Posts by aqwsed12345

posted

405
Is Jesus the Creator?
by Sea Breeze in
1. watchtower
2. bible
that's what the word says.

.

colossians 1:16. for by him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through him and for him..
aqwsed12345

@Blotty
The Contini article discusses Jerome's exegetical treatment of Psalm 82:6, where humans are called "gods" (theoi in Greek, elohim in Hebrew). Thomistic theology approaches this passage with the understanding that while human beings are created in the imago Dei (image of God), they are fundamentally distinct from God in substance (ousia). Jerome rightly emphasizes that human beings are called "gods" not because they share the divine essence (ousia), but because they participate in God through grace (gratia). This aligns with the Thomistic principle that creatures share in God's perfections by participation, not by essence. As Thomas Aquinas writes, “The divine essence is the source of all being and goodness, and creatures reflect God’s goodness, yet remain distinct from Him in their essence” (Summa Theologiae I, q. 4, a. 3). Origen's tendency to blur the lines between God and creation, attributing to creatures a "certain kinship" with God, risks misunderstanding divine participation as implying consubstantiality. Jerome corrects this by underscoring the radical distinction between the Creator and the creature. This is critical in refuting Arianism, which denied the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father by relegating Christ to the level of a creature. Jerome's clarity safeguards the Nicene faith. Psalm 82 rebukes unjust judges (human rulers) who were metaphorically called "gods" due to their role as representatives of divine authority. Their mortality ("you will die like men") underscores their finite and contingent nature. This passage, as used by Christ in John 10:34, serves to highlight the distinction between divine appointment and intrinsic divinity. Christ surpasses this analogy by claiming unique Sonship, rooted in His consubstantiality with the Father (John 10:30).
When Jesus cites Psalm 82:6, He draws attention to the fact that even human judges were called "gods" because the "word of God came to them." His point is not to deny His divinity but to argue a fortiori—if these lesser beings could be called "gods," how much more appropriate is it for Him, sanctified and sent by the Father, to claim the title "Son of God"? Jesus does not use Psalm 82 to suggest equality with human judges. Instead, His works ("the Father is in me, and I am in the Father," John 10:38) confirm His unique relationship with the Father. This unity is ontological, not merely functional or moral. The Jews understood this as a claim to divinity, which is why they accused Him of blasphemy. JWs often argue that Jesus claimed to be "a god" rather than God, based on their translation of John 10:33-36. This interpretation fails contextually and grammatically. In John 10:30, Jesus declares, "I and the Father are one" (hen), signifying unity of essence. The Jews' reaction confirms they understood His claim as identifying Himself with YHWH. The absence of the Greek definite article with theos in certain contexts does not imply indefiniteness. Rather, it aligns with the qualitative aspect of divinity (e.g., John 1:1).
The Contini article posits that Jerome distanced himself from Origen’s universalizing anthropology while borrowing his exegetical methods. The distinction Jerome makes between Christ's divinity by nature and humans' participation in divinity by grace is consistent with Catholic orthodoxy. Humans are called to deification (theosis) through union with God, but this does not erase the Creator-creature distinction. Jerome’s insistence on the unique consubstantiality of Christ with the Father directly counters Arian subordinationism, which denied the full divinity of the Son. Origen’s ambiguity on the relationship between the Son and the Father provided fodder for Arians, which Jerome corrects by affirming the Nicene Creed. JWs misinterpret John 10:34 as diminishing Christ’s divinity. In contrast, Jerome’s anti-Arian exegesis and the Catholic understanding affirm that Christ’s claim to be "Son of God" implies His equality with the Father, grounded in His divine nature.
From a Thomistic viewpoint, human dignity arises from being made in the imago Dei and being called to union with God through grace. However, God is pure act (actus purus), infinite, and unchangeable. Humans are finite, contingent, and capable of change. No participation in God’s perfections renders humans consubstantial with Him. Participation in the divine life occurs through Christ, who as the God-Man bridges the infinite gap between Creator and creature. As Aquinas notes, Christ's mediation is unique because He alone possesses the divine essence by nature (ST III, q. 26, a. 1).
The claim that my argument relies on "BSing everyone" is an unsubstantiated ad hominem attack that does not engage with the substance of my theological claims. As for accusations of using insulting usernames or other online conduct, such claims are irrelevant to the present discussion and do not invalidate the content of my arguments. Theological discourse should focus on evidence and reasoning rather than personal attacks or distractions.
While Psalm 82 and 2 Corinthians 4:4 use "gods" to refer metaphorically to human judges or Satan's authority, the usage of "theos" in John 1:1 is qualitatively different. The prologue of John, steeped in Jewish monotheism, identifies the Logos as eternal, pre-existent, and divine, not as a subordinate or metaphorical "god." The anarthrous construction in Greek ("theos ēn ho logos") emphasizes the qualitative essence of the Logos as fully divine, a theological affirmation that aligns with the Gospel's broader portrayal of Christ as Creator and Sustainer of all things (John 1:3).
While Wikipedia is not a primary academic source, it can provide useful summaries when its claims are verified by reliable sources. The dismissal of Wikipedia’s utility entirely is unnecessary if the citations are accurate and well-supported by scholarly references. Furthermore, several academic articles and books use Wikipedia for definitions, overviews, or introductory references, particularly in interdisciplinary fields. For example, scholars in digital humanities or pedagogy frequently cite Wikipedia to discuss its role in modern education. Referencing it as a starting point for broader discussion or context is not inherently illegitimate. Scholarly works, while not citing Wikipedia directly, often engage with concepts or summaries that may appear in such platforms. My point was that dismissing an argument solely because it references Wikipedia, without engaging the argument's substance, is an ad hominem tactic rather than substantive critique. This broader perspective negates the blanket dismissal presented in the critique.
Regarding Tertullian’s discussion of idol makers, the critic misrepresents the context of his writings. Tertullian’s use of the term “idol makers” in De Spectaculis and Apologeticus relates specifically to pagan practices and false gods, not the divine nature of Christ or His participation in creation. Tertullian affirms the Son’s divinity and inseparability from the Father. Tertullian's language reflects the relational dynamic between the Father and the Son, not an ontological hierarchy. His writings predate the Nicene articulation of homoousios (same essence), but they consistently affirm the Son's divinity. Your interpretation of Tertullian is flawed. Tertullian’s writings, such as Against Praxeas, affirm the distinct personhood of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit while maintaining their unity in essence. His analogy of the sun and its rays illustrates that the Son is eternally generated from the Father, sharing the same divine essence and acting inseparably in creation. The statement "cum filio solus, sicut cum filio unum" (neuter, just like "hen" in John 10:30, the masculine "unus" would man Sabellianism) reflects Tertullian’s Trinitarian framework, not subordinationism. Additionally, his reference to idol-makers does not equate the Son with false gods but critiques polytheistic practices. Your reading misrepresents his theology and oversimplifies his nuanced arguments.
The critique against rendering theos in John 1:1 as "God" rather than "a god" reflects a misunderstanding of Greek grammar and Johannine theology. The anarthrous theos emphasizes the qualitative nature of the Word (the Logos) as fully divine. This aligns with the monotheistic framework of John's Gospel, which never introduces polytheism or henotheism. Rendering it as "a god" imposes a theological bias foreign to the context and undermines the coherence of John 1:3, where the Logos is identified as the Creator of "all things."
Origen explicitly states in Contra Celsum (Book 8, Chapter 12):
“...that he may understand the meaning of the saying, 'I and My Father are one'. We worship one God, the Father and the Son, therefore, as we have explained; and our argument against the worship of other gods still continues valid.”
Origen’s theology, though speculative in some areas, consistently affirms the full divinity of the Logos. The claim that Origen saw the Logos as a "lesser deity" is a misreading of his work. His articulation of the relational distinction between the Father and the Son predates Nicene terminology but aligns with Trinitarian theology. In Contra Celsum (Book 8, Chapter 12), Origen defends the worship of the Logos alongside the Father, affirming the Son's full divinity and unity with the Father. He explicitly rejects polytheism and subordinationist interpretations that would deny the Son’s equality with the Father. Origen's complex theological language seeks to articulate the relational dynamics within the Godhead, not to undermine Christ’s divinity.
The critique of the Logos as merely an "agent" misunderstands the biblical and theological context of creation. The Greek term dia (through) in John 1:3, Colossians 1:16, and Hebrews 1:2 emphasizes the Logos’s active role in creation, not as a subordinate intermediary but as the divine Word through whom all things exist. This aligns with the Old Testament declaration in Isaiah 44:24 that Yahweh alone created the heavens and the earth. The Logos’s involvement in creation demonstrates His full participation in the divine essence. On the concept of agency, your understanding is reductionist. While "agent" can imply subordination in some contexts, its theological application to Christ must be understood within the framework of divine unity. John 1:3, Colossians 1:16, and Hebrews 1:10 identify Christ as the active agent in creation. These passages leave no ambiguity: Jesus is affirmed as Creator, not as a mere agent but as God Himself, working in unity with the Father and the Spirit. The Father is also called Creator (e.g., Isaiah 44:24), reflecting the Trinitarian understanding that creation is the work of the one God, involving all three persons. The use of "through" (Greek: "dia") does not diminish Christ’s role but emphasizes the relational distinction within the Godhead. The unity of essence between the Father and Son means that Christ’s creative work is not independent but in perfect harmony with the Father's will. This is not analogous to a subordinate intermediary but reflects the functional distinctions within the Trinity.
The claim that Jesus is not explicitly called "Creator" ignores the context of passages such as John 1:3 ("All things were made through Him"), Colossians 1:16-17 ("For by Him all things were created... He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together"), and Hebrews 1:10, which applies Psalm 102:25-27 to Christ. These texts identify Christ as the agent of creation in a manner that only God could fulfill. The Father’s role as Creator is often implicit, as creation is a Trinitarian act involving the Father, Son, and Spirit in unity.
Scholars like Jason BeDuhn, while sympathetic to some aspects of the NWT, critique its rendering of texts like John 1:1c, preferring "divine" as a more accurate translation. This reflects a rejection of the polytheistic implications of "a god." BeDuhn’s acknowledgment of theological bias in the NWT undermines the claim that all critiques are Trinitarian in origin. Rigorous academic studies, including those by non-Trinitarian scholars, engage with the historical, linguistic, and theological evidence supporting the Trinity. Examples include works by Richard Bauckham (Jesus and the God of Israel), N.T. Wright (The Resurrection of the Son of God), and non-Trinitarian studies that critique but also engage the traditional view, such as Larry Hurtado’s research on early Christology. To dismiss all Trinitarian scholarship as biased is to ignore the scholarly rigor and diverse perspectives that contribute to the field.
The claim that ego eimi (“I am”) in John 8:58 should be rendered “I have been” or “I was” rather than “I am” is linguistically weak. While eimi can sometimes be translated differently depending on context, the present tense in Greek often conveys timeless or continuous existence, particularly when used in conjunction with a temporal clause, as in prin Abraam genesthai ego eimi (“before Abraham came to be, I am”). The choice of the present tense eimi rather than the past tense ēmēn (“I was”) suggests an intentional emphasis on Jesus’ eternal existence. This timeless aspect aligns with divine self-revelation rather than mere preexistence, this statement is a direct claim to deity.
The argument that John 8:58 does not parallel Exodus 3:14 because the Septuagint (LXX) uses ego eimi ho on (“I am the Being”) rather than ego eimi alone overlooks the theological connection between these passages. While the phrasing differs slightly, the use of ego eimi in both cases conveys the self-existence and eternal nature of God. In Exodus 3:14, God identifies Himself to Moses as “I am who I am” (ehyeh asher ehyeh in Hebrew, rendered as ego eimi ho on in Greek), establishing His identity as the eternally existing one. In John 8:58, Jesus’ use of ego eimi evokes this same divine self-identification, particularly in the context of a conversation about Abraham and divine promises. The Jews’ reaction—attempting to stone Jesus for blasphemy—confirms their understanding that He was making a divine claim.
The assertion that ego eimi is a common phrase used by many individuals in the Bible and thus lacks theological significance is misleading. While ego eimi can indeed appear in ordinary contexts, its usage in John 8:58 stands out because it is coupled with a temporal clause referring to a time before Abraham's existence. This construction, where Jesus speaks of Himself in terms of eternal existence, is unique and unparalleled. For example, John 9:9, where the blind man says ego eimi (“I am [he]”), is a simple identification and lacks the profound theological implications of John 8:58.
The claim that the reaction of the Jews in John 8:59 (picking up stones to stone Jesus) could be due to reasons other than His claim to divinity, such as their general hostility, ignores the context of their accusation. Throughout the Gospel of John, the Jewish leaders repeatedly accuse Jesus of blasphemy and equating Himself with God (John 5:18, 10:30-33). In John 8:58-59, their response to His declaration directly follows His claim, indicating they understood it as a claim to divine identity. This reaction highlights the gravity of Jesus’ words and supports the interpretation that He was asserting His divinity.
The argument that John 8:58 does not explicitly identify Jesus as God but rather as a divine agent or messianic figure fails to account for the broader Johannine context. The Gospel of John repeatedly emphasizes Jesus’ divine nature. From the Prologue (John 1:1-14), which declares that “the Word was God,” to Jesus’ statements about His unity with the Father (John 10:30), John presents a consistent Christology that identifies Jesus as fully divine. The “I am” statements (ego eimi) throughout the Gospel, particularly without predicates, further reinforce this theme.
The critique of the NWT for rendering ego eimi as “I have been” reflects the theological bias of the JWs rather than linguistic accuracy. This translation attempts to obscure the connection to Exodus 3:14 and to downplay the deity of Christ. This approach is inconsistent with standard Greek grammar and the historical understanding of the text. Reputable scholars and translations overwhelmingly render ego eimi as “I am,” preserving the theological significance of Jesus’ statement.
The suggestion that Jesus may have spoken in Aramaic or Hebrew rather than Greek does not weaken the argument for His deity. Even if He used a Semitic phrase equivalent to ego eimi, the Evangelist John chose to convey this in Greek using the present tense ego eimi, which has specific theological resonance. The inspired text reflects the Evangelist’s intention to present Jesus as the eternal Word of God.
The broader argument that Jesus never explicitly claimed to be God in the Gospels and was only understood as the Messiah or Son of God by His contemporaries is inconsistent with the evidence. Jesus’ identification with divine prerogatives, His forgiveness of sins (Mark 2:5-12), His authority over the Law (Matthew 5:21-48), and His acceptance of worship (John 20:28) all point to His divine identity. The charge of blasphemy leveled against Him by the Sanhedrin (Mark 14:61-64) was based on His claim to be the Son of Man who would sit at the right hand of Power—a clear reference to Daniel 7:13-14, a vision of divine authority.
405
Is Jesus the Creator?
by Sea Breeze in
1. watchtower
2. bible
that's what the word says.

