Posts by aqwsed12345

@Rivergang

The assertion about the Trinity being of pagan origin, particularly as drawn from Hislop’s The Two Babylons, reflects a broader methodology deeply entrenched in Jehovah's Witness theology. This approach, however, is rooted in a highly selective and often flawed interpretation of history and theology, much like Hislop's own work.

Jehovah’s Witnesses, much like Hislop, tend to frame simply anything they disagree with as stemming from "Babylon," or what they term "Babylon the Great." Hislop’s central thesis — that Roman Catholicism and its doctrines, like the Trinity, are remnants of ancient paganism, particularly from Babylon — forms a critical foundation for many of the Watchtower’s teachings. This technique is a classic case of the genetic fallacy, where an idea is discredited solely based on its alleged origins, regardless of how it functions in its current context.

The Watchtower frequently invokes this argument whenever they critique mainstream Christian beliefs, from Christmas to the Trinity, asserting that any perceived similarity to pagan practices means that these beliefs are fundamentally pagan. This approach, however, fails to account for the fact that resemblance does not equal genealogy. Just because two practices appear similar does not mean one directly caused or influenced the other.

Hislop’s The Two Babylons has been thoroughly debunked by reputable scholars from both historical and theological fields. Hislop’s methodology was deeply flawed. He drew superficial and often ahistorical parallels between Christianity and paganism, particularly when he claimed that the Trinity was borrowed from pagan “triads.” As modern scholars have shown, these triads in pagan religions (such as those in Babylon or Egypt) were not analogous to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, which professes one God in three persons, fundamentally distinct from the separate gods of pagan triads.

Further, the idea that the doctrine of the Trinity originated as a form of political expediency under Constantine is a common misunderstanding perpetuated by both Jehovah's Witnesses and Hislop’s followers. The Council of Nicaea in 325 AD was convened to address theological disputes concerning the nature of Christ, but it did not "invent" the Trinity. Instead, it sought to affirm what was already believed by Christians about Christ's deity in response to Arianism, which denied Christ’s full divinity. The Trinity developed through deep reflection on scriptural exegesis and the early Christian understanding of God as revealed through the Bible, not from paganism.

The claim that the Trinity is merely a repurposed pagan "triad" lacks serious historical evidence. While it is true that some ancient cultures had triadic deities, these were entirely different in both nature and function from the Christian understanding of God. Pagan triads often consisted of three separate gods, each with distinct identities and roles. In contrast, the Trinity is the belief in one God in three co-equal, co-eternal persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. There is a significant theological difference between these concepts, and lumping them together as “similar” betrays a lack of nuanced understanding.

Furthermore, reputable sources, such as the Encyclopedia of Religion, do discuss triads in pagan religions but do not substantiate the claim that the Christian Trinity was derived from these. The Trinity’s roots are clearly in biblical revelation, not in borrowed pagan philosophy. The Christian understanding of the Trinity emerges from scriptural foundations such as Matthew 28:19, where Jesus commands baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and John 1:1, which speaks of the divine nature of the Logos (the Word, identified as Christ).

While Jehovah’s Witnesses often argue that the Trinity cannot be "rooted in scriptural exegesis," early Church Fathers like Athanasius, the Cappadocian Fathers, and others have shown that the doctrine is deeply grounded in the Bible. Passages like John 1:1, Philippians 2:6, and Matthew 28:19 were all interpreted in the early Church to support the understanding of God as three persons in one divine essence. The Church Fathers, in their responses to Arianism (which Jehovah’s Witnesses draw upon for their Christology), consistently defended the full divinity of Christ and the Holy Spirit, ensuring that the doctrine of the Trinity was seen as a faithful representation of the apostolic teaching, not a deviation.

Even in his own time, Alexander Hislop’s work was criticized for its dubious scholarship. His book is filled with sweeping assumptions and historical inaccuracies, and as you mentioned, Hislop was not a historian but a clergyman with an evident bias against the Catholic Church. His lack of credible sources and his tendency to misquote and misinterpret historical documents render The Two Babylons an unreliable source for understanding the historical development of Christian doctrine. It is telling that even some early Protestant scholars rejected Hislop’s conclusions, recognizing the weaknesses in his methodology.

In conclusion, the Jehovah’s Witness reliance on Hislop’s work is part of a broader theological approach that seeks to discredit mainstream Christian beliefs by alleging that they are rooted in paganism. However, this approach is based on a flawed understanding of history and theology. The doctrine of the Trinity was not borrowed from paganism, but developed as a result of careful scriptural exegesis and reflection on the mystery of God’s revelation in Christ. Hislop’s The Two Babylons is widely discredited, and modern Jehovah’s Witness theology would do well to reconsider its reliance on such an unreliable source.

@scholar

Your response hinges on the interpretation of John 1:1c. The original Greek of this passage is central to understanding the nature of the Word (Logos). When it states, “theos ēn ho logos” (the Word was God), it is crucial to understand that the absence of the definite article before theos (God) does not make it indefinite (“a god”) but rather qualitative. This distinction is recognized by respected Greek scholars, such as Daniel Wallace and Philip Harner, who point out that the phrase emphasizes the nature or essence of the Word being fully divine.

