, this interpretation misreads the intent of Paul’s letter and its context.
Paul’s discussion in Romans 6 is focused on spiritual death to sin, not physical death. The surrounding verses, such as Romans 6:4, explain that believers have been “buried with [Christ] through baptism into death” and should “walk in newness of life.” This clearly indicates a spiritual transformation—a death to the old sinful self through baptism and a rebirth into new life in Christ. The death mentioned in Romans 6:7 is not a physical death that wipes sins away, but a symbolic, spiritual death that signifies freedom from the power of sin for those united with Christ. This is confirmed by earlier verses like Romans 6:2, where Paul asks, “How shall we who died to sin still live in it?” This shows that Paul is addressing believers who are spiritually dead to sin.
2. Romans 6:23 – The Consequences of Sin
Romans 6:23 further reinforces this interpretation: “For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” This verse contrasts eternal death (as the result of sin) with eternal life (as the gift of God through Christ). It doesn’t suggest that death automatically acquits one of sin; rather, it highlights that only through Christ can one receive eternal life. Physical death alone does not erase the guilt of sin, as the gift of salvation and acquittal from sin comes only through union with Christ.
3. Hebrews 9:27 – Judgment After Death
Jehovah’s Witnesses’ interpretation of Romans 6:7 contradicts Hebrews 9:27, which states, “And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment.” This verse explicitly teaches that judgment follows death, indicating that death does not erase sins or provide a clean slate. Instead, individuals are accountable for their deeds in life, and judgment is rendered after death.
It’s important to note that the New World Translation (NWT) of the Jehovah's Witnesses misleadingly translates this verse: “And just as it is reserved for men to die once for all time, but after this to receive a judgment”. The phrase “for all time” is not present in the original Greek. Most mainstream Bible translations such as the New International Version (NIV) or English Standard Version (ESV) translate the verse more plainly: "Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment." The inclusion of “for all time” in the NWT adds a layer of meaning that is not inherent in the original text, potentially suggesting an extended, indefinite period before final judgment, a teaching aligned with their belief in progressive judgment during the millennial reign.
In traditional translations, Hebrews 9:27 is understood as stating that after death, all humans will face immediate judgment for their actions during their earthly life. For example, the NIV says: "...after that to face judgment." The NWT rendering, "to receive a judgment," seems to subtly imply an expectation of a future, unspecified judgment, rather than a definitive, once-for-all evaluation. This change shifts the emphasis away from the traditional Christian teaching of a single final judgment after death, toward a more continuous or phased process, which matches the Watchtower’s doctrine that individuals may have the opportunity to prove themselves worthy in a post-resurrection period.
The original Greek for Hebrews 9:27 is: „kai kath’ hoson apokeitai tois anthropois hapax apothanein, meta de touto krisis”. Translated literally, this means: “And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once, and after this, judgment.” There is no mention of the added phrases like “for all time” or “to receive a judgment” as found in the NWT.
Hebrews 9:27 clearly establishes a one-time death followed by immediate judgment. The NWT translation of Hebrews 9:27 misrepresents the immediate, once-for-all nature of human judgment after death, aligning instead with Jehovah’s Witnesses' unique theology. In contrast, the broader Christian understanding, based on a more accurate reading of the original Greek and supported by other scriptural passages like 2 Corinthians 5:10 and Revelation 20:12, affirms that individuals are judged immediately after death for the deeds they committed in this life, not for post-resurrection actions or during some indefinite future judgment period. This is an essential point in rejecting the Jehovah's Witnesses’ interpretation that physical death "wipes the slate clean" and that judgment is based solely on post-resurrection deeds.
4. 2 Corinthians 5:10 – Accountability for Deeds in This Life
2 Corinthians 5:10 further refutes the idea that one’s sins are wiped clean by death, stating, “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil.” This verse emphasizes that individuals will be judged based on their actions during their lifetime—what was done “in the body.” It does not support the notion that post-resurrection deeds alone determine one’s judgment. Instead, the Bible clearly teaches that everyone is accountable for their deeds during their earthly life, and judgment will be based on these deeds, not on post-resurrection actions.
5. Revelation 20 and the Misinterpretation of the “Books”
Jehovah’s Witnesses also misinterpret Revelation 20:12, which speaks of books being opened and the dead being judged according to their deeds. They claim that these “books” contain new laws or instructions for the resurrected to follow, allowing them to earn life through post-resurrection deeds. However, this is a misreading of the text.
Revelation 20:12 says, “And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Then another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to what they had done.” The books in this passage contain records of deeds committed in this life, not laws or instructions for the resurrected. The “book of life” determines who has received eternal life based on their faith in Christ, while the other books record the deeds of the dead, based on which they are judged. Nowhere does this passage suggest that individuals are judged based on post-resurrection deeds, nor that death erases past sins.
6. The Necessity of Christ’s Atonement
Finally, the Watchtower’s teaching that personal death provides acquittal of sin diminishes the significance of Christ’s atonement. The Bible repeatedly emphasizes that only the sacrifice of Christ can bring forgiveness of sins. 1 John 1:7 states, “The blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin.” Similarly, Romans 5:9 declares that we are “justified by His blood.” It is through Christ’s sacrifice alone that sins are forgiven, not through personal death. The Watchtower’s doctrine undermines this essential Christian teaching, implying that death can accomplish what only Christ’s sacrifice can truly do.
Conclusion
The Jehovah’s Witnesses' interpretation of Romans 6:7 and Romans 6:23 is deeply flawed and inconsistent with the broader teaching of Scripture. Romans 6:7 refers to spiritual death to sin for believers through union with Christ, not to physical death erasing sins. Romans 6:23 contrasts the consequences of sin with the gift of eternal life through Christ, not implying that death itself wipes away sin. Moreover, Hebrews 9:27, 2 Corinthians 5:10, and Revelation 20:12 all affirm that judgment follows death and is based on one’s deeds in life, not on post-resurrection actions. Ultimately, it is Christ’s atonement alone that provides forgiveness, not physical death.
164
How did JWs arrive at a clearer understanding of what the Bible teaches than other Christian denominations?
by slimboyfat in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
for jws who believe that jehovah had a hand in reviving the truth in the nineteenth century this is enough explanation for how jws managed to achieve a closer approximation to early christian beliefs and practices than other groups.