.

colossians 1:16. for by him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through him and for him..
aqwsed12345

@Blotty
The claim that Trevor R. Allin and others like him are "massive liars" undermines the spirit of constructive dialogue. Instead of addressing the substance of their arguments, such personal attacks fail to contribute meaningfully to the debate. If Allin’s claims are flawed, they should be addressed with evidence and reasoned arguments, not ad hominem attacks.
Regarding the citation of Wikipedia, while it is true that Wikipedia is not a primary academic source, referencing it in a broader discussion is not inherently invalid, especially if the content cited is accurate and supported by other reliable sources. The dismissal of Allin’s arguments purely because of a Wikipedia reference is an overreach and does not negate his broader critiques. The focus should be on the substance of the claims, not the citation medium.
Your assertion that "a god" in John 1:1c cannot be faulted linguistically is partially correct; it is a grammatically possible rendering. However, the key issue is not mere grammatical possibility but theological and contextual accuracy. John’s Gospel, steeped in Jewish monotheism, does not support the interpretation of the Logos as a lesser god. The qualitative understanding of theos in John 1:1c—affirming the Word’s divine nature—better aligns with both the grammar and the theological context of the text. Simply because “a god” is linguistically possible does not mean it is the most accurate or contextually appropriate translation.
While it is true that certain early Church Fathers, such as Justin Martyr, used terms like "theos kai kurios eteros" to describe the Logos, their intent must be understood within the context of their writings and their adherence to monotheism. Origen, for example, is not introducing a second deity but rather expressing the distinction of persons within the unity of the divine essence. This relational distinction is foundational to Trinitarian theology, which affirms one God in three persons.

The term allos theos is not equivalent to the claim that the Logos is "a god" in a polytheistic/henotheistic or subordinate sense. Origen himself clarifies this point in Contra Celsum (Book 2, Chapter 70), where he insists that the Logos shares fully in the divine nature and does not represent a separate or lesser deity. His use of such terms reflects the challenge of articulating the relational dynamics within the Godhead before the formalized terminology of the Nicene Creed. To accuse Origen or other Fathers of literal polytheism is to ignore their explicit commitment to monotheism.

Similarly, Justin Martyr uses phrases like "theos kai kurios eteros" in a way that underscores relational distinction without compromising divine unity. Justin’s aim is apologetic: he seeks to demonstrate to a Jewish audience that the pre-incarnate Logos, active in creation and Old Testament theophanies, is distinct in person yet shares in the divine essence. Justin explicitly denies any division or multiplication of the divine essence, as seen in Dialogue with Trypho (Chapter 56), where he rejects the idea of abscission, affirming instead the eternal generation of the Son.

