Posts by aqwsed12345

posted

167
How did JWs arrive at a clearer understanding of what the Bible teaches than other Christian denominations?
by slimboyfat in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
for jws who believe that jehovah had a hand in reviving the truth in the nineteenth century this is enough explanation for how jws managed to achieve a closer approximation to early christian beliefs and practices than other groups.

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

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

@slimboyfat
Thank you for your response, and I appreciate your effort to clarify your approach to citing scholars and the role they play in shaping your arguments. While it's good that you're being careful to defer to experts in areas outside your expertise, I think there are still significant issues with the methodology you're presenting. Let me explain more thoroughly why, despite your best intentions, quoting certain scholars doesn't necessarily bolster the case you're trying to make, especially concerning doctrinal matters like the Trinity.
One of the most important points to grasp about theology is that it's not just a matter of collecting a few proof texts or pulling out isolated academic quotes. Doctrinal theology develops over time and involves a holistic synthesis of Scripture, Tradition, and theological reflection, all rooted in the lived faith of the Church. So when you refer to the scholarly consensus on the Trinity "not being in the Bible," you're conflating a modern, often skeptical, historical-critical approach with a theological one.
For example, when scholars like Bart Ehrman claim that the Trinity isn't explicitly "taught" in the Bible, they're typically referring to the fact that the Bible doesn't use the term "Trinity" or systematically lay out the doctrine as the Nicene Creed does. However, this doesn't mean that the concept of the Trinity isn't there in seed form or that it doesn't emerge naturally from the text. Rather, the early Church Fathers recognized the deep and complex unity of God as revealed in Scripture, culminating in the development of the doctrine to clarify the faith against heresies like Arianism and modalism. It wasn't "invented" at Nicaea but formally articulated to defend what had been consistently taught from the time of the apostles.
You argue that quoting certain scholars who support JW positions shows that their views are at least "legitimate." The issue here is that scholars can have a wide range of views, some of which are influenced by modernist or revisionist tendencies that aim to reinterpret early Christianity through the lens of later skepticism. The fact that some scholars reject the Trinity or propose that early Christians saw Jesus as a mere angel doesn't make those views correct or legitimate within the framework of historic Christianity.
For instance, Bart Ehrman is not a neutral observer; he's a self-declared agnostic who has made a career out of challenging traditional Christian doctrines. The fact that some scholars agree with his conclusions does not mean those conclusions are supported by the entire scholarly community, much less by the broader Christian tradition. Moreover, there are many competent scholars—both evangelical and Catholic—who would argue strongly for the opposite positions, affirming the Trinity and the deity of Christ as consistent with both the New Testament and the beliefs of the earliest Christians.
Quoting a few liberal or skeptical scholars isn't proof of legitimacy; it's simply a reflection of a particular interpretative school. It also risks falling into the trap of authority-based arguments rather than engaging with the broader theological and historical context that shaped Christian doctrine.
A key distinction between our approaches lies in how we view tradition and the authority of the Church. As a Catholic, I see the development of doctrine as guided by the Holy Spirit, with the Magisterium (teaching authority of the Church) safeguarding the truth passed down from the apostles. The creeds, councils, and the Church Fathers aren't just additional sources but are essential in interpreting and preserving the faith once delivered to the saints (Jude 1:3). When I refer to the writings of early Christians like Tertullian, Athanasius, or Augustine, I do so because they represent the faith lived out and defended in the face of heresies that threatened to distort it.
You seem to dismiss the role of tradition and the development of doctrine as unnecessary or even suspect. However, it's important to realize that the earliest Christians weren't isolated Bible interpreters like modern scholars but part of a community of faith with teachings passed down through generations. Doctrines like the Trinity emerged from the need to clarify these teachings in the face of challenges and to protect the integrity of the Christian faith.
While it's true that the Bible doesn't present the doctrine of the Trinity in a systematic theological treatise, the elements of the doctrine are clearly present throughout the New Testament. The Great Commission in Matthew 28:19 speaks of baptizing "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." The language here isn't merely symbolic or titular; it places all three persons on equal footing in a way that doesn't make sense if Jesus and the Spirit were created beings or merely lesser entities. Similarly, the high Christology of John's Gospel, especially John 1:1 and John 20:28 (where Thomas calls Jesus "my Lord and my God"), provides clear evidence that the early Christians saw Jesus as God, and not as Michael the Archangel.
Moreover, the letters of Paul frequently emphasize the relationship between Father, Son, and Spirit in a way that points toward their unity in essence yet distinction in personhood. In passages like 2 Corinthians 13:14 and Ephesians 4:4-6, we see clear Trinitarian formulas being used in worship and benediction.
While I respect your caution in deferring to scholars, I would encourage you to take a broader view of the theological landscape. The fact that some modern scholars reject traditional doctrines like the Trinity does not mean those doctrines lack a solid foundation in Scripture or early Christian belief. Theologians throughout history—both ancient and modern—have affirmed the Trinity based on a deep and careful reading of both the Bible and the lived experience of the Church. To dismiss this rich tradition in favor of a few skeptical voices is to misunderstand the nature of Christian theology and its development over time.
So, while quoting scholars can be helpful, it’s important to recognize that not all scholarly opinions are equally valid when it comes to interpreting the central doctrines of the Christian faith. The testimony of the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit and shaped by centuries of faithful witness, remains the most reliable foundation for understanding these profound mysteries.
@Earnest
Thank you for your detailed response. You’ve raised some valid points about the development of nomina sacra, and I appreciate the opportunity to engage further with the topic. However, I believe there are some critical aspects that need to be clarified and addressed to fully assess the implications of the practice of nomina sacra in early Christian manuscripts.
You mentioned that my interpretation of nomina sacra is subjective, and to a degree, I understand this concern. However, while it’s true that we do not have a contemporaneous record explicitly stating the reasons for the development of nomina sacra, the context in which they were used can help inform our understanding. Early Christian scribal practices were often theological in nature. Many scholars, including Larry Hurtado, have extensively argued that the use of nomina sacra reflects the early Christian desire to show reverence for the sacred names of God and Christ. This reverence was not merely a later innovation but rooted in early Christian worship and Christology.
Although we do not have an explicit explanation from the original scribes themselves, the patterns observed in the manuscripts give us clues about the theological motivations behind the use of nomina sacra. The fact that nomina sacra were consistently applied to names like Theos (God), Kyrios (Lord), and Iēsous (Jesus) shows that these titles were regarded as uniquely sacred, set apart from mundane uses of the same terms.
It is not entirely accurate to assert with certainty that the original writers of the gospels and apostolic epistles did not use nomina sacra (sacred names). The claim that nomina sacra developed later by copyists is just a hypothesis but not an established fact. We do not possess the original autographs of the New Testament writings, only copies made by later scribes. Therefore, we cannot definitively say whether the original writers used nomina sacra or not. The earliest manuscripts we have, some dating to the 2nd century, already contain nomina sacra.
