Posts by scholar

9

Jolene Chu and Ollimatti Peltonen publication

by careful in

just published in cambridge university press's elements in new religious movements series, a short book or oversized pamphlet is now available by two witnesses, jolene chu from warwick and ollimatti peltonen from the selters branch.

https://www.amazon.com/jehovahs-witnesses-elements-religious-movements/dp/1009509764.

it's small, just 84 pages, including the bibliography.

scholar

careful

Thanks for the news of this update on modern scholarship on Jehovah's Witnesses. At this time of year, when we celebrate the Bbrth of our Saviour, Jesus Christ, this excellent academic work is surely 'Good News'.

scholar JW

167

How did JWs arrive at a clearer understanding of what the Bible teaches than other Christian denominations?

by slimboyfat in

for jws who believe that jehovah had a hand in reviving the truth in the nineteenth century this is enough explanation for how jws managed to achieve a closer approximation to early christian beliefs and practices than other groups.

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

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

scholar

aqwsed12345

I have read your last, repetitive response to my post and my response is a summary only, Enjoy!

The simple fact is that the APN theos is indefinite and qualitative and is best rendered as ' a god' or 'divine' and 'what God was the Word was also' or similar wording. Many Greek scholars and even JW critics agree that according to Greek grammar, 'a god' is a legitimate rendering of the APN in John 1: 1c.

I have read Wallace's comments on the NWT's view that the theos is indefinite and I'm afraid I have to disagree with his reasons which are in his Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 1996, pp.266-267. Catholic scholars such as Maximillan Zerwick SJ render theos in this instance as 'divine' and similarly Francis J Moloney S.D.B as mentioned previously in the Sacra Pagina commentary series renders it as 'what God was the Word also was'.

In short, in John 1:1 c, theos is an anarthrous predicate nominative—indefinite because it omits the article and qualitative because it is a predicate noun and is before the verb. The reason why the NWT has rendered this theos was originally explained in the Appendix article in the NWT, 1950, pp.3587-3589, wherein quotes from eight other Bible translations, a classical source, and three Greek grammar textbooks are used. Further, in 1984 The NWT with References which is a scholarly edition and in its Appendix 6A, more updated scholarship is used namely based on the article ' Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns:Mark 15:39 and John 1:1' by Philip B .Harner .

I reject your assertion that 'a god' is somehow polytheistic for the mention of One God - the Father and a 'lesser god' - the Word because only two gods are mentioned. The word ' polytheism' means many gods which is hardly applicable with only two beings but more applicable with a triad of gods in a Trinity that would be polytheism.

The NWT's 'a god' attests to the fact the Word as the Son was subordinate and in relation to God the Father as shown in John 1:1b- "the Word was with God" and vs. 14 -' only begotten son from a father' and in vs.18 -"the only begotten god who is at the Father's side". This relationship between the Word and God has been further emphasized by "This one was in the beginning with God-vs. 2. The Apostle John nowhere in this Prologue uses such theological/philosophical terms as 'substance', 'essence' or other such Nicean terminology.

I have no objection that the qualitative force of the APN theos refers to the Wor's deity or divinity for such is compatible with the rendering 'a god.' Murray Harris whom I met personally at Macquarie University as a Visiting Scholar not long after he published his Jesus as God, 1992 in which he admits that based on grammar alone the theos in John 1:1 could be rendered as 'a god' (Refer page 60, a.(1).

The NWT's rendering of 'a god' in John 1:1 has proved to be most accurate in terms of Greek grammar and is theologically correct as shown in the way that the Apostle John discusses the 'Word' throughout his Gospel, Epistles and Revelation. See The Word Who is he? According to John, 1962, published by the Watchtower Society and as a booklet distributed to clergy throughout the world in a special campaign by the Witnesses. Also, the NWT's traditional rendering has no doubt spawned considerable theses, journal articles, books and other theological research into the subject of the translation of John 1:1.