The attempt to equate theos in John 1:1 with "a god" relies on a fundamental misunderstanding of Greek grammar and Johannine theology. The anarthrous theos in John 1:1c ("the Word was God") emphasizes the qualitative nature of the Logos, not its numerical distinction from the Father. The Logos possesses the same divine essence as the Father, consistent with John’s monotheistic framework. Translating theos as "a god" introduces a polytheistic nuance foreign to the text and undermines the theological coherence of John’s prologue. Moreover, the examples cited—such as Satan being called "a god" (2 Corinthians 4:4) or human judges being referred to as "gods" (Psalm 82:6)—do not support the argument for rendering theos as "a god" in John 1:1. These instances employ metaphorical language to denote authority or dominion, not ontological divinity. The context in John 1:1, however, is explicitly ontological, as the Logos is identified as the eternal Creator (John 1:3), distinct in person yet fully divine.

Early Church Fathers, while operating within the constraints of pre-Nicene terminology, consistently affirm the full divinity of the Logos. Justin Martyr, for instance, asserts that the Logos was eternally with God and distinct in person, as seen in Dialogue with Trypho (Chapter 61). Tertullian similarly speaks of the Logos as proceeding from the Father while remaining fully divine. These writings reflect the embryonic development of Trinitarian theology, not a denial of it. It is also erroneous to claim that Origen or Hippolytus took such descriptions literally in a way that implies polytheism. Their writings must be read in the context of their unwavering commitment to monotheism and their efforts to articulate the mystery of the Trinity in the face of heretical interpretations. For example, Origen explicitly states in Contra Celsum (Book 8, Chapter 12) that the Logos is worshiped along with the Father, reflecting his belief in the Logos’s full divinity.

Theological development over time does not equate to theological innovation. The Nicene articulation of the Trinity clarified and formalized what was already implicit in Scripture and early Christian thought. Subordinationist language in early writings often reflects the relational order within the Godhead, not an ontological hierarchy. This is evident in Justin’s and Origen’s writings, which affirm the unity of essence while distinguishing the persons. Early Christian writers often used such terms to emphasize the distinct personhood of the Son relative to the Father without implying that He was a lesser or separate deity. This language must be understood within the framework of early Trinitarian theology, which maintained the unity of essence (homoousios) between the Father and the Son. The Church Fathers did not endorse a polytheistic interpretation but affirmed the Son’s full divinity within the monotheistic understanding of God.
Your point that Satan is called “a god” (e.g., 2 Corinthians 4:4) and human judges are referred to as “gods” (Psalm 82:6) does not support the NWT’s rendering of John 1:1c as “a god.” In both cases, the terms are used metaphorically or analogically, not ontologically. The judges in Psalm 82 are called “gods” because of their role as representatives of divine authority, not because they possess divinity. Similarly, Satan is called “the god of this age” to highlight his influence over the fallen world, not because he shares in God’s nature. The use of theos in these contexts does not equate to the qualitative use of theos in John 1:1c, where the Logos is identified with the very essence of deity.
Origen’s writings must also be understood in their historical and theological context. While Origen recognized a distinction between the Father and the Son, he affirmed the Son’s divinity and pre-existence. His theology is complex and was later deemed speculative in some areas, but he never taught that the Logos was a created or lesser god in the sense implied by the NWT. Instead, Origen’s writings contributed to the development of orthodox Trinitarian theology.
Isaiah 44:24 emphatically declares that Yahweh alone is the Creator: "I am the LORD, who made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself." The Hebrew terms "alone" (levadí) and "by myself" (mē’ittí) underscore the absolute exclusivity of God's creative work, leaving no room for any secondary agents—whether false gods, angels, or any other beings. This passage asserts the divine uniqueness and monotheism foundational to the Old Testament, directly contradicting the idea that creation involved a created intermediary like the JW "Michael-Jesus."
John 1:3 explicitly states, "All things were made through Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made." The Greek verb egeneto (came into being) highlights Jesus' active participation in bringing all creation into existence. The preposition dia (through) does not indicate that Jesus was a mere tool or intermediary, as in the case of a subordinate agent, but rather emphasizes the unity and distinct relational roles within the Trinity. Jesus, as the Logos, was the direct agent of creation, fully sharing in the divine essence. Similarly, Colossians 1:16-17 affirms: "For by Him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible... all things were created through Him and for Him." The phrase "for Him" (eis auton) emphasizes Christ's ultimate supremacy and purpose in creation—attributes that can belong only to God. Paul’s language here reflects Christ’s divine identity, not that of a created being or subordinate agent. Hebrews 1:10 applies Psalm 102:25-27, which speaks of Yahweh as Creator, directly to Jesus: "You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands." This identification of Jesus as Yahweh, the Creator, is clear and unequivocal. If Jesus were merely a creature or an instrument, this attribution would conflict with the exclusive role of Yahweh as Creator in Isaiah 44:24.
Your interpretation of Tertullian misrepresents his theology. Tertullian affirmed the Son's full divinity and role in creation, stating in Against Praxeas: "He [the Father] stretched out the heavens alone, but alone with His Son, even as He is one with His Son." This shows Tertullian’s understanding that the Father and the Son, while distinct persons, share the same divine essence and work inseparably in creation. Tertullian explicitly denied that the Son was a subordinate or separate being. Instead, he described the Son as "undivided and inseparable from the Father" and emphasized their unity in essence and purpose. His analogy of the Father and Son as the sun and its ray illustrates this: just as the ray emanates from the sun without division, so the Son is eternally begotten of the Father, fully God and co-equal in nature. Your claim that Tertullian supported the idea of "alone" excluding only false gods but allowing for the involvement of creatures in creation is inaccurate. Tertullian clearly affirmed that the Son's participation in creation stems from His unity with the Father in divine essence, not as a created intermediary. His writings consistently refute any subordinationist interpretation.
Isaiah 44:24 does not merely exclude false gods but categorically denies the involvement of any being, created or uncreated, other than Yahweh in creation. The Hebrew terms "alone" and "by myself" are absolute, precluding even the possibility of an intermediary. If Jesus were a created being, His involvement in creation would contradict this passage. However, the New Testament's consistent portrayal of Jesus as Creator (John 1:3, Col. 1:16, Heb. 1:10) aligns perfectly with the understanding that Jesus is Yahweh, fully divine.
Your suggestion that a lack of positive scholarly consensus for the NWT is due to a "Trinitarian-dominated world" is speculative and dismissive of legitimate critiques. Many scholars, both Trinitarian and otherwise, have raised concerns about the NWT’s theological bias, particularly in its handling of key Christological texts. Dismissing these critiques as mere bias ignores the substance of their arguments and the weight of evidence against the NWT’s interpretive choices.
BeDuhn’s defense of the NWT focuses on its linguistic fidelity, but he also acknowledges its theological implications. While he argues for the grammatical possibility of “a god” in John 1:1c, he prefers “divine” as a more accurate rendering. This preference underscores the qualitative nature of theos in this context, which aligns with the broader theological intent of John’s Gospel. The NWT’s choice of “a god” introduces ambiguity and theological bias that is not present in the original text or the broader Johannine context.
Your critique of traditional Trinitarian scholarship as inherently biased fails to account for the rigorous academic standards applied in such studies. While all translations and interpretations reflect some level of theological presupposition, the weight of historical, linguistic, and contextual evidence overwhelmingly supports the traditional understanding of John 1:1c as affirming the Logos’s full divinity.
405
Is Jesus the Creator?
by Sea Breeze in
1. watchtower
2. bible
that's what the word says.

.

colossians 1:16. for by him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through him and for him..
aqwsed12345

