@Rattigan350
"John was stating that the Word, Jesus was a spirit being alongside God."
In his prologue, John does not call him a "spirit being" (?), contrasting his being with the one he was with. John does not refer to Jesus as a "spirit being" but emphasizes that the Word was both with God and was God. The term "theos" without the article in Greek emphasizes the nature or essence of the Word being divine, not a lesser spirit.
"He was not saying that the Word was Jehovah God."
John nowhere speaks of any kind of "Jehovah", but since in a positive and affirmative sense in the theological framework of the NT, the term THEOS only refers to the true God, the almighty God of the Bible, this is only possible if the Son/Logos is just as much YHWH, like the Father, in addition to the fact that he is obviously not identical with the Father in person. The New Testament does not use the term "Jehovah." Instead, it uses "theos" to refer to the true God. John 1:1c clearly states, "the Word was God," which in the context of John's theology refers to the true God, not a lesser being. John 1:1 establishes the divinity of the Word while maintaining a personal distinction between the Word and God the Father.
"...he was a lesser spirit..."
John did not call the Logos "lesser" "spirit" in his prologue, and if you refer to John 14:28, that does not prove the Son's createdness and ontological inferiority. In short: "greater" here does not mean "ontologically superior", and this is excellently justified by the fact that the Son is begotten of the Father (not vice versa), and also by the fact that the Son (unlike the Father) became man (incarnated), thus "greater" does not prove that he was a creature or an archangel, as asserted by the WTS. Nowhere in the prologue of John or elsewhere does John call the Logos "lesser" or a "spirit." John 1:14 states, "The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us," emphasizing the incarnation of the divine Word. John 14:28 ("The Father is greater than I") refers to the economic function within the Trinity and the incarnation, not to an ontological inferiority.
"...being different from God."
The Nicene theology does not claim that the Son/Logos is the same person as the one who is meant by the name "God" in John 1:1b, i.e. the Father. The text explicitly states that the Word was both with God and was God. The term "theos" without the article in the Greek emphasizes the nature or essence of the Word being divine. This does not imply a "lesser" divinity but rather affirms the Word's full divinity.The Nicene theology, as reflected in John 1:1, does not claim that the Son is the same person as the Father. The text says the Word was with God (indicating distinction of the persons) and was God (indicating unity of essence). This affirms the full divinity of the Word without implying that the Word is a different, lesser deity.
Thomas addresses Jesus as "My Lord and my God!" (John 20:28) This clear confession acknowledges Jesus' full divinity, not as a lesser being, a creature but as truly God. If Jesus was a mere creature, Thomas's statement would be inappropriate. The clear acknowledgment by a disciple of Jesus' divine nature affirms the belief in Jesus as truly God.
@Wonderment
I'm not just criticizing the NWT, they're all mistranslations, but since this is a NWT forum, that's by definition the focus. While some translations have nuanced differences, the overwhelming majority of reputable translations (e.g., NIV, ESV, NASB, KJV) render John 1:1 as "the Word was God," emphasizing the Word's full divinity.
In the New Testament, when referring to Jesus and the true God,
"theos" consistently denotes full divinity. In the New Testament,
"theos" consistently denotes full divinity when referring to Jesus and the true God. The context of passages like John 1:1 and John 20:28 affirms the divinity of Jesus in the same sense as the Father.
" Your cursory mention of John 10.34 by Jesus gives you away."
In John 10:34-36, Jesus quotes Psalm 82:6 to defend against the charge of blasphemy. The context shows that Jesus uses the term "gods" in a lesser, figurative sense for humans. However, this does not diminish his claim to divinity. Jesus distinguishes His unique relationship with the Father from the way "gods" is used for judges in the psalm, asserting His divine Sonship. Jesus' reference to Psalm 82 in John 10:34 illustrates a rhetorical strategy, not a denial of his unique divinity. The psalm's use of "gods" for judges was symbolic, and Jesus used it to demonstrate that his claim to be God's Son was even more justified.