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

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

@slimboyfat
The claim that the canon was "settled" in the second century, as you suggest, overlooks the complexity of early Christian history. While it is true that many of the books that became part of the New Testament were recognized and used by Christians in the second century, the process of agreeing on a fixed, authoritative list took time. The Church did not possess an "official" New Testament canon until the fourth century, largely because there was no central authority to enforce such a list until Christianity became legally recognized under Constantine.
Early Christian communities used a variety of texts, and while many of the New Testament books were widely accepted early on, others (such as Hebrews, James, Revelation, and 2 Peter) faced some dispute. Likewise, some texts that were initially popular among early Christians (such as the Shepherd of Hermas, the Epistle of Barnabas, or 1 Clement) were not ultimately included in the canon. The process of forming a universally accepted New Testament canon required discerning which texts were genuinely apostolic and which were not.
While you reference David Trobisch’s work and suggest the canon was settled earlier, we need to be cautious with assumptions about the early period. Yes, there were discussions and collections of writings that resembled a canon, but the formal and universally accepted canon we recognize today was only fixed in the fourth century, particularly through synods like the Synod of Hippo (393 AD) and the Council of Carthage (397 AD), which reaffirmed the 27 books we now hold as Scripture. These councils did not create the canon but confirmed what had already been used in the liturgy and believed by the Church for centuries.
The issue here is not that the canon was suddenly invented in the fourth century; rather, it was formally recognized after a long process of discernment. The fact that Athanasius’s letter from 367 AD provides the first surviving formal list identical to the modern New Testament canon is not an argument that no canon existed before this. Instead, it shows that Athanasius was affirming what had increasingly become the accepted body of sacred Scripture, a process guided by the Church and the Holy Spirit.
You reference Origen and suggest that he listed the 27 books of the New Testament canon. While Origen is indeed an important early Christian figure, it is important to recognize that Origen himself acknowledged that there was still debate about certain books. For instance, Origen mentions in his writings that 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Hebrews were questioned in some Christian communities. This shows that while Origen had a high regard for many of the books that eventually became canonical, the canon was not universally agreed upon in his time.
Origen’s contribution is critical, but it does not prove that a settled, universally accepted canon existed as early as the third century. The Muratorian Fragment, a document from the late second century, also lists many books of the New Testament, but it still omits some (like Hebrews) and includes others (like the Apocalypse of Peter) that were later excluded. This shows that while there was significant agreement on many New Testament writings, there was still no finalized canon in the second or third centuries.
You raise a valid point that just because the Festal Letter of Athanasius is the first formal list we have from the fourth century, it doesn’t mean that the Church was in complete disarray before that. However, the key issue remains: the canon of the New Testament, as we know it today, was ultimately recognized and affirmed by the Church—the same Church that many Protestant groups claim to have fallen into “apostasy”.
This presents a dilemma for groups that reject the authority of the Catholic Church while still accepting the New Testament canon, which was discerned and preserved by that same Church. How can one trust that the Church made the right decisions about the canon if one believes that the Church had already fallen away from the truth? To accept the canon without acknowledging the Church’s role in preserving it is inconsistent.
You mention that some scholars suggest Origen listed the entire canon, and while that might provide insight into how early Christians viewed certain texts, the broader question is about who had the authority to discern the canon. Even if there were early collections of New Testament books, the authority to define and recognize the canon officially came from the Church, not individual theologians or local communities.
As Tertullian and St. Irenaeus both noted in their writings, apostolic succession was key in maintaining doctrinal integrity. The Church, through its apostolic authority, was entrusted with preserving and interpreting Scripture. The councils that later affirmed the canon did so based on the long-standing tradition of the Church, which preserved the apostolic teaching. This is the same Church that Protestant groups now question when it comes to doctrine but rely on when it comes to the canon.
While it is true that the New Testament canon developed over time and that many of the texts were recognized early on, the formal recognition of the canon took place under the authority of the Church in the fourth century. Early lists like those from Origen or the Muratorian Fragment give us insight into the gradual process, but the finalization of the canon was the work of the broader Church.
Protestants who accept the New Testament canon must reconcile the fact that it was the Catholic Church, which they claim fell into error, that discerned and protected the canon of Scripture they now use. Without the Church’s authority in this process, it becomes difficult to explain how the correct books were chosen, especially since early Christian communities did not always agree on the contents of the canon.
Thus, the Catholic Church's role in canon formation is indispensable, and to accept the canon of Scripture without acknowledging the Church’s authority is inconsistent. The canon did not "happen" by accident; it was discerned and protected through the authority Christ gave to his Church.
164
How did JWs arrive at a clearer understanding of what the Bible teaches than other Christian denominations?
by slimboyfat in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
for jws who believe that jehovah had a hand in reviving the truth in the nineteenth century this is enough explanation for how jws managed to achieve a closer approximation to early christian beliefs and practices than other groups.

