Posts by aqwsed12345

179

Insight Book LIES - then tells the TRUTH!

by BoogerMan in

it-1 p. 493 communication - "when the circumcision issue was resolved by the governing body in jerusalem......".

it-1 p. 881 galatians, letter to the - "by reason of a revelation, paul, with barnabas and titus, went to jerusalem regarding the circumcision issue; he learned nothing new from james, peter, and john, but they recognized that he had been empowered for an apostleship to the nations.

" (galatians 2:1-10).

aqwsed12345

JW claim:

"Jeremiah 25:11-12 does not merely represent Babylon’s domination but explicitly indicates a literal 70-year exile and desolation period, starting in 607 BCE and ending in 537 BCE."

Refutation: This JW argument misconstrues the explicit wording and context of Jeremiah 25:11-12. The verses explicitly state that Judah and surrounding nations would "serve the king of Babylon seventy years." This passage clearly emphasizes Babylon’s supremacy—not the duration of Judah’s exile or desolation explicitly. Jeremiah never states explicitly that the land would remain completely desolate for exactly 70 years. This is an interpretative leap made by the JW organization. Historically, the period of Babylonian supremacy fits exactly 70 years from 609 BCE (Babylon defeats Assyria decisively at Harran) to 539 BCE (the fall of Babylon to Cyrus). Thus, their argument of a fixed 70-year desolation is not scriptural but interpretative.

JW claim:

"The WT 1981 article (August 1, p. 27) was misapplied by critics, as it refers to Habakkuk’s prophecy, not Jeremiah 25."

Refutation: The Watchtower often intermixes Jeremiah 25 and Habakkuk when discussing Babylon’s judgment. However, Jeremiah 25:12 explicitly links the judgment of Babylon with the end of the 70 years. The JWs themselves teach the 70 years ended in 537 BCE, yet Babylon’s fall (539 BCE) is universally acknowledged historically and biblically as the judgment event that ends Babylon’s supremacy. Thus, the JW position artificially separates the judgment of Babylon (539 BCE) from the end of the 70 years (537 BCE) to fit their timeline, which creates a two-year contradiction in the prophetic logic of Jeremiah 25:12.

JW claim:

"Jeremiah’s prophecy of 70 years pertains exclusively to Judah’s desolation and exile, and Babylon was only the instrument."

Refutation: Jeremiah 25:11 explicitly includes "these nations" (plural) serving Babylon, clearly showing Judah was not the sole focus. The JW interpretation ignores Jeremiah’s broader international context. The prophecy, in reality, concerns a period of regional Babylonian supremacy affecting Judah among other nations. Thus, the JW claim that the prophecy applies exclusively to Judah contradicts Jeremiah’s clear wording.

JW claim:

"The 70-year exile can only begin with Jerusalem’s destruction (607 BCE) and end with Cyrus’s decree (537 BCE)."

Refutation: Historically, 607 BCE is an entirely untenable date, as it contradicts all archaeological, historical, and astronomical records. The 70-year period was of Babylon’s supremacy (609-539 BCE), not of a literal exile and desolation. Moreover, Cyrus conquered Babylon in 539 BCE and issued his decree shortly thereafter (538 BCE), not in 537 BCE. This date (537 BCE) is a JW invention with no historical support.

JW claim:

"The judgment on Babylon in Jeremiah 25:12 began after the 70 years ended, so it must be post-537 BCE."

Refutation: This claim is chronologically and logically impossible, as Jeremiah explicitly states judgment on Babylon occurs immediately at the end of the 70 years. Babylon historically fell in 539 BCE, thus marking the end of Babylon’s supremacy. If the 70 years truly ended in 537 BCE, Jehovah would have prematurely judged Babylon two years before the prophecy ended—a contradiction. Therefore, the JW interpretation violates the direct chronological sequence of Jeremiah.

JW claim:

"Daniel’s viewpoint considers Babylon’s dominion beginning with Jerusalem’s destruction (607 BCE)."

Refutation: Daniel explicitly begins his dating of events from Nebuchadnezzar’s first arrival in Jerusalem (Dan. 1:1), which historically occurred in 605 BCE. Daniel nowhere asserts a 607 BCE date. Babylon’s role as a "world power" did not begin with Jerusalem’s fall but earlier when Nebuchadnezzar defeated Egypt at Carchemish in 605 BCE (Jeremiah 46:2).

JW claim:

"Nebuchadnezzar ruled 624-581 BCE; secular dates (605-562 BCE) rely on secular (Ptolemy’s) records, not the Bible."

Refutation: This JW chronology contradicts countless Babylonian astronomical diaries, economic tablets, royal inscriptions, and independent Egyptian and Persian records. Even the Bible aligns precisely with secular records: Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Jerusalem in his 18th year (Jer. 52:12-13), aligning with 586/587 BCE. The JW proposal (624-581 BCE) would require ignoring extensive historical documentation.

JW claim:

"Daniel mentions a 7-year absence of Nebuchadnezzar from his throne, unaccounted for by secular scholars, thus invalidating standard Babylonian chronology."

Refutation: The seven-year period described in Daniel 4 (Nebuchadnezzar’s madness) does not create a chronological gap. Babylonian administrative texts show continuity throughout Nebuchadnezzar’s reign without interruption. Daniel's text does not state Nebuchadnezzar lost his throne literally; rather, it indicates temporary incapacity. This event caused no chronological gap. The JW insertion of a seven-year gap contradicts well-attested historical records.

JW claim:

"Josephus and Ezra support the 70-year exile from 607 to 537 BCE."

Refutation: Josephus explicitly confirms Jerusalem’s destruction occurred in the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign, aligning precisely with secular records (586/587 BCE). Ezra, likewise, makes no explicit mention of a 607 BCE date. He refers to Cyrus’s decree in his first year (538 BCE), historically verified by Persian records. JWs misread these sources to uphold their chronology artificially.

JW claim:

"Secular chronology leaves no room for the biblical 70-year exile."

Refutation: The opposite is true: Secular chronology fully aligns with the biblical 70-year prophecy if understood correctly as Babylon’s dominance. The 70 years precisely fit secular historical records: 609 BCE (Babylon defeats Assyria decisively) to 539 BCE (Babylon’s fall). No chronological gap is required. The JW view artificially inserts gaps and ignores well-attested historical records.