BeDuhn lauds the KIT for its accuracy as an interlinear translation and its utility in academic settings. He emphasizes its "slavish word-for-word correspondence," which exposes linguistic nuances and forces readers to grapple with the text's original meaning. While the KIT may be a helpful academic tool, its underlying Greek text (Westcott & Hort) is itself subject to scholarly debate, and it represents only one textual tradition. Moreover, the interlinear's literalism can sometimes obscure meaning in cases where context and idiom demand a more dynamic translation.
BeDuhn defends the NWT as generally accurate and “hyper-literal,” emphasizing that it avoids interpretive glosses often found in mainstream translations. Hyper-literal translations, while exposing readers to the text's structure, can lead to awkward or misleading renderings. For instance, the NWT’s approach in passages like John 1:1 (“a god”) or Colossians 1:15 (adding “other”) reflects interpretive choices influenced by JW doctrine. While these may not be "grammatically impossible," they can still introduce theological bias under the guise of literalism.
BeDuhn argues that all translations reflect some level of bias, stemming from the theological or doctrinal assumptions of their translators. While bias is indeed present in all translations, not all biases are equal. The NWT has been criticized for systematic doctrinal bias that aligns closely with JW doctrines, particularly regarding the deity of Christ and the use of “Jehovah” in the NT. By contrast, many mainstream translations aim for a broader ecumenical consensus.
The Watchtower's history of taking scholars’ statements out of context warrants scrutiny. By omitting BeDuhn’s criticisms of the NWT and KIT, the organization risks misleading its readers, particularly given the deference many JWs afford to such endorsements.
The NWT inserts "Jehovah" in 237 instances in the NT, despite the absence of the Tetragrammaton in all known Greek manuscripts. BeDuhn’s critique in his later writings acknowledges this as a conjectural emendation unsupported by manuscript evidence. This practice reflects theological bias, as it aligns with JW emphasis on the divine name, even at the expense of textual fidelity. It also obscures the NT authors' apparent identification of Jesus with OT references to Yahweh (e.g., Philippians 2:10–11, quoting Isaiah 45:23). BeDuhn criticizes the NWT’s substitution of "Jehovah" for Kyrios (Lord) in the NT, noting that this choice is not supported by manuscript evidence. While he acknowledges that the Watchtower’s theory about the removal of the divine name from early Christian texts might be plausible, he rightly concludes that the current state of evidence does not support this claim. The insertion of “Jehovah” into the NT by the NWT is one of its most controversial features. This choice introduces theological bias, as it aligns with Jehovah’s Witnesses’ distinctive focus on the divine name. While some OT quotations in the NT might justify restoring the Tetragrammaton, the wholesale replacement of Kyrios with “Jehovah” is not only conjectural but also inconsistent with the textual evidence.
BeDuhn defends the grammatical possibility of “a god” as a rendering, though he concedes that “divine” might better reflect the qualitative nuance of theos in this context. BeDuhn’s argument in favor of the NWT centers on its adherence to Greek grammar, particularly in controversial passages like John 1:1. His assertion that the NWT's rendering of the third clause as "a god" or "divine" is grammatically valid aligns with the understanding of theos without the definite article in Greek. While this argument has linguistic merit, it overlooks the theological implications of rendering theos as "a god." Critics argue that this rendering introduces theological bias by diminishing the traditional understanding of Christ’s deity, a point that BeDuhn downplays as an interpretive choice rather than a distortion. The NWT’s rendering of “a god” introduces theological implications that are inconsistent with Johannine monotheism. The broader context of John’s Gospel, including verses like John 1:3 and John 20:28, supports an understanding of the Logos as fully divine rather than a subordinate deity.
BeDuhn draws an interesting parallel between Mark 12:26–27 and John 1:1, noting that the absence of the article in theos in Mark 12:27 allows for a categorical or indefinite sense. While this observation is linguistically valid, the context of John 1:1 differs significantly. The Prologue of John is a theological statement about the Logos's identity, emphasizing the Word’s intrinsic divinity rather than placing it in a generic “god” category. John 1:1's prologue is widely understood as affirming the Word’s deity, paralleling the "Logos" with the monotheistic God of Jewish tradition. Translating theos as "a god" risks conflicting with the monotheistic framework of John's Gospel, potentially introducing a theological bias of Arianism. BeDuhn critiques the application of Colwell’s Rule by arguing it presupposes definiteness rather than proving it. While his criticism has validity, Colwell’s Rule remains a significant framework in Greek syntax, particularly when analyzing predicate nominatives like theos in John 1:1. Many scholars argue that the absence of the article does not automatically make theos indefinite but emphasizes its qualitative aspect, supporting the translation "the Word was God" as a categorical affirmation of the Logos’ divine nature. BeDuhn views John 1:1 as an initial step in the development of Christological thought, which later led to doctrines like the Trinity. While this perspective aligns with historical-critical approaches, it risks downplaying the high Christology evident throughout John’s Gospel.
BeDuhn highlights the inconsistency in various translations’ handling of theos, noting that all translations exhibit some bias. However, he overlooks the inconsistency within the NWT itself, particularly its selective use of "Jehovah" in the NT. As BeDuhn acknowledges in his appendix critique, the insertion of "Jehovah" lacks textual support in the Greek manuscripts and is based on conjectural emendation. This practice undermines the NWT’s claim to objectivity and introduces a significant theological bias aligning with JW doctrine. BeDuhn’s dismissal of prominent scholars’ critiques of the NWT as "biased" or "theological rather than linguistic" can itself be seen as overly dismissive. While bias exists in translation, his blanket critique of traditional interpretations risks downplaying legitimate scholarly concerns about the NWT’s theological motivations. For instance, his dismissal of Metzger’s and Westcott’s criticisms as “theological” overlooks the fact that theological coherence and linguistic fidelity are often intertwined in biblical exegesis.
While BeDuhn defends the NWT's rendering as "grammatically possible", most scholars argue it fails to reflect the qualitative nuance of theos in the text, which suggests divine nature rather than indefiniteness. The qualitative sense of theos in John 1:1 is supported by the immediate context (e.g., John 1:3, 1:18) and the larger narrative of John’s Gospel, which culminates in Thomas’s confession of Jesus as “My Lord and my God” (John 20:28). Rendering theos as “a god” not only creates theological ambiguity but also introduces an interpretation that aligns more closely with Jehovah’s Witness theology than with the text’s intent.
BeDuhn’s treatment of John 20:28 (“My Lord and my God!”) as an interpretive issue rather than a clear affirmation of Christ’s deity is also problematic. While he correctly notes that the context of John’s Gospel must inform the interpretation, his reluctance to acknowledge this verse as a culmination of the Logos theology presented in John 1:1 appears to reflect his own theological hesitancy rather than an unbiased analysis.
BeDuhn suggests that "divine" might be a preferable translation to "a god" in John 1:1c, as it captures the qualitative nature of the term. This suggestion underscores a valid point that a qualitative understanding of theos aligns with John’s theology. However, the NWT’s choice of "a god" implies henotheism to many English readers, creating a disconnect with both the text's Jewish monotheistic roots and its intended meaning.
Examples like Colossians 1:15 (“firstborn of all creation” with “other”), Philippians 2:6 (“gave no consideration to a seizure”), and Titus 2:13 (rendering that separates “God” and “Savior”) highlight interpretive choices that align with JW doctrine. These choices go beyond grammatical fidelity, often reshaping the text to fit a pre-existing theological framework. Such renderings are at odds with mainstream scholarship and the broader consensus of early Christian interpretation.
BeDuhn points out that mainstream biblical scholars rarely review the NWT, not because of unanimous condemnation but due to its peripheral status in academic circles. While the lack of scholarly reviews may limit informed critique, the absence of positive scholarly consensus is also telling. The NWT’s idiosyncrasies and theological biases have prevented its acceptance as a reliable translation outside JW circles.
BeDuhn’s concern that his praise for the KIT might be misused by the Watchtower to bolster its religious claims is valid. The organization’s history of presenting scholars’ comments out of context, as seen in other cases, underscores the need for caution. While his defense of the NWT against blanket condemnation is fair, his critiques often fail to fully address the theological and doctrinal motivations behind the NWT’s most controversial renderings. The NWT’s systematic alignment with JW theology in key texts—especially concerning the deity of Christ and the insertion of “Jehovah” in the NT—raises legitimate concerns about its reliability as an unbiased translation. BeDuhn’s observations remind us of the importance of critical engagement with all translations, recognizing both their strengths and their limitations. However, the broader scholarly and theological critiques of the NWT remain valid and should not be dismissed as merely biased reactions.
405
Is Jesus the Creator?
by Sea Breeze in
1. watchtower
2. bible
that's what the word says.

.

colossians 1:16. for by him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through him and for him..
aqwsed12345
@TTWSYF
Check out these:
405
Is Jesus the Creator?
by Sea Breeze in
1. watchtower
2. bible
that's what the word says.

.

colossians 1:16. for by him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through him and for him..
aqwsed12345