The issue is the context in which this was stated and why John NEEDED to render this as 'theoi' when writing his gospel in GREEK, whereas all other apostles did not translate OT passages where creatures are affirmatively called 'elohim' in this way. Therefore, the NT concept of 'theos' is not identical to the early OT books' concept of el-eloah-elohim because, in the NT theological context, there is no general sense of calling someone "god," which is no more than calling someone "cool" in modern English vernacular. This pericope does not claim that the divinity of Jesus is identical with this symbolic psalm terminology, on the contrary. he simple reason for this is that Christ's answer would not have been understandable otherwise, but you can't provide a single example where creatures are described as "theoi" in an affirmative and positive sense in the NT, so there is no NT precedent for this.
The Son is God not only in the sense that "elohim" is used in the OT in a general sense (even ironically, e.g., in the case of judges), but in reality, the NT does not recognize this concept of "theos."
In the NT, designating angels as THEOS does not occur, so this only appears in this OT quote, and moreover, "Elohim" in Hebrew is a much more general term, which in this case might be better translated as Mighty Ones, etc., rather than "God" in the proper sense. The word "GOD" in Greek, English, etc., always refers to the omnipotent, creator, infinite single God, and no one else. In the case of Jesus, we do not only rely on the application of the word "THEOS" not just once and without any diminutive additions but also on such attributes (omniscience, timelessness, hearing of prayers, to be worshipped (both proskuneo AND latreou, etc.) which cannot apply to the created angels.
John 10:34-35 just proves that the divinity of the Son is superior compared to calling the judges "elohim" in Psalm 82, where Jesus uses this for a so-called "kal va-chomer" argument.
The statement "you are gods" comes from Psalm 82, but it does not talk about "born gods", but about earthly judges who bore the name of God for this function only. They judge falsely, do not understand, walk in darkness, and ultimately die. So these are not gods, but people. When Jesus referred to this passage, he only claimed that it was not unprecedented men as elohim, so he could not even be stoned for this reason. But he did not claim that his divinity was the same as that of the judges poetically addressed as "gods" in the psalm. The Father and the Son are NOT just "one in intention and thought", but they have one and the same divine reality, nature.
So, just because the judges were referred to as "gods" in a certain sense in one place in the OT, Jesus is not limited to such titular divinity, because in John 10:36 he forms a HIGHER right to divinity than theirs. Ps. 82 mocks the judges who were "gods" (mighty ones), but because they became unfaithful, they die as people. In John 10:34-36, Jesus refers back to Ps. 82: IF God mockingly called the judges "gods", how much more true is it for Him (who is truly so).
"you want to have John 1.1 say that it supports a sort of Trinity. "
I wasn't talking about the Trinity, but the Nicean undrestanding of the nature of the Son. The focus is on the Nicene understanding of the nature of the Son, not the full Trinitarian doctrine. John 1:1 supports the divinity of the Son, consistent with the Nicene Creed's affirmation of the Son's consubstantiality with the Father.This is precisely why I don't like to debate "the Trinity" with Jehovah's Witnesses initially. Instead, we should approach this whole discourse chronologically as it emerged in church history, starting with the Council of Nicaea, not "the Trinity." The Trinity is just the final result, which can only be understood if you are familiar with the basics, just as you cannot jump to advanced mathematics without understanding the fundamental mathematics.
"These Church Fathers lived historically in a time period noted for its ambiguity and confusion."
Patristics and extrabiblical sources, even if they do not hold the same authority as the Bible, are still essential. The early Church Fathers provide crucial insights into the interpretation of Scripture and early Christian doctrine. They were closer to the apostolic tradition and provide valuable context for understanding the New Testament. The early Church Fathers provide crucial historical context, demonstrating the continuous understanding of Christ's divinity. They were closer to the apostolic teachings and their interpretations hold significant weight against later heterodox claims.
Assuming that the NT was not misunderstood immediately after the death of the Apostle John, these sources show the beliefs of ancient Christians. Of course, one can play biblical ping-pong, but Christianity is also a historical phenomenon. Various Bible passages have been interpreted differently over time. For me, the interpretations of those almost contemporaneous with the apostles carry more weight than speculations made two thousand years later.
The early Church Fathers provide valuable insights into the interpretation of Scripture and early Christian doctrine. Their proximity to the apostolic tradition offers a credible understanding of the New Testament. They consistently affirmed the divinity of Christ and countered early heresies.