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

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

@Earnest
Jason BeDuhn's commentary, particularly in Truth in Translation, is often used to support the New World Translation (NWT)'s rendering of John 1:1 as "a god." However, BeDuhn himself did not fully endorse this translation. He preferred the term "divine" to describe the theos in John 1:1c, a choice that indicates a qualitative understanding of the word. He did not affirm the idea that Jesus is "a god" in the sense of being a separate deity, nor did he imply polytheism. Instead, BeDuhn’s preferred rendering of "divine" captures the qualitative nature of Jesus’ divinity, consistent with the understanding of Christ’s unique divine nature. His statement that "the meaning is the same in either case" should be understood within the context of recognizing that while the grammar may permit certain translations, not all of them are theologically valid or appropriate.
BeDuhn himself acknowledged that the term "divine" could allow for a Trinitarian interpretation. In a private correspondence, he wrote that his rendering "leaves open" the possibility of understanding the Word as fully divine and of the same essence as the Father. Thus, the suggestion that BeDuhn supports the NWT's rendering of John 1:1c as "a god" is misleading. His approach was more nuanced, and he did not promote a translation that would lead to theological polytheism or subordinationism.
Philip Harner’s seminal article on qualitative anarthrous predicate nouns is another key source often cited by proponents of the NWT’s rendering. Harner’s research focused on how the placement of anarthrous predicate nouns (nouns without the definite article) before the verb, as in John 1:1c, typically emphasizes the qualitative aspect of the noun, rather than definiteness or indefiniteness.
Harner explicitly stated that John’s intention in using this grammatical structure was to emphasize the nature or essence of the Word as divine, not to indicate that the Word was a separate, subordinate deity. His comment that there may be "some connotation of definiteness" does not imply that John meant to suggest that the Word was "a god," but rather, that the Word possesses the divine nature fully and shares in the same essence as God. Harner’s primary conclusion was that John 1:1c emphasizes the divine nature of the Word, which is consistent with Trinitarian theology. His research does not support the indefinite article "a god," as used by the NWT.
The grammatical structure of John 1:1c, in which theos precedes the verb without the article, is designed to emphasize the qualitative nature of the noun. The absence of the article does not automatically make theos indefinite, and translating it as "a god" introduces significant theological confusion, as it suggests polytheism or henotheism, neither of which align with the biblical witness of monotheism.
As scholars like Wallace, Harner, and Harris have pointed out, the use of theos in John 1:1c emphasizes that the Word shares fully in the divine nature. The Word (Logos) is distinct from the Father in person but shares the same divine essence. The qualitative force of theos shows that the Word is fully divine, which is essential for maintaining biblical monotheism. Translating this as "a god" would indeed be grammatically possible, but as Murray Harris notes, it would be theologically inappropriate because it would imply the existence of multiple gods, which contradicts the monotheistic foundation of both the Old and New Testaments.
Translating John 1:1c as "a god" would introduce polytheism, even if only two separate divine beings are mentioned (the Father and the Word). Polytheism is not just the belief in many gods but includes any belief in multiple distinct gods, regardless of their number. Deuteronomy 6:4 and Isaiah 45:5 emphasize the absolute singularity of God, and translating theos as "a god" undermines the clear biblical assertion that there is only one true God. The qualitative reading of theos in John 1:1c maintains that the Word shares fully in the divine essence of the one God, distinct in person but not in essence.
@ slimboyfat
You're right in bringing up William Barclay's situation, and it's a perfect illustration of how theological nuances can be misunderstood or misused. Here's why Barclay's frustration with being quoted by Jehovah's Witnesses is significant and why his argument about John 1:1 should not be used to deny Christ's divinity, even if he suggested theos could be qualitative in John 1:1c.
William Barclay did suggest that theos in John 1:1c ("and the Word was God") is qualitative, which means it describes the nature or essence of the Word (Logos), not necessarily identifying it as "the God" (ho theos). However, this does not diminish the divinity of the Word. A qualitative reading of theos would mean that the Word has the very nature of God, or shares in the divine essence. In essence, the Logos is divine, fully possessing God's attributes.
Jehovah's Witnesses, in their New World Translation, render John 1:1c as "the Word was a god," implying that Jesus is a lesser, created being, not truly divine. This is a misreading of both the Greek and the broader theological implications. Barclay was horrified because his nuanced argument about the qualitative nature of theos was being used to support a theology that he did not endorse. He did not deny Christ’s divinity, nor did he argue for a subordinate or created Jesus, as the Watchtower does.
Jehovah's Witnesses often selectively quote scholars like Barclay to lend credibility to their arguments, but they ignore the broader context of these scholars' work. Barclay believed in the uniqueness and divine nature of Christ, even if his views on universalism were controversial. Quoting his linguistic points without addressing his overall theological stance is misleading.
While Barclay did hold to some controversial views, such as universalism (the belief that all will eventually be saved), it’s important to separate his views on universalism from his views on Christ’s nature. The fact that he didn't want to be associated with the Jehovah's Witnesses' Christology shows that he still held a fundamentally orthodox view of Jesus' divine nature. His frustration reflects that even those who may stray in some areas of doctrine can be protective of core Christian truths like the divinity of Christ.
Barclay’s argument about theos in John 1:1c does not support the Jehovah's Witnesses’ Arian-like view of Jesus as a created being. Even though he believed theos was qualitative, that still affirms Christ’s full divinity—exactly the opposite of what Jehovah's Witnesses try to argue. Barclay himself would have been appalled to see his work misrepresented in defense of a view that denies Jesus' true divinity.
164
How did JWs arrive at a clearer understanding of what the Bible teaches than other Christian denominations?
by slimboyfat in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
for jws who believe that jehovah had a hand in reviving the truth in the nineteenth century this is enough explanation for how jws managed to achieve a closer approximation to early christian beliefs and practices than other groups.