JW claim:

"Critics (such as Carl Olof Jonsson) neglect the Jewish Exile, which invalidates their chronology."

Refutation: Carl Olof Jonsson’s work extensively documents the exile, but he correctly shows the Bible never explicitly teaches a literal 70-year exile period. It explicitly mentions Babylonian supremacy for 70 years, confirmed historically. The JW assertion that critics neglect the exile is incorrect and misleading.

JW claim:

"586/587 BCE dates for Jerusalem’s destruction are bogus and uncertain among scholars."

Refutation: Contrary to JW assertions, scholars universally accept 586 or 587 BCE based on overwhelming evidence (Babylonian Chronicles, VAT 4956, economic records). The uncertainty between 586/587 is minor, representing a few months, not decades. No credible scholar proposes 607 BCE as even remotely plausible.

JW claim:

"Jeremiah describes explicitly a 70-year exile starting with Jerusalem’s destruction."

Refutation: Jeremiah never explicitly states a literal 70-year exile beginning precisely at Jerusalem’s destruction. He explicitly identifies the 70-year period as Babylonian supremacy (Jer. 25:11). The JW position misreads Jeremiah by conflating the exile, servitude, and desolation into one literal 70-year event beginning at 607 BCE.

Conclusion:

Every single JW argument provided here relies on artificial reinterpretation, selective citation, and outright denial of established historical facts. Their date of 607 BCE is unsupportable historically, astronomically, archaeologically, and biblically. The proper biblical and historical reading of Jeremiah’s 70-year prophecy aligns perfectly with secular chronology (609-539 BCE), confirming the conventional date (586/587 BCE) for Jerusalem’s destruction as accurate.

10

The Apostles Creed vs. Watchtower

by Sea Breeze in

the apostles creed could be recited in less than a minute in latin.

it was like an ancient youtube video clip: christianity in less than a minute.

it is very ancient, reaching back to the 200's.

aqwsed12345

@slimboyfat

While JWs may have referred to Jesus as “our Lord” in a limited sense, their theology fundamentally denies the full implications of Christ’s lordship. In Scripture, the title Kyrios (Lord) is used in a divine sense, especially when applied to Jesus (e.g., Philippians 2:9-11, Romans 10:9-13). The early Christians, drawing from the Septuagint, applied Kyrios—the term used for Yahweh—to Jesus, indicating His divine nature. JWs, by contrast, reduce this title to mean a mere exalted role for Jesus as a created being, which is far from the early Church’s understanding of the term. The Catholic Church, in line with the Church Fathers, affirms that Jesus’ Lordship is not secondary or derivative but fully divine.

The claim that Jehovah’s Witnesses use the phrase “God the Father” is technically true, but misleading in how it’s presented. The distinction made between “God the Father” and “God the Son” is not arbitrary but reflects the biblical and traditional understanding of the relationship within the Trinity. The phrase “God the Son” may not appear verbatim in Scripture, but the concept is undeniably present. John 1:1 explicitly calls the Word (who is identified as Christ in John 1:14) Theos, and Jesus is repeatedly identified as divine (John 20:28, Colossians 2:9, Philippians 2:6). The early Church formulated the term “God the Son” to reflect the truth that the Son is fully divine yet distinct in personhood from the Father. The Jehovah’s Witness argument that 1 Corinthians 8:6 equates the Father alone with “one God” is an oversimplification. This passage mirrors the language of the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4), but Paul integrates Jesus into the divine identity by pairing Him with the Father as the “one Lord,” drawing directly from Old Testament references to Yahweh. This does not exclude Jesus from being God; rather, it affirms His role within the divine unity.

Christ’s descent into Hades as an active proclamation of victory over death and His liberation of the righteous souls (1 Peter 3:19, 1 Peter 4:6). JWs, by contrast, hold an annihilationist view, rejecting the traditional understanding of the intermediate state of the dead. Their belief that Jesus was simply unconscious in nonexistence for three days is irreconcilable with the Christian doctrine that Jesus, as the God-man, was conscious and active even in death. This again highlights their misunderstanding of Christ’s divine nature.

The Apostles’ Creed affirms the bodily resurrection of Jesus and believers, yet Jehovah’s Witnesses reject the physical resurrection of Christ, teaching instead that He was recreated as a spirit creature—an idea entirely foreign to Christian tradition. Likewise, their denial of the communion of saints, their refusal to acknowledge a universal (catholic) Church beyond their own organization, and their rejection of the Holy Spirit as a divine person all place them in direct opposition to historic Christianity.

Finally, the claim that the Creed lacks any reference to the Trinity because the doctrine had not yet been “invented” is historically inaccurate and theologically naïve. The Apostles’ Creed reflects an early baptismal formula that implicitly supports Trinitarian belief. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all affirmed, reflecting Matthew 28:19’s Trinitarian baptismal command. The formulation of the Nicene Creed in 325 AD was not the “invention” of the Trinity but a precise articulation of what the Church had always believed, in response to heretical distortions. The early Church Fathers—long before Nicaea—testified to Trinitarian belief. Ignatius of Antioch (c. 107 AD) calls Jesus "our God" (Letter to the Ephesians 7:2), and Tertullian (c. 200 AD) explicitly uses the term “Trinity.”

76

Rekindled Light — The Narrative Structure of the Hexaemeron (Genesis 1:1–31)

by Mebaqqer2 in

i used to comment here many years ago when i had an interest in biblical research in relation to jehovah’s witnesses.

these days my biblical research is little concerned with jehovah’s witnesses.

i feel my time is better spent researching the diachronistic development of the biblical text and ascertaining what the biblical writers and editors intended in the times in which they lived.. i have recently placed a summary diagram for a paper that i have written with original research entitled the narrative structure of the hexaemeron on academia.edu.

aqwsed12345

@Mebaqqer2

You argue that the Hexaemeron is primarily a literary construct designed to align with the cosmological symbolism of the Tabernacle and that theological concerns should not necessarily dictate its interpretation. However, from a Catholic standpoint, this approach is inadequate because it overlooks the primary function of the text as divine revelation. The structure of Genesis 1 does not exist in isolation but serves the fundamental purpose of revealing the divine act of creation. The inspired author was not merely recording an artistic arrangement but was transmitting the truth about the origins of the world in a form intelligible to the faithful. While structural analysis can certainly provide insight into the narrative’s organization, it cannot be used to redefine or limit its theological import.