The practice of using nomina sacra (abbreviations for divine names, such as Jesus (ΙΗΣ), God (ΘΣ), Christ (ΧΣ), etc.) is attested in some of the earliest Christian manuscripts. For instance, papyri such as P52 (circa AD 125-150) and P66 (late 2nd century) already exhibit this convention. This suggests that the use of nomina sacra was an established practice very early in Christian manuscript tradition—at least within the first or second generation of copying.
While some scholars propose that the practice of using nomina sacra was introduced by later copyists to show reverence or to economize on space in manuscripts, this remains a theory. The practice may have originated even in the very first copies of the New Testament texts, and perhaps even during the lifetimes of the apostles or their immediate followers.
The use of abbreviations for sacred words was not unique to Christianity. In Jewish scribal traditions, the Tetragrammaton (YHWH) was often written in special ways, and this likely influenced early Christians to adopt similar conventions when referring to sacred names.
In conclusion, it cannot be said with certainty that the original authors of the New Testament did not use nomina sacra. The practice is seen very early in the manuscript tradition, and without the original autographs, it remains speculative to claim they were introduced only later by copyists. We must remain cautious in making definitive statements about what the earliest Christian authors did or did not do. Early scribal traditions were deeply theological and reflected the beliefs of early Christian communities. The development of nomina sacra was not merely a mechanical or aesthetic decision but was informed by understanding of Christ’s deity and the need to venerate sacred names.
Moreover, while it’s true that later manuscripts generalized the use of nomina sacra, the earliest manuscripts—such as Papyrus 46 and Codex Sinaiticus—were more selective and consistent in their application, particularly regarding names associated with the divine. This selectivity points to a deliberate choice to emphasize the divine nature of Jesus Christ, in line with emerging Christological doctrines. The early Christian community was wrestling with the identity of Jesus, and the consistent application of nomina sacra to both the Father and the Son strongly suggests that they viewed Jesus as sharing in the same divine nature.
You raised an interesting point about non-divine words like mother, Israel, or Jerusalem also being treated as nomina sacra. This, however, does not undermine the argument for the theological significance of the practice. The inclusion of these words as nomina sacra can be understood in a different light. For example, "mother" (meter) was often associated with Mary, the mother of Jesus, in Christian tradition. Therefore, when referring to Mary, it is possible that scribes treated the word with reverence due to her unique role in the Incarnation. Similarly, "Jerusalem" and "Israel" carried deep theological significance in the biblical narrative as the city of God and the chosen people of God, respectively.
In other words, not every single use of nomina sacra necessarily implied deity, but it did reflect a sense of sacredness or importance within the Christian theological framework. However, this does not detract from the fact that when applied to terms like Theos (God) or Kyrios (Lord) in reference to Jesus, the scribes were clearly making a theological statement about His divine status.
You correctly pointed out that in some manuscripts like P66 and P75, contractions of words like Kyrios (Lord) and Pater (Father) were applied even to mundane references, such as "the father of lies" (referring to the devil). This observation is valid, but it reflects a later stage of scribal practice, where the use of nomina sacra became more standardized and less selective.
However, in the earliest Christian manuscripts, there is a clear distinction between the use of nomina sacra for divine or sacred names and the full spelling of words when used in a mundane context. The fact that early scribes were more discerning in their application of nomina sacra indicates that the practice originally served a theological function, emphasizing the deity of Christ and the Father. Later generalization of the practice does not negate its original theological significance.
Just to clarify, my original point regarding John 1:1 was that those earliest manuscripts that did distinguish between the positive and affirmative use of terms "God" and "Lord" for the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and their use among, for example, pagan deities, they all treated as nomina sacra those places where the expressions "Lord" and "God" are applied to the Son. Since the distinction between lowercase and uppercase letters did not exist at that time, what else could we take as the closest practice to this, other than the nomina sacra? And if the earliest manuscripts that carefully made the distinction referred to the Son as "God" as a nomen sacrum, why wouldn't we capitalize it?
When the Son is called "God" (Theos), it is marked with the same reverence and sacredness as when it is applied to the Father. This practice underscores that the early Christians did not see a clear separation in terms of reverence when referring to the deity of the Father or the Son. Hence, early Christians using this scribal practice recognized the Son as fully divine, worthy of the title "God" (Theos). The shift to lowercase and uppercase letters in modern languages, especially English, is an attempt to mirror the reverence that was originally conveyed by nomina sacra. When we capitalize "God" for the Son in translations like John 1:1 ("and the Word was God"), we are continuing the tradition that reflects the sacredness applied in those early manuscripts. This capitalization signals the reader that the term is being used in a divine, absolute sense, rather than in a generic or lesser sense. The choice to capitalize "God" when referring to the Son reflects not only fidelity to early Christian scribal practices but also the theological conviction rooted in the texts. The identification of Jesus as Theos in John 1:1 and elsewhere is understood by Trinitarian Christians as a clear affirmation of His fully divine nature. Thus, the capitalization reinforces that belief in modern translations.
You mentioned that later generations of Christians who accepted the Trinitarian doctrine may have understood the use of nomina sacra as signifying shared deity, but you also suggest that the earliest scribes may not have intended this. However, it is important to recognize that the development of Christian doctrine did not happen in a vacuum. The early Christian community was deeply engaged in theological reflection on the identity of Jesus from the very beginning. The use of nomina sacra for both the Father and the Son reflects the early Christians' understanding of Jesus as divine, even much before the formal articulation of the Trinity at Nicaea in 325 AD.
As early as the second century, Christian writers like Justin Martyr and Ignatius of Antioch were already affirming the deity of Christ in their writings. The use of nomina sacra is consistent with this early high Christology, which recognized Jesus as more than just a created being. The theological trajectory that led to the formal doctrine of the Trinity was already present in the early Christian understanding of Jesus as Kyrios (Lord) and Theos (God).
In conclusion, while it is true that we do not have a contemporaneous explanation for the development of nomina sacra, the evidence from early Christian manuscripts suggests that the practice was deeply theological in nature. The consistent use of nomina sacra for both Christ and the Father reflects the early Christian belief in Christ's deity, a belief that developed organically within the Christian community before being formalized in later creeds.
The presence of nomina sacra for non-divine terms like "mother" or "Jerusalem" does not undermine this argument but rather reflects the broader reverence for sacred concepts in Christian theology. Ultimately, the use of nomina sacra in early manuscripts points to a theological understanding of Jesus as sharing in the divine essence with the Father, which laid the groundwork for the later doctrine of the Trinity.
167
How did JWs arrive at a clearer understanding of what the Bible teaches than other Christian denominations?
by slimboyfat in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
for jws who believe that jehovah had a hand in reviving the truth in the nineteenth century this is enough explanation for how jws managed to achieve a closer approximation to early christian beliefs and practices than other groups.