You admit to a functional subordination of the Son to the Father but do not admit to an ontological distinction between the Son and the Father as clearly shown in John 1:1,2 and the rest of the NT the reason being of a muddied or soiled Christology intermixed with polytheism, neo-platonic concepts and paganism along with the omission of God's personal identity with His name Jehovah.

The Trinity is a triad and triads are a common feature of both pagan ancient religions and the modern which fact underscores the pagan roots of the Trinity. The essentials may differ but the core elements remain intact and as a scholar of Religion both at an Undergraduate and Postgraduate level I know what I am talking about and I do not need to rely on Hislop's earlier research which has been more thoroughly scoped.

The Council of Nicea was disgraceful presided by a non-Christian Emperor who only sought political expedience, only one-third (318?) of the Bishops attended, and it was held in Greek not Latin with only two representatives of the Latin/Western Church. The proceeding did not show the Holy Spirit but rather 'the works of the flesh' as shown by the manner in which Arius, a Bishop was treated. and it is has left a divisive and corrupting legacy on Christendom ever since right up to the present day.

The doctrine of the Trinity has a false Christology which misrepresents God, the Word who later became the man, Jesus Christ. Its roots are of pagan origin as a triad hence polytheistic. It is not taught in both the OT and the NT and contains concepts adopted from Neo-Platonism and other Hellenistic ideas current in the ancient world of the first three centuries including that of Mysticism

scholar JW

BA - Religious Studies and Philosophy Deakin

BA Hons- Philosophy inc.Deakin

MA - Studies in Religion Sydney

167

How did JWs arrive at a clearer understanding of what the Bible teaches than other Christian denominations?

by slimboyfat in

for jws who believe that jehovah had a hand in reviving the truth in the nineteenth century this is enough explanation for how jws managed to achieve a closer approximation to early christian beliefs and practices than other groups.

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

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

scholar

aqwsed12345

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

----

Nowhere in John's Prologue is there mention or description of 'full divinity'. The qualitiveness of the APN is simply the sharing of something in common, divine quality or divinity best rendered as ' a god, 'divine' or 'what God was the Word also was'.or '; godlike'.Even if as some scholars suggest this means having or sharing in the same essence of Deity this would be compatible with the preceding comment..

=============

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

---

The NWT' rendering is not ambiguous but literal. simple and clear for any Reader. The anarthrous theos is both indefinite and qualitative showing subordination having a separate deity as to a Son to a Father which reflects what is stated in both the OT and NT as the Word and Jesus being the Son of God preserving strict Biblical Monotheism, unlike the polytheism of the Trinity with its pagan concept of triads.

=====

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

---

The NWT's rendering 'a god' is a faithful and literal rendering of the APN -theos showing that Word is different to God as the Word was with God so the Word must be a separate identity to God in terms of relationship -subordination as a Son to a Father. Yes, the OT speaks of only One God and not three Gods, which is the triadic concept of the Trinity, polytheism. Regarding Biblical Monotheism, JW's believe that the Bible teaches there is only one God in the absolute sense, but that others are considered 'god's in a secondary sense thus preserving strict Biblical Monotheism. Biblical Monotheism involves the recognition, acceptance and worship of only one true, uni-personal God, the Father -Jehovah God the Almighty God. Other beings can and are rightly considered 'gods' in a different, lesser sense than the true God. This is true of them either collectively or as individuals, so long as their position and glory preserve or further enhances the uniqueness of God.

===

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

---

There is no dispute that the APN theos is qualitative. Still, the NWT in its Appendix it is also indefinite and hence properly rendered as 'a god' which Wallace and his ilk do not like and have not bothered to read or discuss the Appendix which is an unscholarly approach. The belief that the qualatitiveness of theos refers to the Word as 'fully and truly God' is not what John says but is simply a belief or opinion for John states that the Word was with God and that he was like God or 'a god' hence 'divine'.