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

new testament scholar james dunn explains the difficulty of interpreting the biblical texts in this way:.
aqwsed12345
Your argument hinges on the interpretation of "theos" as an indefinite noun in John 1:1c, which is why you claim that "a god" is a valid translation. However, you misunderstand the nature of Koine Greek and how the anarthrous predicate nominative functions. The fact that "theos" lacks the article in John 1:1c does not automatically make it indefinite. The construction of "theos" in this context is widely accepted by Greek scholars, such as Daniel Wallace and Philip Harner, as qualitative, not indefinite.
Your claim that "a god" is the best translation because theos lacks a definite article is a misunderstanding of Greek grammar. Philip Harner’s article supports the qualitative understanding of theos in John 1:1c, not an indefinite one. The construction emphasizes the nature or essence of the Word—its divinity—rather than suggesting a separate, subordinate god.
The qualitative force of "theos" here emphasizes the nature of the Word (Logos). It expresses that the Word shares in the divine essence, not that the Word is merely a lesser or subordinate god. This is an essential point that has been emphasized by numerous scholars, including Wallace, Metzger, and Harris. The Word is fully divine, sharing the same essence as the Father, but is distinguished in person. Hence, translating "theos" as "a god" not only ignores the qualitative aspect of the word but introduces theological confusion by suggesting polytheism or henotheism, neither of which align with biblical monotheism.
You mention Wallace's critique of the NWT's rendering of "theos" as "a god" and state that you disagree with his analysis. Wallace, however, is one of the leading authorities in Koine Greek grammar, and his explanation of the qualitative nature of "theos" in John 1:1c is based on extensive linguistic research. The qualitative reading of "theos" affirms the Word's full participation in divinity without suggesting the existence of multiple gods.
Greek grammarians, including Wallace, Philip Harner, and A.T. Robertson, emphasize that "theos" in John 1:1c does not function as an indefinite noun but rather highlights the divine essence of the Word. To suggest that "a god" is a legitimate rendering contradicts the overwhelming consensus among Greek scholars who affirm the qualitative nature of "theos" in this passage.
You cite scholars who interpret theos in John 1:1c as “divine” or “what God was, the Word was.” However, the qualitative reading emphasizes that the Word possesses the full nature of divinity, not a secondary or lesser deity. Even scholars like Murray Harris acknowledge that “a god” would be grammatically possible but theologically inappropriate because it suggests polytheism, which contradicts biblical monotheism.
You argue that translating "theos" as "a god" does not introduce polytheism because only two gods are mentioned (the Father and the Word). However, this logic is flawed. Polytheism is not limited to the worship of many gods but can also involve the belief in multiple distinct gods, even if only two are referenced. By translating "theos" as "a god," you are introducing a second divine being, which violates the core monotheistic principle found in both the Old and New Testaments. Deuteronomy 6:4 ("Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one") and Isaiah 45:5 ("I am the Lord, and there is no other; besides me there is no God") affirm the singularity of God. To translate "theos" as "a god" in John 1:1c introduces a dualistic notion of divinity, which is incompatible with biblical monotheism. The qualitative reading of theos in John 1:1c does not introduce multiple, separate gods but emphasizes that the Word shares fully in the divine essence of the one God, distinct in person but not in essence.
The Trinity doctrine preserves monotheism by teaching that there is one God in three persons—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—who share the same divine essence. The Father is not greater than the Son in essence; they are co-equal and co-eternal. John 1:1 emphasizes this unity while maintaining the distinction of persons.
You mention that the Son is functionally subordinate to the Father and claim that this indicates an ontological difference between the two. However, the distinction between functional subordination and ontological equality is essential in Trinitarian theology. The Son submits to the Father in His role within the economy of salvation, particularly during His incarnation (Philippians 2:6-11), but this does not imply that the Son is ontologically inferior. The Church Fathers and later theologians, including Athanasius and the Cappadocian Fathers, defended the Son's co-equality with the Father, even while acknowledging the Son's submission to the Father's will during His earthly ministry.