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

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

I will explain more specifically what my problem is with your methodology: I am Catholic, and I firmly believe that we are not obliged to prove our doctrines, as Tertullian said in “On the Prescription of Heretics”, the burden of proof is on the heretics, and the defendant position belongs to the Church. If you've ever seen a Catholic book on Dogmatics, you'd see that it always looks like it outlines the article of faith first, then explains it. This is followed by an explanation of its scriptural and then holy tradition foundations. So when I engage in a "biblical ping-pong" with you, I am already deviating from the standard methodology of my church, since I do not believe in "sola Scriptura", let alone "nuda Scriptura".
Sometimes it's fun, sometimes it's frustrating, but if I'm going to play biblical ping-pong," I aim to keep it that way. However, a common method of JW apologists is to divert the debate into some kind of quotation and authority contest. It is certain that you can find some "yummy" quote for everything, and the opposite as well, but this deviates the discussion from its normal course. I find it especially ironic that, according to the JW view, the mainstream world is in the hands of Satan, but at the same time they are happy to rely on liberal theologians, and skeptical, often atheistic authors, as it is useful to have some authors (cf. “unholy alliance”) who also claim that (mainstream) Christianity has misunderstood the person and message of Christ.
And then you don't even argue with me anymore, you just threw the names of Bart D. Ehrman, Peter Schäfer, Adela Yarbro Collins, Hans Küng, Dan Brown whatever, at me, and then I would have to argue with THEM instead of you. This is unfair especially because I set aside (or at least put in the background) my own standard methodology for the sake of arguing with you, and I do not argue like Augustine and Thomas Aquinas said this ("ipse dixit"), it is already so.
167
How did JWs arrive at a clearer understanding of what the Bible teaches than other Christian denominations?
by slimboyfat in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
for jws who believe that jehovah had a hand in reviving the truth in the nineteenth century this is enough explanation for how jws managed to achieve a closer approximation to early christian beliefs and practices than other groups.

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

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

You didn’t say if that was you in the bookshop.
Nope...
How many people are there wandering around looking for Garrigou-Lagrange in Latin?
Some of them are, but as I mentioned, most of his writings are also available in English.
167
How did JWs arrive at a clearer understanding of what the Bible teaches than other Christian denominations?
by slimboyfat in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
for jws who believe that jehovah had a hand in reviving the truth in the nineteenth century this is enough explanation for how jws managed to achieve a closer approximation to early christian beliefs and practices than other groups.

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

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

@slimboyfat
You mentioned encountering a Catholic searching for a Garrigou-Lagrange book in Latin and expressed confusion as to why someone would still write in Latin in the 20th century. This is a significant misunderstanding of the role Latin has played—and continues to play—in Catholic theology and broader scholarship. Latin was (and still is) the official language of the Roman Catholic Church. Many significant theological works, especially in scholastic philosophy and theology, were composed in Latin because it was a precise and universal language among scholars. This allowed for clearer communication of complex theological concepts across linguistic barriers. In fact, most of his works are available in English:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%A9ginald_Garrigou-Lagrange#Works
As for Hans Küng, it's well-documented that the Catholic Church declared some of his teachings heretical, and his theological views diverge significantly from Catholic orthodoxy. His disagreements with central doctrines, such as papal infallibility, led to his removal from teaching as a Catholic theologian in 1979. So, it's not "derogatory" to refer to him as a heretic within Catholic circles; it's simply stating a historical fact based on official Church positions. Disagreements over theological positions don't automatically constitute an ad hominem attack—they are part of legitimate scholarly discourse.
Regarding Adela Yarbro Collins, I understand your frustration with dismissing such scholars, and perhaps I could have used less charged language. In fact, this is my opinion of liberal theologians for a good reason, most of them simply aim to spit on mainstream Christianity with some sensational "expose". “Jesus didn't even exist, and he was even gay!” “God was invented by the priests to take money from the poor people, as Dr. PhD X also stated.” Wow, what a discovery! Applause! Just to clarify, I don't consider all researchers with whom I disagree to be quacks, but I do consider such liberal theologians who present bold claims in a sensationalist style.
It’s important to engage critically with scholarship rather than simply accepting every theory on equal footing. Scholarship in theology isn’t just about proposing novel ideas; it's also about remaining faithful to the core tenets of the faith, which have been handed down through centuries of tradition. Read what Karl Bart said about the biblicists, for example.
I’m glad you found the page on scholars commenting on the NWT useful. However, I think it’s crucial to note that while some scholars may find certain elements of the NWT commendable in terms of linguistic accuracy, this doesn't imply wholesale endorsement of its theological interpretations. Most respected scholars within traditional Christian circles, especially Trinitarian theologians, recognize significant doctrinal departures in the NWT, particularly in its rendering of verses like John 1:1. Just because there’s some academic respect for the translation’s Greek handling in certain places doesn’t mean it’s accepted within the mainstream Christian understanding of theology.
Ultimately, I think it's important to remain consistent in how we engage with different scholars. It's not a deterioration to challenge the views of theologians who depart from historic Christianity; it's part of the intellectual process of evaluating ideas in light of scripture and tradition. The goal is to uphold the truth as best we understand it while critically engaging with contrary views.
You correctly note that Kraft was open to the possibility that the practice of nomina sacra may have originated among Jews, particularly in reference to their treatment of the divine name (the Tetragrammaton). His suggestion was that Jewish scribal practices, especially surrounding the reverence for God's name, could have predated Christian usage of such abbreviations. Kraft proposed that Jewish scribes might have developed some form of sacred abbreviation, or nomina sacra, and awaited further manuscript evidence to substantiate this claim.
Hurtado’s argument, on the other hand, asserts that the first known Christian nomina sacra originated with the abbreviation of "Jesus" and "Christ." This practice likely emerged within the Christian community as an expression of reverence for the person of Jesus, influenced by early Christian theology that identified Jesus as divine. Hurtado's position is based on textual and numerological evidence from early Christian writings, particularly in the use of the name "Jesus" as a sacred term.
It is important to recognize that Kraft and Hurtado are addressing two different aspects of the development of the nomina sacra practice. Kraft’s suggestion that Jewish scribal tradition around the divine name might have influenced the Christian practice does not contradict Hurtado’s argument that Christians were the first to apply the nomina sacra specifically to Jesus and other sacred Christian titles.
Kraft’s position could still hold in the sense that Jewish scribal reverence for the divine name (by either using special marks, abbreviations, or simply avoiding its pronunciation) influenced how early Christians approached sacred names. This influence could have laid the groundwork for the Christian development of nomina sacra. Hurtado's view that Christians were the first to use nomina sacra for Jesus does not negate Kraft’s hypothesis. Instead, it suggests that early Christians adapted Jewish practices into a distinctively Christian context, expanding the use of sacred abbreviations to include not only "Yahweh" or the Tetragrammaton but also "Jesus," "Christ," and other titles central to Christian theology.
These positions complement each other: Jewish scribal traditions might have influenced the Christian practice, but it was within the Christian community that the practice of abbreviating sacred names like "Jesus" was fully developed and expanded.
Your statement that "Jewish Christians" are simply "Christians" in this period overlooks an important transitional phase in early Christianity. Jewish Christians were not simply "Christians" in the general sense—they were the first Christians, and their Jewish background deeply influenced how they practiced and expressed their new faith. These early Jewish Christians likely retained aspects of their Jewish religious heritage, including reverence for the divine name, while also integrating new Christian theological concepts, such as the divinity of Jesus.
It is plausible that Jewish Christians, who were steeped in both Jewish and Christian thought, played a pivotal role in the early development of nomina sacra. They could have been influenced by Jewish traditions surrounding the Tetragrammaton while innovating the abbreviation of Jesus' name as a form of sacred reverence.
Lastly, acknowledging that Jewish scribal practices may have influenced Christian nomina sacra is not the same as saying that Jews themselves originated the practice as it was known in Christian manuscripts. Influence and direct origination are distinct concepts. The Jewish practice of avoiding the divine name could have provided a model that Christians adapted for their own purposes, creating something new in the process. Hurtado's claim that the first Christian nomina sacra was "Jesus" does not conflict with the idea that Jewish scribal practices influenced early Christian scribes.
The positions of Kraft and Hurtado do not need to be seen as mutually exclusive. Jewish scribal reverence for the divine name could have influenced early Christian scribes, particularly Jewish Christians, in developing the practice of nomina sacra. At the same time, the distinctively Christian use of nomina sacra—especially for names like "Jesus"—marks a Christian innovation rooted in their unique theological context.
Thus, Kraft’s and Hurtado’s arguments can be understood as focusing on different parts of the same historical and theological process: Jewish traditions influencing early Christian practices, while Christian innovation shaped how those practices were applied in a distinctly Christian context.
59
Proof of two destinies for believers in the Bible, heavenly and earthly
by slimboyfat in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
the jw idea that believers are destined either for heavenly life or for endless life on earth comes in for significant criticism by critics of various kinds.