You claim that the Sabbath account in Genesis 2:1–3 is thematically distinct from the six days of creation, marking a textual break. However, Catholic theology does not see this distinction as evidence of separate literary or theological intentions. Instead, the culmination of the six-day creation week with the Sabbath underscores the divine order and purpose in creation. The fact that the Sabbath is set apart does not imply a different source or intention but rather confirms the intrinsic relationship between creation and divine worship. As St. Thomas Aquinas and other Church Fathers have explained, the rest of God on the seventh day is not merely a cessation of activity but a divine model for human participation in God's order. The Sabbath’s sanctification in the Decalogue further reinforces this. This directly contradicts the assertion that its presence is a later thematic addition. Moreover, Catholic tradition does not rely on later rabbinical interpretations (such as those found in the Masoretic text’s use of pǝtûḥôt or Samaritan qiṣṣim) to determine the structure of divine revelation. The unity of Genesis 1:1–2:3 is not merely a function of literary arrangement but a theological necessity.

You suggest that my argument assumes an “a priori” integral unity of Scripture, potentially obscuring the distinct viewpoints of individual biblical authors. However, Catholic tradition does not approach Genesis as a mere collection of diverse authors with potentially conflicting views. Instead, Genesis, like all of Scripture, is inspired by the Holy Spirit and possesses a unified message that transcends human literary limitations. This is why the traditional view affirms both the literal-historical sense and the theological coherence of the text. St. Augustine, St. Basil, and St. Thomas Aquinas all acknowledged different layers of meaning in the text but never reduced Genesis to a purely literary construct. The unity of Scripture is not an imposed framework but a recognition of divine authorship. To suggest otherwise undermines the Catholic understanding of biblical inspiration. Additionally, while it is true that individual biblical authors had their own styles and immediate historical contexts, the Catholic perspective maintains that they were guided by divine inspiration, ensuring that their accounts were free from theological error and in harmony with the broader revelation.

You hint at the possibility that the Sabbath passage may be a later redactional addition but withholds final judgment. However, this approach reflects the problematic assumptions of higher criticism, which have been consistently cautioned against in Catholic biblical interpretation. Pope Leo XIII (Providentissimus Deus, 1893) and Pope Pius XII (Divino Afflante Spiritu, 1943) affirmed that while textual and historical criticism have their place, they must never be used to undermine the divine authority and unity of Scripture. The suggestion that the Sabbath commandment may be a later addition fails to account for its integral role in biblical theology, as seen in Exodus 20:8–11, where the six-day creation week is explicitly tied to the institution of the Sabbath. If the Sabbath narrative were merely a later addition, then this connection would lose its authoritative weight. Additionally, your hesitancy to affirm or reject the validity of these redaction theories suggests an underlying methodological issue: an unwillingness to commit to the integrity of the text as received by the Church. Catholic doctrine, however, maintains that the Scriptures, as preserved by the Church, are divinely inspired in their entirety.

The Catholic understanding of the Hexaemeron, which I have outlined in my original response, remains the most theologically coherent and exegetically sound interpretation. The vision theory (as espoused by St. Augustine and supported by St. Thomas Aquinas) is not merely an arbitrary construct but an attempt to reconcile the literal truth of Scripture with theological depth. The vision theory allows for:

The integrity of divine revelation – preserving the biblical teaching that creation occurred by divine fiat.
The recognition of different literary styles – acknowledging that Genesis 1 may represent a revelatory vision rather than a chronological diary.
Compatibility with theological tradition – aligning with the teaching of the Church Fathers and the authoritative magisterial statements on creation.

This approach avoids the pitfalls of both hyper-literalism (which reduces the Hexaemeron to a rigid scientific chronology) and higher criticism (which fragments the text into allegedly competing sources). The Catholic Church has never accepted the radical redaction theories that attempt to dissect Genesis into competing theological viewpoints.

You highlight a fundamental methodological difference: whereas Catholic exegesis starts from the premise that Scripture is divinely inspired and unified, you the text as a purely human composition subject to independent historical reconstruction. This approach is incompatible with Catholic teaching, which holds that:

Scripture is inspired in its entirety (Vatican I, Dei Filius).
Mosaic authorship of Genesis cannot be denied without contradicting the consistent tradition of the Church (Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus).
The unity of the biblical message is essential to understanding its meaning (Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis).

Thus, while your structural analysis may have academic value, it cannot be allowed to override the Church’s theological framework. Any interpretation that dismisses the unity of divine revelation must be rejected.

25

Why the WATCHTOWER doesn't believe in the GREAT APOSTASY but you should!

by raymond frantz in

https://youtu.be/i4uttjj7eus?si=0b-fzpqm8axb_d3p.

in its latest april 2025 watchtower study article 17 and paragraph 12 the watchtower promotes 2 dangerous lies that will cost your life if you are a believing christian during the time of the end, so i'm considering today the first lie in the first part of the paragraph, but first let's read the paragraph itself: "today, jehovah promises to provide us with spiritual protection.

he will never allow satan to corrupt true worship.

aqwsed12345

Today, Jehovah promises to provide us with spiritual protection. He will never allow Satan to corrupt true worship. (John 17:15)

Interestingly, this claim aligns closely with the Catholic doctrine of the indefectibility of the Church, which asserts that the Church established by Christ will endure until the end of time, safeguarded by God from falling into total error or corruption. However, this raises an important question: if pure worship cannot be corrupted, how do groups like Jehovah’s Witnesses reconcile their claim of being the sole "true Church" with the notion that the original Church supposedly fell into a "Great Apostasy"?

Jehovah's Witnesses assert that after the death of the Apostle John, the first-century Christian Church quickly fell into apostasy, allowing "false Christianity" to dominate the world for approximately 1800 years until their movement restored "true worship" in the late 19th century. But if God permitted such a complete loss of true worship for nearly two millennia, how does this not contradict their own claim that God would never allow Satan to defile pure worship? Such an assertion implies that God either abandoned His Church or failed to protect it, which stands in stark contrast to their claim that He would never permit Satan to overcome it.