You maintain that the Word is subordinate to God and that the NWT's translation reflects this. However, functional subordination (the Son’s voluntary submission to the Father) does not imply ontological inequality. The doctrine of the Trinity, developed in response to heresies like Arianism, affirms that the Son is coequal with the Father in essence, though distinct in person and role.
The claim that the Trinity is a product of pagan triads lacks substantial historical evidence. The Trinity is a unique Christian doctrine, grounded in the biblical revelation of one God in three persons, and it arose from a reflection on Scripture, not pagan philosophy. Scholars have thoroughly debunked the idea that the Trinity was borrowed from pagan sources like Hislop's The Two Babylons—a work that has been discredited by historians for its inaccurate and unsubstantiated parallels between Christianity and paganism.
The argument claims that because Christians accept the functional subordination of the Son to the Father, there must be an ontological distinction—i.e., that the Son is lesser in being or nature than the Father. This argument misunderstands both the nature of functional subordination and the biblical teaching on the equality of the Father and the Son.
Functional subordination refers to the roles the persons of the Trinity take in the economy of salvation—meaning, how God interacts with humanity. The Son willingly submits to the Father in His incarnation (becoming human) and mission (to redeem humanity), as clearly taught in Philippians 2:6-8:
“…though He was in the form of God, He did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, by taking the form of a servant…”
This passage shows that Jesus is equal to God (“in the form of God”) but chose to submit by taking on human nature. His submission to the Father’s will (functional subordination) was voluntary and part of the redemptive mission, not a reflection of any ontological inferiority.
Furthermore, in John 10:30, Jesus says:
“I and the Father are one.”
Here, Jesus explicitly claims unity of essence with the Father, which refutes the idea that the Father and the Son are ontologically distinct. The Father and the Son are one in nature, while remaining distinct in person.
The argument points to John 1:1-2 as evidence of ontological distinction. However, a close reading of these verses actually supports the Trinitarian view of equality in nature between the Father and the Son:
- “In the beginning was the Word”: This phrase emphasizes the pre-existence of the Word (the Son). The Son was not created; He existed from all eternity.
- “The Word was with God”: This indicates that the Word (the Son) was distinct in person from the Father (He was with God).
- “The Word was God”: Here, John emphasizes the divine nature of the Son. The Son is God in essence, not a created being or a separate, lesser deity.
The Greek construction of the phrase “the Word was God” (καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος) makes it clear that the Word shares in the divine nature. If John intended to distinguish the Son as ontologically different from the Father, he would have used a different construction. Instead, the grammar strongly supports the unity of essence between the Father and the Son.
Thus, John 1:1-2 does not teach ontological inequality. It affirms that the Son is distinct in person but equal in essence to the Father.
The claim that Trinitarian theology is “muddied” by paganism or neo-Platonism is a common argument made by groups like Jehovah’s Witnesses, but this claim is based on a misunderstanding of both Christian doctrine and historical theology.
The early Christians, including Church Fathers like Athanasius and Basil of Caesarea, firmly rejected the influence of pagan philosophies and polytheism. The Council of Nicaea (AD 325) condemned any view that diminished Christ’s full deity (such as Arianism), while affirming the biblical understanding of one God in three persons. The Trinity is rooted in Scripture, not in pagan philosophy.
Let’s consider the biblical foundation of the Trinity:
- Matthew 28:19: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, 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.”
The accusation of neo-Platonism is unfounded. Christian theologians drew from biblical revelation, not from pagan sources, to explain how God is one in essence and three in persons. The Trinity is a mystery of divine revelation, not a concept imported from Greek philosophy.