@Blotty
Your claim that "reapplications identify someone" misunderstands the theological framework of Hebrews. The use of proskyneō in Hebrews 1:6 reflects the unique role of Christ in salvation history, not merely as one who inherits worship but as one who inherently deserves it because of His divine nature. Hebrews establishes that Jesus is far superior to the angels (Hebrews 1:4), explicitly stating that He has "inherited a more excellent name than they." This inheritance does not imply a lack of prior worship but highlights Christ's preeminence in the unfolding revelation of God's plan. The angels are commanded to worship Him, not as a newly exalted being but as one whose divine status is progressively revealed to creation (Philippians 2:9-11).
You assert that the command for angels to worship Jesus suggests He is not God. This conclusion is based on a false dichotomy. In Jewish monotheism, worship (proskyneō) is reserved for Yahweh alone (Exodus 34:14). By applying Deuteronomy 32:43 (from the Septuagint) to Jesus, the author of Hebrews identifies Jesus with Yahweh. This is not idolatry, as you suggest, because the worship of Jesus is presented as consistent with the worship of God. In Revelation 5:13-14, all creation worships "the one seated on the throne" (the Father) and "the Lamb" (Jesus) in a unified act of adoration, demonstrating their shared divine status. Revelation 5 explicitly presents the Lamb as receiving the same worship as the One seated on the throne. In verses 12-13, the Lamb is ascribed "blessing, honor, glory, and power forever and ever," terms consistently reserved for divine worship throughout Scripture. The juxtaposition of the Lamb with the One seated on the throne, both being praised equally by "every creature in heaven, on earth, under the earth, and in the sea," indicates their shared divine status. The claim that this worship is analogous to obeisance given to kings in the OT (e.g., 1 Chronicles 29:20) ignores the unique context of Revelation. In the OT, homage to kings is clearly distinguished from worship of God, often accompanied by warnings against idolatry (Exodus 20:3-5). Revelation 5, however, unites God and the Lamb in a singular act of worship, with no indication of distinction in the nature or degree of reverence.
The argument that John in the Book of Revelation avoids directly calling the Lamb "God" (theos) does not diminish the Lamb’s divine identity. Revelation’s literary style employs rich symbolism and a high Christology, portraying Jesus as the Lamb who possesses divine attributes such as omnipotence ("seven horns"), omniscience ("seven eyes"), and the authority to execute divine judgment (Revelation 5:6; 6:16-17). Furthermore, the phrase "the Lamb in the midst of the throne" (Revelation 5:6) places Jesus in the same spatial and functional relationship with God, affirming their unity. Quoting P.M. Casey, who argues that the Lamb "almost approaches deity," reflects an interpretive bias rooted in a limited understanding of Jewish monotheism. Second Temple Judaism allowed for a complex monotheism in which intermediary figures like the Angel of the Lord or the "Son of Man" could bear divine authority. Revelation 5 situates the Lamb firmly within this framework, transcending mere kingship to assert divine prerogatives. The argument that John 17:5 denies shared glory between the Son and the Father is linguistically and contextually flawed. Jesus prays to the Father to restore the glory he had "before the world existed," signifying his pre-existent divine status. This shared glory is intrinsic to the Trinitarian relationship, not a bestowed honor limited to Jesus' role as the Lamb. The Lamb’s glorification in Revelation reflects this eternal divine reality, not merely an acquired function.
The emphasis on the textual variant παντοκράτωρ (pantokrator) in Codex Sinaiticus attempts to create theological ambiguity, suggesting a diminished role for the Lamb. However, this variant, even if genuine, does not contradict the Lamb’s divinity. Whether "dominion" (κράτος) or "almighty" (παντοκράτωρ) is used, the focus remains on the Lamb’s shared authority with God. The broader textual tradition and the consistent ascription of divine worship to the Lamb in Revelation render the variant inconsequential to the theological argument. The claim that the Lamb receives "relative worship" deflects from the clear evidence in Revelation 22:3. The singular pronoun ("him") refers jointly to God and the Lamb, underscoring their unity. The Greek term latreuo, reserved for divine worship (e.g., Matthew 4:10), is applied to the Lamb, affirming his deity. Attempts to limit this service to God the Father fail to account for the context, where the Lamb is equally included in the singular worship. Revelation consistently portrays Jesus as equal to God. The Lamb shares the throne with God (Revelation 3:21; 22:1-3), is the light of the New Jerusalem (Revelation 21:23), and receives universal worship (Revelation 5:13-14). The use of singular pronouns and verbs further reinforces this unity, as seen in Revelation 11:15, where the kingdom is said to belong to "our Lord and his Christ," yet described with a singular verb.
Regarding your comments on translation inconsistencies, the accusation against "Trinitarian translations" requires nuance. Translation choices are complex and context-dependent. However, the NWT has been widely criticized for systematic inconsistencies that reflect theological bias, particularly in passages related to Christ's divinity. For example, the NWT translates proskyneō as "worship" when referring to God but as "do obeisance" when referring to Jesus (e.g., Hebrews 1:6). This selective approach undermines the integrity of the translation and reflects an effort to deny the divinity of Christ, despite the contextual evidence supporting worship in the divine sense.
Your mention of John 1:1 and John 1:6 as "not parallels" ignores the underlying grammatical and theological issues. The rendering of John 1:1 as "the Word was a god" in the NWT introduces a theological interpretation unsupported by Greek grammar or context. The absence of the definite article before theos in John 1:1 does not make it indefinite; this is a well-established principle in Koine Greek grammar. Contextually, John 1:1 affirms the Word’s full divinity while distinguishing the Word (Jesus) from the Father. Comparing this to John 1:6, where "God" (theos) refers to the Father, reveals no inconsistency in mainstream translations, as the contexts clearly differentiate the persons of the Trinity.
Your assertion that "you cannot worship if you doubt" reflects a misunderstanding of faith and worship. Worship often coexists with human doubt and uncertainty, as exemplified by the disciples in Matthew 28:17: "When they saw him, they worshipped him; but some doubted." Worship here reflects recognition of Jesus' worthiness and divinity, even as the disciples grapple with the profound reality of His resurrection. Faith is not the absence of doubt but trust in the presence of unanswered questions.
Your critique of Trinitarian scholarship as inherently biased overlooks the rigor and diversity of mainstream biblical translation committees. These committees often include scholars from various denominations and theological perspectives, ensuring checks and balances. By contrast, the NWT was produced by a small, theologically uniform group lacking formal expertise in biblical languages, which has raised concerns about its reliability.
405
Is Jesus the Creator?
by Sea Breeze in
1. watchtower
2. bible
that's what the word says.

.

colossians 1:16. for by him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through him and for him..
aqwsed12345

