aqwsed12345

Joined

• started 12 topics
• posted 979 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by aqwsed12345

• 
  59

  Should Jesus be worshipped?

  by Melody in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  can anyone explain why jesus should or should not be worshipped?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  aqwsed12345

  @Wonderment

  Your reply attempts to counter the overwhelming scholarly consensus regarding the qualitative sense of θεός in John 1:1c by assembling a list of quotations from various commentators, some of whom admit that, at the most basic lexical level, “a god” is grammatically possible. But this tactic, while superficially impressive, does not address the underlying grammatical, contextual, and theological realities that have shaped nearly every major translation and reputable scholarly commentary for the past century.

  Your citation of William Barclay is misleading both in intent and effect. Barclay’s private admission—that one could, as a matter of “so far as the Greek goes,” translate John 1:1c as “a god”—does not represent a shift in his scholarly view, nor does it support the Watchtower’s theology. On the contrary, Barclay is explicit in his published works that the absence of the article with θεός in John 1:1c is not indefinite, but qualitative, meaning that the Word shares fully in the essence of God without being a separate “god” among many. As he writes in his commentary: “John does not say that the Word was the God (ho theos); to have said that would have been to identify the Word with God. He says that the Word was theos—without the article—which means that the Word was, as we would say, of the very same character and quality and essence and being as God.” Barclay’s remark about the grammatical possibility of “a god” simply acknowledges a theoretical ambiguity in Greek, not a contextual or theological endorsement of the NWT reading. His overall work, including his commentaries, consistently supports the traditional Trinitarian view, suggesting that while “a god” is grammatically permissible, it is not contextually appropriate. Your emphasis on this private letter overlooks Barclay's broader theological framework, which aligns with the qualitative interpretation. Such caveats are a mark of scholarly rigor, not of agreement with Arian doctrine.

  The same applies to your invocation of Harris, Constable, Harner, and others. The fact that an indefinite rendering is “possible” at the most abstract grammatical level does not mean it is plausible or contextually appropriate in John 1:1c. Harner’s influential 1973 study, which you reference, is universally acknowledged as the decisive argument for the qualitative sense. Harner wrote: “anarthrous predicate nouns preceding the verb are primarily qualitative in force; they indicate that the subject belongs to the class named, but they also attribute the quality of the class to the subject.” In the case of John 1:1c, Harner found that the construction “theos ēn ho logos” asserts that the Word possesses the very nature of God, not that the Word is a mere member of a class of gods. Harner is clear: the qualitative sense “is so prominent that the noun cannot be regarded as definite.” The qualitative reading, therefore, is not a halfway house between “the God” and “a god,” but the grammatical means by which the Greek expresses the highest and fullest identification with the divine nature short of personal identity.

  Harris’s call for explanation in rendering “God” refers to the need for nuanced exegesis, not support for “a god”; his work affirms the Word’s full divinity. Constable’s acknowledgment of the grammatical possibility of “a god” is tempered by his Trinitarian stance, favoring the qualitative interpretation in his Expository Notes. Harner’s emphasis on the qualitative force, rejecting definiteness, aligns with the consensus that θεός conveys essence, not a class of gods, and the claim of “Trinitarian bias” is unsubstantiated given Harner’s empirical analysis. Similarly, T.L. Constable is cited as acknowledging that “a god” is a possible translation since the indefinite article can be supplied when no article is present in Greek. While this is true grammatically, Constable's Trinitarian view indicates he favors "the Word was God" as the more accurate rendering, given the context. The possibility of multiple translations does not negate the consensus that the qualitative sense is preferred in John 1:1c, where the Word's divine essence is at stake.

  Philip Harner's statement that the qualitative force of θεός is so prominent that it cannot be regarded as definite is often misinterpreted. Harner does not support an indefinite rendering; rather, he argues against definiteness to maintain the distinction between the persons of the Trinity, aligning with the qualitative understanding that the Word shares the divine nature fully. This supports the traditional translation, not "a god." C.H. Dodd's comment that "the Word was a god" cannot be faulted as a word-for-word translation is technically correct but misleading. Translation involves conveying intended meaning within context, not just literal rendering. Dodd's own works likely support the qualitative interpretation, as his focus was on the theological implications of John's prologue, which affirm the Word's divinity.

  Other scholars cited, such as Sjef van Tilborg ("And a God was the word"), William R. Harwood, and Bruce Vawter, may have translations or interpretations supporting “a god,” but their views are not representative of the scholarly consensus. Van Tilborg's work, for instance, is less cited in mainstream biblical studies, and Harwood's credentials (e.g., Ph.D. from Columbia Pacific University, a non-accredited institution) raise questions about academic rigor. Vawter's comment that "the Word is a divine being in his own right" does not necessarily imply a lesser deity but can be understood qualitatively, consistent with Trinitarian doctrine.

  The NABRE’s note on predication, Barrett’s emphasis on the Word’s nature, Vawter’s affirmation of the Word as a divine being, and the minority renderings by van Tilborg and Harwood do not overturn the consensus. These sources either support the qualitative interpretation or are outliers lacking mainstream support. The use of John 10:36 and 14:28 to suggest a lesser status ignores Johannine theology, where “Son of God” implies divine equality, and 14:28 refers to functional, not ontological, subordination. The call to avoid dogmatism does not negate the evidence: the qualitative rendering is supported by syntax, context, and John’s monotheism, making “the Word was God” the most accurate translation.

  Your quotation from Wallace and Dixon, noting that “it is difficult to distinguish indefinite from qualitative nouns at times,” is both true and irrelevant. Indeed, the nature of anarthrous Greek predicates can sometimes be ambiguous, but, as both scholars stress, context is always the final arbiter. In the specific case of John 1:1c, the Prologue’s highly stylized, creedal language, the preceding reference to “the God” (ton theon), and the immediate context of creation (“all things were made through him”) collectively preclude an indefinite sense. Wallace’s massive Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics is not a polemic for Trinitarian theology, but a meticulous analysis of the language of the NT, and its findings are not contested by any major critical scholar. The so-called “potential” for an indefinite meaning is a red herring in this context; Wallace’s actual conclusion is that the qualitative sense is contextually demanded and virtually certain here.

  Wallace’s admission that distinguishing indefinite from qualitative nouns can be difficult does not equate to endorsing “a god” in John 1:1c. His Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics stresses that context determines the sense, and the prologue’s theology demands a qualitative θεός. Your appeal to translation practices in the NT and Septuagint misapplies category nouns (e.g., Acts 28:4, “a murderer”) to the monadic θεός in a creedal statement. The NET Bible clarifies that Colwell’s Rule supports a qualitative, not indefinite, rendering, while Dodd’s allowance for “a god” as a word-for-word translation is a grammatical note, not an endorsement, as his exegesis favors the Word’s divinity. The Net Bible's note that Colwell's Rule permits but does not demand a definite translation is accurate, but in John 1:1c, θεός is not definite. The rule allows for definite nouns without the article in certain constructions, but Harner's analysis shows that in this specific construction, the qualitative sense is more appropriate, aligning with the context.

  You also cite a handful of alternative translations and commentators—van Tilborg, Harwood, Vawter, Barrett, Dodd—each of whom, at best, suggest that “a god” is a woodenly literal, grammatically possible rendering. But you fail to show that any of these authorities believe such a rendering is actually correct in context. C.H. Dodd, for example, is not advocating for “a god” as a meaningful translation, but is rather illustrating what a word-for-word gloss would look like, immediately adding that “such a rendering cannot be faulted” only at the level of interlinear translation—not at the level of contextual interpretation. Dodd, Barrett, and others are clear that the real meaning in context is qualitative, not indefinite.

  Your argument that the NWT’s rendering is validated by “diversity” among interpreters is a rhetorical sleight of hand. The existence of various proposals for how best to translate the clause—ranging from “the Word was divine” (to stress the qualitative force) to “what God was, the Word was” (to capture the sense of shared essence)—does not establish “a god” as a serious scholarly option. Indeed, the vast majority of critical translations reject “a god” for the very reason that it is contextually and theologically misleading, suggesting a kind of polytheism or subordinationism foreign to both Johannine theology and Second Temple Judaism. No critical commentary or major translation today opts for “a god” as the best rendering.

  You basically repeat the Watchtower’s familiar trope that “Trinitarian” scholars are merely driven by dogma rather than evidence, while the NWT alone reflects the Greek. This is demonstrably false. The argument for the qualitative force of anarthrous predicates is based on large-scale studies of Greek syntax (Harner, Dixon, Wallace, Porter, etc.) across biblical and extra-biblical literature. It is adopted by critical, Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, and even non-Christian scholars alike. The NWT stands almost alone among major translations in rendering “a god,” and this isolation is not due to conspiratorial bias but to the weight of grammatical and contextual evidence.

  Your claim that "the Word was God" leads readers to believe the noun is definite, not qualitative, and that Harner and Wallace argue against Colwell's theory of definiteness. However, this misrepresents their positions. Harner and Wallace do critique misapplications of Colwell's Rule, which suggests definite predicate nominatives often lack the article, but they advocate for a qualitative understanding, not indefiniteness. The traditional translation "the Word was God" in English can convey the qualitative force, as "God" functions both as a proper noun and a predicate indicating divine nature, clarified by the context of John 1:1 distinguishing between “with [the] God” and “was God.”

  Wallace's concession that it is difficult to distinguish indefinite from qualitative nouns at times is taken out of context. This difficulty applies to certain passages where context is ambiguous, not to John 1:1c, where the prologue's theological and literary context strongly favors the qualitative sense. Wallace's diagrams map possible intersections but do not suggest equivalence; context remains decisive, and in John 1:1c, it demands qualitative predication.

  Your reference to translators regularly employing indefinite articles for pre-verbal anarthrous predicates is not supported by systematic analysis. While some translations do so for readability, as in Acts 28:4 (“This man must be a murderer”), this reflects English idiom, not Greek grammar. In John 1:1c, the context of the Logos's role as Creator and intimate relation with the Father (John 1:3-4) excludes an indefinite sense, which would imply polytheism, contrary to John's monotheistic framework.

  The appeal to Jesus’s statements in John 10:36 and 14:28 as proof that he never claimed full divinity again fails to grasp Johannine Christology. In John’s Gospel, the Son’s unique Sonship (1:14, 18; 5:18; 10:33-36) is itself a claim to equality with God, as recognized by Jesus’s Jewish opponents. The Prologue’s affirmation that the Logos was both “with [the] God” and “was God” balances personal distinction with essential unity. The qualitative reading of θεός in John 1:1c precisely expresses this: the Word is fully divine (possesses all that it means to be God) yet is personally distinct from the Father.

  You cite Barrett as saying, “the Word is God but is not the only being of whom this is true,” as if this implies the existence of other gods. In context, Barrett’s point is that the Word, as fully divine, is not identical with the Father (i.e., is not all that the term “God” can mean in terms of personal identity), not that there are multiple gods. His exegesis remains squarely within monotheistic boundaries.

  The point about “imposing” dogma is a rhetorical flourish, not a scholarly argument. It is not “dogmatism” to report that nearly all modern critical study and translation of John 1:1c rejects “a god” as the correct rendering; it is simply an observation of the current scholarly consensus based on rigorous analysis. To “evoke ideas in others” is admirable in dialogue, but it does not relieve anyone of the responsibility to reckon honestly with the evidence and its overwhelmingly one-sided conclusion.

  The call for avoiding dogmatism and suggesting ideas rather than imposing views is valid in principle, but it does not address the scholarly consensus based on rigorous analysis. The evidence, from Harner, Wallace, Dixon, and others, consistently supports the qualitative interpretation of θεός in John 1:1c, affirming "the Word was God" as the most accurate rendering. The case for “a god” is strictly grammatically possible but contextually and theologically weak, and it has been thoroughly addressed and refuted by leading scholars in biblical studies, as demonstrated by the detailed analysis above.

  Finally, your argument fails to explain why, if “a god” is the correct sense, the earliest Christian communities—steeped in the monotheism of the Shema (Deut 6:4) and hostile to any suggestion of multiple gods—would have ever accepted such language. The entire theological trajectory of John’s Gospel, culminating in Thomas’s confession (“My Lord and my God!” John 20:28), presupposes and proclaims the unique, full deity of the Logos. The qualitative force of θεός in John 1:1c is not merely a Trinitarian dogma, but the clear result of both Greek syntax and Johannine theology.

  In conclusion, the list of quotations you provide—none of which endorse “a god” as the contextually correct translation—does not overturn the consistent findings of critical scholarship. The anarthrous θεός in John 1:1c is, by all major studies, a qualitative predicate, and the Word is thus presented as fully and truly God, without confusion of persons or division of essence. The Watchtower’s rendering, “a god,” remains an outlier, rejected not out of dogmatism, but because it distorts both the grammar and the theology of the Prologue. The best scholarship in the field, across confessional boundaries, has indeed repeatedly refuted this reading—on linguistic, historical, and theological grounds.
• 
  30

  2 Peter 1: 1 Corruption in the NWT

  by Sea Breeze in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  here's how this verse should read: simeon peter, a servant and apostle of jesus christ, to those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our god and savior jesus christ: - 2 peter 1: 1. here's how watchtower prints this verse:.

  simon peter, a slave and an apostle of jesus christ, to those who have acquired a faith as precious as ours through the righteousness of our god and the savior jesus christ: - nwt.

  why did watchtower change this verse by adding the word "the" ?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  aqwsed12345

  @Earnest

  Your latest rejoinder reiterates three assertions that require close linguistic scrutiny. First, you restate that in Peter and Paul “the God” (ὁ θεός or its oblique forms) always designates the Father and therefore cannot name Christ; second, you deny that any pre-Nicene writer cites Titus 2:13 or 2 Peter 1:1 as a unitary title; third, you claim that the KJV translators merely “applied” ἡμῶν to σωτήρ rather than imposing an interpretive gloss. Each contention collapses once the primary Greek evidence is examined with the methodological controls that modern grammarians apply to article usage.

  Peter and Paul employ ὁ θεός hundreds of times, and in the overwhelming majority of those occurrences the reference is indeed the Father. Nothing in Sharp’s canon denies that statistical regularity. The canon concerns what happens when two singular, personal, common nouns are bound together inside a single determiner phrase. Neither author provides a counter-example within that syntactic frame. Your argument adduces no sentence of the form τοῦ/ὁ θεοῦ X καὶ Y in which the nouns unambiguously point to distinct persons. That absence is decisive: frequency of another usage elsewhere cannot override the grammar of a concrete clause in which the article welds δύο ὀνόματα into μία ἔννοια.