You criticize the Council of Nicaea as being politically motivated and question its theological outcomes. However, the council’s primary goal was to address Arianism and defend the full divinity of Christ, a belief already present in early Christian writings. The doctrine of the Trinity, as affirmed at Nicaea, was based on biblical revelation and a reflection of the Church’s understanding of God’s nature, not political expedience.
Furthermore, the Council of Nicaea did not “invent” the Trinity but rather clarified the relationship between the Father and the Son in response to the Arian heresy, which denied the full divinity of Christ. The Nicene Creed affirmed that the Son is "of the same essence" (homoousios) as the Father, a belief that was already widely held by Christians, including Church Fathers like Justin Martyr and Irenaeus. The fact that the Council was presided over by Emperor Constantine does not diminish the theological significance of the decisions made, which were based on scriptural exegesis, not political expediency.
So your assertion that the Trinity is rooted in pagan triads misrepresents both the Christian concept of the Trinity and pagan triads. Pagan triads consisted of three separate gods, whereas the Christian Trinity teaches that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one God in three persons, coequal and coeternal. This is a fundamental difference that invalidates any comparison to pagan triads.
You also argue that the omission of God's personal name, Jehovah, in the Trinity doctrine represents a “muddied” Christology. However, the New Testament writers consistently refer to God using a variety of titles, including "Father" and "Lord," and focus on the relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The use of the name Jehovah is not central to the debate over the nature of the Trinity, which focuses on the revealed relationship within the Godhead. Jehovah's Witnesses often claim that using the name "Jehovah" is essential for properly identifying God. However, the New Testament consistently refers to God as Father and emphasizes the revelation of God through Jesus Christ.
It’s important to recognize that the name “Jehovah” is a late Latinized form of the Tetragrammaton (YHWH), and the pronunciation of this name has been debated for centuries. Scholars generally agree that the original pronunciation was likely closer to “Yahweh.”
In the New Testament, the focus shifts to God’s Fatherhood and the person of Christ as the fullest revelation of God’s nature:
- John 14:9: Jesus says, “Whoever has seen me has seen the Father.”
- Philippians 2:9-11: “Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow…”
The use of the name “Jehovah” is not required in the New Testament, as the emphasis is on the relationship with the Father through Jesus Christ, who fully reveals the Father’s character, will, and purpose. Nowhere does Jesus or the apostles command believers to use the name Jehovah specifically in prayer or worship. Instead, they emphasize the relationship with God as Father and the authority of Jesus’ name.
In conclusion, your argument that the Trinity is derived from pagan sources and that "a god" is a legitimate rendering of John 1:1c misunderstands both Greek grammar and Christian theology. The qualitative nature of "theos" in John 1:1c emphasizes the Word's full divinity, not a lesser status. The Trinity doctrine is grounded in Scripture, not in pagan triads, and preserves the biblical teaching of one God in three persons—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
The qualitative reading of theos in John 1:1c emphasizes that the Word is fully divine, sharing the same nature as the Father, without introducing polytheism or subordinationism. The NWT’s translation of “a god” introduces theological confusion by implying a lesser deity, which contradicts both Greek grammar and the consistent biblical affirmation of monotheism.
FYI:
What Really Happened at Nicea?
A Response to the Pamphlet 'Should You Believe in the Trinity' by Barry Hofstetter
164
How did JWs arrive at a clearer understanding of what the Bible teaches than other Christian denominations?
by slimboyfat in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
for jws who believe that jehovah had a hand in reviving the truth in the nineteenth century this is enough explanation for how jws managed to achieve a closer approximation to early christian beliefs and practices than other groups.