even some groups, such as the christadelphians, who share belief in a future paradise earth, don’t share the view that some christians are destined for life in heaven.

yet there is surprisingly quite a lot of evidence in the bible for the existence of two distinct groups of believers.
aqwsed12345

@Rattigan350
Being "before the throne" is indeed a specific reference to the heavenly setting in the Book of Revelation. Revelation 7:9 describes the "great crowd" standing "before the throne and before the Lamb, dressed in white robes." In the apocalyptic imagery of Revelation, the throne of God is consistently depicted as being in heaven, not on earth. This is clearly laid out in Revelation 4:2-3, where John describes seeing "a throne set in heaven." Therefore, "before the throne" indicates a heavenly scene, and not an earthly one, confirming that the great crowd is in heaven. This directly challenges the Jehovah's Witnesses' teaching that the great crowd remains on earth.
Historically, the JW organization originally interpreted the "great crowd" as a heavenly group. However, starting in the 1930s, the doctrine shifted to place the "great crowd" as an earthly group, distinct from the 144,000 anointed Christians who rule with Christ in heaven. This interpretation is foundational to their two-class theology, which separates those destined for heaven from those who will remain on earth. Jon Mitchell emphasizes the importance of accurately interpreting terms like naos (temple) and enopion (before the throne) in Revelation. The JW interpretation relies on differentiating between heavenly and earthly service to God, but some of the theological and linguistic arguments presented question the validity of separating the "great crowd" from the heavenly context found in the text. Mitchell, a former member of the JW Governing Body, outlines concerns about the doctrinal shift regarding the "great crowd" and its service to God. He highlights inconsistencies in JW interpretations of Revelation, particularly the way they apply biblical terms differently in various contexts to support their unique doctrine.
The New Testament, particularly Paul's writings, emphasizes the hope of being with Christ after death. In Philippians 1:23, Paul explicitly says, "I am torn between the two: I desire to depart and be with Christ, which is better by far." Similarly, 2 Corinthians 5:8 states, "We are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord." These verses show that being with Christ is a central aspect of the Christian hope after death. The idea that the resurrection to heaven is "not to be with Jesus" is in direct contradiction to these clear biblical statements. The purpose of the resurrection is not merely functional, as the Jehovah's Witnesses suggest (i.e., for ruling), but relational—being with Christ in eternal fellowship is paramount.
The limitation of 144,000 to a literal number is a symbolic interpretation, not a literal one. Revelation is filled with symbolic numbers (e.g., 7 represents completeness, 12 represents God’s people, etc.). The 144,000 in Revelation 7:4-8 represents the fullness of God’s people, from all tribes of Israel, and is likely symbolic of the entire Church. Moreover, immediately after the mention of the 144,000, Revelation 7:9 speaks of "a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne." This "great crowd" is part of the redeemed in heaven, not separate. The attempt to restrict heaven to 144,000 people contradicts the inclusive nature of salvation as depicted throughout the New Testament (e.g., Romans 10:12-13, Galatians 3:28).
The phrase "no part of this world" (John 18:36) is mistranslated in the New World Translation (NWT). The accurate translation from the Greek is "My kingdom is not from/of this world," meaning that Christ's kingdom does not derive its authority from worldly powers or human institutions, but from God. This does not imply that Christ's kingdom has no impact on the world. Jesus clearly instructs His disciples to pray for God’s kingdom to come "on earth as it is in heaven" (Matthew 6:10). This suggests that while the kingdom originates in heaven, it will also transform the earth. Revelation 21:1-3 shows the union of heaven and earth in the New Jerusalem, where God will dwell with His people. The claim that Jesus’ kingdom "rules from heaven" without affecting the earth misunderstands the scope of the kingdom, which includes the transformation and renewal of creation.
The argument that the resurrected "do a job" in heaven and that heaven is not a destiny reflects a functional misunderstanding of the biblical vision of heaven. The New Testament depicts the resurrected saints as both rulers and worshipers in heaven. Revelation 5:9-10 indicates that the saints will "reign on the earth" as part of their role in God's kingdom. However, their ultimate destiny is not just to "work," but to enjoy eternal life in the presence of God. The idea that the resurrected merely have "jobs" in heaven diminishes the grandeur of what the Bible describes as eternal communion with God, the ultimate fulfillment of Christian hope (Revelation 21:3-4).
Jeremiah 31:31 speaks of a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. The New Testament, particularly Hebrews 8, reveals that this new covenant was fulfilled through Christ and is extended to all believers, not just ethnic Israel. Galatians 3:28-29 makes it clear that "there is neither Jew nor Greek... for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise." The concept of "spiritual Israel" includes both Jews and Gentiles who are united in Christ under the new covenant. The Jehovah's Witnesses' separation of this covenant to apply only to a select group (144,000) contradicts the inclusive nature of the gospel message.
The Jehovah's Witnesses' interpretation of the 144,000 and the great crowd is built on selective readings of Scripture and symbolic passages taken out of context. The Bible consistently teaches that the hope of resurrection, being with Christ, and ruling with Him is extended to all believers. The distinctions made between the 144,000 and the great crowd do not hold up under careful examination of the biblical text, and the mistranslation of key passages in the NWT distorts the full biblical narrative of God's kingdom and the role of believers within it.
167
How did JWs arrive at a clearer understanding of what the Bible teaches than other Christian denominations?
by slimboyfat in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
for jws who believe that jehovah had a hand in reviving the truth in the nineteenth century this is enough explanation for how jws managed to achieve a closer approximation to early christian beliefs and practices than other groups.