  While it is accurate that ὁ θεός most often designates the Father in the Petrine and Pauline corpora—reflecting the convention of Trinitarian appropriation where ὁ θεός is ascribed to the Father as the source (archē) within the Godhead—this does not preclude exceptions where context or syntax indicates otherwise. The word θεός operates in three senses in the NT: as a designation for the Father (appropriatio), as a reference to the entire Trinity (the divine essence, theotēs), and as a qualitative descriptor of divinity/deity (quiddity). These senses coexist without contradiction, meaning that the habitual use of ὁ θεός for the Father does not exclude its application to the Son in specific instances. Your claim hinges on the absence of explicit instances where Peter or Paul call Jesus ὁ θεός, but this overlooks the syntactic evidence in passages like 2 Peter 1:1 and Titus 2:13, where Granville Sharp’s rule suggests a single referent for “our God and Savior.” In 2 Peter 1:1, the construction “tou theou hēmōn kai sōtēros Iēsou Christou” features a single article (“tou”) governing both “theou” (God) and “sōtēros” (Savior), followed by the appositive “Iēsou Christou” (Jesus Christ). This TSKS (article-substantive-kai-substantive) structure, as Sharp observed, consistently indicates co-referentiality in Koine Greek when applied to singular, personal, common nouns. Your assertion that ὁ θεός must refer to the Father here assumes a semantic inevitability that overrides the grammatical signal, a methodological error that prioritizes customary usage over syntax. Moreover, the immediate contrast with 2 Peter 1:2—where separate articles distinguish “tou theou” and “Iēsou tou kyriou hēmōn”—reinforces the intentional unity in 1:1, suggesting Peter adapted traditional language to affirm Christ’s deity.

  You further argue that because Peter’s and Paul’s letters were likely written before the Gospel of John (post-70 CE), John’s usage of ὁ θεός for Jesus in John 20:28 could not have influenced their terminology, thus reinforcing the exclusivity of ὁ θεός for the Father in their writings. This chronological point, while historically plausible, does not negate the broader linguistic and theological context shared by NT authors. Even if Peter and Paul wrote earlier, the early Christian community operated within a developing Christological framework where divine titles were flexibly applied. John 20:28, where Thomas declares “ho kyrios mou kai ho theos mou” (my Lord and my God) directly to Jesus, demonstrates that ὁ θεός could be extended to the Son within the first-century church. The grammar—confirmed by “eipen auto” (he said to Him, not “to them”)—leaves no ambiguity that Jesus is the referent, challenging the notion that ὁ θεός is exclusively the Father’s title. While John’s Gospel may postdate Peter and Paul, it reflects the same theological milieu, and its usage provides a precedent that undermines your rigid rule. Peter and Paul, as native Greek speakers or writers within a Hellenized context, were not bound by an unyielding convention but could innovate within their linguistic framework, as evidenced by the TSKS construction in 2 Peter 1:1. The dating of John does not isolate Peter and Paul from this flexibility; rather, it highlights a continuity of thought across the NT, where the Son’s divinity is progressively revealed and expressed.

  You contend that John consistently uses ὁ θεός for the Father throughout his Gospel, from John 1:1 onward, and thus has no reason to be inconsistent in verse 28. You argue that John’s purpose statement in 20:31 would be absurd if Jesus were called ὁ θεός (implying the Father) three verses earlier, unless John intended to equate Jesus with the Father. This objection misrepresents both the grammar and theology of John’s Gospel. First, the claim of absolute consistency overlooks the immediate context of John 20:28, where Thomas’s exclamation is unequivocally directed at Jesus. The possessive pronouns “mou” (my) and the verb “eipen auto” (he said to Him) grammatically tie ὁ θεός to Jesus, not the Father, making it impossible to sustain your interpretation without distorting the syntax. Second, the assumption that John’s usage must be rigid ignores the flexibility of NT language. In John 1:1, “ton theon” refers to the Father, while the anarthrous θεός affirms the Logos’s divine nature (quiddity), showing John’s capacity to vary terminology within a single passage. This flexibility extends to 20:28, where ὁ θεός as a title of appropriatio is applied to Jesus to affirm His divinity, not to equate Him with the Father. Third, the purpose statement in 20:31 does not contradict this application. “Son of God” in John carries profound implications of divine sonship and unity with the Father (cf. John 5:18, 10:30), and does not preclude Jesus being called ὁ θεός in a specific context. Your suggestion that this implies Jesus is “both the Father and the Son” mischaracterizes Trinitarian theology, which distinguishes persons within the Godhead while affirming their shared essence (theotēs). John’s use of ὁ θεός for Jesus is not an inconsistency but a deliberate theological statement, consistent with the Gospel’s broader Christological aims.

  Hence, your exclusion of John 20:28 by chronological fencing is linguistically immaterial. The question is not whether Peter or Paul read John; the question is whether Koine Greek permits ὁ θεός to be predicated of Christ. Thomas’s confession proves that the language provides such elasticity. Once the title is shown to be transferable, appeal to a presumed semantic impossibility in Peter and Paul is removed; the only remaining test is the local syntax of Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1, which meets Sharp’s criteria exactly. Against this, you merely invoke “common-sense distribution” and describe the Trinitarian appeal to appropriationes as the retrojection of a fourth-century lens onto first-century prose. Yet appropriation is not a Nicene “invention;” it is the analytical name later theologians gave to a lexical pattern already visible in the NT—Father ordinarily ὁ θεός, Son ordinarily ὁ κύριος, Spirit ordinarily τὸ πνεῦμα—while all three persons may bear each other’s titles under determined conditions. That pattern is descriptive, not prescriptive, and it explains why ὁ θεός could be extended to the Son without erasing its ordinary Father-reference. Your insistence that such extension is “inconsistent” smuggles into the debate a unitarian premise that the very texts in dispute appear designed to challenge.

  Trinitarian appropriation, as a theological framework, indeed crystallized in later centuries, particularly through patristic literature and conciliar definitions such as Nicaea (325 CE). However, this does not mean it imposes an anachronistic interpretation on the NT texts. Rather, it articulates relational distinctions within the Godhead that are already implicit in the first-century writings. In established NT terminology, ὁ θεός is generally the standard designation for the Father, ὁ κύριος for the Son, and τὸ πνεῦμα for the Holy Spirit. This convention reflects a pattern of ascription—termed appropriatio in theology—where titles are attributed to specific persons of the Trinity to highlight their roles, not to deny their shared divine essence. Your surprise at this approach overlooks the fact that such distinctions are rooted in the texts themselves, not merely in later dogma. For instance, the relational dynamics between the Father and the Son are evident in passages like John 1:1, where “ton theon” (the Father) is distinguished from the anarthrous θεός (the divine nature of the Logos), suggesting an early awareness of personal distinction within a unified divinity. Linguistic analysis, including Granville Sharp’s rule, further supports this by focusing on syntactic patterns operative in Koine Greek, not on fourth-century theological constructs. Thus, interpreting ὁ θεός in light of these distinctions is not anachronistic but a recognition of the grammatical and theological seeds present in the first-century milieu.

  After all, your entire “fourth-century” objection rests on the premise that the Christian kerygma (the core proclamation) and doctrine were artificially altered in the centuries following the apostles as part of an imperial conspiracy. However, this is simply ruled out by the dogma of indefectibility (indefectabilitas)—meaning that even the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church. Furthermore, history does not support such a claim; at most, we can speak of a development of doctrine in the sense articulated by John Henry Newman.

  Granville Sharp’s rule is a syntactic observation, not a theological assertion dependent on patristic exegesis. It rests on the consistent pattern in Koine Greek where a single article governing two singular, personal, common nouns joined by “kai” indicates one referent, as seen in 2 Peter 1:1 (“tou theou hēmōn kai sōtēros”) and Titus 2:13 (“tou megalou theou kai sōtēros hēmōn”). The scarcity of explicit pre-Nicene commentary on these specific verses does not undermine this linguistic principle, as the rule’s validity derives from its uniformity across a broad corpus, including non-biblical texts. Early church fathers like Ignatius, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus affirm Christ’s deity in general terms, even if they do not directly cite these passages, suggesting a Christological trajectory compatible with Sharp’s interpretation. Your demand for patristic support inverts the burden of proof: it is your dual-referent reading that departs from the grammatical norm, requiring evidence of an exception within Koine Greek syntax, which you fail to provide. The absence of pre-Nicene citations either way reflects the limited scope of surviving texts, not a refutation of the rule’s application.

  The church fathers frequently cited Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 to support core Christian doctrines, especially concerning the divinity of Jesus Christ, His equality with the Father, and the hope of His second coming. These verses were pivotal in theological debates, particularly in response to heresies that questioned Christ’s divine nature. An overview of how key figures among the church fathers utilized these scriptures illustrates their centrality in early Christian thought.

  Titus 2:13 was extensively used by the fathers to affirm Christ’s divinity, His role as Savior, and the eschatological expectation of His return. The phrase "our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ" became a cornerstone for asserting that Jesus is both fully divine and equal to the Father. For example, Hippolytus, in his Treatise on Christ and Antichrist, quoted Titus 2:13 to emphasize the Christian hope in Christ’s second coming. He referred to Jesus as "our God and Savior," linking this directly to the resurrection of the saints and the glorification of the Father. This reinforced both the eschatological and divine aspects of Christ’s identity.

  Chrysostom, in his Homilies on Matthew, Philippians, and John, drew upon Titus 2:13 for several purposes. In the Homilies on Matthew (Matthew 17:10), he used the verse to distinguish Christ’s two advents: His first in grace and His second in glory, urging believers to live righteously while awaiting the "blessed hope" of "our great God and Savior Jesus Christ." In Homilies on Philippians (Philippians 2:5-8), he cited it to affirm Christ’s divinity, calling Him "the great God" and countering claims of the Son’s inferiority to the Father. Similarly, in the Homilies on John (John 1:1), Chrysostom referenced the verse to argue for the Son’s eternal nature, noting that "the great God" applies to Jesus, thus aligning His attributes with those of the Father.

  Theodoret also made significant use of Titus 2:13, particularly in his letter To John the Œconomus, where he affirmed the unity of Christ’s divine and human natures by calling Him "the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ." This supported the doctrine of the hypostatic union. In his Letter to the Monks, Theodoret again quoted the verse to emphasize Christ’s glorious appearing as both God and Savior, defending the orthodox view of His dual nature against heresies such as Arianism.

  Gregory of Nyssa, in his work Against Eunomius, especially in Books VI and XI, cited Titus 2:13 to argue against Eunomius, affirming that Christ is "the great God and our Savior" and thus upholding His full divinity. He also used the verse to counter Marcionite dualism, asserting the unity of the Godhead and rejecting any division between good and evil deities.

  Basil referenced Titus 2:13 in both his Dogmatic Works and De Spiritu Sancto. In the former, he used the verse to argue for the Son’s equality with the Father, showing that "the great God" applies to Jesus and demonstrates His divine nature. In De Spiritu Sancto (Chapter XVI), Basil quoted the verse to highlight the role of the Trinity in salvation, linking the work of the Spirit to Christ’s dispensations as "our great God and Saviour."

  Turning to 2 Peter 1:1 we find that this verse, though cited less frequently, was also used to affirm Christ’s divinity and Peter’s apostolic witness, often in contexts related to the foundation of the Church and eschatological hope. Theodoret cited 2 Peter 1:1 alongside Peter’s confession in Matthew 16:16 ("Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God") to affirm Christ’s divine sonship and His role as the Church’s foundation, connecting this to the unity of His natures. Chrysostom, in his Homily on Acts 15:13-15, referenced 2 Peter 1:1 indirectly through Peter’s authority, relating it to his leadership in the early Church and the inclusion of Gentiles, as prophesied by Peter. This underscored the apostolic testimony to Christ’s divinity. Additionally, apocryphal texts such as the Revelation of Esdras and the Apocalypse of Peter alluded to 2 Peter 1:1 in the context of the righteousness of believers and their eschatological hope, though often in a more indirect way. In the Revelation of Esdras, the verse is reflected in a vision about the afterlife form of the righteous, while the Apocalypse of Peter references the "like precious faith" and the hope held by Christ’s followers.

  Synthesizing the usage of these verses, we see that Titus 2:13 was consistently employed to affirm Christ’s deity—calling Him "the great God" to counter heresies such as Arianism and Marcionism—and to highlight the hope of His second coming, connecting Christian ethics and eschatological expectation. It was also a key support for the doctrine of the hypostatic union, emphasizing Christ’s dual nature as both God and man. 2 Peter 1:1, meanwhile, was used to reinforce Peter’s authoritative witness to Christ’s divinity and role as Savior, and to connect Christ’s righteousness to the faith of believers, especially in discussions about the Church’s foundation and the inclusion of Gentiles.

  The theological implications of these quotations by the church fathers reflect a unified stance on three key points. First, both verses were central to proving that Jesus is fully God and equal to the Father, especially in the face of heretical challenges. Second, Titus 2:13, in particular, was often linked to the doctrine of the Trinity, highlighting the Son’s unity with the Father and the Spirit in salvation history. Third, the "blessed hope" mentioned in Titus 2:13 underscored the anticipation of Christ’s return, a central theme in early Christian teaching.

  Finally, the KJV rendering necessarily introduces a second determiner in English because Early Modern English lacks a casus obliquus article that can govern two nouns simultaneously. Greek does possess such a device; the KJV translators tacitly decided that Peter intended distinct referents and so allocated the pronoun to the second noun. That is interpretive, not mechanically literal. Had they wished to reproduce the Greek construction, they could have written “of our God and Savior Jesus Christ,” as the Rheims–Douai did from the Latin Vulgate. This alternative reflects exegetical preference, not grammatical requirement.

  The KJV, completed in 1611, predates Sharp’s 1798 articulation of the TSKS rule and reflects a translational decision made without the benefit of his grammatical insight. In the Greek text, “tou theou hēmōn kai sōtēros Iēsou Christou” features a single article (“tou”) unifying “theou” and “sōtēros,” suggesting one referent—Jesus Christ as both God and Savior. The KJV’s separation of “God” and “our Saviour” introduces a second determiner in English, aligning with stylistic or theological preferences rather than the Greek syntax. The translators’ understanding, while historically significant, does not override the grammatical cohesion indicated by the TSKS construction. The contrast with 2 Peter 1:2—where “tou theou” and “Iēsou tou kyriou hēmōn” use separate articles to distinguish referents—further supports the unity in 1:1, a nuance the KJV obscures. Your defense of the KJV as a faithful translation of intent assumes a dual-referent meaning that the Greek structure does not necessitate, highlighting a reliance on later interpretive tradition rather than the original text’s syntax.

  In sum, your defense of a dual-referent reading depends on (i) treating a statistical default as a categorical prohibition, (ii) dismissing counter-evidence by restricting the corpus ad hoc, (iii) overlooking early witnesses that do take the clauses as unitary, and (iv) mistaking an English determiner for the Greek article. Until a genuine counter-example is produced—namely, an original Koine sentence whose single-article TSKS string of singular personal common nouns indubitably designates two persons—Sharp’s canon remains the only linguistic key that unlocks Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1. By that key Peter and Paul announce, in unison, that the one they worship is “Jesus Christ, our God and Savior.”