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

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

Is a political power’s favor, proof of apostasy?
Most Greek (*) Protestants, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons etc. believe that the Church apostatized because Constantine the Great ended the persecutions and swayed the Empire’s favor towards Christians. But does the Holy Bible agree with this?
Let’s take a look at the Persian Emperor Cyrus as an example. The Holy Bible says that God spurred Cyrus’ heart (an idolatrous king!) into rebuilding the destroyed temple of God in Jerusalem, and to even return the sacred vessels that Nebuchadnezzar had stolen from it (Ezra, chapter 1). Was the favor of the idolatrous king towards the Judeans (especially his initiative to rebuild the Temple of God) proof that Israel had apostatized from the truth at the time? The Holy Bible replies with a resounding NO, because God stated the following about the idolatrous king Cyrus: “He is my shepherd, and he will perform all my errands; and I say unto Jerusalem: “You shall be rebuilt” and to the temple: “your foundations shall be planted” (Isaiah 44:28, Translation “PERGAMOS”). So, the Holy Bible clearly indicates that God can use even worldly potentates in order for His will to be done (Proverbs 21:1). The same happened with Constantine the Great: God swayed the favor of the idolatrous Emperor to the benefit of the Christians, using him as His instrument in order to terminate the state’s persecutions of the Church and allow the unhindered spreading of the Gospel throughout the Empire.
Consequently, the assertion of many contemporary movements that the Church apostatized opposes the Holy Bible as well as common logic, because if their assertion is accepted, then the Canon of the New Testament that they hold in their hands loses its validity! In closing, we submit something that the familiar Protestant Hank Hanegraaf said to the Mormons (although the same applies to every religious group that stresses the same argument: “In reply to this teaching (of the church’s apostasy), we should ask the Mormons exactly how would the Church be able to praise God ‘in every generation, for ever and ever’, if – as the Apostle Paul clearly wrote in Ephesians 3:21- it had declined into complete apostasy?” (www.equip.org/free/CP0306.htm).
(*). The original article was written in Greek.
164
How did JWs arrive at a clearer understanding of what the Bible teaches than other Christian denominations?
by slimboyfat in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
for jws who believe that jehovah had a hand in reviving the truth in the nineteenth century this is enough explanation for how jws managed to achieve a closer approximation to early christian beliefs and practices than other groups.

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

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

Is a political power’s favor, proof of apostasy?
Most Greek (*) Protestants, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons etc. believe that the Church apostatized because Constantine the Great ended the persecutions and swayed the Empire’s favor towards Christians. But does the Holy Bible agree with this?
Let’s take a look at the Persian Emperor Cyrus as an example. The Holy Bible says that God spurred Cyrus’ heart (an idolatrous king!) into rebuilding the destroyed temple of God in Jerusalem, and to even return the sacred vessels that Nebuchadnezzar had stolen from it (Ezra, chapter 1). Was the favor of the idolatrous king towards the Judeans (especially his initiative to rebuild the Temple of God) proof that Israel had apostatized from the truth at the time? The Holy Bible replies with a resounding NO, because God stated the following about the idolatrous king Cyrus: “He is my shepherd, and he will perform all my errands; and I say unto Jerusalem: “You shall be rebuilt” and to the temple: “your foundations shall be planted” (Isaiah 44:28, Translation “PERGAMOS”). So, the Holy Bible clearly indicates that God can use even worldly potentates in order for His will to be done (Proverbs 21:1). The same happened with Constantine the Great: God swayed the favor of the idolatrous Emperor to the benefit of the Christians, using him as His instrument in order to terminate the state’s persecutions of the Church and allow the unhindered spreading of the Gospel throughout the Empire.
Consequently, the assertion of many contemporary movements that the Church apostatized opposes the Holy Bible as well as common logic, because if their assertion is accepted, then the Canon of the New Testament that they hold in their hands loses its validity! In closing, we submit something that the familiar Protestant Hank Hanegraaf said to the Mormons (although the same applies to every religious group that stresses the same argument: “In reply to this teaching (of the church’s apostasy), we should ask the Mormons exactly how would the Church be able to praise God ‘in every generation, for ever and ever’, if – as the Apostle Paul clearly wrote in Ephesians 3:21- it had declined into complete apostasy?” (www.equip.org/free/CP0306.htm).
(*). The original article was written in Greek.
60
The Question of the "Great Apostasy" and the Historical Continuity of Christianity
by aqwsed12345 in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
1. the continuity and visibility of the church.