===

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

--

False. The absence of the article in this instance shows the APN theos as indefinite which was John's intention for if John wished to make the APN definite then he could have used to definite article.Its grammatical structure or placement before the verb shows the quality of theos. Thus, we see in this instance an APN with an indefinite and qualitative aspect or sense .There is no evidence that the APN theos is fully divine but does have the same divine quality or nature as God.

===

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

---

Correct. John 1:1 b shows the difference in the relation between God and the Word and the latter clause shows that the Word and God have something in common that of being in the same class of being or having a common essence described in English as divine, godlike or 'a god etc. The absence of the article shows that the theos is indefinite and qualitative rendered properly as 'a god', 'divine' or 'what the God was the Word was also. The translation 'Word was God' is ambiguous, polytheistic, grammatically and theologically challenged.

====

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

--

Utter nonsense. There are scores of Bible translations that support the NWT's rendering of the APN in John 1:1, the earliest in 1808. The reason why most modern translations have adopted the traditional rendering is because they believe in the Trinity which is a polytheistic and pagan teaching. The words 'essence' or 'nature' are terms not used by John and not found in the NT, such terms are philosophical and reflect Neo-Platonism or other philosophies current at the time of Nicea. John's description of the Word as a god' or 'divine' describes his quality only and not identify the Word as the same as God himself.

===

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

--

The rendering 'a god' certainly can imply subordination and this is shown by the context and does describe also the unique relationship that the Word as the Son had with his Father , God. John has nothing to say about 'equality in essence' for this is just theological 'mumbo=jumbo'.

==

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

----

Nonsense. The Trinity is rooted not just in Greek philosophy but in paganism as shown by its use of triads, a common feature of not only ancient pagan religions but more recent forms such as Hinduism, Buddhism etc. except Islam, Your claim that the Trinity arose out of biblical exegesis at Nicea and that it was a response to heresies at that time is fanciful and is a distortion of the history of the first three centuries of the Church.

====

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

----

Hurtado has written much on this subject in his book and several JBL articles but you need to cite a specific reference in order to make your case or 'stake your claim'.

===

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

----

There is simply no biblical data in support of the Trinity for it evolved over time and became manifest in the Church of latter periods as an apostate doctrine. There is no such thing as a Trinitarian formula but simply a triadic formula akin to such other texts in the NT which mention God, Christ and the Angels- Matt. 24:36; Mark 8: 38; Mark 13:32; Luke 9:26 etc.

====

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

---

Nonsense. If the debates at Nicea use such terms which are unbiblical and if these terms are philosophical then such influence is well established. Why would other tools be necessary when the Apostle Paul wrote that 'All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for settings straight...that the man of God may be fully competent , completely equipped for every good work" 2 Tim 3: 16-17.

===

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

---

So be it. Other reputable references show the pagan sources for the Trinity apart from Hislop. The Encyclopedia of Religion, 1987 and in its latest edition under the subject of 'TRIADS' shows the pagan origins of many religions both ancient and modern. Such reference works all admit that the Trinity was taught or found in the OT and the NT or words to that effect and if the Trinity is so rooted in scripture why is it the case that in its creedal statements, no mention is made of the Divine Name? Scholar smells a rat in the Trinity- a dead rat!

====

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

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

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

---

Not one of these texts proves the Trinity as shown by the simple fact that there is no consensus by means of other Bible Translations for each text is controversial but nicely rendered by the superior NWT which is the Gold Standard in Bible translation.

====

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

---

This is simply mumbo jumbo.The Bible uses simple terms or words such as 'Father' and 'Son' which well describe the relationship between the two. I have been schooled in Philosophy so am quite at ease with words such 'ontology' and other theological/philosophical terms. Nowhere does the Bible use the language as co-equal, co-eternal and divine nature which only proves that this doctrine is unbiblical and purely philosophical and mystical in its form and nature.