  Your objections fail to dismantle the application of Granville Sharp’s rule to 2 Peter 1:1 and Titus 2:13. The claim that ὁ θεός always refers to the Father in Peter and Paul overstates a convention into an inflexible rule, ignoring syntactic evidence like the TSKS construction and exceptions such as John 20:28. The appeal to John’s later dating and supposed consistency does not negate the flexibility of NT language or the grammatical clarity of Thomas’s confession. The absence of pre-Nicene citations supporting a single referent does not refute Sharp’s rule, which stands on linguistic grounds, while the KJV’s rendering reflects a translational choice, not a definitive rebuttal of the Greek syntax. Ultimately, your position rests on a semantic presupposition that overrides the text’s grammatical signals, whereas Sharp’s rule offers a robust, evidence-based interpretation affirming Jesus as “our God and Savior” in these passages.
• 
  59

  Should Jesus be worshipped?

  by Melody in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  can anyone explain why jesus should or should not be worshipped?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  aqwsed12345

  @Wonderment

  Your response insists that the existence of a broad range of non-traditional English translations of John 1:1c—many from Catholic and Protestant sources—discredits the argument for scholarly consensus behind the mainstream rendering. However, this claim misconstrues the very nature of scholarly consensus in biblical studies. The mere presence of alternative translations does not invalidate the overwhelming alignment of major critical scholars and standard reference works with the qualitative interpretation, nor does it demonstrate equivalence between mainstream academic translation and the often idiosyncratic choices of marginal or paraphrastic versions. To measure consensus by mere quantity or denominational label is methodologically unsound: scholarship is not advanced by counting versions, but by analyzing the linguistic, literary, and theological arguments undergirding translation choices. The mainstream rendering persists because it most faithfully reflects the grammatical, contextual, and theological data.

  he core issue of this debate revolves around the interpretation of the Greek text of John 1:1c and what it implies about the relationship between the Father and the Son. Specifically, the question is whether this verse:

  • Asserts an identity of quiddity (essential nature) between the Father and the Son,
  • Neither asserts nor denies such an identity, or
  • Explicitly negates it.

  To answer this, we must first examine whether the theological framework of the Gospel of John—and the NT as a whole—allows for the concept of a “lesser god” or reflects a form of monolatristic henotheism (the worship of one god while acknowledging the existence of others). The NT, including John’s Gospel, emerges from the context of Second Temple Judaism, a period marked by a strong commitment to monotheism. This is rooted in the Hebrew Scriptures, particularly in texts like Isaiah 43:10-11 and 44:6, where God declares, “Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me,” and “I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god.” These anti-henotheistic statements reject the idea of multiple gods or lesser divine beings sharing God’s nature or status.

  In this light, John 1:1c must be understood. The absence of the definite article before θεός has led some, like Arian apologists, to argue that the Logos (the Son) is a “lesser god” rather than fully divine in the same sense as the Father. However, the broader theological framework of the NT does not support this. There is no evidence of monolatristic henotheism—where multiple gods are acknowledged but only one is worshiped—in this framework.

  Arian apologists often cite Exodus 7:1 (“See, I have made you like God [elohim] to Pharaoh”) and Psalm 82:6 (“I said, ‘You are gods’”) to argue that the Bible permits the concept of lesser divine beings. However, these OT texts, written centuries earlier in Hebrew, do not align with the theological context of the Second Temple period, when the apostles lived and wrote. In Exodus 7:1 Moses is appointed as God’s representative, not a literal lesser deity. The term elohim is used functionally, not ontologically. Psalm 82 likely refers to human judges or heavenly beings (e.g., angels) under God’s authority, not independent gods. The Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible widely used in the apostolic era, reflects this shift. For instance, in Psalm 8:5 (8:6 in the LXX), elohim (“gods” or “heavenly beings”) is translated as aggeloi (“angels”), a choice echoed in Hebrews 2:7. This shows a deliberate move away from language that could suggest henotheism or multiple gods.

  By the time of the NT, such terminology had been “purged” or reinterpreted to align with strict monotheism. The apostles, operating in this milieu, show no precedent for reviving a henotheistic understanding of divine beings.

  The Greek text of John 1:1c asserts an identity of quiddity between the Father and the Son, affirming that the Word shares the same divine essence as God. The theological framework of John and the NT rejects the notion of a “lesser god” or monolatristic henotheism. While Arian apologists point to earlier texts like Exodus 7:1 and Psalm 82, these do not reflect the Second Temple context, where such ideas were reinterpreted or abandoned, as seen in the LXX and apostolic writings. There is no evidence from the apostolic era to support a henotheistic reading. Instead, John 1:1c stands as a clear declaration of the Son’s full divinity.

  The core issue lies in the anarthrous use of θεός in John 1:1c, which lacks the definite article ὁ ho, unlike τὸν θεόν in John 1:1b. You claim that my reliance on scholars like Daniel Wallace is misplaced, arguing that grammarians and translators diverge, with Wallace's work allegedly biased by theology, as admitted in his preface. However, this mischaracterizes Wallace's Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, which is an empirical study of Koine Greek syntax, not a theological treatise. Wallace concludes that pre-verbal anarthrous predicate nominatives, such as θεός here, are primarily qualitative, indicating the nature or essence of the subject, based on extensive analysis of NT and Septuagint data. His preface acknowledges scholarly disagreement, but this does not undermine his finding that such constructions are overwhelmingly qualitative, especially in theological contexts like John 1:1c.

  Your argument conflates the qualitative and indefinite readings of anarthrous predicate nouns, asserting that there is significant overlap and that this undercuts the distinction insisted on by Wallace, Harner, and Dixon. Yet this is a fundamental misunderstanding of their analysis. The central question is not whether some overlap exists in certain constructions (which all grammarians recognize), but which sense is required in the specific context of John 1:1c. The studies you reference are not trinitarian polemics, but careful examinations of Greek syntax across the NT and contemporaneous literature. Both Harner and Dixon, after exhaustive statistical studies, demonstrate that pre-copulative, anarthrous predicate nominatives are overwhelmingly qualitative in Johannine and broader Koine usage, especially in creedal or ontological statements. Wallace’s categories explicitly note that while indefiniteness is sometimes possible, in John 1:1c the qualitative sense is contextually and grammatically demanded by the literary context and by the structure of the Prologue. The diagram you allude to in Wallace (p. 269) is not an admission that the indefinite and qualitative readings are interchangeable, but a mapping of their possible intersections in Greek grammar, with context always remaining decisive.

  Your assertion that Trinitarians evade the indefinite sense for theological reasons, appealing to Colwell, Dixon, and Harner, ignores the linguistic rigor of these studies. Colwell's Rule states that definite predicate nominatives preceding the verb often lack the article, suggesting θεός can be definite or qualitative, not necessarily indefinite. Harner's study analyzed over 250 examples and found that the qualitative sense predominates, particularly in pre-verbal positions, with the indefinite sense rare and contextually excluded. Dixon's dissertation similarly supports this, noting that English translations may use an indefinite article for readability, but the Greek conveys essence. These conclusions are not theological fiat but empirical observations, accepted across confessional lines, including by non-Trinitarian linguists.

  Your claim that Wallace, Dixon, and Colwell are biased from the start, conducting studies to counter non-traditional readings, is unsubstantiated. Their work is peer-reviewed and grounded in syntactic patterns, not theological agendas. Wallace's diagrams show overlap between qualitative and indefinite senses in some contexts, but he explicitly states that in John 1:1c, the qualitative force is primary, given the context of the prologue distinguishing the Logos from “the God” (John 1:1b) while affirming its divine role (John 1:3-4). This overlap does not imply equivalence; rather, it acknowledges that English translation may require “a” for idiom, but the Greek remains qualitative.

  You cite the NWT's 1984 Appendix, listing anarthrous predicate nouns (e.g., Mark 6:49, “a spirit”; John 4:19, “a prophet”) where translators use an indefinite article, suggesting this supports “a god” in John 1:1c. However, this conflates translation choices with grammatical function and ignores contextual distinctions. In Mark 6:49, φάντασμα conveys a qualitative nature (“having the nature of a spirit”), not an indefinite class; John 4:19's προφήτης emphasizes Jesus's prophetic essence, with “a” added in English for readability, not because the Greek is indefinite. These examples differ from John 1:1c, where θεός is not a category noun but a term for the unique divine nature, introduced in a creedal prologue asserting the Logos's role as Creator (John 1:3) and intimate relation with “the God” (John 1:1b). The NWT's list illustrates translation variability, but it does not establish that an indefinite sense is grammatically or contextually appropriate for John 1:1c, where the qualitative interpretation—“the Word was fully God in nature”—aligns with the prologue's monotheistic framework.

  You challenge me to verify these occurrences using the Zondervan Greek-English Concordance, citing Acts 28:4 (“By all means murderer is the man this”) as an example where translators render it as “This man must be a murderer” (NIV), suggesting an indefinite-qualitative sense. However, this comparison is flawed. In Acts 28:4, the noun “murderer” (ἀνθρωποκτόνος) describes a category, and the context (the islanders' inference based on a snakebite) supports an indefinite reading (“a murderer among others”). In contrast, John 1:1c is a metaphysical statement about the Logos's essence, not a descriptive category, set within a prologue exalting its divine status. The NIV's “a murderer” reflects English idiom, not a rejection of qualitative force, and does not parallel John 1:1c, where the context demands a qualitative θεός.

  Hence, the examples you cite are not analogous to the use of θεός in John 1:1c. The use of the indefinite article there is natural and expected in English, given the idiom and the type of noun involved. By contrast, θεός in John 1:1c is a monadic, abstract noun situated in an ontological, not classificatory, assertion about the Word’s nature, immediately after the Word has been distinguished from the Father by the articular usage in 1:1b. Thus, the analogy fails: translating θεός ἦν ὁ λόγος as “the Word was a god” introduces an unwarranted category distinction, suggesting the existence of multiple gods, a meaning John’s monotheistic context does not allow.

  Your claim that translators often render pre-verbal anarthrous predicates with an indefinite article, contradicting Wallace and Dixon's rules, is overstated. Both scholars note that the indefinite sense is the least popular, but you dismiss this as a “Trinitarian play.” This ignores that translation practices reflect target-language needs, not a repudiation of Greek grammar. For instance, in John 4:19, Wallace describes the sense as “indefinite-qualitative,” meaning the Greek is qualitative, with “a” added in English for clarity, not because it is indefinite. Dixon admits English may require “a” for qualitative nouns, but this does not mean the Greek is indefinite; it reflects translation idiom, as seen in French translations like Segond (“Je vois que tu es prophète”) versus Darby (“Je vois que tu es un prophète”).

  You argue that “the Word was God” wrongly identifies the Word with God, failing to distinguish between the articular θεός (John 1:1b, “the God”) and the anarthrous θεός (John 1:1c), citing verse 2 to argue for a distinction between the invisible God and the Word. However, this misunderstands the Greek. The anarthrous θεός in 1:1c is qualitative, emphasizing shared essence, not identity of person. John 1:2 (“He was in the beginning with God”) reinforces this, maintaining the distinction in personhood (“with [the] God”) while affirming shared full divinity (“was God”).

  Hence, the absence of the article with θεός in 1:1c is precisely what signals qualitative predication: the Word is everything that God is by nature, but remains distinct in person from “the God” (ὁ θεός) whom he is with. This is the point of the syntactic construction. The traditional translation “the Word was God” is, in English idiom, the most effective way of conveying this qualitative identity—though not identity of person—without introducing the misleading implication of a lesser, subordinate, or additional deity. Alternative translations like “the Word was divine” or “what God was, the Word was” have been adopted by some, not to suggest a lesser being, but to clarify the qualitative force. None of these renderings support the indefinite, category-member sense that the NWT projects.

  Barclay, whom you cite, himself states: “John does not say that the Word was the God (ho theos); to have said that would have been to identify the Word with God. He says that the Word was theos—without the article—which means that the Word was, as we would say, of the very same character and quality and essence and being as God.” This is precisely the qualitative force articulated by Wallace, Harner, and the vast majority of critical scholars: not that the Word is “a secondary, lesser god,” but that the Word shares fully in the nature of God. The very distinction between the articular and anarthrous θεός in John 1:1 is not obliterated by the traditional translation; rather, it is the result of careful exegetical and grammatical analysis, as found in every major critical commentary.

  The assertion that English “the Word was God” is ambiguous or misleading is not supported by mainstream English usage, in which “God” functions both as a proper noun and as a title denoting divine nature. The context, especially when interpreted alongside the rest of the Prologue (John 1:3, 1:18, etc.), makes it clear that the Word is not identical with the Father in person but is fully and truly God in essence. The translation “the Word was God” reflects this distinction as well as the language allows, and any further clarification belongs in commentary, not in a distortion of the translation itself.

  You also claim that the NWT’s rendering is more faithful because it reflects the anarthrous nature of the Greek noun. But as demonstrated by every major Greek grammar, including those by non-Trinitarians and even secular scholars, anarthrous predicate nouns in this syntactic position are typically qualitative, not indefinite. The mere absence of the article does not imply indefiniteness; it is the context, especially in ontological and theological statements, that is determinative.

  Your invocation of a global plurality of English translations, some of which differ from the traditional rendering, does nothing to advance your argument. The overwhelming weight of scholarly authority—BDAG, Wallace, Harner, Dixon, Porter, Robertson, and every standard lexicon and grammar—aligns with the qualitative interpretation. The proliferation of alternative translations often arises from confessional bias or from a desire to clarify the qualitative sense for lay readers, not from grammatical necessity. Indeed, translations that opt for “divine” or “what God was, the Word was” do so out of concern for clarity, not because they accept the indefinite “a god.” Your examples, like the 1808 Improved Version (“and the Word was a god”) or Moffatt's 1924 translation (“the Logos was divine”), reflect minority views, often driven by theological agendas, not grammatical necessity. William Barclay clarifies that Jesus is of the same essence as God but distinct, supporting the qualitative interpretation.

  Finally, the very logic of your position leads to a form of henotheism or monolatry, in which more than one being can properly be called “god.” This is utterly foreign to the context of John’s Second-Temple Jewish monotheism, in which the Shema (Deut 6:4) remains the fundamental confession. The Prologue of John, from 1:1 to 1:18, affirms that the Word is not a creature, not a member of a class of gods, but the very source of all that exists (John 1:3), the light and life of men, the one who reveals the Father. Such predication cannot be made of a subordinate, lesser deity. It is the qualitative force that alone does justice to the context, the syntax, and the theology of the Gospel.

  In summary, your arguments—that my appeal to Wallace is misplaced, that qualitative and indefinite senses overlap, and that non-traditional translations undermine the traditional rendering—are refuted by the grammatical evidence, scholarly consensus, and theological context. Wallace, Harner, and Dixon support a qualitative θεός in John 1:1c, aligned with the monotheistic framework of John. The NWT's “a god” relies on a misreading of syntax and translation practice, while the Coptic and variant translations cited fail to overturn the consensus. Theology informs interpretation, but here it aligns with, rather than distorts, the linguistic data, affirming “the Word was God” as the most accurate rendering.

  Your argument fails on grammatical, contextual, and theological grounds. The consensus of critical scholarship, based on exhaustive studies of Greek grammar and NT usage, is that John 1:1c is best rendered with a qualitative sense—“the Word was God,” or, if further clarity is desired, “the Word was fully divine.” The indefinite “a god” is not supported by the syntactic construction, the context of the Prologue, the usage in the rest of the Gospel, or the monotheistic setting of the NT. The qualitative force affirms the unique and eternal deity of the Word, maintaining distinction of persons without division of essence. Any rendering that suggests otherwise is linguistically, historically, and theologically mistaken.
• 
  59

  Should Jesus be worshipped?

  by Melody in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  can anyone explain why jesus should or should not be worshipped?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  aqwsed12345

  @Wonderment

  Your attempt to separate the theoretical conclusions of grammarians like Wallace, Harner, and Dixon from the “real world practice” of translators misstates the issue. While it is certainly possible for translators to make theological choices, the overwhelming majority of modern, critical editions and major translations—across a wide range of confessions—do not render John 1:1c as “a god,” because the consensus of scholarship, including Wallace’s own detailed analysis, finds the qualitative force primary and contextually determinative. Wallace’s Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (1996) provides a rigorous analysis of Koine Greek, concluding that anarthrous pre-verbal predicate nominatives, like θεός in John 1:1c, are primarily qualitative, emphasizing the nature or essence of the subject (Wallace, p. 269). His acknowledgment that disagreement is possible reflects academic humility, not a lack of confidence in his findings.