The Catholic doctrine of indefectibility, rooted in Christ's promises, provides a coherent and scriptural response to these questions. In Matthew 16:18, Christ states unequivocally, "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock, I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it." This promise affirms that the Church founded by Christ will never be overcome by the forces of evil. Similarly, in Matthew 28:20, Jesus promises, "And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age." These assurances confirm that the Church will remain intact, guided and protected by Christ Himself, until the end of time.

The Jehovah's Witnesses' narrative of a total apostasy undermines these divine promises. If, as they claim, the Church fell into complete corruption immediately after the apostolic age, then Christ’s words would seem empty, His promises unfulfilled, and His mission thwarted. Such a view inadvertently portrays God as incapable of preserving His Church against Satan’s influence, a conclusion that contradicts both Scripture and reason. Moreover, the idea that "false Christians" could erase "true worship" from history for 1800 years directly opposes their own teaching that God would not allow Satan to corrupt pure worship.

This inconsistency becomes even more apparent when we consider the practical implications of their claim. If true worship disappeared for nearly two millennia, how can Jehovah’s Witnesses be certain that their current teachings reflect the original message of Christ and the apostles? Without an unbroken continuity of doctrine and practice, there is no reliable means of verifying their claim to represent "pure worship." In contrast, the Catholic Church, through its unbroken apostolic succession and consistent teaching authority, provides an enduring witness to the truths handed down by Christ and His apostles.

Historically, the claim of a "Great Apostasy" is also deeply flawed. There is no evidence of a sudden and total collapse of the early Church, as Jehovah’s Witnesses suggest. Instead, the historical record demonstrates a continuous development and preservation of Christian doctrine and worship. The writings of the early Church Fathers, such as Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus, and Augustine, testify to the unbroken transmission of apostolic teaching and the visible unity of the Church. These early Christians wrote extensively about the sacraments, the role of bishops, and the authority of the Church—elements that Jehovah’s Witnesses dismiss as later corruptions but which are clearly rooted in the practices of the earliest Christian communities.

Furthermore, the concept of a "Great Apostasy" raises theological problems regarding God’s fidelity and justice. If God allowed the Church to fall into total error for centuries, what does this say about His promises and His care for humanity? Such a scenario implies that countless generations were deprived of access to true worship and salvation—a notion that is irreconcilable with the biblical portrayal of God as a loving and faithful shepherd who desires all people to come to the knowledge of the truth (1 Timothy 2:4).

In contrast, the Catholic understanding of indefectibility provides a theologically sound and historically consistent explanation. While the Church has faced internal scandals, external persecutions, and doctrinal challenges, these do not undermine its divine foundation or its role as the guardian of truth. Human sin and weakness have always been present within the Church, as evidenced by the behavior of some of its members throughout history. However, these failings do not invalidate the Church’s teaching authority or its mission. Just as the apostles were fallible men chosen to spread the Gospel, so too the Church is made up of imperfect individuals who rely on God’s grace to fulfill their vocation.

Check my comments here:

The Question of the "Great Apostasy" and the Historical Continuity of Christianity

13

JWs and Christmas

by Rnadomchris83 in

i have been lurking around here for years.

i'm not a witness, but my in-laws are.

my wife grew up in it but was never baptized.

aqwsed12345

You should read these:

13

JWs and Christmas

by Rnadomchris83 in

i have been lurking around here for years.

i'm not a witness, but my in-laws are.

my wife grew up in it but was never baptized.

aqwsed12345

The discussion surrounding whether Jehovah’s Witnesses might one day permit the celebration of Christmas is intriguing, given their staunch opposition to this holiday. Their reasons for rejecting Christmas are rooted in its supposed "pagan origins" and the lack of explicit biblical authorization to celebrate Jesus' birth. Jehovah’s Witnesses claim moral and doctrinal high ground by rejecting Christmas, yet the history of the Watch Tower Society suggests otherwise. As Zion’s Watch Tower (1904) noted, the organization’s founder, Charles Taze Russell, acknowledged that Christmas could be celebrated as a tribute to Christ. The publication even stated that "it is not necessary to quibble particularly about the date" and endorsed participation with the "civilized world" in celebrating Christ’s birth on December 25th. Until 1928, Christmas was celebrated at the Watch Tower headquarters, including the exchange of gifts and festive meals. This practice occurred long after the organization claimed Jesus had "inspected" them in 1919 and deemed them the true religion. If Christmas was considered pagan or unacceptable, why was it celebrated during such a formative period?

One of the primary arguments Jehovah’s Witnesses use to condemn Christmas is its alleged connection to paganism. However, this reasoning is flawed for several reasons. Jehovah’s Witnesses dismiss Christmas due to supposed pagan origins but inconsistently tolerate other customs with similar roots. For example, wedding rings, which are widely used by Witnesses, have origins in pagan rituals. Or the names of days and months (e.g., Thursday, named after the Norse god Thor) are of pagan derivation but are freely used without objection. The claim that Christmas was established to replace pagan festivals such as Sol Invictus is historically dubious. Scholarly research shows that December 25th was chosen based on theological reflection, such as the "integral age" theory, which posited that prophets died on the same date as their conception. This calculation places Jesus’ birth nine months after March 25th, the Feast of the Annunciation, resulting in December 25th.

While the Bible does not mandate the celebration of Jesus’ birth, it provides ample precedent for commemorating significant acts of God. The angels announced Jesus’ birth with rejoicing, declaring, "Glory to God in the highest" (Luke 2:13-14). This heavenly response to the Incarnation sets a clear example for believers to commemorate this momentous event. Jewish culture, from which Christianity emerged, embraced annual festivals such as Passover to commemorate God’s saving acts (Exodus 12:14). Celebrating Christ’s birth aligns with this tradition of honoring God’s intervention in history.