When the theos in John 1:1c is interpreted as qualitative, it affirms the Word’s full participation in divinity. The indefinite article "a god," as rendered in the New World Translation (NWT), introduces theological confusion, suggesting that the Word is a lesser or separate deity, which contradicts the core monotheism presented in Scripture (e.g., Deuteronomy 6:4; Isaiah 45:5).

The qualitative sense of theos in John 1:1c expresses that the Word possesses the same divine essence as God the Father, not as a subordinate deity. Rendering it “a god” implies polytheism or henotheism, which is inconsistent with both the Old and New Testament’s strict monotheism.

The translation of John 1:1 in the New World Translation (NWT) as "the Word was a god" introduces theological confusion and contradicts biblical monotheism. The phrase "a god" implies polytheism or henotheism—both of which are incompatible with the monotheism found throughout the Bible, including the Old Testament (Deuteronomy 6:4, Isaiah 45:5) and the New Testament (1 Timothy 2:5). Scholars like Bruce Metzger and Daniel Wallace have repeatedly emphasized that the qualitative reading of theos in John 1:1c reflects the Word's full participation in the divine nature, not as "a god" but as fully divine.

The Trinity is not polytheistic. It affirms one God in three persons, co-equal and co-eternal, which is distinct from pagan triads. You claim that Jehovah's Witnesses' understanding of "a god" preserves monotheism, but this reduces Christ to a lesser, created being, which contradicts biblical monotheism. Asserting that others can be considered "gods" in a lesser sense is contrary to how John and the New Testament present Christ as uniquely divine.

The anarthrous construction (absence of the article) of "theos" in John 1:1c does not necessarily indicate indefiniteness, but rather qualitative meaning. A.T. Robertson and Wallace both support that "the Word was God" emphasizes the Logos’s divine nature, not merely a secondary divine figure. John 1:1b’s reference "was with God" does not indicate separateness, but rather a distinction of persons within the Godhead.

To claim that the absence of the definite article makes theos indefinite ("a god") is a fundamental misunderstanding of Greek grammar. In Koine Greek, the absence of the article before theos in this specific context is not indicative of indefiniteness, but rather of the qualitative nature of theos, affirming the Word's divinity. The Word (Logos) shares fully in the divine essence of God without being a separate or subordinate deity. This is why the vast majority of scholarly Bible translations render John 1:1 as "the Word was God" (e.g., RSV, ESV, NASB, NIV) and not "the Word was a god."

The lack of an article before "God" (θεὸς) in the Greek text doesn't imply subordination or that the Word is a lesser "god." Rather, this construction emphasizes the nature of the Word. The phrase "θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος" is emphasizing that the Word shares the same divine essence as the Father, while maintaining personal distinction.

The argument that "θεὸς" without an article should be translated as "a god" ignores the basic rules of Greek grammar. In Greek, the presence or absence of an article can affect meaning, but the qualitative nature of the term "θεὸς" here is universally recognized by scholars as pointing to the Word's divine essence, not to a lesser deity. Murray Harris and Daniel Wallace, two leading Greek scholars, argue that this construction makes a clear qualitative statement about the Word’s divinity.

Your argument that the NWT's rendering "a god" maintains biblical monotheism misses the fact that the qualitative sense of theos in John 1:1c, as affirmed by scholars like Wallace and Harner, emphasizes the Word's full divinity. The qualitative force of theos indicates that the Word possesses the same nature as God the Father, not merely a lesser or secondary divine being. The distinction between ho theos ("the God" referring to the Father) and theos in John 1:1c is not one of substance, but of person. John is making a distinction between the persons of the Father and the Word, not suggesting that the Word is a lesser deity.

The New World Translation (NWT)'s rendering of "a god" at John 1:1 is not an accurate reflection of the Greek text. It is an attempt to fit a pre-existing theological framework (Jehovah's Witnesses' denial of Christ’s full divinity) into the biblical text, rather than allowing the text to speak for itself.

Scholars like Jason BeDuhn might support a qualitative rendering of John 1:1c ("the Word was divine"), but BeDuhn does not endorse the NWT’s reading of "a god" as being in line with early Christian monotheism. The NWT’s translation, while claiming clarity, introduces ambiguity regarding Christ's divine nature and separateness from the Father. Wallace and other experts affirm that the qualitative meaning of "theos" in John 1:1c affirms Christ's full participation in the divine nature, not as a separate or lesser deity.

The term "a god" introduces polytheism by implying that the Word is a distinct, lesser divine being than the Father, contradicting the biblical teaching of monotheism. If we were to adopt this view, it would imply that early Christian believers accepted the existence of multiple gods, which contradicts the biblical narrative where both Old and New Testaments affirm that there is only one God (Deuteronomy 6:4, Isaiah 45:5).

Paul affirms Jesus’ divinity in passages such as Philippians 2:6-11, where Christ, “though being in the form of God,” humbles Himself, a clear indication that Jesus possessed divinity before His incarnation. This passage contradicts the notion of subordinationism as it affirms that Jesus, in His pre-incarnate state, shared equality with God.