the true church must be continuous from the apostolic age.

there is no room in christianity for a "gap" or interruption of thousands of years during which true christianity ceased to exist and then was revived in the form of another movement.
aqwsed12345

Your response seems to conflate various ideas without addressing the specific point I made. I referred to Haitian customs, not a broad critique of all religious institutions. The practices of local cultures and traditions, such as those in Haiti, are not representative of Catholic doctrine or worship.
Regarding the Catholic Church, its doctrines are publicly available and based on centuries of theological development, and they are distinct from local customs, which may reflect cultural adaptations but do not alter official Church teachings. It's crucial to differentiate between practices that emerge from local contexts and the official teachings that guide the faith.
Furthermore, 2 Peter 2:1-3 and 3:9-10 do not refute Catholic approach. These verses speak about false prophets and the coming judgment, which applies to all who mislead others or turn from righteousness. The Catholic Church, like many other Christian denominations, teaches the importance of repentance and following Christ's teachings.
Simply associating organizations with Satan without any specific evidence or theological grounding is not a valid argument. The Catholic Church’s foundational beliefs are based on Christ’s teachings, and misrepresenting the faith based on unrelated local customs doesn’t invalidate its core message.
164
How did JWs arrive at a clearer understanding of what the Bible teaches than other Christian denominations?
by slimboyfat in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
for jws who believe that jehovah had a hand in reviving the truth in the nineteenth century this is enough explanation for how jws managed to achieve a closer approximation to early christian beliefs and practices than other groups.

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

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

@Rivergang
You will find this article interesting:
The role of Constantine in the Nicene Creed
Also a quote from HERE:
Is a political power’s favor, proof of apostasy?

Most Greek (*) Protestants, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons etc. believe that the Church apostatized because Constantine the Great ended the persecutions and swayed the Empire’s favor towards Christians. But does the Holy Bible agree with this?

Let’s take a look at the Persian Emperor Cyrus as an example. The Holy Bible says that God spurred Cyrus’ heart (an idolatrous king!) into rebuilding the destroyed temple of God in Jerusalem, and to even return the sacred vessels that Nebuchadnezzar had stolen from it (Ezra, chapter 1). Was the favor of the idolatrous king towards the Judeans (especially his initiative to rebuild the Temple of God) proof that Israel had apostatized from the truth at the time? The Holy Bible replies with a resounding NO, because God stated the following about the idolatrous king Cyrus: “He is my shepherd, and he will perform all my errands; and I say unto Jerusalem: “You shall be rebuilt” and to the temple: “your foundations shall be planted” (Isaiah 44:28, Translation “PERGAMOS”). So, the Holy Bible clearly indicates that God can use even worldly potentates in order for His will to be done (Proverbs 21:1). The same happened with Constantine the Great: God swayed the favor of the idolatrous Emperor to the benefit of the Christians, using him as His instrument in order to terminate the state’s persecutions of the Church and allow the unhindered spreading of the Gospel throughout the Empire.

Consequently, the assertion of many contemporary movements that the Church apostatized opposes the Holy Bible as well as common logic, because if their assertion is accepted, then the Canon of the New Testament that they hold in their hands loses its validity! In closing, we submit something that the familiar Protestant Hank Hanegraaf said to the Mormons (although the same applies to every religious group that stresses the same argument: “In reply to this teaching (of the church’s apostasy), we should ask the Mormons exactly how would the Church be able to praise God ‘in every generation, for ever and ever’, if – as the Apostle Paul clearly wrote in Ephesi