===

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

---

The NWT does a fantastic job as attested by Jason BeDuhn. Its rendering ' Word was a god' is monotheistic unlike the polytheistic ' Word was God' which creates the mysterious concept of three Gods in One God hence tritheistic' The rendering 'divine' is acceptable as along with 'godlike' which are both synomic to 'a god'.

====

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

---

theos in John 1:1 is both indefinite and qualitative having the same divine nature or quality and in a wholly distinctive relationship of One to the other- Father as God and the Son as his Word.

====

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

--

In conclusion, the Bible does not teach or allude to the Trinity for it is a false teaching of the Antichrist, reflective of apostasy, sourced from paganism by means of triads and was influenced by neo-platonism and later by mysticism.

scholar JW

167

How did JWs arrive at a clearer understanding of what the Bible teaches than other Christian denominations?

by slimboyfat in

for jws who believe that jehovah had a hand in reviving the truth in the nineteenth century this is enough explanation for how jws managed to achieve a closer approximation to early christian beliefs and practices than other groups.

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

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

scholar

aqwsed12345

Your assertion that there is "no misunderstanding" of the qualitative force of theos in John 1:1c needs further examination. Qualitativeness in Greek grammar, especially in John 1:1c, signifies that theos describes the nature or essence of the Word—expressing full divinity without introducing a secondary, lesser god. The NWT's rendering of "a god" misses this point, implying an inferior deity rather than the full divine nature John was emphasizing. The qualitative meaning here shows that the Word shares in the essence of deity, not as a second god, but in unity with the Father.

---

Your assertion that "Qualitativeness in Greek grammar especially in John 1:1 c, signifies that theos describes the nature or essence" is correct but your comment that it "expresses full divinity without introducing a secondary, lesser god' reflects a theological interpretation. The NWT' rendering 'a god' does imply inferiority but defines his relationship to his Father as His Son harmonizing well with John 1:1b and sharing in the same essence or substance as the Father with Deity and Divinity- 'godlike' or having divine quality exemplified by the expression 'a god' or 'divine' as rendered in other translations of John 1:1.

NB: Theological terms such as 'essence' and 'substance' are non-biblical.

==================

he NWT's translation "a god" is theologically problematic because it implies the existence of more than one divine being, which contradicts the strict monotheism found in both the Old and New Testaments (e.g., Deuteronomy 6:4, Isaiah 43:10). The traditional translation, "the Word was God," does not introduce the idea of multiple gods but affirms that the Word shares in the same divine nature as the Father. Saying "a god" introduces theological confusion by creating the possibility of subordination or henotheism—an idea John did not intend to convey.

-----

I disagree. The NWT's rendering 'a god' is consistent with many other translations. It affirms not implies Biblical monotheism of the OT and the NT. The traditional rendering 'the Word was God' is meaningless and contradicts the previous statement that the 'Word was with God' hence becoming theologically problematic. If you argue that this rendering affirms that the 'Word was God' shares in the same divine nature with God then I would agree and further I would also agree that the 'Word was a God' is equally applicable- the Word shares the same nature as God having divine quality or being a god or godlike. The expression 'a god' harmonizes with the context of the Prologue -John 1: 2-3, 14. showing subordination to the Father as 'God's Son.

=====

The claim that Trinitarianism is "rooted in Neo-Platonism" oversimplifies the historical development of Christian theology. While some early Church Fathers employed philosophical terminology to explain theological doctrines, the concept of the Trinity is based on biblical texts such as John 1:1, Philippians 2:6-11, and Colossians 1:15-20, which reveal Christ’s divine identity. The Nicene Creed affirmed that the Son shares the same divine essence as the Father, and this was not merely "a product of Greek philosophy" but a reflection of the Church's scriptural understanding of Jesus' deity. The homoousios ("same essence") of the Nicene Creed encapsulates this understanding of Christ’s full divinity and eternal nature.