  Your assertion that Trinitarians “evade” the indefinite sense for theological reasons oversimplifies the issue. Translation practice reflects target-language idiom, not a rejection of this principle. Scholars like Wallace, Philip Harner, and Paul Dixon base their qualitative interpretation on detailed grammatical and statistical analyses, not merely theological presuppositions. For instance, Harner’s study analyzed over 250 such constructions, finding that the qualitative force predominates, particularly in theological contexts like John 1:1c. Similarly, Dixon’s thesis found that 94% of pre-copulative anarthrous predicate nominatives in John’s Gospel are qualitative, not indefinite. These studies, grounded in empirical data, contradict your claim that Trinitarian scholars rely solely on credentials to “seal the matter.” These are not theological assertions but syntactic observations, widely accepted beyond Trinitarian circles.

  The listed verses in the NWT’s 1984 Appendix involve nouns describing roles or characteristics within creation (e.g., prophets, devils, thieves), which differ significantly from the theological weight of θεός in John 1:1c, where the Word is introduced as pre-existent and the creator of all things (John 1:3). For example, in John 4:19 (“you are a prophet”), the Samaritan woman identifies Jesus as a member of the class of prophets, a contextually appropriate indefinite rendering. In contrast, John 1:1c’s context—establishing the Word’s eternal relationship with God and role in creation—demands a qualitative interpretation, as θεός describes the divine nature, not membership in a class of gods. Dixon’s statistical analysis confirms this, showing that in John’s Gospel, pre-verbal anarthrous predicate nominatives are overwhelmingly qualitative (94%), not indefinite (17%). Your reliance on these verses ignores their distinct contextual and theological roles, rendering the comparison invalid.

  In Mark 6:49, φάντασμα conveys a qualitative nature, not an indefinite class; John 4:19’s προφήτης emphasizes Jesus’s prophetic essence. John 1:1c’s θεός, tied to the Logos’s divine role (John 1:3), differs fundamentally from these category nouns, supporting a qualitative, not indefinite, sense. The Coptic ou.noute in John 1:1c, which you cite as indefinite, is better understood qualitatively per scholars like Layton, especially given the definite article for the Son in John 1:18, undermining a lesser-deity reading.

  Hence, in all these instances, the nouns in question refer to categories (a kind of being among others), and the context does not carry the unique monotheistic and Christological weight that John 1:1 bears. Wallace and others do indeed acknowledge that, for ordinary nouns, English sometimes must supply an indefinite article for reasons of idiom and clarity. However, the context of John 1:1 is entirely different: θεός in the Prologue is not a category noun, but a monadic noun: a term for the unique divine nature; and the anarthrous construction is, as all studies show, overwhelmingly qualitative in pre-verbal predicate nominative position, especially when referring to persons already introduced as definite. The point is not a “theological dodge,” but a syntactic and semantic reality observed across Greek literature.

  Brian J. Wright and Tim Ricchuiti’s study in The Journal of Theological Studies (2011) demonstrates that the Coptic indefinite article (ou-) in John 1:1c conveys a qualitative sense, meaning “divine” or “of God’s nature,” rather than an indefinite sense implying a separate deity. Coptic scholars like Bentley Layton and Ariel Shisha-Halevy confirm that the indefinite article in Coptic often functions differently from English, frequently denoting quality or essence, especially with abstract nouns like noute (god). For instance, Layton notes that the Coptic structure can predicate either a quality (“is divine”) or an entity (“is a god”), with the reader deciding based on context, but in John 1:1c, the qualitative sense is more likely. Your claim that Trinitarians “cannot” admit "a god" ignores that the qualitative interpretation aligns with the Coptic’s intent, as seen in other passages like John 1:18, where the Son is rendered with a definite article (pnoute), reinforcing his divine status.

  The Sahidic indefinite article does not function identically to the English indefinite article, and frequently carries a qualitative rather than an indefinite sense, especially with abstract nouns or nouns denoting nature or essence. The fact that ou.noute (“a god”) can mean “divine” or “of the same nature as God” in Coptic is not only acknowledged by most Coptologists, but also recognized by those same Dallas Seminary scholars. The context of John 1:1c is not introducing an additional member of a class of “gods,” but characterizing the Logos as sharing the very nature of the one God. That the Coptic version sometimes renders the Greek anarthrous θεός with the indefinite article in other passages (including, at times, for the Father himself) only further demonstrates that it does not, in Coptic idiom, always indicate an indefinite or lesser being. The evidence you cite is therefore not only inconclusive, but actually undercuts the Watchtower’s position when fully examined. The Coptic translation thus undermines, rather than supports, the NWT’s henotheistic implication.

  Scholars like Harner, Dixon, and Wallace do not deny that an indefinite sense is grammatically possible in some contexts, but they argue that in John 1:1c, the qualitative sense is contextually demanded. Harner’s analysis shows that the structure θεός ἦν ὁ λόγος emphasizes the Word’s shared divine nature with God, avoiding both modalism (equating the Word with the Father) and polytheism (implying multiple gods). Your reference to J. Harold Greenlee’s axiom—that “nouns without the article are either indefinite or qualitative”—is itself incomplete, as it fails to note the relative probabilities and contextual constraints that grammar and discourse impose. The crucial question is not whether a qualitative or indefinite sense is possible in isolation, but which is required or best supported by the context.

  In John 1:1c, where the Logos has just been distinguished from “the God” (i.e., the Father) and is then described as θεός in a creedal, ontological statement about his nature, the qualitative reading is not only grammatically probable, but contextually demanded. This is why virtually every major scholarly translation, including those by non-Trinitarians, have abandoned the indefinite “a god” rendering, in favor of “the Word was God,” “the Word was divine,” or “what God was, the Word was”—all of which preserve the qualitative sense without polytheistic or subordinationist implications. In John 1:1c, the context of the prologue, which establishes the Word’s pre-existence and role as creator (John 1:3), precludes an indefinite rendering, as it would introduce a secondary deity, contradicting biblical monotheism (e.g., Deuteronomy 32:39, Isaiah 44:6). The NWT’s list, while showing instances where indefinite articles are used, does not address the unique theological context of John 1:1c, where θεός carries a monotheistic weight absent in terms like “prophet” or “devil.”

  Wallace and Dixon acknowledge that English translations may use an indefinite article to convey a qualitative sense due to idiomatic constraints, but this does not mean the Greek noun is indefinite. For instance, in John 4:19, “prophetes” is qualitative, describing Jesus’ prophetic nature, but the indefinite article is used in English for clarity, not to denote a generic class member. Similarly, in John 6:70, διάβολος (devil) is qualitative, emphasizing Judas’ devilish character, not his membership in a class of devils. In John 8:44, “man-killer” (ἀνθρωποκτόνος) is qualitative, describing the devil’s nature, not an indefinite instance. Your claim that Hanna’s acceptance of an indefinite article in John 8:44 but rejection in John 1:1c shows theological bias ignores the contextual differences. John 1:1c’s theological weight—introducing the Word’s divine role—demands a rendering that reflects its monotheistic context, unlike the descriptive roles in the cited verses. Wallace means the Greek is qualitative, with “a” added in English for clarity, not that indefiniteness is equally valid. Dixon’s point reinforces this. In John 6:70 and 8:44, διάβολος and ἀνθρωποκτόνος are qualitative, with English “a” reflecting idiom, not grammar. John 1:1c’s context—a creedal statement—demands a qualitative θεός, not “a god,” which clashes with John’s monotheism (John 10:30). Greenlee’s axiom that anarthrous nouns are indefinite or qualitative requires contextual adjudication; here, qualitative prevails.

  The tally of non-traditional English versions you cite is, in fact, misleading and irrelevant to the question of grammatical correctness or theological coherence. Many such renderings arise from obscure, paraphrastic, or idiosyncratic translations, often outside the mainstream of linguistic or theological scholarship. The standard academic authorities in Koine Greek and biblical translation (including BDAG, Liddell-Scott, Wallace, Harner, Porter, and others) support the qualitative interpretation. The French translations (e.g., Segond’s “tu es prophète” vs. Darby’s “tu es un prophète”) illustrate that language-specific idioms vary, but the Greek remains qualitative, not indefinite.

  While it’s true that some translations deviate from “the Word was God,” many, like “the Word was divine,” aim to capture the qualitative sense of θεός, not to support the NWT’s implication of a lesser deity. The scholarly consensus, as seen in standard translations (e.g., NIV, ESV, NASB) and works by Metzger, Bruce, and Mantey, overwhelmingly favors the qualitative interpretation, aligning with “the Word was God.” Your estimate of 500 English Bible versions with one in ten deviating is speculative and lacks citation, but even if accurate, it represents a minority view often driven by theological agendas, as with the NWT. The majority of mainstream translations and scholars reject “a god” due to its polytheistic implications, which conflict with John’s monotheistic theology.

  Finally, your citation of John 20:31 (“that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God”) does not advance your case. Nowhere does this statement imply that Jesus is not fully divine; rather, in Johannine theology, the unique Sonship of Christ is itself a claim to full participation in the Father’s nature (see John 5:18; 10:30–33; 14:9–11; 17:5, 21–24). The Prologue’s explicit affirmation of the Logos as the Creator of all things, the possessor of life, and the one in the closest relationship with the Father (John 1:3–4, 18) all make sense only if the Word is not a lesser “god,” but is fully, qualitatively divine. In John’s Gospel, "Son of God" is not a subordinate title but a claim to divine equality, as seen in John 5:18, where Jesus’ claim to be God’s Son prompts accusations of making himself equal with God, and John 10:33, where his divine claims lead to charges of blasphemy. John 20:28, where Thomas calls Jesus “my Lord and my God,” serves as the Gospel’s climactic affirmation of Jesus’ deity, directly linking to John 1:1c. The purpose of John’s Gospel is to affirm Jesus as the divine Messiah, not a lesser god, making the NWT’s rendering inconsistent with the text’s intent.

  Your claim that Trinitarian translations are driven by theology while the NWT aligns with linguistic data is a false dichotomy. All translations involve theological considerations, but the NWT’s “a god” is explicitly shaped by Arian theology, which denies Jesus’ full divinity. The traditional translation, supported by scholars like Wallace, Harner, and Dixon, balances grammar and theology, aligning with the monotheistic framework of the New Testament. Your suggestion of monolatristic henotheism—where one God is worshipped among others—is untenable, as John’s Gospel, rooted in Jewish monotheism (Deuteronomy 6:4), rejects any notion of multiple gods. The qualitative interpretation of θεός in John 1:1c affirms the Word’s full divinity while maintaining personal distinction from the Father, as articulated in Trinitarian theology and early Christian creeds like the Nicene Creed.

  The use of nomina sacra in ancient manuscripts further undermines the NWT’s rendering. In texts like Papyrus 46, θεός and κύριος (Lord) are abbreviated as nomina sacra (e.g., ΘΣ, ΚΣ) when referring to both the Father and the Son, indicating their equal divine status. In John 1:1c, θεός is consistently treated as a nomen sacrum, suggesting that early Christians viewed the Word as fully divine, not a lesser god. This practice, evident in the earliest manuscripts, contradicts your claim that the indefinite rendering was normative.

  Your defense of the NWT’s “and the Word was a god” is grammatically and contextually unsustainable. The qualitative interpretation of θεός in John 1:1c, supported by Harner, Dixon, Wallace, and others, aligns with the Greek syntax, Johannine theology, and early Christian tradition. The NWT’s rendering introduces polytheism, contradicts monotheistic principles, and lacks consistent application across similar constructions. The Coptic translation, when properly understood, supports the qualitative sense, not the indefinite.

  In sum, the case for rendering John 1:1c as “a god” is both grammatically and contextually weak, and has been repeatedly refuted by the best scholarship in the field. The consensus, based on detailed analysis of Greek grammar, context, and theological coherence, is that the anarthrous θεός in John 1:1c is qualitative: it asserts the full, essential divinity of the Logos, not his membership in a class of lesser deities. To claim otherwise is not only to misunderstand the syntax, but to sever the Prologue from its deeply Jewish monotheistic context and its place in the development of Christian doctrine. The scholarly consensus, historical evidence, and textual data overwhelmingly favor the traditional translation, as the most accurate reflection of John’s intent.

  Thus, the traditional rendering—“the Word was God”—remains the most accurate, both grammatically and theologically.
• 
  30

  2 Peter 1: 1 Corruption in the NWT

  by Sea Breeze in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  here's how this verse should read: simeon peter, a servant and apostle of jesus christ, to those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our god and savior jesus christ: - 2 peter 1: 1. here's how watchtower prints this verse:.

  simon peter, a slave and an apostle of jesus christ, to those who have acquired a faith as precious as ours through the righteousness of our god and the savior jesus christ: - nwt.

  why did watchtower change this verse by adding the word "the" ?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  aqwsed12345

  @Earnest

  The premise that every occurrence of ὁ θεός in the Petrine–Pauline corpus “must” denote the Father, and that this purported distribution automatically overrides local syntax, cannot be sustained once the mechanics of Greek reference are placed at the center of the discussion. This claim presupposes a rigid semantic rule that ignores the flexibility of Koine Greek syntax and the broader context of early Christian theology. Ὁ θεός is indeed the habitual honorific for the Father, just as ὁ κύριος is the habitual honorific for the Son; that habitual pairing—what later theologians call appropriatio—does not, however, license the erasure of the explicit grammatical signals an author employs when he chooses to depart from habit. Languages work precisely because speakers can innovate against a background of convention, and the innovation is recognized by those who share the code not by tallying previous frequencies but by attending to the formal cues that mark the new usage. In Koine prose the decisive cue is article distribution. A single article placed before two singular, personal, common nouns linked by καί fuses the two into one determiner phrase; repetition of the article disjoins them. Peter demonstrably exploits that contrast within two consecutive lines of his salutation: τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (1:1) versus τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν (1:2). To insist that verse 1 must mirror verse 2 in meaning because verse 2 mirrors the OT distribution of titles is to elevate pragmatic expectation above the morpho-syntactic signal that Greek readers used to decode reference.

  While it is true that ὁ θεός frequently designates the Father in NT usage, this is not an absolute rule but a convention reflecting relational distinctions within the Trinity, as understood through the lens of Trinitarian appropriation. According to established NT terminology, ὁ θεός is generally the standard designation for the Father, ὁ κύριος for the Son, and τὸ πνεῦμα for the Holy Spirit. However, this ascription does not imply exclusivity or ontological limitation; rather, it highlights roles within the Godhead while affirming that all three persons—Father, Son, and Spirit—share the divine essence (θεότης). The word “God” (θεός) operates in three senses: as a designation for the Father (appropriatio), as a reference to the entire Trinity (the divine essence), and as a qualitative descriptor of divinity/deity (quiddity). These senses coexist without contradiction, meaning that the predominant use of ὁ θεός for the Father does not preclude its application to the Son in specific contexts.