Many individuals have abandoned, are abandoning, and will abandon their faith, gathering followers around them, as the Scriptures testify (Acts 20:28-31; 1 John 2:18-19). According to every known secular and theological definition, "apostasy" refers to individuals abandoning their religion or belief system (1 John 2:19), not a collective heresy of an entire group. The Bible nowhere states that the entire Church established by Jesus would or could ever abandon Him. Such a departure is impossible, considering His promises (Mt 16:18; 18:15-20; 28:20; John 14:16-17, 23, 26; 16:7, 12-14; 17:9-23), along with the inspired apostolic doctrine that the Church is the "pillar and foundation of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15), the command to "hold to the traditions you were taught by us, either by spoken word or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15, referring to "oral tradition" AND "Scripture"), and the fact that "through the Church, the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places" (Eph. 3:10).
In the writings of the Church Fathers, there is no mention of a great apostasy of the entire Church or of a significant struggle for the faith. They mention individual heretics and certain heretical movements that began and grew after Christ's ascension and Pentecost, but there is no mention of a complete apostasy. If the Church Fathers were part of the apostasy, they would likely have mentioned their new doctrines to condemn Christians adhering to older apostolic teachings! But there is no sign of such a debate, and no writings support the idea of a mass apostasy from the true faith. History is completely silent. History mentions other great schisms within the Church (such as the Ebionites, Arianism, the Great Schism in 1054, and the Protestant Reformation in 1517), but about this massive schism ("great apostasy"), there is complete silence.
Orthodox Catholic theologians have not been silent about being condemned as heretical teachers of devilish doctrines. Every movement deemed heretical by Catholic orthodoxy in the first four centuries either died out or faded away. All of them strongly contradicted one or more NT teachings, and some even rejected protocanonical biblical books accepted by all Christians from the beginning of the Church. Collectively, they do not represent a unified Christian theology that could be called the original apostolic Christian gospel from which the Church apostatized. The various doctrines and groups rejected by Catholic orthodoxy even contradict each other. Their writings, which have survived and are accessible, show that none represent or resemble the teachings of JWs, Mormons, or fundamentalist Protestants. So they do not represent any writings from the first four centuries of Christianity. This historical silence is taken as evidence that the "Great Apostasy" from evangelical Reformation Christianity must have happened, which is circular reasoning.
It is unreasonable to assume that the earliest Church Fathers—personally taught by the apostles—would teach heresies, and that the truly faithful followers of the apostles' doctrines, who had their writings and knew the older generation that personally heard them teach and preach, would have remained silent about such a massive paradigm shift in the Church's fundamental teachings.I did not claim that individual Church Fathers were "infallible" in their Christology, but the fact is that there is not a single early Christian source that states the Father "created" the Son or that the Son is Michael the Archangel, etc. On the contrary, there are countless sources affirming that the Son is God. Now, this is only possible if Christianity "collapsed" almost immediately after the Apostles, like a new car breaking down on its first turn out of the dealership. This implies that practically everyone "misunderstood" the Apostles' message.
"John 17.3 points to the Father [not the Son] as the true God, who we owe our lives to. "
The fact that "not the Son" is already your forced eisegesis explanation, the text does not contrast this with the Son. John 17:3 does not exclude the Son from being the true God. The verse highlights the Father as the only true God to contrast with false gods, not to deny the divinity of the Son. Other passages, such as 1 John 5:20, also affirm the Son as the true God.Jehovah's Witnesses often refer to this scripture when disputing the deity of Jesus. In contrast, Christians who believe in the Trinity usually point out that the expression "the only true God" is not meant to contrast the Father with the Son, but rather to contrast the only true God with false gods (Jeremiah 10:10-11; 1 John 5:20). This verse merely states that "the Father is the only true God" (which corresponds to the Trinitarian Christian teaching), but it does not say "only the Father is the true God alone," which some would like to infer. There is a clear difference between the two statements. Not only this verse, but also the understanding of several other texts, requires us to recognize that the expression "and" (kai) can also mean "that is," "more precisely," or "as well as." For the use of the
"kai" conjunction in this sense, see for example John 15:8 and 18:35.Based on these words, Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the Father is the only true God. However, the structure and meaning of the scripture suggest that "they may know you, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent, to be the only true God." The Bible here names the Father as the only true God, not to exclude the Son and the Holy Spirit (who are just as much the only true God together with the Father); but rather to exclude the false gods of the pagans. The Witnesses should consider that the Son of God, Jesus Christ, is expressly called the true God (1 John 5:20), with the definite article in Greek, which Jehovah's Witnesses usually emphasize heavily.