---

It is not a claim that 'Trinitarianism is rooted in Neo-Platonism but a well-accepted fact of Historical Theology and Philosophy attested by numerous scholars. By your acquiescence, you admit to this fact that the Church Fathers adopted philosophical terminology in defence and explanation of this new doctrine introduced into the Church in the latter periods. The concept of the Trinity is not found in the OT and the NT which widely recognized by scholars even Catholic scholars who would argue is that it is implied only but not directly stated. Your proof texts such as John 1: 1, Philippians 2: 6-11 and Colossians 1: 15-20 are contestable as shown by how these are rendered in many translations which all attest to Christ's Deity and Divinity as God's Son and not fully God. The Nicene Creed was first written not in Latin but in Greek and thus was well suited to such philosophical vocabulary by its use of such terms and language not found in the Greek NT. The Greek term homoousios is an example of using a foreign concept to the NT to affirm a teaching or doctrine not explicitly found in the OT and the NT. The meaning of this word and its use is controversial as was its adoption at Nicea. The word can mean 'of the same essence', same 'substance', 'reality', 'being' and 'type'.Much can be said about the Nicene adoption of this word during and after the Council as it is flexible in meaning according to one's theological disposition.

===

The assertion that Trinitarianism represents a "great apostasy" and "stems from paganism", as propounded by Alexander Hislop's Two Babylons, has been widely debunked by both historical and theological scholars. Hislop's thesis was based on selective and often misinterpreted historical evidence, and reputable scholarship no longer supports his conclusions. The development of the doctrine of the Trinity was a response to various heresies and was deeply rooted in scriptural exegesis. It was not a pagan "invention", but a theological clarification aimed at safeguarding the Church's teaching on Christ's true nature. Early Christian writings such as those by Athanasius and the Cappadocian Fathers directly counter Arianism and defend the full divinity of the Son, indicating a continuity with the apostolic faith rather than a deviation. FYI: Did the Trinity Come from Paganism?

----

One does not need to rely on Hislop's Two Babylons in order to prove that the Trinity is of pagan origin but simply to read a wide variety of reference books that deal with this subject and if possible read the primary sources such as that of Plato, Philo and Plotinus and of course the patristic literature. Your claim that the Trinity 'is rooted in scriptural exegesis' is nonsense for it arose from a pagan Emperor who sought to unify the squabbling Bishops trying to resolve Christological heresies then widely debated within the State- a matter of political expediency.

Your article that you cited of some 22 pages by an unknown author is merely a diatribe against the WT publications on the Trinity and offers no proof that the Trinity was not derived from Paganism.

===========

You referenced Daniel B. Wallace’s view on theos in John 1:1c. Wallace’s work emphasizes the qualitative nature of theos in this context, affirming that the Word shares fully in the divine essence without implying henotheism or a lesser deity. Wallace’s rejection of the NWT rendering "a god" is based on his understanding that the qualitative theos emphasizes the nature of the Word as divine. By contrast, the NWT introduces theological ambiguity by suggesting that the Word is a separate, subordinate god—a view that contradicts both Wallace’s interpretation and the broader context of John’s Gospel, which emphasizes the unity and full divinity of the Word.

--

I only referred to Wallace because you introduced him into this debate. Wallace believes in the Trinity which has coloured his opinion on the translation of John 1:1. His criticism of the NWT reflects his bias and the fact that he did not bother to discuss the Appendix on John 1:1 by the NWT Committee in the 1950 edition reflects poorly on his scholarship. The only theological ambiguity is not created by NWT scholars but by Trinitarian scholars who seek to introduce definitiveness on an anarthrous noun -theos in John 1:1 c. Contrariwise, the NWT in its brilliance preserves both the indefintiveness and the qualativeness of that theos- 'a god' rather than 'God'.