While it's true that there are roles of functional subordination between the Father and the Son during the Son’s incarnation (as seen in passages like John 5:30 and 1 Corinthians 11:3), this does not imply that the Son is ontologically inferior to the Father. Functional subordination does not undermine the ontological equality of the persons of the Trinity. The doctrine of the Trinity maintains that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are co-equal and co-eternal, each fully sharing in the divine essence, yet fulfilling different roles in the economy of salvation. The relationship between the Father and the Son is one of role differentiation, not ontological inequality.

The claim that the Trinity doctrine derives from pagan "triads" such as those found in ancient Egyptian or Babylonian religions is a common argument, yet it lacks substantial historical evidence. The early Church’s understanding of the Trinity developed out of a reflection on biblical revelation, not pagan philosophy. Scholars, including those who have thoroughly debunked Alexander Hislop’s The Two Babylons (a primary source for this claim), agree that Hislop’s work is riddled with historical inaccuracies and unsubstantiated parallels between paganism and Christianity. Regarding your quote: https://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-Eliade.htm

Your appeal to Alexander Hislop’s The Two Babylons as a source for claiming that the Trinity is rooted in paganism has been thoroughly debunked by modern scholarship. Hislop's book is based on flawed methodology and superficial comparisons between Christian and pagan beliefs. It is not regarded as a credible source by historians or theologians. Moreover, the use of triads in some ancient religions does not prove any direct borrowing or influence on Christian doctrine. The Trinity is fundamentally different from pagan triads, as it asserts that there is one God in three distinct persons, whereas pagan triads often involved three separate gods.

The argument that the doctrine of the Trinity is based on pagan triads misrepresents both pagan religions and Christian theology. Pagan triads (such as in Hinduism or ancient Egyptian religions) consist of separate gods with distinct functions, whereas the Trinity affirms that there is one God in three persons, who are co-equal and share the same essence. These are completely different concepts.

The Council of Nicea (325 AD) was not influenced by pagan ideas. Instead, it clarified the Church’s understanding of the divinity of Christ in response to Arianism, which denied that Christ was of the same essence as the Father. The idea of the Trinity was not invented at Nicea but was developed through biblical exegesis, as seen in early Church writings like those of Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian. They affirmed that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all fully God, based on scriptural revelations (e.g., Matthew 28:19, 2 Corinthians 13:14, John 1:1).

The argument that the Son is subordinate to the Father in a way that denies His full divinity misrepresents the distinction between functional subordination and ontological equality. While Jesus, during His earthly ministry, submitted to the Father’s will (as seen in John 5:30 and John 6:38), this does not imply that He is ontologically inferior. The doctrine of the Trinity maintains that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are co-equal and co-eternal in their essence (or ousia), while they have distinct roles in the economy of salvation.

The argument that because Jesus submitted to the Father, He must be inferior (e.g., John 5:30) misunderstands the difference between functional subordination and ontological equality. While the Son submits to the Father in role and function (during His earthly ministry), this does not imply that He is ontologically inferior. Philippians 2:6 emphasizes that Jesus, "being in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped." This shows that Christ’s submission is voluntary and related to His mission, not an indication of inequality in essence or nature.

Hence Jesus’ submission to the Father was voluntary and temporary, a reflection of His role in salvation history, not an indication of an inferior nature. This distinction is vital to understanding the relational dynamics within the Trinity, without implying a hierarchical or lesser status for the Son or the Spirit.

The development of the doctrine of the Trinity was not a product of Greek philosophy or paganism but arose from the need to articulate the relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in light of biblical revelation. Early Church Fathers, such as Athanasius and the Cappadocians, developed the doctrine in response to heresies like Arianism, which denied the full divinity of the Son. The Council of Nicaea (325 AD) affirmed the biblical teaching that the Son is "of the same essence" (Greek: homoousios) as the Father, ensuring that Christ’s divinity was upheld against those who would reduce Him to a created being.

In conclusion, your arguments rely on a misunderstanding of both Greek grammar and historical theology. The Trinity is not a polytheistic or pagan concept but a doctrine rooted in the biblical revelation of one God in three persons—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Greek text of John 1:1c, when properly understood, affirms the full divinity of the Word, not a lesser or subordinate deity. Similarly, 1 Corinthians 8:6 emphasizes distinct roles within the Godhead without denying the Son’s divinity.

The early Christian understanding of the Trinity developed as a response to heretical challenges and was grounded in Scripture, not in paganism or Greek philosophy.

@Sea Breeze

Thank you for your respectful and thoughtful response. I appreciate the opportunity to engage in a meaningful discussion, and I’ll take the time to address the points you’ve made in support of premillennialism, while also clarifying the amillennial perspective further.

You mention that premillennialism views the next dispensation as literal, just like the current and previous ones. While I understand this approach, it is important to recognize that the Bible frequently blends literal and symbolic language, particularly in apocalyptic literature. For example, as I previously mentioned, Jesus' parables use symbolic language to convey profound truths, and Revelation is a book filled with symbolism. This doesn't mean we dismiss literal fulfillment where it is clearly intended, but we must be cautious about insisting that every passage, especially in Revelation, is strictly literal.