@Blotty
Your appeal to translations like Goodspeed’s or Young’s Bible does not invalidate my argument regarding the NWT's theological bias. Translation choices often depend on context, and while proskyneō indeed has a semantic range, its specific meaning is determined by the context in which it is used. Goodspeed's rendering of Matt. 4:10, "do homage," might seem similar to the NWT's "obeisance," but the comparison is superficial. The NWT consistently renders proskyneō as "obeisance" when applied to Jesus, while it translates the same word as "worship" when referring to God the Father or even false idols (e.g., Matt. 4:10; Rev. 9:20). This selective translation reveals a clear theological motivation to deny the deity of Christ, a motivation not present in Goodspeed's broader body of work. Goodspeed's translation reflects early 20th-century idiomatic preferences, not a systematic theological bias.
Regarding proskyneō itself, it is incorrect to claim that the word’s "full extent goes to the Father, NO ONE else." The NT repeatedly demonstrates that Jesus receives worship consistent with divine honor, not merely homage. In Matt. 14:33, the disciples worship Jesus after He calms the storm, declaring, "Truly, you are the Son of God." This worship transcends mere respect or homage for a human figure, as it acknowledges Jesus' divine identity. Similarly, in John 20:28, Thomas exclaims, "My Lord and my God!" in direct address to Jesus. The claim that such acts are limited to homage fails to account for the divine implications of these contexts. Additionally, Rev. 5:13-14 portrays both "the One seated on the throne" (God the Father) and "the Lamb" (Christ) receiving identical worship from all creation. If proskyneō here merely meant homage, the shared adoration would undermine the exclusive worship due to God, as emphasized throughout Scripture.
The reference to 1 Chron. 29:20 as a supposed parallel misunderstands the context and semantics of proskyneō. In that passage, both God and Solomon are recipients of proskyneō, but the nature of the act differs. The assembly blesses Yahweh, recognizing His supreme deity, while they bow to Solomon as a gesture of homage acknowledging his anointed kingship. The distinction lies in the intent and the object of the act. When directed toward Yahweh, proskyneō signifies divine worship. When directed toward Solomon, it reflects respect for his God-given authority. The NT, however, consistently presents Jesus as receiving worship in divine contexts (e.g., Matt. 28:9, 28:17; Rev. 5:13-14), not as a subordinate human king.
As for your assertion that "obeisance" and "worship" are synonyms, while true in certain contexts, this oversimplifies the issue. Theologically, "obeisance" implies respect or submission to a superior, whereas "worship" in biblical contexts often denotes adoration due exclusively to God. The NWT's selective use of "obeisance" when referring to Jesus diminishes His divine status, contrary to the broader NT witness. This selective translation is not consistent with the principle of letting context determine meaning, as evidenced by the NWT's inconsistent rendering of proskyneō across various passages.
Your claim that Heb. 1:6 involves a "reapplication" misunderstands the text's theological intent. Heb. 1:6 explicitly commands all angels to worship Jesus, quoting the Septuagint's version of Deut. 32:43. In its original context, this passage refers to worship directed toward Yahweh. By applying it to Jesus, the author of Heb. unmistakably affirms His divine identity. The NWT's rendering of proskyneō as "do obeisance" here is inconsistent with its own principles, as the same word is translated as "worship" when applied to God in other passages.
The claim that it is impossible to doubt while worshiping something (Matt. 28:17) misunderstands the nature of faith and human experience. Doubt and worship are not mutually exclusive; in fact, they often coexist in the journey of faith. Matt. 28:17 describes the disciples' reaction to encountering the risen Christ. It captures a deeply human moment, where awe and reverence (expressed through worship) exist alongside hesitation or uncertainty (described as doubt). This tension is not only understandable but expected when individuals confront something as extraordinary as the resurrection of Jesus. Doubt does not necessarily negate worship. It is possible to worship while grappling with questions or confusion. Worship arises from recognition of worthiness and reverence for God, while doubt reflects the natural struggle to fully comprehend divine mysteries. In this case, some of the disciples may have struggled to reconcile the reality of Jesus' resurrection with their prior understanding, but this did not prevent them from worshiping him as Lord. The Bible frequently portrays faith as a dynamic process, not a static state. For example, Thomas initially doubted Jesus' resurrection until he saw and touched him (John 20:24-29). Yet, Thomas’s doubt ultimately led to one of the most profound declarations of faith in Scripture: "My Lord and my God!" Similarly, the disciples’ moment of doubt in Matt. 28:17 did not disqualify them from their mission; Jesus immediately commissioned them to make disciples of all nations in the following verses (Matt. 28:18-20). Far from being an "oxymoron," this passage reflects the authenticity of the disciples' experience. It demonstrates that faith does not require the absence of doubt but the willingness to trust God despite uncertainty. The inclusion of this detail in Matthew's Gospel also highlights the integrity of the biblical narrative, which does not shy away from portraying the disciples' struggles honestly.
The suggestion that I am driven by theological motivation rather than objective scholarship is ironic, given the demonstrable theological bias of the NWT. Objective scholarship evaluates translation choices in their literary, historical, and theological contexts. While all translations involve interpretive decisions, the consistent pattern of the NWT to downplay the divinity of Jesus, even when the original text does not warrant such a reading, points to deliberate theological revisionism.
"How many of those organizations are Trinitarian dominated? All of them? Well, there's our answer to that one."
This statement implies that the predominance of Trinitarianism automatically invalidates their conclusions. However, the widespread acceptance of Trinitarianism is not simply due to its popularity but is rooted in historical, theological, and biblical scholarship. Trinitarian theology emerged from deep engagement with Scripture and was affirmed by early church councils (e.g., Nicaea and Constantinople) based on their collective understanding of biblical texts. The claim here is akin to dismissing all modern science because most scientists might agree on a particular principle (like gravity). Agreement does not imply collusion but rather consensus based on evidence. Similarly, the dominance of Trinitarianism among Christian organizations reflects the overwhelming biblical and theological support for this doctrine, not arbitrary groupthink.
"How many Bible translations add words? NEWSFLASH: ALL of them!"
It is true that all Bible translations involve interpretation. However, "adding words" in translations often results from the necessity of making texts intelligible in the target language. For instance, Greek and Hebrew use structures and idioms that require adjustment for proper understanding in English or other languages. The critical issue is whether these additions clarify or distort the original meaning. Trinitarian translations generally strive to remain faithful to the context and grammatical nuances of the original languages. The accusation here oversimplifies translation work and assumes malicious intent, which is not a fair critique.
For example, the NWT introduces interpretations not supported by mainstream biblical scholarship (e.g., "a god" in John 1:1). Critics of the NWT argue that these changes reflect theological bias rather than linguistic necessity. Mainstream translations like the NIV, ESV, or NASB undergo rigorous academic scrutiny and rely on broad scholarly input, reducing the likelihood of significant doctrinal bias.
"How many Bible translations are inconsistent in translation? NEWSFLASH: ALL of them!"
No translation is perfect because languages evolve, and no two languages are identical in structure, idioms, and cultural context. That said, some translations are more consistent than others. Mainstream Trinitarian translations undergo extensive peer review by experts in ancient languages, history, and theology to ensure consistency and fidelity.
On the other hand, the NWT has been rightly criticized for being inconsistent specifically in verses relevant to Jehovah’s Witness theology. For example, John 1:1 is rendered as "a god" in the NWT, but other similar grammatical constructions (like John 1:6) are not translated with "a" in front of "God." Or, Col. 1:16 adds the word "other" to make Jesus a created (while He is begotten) being ("all [other] things"), despite the absence of this word in Greek manuscripts. Thus, while all translations face challenges, some are deliberately inconsistent to promote specific doctrinal views.
You basically argue that if even one Trinitarian translation translates something like the NWT, then from then on I am forbidden to question the NWT! This is a logical fallacy known as tu quoque ("you too", like “but you farted too!”), which suggests that if others commit similar errors, your errors are excused. The issue is not whether some Trinitarian translations might share linguistic choices with the NWT but whether those choices are justifiable based on the original texts. For example if a Trinitarian translation renders something erroneously like the NWT, it would also face the same scholarly critique as the NWT. The point is whether the translation aligns with the grammatical and contextual evidence. However, mainstream translations like the NIV, NASB, or ESV do not adopt such a rendering because it fails the test of Greek grammar and context. A tu quoque defense does not address the primary issue: Does the NWT accurately reflect the biblical manuscripts? Pointing out hypothetical errors in other translations does not validate the NWT’s theological deviations.
Your argument hinges on a relativistic view of translation, suggesting that all translations are equally flawed, and therefore none can be critiqued. However, this approach avoids the real question: Which translation most accurately conveys the meaning of the original texts? Trinitarian translations have centuries of scholarly rigor behind them, while the NWT has been criticized for theological bias. Rather than deflecting criticism with "tu quoque," the focus should remain on the evidence for or against the accuracy of specific translations.
Regarding the dismissive tone in the second part of your comment, respectful dialogue is essential for meaningful engagement. Constructive criticism is welcome, but dismissing others' views without addressing the substance of their arguments undermines the opportunity for genuine discussion. Fact-checking and thoughtful analysis are integral to meaningful discourse, and this response aims to provide both.
405
Is Jesus the Creator?
by Sea Breeze in
1. watchtower
2. bible
that's what the word says.

.

colossians 1:16. for by him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through him and for him..
aqwsed12345

@Blotty
Goodspeed’s translation as "bow before him" does not negate the possibility of divine worship. The Greek word proskyneō can signify various levels of reverence, from bowing in respect to full worship depending on the context. Goodspeed’s choice of wording reflects linguistic flexibility rather than theological dismissal of Christ's deity. Heb. 1:6 applies the phrase "let all God's angels worship him" directly to Jesus. This is a quotation from the Septuagint version of Deuteronomy 32:43, where the context clearly refers to Yahweh receiving worship. By applying this to Jesus, Hebrews elevates Christ to the same divine status as Yahweh, necessitating a reading of proskyneō as worship, not mere homage. The NWT systematically translates proskyneō as "worship" whenever it refers to God the Father but as "obeisance" whenever it refers to Christ. This inconsistency reveals theological bias rather than fidelity to the text. For instance, proskyneō is translated as "worship" in Matt. 4:10 ("You shall worship [proskyneō] the Lord your God"), but as "do obeisance" in Heb. 1:6 when directed at Jesus. This selective translation undermines the claim of impartiality, particularly when other respected translations (e.g., KJV, NASB, ESV) consistently render proskyneō as "worship" in Heb. 1:6. In Rev. 5:13-14, all creation offers identical worship to "the one seated on the throne" (God) and "the Lamb" (Jesus). The Greek proskyneō is used in the context of both, affirming the Lamb's equality in divine status. If proskyneō were intended to mean mere homage for Jesus, it would contradict the shared divine worship described here.
While proskyneō can also signify homage or respect (e.g., Matt. 18:26, where a servant bows before his master), its meaning is clarified by the context. In the case of Jesus, in Matt. 14:33, the disciples worship Him after He calms the storm, declaring, "Truly, you are the Son of God!" This context goes beyond respect, as it attributes divine identity to Jesus. Similarly, in Matt. 28:9 and 28:17, the disciples worship the risen Jesus. This act is framed as religious veneration, aligning with the recognition of His deity. Jesus' acceptance of worship sets Him apart from others. Angels and apostles consistently reject worship (e.g., Rev. 19:10; Acts 10:25-26), directing it to God alone. Jesus, however, accepts worship without correction, demonstrating His divine status. The original Hebrew of Deuteronomy 32:43, reconstructed from the Dead Sea Scrolls, includes "let all the angels of God worship him," which the Septuagint renders with proskyneō. In its OT context, this refers to Yahweh.
Harnînû šāmāyim ʿammô wəyištaḥăwû lô kol malʾăk̲ê ʾĕlōhîm harnînû g̲ôyim ʿammô wayḥazqû lô kol bənê ʾĕlōhîm kî d̲am-b̲ānāyw yiqqôm wənāqām yāšîb̲ ləṣārāyw wəlimśanʾāyw yəšallēm wayk̲appēr ʾad̲mat̲ ʿammô
Rejoice, O heavens, with him, and let all the angels of God worship him. Rejoice, O nations, with his people, and let all the children of God strengthen themselves in him. For he will avenge the blood of his children, and he will render vengeancei to his enemies, and he will recompense them that hate him, and he atones for the land of his people.
In the Hebrew text, the equivalent of "to worship" is the word וְיִשְׁתַּחֲווּ [weyištaḥăwû]. This word comes from the Hebrew verb "שָׁחָה" (Šāḥāh) which means "to worship", it is also found in Exodus 20:5 "Thou shalt not worship them nor serve them". It literally comes etymologically from the meaning of bowing down, humbly paying homage to a deity, thus worshiping. So the author of Hebrews applies this divine worship to Jesus, reinforcing the theological claim that Jesus shares in Yahweh's deity.
While "worship" in older English usage could include respect or homage, the modern understanding aligns more closely with the biblical context when referring to Jesus. For instance, in Rev. 5:13-14 and Heb. 1:6, proskyneō clearly implies divine worship, as it is directed toward God and the Lamb in a unified context of adoration. Reducing proskyneō to mere "obeisance" in references to Jesus undermines the consistent NT witness to His divine identity. The disciples' worship of Jesus in Matt. 14:33 and 28:17, the blind man's worship in John 9:38, and the angels' worship in Heb. 1:6 collectively affirm Jesus' worthiness of divine honor. The NWT’s selective translation of proskyneō reflects theological bias. It translates the term as "worship" when directed toward God or false idols but as "obeisance" when directed toward Jesus. This inconsistency lacks linguistic justification and serves to deny Jesus' divine status, contrary to the biblical text.
405
Is Jesus the Creator?
by Sea Breeze in
1. watchtower
2. bible
that's what the word says.