=======

In conclusion, the NWT’s translation "a god" introduces unnecessary theological confusion by suggesting a subordinationist or henotheistic framework inconsistent with the monotheistic message of both the Old and New Testaments. The qualitative rendering, "the Word was God," properly reflects the nature of the Word as fully divine without implying a second, lesser god. This is the most accurate translation in line with the intent of John's Gospel and the monotheism of early Christianity.

By addressing these points, the argument that the NWT rendering is "superior" falls apart under scrutiny, revealing theological misinterpretations and inconsistencies with both the biblical and historical understanding of Christ's deity.

--

The NWT has withstood the test of time since 1950 and has proved to be most accurate in its translation for both the OT and the NT. It is an intellectually honest translation giving the Reader abundant information as to reasons for its approach and methodology in its translation work such as its numerous Appendices, marginal references and textual sources, its multi-lingual facility is truly outstanding and reflects the Pentecostal spirit described in the book of Acts.

Its same publishing agency has published an excellent brochure on the Trinity- Should You Believe in the Trinity? 1989, which gives many references to sources whereby the Reader can check and examine in detail. The more one studies the origin, history and present-day status of this doctrine will readily see that it is non-biblical, pagan in origin and a manifestation of Platonism.

scholar JW

=

167

How did JWs arrive at a clearer understanding of what the Bible teaches than other Christian denominations?

by slimboyfat in

for jws who believe that jehovah had a hand in reviving the truth in the nineteenth century this is enough explanation for how jws managed to achieve a closer approximation to early christian beliefs and practices than other groups.

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

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

scholar

aqwsed12345

Your argument relies heavily on a misunderstanding of what the qualitative force of "theos" means in John 1:1c. The commentary you cited from Sacra Pagina acknowledges that the qualitative "theos" describes the nature of the Word—“what God was, the Word also was.” This means that John is affirming that the Word shares fully in the divine nature of God, but not confusing the Word with the Father. The NWT rendering "a god" misinterprets this qualitative force by suggesting a distinction in divinity between the Word and the Father. The NWT's translation implies a secondary, lesser deity, which is not what the qualitative meaning entails. If the Word possesses the nature of God, then the rendering "a god" diminishes this very nature by introducing a subordinationist framework inconsistent with John's intent.

----

There is no misunderstanding regarding the qualitativeness of theos in John 1:1.as shown not only by the Catholic commentary I cited but also by the NWT's rendering of theos' as 'a god'. Such a rendering in English affirms the Deity and divinity of the Word. The traditional rendering theos as 'God' displaces or negates such qualativeness making the theos definite rather than indefinite..Further, the rendering of 'a god' shows the distinction between the Father and the Son, which is made most clear in the Prologue, the Gospel of John, his Epistles, and Revelation. The NWT's rendering 'a god' describes not only His nature but His relationship to his Father as distinct from the Father but his unity with the Father In short, the NWT states most clearly in English not only what John said but what he meant by means of theos without the article hence indefinite and qualativeness by its placement before the verb. Clearly, John introduces the concept of subordination by using the indefinite theos and not the definite ho theos.

----

The NWT introduces a theologically problematic reading by translating "theos" as "a god," suggesting the existence of multiple gods, which contradicts the monotheism presented in John and throughout the Bible (e.g., Deuteronomy 6:4, Isaiah 43:10). The qualitative force means that the Word possesses the very nature of God, not as a second or lesser god, but fully participating in God's divine essence. Trinitarianism holds that the Father and the Word (Son) share the same divine nature without being identical persons, which avoids the confusion that the NWT translation introduces.

--

The NWT's rendering 'a god' is no more theologically problematic than the traditional rendering 'God' or 'what God was, the Word also was. Any rendering of theos in this instance is open to interpretation hence becoming 'theological problematic'. Such a rendering does not introduce a notion of multiple Gods but preserves the Monotheism container in both the OT and NT. as shown by the use of God's distinctive name throughout. the Bible. Further, it is Trinitarianism that makes multiple gods by its creedal teaching of three Persons in one God, each person being fully God-polytheism or tritheism in disguise?