The Watch Tower Society’s stance on Christmas highlights broader inconsistencies in their doctrinal evolution. As mentioned in The Watchtower (October 2024), a Bible student is depicted discarding Christmas decorations after studying Scripture. Yet, this contradicts their earlier position in Zion’s Watch Tower, which viewed Christmas as a legitimate way to honor Jesus. The Governing Body has a history of adjusting policies to suit organizational goals. While Jehovah’s Witnesses currently reject Christmas, it is conceivable that this stance could change in the future, especially if it aligns with strategic interests.

Critics often ask why December 25th was chosen if the Bible does not explicitly mention Jesus’ birthdate. Here’s why this date remains significant. December 25th, near the winter solstice, symbolizes the light of Christ entering the world. This analogy is supported by John 1:5, which describes Jesus as the light shining in the darkness. Early Christian writers such as Hippolytus of Rome (c. 170–235 AD) mentioned December 25th as the date of Christ’s birth, demonstrating that this tradition predates accusations of pagan influence.

While Jehovah’s Witnesses reject Christmas based on claims of pagan origins and a lack of biblical command, these arguments are neither historically consistent nor theologically compelling. The celebration of Christ’s birth is rooted in biblical principles, theological reflection, and historical tradition. Furthermore, the Watch Tower Society’s own history of Christmas observance undermines its current stance. Ultimately, Christians celebrate Christmas not because of the date but because of the profound significance of the Incarnation—God becoming man to bring salvation to the world. This celebration aligns with biblical principles and the joyful proclamation of Christ’s coming, offering believers a meaningful way to honor God’s greatest gift to humanity.

408

Is Jesus the Creator?

by Sea Breeze in

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

@Earnest

Firstly, you are correct that "ho theos" typically refers to the Father in John's Gospel. This usage reflects the relational structure within the Trinity, where the Father is the source (arche, principium) of the Godhead. However, the key point in Trinitarian theology is not whether "ho theos" is frequently applied to the Son but whether its occasional application to Jesus, such as in John 20:28, aligns with the theological framework presented throughout John's Gospel and the New Testament as a whole.

John 20:28 is indeed an exceptional use of "ho theos" because it is the only explicit instance in the Gospel of John where this title is directly applied to Jesus. This does not undermine its significance; rather, it highlights the climactic nature of Thomas's confession within the narrative structure of the Gospel. Thomas’s declaration serves as the culmination of John’s Christological argument, beginning with the prologue in John 1:1 and confirmed by Jesus’s resurrection. The rarity of "ho theos" being applied to Jesus does not negate its theological implications. Instead, it underscores the uniqueness of the moment. Just as John 1:1 introduces the Logos as fully divine without frequent repetition of that exact language, John 20:28 does not need to be accompanied by numerous identical statements to affirm the Son's deity. The placement of this confession at the conclusion of the Gospel reinforces its doctrinal weight.

While "ho theos" predominantly refers to the Father, John’s Gospel consistently presents Jesus as sharing fully in the divine nature:

John 1:1: "The Word was God [theos]"—Here, "theos" is anarthrous, emphasizing the qualitative nature of the Word's deity, which aligns with Trinitarian theology. While "ton theon" (with the article) refers to the person of the Father, "theos" affirms the Logos as fully divine in essence.
John 10:30: "I and the Father are one"—Although "ho theos" is not explicitly used, this statement affirms the unity of essence between the Father and the Son. The reaction of the Jews, who accuse Jesus of blasphemy for making Himself equal with God (John 10:33), further supports this interpretation. Jesus only calls it accusation in 10:36 that His words were considered a blasphemy, but He does not dispute this interpretation of His words.
John 5:18: "He was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God"—This verse explicitly links Jesus's unique relationship with the Father to His divine status.
John 14:9: "Whoever has seen me has seen the Father"—While maintaining the personal distinction between Father and Son, this statement underscores their shared divine essence.

These examples collectively affirm the Son's deity and His unity with the Father, even when "ho theos" is not directly applied to Jesus. The theological framework of John’s Gospel supports the Trinitarian understanding of the Godhead, where the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit share the same divine essence while remaining distinct persons.

The principle of appropriatio (Trinitarian Ascription) in Trinitarian theology helps clarify why "ho theos" is primarily used for the Father. This is a convention of ascription, where certain titles or roles are more commonly associated with one divine person to reflect their relational distinction within the Godhead:

The Father is often referred to as "ho theos" (e.g., John 17:3) to emphasize His role as the source (arche, principium) of the Trinity.
The Son is commonly referred to as "ho kyrios" (e.g., John 20:28), highlighting His messianic and redemptive role.
The Spirit is identified as "to pneuma" to emphasize His work in sanctification and inspiration.

This ascription does not imply ontological inequality, or indicate separate beings, but a terminology that reflects the relational dynamics within the Trinity. Therefore, the predominance of "ho theos" for the Father does not exclude the Son from sharing the divine essence. The rarity of "ho theos" being applied to Jesus in the New Testament does not contradict His full divinity. Instead, it reflects the relational language used to describe the persons of the Trinity. Just as the term "Father" is not applied to the Son, and "Son" is not applied to the Father, the distinct roles and titles of each person within the Godhead are expressed in Scripture without diminishing their shared essence.

408

Is Jesus the Creator?

by Sea Breeze in

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

@Earnest

The problem is with the implication that the Greek article "ho" is allegedly a linguistic tool, the absence of which indicates that this is not really "God" in the true sense, but a kind of mighty spirit creature only could be interpreted in a henotheistic-monolatristic framework. While it is true that "ho theos" most commonly designates the Father in John's Gospel, this does not preclude its application to the Son or the Spirit in appropriate contexts. Importantly, Trinitarian theology does not hinge on every instance of "ho theos" applying equally to the Son or the Spirit. Instead, it recognizes the relational distinctions within the Godhead while affirming the shared divine essence.

In Trinitarian theology, the Father is often described as the arche (source or principle) within the Godhead. This relational role naturally explains why "ho theos" is the standard designation for the Father. John's Gospel reflects this theological reality, using "ho theos" most often to refer to the Father without excluding the Son and the Spirit from the divine essence. The Father’s role as the source does not imply that the Son or Spirit are subordinate in nature but highlights their distinct relational roles. For example:

John 3:16-17: The Father sends the Son into the world.
John 14:26: The Father sends the Spirit in the Son's name.