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

new testament scholar james dunn explains the difficulty of interpreting the biblical texts in this way:.
aqwsed12345
@slimboyfat
First of all, check this:
The New World Translation: What the Scholars Really Said
Adela Yarbro Collins is not at all one of "the most reputable scholars", but simply a liberal theologian, such people embrace any crazy view, it is not new, some even write that Jesus was gay, etc. I don't consider such people to be scholars, but quacks, and you still haven't addressed why you aren't willing to read the early Christian text corpus on its own, and why you come with what one of your favorite quack authors think that particular church father thought, not even leaving him himself get a word in?
I think the greatest theologian of the 20th century is Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, I think you haven't even heard of him because you're only looking for Dan Brown-style authors.
While some may acknowledge that the Greek could, in theory, be translated in an indefinite sense, the overwhelming consensus of reputable scholars, both Trinitarian and non-Trinitarian, emphasizes the qualitative nature of the term theos in John 1:1c. The phrase is not merely saying that the Word was “a god” among others, but rather that the Word possessed the very nature of God. This qualitative understanding is widely accepted among Greek linguists and theologians, as it best reflects the overall context of the Gospel of John and the New Testament’s portrayal of Christ’s divine nature.
To say that Jesus is simply "a god" introduces theological problems that undermine the monotheistic foundation of both Jewish and Christian belief. It opens the door to polytheism, which is inconsistent with the broader biblical narrative. John 1:1 is making a profound theological claim about the nature of the Word—namely, that the Word is fully divine and shares in the very essence of God.
Moreover, your appeal to John 17:3, where Jesus refers to the Father as the "only true God," does not contradict the doctrine of the Trinity. Rather, it reflects the relational distinction within the Godhead. The Father, as the source of the Godhead, is indeed the "only true God," but this does not exclude the Son or the Holy Spirit from being fully divine. Jesus is emphasizing the Father's unique role without denying His own divinity. This relational distinction within the Trinity has been understood for centuries by Christian theologians without negating the full divinity of the Son.
Your interpretation of John 10 and Psalm 82 misunderstands the point Jesus is making. When Jesus quotes Psalm 82:6, where certain human judges are called "gods," He is not equating Himself with these creatures in terms of His divinity. Instead, Jesus is pointing out the inconsistency of His accusers. If the Scriptures could apply the term "gods" in a loose and metaphorical sense to mere humans, how much more does the title apply to Him, the one whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world? The passage is not an admission of "limited divinity" but a defense of His unique divine identity as the Son of God.
Additionally, when Jesus refers to the Father as the "only true God" in John 17:3, He is affirming the monotheistic belief that God is one, but this does not imply that Jesus is somehow a "lesser god." Within Trinitarian theology, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct persons who share one divine essence. The term "only true God" does not exclude the Son or the Spirit from being divine; it highlights the Father’s role within the Godhead.
In fact, the theological framework of the NT does not recognize this "lesser god" category, which the Arian Watchtower theology wants to stuff the Son into, and Psalm 82 and its evocation in John 10:34-35 does not establish it. Some resources:
- https://justpaste.it/fe6vi
- "I Said Ye Are Gods:" Psalm 82:6 and John 10 Jerome Neyrey
- An Apologetic Study of John 10:34-36 W. Gary Phillips
- John 10:34-39
You suggest that my references to Robert Kraft and Larry Hurtado present a contradiction regarding the origin of nomina sacra. However, there is no inherent contradiction between the two propositions. While it is true that certain scribal practices, such as the reverence for the divine name (Tetragrammaton), originated in Jewish tradition, it is equally true that early Christians adapted and developed their own unique scribal conventions. Hurtado’s argument is that the nomina sacra as a specifically Christian practice likely began with the abbreviation of the name of Jesus, reflecting the centrality of Christ in Christian worship. Kraft, on the other hand, notes that some elements of this practice, such as the treatment of sacred names, may have been inherited from Jewish scribal traditions.
Larry Hurtado’s thesis, which suggests that nomina sacra originated with the abbreviation of "Jesus" and expanded to include other sacred terms such as "Lord" and "God," does not conflict with the idea that Jewish scribal traditions influenced this Christian practice. Hurtado's argument suggests that the early Christians borrowed the concept of showing reverence for sacred names through abbreviation, a practice possibly inspired by Jewish treatment of the divine name, and then applied it to Christian worship, beginning with Jesus.
Robert Kraft’s view that nomina sacra might have originated among Jews and been adopted by Christians is not necessarily contradictory. It is possible that early Jewish-Christian communities (including those familiar with Jewish traditions) initiated this practice. However, it was among Christians that the practice expanded and took on its distinctively Christocentric form, with the abbreviation of "Jesus" being prominent.
The key point here is that early Christians were not simply copying Jewish practices; they were innovating in ways that reflected their unique theological convictions, particularly regarding the divinity of Christ. The nomina sacra were a deliberate Christian innovation that emphasized the sacredness of Jesus’ name and His divine status, something distinct from the Jewish reverence for the divine name.
The use of nomina sacra reflects more than a mere scribal practice; it conveys theological meaning. Early Christians used nomina sacra to demonstrate their reverence for key figures, particularly Jesus, who was central to their faith. The fact that both God the Father and Jesus Christ are designated with sacred abbreviations indicates that early Christians regarded both as divine, though distinct persons within the framework of Trinitarian theology.
This practice aligns with the broader New Testament teachings, where Jesus is consistently given titles, honors, and prerogatives associated with God (e.g., worship, the power to forgive sins, and dominion over creation). The early Christian use of nomina sacra for Jesus would be unthinkable unless they believed in his divine status, even if they maintained a distinction between Jesus and God the Father.
167
How did JWs arrive at a clearer understanding of what the Bible teaches than other Christian denominations?
by slimboyfat in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
for jws who believe that jehovah had a hand in reviving the truth in the nineteenth century this is enough explanation for how jws managed to achieve a closer approximation to early christian beliefs and practices than other groups.

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

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

@scholar
Your assertion that the NWT rendering of John 1:1 as "the Word was a god" is grammatically correct is not supported by most reputable Greek scholars. The NWT interpretation is based on a selective application of Greek grammar, particularly regarding the use of the article. The key problem is that John 1:1 does not use "theos" (God) in an indefinite sense that would imply Jesus is "a god" among others, but rather in a qualitative sense, which affirms that the Word shares in the full divine nature of God.
The insertion of "a god" in the NWT introduces a theological bias rather than reflecting a neutral translation. It suggests polytheism and undermines Christ's full divinity, which mainstream Christianity has upheld through centuries of linguistic, theological, and doctrinal study. Scholars who argue for a qualitative understanding of "theos" in John 1:1c emphasize that John was identifying the Logos as fully divine, not as one among many lesser gods.
Regarding Colossians 1:16-17, the NWT similarly distorts the meaning by inserting the word "other" where it is absent in the Greek. This changes the intended meaning of the passage, which affirms Christ as the uncreated creator of all things. The insertion of "other" implies that Christ himself is a created being, which is inconsistent with the broader context of the New Testament and orthodox Christian teaching, according to which the Son is begotten/born of the Father, not created/made by Him.
While your studies under Dr. John A Lee may have emphasized that grammar alone cannot settle the issue, the overwhelming scholarly consensus rejects the NWT's interpretation as being faithful to either the Greek text or to the theological message of the New Testament.
A puzzle question: would you also translate the expression "kai theos en ho pater" as "the Father was a god"?
167
How did JWs arrive at a clearer understanding of what the Bible teaches than other Christian denominations?
by slimboyfat in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
for jws who believe that jehovah had a hand in reviving the truth in the nineteenth century this is enough explanation for how jws managed to achieve a closer approximation to early christian beliefs and practices than other groups.