Regarding the "next dispensation," amillennialists do not "skip" the millennium as premillennialists claim. Instead, we see the 1,000 years as a present reality, symbolizing the completeness of Christ’s reign during the Church Age. This reign began with His resurrection and will culminate at His second coming. The focus is not on a future earthly kingdom, but on the ongoing spiritual reign of Christ and the eventual new heavens and new earth (the final consummation).

You rightly point out that some early church fathers, such as Papias, Irenaeus, and Justin Martyr, held premillennial views. However, the development of early Christian thought is more complex than it may appear. While premillennialism was one view held by certain fathers, it was not the unanimous position of the early Church. For example, by the time of Augustine (who had a profound influence on Christian theology), the amillennial view became more prominent.

The early Church was still in the process of developing its understanding of eschatology, and the diversity of thought reflected the interpretive challenges of prophetic and apocalyptic texts. It's also important to note that not all early premillennialists held to the same specific details that modern dispensational premillennialism advocates. In fact, Augustine's influence shifted the dominant view toward amillennialism, which remained the prevailing eschatological interpretation for centuries across many Christian traditions.

You reference the Abrahamic Covenant and the promises of land to Israel, pointing out that Israel has never fully occupied the land promised to Abraham. From an amillennial perspective, it’s important to interpret these promises through the lens of the New Testament. The land promises made to Abraham were indeed significant, but they were ultimately fulfilled in Christ.

Galatians 3:16 makes it clear that the promises given to Abraham and his seed find their ultimate fulfillment in Christ. The New Testament repeatedly teaches that God’s promises to Israel expand beyond the geographic land of Canaan to encompass all nations through Christ. In Romans 4:13, for example, Paul speaks of Abraham as the heir of the whole world, not just a particular piece of land. This is further supported by the teaching that believers from all nations—both Jews and Gentiles—are the true heirs of the promises given to Abraham (Galatians 3:28-29).

You reference the reemergence of the nation of Israel in 1948 as a significant event that supports premillennialism. From an amillennial viewpoint, while the modern state of Israel is an important geopolitical event, it is not seen as a direct fulfillment of biblical prophecy regarding the millennial kingdom. It is also an important factor that even the most religious Orthodox Jews do not consider the modern State of Israel to be the fulfillment of a biblical prophecy, since the State of Israel is not a Jewish theocratic state, but rather a secular state that was basically created along the lines of secular nationalist principles, many cite Psalm 127:1 in this regard, and they believe that Israel can only be restored by the expected Messiah, not human effort (cf. Three Oaths). According to the most Christian exegetes, the promises made to Israel in the Old Testament were fulfilled in Christ and His Church, which includes both Jews and Gentiles. The Church, as the "new Israel," is now the recipient of the promises, and the focus shifts from a literal nation to a spiritual people of God.

The Church is described as the "Israel of God" (Galatians 6:16), and Peter refers to believers as a "chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation" (1 Peter 2:9). This reflects the spiritual reality that the Church is now the true inheritor of the promises once made to Israel.

You suggest that premillennialism "tidies up" Scripture and ties up loose ends. While premillennialism does provide a consistent framework for certain prophecies, amillennialism offers a cohesive and theologically grounded interpretation that avoids some of the challenges posed by a literal millennial kingdom.

For example, a literal 1,000-year reign raises questions about why Christ's first coming—His death, resurrection, and ascension—would not be sufficient to establish His Kingdom. In contrast, amillennialism affirms that Christ's victory over sin, death, and Satan was accomplished at the cross (Colossians 2:15), and His reign is currently being realized in the hearts of believers. This reign will culminate in His final return, when He will fully establish His eternal Kingdom in the new heavens and new earth (Revelation 21-22).

You briefly mention the 144,000 from Revelation and the possible significance of the slightly different listing of the twelve tribes. While this is indeed a topic worth exploring in detail, it is important to recognize that amillennialists view the 144,000 symbolically, representing the fullness of God's redeemed people—both Jews and Gentiles. Revelation 7:9 expands on this by describing "a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people, and language" standing before the throne. This symbolic understanding reflects the global scope of God's redemptive plan, rather than a literal census of ethnic Jews.

Both premillennialism and amillennialism agree on the ultimate outcome: Christ will return, there will be a final judgment, and believers will enter the eternal state in the new heavens and new earth. Where we differ is on the nature of the 1,000 years in Revelation 20.

Amillennialism teaches that Christ is already reigning now, during the present Church Age, and that His reign will be fully manifested when He returns. The "1,000 years" is not a literal future earthly kingdom but symbolizes the completeness of Christ's current spiritual reign. When He returns, the final judgment will occur, and the eternal state will begin without the need for a future millennium on earth.

In conclusion, while premillennialism and amillennialism offer different perspectives on the millennium, both seek to honor and interpret Scripture faithfully. The amillennial view sees the 1,000 years in Revelation 20 as symbolic of Christ's current reign and recognizes the new heavens and new earth as the ultimate fulfillment of God's promises.

Thank you again for this rich discussion, and for your gracious tone throughout. I appreciate the opportunity to engage with these important theological topics, and I look forward to continuing our dialogue. God bless!