.

colossians 1:16. for by him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through him and for him..
aqwsed12345

The claim that Hebrews 1:6 and the use of proskyneō in Scripture do not imply worship of Jesus as God is fundamentally flawed. The argument rests on a misunderstanding of the Greek term proskyneō, a selective approach to biblical texts, and an inconsistent treatment of worship as it pertains to Jesus. While proskyneō can also signify homage or obeisance to a superior, its usage in the NT often implies worship in a divine sense, particularly when directed toward Jesus. The context determines whether proskyneō signifies mere reverence or true worship. For instance, when the wise men "fell down and worshipped" the child Jesus (Matthew 2:11), this act is presented in a religious context, signaling recognition of Jesus' divine status. Similarly, the disciples worshipped Jesus after He calmed the storm, exclaiming, "Truly you are the Son of God" (Matthew 14:33). These are not acts of mere respect but of divine worship. The Watchtower's claim that proskyneō does not indicate worship when applied to Jesus contradicts its own translation principles. In Revelation 5:13-14, both God the Father and the Lamb (Jesus) receive identical worship from all creation: "To the one seated on the throne and to the Lamb be blessing and honor and glory and power forever and ever." The parallel construction demonstrates that Jesus is worshipped as God.
Hebrews 1:6 quotes the Septuagint's rendering of Deuteronomy 32:43 or Psalm 97:7, applying it to Christ: "And let all God’s angels worship Him." In its original OT context, this passage refers to Yahweh. By attributing this divine worship to Jesus, the author of Hebrews unequivocally identifies Him as God. The Watchtower’s alteration of "worship" to "do obeisance" in its New World Translation reflects theological bias rather than linguistic fidelity. Notably, the same term proskyneō is translated as "worship" when referring to Jehovah in the NWT (e.g., Matthew 4:10). The argument that proskyneō in Hebrews 1:6 means only homage collapses under the weight of its biblical and theological context. The angels are commanded to worship Jesus as part of their acknowledgment of His divine status, not as a mere created being.
The NT presents Jesus as the object of prayer, worship, and divine attributes. Acts 7:59 records Stephen praying to Jesus: "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." This mirrors OT prayers directed to Yahweh (Psalm 31:5). If Jesus were not divine, this would constitute idolatry. In Mark 2:5-7, Jesus forgives sins, a prerogative that belongs solely to God. The scribes correctly recognized this act as a claim to divinity, yet Jesus does not correct them; instead, He demonstrates His authority by healing the paralytic. Philippians 2:10-11 applies Isaiah 45:23 to Jesus, stating, "At the name of Jesus every knee should bow... and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord." Isaiah’s original passage declares this worship as due to Yahweh alone. Paul’s application to Jesus underscores His divine identity.
The Watchtower Society’s shifting stance on the worship of Jesus undermines its credibility. Early Watchtower publications endorsed the worship of Jesus, as noted in the writings of C.T. Russell and J.F. Rutherford. For instance, the 1945 Yearbook of Jehovah’s Witnesses affirmed, "Let all the angels of God worship Him" in Hebrews 1:6. It was only in 1954 that the Society began prohibiting the worship of Jesus, not based on new biblical insights but on doctrinal revisionism. This inconsistency suggests theological convenience rather than faithful exegesis.
Philo’s Logos is fundamentally different from John’s. For Philo, the Logos is a semi-divine intermediary—neither fully divine nor fully personal. It serves as a bridge between the transcendent God and the material world, functioning as an abstract principle of reason and order. John’s Logos is fully divine, personal, and eternal. John 1:1 explicitly states, “The Word was God.” John 1:14 declares, “The Word became flesh and dwelt among us.” This is a radical departure from Philo’s philosophical abstraction. The Logos in John is not a mere emanation or cosmic principle but the Second Person of the Trinity. The concept of the Logos in John is deeply rooted in the Hebrew Scriptures, particularly the idea of God’s Word (dabar) as active in creation (Genesis 1:3, Psalm 33:6), revelation (Isaiah 55:11), and salvation (Psalm 107:20). John’s Gospel connects this Jewish understanding with the incarnational reality of Jesus Christ. While John may have been aware of Hellenistic philosophical concepts, his Logos theology is firmly anchored in the Hebrew Scriptures and the revelation of Christ. The Stoic concept of the logos spermatikos (a principle of rationality permeating the cosmos) is impersonal and fundamentally incompatible with the personal Logos of John. The Christian Logos is not a universal rational principle but a distinct Person who entered history through the Incarnation. So while Philo and the Stoics provide historical context for the term Logos, John’s theology transcends these frameworks. The Logos in John’s Gospel is a unique and divinely revealed concept, rooted in the Hebrew Scriptures and culminating in the person of Jesus Christ.
Angels in the Hebrew Scriptures are always subordinate to God and serve as His messengers or agents (e.g., Genesis 19, Exodus 3:2). They do not receive worship, as worship is reserved for Yahweh alone (Deuteronomy 6:13). In Revelation 19:10 and 22:8-9, John attempts to worship an angel but is rebuked: “You must not do that! I am a fellow servant with you and your brothers. Worship God.” This explicitly reinforces the NT’s strict monotheism and the prohibition of worshiping angels. Jesus, however, is worshiped throughout the NT (e.g., Matthew 28:17, John 20:28, Hebrews 1:6), highlighting His unique status as God incarnate. The distinction between Jesus and angels is consistently maintained, as seen in Hebrews 1, which declares Jesus as superior to all angels. While apocryphal texts like the Ascension of Isaiah and the Epistle of the Apostles provide fascinating insights into early Christian thought, they are not authoritative Scripture and often reflect speculative or syncretistic ideas. The hierarchical descriptions of angels in these texts do not equate Jesus with angels but rather emphasize His transcendence. For example, in the Ascension of Isaiah, Christ is depicted as descending through angelic ranks, assuming their forms, but ultimately surpassing them in glory and authority. The argument that Jesus is equated with the Angel of the Lord misunderstands the typological and christological connections in Scripture. The Angel of the Lord in the OT often speaks and acts as Yahweh (e.g., Exodus 3:2-6), prefiguring the Incarnation. However, the NT clarifies that Jesus is not merely an angel but Yahweh Himself made flesh (John 8:58, Philippians 2:6-11). So the NT and early Christian theology clearly distinguish Jesus from angels. While angels are servants of God, Jesus is God incarnate, worthy of worship and adoration. Apocryphal texts may provide background for certain theological developments but cannot supersede the authority of Scripture.
The “Two Powers in Heaven” concept in Second Temple Judaism was often used to describe an intermediary figure (e.g., the Angel of the Lord) who acted on behalf of Yahweh. However, this does not imply a belief in two deities but rather highlights the complex ways in which God’s actions were perceived. The NT redefines this concept by presenting Jesus as the unique Son of God who shares fully in the divine identity (John 10:30, Colossians 2:9). Jesus is not a subordinate power but one with the Father. Describing the Logos as an emanation diminishes His full divinity. The NT consistently affirms that Jesus is fully God, not a derived or secondary being. John 1:1-3 identifies the Logos as eternal, uncreated, and the agent of all creation. The claim that Yahweh is absent from the NT is baseless. The NT applies Yahweh’s name and attributes to Jesus (e.g., Philippians 2:10-11 cites Isaiah 45:23). This demonstrates continuity between the OT and NT in affirming the divinity of Christ. So the NT transforms Second Temple Jewish concepts to reveal the full truth of the Trinity. Jesus is not a second power or emanation but the eternal Son of God, fully equal with the Father and the Spirit.
405
Is Jesus the Creator?
by Sea Breeze in
1. watchtower
2. bible
that's what the word says.