  Sharp’s rule is not a prescriptive theological imposition but a descriptive analysis of Koine Greek syntax, specifically the TSKS construction (article-substantive-καί-substantive). When a single article governs two singular, personal, common nouns joined by καί, such as “our God and Savior” (τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος) in 2 Peter 1:1, the construction consistently indicates a single referent in original Greek prose. This is not a modern invention but a reflection of linguistic patterns inherent in the language of the NT. Your example of Philippians 3:19, where “their god” (ὁ θεὸς αὐτῶν) clearly refers to a non-divine entity, is irrelevant to Sharp’s rule, as it involves neither a TSKS construction nor a pairing of singular, personal, common nouns under a single article. By contrast, in 2 Peter 1:1, the single article τοῦ unifies “God” (θεοῦ) and “Savior” (σωτῆρος), followed by the appositive “Jesus Christ” (Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ), grammatically identifying one individual. Your assertion thus rests on a semantic assumption—that ὁ θεός “must always” mean the Father—rather than a syntactic analysis, which is the proper domain of Sharp’s rule. Moreover, John 20:28 directly contradicts this claim: Thomas addresses Jesus as “my Lord and my God” (ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου), using ὁ θεός explicitly for the Son. The grammar, with possessive pronouns and the verb “he said to Him” (εἶπεν αὐτῷ), leaves no doubt that this is directed at Jesus, affirming His deity, and demonstrating that ὁ θεός is not exclusively the Father’s title.

  Nor does the appeal to the KJV rescue the dual-referent reading. The 1611 translators worked two centuries before the Greek article had been subjected to comprehensive analysis; they freely acknowledged in the preface that their renderings were constrained by idiom and by the state of scholarship then available. Their decision to insert a second determiner (“and our Savior”) was an interpretive gloss, not an exegetical trump card; the fact that Sharp’s observation lay in the future only explains why they did not profit from it, not why later generations must ignore it. If appeal to earliest reception is intended to carry weight, the burden rests on the objector to cite a single pre-Nicene author who quotes 2 Peter 1:1 or Titus 2:13 with the understanding that two persons are in view.

  The KJV, completed in 1611, predates Sharp’s 1798 articulation of the rule, so its translators lacked his specific grammatical insight. However, this does not mean the original Greek text or its first-century readers were unbound by the syntactic conventions Sharp later identified. Koine Greek speakers intuitively grasped their language’s rules, much as modern English speakers understand grammar without formal codification. The TSKS construction’s implication of a single referent was a natural feature of the language, not a discovery dependent on Sharp’s eighteenth-century work. The KJV’s rendering reflects a translational choice, possibly influenced by theological caution or stylistic preference, not a rejection of the Greek syntax. Notably, the very next verse, 2 Peter 1:2, uses separate articles—“of God and of Jesus our Lord” (τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν)—to distinguish two referents, a contrast that reinforces the intentional unity in 1:1. Your implication that the KJV’s phrasing disproves Sharp’s rule ignores this contextual evidence and the extensive corpus analysis—spanning biblical and extra-biblical Greek texts, including papyri and inscriptions—that supports the rule’s consistency. No counterexample within Sharp’s parameters (singular, personal, common nouns under a single article) has been found to refute it, undermining the claim that it is inapplicable to the original text.

  The assertion that “we have no idea” how first-century Christians would have read the construction is simply incorrect. We possess thousands of non-Christian papyri, ostraca and inscriptions whose authors were native users of the same language. In that material, every example of a single-article TSKS construction with singular, personal, common nouns—legal formulas, dedicatory stelae, private letters—refers to one individual. The epistolary habit of Hellenistic administrators mirrors the practice found in 2 Peter and Titus: when a magistrate is styled ὁ ἡγεμών καὶ κριτής the two titles designate the same office-holder; when two persons are meant the article is repeated. Statistical universality is not claimed for languages in the abstract, but the absence of a counter-instance in the surviving corpus is the strongest kind of empirical argument historical linguistics can supply.

  The suggestion that recognizing Christ as the sole referent in these verses is an act of “arrogance” rests on a misunderstanding of what grammatical description accomplishes. Sharp’s canon does not decree how the Bible must be translated; it reports how Koine authors actually wrote. If a modern interpreter declines to reproduce the cohesion signaled by the single article, the onus is on him to show—within Koine, not within later doctrinal preference—why Peter and Paul would have violated a convention they uniformly observe elsewhere. No such demonstration has been offered. Invoking a theological axiom that “God = Father” collapses the moment John places Thomas’s confession ὁ θεός μου in the mouth of a disciple addressing the risen Jesus, or when Paul quotes Joel’s ἐπικαλεῖσθαι τὸ ὄνομα κυρίου and applies the text to Christ. The NT’s own usage therefore warns us that distributional patterns are not hermetically sealed.

  While direct access to ancient readers’ minds is impossible, we can reconstruct their likely understanding through linguistic analysis of the texts they received. Your skepticism dismisses the tools of historical linguistics and exegesis, which reveal consistent patterns like the TSKS construction. Sharp’s rule is not an anachronistic overlay but a distillation of how Koine Greek functions, as evidenced by its uniform application across diverse sources. The claim that not everyone understood these texts identically is trivially true but irrelevant; interpretation varies across time and communities, yet this does not negate the objective grammatical structure of the original language. Insisting on translations that reflect this structure, as Sharp’s rule does, is not arrogance but fidelity to the text’s syntax over subjective theological preferences. Your position, by contrast, privileges a preconceived notion—that “the God” must “always” be the Father—over the evidence of the Greek, effectively imposing an Arian framework that assumes Jesus cannot be ὁ θεός. This is circular reasoning: it assumes the conclusion (Jesus is not divine in the same sense as the Father) to argue against a grammatical rule that challenges that conclusion.

  Trinitarian appropriation provides further clarity here. The convention of using ὁ θεός for the Father reflects His role as the source (ἀρχή) within the Godhead, while ὁ κύριος emphasizes the Son’s redemptive mission. Yet, these are relational distinctions, not ontological divisions. The Son’s deity is clearly affirmed in passages like John 1:1, where “the Word was God” (θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος) uses the anarthrous θεός to denote His divine essence (quiddity), distinct from but consubstantial with the Father (πρὸς τὸν θεόν). In John 20:28, ὁ θεός explicitly applies to Jesus, showing that the NT occasionally extends this title to the Son to affirm His full deity. Thus, in 2 Peter 1:1, the phrase “our God and Savior Jesus Christ” (τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ) does not contradict the norm of ὁ θεός referring to the Father; it leverages the TSKS construction to make a deliberate Christological statement, consistent with the flexibility of early Christian language. Your refusal to allow this possibility—dismissing it because of a supposed universal rule—overlooks both the syntactic evidence and the theological context, effectively rewriting the text to fit a dual-referent interpretation unsupported by the grammar.

  Sharp’s observation stands unrefuted: in original Greek prose a single article modifying two singular, personal, common nouns linked by καί makes the nouns co-referential. Until an undisputed counter-example is produced, 2 Peter 1:1 and Titus 2:13 remain standard instances of the construction, and the burden of proof lies with any translator who parts the titles that the inspired authors deliberately bound together.

  In conclusion, your objections fail to undermine the application of Sharp’s rule to 2 Peter 1:1. The claim that the term “the God” allegedly “always” refers to the Father is an overgeneralization that ignores exceptions like John 20:28 and the syntactic unity of the TSKS construction. The appeal to the KJV’s translation sidesteps the original Greek’s implications, which first-century readers would have understood through their native linguistic competence. Finally, the charge of arrogance in adhering to Sharp’s rule mischaracterizes a method grounded in rigorous linguistic analysis, not theological bias. The rule stands as a reliable guide to the text’s meaning, affirming that Jesus Christ is identified as “our God and Savior,” a reading that aligns with both the grammar and the NT’s broader witness to His deity.
• 
  59

  Should Jesus be worshipped?

  by Melody in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  can anyone explain why jesus should or should not be worshipped?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  aqwsed12345

  @Wonderment

  Your response mischaracterizes both my original argument and the state of scholarly discussion concerning the semantics of anarthrous predicate nominatives in Koine Greek. While it is true that Daniel Wallace and others have recognized that the distinction between qualitative and indefinite force can, at times, be subtle or even ambiguous in certain contexts, it is a category mistake to extrapolate from the mere possibility of ambiguity to the assertion that the two functions are equally likely, or that the context of John 1:1c (or the patristic texts under discussion) is genuinely ambiguous between these readings.

  Wallace's own extensive research into anarthrous predicate nominatives explicitly concludes that in the majority of pre-verbal predicate nominative constructions, particularly those referring to persons or entities already thematically salient in the discourse, the qualitative force is primary. This is not a mere theological assumption but a result of detailed grammatical and syntactic analysis. For example, Wallace writes: "An anarthrous predicate nominative preceding the verb is primarily qualitative in meaning, indicating the nature or essence of the subject" (Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, p. 269). While Wallace acknowledges occasional difficulty in distinguishing the two, he does not claim that the indefinite is always possible, nor that it is linguistically neutral or equally valid in every context.

  Turning to your demand for a statistical breakdown, numerous studies have been undertaken (including those by Philip Harner, Colwell, and Dixon) cataloging pre-verbal anarthrous predicate nominatives in both the NT and the Septuagint. These studies overwhelmingly show that the qualitative interpretation predominates, especially in theological and soteriological contexts. For instance, in Harner's well-known analysis, the majority of such predicates (including θεός in John 1:1c) are best understood as qualitative, highlighting the nature or essence of the subject, not its membership in a broader class or its indefiniteness.

  This is not a "theological evasion" but the consensus of Greek linguistics as applied to the Johannine Prologue. The context of John 1:1 explicitly sets up a distinction in personhood between the Logos and the Father ("the Word was with [the] God"), and then asserts the nature of the Logos ("the Word was God" in essence). The lack of the article in θεός is grammatically required by the predicate position and the rules of Greek syntax (Colwell's Rule), and in this context, an indefinite reading ("a god") is both contextually and theologically improbable. To read it as indefinite in this context is to ignore not only the grammar but the entire theological and literary context of the Prologue, which asserts the Logos' unique role as Creator and source of life and light (John 1:3-4), titles and attributes elsewhere reserved for YHWH alone in Jewish monotheism.

  Moreover, your insistence that Trinitarian scholars "tend to evade" the indefinite sense ignores the broader spectrum of scholarly opinion, which is not confined to confessional bias. Even non-Trinitarian grammarians and those outside theological circles acknowledge that the grammar and context support the qualitative sense in John 1:1c. The very fact that the definite reading is rejected by most serious scholars (precisely because the article is missing) further demonstrates the careful distinctions made by competent grammarians.

  In summary, your appeal to Wallace is misplaced: his work, and that of other scholars in the field, supports the view that the anarthrous θεός in John 1:1c is best understood qualitatively, not indefinitely. The text is not asserting that the Logos is "a god" among many, but that the Logos shares the very nature or essence of God, while remaining distinct in person from the Father. The burden of proof rests on those who wish to claim that John is teaching either polytheism or a subordinate ontological status for the Logos. The linguistic, literary, and theological evidence all support the qualitative interpretation as both contextually and grammatically correct.

  ---

  @Earnest

  Your response concedes a critical point but then subtly attempts to relativize the implications of the anarthrous θεός in both the NT and patristic literature by appealing to a generic distinction between “God” and “divine.” However, this move fundamentally misunderstands both the function of θεός in these theological contexts and the settled intentions of the Church Fathers. The essence of the issue is not merely semantic, as if the difference between “God,” “a god,” and “divine” were a matter of translation preference; rather, it is ontological and theological—rooted in the very heart of Christian confession.

  First, while it is certainly true that “context determines meaning,” it does not follow that θεός, when used anarthrously, is best rendered “divine” in an abstract, adjectival sense, or that it is ever left so vague as to support either subordinationism or a merely qualitative reading void of true divinity. When the Church Fathers—and especially Clement—speak of man “becoming θεός,” they are employing the language of theosis, which, as I noted, is participatory and relational, never essential or rivalrous. The context, therefore, does not point to an “abstract divinity,” nor to a second deity, but to a real, though always derivative, participation in the divine life. This is precisely why the Church Fathers can speak so freely of deification without lapsing into polytheism or undermining the Creator-creature distinction: the divine nature remains absolutely simple, unique, and unshared as to its essence (ousia), even as it is communicated by grace and adoption to rational creatures.

  This dynamic is central to both Nicene and pre-Nicene theology, and it stands in stark contrast to Arian readings that imagine a spectrum or hierarchy of divinity, wherein some are “gods” by lesser, contingent, or subordinate essence. The very reason the Church Fathers distinguish between ὁ θεός and anarthrous θεός is not to imply separate grades of deity, but rather to guard against both polytheism and modalism. In the case of John 1:1c, as demonstrated by Colwell, Harner, and a long line of grammatical and patristic authorities, the predicate θεός—though anarthrous—bears qualitative force, asserting that the Logos possesses the very nature of God, not that he is a lesser or different kind of divine being. To suggest that the Word is merely “divine” in the sense of possessing godlike qualities, rather than being true God from true God, is to reintroduce precisely the ontological subordination that the Church condemned at Nicaea.

  Furthermore, your suggestion that the “distinction between θεός and ὁ θεός” is simply a matter of clarification in usage overlooks the specific theological grammar of both Scripture and the Fathers. When θεός is applied to the Father with the article, it typically marks him as the arche, the personal source within the Trinity; when applied to the Son or Spirit without the article, it affirms their full participation in the divine essence without confusion of persons. Nowhere do the Fathers, Clement included, suggest that Christ is divine merely by courtesy or predication, nor that Christians are “divine” in any naturalistic or pantheistic sense. The entire point is that theosis is by grace, the Son’s divinity is by nature, and the difference is always maintained.

  In summary, your appeal to a generic “divinity” as the solution to the problem of θεός and ὁ θεός in patristic and biblical texts elides the crucial distinctions affirmed by the Christian tradition. The Church Fathers’ precision in their use of θεός serves not to support the possibility of subordinate or lesser deities, but rather to articulate the mystery of the Trinity and the uniqueness of Christian monotheism: one God in three Persons, and one economy of salvation by which man is made “god by participation, not by nature.” Any exegesis or translation that attempts to dilute this distinction—by rendering the Logos as “a god” or by reducing Christian theosis to an abstract “divinity”—inevitably fails to account for both the grammar and the substance of Christian confession. The distinction between θεός and ὁ θεός is not a Trojan horse for Arianism, but a necessary instrument for safeguarding the paradox of unity and distinction at the heart of Christian faith.
• 
  59

  Should Jesus be worshipped?

  by Melody in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  can anyone explain why jesus should or should not be worshipped?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  aqwsed12345

  @slimboyfat

  The claim that “the scholarly consensus” reads Justin Martyr as advancing a henotheistic and Arian theology of two ontologically unequal gods is, at best, an oversimplification of a far more variegated field of interpretation and, at worst, a misrepresentation of what mainstream patristic scholarship actually says about Justin’s Christology. It is certainly true that many historians detect in Justin a real order—or taxis—within the Godhead, expressed in the language of begetting, sending, and functional differentiation, but order is not equivalent to ontological inequality. When the primary texts, the semantic range of Justin’s Greek, and the wider second-century intellectual milieu are considered together, the evidence supports a reading in which Justin is grappling toward a doctrine of personal distinction and shared divinity that would later be formalized at Nicaea, not erecting a hierarchy of two discrete deities.