@Rattigan350

You asked, "What is the agenda of the WTS (Watchtower Society)? And how can it mistranslate when the result is correct?" The agenda of the WTS, reflected in their translation choices, particularly in the NWT, is to support Jehovah’s Witnesses' doctrine that denies the deity of Christ and the Trinity. The NWT is often critiqued for mistranslating key texts to fit their theology. For example, in John 1:1, most translations read, "the Word was God" (θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος), but the NWT reads, "the Word was a god," suggesting that Jesus is a lesser deity, which is inconsistent with the rest of Scripture and the grammatical structure of the original Greek.

The definitive issue is that the NWT alters key verses to diminish Christ's deity, which fits the WTS's theological stance. Other examples include Colossians 1:15-17, where the word "other" is added multiple times, changing the meaning to suggest that Christ was created, rather than pre-existing and being the Creator.

You cited Eusebius' quote from his earlier writings, where he records Jesus' commission as "Go ye and make disciples of all nations in my name." However, Eusebius' later writings reflect the full Trinitarian formula as seen in Matthew 28:19: "baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit."

The textual evidence supporting Matthew 28:19 is substantial. The earliest manuscripts, including the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, contain the full Trinitarian formula. Furthermore, church fathers such as Tertullian, Hippolytus, and Origen all reference the Trinitarian formula, which shows it was part of the accepted text long before any alleged alterations.

Regarding your point about Acts 2:38, where Peter says to baptize "in the name of Jesus Christ," this does not contradict Matthew 28:19. The phrase "in the name of Jesus" is shorthand for the authority and commission of Jesus, which includes the Trinitarian formula. The early church understood that baptizing in Jesus' name meant invoking the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as Jesus Himself commanded.

The baptism "in the name of Jesus" does not express the form of the sacrament but its nature: it distinguishes it from John's baptism and is meant to convey that it is done by the authority and commission of Christ, and it obligates the baptized person to Christ. Indeed, if during the time of the apostles they had baptized only by invoking the name of Jesus, Saint Paul could not have responded to the Ephesians, who had never heard of the Holy Spirit, with: "Into what then were you baptized?" (Acts 19:2–3). Early Christian tradition knows of no other form than the mention of the name of the Holy Trinity.

You argued that Jesus never said "I AM" because He did not speak English. This, however, misses the point. In John 8:58, Jesus uses the Greek phrase "ἐγώ εἰμι" (egō eimi), which translates to "I am." The language used is not the issue; rather, it is the meaning of the phrase.

When Jesus says, "Before Abraham was, I am," He is directly echoing Exodus 3:14, where God reveals Himself to Moses as "I AM WHO I AM" (Hebrew: אהיה אשר אהיה, Greek Septuagint: ἐγώ εἰμι). The reaction of the Jewish leaders—immediately trying to stone Him—shows that they understood this as a claim to deity. They recognized that Jesus was identifying Himself with YHWH, the eternal, self-existent God.

You claim that Psalm 110:1 shows that Jesus is not Jehovah (YHWH), but this misses the full context of how the New Testament writers interpret this passage.

Jesus quotes Psalm 110:1 in Matthew 22:41-46, asking the Pharisees, "If David calls him Lord, how can he be his son?" This challenges their understanding of the Messiah. The point Jesus is making is that the Messiah (Jesus) is greater than David and shares in divine authority with YHWH. The New Testament repeatedly shows Jesus exalted to the right hand of the Father, not as a separate or lesser being, but sharing in the divine nature and rule (Hebrews 1:3, Philippians 2:9-11).

You dismiss Thomas' confession, "My Lord and my God," as the statement of a doubter. However, this moment in John 20:28 is one of the clearest affirmations of Jesus’ deity in the New Testament. Thomas, after doubting, is convinced by the resurrected Jesus and exclaims to him, "My Lord and my God!" (Greek: Ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου). This is a direct declaration of Jesus' deity, and importantly, Jesus does not correct him. Instead, Jesus affirms Thomas' belief.

You assert that being the "Son of God" means Jesus is not God. However, in Jewish culture, the term "Son of" often implies equality or shared nature. For example, calling someone the "Son of Man" (Daniel 7:13-14) implies humanity and dominion. Likewise, the title "Son of God" in Jesus' case implies that He shares the divine nature with the Father.

In John 5:18, the Jews sought to kill Jesus because He was "making Himself equal with God" by calling God His Father. Thus, in the context of Jesus' unique sonship, being the Son of God means being equal with God, not inferior. By the way, I will tell you something that may surprise you: when Trinitarians say the Son is God, they do not mean that he is the same person as whose Son He is.

You claim that many translators have "agendas" and that the Trinity is not supported by Scripture. However, the overwhelming majority of biblical scholars and translators, across denominations, agree that John 1:1 and other key texts affirm the deity of Christ. The textual evidence is robust, and the doctrine of the Trinity is not based on a few select verses, but on the entire testimony of Scripture.