.

colossians 1:16. for by him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through him and for him..
aqwsed12345

Hebrews 1:6 states, “And let all God’s angels worship him.” This quotation appears to draw from the Septuagint version of Deuteronomy 32:43, which explicitly calls on the angels to worship Yahweh. The application of this verse to Jesus is not a random or "creative mashup" but a direct affirmation of Jesus’ divinity. Hebrews 1 emphasizes Jesus’ superiority to angels, showing that He is worshiped by them—a role exclusive to God in Jewish monotheism (cf. Exodus 34:14). Psalm 89:27 speaks of David as God’s “firstborn,” which is a typological foreshadowing of Christ as the true “firstborn” (Colossians 1:15, Romans 8:29). This typology does not reduce Christ to a created being but emphasizes His preeminence and royal authority. The invocation of Deuteronomy 32:43 further reinforces the divine status of Christ, as the angels are called to worship Him, a role reserved for Yahweh in Jewish theology. The New Testament authors do not engage in arbitrary "eisegesis" but interpret the OT in light of the revelation of Christ. Their exegesis is typological, seeing Christ as the fulfillment of OT figures and promises. Hebrews consistently portrays Jesus as superior to all OT figures (angels, Moses, the Levitical priesthood) because He is God incarnate. The use of OT texts serves this purpose, not as random or forced reinterpretations. So Hebrews 1:6 affirms Jesus’ deity by applying a verse about Yahweh to Him. This is consistent with the broader NT theology that identifies Jesus as Yahweh incarnate, not as a mere Davidic king or subordinate being.
Both Psalm 2:7 and 2 Samuel 7:14 are applied typologically to Jesus in Hebrews 1:5, affirming His unique sonship. Psalm 2:7’s “You are my Son; today I have begotten you” speaks of the eternal relationship between the Father and the Son, not a temporal act of adoption. This is supported by NT texts like John 1:1-3, which affirm Christ’s eternal preexistence. 2 Samuel 7:14 refers to the Davidic covenant, which finds its ultimate fulfillment in Christ as the eternal King (Luke 1:32-33). The Western text of Luke 3:22 includes the phrase, "You are my Son; today I have begotten you." However, this variant does not undermine Christ's eternal sonship. The phrase reflects the public declaration of Jesus’ divine sonship at His baptism, not the beginning of His existence. Origen and later Church Fathers refuted Adoptionism by emphasizing the eternal begetting of the Son (John 1:18) and the unbroken hypostatic union of Christ's divine and human natures. Hebrews 1:5-6 directly refutes Adoptionism by emphasizing Christ’s eternal sonship and superiority to angels. The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact imprint of His nature (Hebrews 1:3), which is incompatible with the idea of a created or adopted son. So Hebrews 1:5 does not support Adoptionism but affirms the eternal relationship between the Father and the Son. The NT consistently portrays Jesus as fully divine and eternally begotten, not temporally adopted.
Philo’s Logos is a semi-divine intermediary, a metaphysical abstraction influenced by Platonic and Stoic thought. It is not a person but an impersonal principle that bridges the gap between the transcendent God and the material world. John’s Logos, by contrast, is fully divine, eternal, and personal. John 1:1 explicitly states that “the Word was God” (theos), and John 1:14 declares that the Logos “became flesh.” This incarnational theology is foreign to Philo’s framework. John’s Logos is deeply rooted in Jewish Scripture, particularly in the concept of God’s Word (dabar) as a creative and revelatory agent (Genesis 1:3, Psalm 33:6, Isaiah 55:11). The identification of the Logos with Yahweh’s actions (e.g., creation, revelation) underscores the continuity between the OT and NT. John’s Logos is not a Hellenistic borrowing but a fulfillment of Jewish theological themes. So John’s Logos theology is distinct from Philo’s philosophical abstraction. While both use similar terminology, John’s Logos is the divine Word made flesh, fully consistent with Jewish monotheism and revelation.
The doctrine of the Trinity is not an artificial construct but the Church’s articulation of the revealed truth about God’s nature. The NT consistently presents the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as distinct persons who share one divine essence (Matthew 28:19, 2 Corinthians 13:14). The Church Fathers, such as Athanasius and the Cappadocians, developed Trinitarian theology to defend the biblical witness against heresies like Arianism and Adoptionism. The NT frequently applies Yahweh’s divine name and attributes to Jesus, demonstrating continuity with the OT. For example, Philippians 2:9-11 cites Isaiah 45:23 to affirm that Jesus is Yahweh. The alleged “freer conception” of God is unsupported by evidence. The NT authors maintain the strict monotheism of Judaism while revealing the triune nature of God. So the Trinity is a faithful expression of biblical revelation, not an artificial imposition. The NT’s application of Yahweh’s identity to Jesus affirms His full divinity within the unity of the Godhead.
405
Is Jesus the Creator?
by Sea Breeze in
1. watchtower
2. bible
that's what the word says.

.

colossians 1:16. for by him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through him and for him..
aqwsed12345

The claim that Philo’s Logos is the foundation for John’s Logos theology misinterprets both the Jewish philosopher Philo and the Johannine tradition. While Philo and John both use the term Logos, their conceptions of it are fundamentally different. Philo’s Logos is an intermediary principle that bridges the transcendent God and the material world. It functions as a divine agent, akin to an emanation, but it is not a distinct person or fully divine in itself. It is largely an abstraction, informed by Greek philosophical influences, particularly Stoicism and Platonism. Philo often allegorizes the Hebrew Scriptures, attributing symbolic roles to the Logos as the “reason” of God. However, Philo does not identify the Logos as Yahweh or as a concrete, incarnate figure. John in his Prologue (John 1:1-14) identifies the Logos explicitly as God (theos), fully divine, preexistent, and distinct in personhood while remaining one in essence with God. Unlike Philo’s abstraction, John’s Logos becomes flesh in the person of Jesus Christ (John 1:14), revealing a fully incarnate divine being. John portrays the Logos as personal and relational, engaging directly with creation and humanity. John’s theology is firmly rooted in Jewish monotheism, yet it includes the divine Logos within the identity of Yahweh, as seen in John 8:58 ("Before Abraham was, I AM"). The attempt to conflate Philo’s Logos with John’s Logos ignores these critical differences. While Philo’s concept of the Logos may have influenced the Hellenistic language available to John, John’s use is distinctly rooted in Jewish Scripture and the self-revelation of God through Christ. The Logos in John is not a philosophical abstraction but the second person of the Trinity, fully God and fully man.
The discussion of "Two Powers in Heaven," as presented by Dr. Michael Heiser and others, relates to Jewish debates about divine intermediaries in Second Temple Judaism. This idea is frequently used to argue that early Jewish Christians identified Jesus with an intermediary figure like the "Angel of the Lord." In Jewish tradition, the Angel of the Lord is often described with divine attributes (e.g., Exodus 3:2-6), but it is understood as a manifestation of Yahweh, not a distinct or subordinate being. Some Second Temple Jewish texts suggest a “second power” or divine figure, such as the Son of Man in Daniel 7. However, this does not imply polytheism but rather the complexity of God’s self-revelation. The New Testament identifies Jesus as the Son of Man from Daniel 7, who shares in divine authority and worship (Matthew 26:64; Revelation 1:13-14). This identification places Jesus within the divine identity, not as a subordinate angelic being. The New Testament frequently applies Old Testament passages about Yahweh directly to Christ (e.g., Philippians 2:9-11 cites Isaiah 45:23). This demonstrates that early Christians saw Jesus as fully divine, not a mere intermediary. The "Two Powers in Heaven" concept highlights the complexity of Jewish thought but fails to support the JW claim that Jesus is merely an archangel. Early Jewish Christians, as evidenced in the New Testament, went beyond the “Two Powers” framework by affirming Jesus’ full divinity as one with Yahweh.
Jehovah’s Witnesses claim that Jesus is Michael the Archangel, a created being, ontologically subordinate to God. This view is neither supported by Scripture nor compatible with early Christian theology. In Revelation 5:13-14, Jesus receives worship alongside God the Father. Worship is reserved for God alone (Exodus 34:14), ruling out the idea that Jesus is a mere angel. Hebrews 1:5-6 explicitly denies that Jesus is an angel: "For to which of the angels did God ever say, ‘You are my Son, today I have begotten you’?" The passage also commands the angels to worship Jesus. While JWs argue that “firstborn of all creation” (Colossians 1:15) implies Jesus is a created being, the context refutes this. "Firstborn" (Greek prototokos) signifies preeminence and authority over creation, not temporal origin. The subsequent verses clarify that all things were created "through him and for him," affirming His divine agency in creation. JW Christology reduces Jesus to a created being, denying His full divinity and contradicting both Scripture and the unanimous testimony of the early Church. Their interpretation is anachronistic, projecting modern theological constructs onto ancient texts.
The claim that NT authors understood Yahweh as a second power, distinct from the Most High, reflects speculative interpretations like those of Margaret Barker. This view lacks substantial historical and textual support. The distinction between Yahweh and the messianic Lord in Psalm 110:1 reflects Jesus’ dual nature as both God and man, not subordination to a separate “Most High.” The verse aligns with the Incarnation, where Christ, though fully divine, assumes a human role. Jesus is explicitly identified with Yahweh’s divine name and receives universal worship (Isaiah 45:23 and Philippians 2:9-11), affirming His full divinity.