  A preliminary point concerns the supposed scholarly “consensus.” No responsible survey of the literature can ignore the fact that patristic specialists remain divided. The late J. N. D. Kelly, in a work still standard for the undergraduate classroom, speaks of Justin’s “high Logos-Christology” and remarks that the Apologist “had no intention whatever of whittling down the status of the Word; He was, for Justin, God in the full sense.” Denis Minns writes that Justin’s description of the Logos as “another God” must be read in the context of his desire to preserve both distinction and unity, concluding that “Justin’s insistence that Christians adore the Son with latreia commits him to the Son’s full deity.” Thomas Nielsen and Sara Parvis alike stress the incompatibility of Justin’s statements about worship with any real ontological subordination. Even Larry Hurtado, whose emphasis on “binitarian” cultic devotion sometimes leads to stronger language of distinction, grants that Justin places Christ “on the divine side of reality.” By contrast, those who place Justin on the path to Arianism rest their case largely on isolated phrases—“another God,” “subject to the Maker”—without integrating those phrases into Justin’s larger exegetical and polemical project. The very plurality of assessments shows that there is no monolithic consensus; one finds instead a spectrum ranging from moderate “subordinationism” (in the sense of taxis) to frank anticipation of Nicene homoousios.

  Scholar/Source	View on Justin’s Theology	Key Points
  Michael F. Bird (Jesus among the Gods)	Proto-Trinitarian	Justin’s high Christology and triadic Godhead (Father, Son, Spirit) reflect early Trinitarian concepts, though not in Nicene terms. Rejects accusations of retrojecting Nicene theology.
  D.T. Sheffler (Justin Martyr on the Trinity)	Proto-Trinitarian	Justin’s theology contains the basic outlines of Trinitarian doctrine, with the Son as fully divine, distinct in person, and sharing the Father’s essence.
  Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Trinity > History of Trinitarian Doctrines)	Subordinationist	Justin’s triad is hierarchical, with the Father as the primary God and the Son and Spirit as subordinate. Not properly Trinitarian, but influenced by Middle Platonism.
  Diels, Hillar, Maspero (cited in video)	Subordinationist	Justin’s Logos is a diminished divinity, a second god necessitated by divine transcendence, aligning with Middle Platonic philosophy.
  J.N.D. Kelly (Early Christian Doctrines)	Proto-Trinitarian	Justin’s theology, while using subordinationist language, affirms the Son’s eternal pre-existence and shared essence, laying groundwork for Nicene orthodoxy.

  Much of the disagreement turns on Greek grammar and the semantics of θεός. Dan McClellan’s appeal to an allegedly rigid article rule (“ὁ θεός = the God, θεός = a god”) has been repeatedly discredited in classical scholarship since the work of Colwell and Harner. An anarthrous predicate nominative preceding the verb, as in John 1:1c, is most naturally read as qualitative, not indefinite; this is the position embodied in every major critical commentary of the past fifty years. Justin’s usage conforms to the same syntactical conventions. He can refer to the Logos as θεός without the article precisely because he wishes to highlight the qualitative sense—the Logos is God by nature—while maintaining personal reference to the Father as ὁ θεός. Nowhere does Justin say that the Logos is “a lesser god,” nor does he ascribe to Him any attributes of contingency or createdness. On the contrary, he insists that the Logos was “begotten before all creatures” and “was in the beginning with the Father,” echoing the prologue of John in language that would later be sharpened into ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ Πατρός.

  Justin’s most subordination-sounding claim is that the Logos is “ἕτερος θεὸς καὶ κύριος ὑπὸ τὸν ποιητὴν τῶν ὅλων” (Dial. 56). Two contextual remarks are essential. First, the dialogue partner is Trypho, a Jew alert to any whiff of ditheism. Justin’s rhetorical strategy is to show, from the Hebrew Scriptures, that a personal plurality has always been latent in Israel’s God. The phrase ἕτερος θεός corresponds to the “second power” traditions documented in contemporaneous Jewish sources; it is a polemical bridge, not a metaphysical diminution. Second, Justin immediately adds that this other divine person is distinct “in number, not in mind” (οὐ γνώμῃ), thereby invoking the ancient philosophical topos of harmony in one nous—precisely the point later secured in the doctrine of one will (μία γνώμη/θέλησις) in the Trinity. “Subject to” (ὑποτασσόμενος or ὑπὸ) marks personal origin, filial obedience and mission, not a difference of essence; Justin’s fire-from-fire analogy explicitly disallows any partition or diminution of the Father’s substance. Such analogies recur in Athanasius and the Cappadocians because they embody the same logic the Nicenes would sharpen: generation without division.

  It is also critical to notice Justin’s liturgical claims. In Apol. 13 and 63 he states that Christians offer “λόγῳ καὶ ἀληθείᾳ προσκυνοῦντες” the Father, the Son, and the prophetic Spirit. The very Greek verb he chooses, προσκυνέω, denotes the full cultic worship which—especially in a post-Maccabean Jewish context—cannot be given to any being less than fully God. That Justin feels no hesitation in ascribing such worship to the Logos indicates that, whatever schematic ordering he accepts, he does not consider the Logos a creature. This single datum is lethal to any reading that would align Justin with Arius, who made the worship of Christ a stumbling-block.

  Finally, Justin’s theology cannot be severed from its biblical moorings. His exegesis of Genesis 18–19, Exodus 3, Psalm 45 and 110, and Proverbs 8 is aimed at demonstrating that the One whom Scripture calls both God and “Angel” is none other than the pre-existent Logos. The hermeneutical move is not philosophical but revelatory: it arises from the conviction that the Old Testament itself attests a plurality of persons who yet bear the divine Name. That hermeneutic, not Middle Platonism, furnishes Justin’s governing categories. While he certainly borrows the language of λόγος and ἰδέα from contemporary philosophy, he radically reshapes those terms to fit the pattern of biblical revelation. Modern scholarship (e.g., the recent monographs by Daniel Boyarin, Matthew Bates, and Benjamin Sommer) has shown that Justin’s move coheres with Second Temple currents, reinforcing the view that his theology is an outgrowth of the apostolic proclamation, not an import from Greek metaphysics.

  In sum, the portrait of Justin as a sub-Nicene heretic rests on selective quotation, outdated grammatical arguments and an under-appreciation of his scriptural exegesis and liturgical evidence. The trajectory from Justin to Nicaea is one of refinement, not reversal: the elements are already present—pre-existence, generation without division, triadic worship, personal distinction within one divine mind—and the fourth-century debates will supply the technical lexicon to secure those elements against rival constructions. To call this continuity a “retrojection” is to confuse terminological development with doctrinal invention. Justin’s Logos is not a “second god” in the Arian sense, but God from God, light from light, eternally begotten, worthy of the same worship Christians give the Father, and thereby an unmistakable precursor of Nicene faith.
• 
  59

  Should Jesus be worshipped?

  by Melody in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  can anyone explain why jesus should or should not be worshipped?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  aqwsed12345

  @slimboyfat

  Your response seeks to drive a wedge between Justin Martyr’s second-century Logos theology and Nicene Trinitarianism by positing that Justin distinguishes between “the God” (ho theos, the Father) and “a god” (theos, the Logos/Son) in a way that constitutes real ontological subordination—a second, lesser deity. This reading is asserted to be based on explicit linguistic and philosophical distinctions in Justin’s text, allegedly corroborated by the scholarly consensus and the supposed absence of Nicene metaphysics in Justin’s era. Such a reconstruction, however, misreads both the language and the intent of Justin’s thought, as well as the actual nature of theological development in early Christianity.

  First, the insistence that the absence of the article before theos (θεός) in Greek signals ontological inferiority or a “lesser god” status—whether in the New Testament or in Justin’s writings—rests on a fundamental grammatical fallacy. As repeatedly demonstrated in contemporary Greek grammar and patristic scholarship, the presence or absence of the article in Koine Greek has multiple possible functions: it can mark definiteness, but it can also serve to indicate the qualitative aspect of the noun, as in John 1:1c (“καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος”), where the absence of the article before theos is best read as signifying that the Logos possesses the very nature of God, not that the Logos is merely “a god.” To treat every anarthrous occurrence of theos as a pointer to ontological subordination is simply ungrammatical, and is flatly contradicted by the usage of Greek authors themselves, both biblical and patristic. In Greek, the article’s presence or absence can shift meaning, but it’s not a rigid rule that "theos" without the article means "a god" in a subordinate sense. Context determines the intent. Justin’s use of "another God" reflects a distinction in personhood, not a diminishment of divinity. His consistent emphasis on the Logos being "begotten" and sharing the Father’s will and essence undermines the idea of a "second subordinate god" as a separate, lesser being.

  The claim that Justin Martyr (and others) explicitly distinguishes "the God" from "a god" to mean a "second subordinate god" oversimplifies their theology. Justin’s writings show a nuanced view: the Logos is divine, begotten of the Father, and distinct yet not lesser in essence. While terms like "another God" appear, they reflect a proto-Trinitarian understanding rather than a strict subordinationism. The video you mentioned, featuring Dan McClellan, may highlight these distinctions, but a full reading of Justin suggests a more complex picture than a simple hierarchy of gods.

  The assertion that Justin deliberately distinguishes “the God” and “a god” to signal two tiers of divinity imports a post-Nicene debate into a context where the key issue was personal distinction, not denial of shared divine nature. Justin’s “another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things” (Dialogue with Trypho 56) must be read in context: Justin is at pains to demonstrate, to a Jewish interlocutor, the reality of personal distinction within the Old Testament theophanies. He identifies the Angel of the Lord—who is called God and acts with divine prerogatives—as the Logos, thus showing that the One God of Israel is not a monadic individual, but possesses a personal plurality. The expression “another God” is thus intended not to multiply deities, but to establish that the Godhead is not a solitary monad—a point entirely consonant with Trinitarian doctrine. The phrase “subject to the Maker of all things” does not denote a created or inferior nature but a filial relationship and a personal distinction of origin—precisely what orthodox Trinitarianism has always confessed.

  Justin’s use of “another God” (theos kai kurios eteros) does not imply a separate or lesser deity but a distinction in personhood within the Godhead. In Dialogue with Trypho 56, Justin states, “I shall attempt to persuade you… that there is, and that there is said to be, another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things; who is also called an Angel, because He announces to men whatsoever the Maker of all things—above Whom there is no other God—wishes to announce to them.” The term “subject to” reflects a relational dynamic, not an ontological inferiority. Justin clarifies that this “other God” is numerically distinct but not in will: “He who is said to have appeared to Abraham, Jacob, and Moses, and is called God, is distinct from God the Creator; distinct, that is, in number, but not in mind” (Dialogue 56:11). This unity of will aligns with Trinitarian theology, where the three persons share one divine will and essence.

  In First Apology 63, Justin describes the Logos as "another God and Lord under the Creator of all things," yet insists on the Logos’ divine status. This reflects relational distinction, not ontological subordination. Justin actually never used the phrase “deuteros theos” in reference to Jesus, he used “theos kai kurios eteros”, which parallels Johannine language (John 1:1), where the Logos is distinct (πρὸς τὸν θεόν) yet fully God (θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος). Justin does not mean “theos kai kurios eteros” in the sense of proposing two separate gods. Instead, within the broader context of Dialogue with Trypho, Justin seeks to demonstrate to a Jewish audience that Old Testament theophanies — such as the appearance of God to Abraham involving "three men," with one identified as "the Lord" and the other two as angels (Genesis 18) — can be understood as manifestations of God and possibly hint at a plurality within the divine nature (a proto-Trinitarian concept). Justin's intent is not to propose two independent, separate gods (in henotheistic sense) but to demonstrate, using the Old Testament, that certain figures identified as God and Lord (e.g., the Angel of the Lord) align with his understanding of the pre-incarnate Christ, who is distinct in person yet unified in essence with the Father. So Justin does not imply a separate deity but acknowledges the personal distinctions within the Godhead. His Apology (Chapter 63) affirms, "We worship and adore Him, the Son... and the prophetic Spirit, in reason and truth."

  Furthermore, Justin’s analogy of fire kindling fire (Dialogue 61) illustrates that the Son’s generation does not diminish the Father’s essence: “When we give out some word, we beget the word; yet not by abscission, so as to lessen the word in us… just as we see also happening in the case of a fire, which is not lessened when it has kindled [another], but remains the same.” This analogy, later adopted by Nicene theologians, suggests that the Son shares the same divine substance as the Father, not a separate or diminished divinity. The video’s claim that this is merely a Middle Platonic concept of non-diminished substance ignores Justin’s explicit rejection of the Son as a created being. He states that the Logos was “begotten before all creatures” and was “with the Father before all the creatures” (Dialogue 62), directly contradicting Arianism’s view of the Son as created ex nihilo.

  The Arian polemic repeatedly insists that Justin’s language of numerical distinction but unity of will is mere “functional” unity, not ontological. But this misreads both the philosophical language of the time and Justin’s intent. In second-century thought, especially in Christian writers, the unity of will was not conceived as a mere moral harmony, but as a manifestation of a deeper ontological communion. When Justin writes that the Logos is “distinct in number but not in mind” (Dialogue 56:11), he is not reducing the unity of Father and Son to mere cooperation or agreement, but expressing, within the constraints of available terminology, the very thing later formalized as unity of essence and will. This is reinforced by Justin’s repeated analogies: fire from fire, word from mind, light from light. These analogies are not, as the Arian critique suggests, mere borrowings from Middle Platonism with no ontological content; rather, they serve as accessible ways to convey real participation in the same essence without division or diminution. The Father does not lose anything in the begetting of the Son; the Son is fully divine, possessing all that belongs to deity, save personal distinction. This is why Justin will say that the Logos is “God begotten of the Father” and that Christians “worship and adore Him, the Son… and the prophetic Spirit” (First Apology 63). The very fact that Justin ascribes latreia (the worship due to God alone) to the Son is a direct refutation of Arian or henotheistic readings: in the Jewish and early Christian context, worship is strictly reserved for the one true God.

  Justin’s identification of the Son with Old Testament theophanies, such as the Angel of the Lord in Genesis 18 and Exodus 3, further supports his belief in the Son’s full divinity. He argues that the one who appeared to Abraham and Moses is called “God” and “Lord” in Scripture, yet is distinct from the Father who remains in the “supercelestial places” (Dialogue 56, 60). This aligns with the “Two Powers in Heaven” concept from Second Temple Judaism, which Justin strategically and rhetorically adapts to show that the Son is divine and pre-existent, not a secondary, separate god. His statement in First Apology 63, “We worship and adore Him, the Son… and the prophetic Spirit, in reason and truth,” indicates that the Son is worthy of worship, a prerogative reserved for God alone in monotheistic Christianity, thus affirming His full divinity.

  Justin’s use of “Angel” refers to the Son’s role as a messenger (angelos simply means “messenger” in Greek), not a created spirit being. In Dialogue 56, he explains that the Son is called an Angel “because He announces to men whatsoever the Maker of all things… wishes to announce to them.” This functional title does not diminish the Son’s divinity, as Justin also calls Him “God” and “Lord” in the same contexts. For example, in Dialogue 61, the Son is “the Word of Wisdom, who is Himself this God begotten of the Father of all things, and Word, and Wisdom, and Power, and the Glory of the Begetter.” The video’s interpretation misrepresents Justin’s intent, as he explicitly distinguishes the Son from created angels, noting that the Son was “begotten before all creatures” and is “numerically distinct” but not ontologically separate (Dialogue 128). Hence, even the text of Dialogue 56 makes clear, Justin uses “angel” only in the etymological sense of “messenger”—one who is sent. The Logos is called “angel” because He is the divine Messenger, not because He is a created spirit. Indeed, Justin is at pains to distinguish the Son from the angels, ascribing to the Son unique divine prerogatives, titles, and functions, and identifying Him with the Yahweh who appears in the Old Testament. This is a claim so staggering, so theologically maximal, that no Jew or Arian could accept it, and it is why Justin’s argument is so unpalatable to both.