These verses demonstrate a relational ordering within the Trinity, not an ontological inequality. While "ho theos" typically refers to the Father, there are instances in John’s Gospel where the context suggests a broader application:

John 1:1: The Logos (Word) is described as "theos" (without the article) and is explicitly distinguished from the person of "ton theon" (the God, i.e., the Father). This highlights both the personal distinction between the Word and the Father and their shared divine essence. While "ho theos" here refers to the person of the Father, the Logos is equally God in essence, denoting His quiddity, not his identity. According to JWs, John 1:1c has "only" theos, and not ho theos, to justify the henotheistic Arian Christology, even though John could not have written ho theos here because that would justify Sabellian modalism. If ho theos here would justify Sabellianism, and theios Arianism, then what would justify the Nicene Christology? The anarthrous theos, exactly.
John 20:28: Thomas addresses Jesus directly as "ho kyrios mou kai ho theos mou" ("My Lord and my God"). The use of "ho theos" for Jesus here is unique and deliberate, underscoring His divine identity and equality with the Father.
John 10:30: Jesus states, "I and the Father are one." While "ho theos" is not explicitly used here, this unity implies shared divine essence, consistent with Trinitarian theology.

These examples demonstrate that John does not rigidly restrict the use of "ho theos" to the Father, particularly when emphasizing the Son’s divine nature. John 20:28 stands out because it explicitly applies "ho theos" to Jesus. Thomas’s declaration, "My Lord and my God," is addressed directly to Jesus, as indicated by the Greek phrase "eipen auto" ("he said to Him"). This is not a generic exclamation but a personal confession of Jesus’s divine identity. The Gospel’s prologue (John 1:1-18) sets the stage for this climactic moment, affirming the Logos as both distinct from and fully equal to God.

John’s use of "ho theos" reflects the relational distinctions within the Trinity while affirming the full divinity of the Son and the Spirit. The deliberate application of "ho theos" to Jesus in John 20:28 is not an exception but a culmination of John’s theological narrative. By placing this confession at the conclusion of his Gospel, John underscores its significance: Jesus is fully God, fully man, and worthy of worship.

408

Is Jesus the Creator?

by Sea Breeze in

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

@Earnest

1. Does "ho theos" refer specifically to the Father in most of these instances?

Yes, in most of the instances cited (e.g., John 3:33–34, John 6:27, John 8:41–42, etc.), ho theos refers specifically to the Father. This is consistent with the Trinitarian understanding that "the God" is often the standard designation for the Father in New Testament usage. However, this does not exclude the Son or the Spirit from sharing in the divine nature. The consistent pattern of New Testament language reflects the Father as the source (arche) within the Trinity, from whom the Son is eternally begotten and the Spirit proceeds.

2. What about John 20:28?

In John 20:28, Thomas directly addresses Jesus as ho kyrios mou kai ho theos mou ("My Lord and my God"). Here, ho theos refers specifically to Jesus, affirming His full divinity. This is not an isolated instance but aligns with John's high Christology, starting from the prologue (John 1:1: "the Word was God"). The phrase eipen auto ("he said to Him") leaves no ambiguity that Thomas's declaration is directed at Jesus, not the Father. This confession climaxes the Gospel’s theological arc, affirming Jesus as fully God and fully man.

3. How does this fit with Trinitarian theology?

The Trinitarian framework understands "ho theos" as:

(1) The standard designation for the Father (e.g., John 3:34, John 6:27).
(2) Occasionally applied to the Son (e.g., John 20:28, Hebrews 1:8).
(3) Used to refer to the divine essence shared by the Father, Son, and Spirit.

These uses reflect relational distinctions within the Trinity without implying a difference in divine nature. For example, in John 17:3, the Father is called "the only true God," but this does not exclude the Son and Spirit from being truly God. The phrase emphasizes the Father as the source of the Godhead, consistent with the Nicene Creed.

4. Addressing specific verses cited

Let’s examine a few of the verses listed:

John 3:33–34: The passage refers to God as the one who sends and speaks through Jesus. This highlights the relational distinction between the Father and the Son, a cornerstone of Trinitarian theology.
John 13:3: "Going to God" reflects Jesus's return to the Father, not a denial of His divinity. In John 17:5, Jesus prays to be glorified with the glory He had "before the world existed," affirming His preexistence and equality with the Father.
John 17:3: The phrase "the only true God" emphasizes the Father as the source within the Trinity. Jesus’s distinction from the Father as the "one whom you sent" reflects relational, not ontological, difference. The context of John's Gospel (e.g., John 1:1, John 20:28) affirms the Son's full divinity alongside the Father. A syncategorematical use of "only" (monos), just like for example in Jude 4. So "monos" does not exclude other divine persons from being the true God, but it excludes foreign gods, hence this simply asserts monotheism, not unitarianism.

5. Why is the distinction important?

You seem to suggest that the frequent use of ho theos for the Father excludes the Son from being fully divine. However, this reasoning conflates personal distinction with ontological inequality. Trinitarian theology recognizes the Father as the source (or "font") of the Godhead while affirming that the Son and Spirit share the same divine essence. The relational language used in the Gospel of John (e.g., "sent by the Father") reflects the eternal relationships within the Trinity, not a hierarchy of nature. The Son is subordinate to the Father in role, not in essence. This is why Thomas's confession in John 20:28 is so significant: it directly attributes to Jesus the same divine titles used for the Father.

6. Does this contradict monotheism?

Absolutely not. The Shema ("The LORD is one," Deuteronomy 6:4) is fully compatible with Trinitarian theology. You seem to be conflating monotheism with unitarianism. Christians affirm one God in three persons, not three gods. The unity of essence ensures monotheism, while the distinction of persons accounts for the relational dynamics revealed in Scripture.

408

Is Jesus the Creator?

by Sea Breeze in

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

@slimboyfat

In Greek, the pronoun αὐτῷ ("to him") unambiguously identifies Christ as the recipient of Thomas' words. This construction directly links Thomas' declaration to Christ, as no other subject is introduced in the immediate context. Throughout the Gospel of John, when a pronoun like αὐτῷ is used with the verb εἶπεν ("he said"), it always refers to the person being addressed directly. For example:

John 1:48: "Nathanael said to him (εἶπεν αὐτῷ), 'How do you know me?'"
John 14:8: "Philip said to him (εἶπεν αὐτῷ), 'Lord, show us the Father.'"