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

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

@Earnest
You state that some papyri treat all references to "Lord" as nomina sacra, regardless of whom it refers to, implying that this undermines the idea that the use of nomina sacra signified equality between the Father and Christ. However, this is not quite accurate. While some later manuscripts might have generalized the use of nomina sacra, the earliest Christian scribes were far more deliberate in their application of sacred names. Nomina sacra were consistently used to distinguish the divine or sacred from the mundane. For example, references to "Lord" (Kyrios) or "God" (Theos) that clearly refer to Christ or the Father were treated as sacred, while mundane uses of the same terms were spelled out in full.
I think that the reason for this is that after the Edict of Milan, the copying of the biblical text became more widespread as a reader read the text aloud in a room, and several scribes present wrote it after hearing it. Thus, the person who did not see the original text, but only wrote after hearing it, simply automatically marked all such expressions as nomina sacra.
This distinction reveals that early Christians made conscious theological decisions when applying these abbreviations. In cases where "Lord" referred to Christ or God, the sacred abbreviation was always applied, signaling that these titles were held in equal reverence. The presence of these abbreviations for both Christ and the Father indicates that the earliest Christian scribes viewed Christ as fully divine, not merely as an honored figure but as one sharing in the divine essence of God.
You argue that because the earliest Christian writers were Jewish, it is reasonable to assume that nomina sacra were not initially used, as Jews did not employ this practice. However, this conclusion overlooks a critical shift that occurred in early Christian scribal practices. While it is true that the Jewish scribal tradition did not initially use nomina sacra, early Christians quickly developed their own practices to reflect their theological understanding, which was distinct from Judaism. Some scholars, like Robert Kraft propose that the practice originated among Jews and was taken over and elaborated by Christians. I think the reason for the lack of Jewish manuscripts using the nomina sacra is that as Christianity became widespread, Diaspora Jewry set aside Greek-language religiosity, and the Septuagint also fell out of Jewish use.
One such development was the introduction of nomina sacra, which likely began with the abbreviation of the name of Jesus and then expanded to include other key titles, such as "Lord" and "God." These abbreviations were not merely copying Jewish tradition but reflected the early Christians' new understanding of Jesus' divine identity and their need to express reverence for sacred terms. As Larry Hurtado has argued, the use of nomina sacra demonstrates a unique Christian innovation aimed at honoring Christ alongside God the Father.
You mention the theory that nomina sacra may have originated as replacements for the divine name (the Tetragrammaton) in the Septuagint (LXX), which, according to your argument, caused “confusion” in distinguishing between references to God and Christ. While it is true that the divine name was often replaced with "Lord" (Kyrios) in the LXX, this practice does not diminish the theological significance of nomina sacra in Christian texts.
The key point is that in the New Testament manuscripts, nomina sacra were not simply a continuation of Jewish scribal practices but a deliberate Christian innovation to reflect the theological significance of Jesus Christ as divine. The use of nomina sacra for both the Father and the Son in the earliest manuscripts signals that the early Christians were expressing their belief in the shared divinity of the Father and the Son. This theological choice is significant because it highlights the early Christian understanding of Christ's divine status in a way that transcends the ordinary distinction between human and divine figures.
Your claim that the use of nomina sacra caused “confusion” between references to God and Christ actually supports the argument that early Christians saw Christ as divine. If there had been a clear and unequivocal distinction between Christ as a created being and God as the Almighty, we would expect the scribes to make that distinction explicit in their writings. However, the fact that they applied the same sacred abbreviations to both Christ and God demonstrates that they did not see Christ as a lesser being, but as sharing in the same divine status as the Father.
The use of nomina sacra for both "God" and "Lord" in reference to Christ is a powerful indicator of the early Christian belief in the divinity of Christ. This was not a confusion or a fallacy, but a reflection of the early Christian understanding that Christ and the Father are of the same divine essence, even though they are distinct persons within the Godhead.
The use of nomina sacra in early Christian manuscripts is a significant theological marker that demonstrates the early Christians' belief in the divinity of Christ. Far from causing confusion, these sacred abbreviations reveal a deliberate and consistent effort to honor Christ as fully divine, in the same way that God the Father is honored. The early Christian practice of using nomina sacra for both the Father and the Son highlights the shared divine status of both persons, and it reflects the development of the doctrine of the Trinity, where the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are understood to be co-equal and co-eternal within the one divine essence.
4
Why do most ordinary Christians agree with JWs that Jesus is God’s first creation?
by slimboyfat in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
in a book which attempts to refute jw christology, the trinitarian scholar greg lanier begins his argument with the surprising admission that a majority of evangelical christians agree with jws that jesus is god’s first creation.

a 2018 survey by ligonier ministries and lifeway research found that nearly 95 percent of self-described evangelical christians affirm the trinity, but simultaneously, about 80 percent believe that jesus christ is the "first and greatest being created by god.

" the shocking thing is that these respondents do not appear to realize the stark contradiction in these two positions.. greg lanier, is jesus truly god?
aqwsed12345
Some resources for you:
Your argument attempts to assert that because a significant percentage of ordinary Christians seem to believe that Jesus is the "first and greatest being created by God," this indicates that the Jehovah's Witness interpretation of Jesus being created is a more natural reading of Scripture. However, this conclusion is deeply flawed for several reasons.
One key misunderstanding in this argument is the interpretation of "firstborn" as found in Colossians 1:15: "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation." The term "firstborn" (Greek: prototokos) does not imply that Jesus is the first created being. Rather, in biblical usage, "firstborn" refers to preeminence and priority in rank, not chronology. For example, in the Old Testament, David is called the "firstborn" even though he was the youngest of Jesse’s sons (Psalm 89:27). "Firstborn" indicates a position of supremacy, honor, and authority. This is consistent with Jesus being described as having all the fullness of deity dwelling in Him (Colossians 2:9).

Therefore, the phrase "firstborn of all creation" is not teaching that Jesus is a created being. Instead, it emphasizes His supremacy over creation. He is preeminent, not because He is created, but because He is the eternal Son of God through whom all things were made (John 1:3).

Several biblical passages explicitly teach that Jesus is eternal and not a created being. John 1:1 declares, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." The Word (Logos) who becomes incarnate in Jesus Christ (John 1:14) is eternal. He was already in existence "in the beginning," which means He was not created but has always existed.

In John 8:58, Jesus says, "Before Abraham was, I am." Jesus’ use of the phrase "I am" here echoes the divine name revealed to Moses in Exodus 3:14, where God declares, "I AM WHO I AM." This self-identification aligns Jesus with the eternal, uncreated God of Israel.

Hebrews 1:3 states that Jesus is "the radiance of God’s glory and the exact imprint of His nature." This passage emphasizes that Jesus shares the same divine nature as the Father, not as a created being, but as the eternal Son who sustains all things by His powerful word. This is incompatible with the idea that Jesus is a created being. A created being cannot sustain all of creation.

In Philippians 2:6, Paul writes of Jesus, "who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage." Here, Paul acknowledges that Jesus, in His pre-incarnate existence, was already in the form of God (Greek: morphe theou). If Jesus were merely a created being, Paul could not speak of Him as having "equality with God." The passage goes on to describe Jesus’ voluntary emptying of Himself by taking on human nature, not by relinquishing divine nature, but by assuming humanity.