You dismiss the Trinity because it doesn't fit your "equation for salvation." However, the Trinity is foundational to the Christian understanding of salvation. Jesus, as fully God and fully man, is the only one who could mediate between God and man, offering a sacrifice that is sufficient to redeem humanity (Hebrews 9:14-15). The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit work together in the plan of salvation, with the Father sending the Son, the Son offering Himself as a sacrifice, and the Spirit applying the work of salvation to believers.

Your argument that Hebrews 8:5 ("a shadow of what is in heaven") somehow outweighs Jesus' direct claims to deity is a misunderstanding. The temple rituals were a shadow pointing to the reality of Christ's heavenly ministry, but Christ Himself is the substance, not just a shadow.

In conclusion, the Trinity is not a later invention or a misunderstanding. It is the biblical revelation of the nature of God, grounded in the teachings of Jesus and the apostles, affirmed by the early church, and defended throughout Christian history.

@scholar

You acknowledge that qualitativeness signifies the nature or essence of the subject in Koine Greek. But where they misunderstand is the suggestion that this quality does not reflect "full divinity." The qualitative reading of theos in John 1:1c does not imply "godlike" in a diminished or lesser sense but points to the full nature of divinity. Many respected scholars, like Wallace and Harner, argue that the qualitative sense implies that the Word shares in the very essence of deity—fully divine, not just some “divine quality” in a vague or partial sense.

The issue is that the NWT’s rendering “a god” introduces ambiguity. The indefinite “a god” implies subordinationism, suggesting that Jesus is a separate deity, which contradicts the strict monotheism seen throughout both the Old and New Testaments (e.g., Deuteronomy 6:4). The qualitative reading, however, supports the understanding that Jesus shares in the same divine nature, maintaining monotheism while affirming the Word’s full divinity.

The NWT’s rendering of John 1:1 as "the Word was a god" introduces theological confusion by suggesting that there is more than one "god" or that the Word is a lesser, subordinate deity. This interpretation is inconsistent with the monotheism that pervades the entire Bible, including the Old and New Testaments. The Bible explicitly teaches that there is only one God (Deuteronomy 6:4; Isaiah 45:5; 1 Timothy 2:5). Introducing "a god" into this context breaks with this clear monotheistic teaching, implying either polytheism or henotheism, which is foreign to biblical revelation.

Furthermore, the qualitative force of theos in John 1:1c, as highlighted by scholars like Wallace, emphasizes that the Word shares fully in the divine nature without implying a lesser or secondary god. Wallace, along with other respected Greek scholars, argues that the qualitative nature of theos in John 1:1 indicates that the Word is fully and truly God. To translate this phrase as "a god" misrepresents the original Greek and distorts the theological message that John intended to communicate.

The absence of the definite article in front of theos in John 1:1c (theos ēn ho logos) is not an indication of indefiniteness but rather a grammatical structure emphasizing the qualitative aspect of theos. In Greek, an anarthrous noun (a noun without an article) can often denote the nature or essence of something, as is the case here. The Word, being theos, is fully divine—sharing the same nature as God the Father.

Wallace and other scholars rightly point out that John 1:1b ("the Word was with [the] God") shows a distinction in person between the Father and the Word, while John 1:1c emphasizes the Word’s participation in the divine nature. The absence of the article before theos does not suggest that the Word is "a god" among many or a lesser divine being, but rather that the Word possesses all the attributes of deity. The translation "the Word was God" is the most accurate rendering in this case, affirming the full divinity of the Word without implying polytheism or subordinationism.

NWT’s rendering ‘a god’ is consistent with other translations and affirms Biblical monotheism. The traditional rendering 'the Word was God' contradicts 'the Word was with God.'

The NWT's rendering is not consistent with the majority of credible scholarly translations. No major scholarly Bible translation (RSV, ESV, NIV, NASB, etc.) renders John 1:1c as “a god.” This is because such a translation implies polytheism or henotheism, both of which contradict the monotheistic foundations of Christianity. The traditional rendering, “the Word was God,” does not contradict the phrase “the Word was with [the] God.” Rather, it affirms that the Word, though distinct in person, shares in the same divine nature as the Father. This reflects the Trinitarian understanding that there is one divine essence shared by the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, without confusing their distinct persons.

The argument that "a god" would imply subordination is well-illustrated by scholars such as Bruce Metzger and Daniel Wallace. They both argue that John 1:1 highlights the unique relationship between the Father and the Son in terms of equality in essence, not in a hierarchy of deities.

Trinitarianism is rooted in Neo-Platonism and is not found in the OT or NT.

Your assertion that the Trinity is a "pagan" invention or a product of Neo-Platonism misunderstands the historical development of Christian theology. This argument is historically inaccurate. While it’s true that early Church Fathers used some philosophical language (like homoousios) to describe theological truths, this does not mean that the Trinity is rooted in pagan philosophy. The development of the Trinity doctrine was a response to various heresies (e.g., Arianism) and is based on careful exegesis of biblical texts that demonstrate Christ’s deity (John 1:1, Colossians 2:9, Philippians 2:6-11). Scholars widely recognize that the biblical texts laid the groundwork for Trinitarian theology, which became more clearly articulated over time, especially at the Council of Nicea.