In these cases, the construction clearly indicates direct address, and there is no linguistic basis for interpreting the phrase differently in John 20:28. The nominative case (rather than the vocative) in Thomas' exclamation does not undermine the direct address to Christ. In Greek, the nominative is often used for direct address, particularly in Semitic-influenced Greek, such as the Greek of the NT. For example:

Hebrews 1:8: "Your throne, O God (Ὁ θεός), is forever and ever."
Matthew 16:16: Peter declares to Jesus, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God (Ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ζῶντος)."

In these examples, the nominative functions as direct address, demonstrating that Thomas’ words, "Ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου," are appropriately understood as spoken directly to Jesus.

The broader context of John’s Gospel supports the interpretation that Thomas' confession is directed exclusively to Christ as both Lord and God. John 20:28 serves as the climactic declaration of Jesus' divine identity, echoing the prologue (John 1:1: "the Word was God") and fulfilling the Gospel’s purpose statement (John 20:31: "that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God"). It is unlikely that such a climactic moment would redirect attention away from Jesus to God the Father. The risen Jesus invites Thomas to touch His wounds, directly addressing Thomas' doubts (John 20:27). Thomas' response in the next verse is naturally understood as directed to the one who has just spoken to him and offered proof of His resurrection. The possessive pronouns "my Lord" and "my God" emphasize a personal recognition of Jesus’ identity. If Thomas were addressing God the Father, the possessive pronouns would be unusual in this context, as Jewish prayers typically address God in more general terms.

The argument that Thomas, as a devout Jew, would not address Jesus as "my God" due to the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4) misunderstands early Christian theology. This argument is precisely self-defeating, because indeed, a religious Jew in light of the Shema would only make such a statement if he truly believed that Christ was Yahweh God. Scholars such as Richard Bauckham have demonstrated that early Christian belief included Jesus within the unique identity of Yahweh, consistent with Jewish monotheism. John’s Gospel frequently emphasizes Jesus’ divine authority and unity with the Father (e.g., John 10:30: "I and the Father are one"). The NT provides multiple instances of Jesus being worshiped without contradiction to Jewish monotheism (e.g., Matthew 28:9, Hebrews 1:6). Thomas’ confession is consistent with this pattern.

The mention of historical debates about the interpretation of John 20:28 does not negate the traditional reading. As previously noted, David Bentley Hart supports the interpretation that Thomas’ confession is directed to Christ and reveals His full divinity. Hart writes:

“The withholding of the full revelation of Christ as ho theos, God in the fullest sense, until Thomas confesses him as such in the light of Easter, must be seen as an intentional authorial tactic.”

Hart acknowledges alternative views only as part of scholarly rigor but firmly aligns with the traditional understanding of John 20:28 as a direct affirmation of Jesus’ divine identity.The argument that John 1:1 presents the Logos as “a god” rather than fully divine is also flawed. The anarthrous (lacking the definite article) θεός in John 1:1c emphasizes the qualitative nature of the Logos, not a subordinate or lesser status. As Hart and others have noted, if the evangelist intended to describe the Logos as a subordinate divine being, he could have used the term θεῖος ("divine" or "godlike").

The assertion that the Logos is an "emanation of God" reflects a philosophical framework foreign to the Gospel of John. While some early thinkers might have used language resembling emanation to discuss the relationship between God and the Logos, John’s Gospel avoids such speculation and instead directly identifies the Logos as God Himself (John 1:1). The text begins unequivocally: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." This opening statement places the Logos within the identity of God, not as a created being or an emanation, but as God Himself who is fully involved in the creation of all things (John 1:3). Far from a philosophical abstraction, John grounds the Logos in the tangible reality of Jesus Christ, who "became flesh and dwelt among us" (John 1:14).

The claim that the Gospel of John portrays Jesus as "less than his Father in power, position, and knowledge" misinterprets the text's theological depth. While it is true that Jesus, in His incarnation, willingly subordinated Himself to the Father to accomplish the mission of redemption, this subordination pertains to His role, not to His nature. The Gospel of John repeatedly emphasizes the equality and unity of the Son with the Father: "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30) and "Whoever has seen me has seen the Father" (John 14:9). These statements reflect the ontological unity between Father and Son. Jesus’ mission as the obedient Son is not evidence of inferiority but of His voluntary humility in the economy of salvation (Philippians 2:6-8).

The analogy of Jesus as an "angelic messenger" falls short in capturing the full reality of Christ as presented in John. Although angels are indeed God's messengers, the Gospel makes it clear that Jesus is far more than a messenger. Unlike angels, who are created beings, Jesus is described as the eternal Logos, the agent of creation, and the one through whom all things were made (John 1:3). Angels are never attributed such creative power or divine prerogatives. Furthermore, John declares Jesus as "the only-begotten God" (John 1:18, depending on manuscript tradition), a title that sets Him apart not only from angels but from all creation. This language highlights the unique relationship between the Father and the Son—an eternal, intrinsic relationship rather than one resembling the service-oriented role of angels.

The suggestion that second-century apologists and later Trinitarians misinterpreted John due to their engagement with philosophical concepts like "essence" and "substance" ignores the historical development of Christian doctrine. These terms were not imposed upon the text but developed as the Church sought to articulate the biblical witness to Christ against heretical misinterpretations. The Church Fathers, far from distorting John’s theology, sought to preserve its core truths amidst challenges such as Arianism, which attempted to reduce Christ to a created being. The formulation of Trinitarian doctrine in the Nicene Creed was a faithful response to John’s high Christology, affirming that the Son is "of one substance with the Father" as implied in texts like John 1:1, John 10:30, and John 17:5.

Finally, the assertion that JWs align more closely with John’s understanding of Jesus is unsubstantiated. The theology of the JWs, which posits that Jesus is not a begotted divine person, but a created being and a lesser "god" (in Ps. 82 sense), directly contradicts the central claims of John’s Gospel. John’s declaration that "the Word was God" leaves no room for the idea of Jesus as a secondary divine figure or a created being. Furthermore, Jesus’ acceptance of worship (John 9:38; John 20:28) and His identification with the divine name "I AM" (John 8:58) affirm His full divinity, which is incompatible with the Jehovah’s Witnesses' interpretation.