  It is a gross distortion, then, to suggest that Justin “sidesteps” charges of polytheism by making the Logos a “diminished divinity” and claiming that “it doesn’t count” as polytheism because the second god is subordinate. The entire thrust of Justin’s argument is against polytheism; his intent is not to introduce a secondary, lesser god, but to explain the possibility of a distinct hypostasis who is yet fully divine, in continuity with the Old Testament’s complex portrayal of divine agency. The subordinationist tone found in Justin and other early Fathers is best explained as an artifact of their struggle to articulate personal distinction and order of origin within the Godhead, not as a denial of essential unity or the Son’s true divinity. This is why, in Dialogue 61, Justin insists that the Logos “was begotten from the Father, by His power and will, but not by abscission as if the essence of the Father were divided.” This is an affirmation of divine unity at the level of ousia (essence), anticipating later Nicene formulations even if not yet employing their technical vocabulary.

  Justin’s phrase “distinct in number but not in mind” indeed emphasizes unity of will, but this does not preclude ontological unity. In second-century theology, the concept of “mind” (nous) often encompassed both will and essence, as the divine nature was understood holistically. Justin’s statement that the Son “never did or said anything other than what the Creator… desired” (Dialogue 56:11) reflects perfect harmony in will, which is consistent with Trinitarian theology’s view of one divine will shared by three persons. His fire analogy further clarifies that the Son’s generation does not divide the Father’s essence, suggesting a shared divine nature: “This power was begotten from the Father, by His power and will, but not by abscission, as if the essence of the Father were divided” (Dialogue 56).

  The video’s claim that Justin’s concept of substance is purely Middle Platonic and unrelated to Nicene homoousios oversimplifies the issue. Scholars like Michael F. Bird note that while Justin’s terminology reflects second-century philosophical categories, his intent is to affirm the Son’s divinity and unity with the Father (Jesus among the Gods, p. 151). Justin’s rejection of modalism in First Apology 63, where he states that “they who affirm that the Son is the Father… are proved neither to have become acquainted with the Father, nor to know that the Father of the universe has a Son,” underscores his belief in real distinctions within the Godhead, not merely functional roles. This aligns with proto-Trinitarianism, where the Son is distinct in person but one in essence with the Father.

  The Arian polemic also relies heavily on a parade of scholars (Diels, Hillar, Maspero, etc.) who favor a subordinationist or “proto-Arian” reading of Justin, but it conveniently ignores the significant body of scholarship that recognizes the developmental character of patristic theology and the continuity between the second-century Fathers and Nicene orthodoxy. J.N.D. Kelly, for example, concedes that “the apologists as a body…were high trinitarians, at least in germ” (Early Christian Doctrines, p. 95). Michael F. Bird, whose work the video critiques, correctly notes that Justin “deploys the language of generation, of sharing in the Father’s being, of divinity that is undiminished, and of worship that is properly rendered only to God.” To dismiss these claims as mere “retrojection” is to assume what must be proved: that there is no real continuity between Justin and the Nicene tradition, a thesis patently contradicted by the actual language and logic of the sources.

  The repeated claim that Justin’s theology is fundamentally Platonic and foreign to the later Trinity again reveals a false dichotomy. Justin certainly draws on the conceptual resources of his age, but he does so precisely to express the unique Christian experience of God’s revelation in Christ. His insistence on the Logos as the pre-existent, active, creative Word, eternally with the Father, and properly called God, reflects the trajectory of Christian dogma from the apostolic period through the anti-Nicene Fathers to Nicaea. It is not “retrojection” to recognize this continuity; it is, rather, the recognition that dogmatic articulation grows organically from seed to full flower.

  While Justin employs Middle Platonic terminology to communicate Christian beliefs to a Greco-Roman audience, his theology transcends mere philosophical borrowing. He integrates biblical revelation with philosophical concepts to affirm the Son’s divinity. In Dialogue with Trypho 61, Justin describes the Logos as “God begot before all creatures a Beginning, [who was] a certain rational power [proceeding] from Himself, who is called by the Holy Spirit, now the Glory of the Lord, now the Son, again Wisdom, again an Angel, then God, and then Lord and Logos.” This multiplicity of titles reflects the Son’s divine roles, not a lesser status. Justin’s assertion that the Logos “was with the Father before all the creatures” and is “begotten by an act of the Father’s will” (Dialogue 61) indicates eternal pre-existence, not a temporal creation as Arianism posits.

  The video’s claim that Justin’s Logos is a “diminished divinity” misinterprets his use of Middle Platonic analogies. Justin’s fire analogy (Dialogue 61) and light analogy (Dialogue 128) emphasize that the Son’s generation does not divide or diminish the Father’s essence, aligning with the later Nicene concept of homoousios. The video cites scholars like Diels and Hillar to argue that Justin’s theology requires a second god to preserve divine transcendence, but this overlooks Justin’s monotheistic commitment. In On the Sole Government of God, Justin affirms strict monotheism, and in First Apology 16 and 17, he states that Christians worship God alone, yet includes the Son and Spirit in this worship (First Apology 63). This triadic worship suggests a proto-Trinitarian framework, where the Father, Son, and Spirit are distinct persons within one divine essence.

  The video’s reliance on Middle Platonic parallels, such as Numenius or Philo, ignores Justin’s grounding in biblical texts. He cites Genesis 1:26 (“Let Us make man”), Genesis 3:22 (“Behold, Adam has become as one of us”), and Genesis 19:24 (“The Lord rained on Sodom sulphur and fire from the Lord out of heaven”) to argue for a plurality within the Godhead (Dialogue 62, 129). These passages, interpreted as conversations between the Father and the Son, prefigure Trinitarian distinctions. Justin’s use of Proverbs 8, where Wisdom (identified as the Son) is “begotten before all the hills,” further supports the Son’s eternal existence (Dialogue 61).

  Finally, the claim that “most scholars” today agree that Justin’s theology is incompatible with Trinitarianism is simply inaccurate. The scholarly literature is divided: some, especially those hostile to Nicene orthodoxy or influenced by historicist reductionism, read Justin as a subordinationist, while many others see him as a crucial link in the tradition that culminates in Nicaea. Justin does not possess the conceptual vocabulary to articulate the homoousion or the eternal generation of the Son as Nicaea does; but his logic, his scriptural exegesis, and his analogies all point toward the very realities that would later be defined. He is not a “proto-Arian” but a witness to the Church’s perennial faith that the Logos is truly God from God, Light from Light, begotten not made, of one substance with the Father.

  While Justin’s theology predates the Nicene Creed and lacks its precise terminology, it contains the seeds of Trinitarian doctrine. The video correctly notes that concepts like homoousios were formalized later, but it errs in dismissing Justin’s theology as non-Trinitarian. Scholars like D.T. Sheffler argue that “the basic outlines of Trinitarian doctrine are in the pages of the New Testament,” and Justin’s writings reflect this early development (Justin Martyr on the Trinity). Justin’s triadic references to Father, Son, and Spirit in First Apology 6 and 60, where he mentions the Holy Spirit as the third in the divine order, suggest a proto-Trinitarian framework. The statement that the Son is “God the Son of God” and “deserving to be worshipped as God and as Christ” (Dialogue 63:5, 128:1) affirms the Son’s full divinity.

  The video’s citation of scholars like Diels and Hillar reflects a selective reading. While some scholars emphasize Justin’s subordinationist language, others, such as J.N.D. Kelly (Early Christian Doctrines), argue that Justin’s theology is a precursor to Nicene orthodoxy, emphasizing the Son’s eternal pre-existence and shared essence. Justin’s use of Psalm 45 and 110 to identify the Son as “God” and “Lord of Hosts” (Dialogue 36, 37) further supports his high Christology, as these titles are reserved for Yahweh in the Old Testament. The video’s claim that Justin’s theology is closer to a Middle Platonic demiurge ignores his biblical grounding and monotheistic commitment.

  The video selectively cites scholars like Diels and Hillar to support a subordinationist reading, but this overlooks the broader context of Justin’s writings and the views of scholars like Bird and Kelly, who see his theology as foundational to Trinitarianism. The accusation of retrojecting Nicene theology is valid to an extent, as Justin’s terminology is not identical to later creeds, but his emphasis on the Son’s deity, pre-existence, and unity with the Father aligns more closely with proto-Trinitarianism than Arianism.

  Justin wrote in a second-century context where Christian theology was still developing. The Council of Nicaea (325 AD) later clarified the Son’s co-equality and consubstantiality with the Father, but Justin’s writings predate this by over 150 years. His use of Middle Platonic concepts, such as the Logos as a mediator, was a strategic apologetic tool to make Christianity intelligible to a Greco-Roman audience. However, his reliance on biblical texts, such as John 1:1 (“the Word was God”) and Old Testament theophanies, grounds his theology in Christian revelation, not merely philosophy.

  The video’s claim that Justin’s theology is closer to a Middle Platonic demiurge or world soul ignores his monotheistic framework. In On the Sole Government of God, Justin affirms that there is only one God, and his triadic references in First Apology 6 and 60 include the Spirit, suggesting a proto-Trinitarian understanding. His rejection of polytheism (Address to the Greeks) and his insistence that the Son is worshipped as God (First Apology 63) further demonstrate his commitment to monotheism, where the Father, Son, and Spirit are distinct persons within one divine essence.

  In summary, the Arian reading is anachronistic, wooden, and reductionist. It is blind to the nuances of Greek, deaf to the idioms of second-century Christian theology, and tone-deaf to the organic continuity of dogma. Justin’s “other God” is not a lesser being, but a distinct hypostasis within the one Godhead. His use of “begotten” and analogies of fire and light are not mere philosophical window-dressing, but genuine efforts to articulate personal distinction within essential unity. The subordinationist flavor reflects the theological grammar of his era, not an endorsement of ontological inequality. Justin stands not with Arius, but with the fathers who confessed, at Nicaea, the Son’s full divinity and coeternity with the Father. Any other reading is not only unhistorical but fundamentally un-Christian.

  Justin Martyr’s theology is best understood as proto-Trinitarian, laying the groundwork for later Nicene formulations. His use of “another God” simply reflects a distinction in personhood, not a separate or lesser deity, as evidenced by his analogies of fire and light, his affirmation of the Son’s eternal pre-existence, and his inclusion of the Son in divine worship. The video’s claims, while highlighting Justin’s Middle Platonic influences, misrepresent his theology by overemphasizing subordinationist elements and ignoring his monotheistic and biblical commitments. Justin’s theology directly opposes Arianism’s view of the Son as a created being, instead affirming the Son’s full divinity and unity with the Father, making him a precursor to orthodox Trinitarian doctrine.
• 
  59

  Should Jesus be worshipped?

  by Melody in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  can anyone explain why jesus should or should not be worshipped?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  aqwsed12345

  @Earnest

  The use of the anarthrous θεός in both the NT and patristic Greek does not automatically mean “a god” in the sense of a lesser, separate deity. Greek grammar employs the anarthrous form for a variety of reasons: to express qualitative predicates, to indicate essence, or for purely syntactic or stylistic purposes. In the context of early Christian theology, and especially in soteriological statements (about salvation and deification), the anarthrous θεός almost always carries a qualitative force, not an indefinite or polytheistic sense. As leading grammarians and patristic scholars have repeatedly pointed out, the distinction between “the God” and “god” in these contexts is one of person (the Father versus the Son, or the Creator versus the creature) and nature (divine qualities or participation in divinity), not a division of ontological rank or the existence of multiple gods in the proper sense.

  The doctrine of theosis—the transformative participation in the divine life by grace—is utterly different from the pagan or henotheistic idea of multiple gods. In Christian tradition, the Church Fathers consistently maintain the ontological distinction between the Creator and the creature. When Clement says, “the Word of God became man so that you may learn from man how man may become God” (ἵνα ἄνθρωπος γένηται θεός), this is always understood within the framework of grace: man is deified not by nature or essence, but by participation, through adoption and union with Christ. Gregory of Nyssa, Athanasius, Maximus the Confessor, and Augustine all stress that “becoming god” means sharing in the divine life through union with Christ, not becoming another, independent or rival god.

  Moreover, as Catholic and Orthodox theology both clarify, deification (theosis) is never a literal identity with God’s essence. The Church Fathers use vivid metaphors (such as iron heated in fire, or the sharing of light), but always with the explicit qualification that humanity remains created and distinct from the uncreated essence of God. Athanasius’ famous dictum, “God became man that man might become god,” is always situated in this context of grace and participation, never polytheism or pantheism. As Augustine says, “we are made gods by participation, not by nature.”

  When Clement and other Church Fathers use the anarthrous θεός in the context of “becoming god,” it does not refer to humans becoming “a god” in the sense of a second deity; rather, it refers to participation in divine life, becoming “godlike” or “divinized” by grace. The analogy is always participatory, not substantial. This is in sharp contrast to the use of θεός in reference to the Word in John 1:1c, where the qualitative sense asserts that the Logos possesses fully and inherently the very nature of God, not merely a share in divine attributes by adoption or grace.

  Additionally, the idea that biblical or patristic writers were “henotheists” is refuted by their emphatic monotheism, rooted in the Hebrew Scriptures and fully affirmed in the Christian creeds. They repeatedly insist that there is only one true God, and all talk of “becoming god” or “gods” (e.g., Ps 82:6, Jn 10:34) is interpreted within the context of metaphor, adoption, or participation—never as a multiplication of independent deities.

  Therefore, to suggest that the Church Fathers’ use of the anarthrous θεός supports an Arian or Watchtower reading of John 1:1c as “a god,” or as evidence of henotheism, is to misunderstand both the grammatical function of the anarthrous predicate and the theological content of Christian theosis. The distinction between the definite and anarthrous θεός in patristic texts never provides grounds for the existence of “multiple gods” or a subordinate class of divine beings. It expresses either the unique, fully divine status of the Son (as in John 1:1c, qualitatively: “the Word was fully God”), or the analogical, participatory sense in which creatures are elevated by grace (i.e., “becoming god” by sharing in the divine life, not by nature).

  The consensus of patristic scholarship, and the entire trajectory of Christian dogma, is that the anarthrous θεός in these passages does not teach polytheism, henotheism, or ontological equivalence or similitude with the Creator. Rather, it teaches either the fullness of divinity in Christ or the elevation of the human by grace, always within the strict boundaries of monotheistic faith and the unbridgeable gap between Creator and creature. Any attempt to make these passages support the NWT’s “a god” rendering is both grammatically and theologically unsustainable.
• 
  59

  Should Jesus be worshipped?

  by Melody in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  can anyone explain why jesus should or should not be worshipped?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  aqwsed12345

  @Blotty

  John 4:24 neither excludes Christ from worship nor establishes a “zero-sum” economy of devotion. Jesus is answering a Samaritan dispute about sacred geography; the point is that henceforth true worship is “in Spirit and in truth.” In Johannine idiom ἀλήθεια is not an abstraction but a person: “I am … the truth” (14:6). Worship “in truth” is therefore worship mediated by, and ordered around, the incarnate Logos. The Fourth Gospel immediately illustrates the point: the man born blind confesses “Lord, I believe,” and ἐπροσκύνησεν αὐτῷ—he worshipped Jesus, an action the evangelist records without censure (9:38). The narrative culminates when Thomas addresses the risen Christ “My Lord and my God!” (20:28). John 5:23 then supplies the theological key: the Father wills “that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father; whoever refuses such honor to the Son refuses it to the Father.” Far from delimiting Christ’s cultic status, John 4 prepares for it.