The statistics you cite from surveys such as those conducted by Ligonier Ministries and LifeWay Research reflect a theological confusion that exists among many Christians today. Many "ordinary Christians" may indeed have an unclear understanding of key theological doctrines due to insufficient teaching and catechesis, but this does not imply that these beliefs are biblically correct. The fact that some Christians mistakenly believe that Jesus was created does not serve as a valid argument for that belief. Rather, it reflects the need for better biblical education.

It’s important to recognize that the belief in Christ’s eternal divinity and uncreated nature is not a recent invention of dogmatic theologians, but has been a core belief of Christianity from the earliest centuries. The early Church councils, such as Nicaea in 325 AD, were convened to refute the heresy of Arianism, which claimed that Jesus was a created being. The Nicene Creed, a foundational statement of Christian orthodoxy, explicitly affirms that Jesus is "begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father." This was not a new invention, but a formal clarification of what the Church had believed from the beginning.

If we look at other scriptures, such as John 20:28, where Thomas calls the resurrected Jesus, "My Lord and my God," we see that Jesus accepts worship and the title of God. In Hebrews 1:6, the angels are commanded to worship the Son, something that would be blasphemous if He were merely a created being.

Moreover, in Revelation 1:8, Jesus refers to Himself as the "Alpha and Omega," titles used exclusively for God, indicating His eternal existence. The same titles are used for God in Revelation 21:6 and 22:13, reinforcing Jesus’ divinity and eternal nature.

In conclusion, the idea that Jesus is a created being, as espoused by Jehovah's Witnesses and misunderstood by some Christians, is not supported by the clear teaching of Scripture. The Bible consistently affirms the eternal divinity of Jesus Christ and His role as Creator, not as a creation. The confusion among some Christians today regarding this issue highlights the need for deeper theological education, not a validation of erroneous beliefs. The Trinity, though complex, is the doctrine that best fits the whole witness of Scripture regarding the relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
The Ligonier survey findings indicate that many evangelical Christians hold contradictory beliefs, affirming the Trinity while also mistakenly believing Jesus was created. This highlights a lack of theological understanding rather than an endorsement of JW Christology. It suggests the need for better catechesis rather than implying widespread agreement with non-Trinitarian views.

The argument that Jesus is a created being, based on misinterpretations of terms like "firstborn" or surveys of confused believers, falls short of the biblical testimony that reveals Christ as the eternal, uncreated Word of God who shares in the divine essence of the Father and the Spirit.
167
How did JWs arrive at a clearer understanding of what the Bible teaches than other Christian denominations?
by slimboyfat in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
for jws who believe that jehovah had a hand in reviving the truth in the nineteenth century this is enough explanation for how jws managed to achieve a closer approximation to early christian beliefs and practices than other groups.