The quickest way to demonstrate the flawed interpretation of John 17:3 by Jehovah's Witnesses is through examining Ephesians 4:4-6 ("one God and Father of all, and one Lord, Jesus"). If the title of "One God" for the Father excluded Jesus from divinity, then Jesus' title of "One Lord" would similarly exclude the Father from being Lord. Yet, we know that both are Lord. On the other hand, Jehovah is called not only the only true God (John 17:3) but also the "Only Savior" (Isaiah 43:11; 45:21; Hosea 13:4; Jude 25), "Only King" (Zechariah 14:9). If John 17:3 excluded Jesus from being the "True God," then Jesus would also be excluded from being Savior or King. In contrast, Jesus is called the "Only Teacher" (Matthew 23:8, 10; Matthew 10:24 and John 13:13), "Only Master" (Jude 4; 2 Peter 2:1), and "Only Lord" (Jude 4; Ephesians 4:4; 1 Corinthians 8:4,6; Matthew 6:24). If we were to exclude Jesus from being the true God based on John 17:3, then we would also have to exclude the Father from being our Teacher, Master, or Lord.
Can the term "only" referring to exclusivity be applied to a person? Several scriptural passages use such language: "That they may know that you [i.e., the Father] are the only true God." (John 17:3); "No one knows the Son except the Father." (Matthew 11:27);
These verses should be understood not to exclude the other persons of the Trinity but merely other natures. Thus, "no one else" means not another person, but rather not another nature. So, when the term "only" is applied to divine persons, it does not exclude the other persons – as they are all one through the unity of the single divine reality. This, of course, is true only for statements that can be made about the persons regarding their common divine essence. Thus, every Person of the Trinity knows the other, is almighty, holy, etc.
This hyperbole do not exclude other persons from the Godhead, but exclude other deities. This is the answer of Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologiae I, q.31, a.4) too, that it's to be understood in syncategorematical, and not in categorematical sense:
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1031.htm#article3
Thomas Aquinas explains that all these verses must be understood as exclusive not of the other Persons of the Trinity but only of other natures. Thus, “no one” does not mean no other person, but rather no other nature. Thus, when the term only is applied to one of the divine Persons, the other Persons are not excluded – for all are united through the unity of the single divine Essence. However, this only holds true for those things which are predicated of the Persons by reason of the shared Essence. Thus, each and every Person of the Trinity is said to know the others, to be all powerful, to be most holy, etc.
However, other attributes are not based on the common essence but on their relations. For example: only the Father is "unbegotten"; only the Son is "begotten"; only the Spirit "proceeds from the Father."
Finally, we must point out that some attributes of the Son are not about His divinity but His humanity. Thus, only the Son became incarnate; only the Son died; only the Son will come again, and so on. For those who need further arguments against the Watchtower-Arian interpretation, I can recommend the following articles:
"And Jesus even said, "The Father is greater than I am.""
I touched on this primitive argument above. This refers to the economic roles within the Trinity and Jesus' incarnation, not to an ontological inferiority. The Father and the Son share the same divine essence, but the Son took on human nature and a subordinate role in the Incarnation.
"Jesus thus said: 'Worship the Father.' (Jn 4.24)"
Besides, he also said that: "all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father." (John 5:23) Jesus claims equal honor with the Father, which would be inappropriate if He were merely a lesser being, a creature.
"But for ego-seekers, this may be way too simple."
Unless you're not the examiner of hearts and kidneys, do yourself a favor and don't dig into other people's hearts, especially not in such a pseudo-psychological way. The context of the New Testament consistently maintains the distinction between the one true God and created beings, whether angels or humans, and affirms the unique divinity of Jesus Christ.
"Greek philosophy disguised in complicated dogmas, like the Trinity..."