  The Arian reading assumes John 4:24 establishes an exclusive worship of the Father, yet this overlooks the narrative arc of John’s Gospel, where Jesus positions himself as the focal point of true worship. The Samaritan woman’s question about the proper location of worship (Mount Gerizim or Jerusalem) is transcended by Jesus’ declaration that worship will now occur “in spirit and truth,” a shift not merely about interiority but tied explicitly to his own person. As Lozano notes in his analysis of John 9:38 (pp. 148–154), the healed man’s act of proskuneō toward Jesus is a climactic confession of faith, accepted without rebuke, aligning with Jesus’ self-identification as “the truth” (John 14:6). Far from excluding the Son, John 4:24 presupposes his mediatorial role: worship “in truth” is worship through Christ, who embodies the divine presence (cf. John 2:19–21, where Jesus is the new temple). The Arian isolation of this verse from its Christological framework distorts its meaning, ignoring how John consistently depicts Jesus as the recipient of worship (e.g., John 20:28, “My Lord and my God!”) within a monotheistic paradigm.

  Psalm 45:7(6 MT) does not license addressing any Davidide as “God” in a polytheistic/henotheistic sense. The decisive witness is Hebrews 1:8, which cites the verse in the LXX form, “Your throne, O God, is for ever and ever,” and applies it to the Son. Modern translations that cumbersome the syntax into “God is your throne” are primarily driven by dogmatic discomfort, not by Hebrew grammar—the construct reading required is “extremely unusual” where a pronominal suffix is present, as specialists have long noted. Lozano’s monograph sums up the scholarly consensus: the author of Hebrews deploys the catena precisely to show that the Son is addressed with titles, functions and honors proper to YHWH, and that the angelic προσκύνησις of Hebrews 1:6 “most closely approximates the ideal celestial worship of God enthroned in heaven”.

  he Hebrew text’s ambiguity (“Your throne, O God” versus “Your throne is God”) is resolved in Hebrews 1:8–9, where the NT explicitly applies this verse to the Son, identifying him as “God” (theos) in a fully divine sense, not a human king granted honorific divinity. Lozano’s discussion of Hebrews (pp. 164–185) highlights how the author contrasts the Son’s eternal throne with the angels’ subservience, commanding all angels to proskuneō him (Heb 1:6). This is not henotheism but a radical inclusion of Christ within God’s identity, fulfilling the psalm’s ultimate intent. The Arian suggestion that biblical writers were henotheists lacks evidence; Second-Temple Judaism fiercely guarded monotheism, and the NT’s application of divine titles to Jesus (e.g., YHWH texts like Joel 2:32 in Rom 10:13) reflects this continuity, not a departure into polytheism.

  The vocative reading of Hebrews 1:8 has historically dominated not because of arbitrary theological preference but because it best fits the syntax and rhetorical parallelism with the surrounding verses, both in Hebrews and in the Septuagint version of Psalm 45:6 (44:7 LXX). The claim that the verb “is” is not present and can be supplied in various places in the clause is correct, but this is a common feature of classical and Koine Greek, which frequently omits the copula when the sense is clear. Context and expected usage—especially in royal or liturgical addresses—support the vocative reading. The construction “ὁ θρόνος σου, ὁ Θεός” finds its closest parallels in vocative utterances elsewhere in Greek literature, and to interpret ὁ Θεός here as nominative requires a forced, awkward syntax that is not natural for the context of direct address, especially in a passage framed by addresses to persons.

  The attempt to make the definite article before Θεός determinative for the nominative reading is unconvincing. The presence or absence of the article with theos in the NT does not rigidly determine whether it is definite, qualitative, or vocative. Indeed, in the Septuagint and in the NT alike, the article can and does appear with vocatives, especially in poetic and elevated contexts. To assert otherwise is to ignore the flexibility and complexity of Koine usage, as has been thoroughly demonstrated in modern studies of Greek grammar.

  Psalm 45 is undoubtedly a royal wedding psalm addressed, in its immediate context, to the Davidic king. However, this does not mean the psalm’s Christological application is illegitimate, nor does it preclude a higher, theological sense in which the king is addressed as God. The ancient Near Eastern context reveals that the Davidic king, as God’s anointed, stood in a unique covenantal relationship with YHWH, even being called God’s “son” (cf. Psalm 2:7). But nowhere is a merely human king called “God” in such an absolute and unqualified manner as occurs in Psalm 45:6. The explanations offered in various study Bibles and by certain commentators—that the king is called “god” only in a representative sense or as a courtly hyperbole—fail to do justice to the unique language of the psalm. When the NT author, under inspiration, selects this passage to describe Christ, he is not simply reproducing an honorific for an ancient king, but is presenting Christ as the eschatological fulfillment and the ultimate referent of the Davidic covenant.

  The consistent testimony of the NT is that the OT passages about the Davidic king reach their fullness and proper meaning only in Christ (cf. Acts 2:29-36; Luke 1:32-33). The early Church, steeped in the Septuagint, recognized in such passages a typology that pointed forward to the Messiah’s divine status. The argument that calling Jesus “God” in this context is no more significant than calling an ancient Israelite king “god” is anachronistic and fails to appreciate both the Christological hermeneutics of the NT and the qualitative difference introduced by the resurrection and exaltation of Christ as “heir of all things” (Heb. 1:2).

  The context of Hebrews 1 further militates against the anti-Trinitarian reading. The entire chapter is a sustained argument for the Son’s superiority over angels, employing a catena of OT quotations that ascribe to the Son prerogatives and honors reserved for God alone: the Son is “the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature” (v. 3); he is the Creator and Sustainer of all things (vv. 2-3, 10-12); he sits at God’s right hand (v. 3, 13); and he is worshiped by all angels (v. 6). In this context, the direct address of the Son as “God” (ho theos) is not an anomaly but the culmination of the author’s argument.

  Appeals to “representative” language—wherein the king or Jesus is called “God” only as a regent or agent—fail to account for the unique absolute language and the immediate context of Hebrews 1:8-9. The passage does not merely attribute a functional role to the Son but ascribes to him the eternal throne and scepter of divine righteousness. The subsequent citation in Hebrews 1:10-12, which explicitly applies to the Son a passage about YHWH as Creator (Psalm 102:25-27), leaves no doubt that the author intends his audience to understand the Son as sharing fully in the identity and prerogatives of the one true God.

  The frequent attempt to dilute the force of Hebrews 1:8 by reference to Jesus being “anointed” by God (v. 9) is equally misplaced. The anointing of the Messiah in Psalm 45 and its fulfillment in Christ does not entail ontological inferiority but points to the messianic office, a theme common to NT Christology. The anointed King of Psalm 2 is declared to be “begotten” of God (a title which, in the NT, is taken up in the highest sense in reference to the preexistent Son), yet he is the object of the nations’ worship and the possessor of universal dominion. To say that Jesus’ anointing by God negates his deity is a category error, conflating the incarnational economy with the Son’s eternal divine status.

  The oft-invoked analogue of 1 Chronicles 29:20 proves nothing. As Lozano observes, classical Greek freely uses a single finite verb with two objects of unequal status—divine and human—without implying identical reverence; the Chronicler’s audience knows that David is mortal whereas YHWH alone is the object of cult. The NT itself exploits that polyvalence: Peter rejects Cornelius’ prostration (Acts 10:25-26) and the angel forbids John’s (Rev 19:10; 22:8-9), establishing a literary contrast by which Jesus’ ready acceptance of προσκύνησις marks him out as sharing the divine identity. The Chronicler distinguishes between divine worship (proskuneō to YHWH) and royal homage (proskuneō to David), with the king’s authority clearly derivative. Lozano notes (pp. 38–41) that such acts of reverence to humans in the OT never blur the Creator-creature divide, unlike the NT’s portrayal of Jesus. In Revelation 5:13–14, by contrast, the Lamb shares the divine throne and receives identical proskuneō and doxology with the Father, a unified worship that transcends mere homage. The Arian claim that this grouping under one verb implies a lesser worship for Jesus ignores the qualitative leap in the NT, where Christ’s proskuneō is cultic, not civil, as evidenced by its rejection when offered to Peter (Acts 10:25–26) or angels (Rev 19:10).

  The argument that Mosaic Law’s elasticity allows worship of a human figure without idolatry if God commands it is irrelevant to the NT’s context. Under the old covenant, no human—king or otherwise—receives cultic worship; the Law (e.g., Deut 6:13) reserves this for YHWH alone. The NT, operating under the new covenant, presents Jesus not as a human intermediary but as the divine Son incarnate, worthy of proskuneō in a way that fulfills, not violates, monotheism. Lozano’s analysis across the Gospels demonstrates that Jesus’ acceptance of proskuneō (e.g., Matt 14:33; Luke 24:52; John 9:38) consistently signals his divine status, not a sanctioned human honor. The Arian appeal to pre-Christian flexibility thus fails to account for the Christological redefinition of worship in the new covenant.

  The patristic citations appealed to as proto-Arian are no help to an Arian thesis. Justin Martyr explains to his pagan audience that Christians “worship [σεβόμεθα] the Fashioner of the universe” and that they do so through “the Son who came from Him and taught us these things” (1 Apology 13). Justin’s own liturgical description is explicit: in the Eucharist the community “chants hymns and prayers to the Father through the name of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (1 Apology 65–67), thereby coordinating the Three within a single act of worship. Origen is still clearer: Christians render “entire and undivided worship [σέβας ἀδιαίρετον] to the supreme God through His Son, the Logos” (Contra Celsum 8.12). “Through” (δι’) is no demotion; it is the same preposition Paul uses for creation itself (1 Cor 8:6). Patristic theosis texts do not flatten the Creator–creature distinction. When Clement says that “the Word of God became man in order that you might learn from Man how man might become god” (Prot. protr. 1.8), he is describing participatory transformation by grace, not an ontological elevation to unbegotten Deity; Clement expressly restricts latreía to the one uncreated God.

  Origen’s theology, while complex and occasionally subordinationist in tone, does not deny the Son’s deity. In Contra Celsum 8.12, he asserts the Son is not a different God, but the same God as the Father, affirming a shared divine essence despite hierarchical language. Justin Martyr, in Dialogue with Trypho 56, calls the Son “another God” in a functional sense, yet in First Apology 13, he unequivocally includes the Son as worthy of worship alongside the Father, consistent with early Christian practice. The Arian claim of henotheism—worshipping multiple gods with one supreme—mischaracterizes these writers, who operated within a monotheistic framework that included the Son within the divine identity, not as a separate deity. Clement’s reference to “men becoming God” (Stromata 7.10) and Athanasius’ echo of this in On the Incarnation 54 (“He became man so that we might become God”) are soteriological, not ontological, statements about deification through participation in Christ, not an endorsement of Arian creaturely status. Lozano’s work (pp. 10–16) underscores this by tracing how proskuneō in the NT elevates Jesus beyond mere homage, aligning with patristic affirmations of his deity rather than a henotheistic dilution.

  Appeal to Augustine’s latreía/proskýnēsis distinction is likewise misplaced. Augustine does reserve latreía for the sacrifice owed to God alone (City of God 10), yet Revelation applies that verb to the unified “throne of God and of the Lamb”: “His servants shall λατρεύσουσιν αὐτῷ” (22:3). Lozano rightly notes that the singular pronoun embraces both Father and Son within a single sovereignty and a single cultic service, contradicting attempts to confine latreía to the Father alone. Conversely, proskynēsis can indeed be illegitimately offered to idols or men (Dan 3; Matt 4:9-10); its very prohibition shows that in certain contexts it denotes the kind of honor that competes with God. The NT writers harness that semantic range to theological ends: every creature that mistakenly receives it rebukes the gesture, whereas Jesus consistently approves it. Greeven’s verdict still stands: “When the NT uses προσκυνεῖν, the object is always something—truly or supposedly—divine”.

  The suggestion that biblical and patristic authors were “henotheists” misconstrues Second-Temple and early-Christian monotheism. Jewish monotheism distinguishes God from every created power by two exclusive prerogatives: sole sovereignty over all things and sole worthiness to receive cultic worship. The NT repeatedly extends both prerogatives to Christ (e.g., Col 1:15-20; Rev 5:13-14; Heb 1:2-3, 8-12). Precisely because the writers are committed monotheists, they must explain rather than negate their own devotional practice; their explanation is Christ’s inclusion within the unique divine identity. The Fathers follow suit: Justin, Origen, and even the highly philosophical Clement never speak of independent deities but of one God who is Father, Son and Spirit.

  Ray Lozano’s exhaustive study closes by noting that every canonical author who depicts Jesus as the recipient of προσκυνέω does so in a way that uniquely associates him with the God of Israel and “presents him as a divine figure included with God as a legitimate recipient of the kind of worship … reserved for God alone”. The patristic writers simply continued that reading of Scripture. The Arian alternative can be maintained only by excising texts, redefining lexica in a circular fashion, and overlooking the unbroken liturgical witness of the church catholic. It therefore fails the tests of linguistic, literary and historical coherence, leaving the Nicene confession intact: to worship the Son is to worship the Father in the unity of the Spirit, for the one throne of God is shared by the Lamb.

  Finally, the semantic distinction between proskuneō (general reverence) and latreuō (divine worship) as a bulwark against Christ’s worship is untenable. While latreuō is tied to temple service and never directly applied to Jesus in the Gospels, Revelation 22:3—“His servants will latreuō Him”—uses a singular pronoun for both God and the Lamb, indicating shared divine worship in the eschatological temple. Lozano (pp. 196–232) emphasizes that Revelation’s throne-room scenes equate proskuneō to Jesus with cultic worship, not mere obeisance, as seen in its rejection by angels and its universal scope (Rev 5:14). The Watch Tower’s rendering of proskuneō as “obeisance” for Christ but “worship” elsewhere lacks lexical support; standard lexica (BDAG, LSJ) and NT usage (e.g., Matt 28:17; Heb 1:6) confirm its cultic force when context demands, as it does with Jesus.

  In conclusion, the Arian position misreads John 4:24 by isolating it from its Christocentric context, misrepresents early Christian writers as henotheists despite their monotheistic commitments, and misapplies Psalm 45:6 and 1 Chronicles 29:20 by ignoring their NT reinterpretation and narrative distinctions. The elasticity of worship under the Mosaic Law is irrelevant to the new covenant’s revelation of Christ as divine. The NT, as Lozano’s study affirms, presents Jesus as the proper object of proskuneō and, implicitly, latreuō, not as a secondary figure but as co-equal with the Father in the divine identity. Trinitarian theology does not fracture monotheism but fulfills it, recognizing that to worship the Son is to worship the one God—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—in the fullness of his self-revelation. The Arian critique, rooted in selective exegesis and historical revisionism, cannot displace this canonical and theological coherence.