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

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

@Wonderment
The claim that the indefinite rendering "a god" does not violate standard Greek grammar and that John 4:19 and Acts 28:4 prove this is misguided. The Greek construction in John 1:1c is unique because it involves an anarthrous predicate nominative before the verb, which is a key point in Colwell's analysis. Colwell’s Rule states that when a predicate nominative precedes the verb, as in John 1:1c, the lack of an article does not imply indefiniteness but rather definiteness or a qualitative sense. This rule has been widely accepted and applied by many scholars, even if later analyses like those of Harner focused more on the qualitative aspect of nouns.
You suggest that Colwell's Rule is not widely accepted. This claim is an oversimplification. While some scholars have critiqued Colwell's rule, it remains a useful tool for understanding the Greek grammatical structure. Colwell's work demonstrates that a predicate nominative without an article preceding the verb is often definite. Therefore, in John 1:1c, the absence of the article before "theos" doesn’t imply "a god," but rather a qualitative sense, affirming the Logos' divine nature.
Your argument relies heavily on the notion that the indefinite rendering "a god" in John 1:1 is linguistically and theologically valid based on examples like John 4:19 and Acts 28:4. However, these comparisons are misleading because the grammatical context of John 1:1 differs significantly from these examples. John 1:1c is not simply a qualitative or indefinite predicate nominative in casual speech but a highly theological statement meant to emphasize the nature of the Logos. In John 4:19, the Samaritan woman is making a situational judgment, referring to Jesus as "a prophet." In John 1:1, the theological focus on the Word's eternal divine nature contrasts with the woman’s recognition of Jesus as "a prophet." Acts 28:4 is not grammatically parallel either, as the context is entirely different.
The examples of John 4:19 and Acts 28:4 involve different grammatical structures. John 4:19 uses "προφήτης εἶ" (you are a prophet), where the predicate noun ("prophet") follows the verb and lacks an article. This can be translated as "a prophet" because it is describing a quality or category that the woman attributes to Jesus based on her experience. However, John 1:1c's construction, θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος, is different because the predicate noun θεὸς precedes the verb. This change in word order alters the grammatical expectations. In this case, the anarthrous θεὸς functions qualitatively, indicating that the Word possesses the full nature of God. The absence of the article does not imply "a god" in the sense of a lesser or separate deity but rather emphasizes the fully divine essence of the Word.
Colwell’s Rule has not been discarded by the majority of scholars. While it is true that Colwell referred to his work as a "theory," his conclusions regarding Greek syntax and the use of the article have been foundational to biblical Greek studies. The dismissal of Colwell’s Rule by some individuals is often rooted in theological bias rather than objective linguistic analysis.
The structure of John 1:1, specifically “kai theos ēn ho logos”, emphasizes the qualitative nature of the term "theos," meaning that the Word possesses the divine nature, not that the Word is a separate or lesser god. The anarthrous "theos" here is best understood qualitatively, as scholars like Harner, Dixon, and Wallace point out. The translation "the Word was a god" introduces theological ambiguity inconsistent with the broader Johannine context, which asserts a clear monotheistic framework. Furthermore, the absence of the article does not necessarily imply indefiniteness in Greek; rather, it emphasizes the nature of the subject, which is divine in this case.
The suggestion that qualitative and indefinite nouns overlap frequently in Greek is an oversimplification. While there can be some overlap, the context and word order in a sentence are critical for determining the correct interpretation. In John 1:1c, the lack of an article before θεὸς does not suggest indefiniteness ("a god") but rather a qualitative sense ("the Word was [fully] divine"). This is supported by the context of the prologue of John, where the Word is consistently portrayed as having divine attributes and preexisting creation.
In linguistic terms, the qualitative use of a noun emphasizes the nature or essence of the subject. In John 1:1, θεὸς describes the Word’s divine nature, not a lower or separate category of being. The argument that "a god" is an acceptable translation relies on an incorrect understanding of Greek syntax and ignores the context of John's Gospel, which is monotheistic and affirms the divinity of Christ.
But IMHO instead of playing with this definite-indefinite stuff, which goes with John 1:1c, I would rather put the emphasis on whether, assuming an audience with a Hellenic polytheistic cultural background, it was surely the most adequate thing for the apostles to use the word θεός to apply the Son, if they only wanted to state that "godlike, only such a powerful spiritual being, who is the creature and representative of the one God", when many other expressions would have been available for this, like θεῖος, ἡμίθεος, ἥρως, θεϊκός, θεϊνός, θεώτερος. Btw. originally δαίμων simply used to mean an inferior deity, whether good or bad, not a demon, an evil spirit.
You cite examples from other languages, such as French and Spanish, where indefinite or qualitative translations are used. However, the grammatical rules of those languages do not necessarily apply to Koine Greek. The Greek construction in John 1:1c does not demand an indefinite article like "a god," as the context of the passage is not introducing a new or different god but affirming the divine nature of the Logos within the framework of Jewish monotheism.
Your reliance on the Sahidic Coptic translation to argue for "a god" in John 1:1c is problematic. Scholars like Jason BeDuhn have pointed out that the Coptic translation can be understood qualitatively, meaning "divine" rather than "a god." The Coptic translators were not advocating an Arian view, and the use of the indefinite article reflects grammatical distinctions in Coptic, not Greek.
While some translations render John 1:1c as "the Word was divine," most mainstream scholars reject the translation "a god" as inconsistent with both the grammatical structure of the Greek and the theological context of John's Gospel. The vast majority of scholars affirm that John 1:1c expresses the divine nature of the Logos, rather than presenting the Word as a separate, lesser deity.
The argument that "upwards of a hundred Bible versions" translate John 1:1 as "a god" or "divine" is misleading. The overwhelming majority of biblical translations, across various denominations and theological traditions, render John 1:1c as "the Word was God." This is not a result of theological bias but a consistent application of Greek grammar, context, and theological interpretation. Versions that deviate from this, such as the New World Translation, are often criticized for theological motives rather than linguistic accuracy.
The suggestion that many scholars or translations reject Colwell's Rule or support the indefinite rendering "a god" is inaccurate. Prominent scholars like Wallace, Harner, and Dixon continue to support the qualitative interpretation of θεὸς in John 1:1c. Harner and Dixon, who have analyzed the qualitative nature of anarthrous predicate nouns, affirm that the Word shares in the divine essence, not that it is a separate, lesser god.
The argument that Jesus being called "a god" aligns with the biblical concept of the Son of God is a theological misunderstanding. In Jewish monotheism, the title "Son of God" is not used to suggest that Jesus is merely a lesser or subordinate deity. Instead, it affirms His unique relationship with the Father and His participation in the divine nature. The context of John's Gospel emphasizes the Logos's preexistence and divine status, aligning with the doctrine of the Trinity, not with a polytheistic or henotheistic framework.
The comparison to John 8:48, where Jesus is called a Samaritan without an article, is irrelevant to the discussion of John 1:1. In John 8:48, the term "Samaritan" is being used as an insult, reflecting a different context and usage. The absence of an article in this case has no bearing on the theological and grammatical structure of John 1:1, where the focus is on the nature and identity of the Word.
You claim that scholars are biased in defending the traditional Trinitarian view. However, scholarly methodology is based on linguistic evidence, not theological agendas. The qualitative reading of John 1:1c aligns with the monotheistic framework of John's Gospel and the broader New Testament. It reflects the understanding that the Logos is fully divine without being identical to the Father, which fits the broader Christian theological tradition.
The consistent use of nomina sacra (sacred abbreviations) for both the Father and the Son in early manuscripts, as you mentioned, shows that early Christians understood Jesus as sharing fully in the divine nature. This practice undermines the argument that the Logos is merely "a god."
Moreover, your argument suggests that because certain translations use qualitative or indefinite renderings in other contexts, John 1:1c could also be translated as "a god." This overlooks the fact that the theological implications of John 1:1 are far more significant than in the examples you provide. Translating the phrase as "a god" introduces theological henotheism, which is entirely foreign to John's monotheistic worldview.
Finally, your dismissal of Colwell's rule as outdated or flawed is misleading. While Colwell's rule has been debated, it still holds significant value in understanding Greek grammar, especially in cases like John 1:1c. The rule's application to this verse helps clarify that the absence of the article before "theos" does not imply an indefinite meaning but rather points to the qualitative nature of the term.
The attempt to undermine the standard translation of John 1:1 as "the Word was God" is based on a misunderstanding of Greek grammar, syntax, and theological context. The qualitative nature of "θεὸς" in John 1:1c affirms the full divinity of the Word, not a lesser status. The scholarly consensus supports this interpretation, and attempts to translate the verse as "a god" reflect theological bias rather than linguistic accuracy.
In conclusion, translating John 1:1c as "the Word was God" aligns with both the linguistic and theological context of the passage. The rendering "a god" not only misinterprets the Greek grammar but also introduces unnecessary theological confusion inconsistent with John's intention to affirm the divine nature of the Word.
@slimboyfat
Doesn't it rally bother you that those are not Philo's words, but Schäfer's interpretations? You really can't touch the original body of text without some liberal modernist author telling you what to think about it?
@Earnest
Your argument hinges on the assumption that English readers might confuse "the Word was God" (John 1:1c) with an implication of "the Word was *the God," conflating the Logos with the Father due to a presumed lack of distinction between definite and indefinite nouns. But in Greek, John makes a clear distinction between "ho theos" (the God) in 1:1b and the anarthrous "theos" in 1:1c. The absence of the article in 1:1c is not random but serves a specific grammatical function. Theos is used qualitatively here to describe the nature or essence of the Word, meaning that the Word possesses full divinity without being identical to the Father. Translating it as "the Word was God" properly reflects this qualitative distinction.
English readers do not need to infer a definite article in John 1:1c because "God" in this context already implies the nature of the Logos, not a separate deity. The traditional rendering, although not inserting "the" before "God," accurately conveys the qualitative sense in line with John's theology. To translate it as "a god" or even "the God" would mislead readers into thinking of either henothism or modalism, which John's Gospel clearly rejects.
In John 1:1b, the phrase "πρὸς τὸν θεόν" (pros ton theon) has a definite article "ton" (the God), which distinguishes it as a reference to the Father. In John 1:1c, "θεὸς" (theos) lacks the article. However, this absence does not imply "a god" but rather serves a qualitative function, indicating the Word's divine nature. The lack of the article emphasizes the nature or quality of divinity rather than pointing to a specific god. If it causes the kind of issue you mentioned, it is not due to the traditional rendering of John 1:1c, it should not be touched upon, but to 1:1b, which indeed should be translated as "and the Word was with the God".
Translating John 1:1c as "the Word was God" affirms the Logos' full participation in divinity without confusing the Logos with the Father, who is referred to as "the God" in 1:1b. The problem with the translation "the Word was a god" (as in the NWT) is that it introduces henotheistic overtones, suggesting the existence of multiple gods, which is incompatible with the monotheism that undergirds John's Gospel. You argue that English readers would confuse the two references to God, but this confusion only arises if they misunderstand the qualitative nature of "theos" in 1:1c. The phrase "the Word was God" (without the definite article) emphasizes what the Word is—fully divine—without implying that the Word is "the God" (the Father). Translators do not supply "the" in John 1:1c because that would misrepresent the qualitative nature intended in the Greek.
As for the NEB's "what God was, the Word was," this is a valid paraphrase emphasizing the same theological point: the Logos shares fully in divine essence. However, "the Word was God" retains this meaning in a more concise form, and any perceived confusion arises not from the translation but from a misunderstanding of how Greek articles function to convey essence rather than identity.
Therefore, while translating John 1:1c as "the Word was God" accurately captures the qualitative nature of the Logos, it does not confuse the Logos with the Father, as John's Gospel is careful to distinguish between the persons of the Trinity while affirming their shared divine essence.