@Earnest

According to the estabished NT terminology, "ho theos" is generally the standard designation for the Father, "ho kyrios" is the standard designation for the Son, and "to pneuma" is the standard designation for the Holy Spirit, so the terminology adopted in patristic literature is to refer to the persons of the Trinity as "the God and the Lord and the Spirit", although in fact it is true for all three Divine Persons that they are God, Lord and Spirit. This is called Trinitarian appropriationesin theology, which could be translated into English as ascription, attribution, or designation. The word "God" is used in three basic senses:

As a standard designation (appropriatio) for the person of the Father - #1
For the entire Trinity, the divine essence (theotes) - #2
As a designation for quiddity, i.e. in a qualitative sense - #3

These three different senses cannot be played off against each other. For example, from the primitive JW argument that phrases like "the God and Jesus" are intended to conclude that the Son is not God (in #3 sense either). When all that follows from this is that the Son is not identical with God neither in the #1 sense nor in the #2 sense (and this is not even stated in Nicene theology). So it is correct that "ho theos" most often refers to the Father in the NT, including the Gospel of John. However, this does not mean that "ho theos" exclusively refers to the Father, nor does it imply that the Son (the Logos) is excluded from being fully divine.

The presence or absence of the article “ho” does not indicate different degrees of divinity, but generally indicates that it is an appropriatio: denoting a single divine person with an established nominator without indicating any difference in the quiddity. To use a modern profane analogy, it's like calling Elvis "the King." Watch:

https://youtu.be/zMnXR7sHgsI

That "theos" and "ho theos" do not denote a quiddity difference is evident from the fact that 1) the Son is also called "ho theos", 2) the Father is also called "theos" without the article (ho). The Hebrew words El, HaElohim and Yahweh (all referring to God) were rendered as anarthrous "theos" in the LXX at Nahum 1:2, Isaiah 37:16, 41:4, Jeremiah 23:23 and Ezekiel 45:9 among many other locations. Moreover, in the NTanarthrous theos was used to refer to God the Father in locations including John 1:18a, Romans 8:33, 2 Corinthians 5:19, 6:16 and Hebrews 11:16. In John 1:1 the distinction between "ton theon" ("the God" #1 sense) and "theos" ("God" #3 sense) in the prologue highlights the personal distinction between the Father and the Son while affirming their shared divine essence. The phrase "pros ton theon" (God in #1 sense) emphasizes the intimate relationship between the Word and the Father, while "theos ēn ho logos" ("the Word was God" in #3 sense) affirms the full divinity of the Logos. This does not create two gods but distinguishes persons within the one divine essence.

In John 20:28, when Thomas exclaims "ho kyrios mou kai ho theos mou" ("my Lord and my God"), the grammar and context unequivocally indicate that this statement is addressed to Jesus. The possessive pronouns "mou" ("my") and the verb "eipen auto" ("he said to Him") make it impossible to interpret this as a statement directed to the Father or as a generic exclamation (“Oh my God!”). Here, "ho theos" is applied directly to Jesus, affirming His full divinity (being God in #3 sense).

Hart’s observation that early Christians were reticent to use "ho theos" for anyone other than the Father reflects a historical hesitancy in formal theological language, not a denial of the Son’s divinity. The Nicene Creed later clarified the consubstantiality of the Father and the Son, but this does not negate the Gospel of John’s implicit Trinitarian theology. Hart himself affirms the Logos' full divinity and continuity with the Father’s essence in John 1:1 and elsewhere.

While "ho theos" typically refers to the Father since the above reasons, this is consistent with Trinitarian theology, which recognizes the Father as the source (arche) within the Godhead. The Son and the Spirit share in the divine essence but are distinct persons who proceed from the Father. This framework accounts for the predominant use of "ho theos" for the Father while still affirming the full divinity of the Son and the Spirit.

Below is an analysis of the listed verses to demonstrate their compatibility with Trinitarian theology:

1. John 1:1: "The Word was with [the] God#1 [ton theon]"—This refers to the Father. The second clause, "and the Word was God#3 [theos]," affirms the Logos' full divinity, using the qualitative anarthrous theos to emphasize the divine nature of the Word without creating a second deity.

2. John 1:2: "This one was in the beginning with [the] God#2 [ton theon]"—Again, this refers to the Father, consistent with Trinitarian theology.

3. John 3:16-17: "[The] God#2 [ho theos] loved the world... [The] God#1/2 [ho theos] sent forth His Son"—This refers to the Father, highlighting the relational distinction within the Trinity.

4. John 4:24: "[The] God#2 [ho theos] is a spirit..."—This describes the nature of God as spirit, applicable to the divine essence (theotes) shared by all three persons.

5. John 5:18: "Calling [the] God#1 [ton theon] his own Father"—The Father is explicitly referred to here. Jesus’ claim makes Him "equal with God," a direct assertion of His divine nature.

6. John 20:28: "My Lord and my God#3"—As noted earlier, this is a direct confession of Jesus' divinity, using "ho theos" in reference to Him. The grammar and context eliminate any ambiguity.

1. Does "ho theos" Exclusively Refer to the Father?

No, "ho theos" (God #1) most often refers to the Father in John’s Gospel, but it is also used to affirm the deity of Jesus (e.g., John 20:28 God#3). This usage is consistent with Trinitarian theology, which recognizes the Father as the source within the Godhead while affirming the full divinity of the Son and the Spirit.

2. Does "ton theon" in John 1:1 Refer to the Father?

Yes, "ton theon#1" in John 1:1 refers to the Father, emphasizing the distinct personhood of the Logos in relation to the Father. However, this distinction does not negate the Logos' divinity, as affirmed in the same verse ("theos [#3] ēn ho logos").

3. How Can Trinitarians Consistently Interpret "ho theos" in John?

Trinitarians understand "ho theos" to generally refer to the Father (#1) while recognizing its application (#3) to Jesus in contexts like John 20:28. This reflects the relational and personal distinctions within the Trinity without compromising the unity of the divine essence.