Moreover, scholars, including Larry Hurtado, have shown that early Christians worshipped Jesus as divine from the very earliest stages of the faith. This worship, centered on Christ’s deity, directly contradicts the idea that Jesus was merely a created, subordinate being.

The doctrine of the Trinity was not "invented" in the later centuries but developed as the early Church reflected on the biblical data and sought to articulate the mystery of God’s nature as revealed in Scripture. The Trinitarian formula—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—is already present in texts like Matthew 28:19, 2 Corinthians 13:14, and John 1:1.

While the early Church Fathers used philosophical language to explain theological truths (such as homoousios at the Council of Nicaea), this does not mean that the doctrine of the Trinity was derived from Greek philosophy. Rather, they used the tools available to them to defend the faith against heresies, particularly Arianism, which denied the full divinity of the Son. The Nicene Creed was a response to these heresies, affirming the scriptural teaching that the Son is "of the same essence" (homoousios) as the Father, fully God and eternally begotten, not made.

The accusation that the Trinity is a pagan concept, popularized by Alexander Hislop’s The Two Babylons, has been thoroughly debunked by scholars across various theological and historical disciplines. Hislop’s methodology was flawed, relying on superficial comparisons and unsupported historical claims. The Trinity is rooted in Scripture and reflects the Christian understanding of God’s nature as revealed in both the Old and New Testaments.

Contrary to the claim that the Trinity is "not found" in the Bible, the doctrine is rooted in biblical texts that reveal the deity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. For example:

• John 1:1 affirms the full divinity of the Word (the Son).
• Philippians 2:6-11 shows that Jesus, though in the form of God, did not grasp equality with God but humbled himself, which implies that he was already divine.
• Colossians 2:9 says that "in Christ, all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form," emphasizing that Jesus is fully God.

Moreover, Matthew 28:19 provides the Trinitarian formula for baptism ("in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit"), showing the equal standing of these three persons in the Godhead.

The claim that Jesus is "subordinate" to the Father, based on passages like John 5:30 or 1 Corinthians 11:3, misunderstands the distinction between functional subordination and ontological equality. While Jesus, in his role as the incarnate Son, submitted to the Father’s will during his earthly ministry, this does not imply that he is ontologically inferior to the Father. The doctrine of the Trinity teaches that the Son and the Holy Spirit are co-equal and co-eternal with the Father, sharing the same divine nature, even though they may have different roles in the economy of salvation.

The NWT preserves both the indefiniteness and qualitativeness of ‘theos.’

The NWT fails to convey the intended meaning of John 1:1c. The indefinite article, "a god," implies polytheism or henotheism—both of which are foreign to Christian monotheism. The traditional qualitative interpretation does not create ambiguity but stresses that the Word possesses the very nature of God. Even Jason BeDuhn, while sympathetic to the NWT in some respects, acknowledges that the Word was divine (not “a god”) better captures the original Greek intent and is open to Trinitarian interpretation.

Daniel Wallace and other scholars have shown that the qualitative force of theos in John 1:1c emphasizes the full divine nature of the Word, not that the Word is a lesser god.

In conclusion, the NWT’s translation of John 1:1c as “a god” introduces theological confusion and contradicts biblical monotheism by implying that Jesus is a lesser or subordinate deity. The qualitative reading of John 1:1c, affirmed by the majority of respected scholars, demonstrates that the Word shares fully in the divine nature of the Father, not as “a god” but as God in essence.

Some resources for you:

• The Trinity exposed
  
• Arian Objections To The Trinity Refuted
• Yes, You Should Believe In The Trinity
• In Defense of the Trinity Doctrine
• A Response to the Pamphlet 'Should You Believe in the Trinity' Barry Hofstetter
• https://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-jw-deceptions.htm
• "Should You Believe in the Trinity?"
  
  

@Rattigan350

You argue that texts like 1 John 5:7, Matthew 28:19, Revelation 1:11, and 1 Timothy 3:16 have been altered to support the Trinity doctrine. It is easy to see that these are not deliberate falsifications in the KJV, but come from the Textus Receptus before the age of modern textual criticism, unlike the NWT, which deliberately mistransaltes to support the theological agende of the WTS. Let's examine this claim more closely.

· 1 John 5:7 (Comma Johanneum): It’s true that the longer version of this verse, which explicitly mentions the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit as being one, is a later addition. Most modern scholars agree on this. However, the Trinity does not rest on this verse alone. In fact, the Trinity is grounded in the broader teaching of Scripture, not on one debated verse. The absence of the explicit Comma Johanneum does not remove the Trinity, as the concept is built on many scriptural passages.

· Matthew 28:19: You claim that Matthew 28:19, where Jesus commands his disciples to baptize “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,” is spurious. Yet, the textual evidence overwhelmingly supports this verse. It appears in all early manuscripts of Matthew, including Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, and has strong patristic support. Early Church Fathers like Eusebius of Caesarea quoted it extensively, and there is no evidence of its alteration. The triadic formula here is part of Jesus' Great Commission and clearly demonstrates the early Christian understanding of the Trinity, where the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are mentioned equally.