Cf. Genetic fallacy
The doctrine of the Trinity as a doctrine is merely an organization certain biblical facts into a system. So the doctrine of the Trinity is the interpretation and systematization of biblical facts published in a philosophical guise. the CONTENT of Catholic theology was not influenced by some kind of evil "philosophy", and you will not be able to attack it, based on the fact that the philosophical concepts used for the TERMINOLOGY for formulating the doctrines are also used. Read this:
From the New Testament to the Council of Nicaea
1. The theologians who in our time raise doubts about the divinity of Christ often argue that this dogma cannot have emerged from genuine biblical revelation; its origins are traceable to Hellenism. Deeper historical inquiries show, on the contrary, that the thought pattern of the Greeks was totally alien to this dogma and that they rejected it with the utmost vigor. To the faith of Christians who proclaimed the divinity of Christ, Hellenism opposed its own dogma of the divine transcendence, which it regarded as irreconcilable with the contingency inherent to the human history of Jesus of Nazareth. Greek philosophers experienced the particular difficulty entailed in accepting the notion of a divine incarnation. In the name of their teaching on the godhead, Platonist philosophers regarded this notion as unthinkable. The Stoics, in turn, could not manage to reconcile the Christological dogma with their cosmological doctrine.
2. It was in order to respond to these difficulties that, more or less openly, many Christian theologians borrowed from Hellenism the notion of a secondary god (deuteros theos), or of an intermediate god, or even of a demiurge. Obviously, this was tantamount to clearing the way to the threat of subordinationism. This subordinationism was already latent in some of the Apologists and in Origen. Arius made a formal heresy of it. He maintained that the Son occupies an intermediate position between the Father and the creatures. The Arian heresy offers a good illustration of how the dogma of Christ’s divinity would have looked had it truly emerged from the philosophy of Hellenism and not from God’s own revelation. At the Council of Nicaea in a.d. 325, the Church defined that the Son is consubstantial (homoousios) with the Father. In so doing, the Church both repudiated the Arian compromise with Hellenism and deeply altered the shape of Greek, especially Platonist and neo-Platonist, metaphysics. In a manner of speaking, it demythicized Hellenism and effected a Christian purification of it. In the act of dismissing the notion of an intermediate being, the Church recognized only two modes of being: uncreated (nonmade) and created.
To be sure, "homoousios", the term used by the Council of Nicaea, is a philosophical and nonbiblical term. It is evident all the same that, ultimately, the Fathers of the Council only intended to express the authentic meaning of the New Testament assertions concerning Christ, and to do this in a way that would be univocal and free from all ambiguity.
In issuing this definition of Christ’s divinity, the Church found support also in the experience of salvation and in man’s divinization in Christ. In turn, the dogmatic definition impressed its own determination and mark on the experience of salvation. There was, then, an in-depth interaction between lived experience and the process whereby theological clarification was achieved.
3. The theological reflections of the Fathers of the Church did not ignore the special problem connected with the divine preexistence of Christ. Note in particular Hippolytus of Rome, Marcellus of Ancyra, and Photinus. Their attempts are bent on presenting the preexistence of Christ not at the level of ontological reality but at that of intentionality: Christ had preexisted in the sense of having been foreseen (kata prognosin).
These presentations of the preexistence of Christ were judged inadequate by the Catholic Church and condemned. Thus the Church gave expression to her own belief in an ontological preexistence of Christ, for which it found support in the Father s eternal generation of the Word. The Church also referred to the clear-cut New Testament affirmations concerning the active role played by the Word of God in the creation of the world. Obviously, someone who does not yet exist, or is only intended to exist, cannot play any such role.
The arguments presented by the Jehovah’s Witnesses often overlook the full context of the scriptures and historical theological interpretations. The New Testament consistently upholds the full divinity of Jesus Christ, distinguishing him from created beings, whether angels or humans. The nuanced theological explanations by the Church Fathers further reinforce this understanding, demonstrating a coherent and consistent belief in the deity of Christ within the framework of early Christian doctrine. The New Testament consistently maintains the distinction between the one true God and created beings while affirming the unique divinity of Jesus Christ. The Church Fathers and reputable scholars provide robust support for the traditional understanding of John 1:1c, which affirms the full divinity of the Word. The arguments presented by Jehovah's Witness apologists do not hold up against the weight of biblical and historical evidence.