· Revelation 1:11: This verse in the KJV does include the phrase “I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last,” which is absent in some earlier manuscripts. However, this does not change the overall message of the book of Revelation that presents Christ as divine (Rev 22:13, 22:16) and part of the Godhead, referred to as the "Alpha and Omega."

· 1 Timothy 3:16: The phrase “God was manifest in the flesh” appears in later manuscripts, and earlier versions have “He was manifest in the flesh.” But this phrase still refers to Jesus, and whether we read "God" or "He," the implication is that Jesus, being divine, took on human flesh. The deity of Christ is still strongly supported by many other scriptures, such as John 1:1 and Colossians 2:9.

You claim that the connection between John 8:58 (“Before Abraham was, I am”) and Exodus 3:14 (“I AM WHO I AM”) is made up, and that the apostles didn’t connect the two.

However, Jesus' use of "I AM" in John 8:58 is a clear echo of God's self-identification in Exodus 3:14. The Jewish leaders clearly understood Jesus' claim to deity here, as evidenced by their immediate reaction to stone Him for blasphemy (John 8:59). Jesus' "I AM" statement is an explicit claim to eternal existence and divine identity.

In Exodus 3:14, God reveals His name to Moses as “I AM” (YHWH), expressing His eternal and self-existent nature. When Jesus uses the same phrase, “I AM,” in John 8:58, He is directly identifying Himself with YHWH. The reaction of the Jewish leaders confirms that they understood His claim to be God, which is why they sought to stone Him. This connection is not "made up," but deeply rooted in both Jewish and Christian understanding.

You reference Psalm 110:1, where it says, "Jehovah said to my Lord, ‘Sit at my right hand.’” This verse is often used by non-Trinitarians to claim that Jesus is a lesser Lord, distinct from YHWH (Jehovah).

However, Psalm 110:1 is one of the most quoted Old Testament verses in the New Testament because it points to the Messiah's exaltation. When it says "Yahweh said to my Lord," it refers to a divine dialogue between God the Father (YHWH) and the Messiah (Jesus), acknowledging Jesus’ divine lordship and authority.

Jesus Himself uses this passage to assert His divine status in Matthew 22:44. The New Testament consistently presents Jesus as exalted to the Father’s right hand, sharing in divine authority (Hebrews 1:3; Philippians 2:9-11). Psalm 110 does not deny Jesus' deity; rather, it affirms His unique role as the Messianic King who shares in God’s rule.

You argue that the Pharisees wanted to kill Jesus not because of His claims to deity, but because He overturned tables in the temple and was a threat to their lifestyle.

While it is true that Jesus’ actions in the temple angered the religious leaders, the Gospel accounts clearly state that they sought to kill Him for blasphemy because He claimed to be equal with God. In John 10:30-33, Jesus says, “I and the Father are one.” The Jews understood this as a claim to deity, as they responded, “You, a mere man, claim to be God.” This passage clearly shows that the Jewish leaders saw Jesus' claims as blasphemous because they believed He was equating Himself with God.

You dismiss Thomas’ declaration, “My Lord and my God” in John 20:28, arguing that because Thomas was a doubter, his statement holds less weight. This is a misunderstanding of the significance of this event.

Thomas' confession is the climactic declaration of faith in the resurrected Jesus. Far from being insignificant, it is one of the strongest affirmations of Jesus' divine identity in the New Testament. Thomas, who had previously doubted, was convinced by Jesus’ resurrection and declared Him both “Lord” (kyrios) and “God” (theos). Jesus does not correct Thomas but accepts the worship, further affirming His divine status. This is not a statement to be dismissed but one that directly affirms the belief that Jesus is God.

You argue that Peter’s confession in Matthew 16:16, where he declares Jesus as “the Christ, the Son of the living God,” holds more weight than Thomas’ statement. However, Peter’s confession does not contradict the deity of Jesus.

In calling Jesus "the Christ, the Son of the living God," Peter acknowledges Jesus as the promised Messiah and Son of God. "Son of God" in Jewish thought often meant sharing in the divine nature of God. In fact, Jesus’ response to Peter—“Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven” (Matthew 16:17)—shows that this recognition of Jesus’ divine identity came directly from God.

You dismiss John 1:1, stating that there are translations other than the NWT (New World Translation) that do not translate the passage as "the Word was God." However, the overwhelming majority of translations and biblical scholars agree that John 1:1 affirms the deity of Jesus.

The Greek phrase in John 1:1, "kai theos ēn ho logos", is most accurately translated as "the Word was God." The construction of the Greek text, particularly the use of the definite article with "ho theos" and the anarthrous (without an article) "theos" in the predicate position, shows that the Word (Jesus) shares the same divine essence as God.

In conclusion, your arguments against the Trinity, based on select interpretations and supposed spurious texts, fail to undermine the solid biblical foundation for the doctrine. The Trinity is not based on a few isolated verses or later textual additions, but on the full testimony of Scripture, which presents God as one in essence, yet three in persons—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

The early Church did not "invent" this doctrine. It was a natural conclusion drawn from the teachings of Jesus and the apostles, as well as from the Hebrew Scriptures. Far from being a later "invention" or "borrowed" from pagan sources, the Trinity reflects the mystery of God's nature as revealed in both the Old and New Testaments.