The qualitative force of theos does indeed show the very nature of God but His relationship to God as a Son to a Father or subordinate and separate to the Father as being His Son with full Godship for any other interpretation blurs the distinction between these two entities- Almighty God whose name is Jehovah and His Son who was known as the 'Word' later becoming the man, Jesus Christ. The NWT's 'a god' preserves that both the Son and the Father have the same divine nature but are wholly distinct from each other as a Father to a Son.

---

The claim that Trinitarianism is “rooted” in Neo-Platonism oversimplifies the development of Christian theology. While some Church Fathers used philosophical terminology to articulate their doctrines, the core concepts of the Trinity are rooted in Scripture and the early Church’s understanding of Jesus' divine identity. The idea that Trinitarian theology simply “adopted” Neo-Platonism ignores the biblical evidence for Christ's deity found in texts like John 1:1, Philippians 2:6-11, and Colossians 1:15-20. Moreover, the Nicene Creed, which affirmed the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father, was not simply a product of Greek philosophy, but of theological debates that sought to remain faithful to the apostolic tradition

--

Christian Orthodox Theology arose from many sources in the Ancient World over many centuries and chief among those many influences was Neo-Platonism which had a distinct vocabulary adopted by the Church. Many of these terms or concepts are non-biblical which has muddied the waters creating a doctrine that is incomprehensible- Trinitarianism. The core elements of the Trinity are not found in Scripture neither the OT or the NT as many scholars admit. The Nicene Creed, 325 CE was a product of fiery debates amongst the assembled bishops and others presided over by a pagan ruler and not the result of the Holy Spirit. as shown at Pentecost, 33 CE and the First Jerusalem Council,l49 CE. Further, it could not be argued that those assembled were faithful to the apostolic tradition but rather to apostasy or the the teachings of the Antichrist as foretold by the Apostle John in his Epistles.

---

The qualitative rendering, as supported by scholars such as Daniel B. Wallace, emphasizes the divine nature of the Word without introducing henotheism. The NWT's translation "a god" distorts the meaning by suggesting that the Word is not fully God but a lesser divine being. This interpretation is inconsistent with the broader context of John’s Gospel, which consistently affirms the full divinity of the Word (John 1:3, John 1:18) and aligns with the monotheistic faith of Israel.

Wallace has much to say about the translation of John 1:1, the NWT' rendering of theos and deals with the following issues:

Is Theos in John 1:1 Indefinite?

Is Theos in John 1:1 Definite?

Is Theos in John 1:1 Qualitative?

Wallace would have better served if he had bothered to read the Appendix on John 1:1 in the NWT 1950.

The NWT rather than distorts the meaning of theos but rather clarifies its meaning in harmony with its context for the Reader in describing the Son's Deity and Divinity as not fully God but as His Son having the same nature, essence or substance as to the Father being created by Him as Firstborn and in subjection to Him.

---

n conclusion, the NWT translation "a god" misrepresents the qualitative nature of "theos" in John 1:1c by introducing theological confusion and contradicting the monotheistic message of both the Old and New Testaments. The traditional rendering, “the Word was God,” is the most accurate and consistent translation that preserves the full divinity of the Word.

--

In conclusion, the NWT' rendering the Johannine theos as 'a god' is superior to all other translations and has withstood the test of time in respect of Bible scholarship since the fifties. It alone preserves Biblical Monotheism thematic throughout the OT and the NT. The rendering theos as God' is inaccurate and nonbiblical for it represents the foretold deviation from the True Religion expressed as Trinitarianism- an ancient heresy.

scholar JW

167

How did JWs arrive at a clearer understanding of what the Bible teaches than other Christian denominations?

by slimboyfat in

for jws who believe that jehovah had a hand in reviving the truth in the nineteenth century this is enough explanation for how jws managed to achieve a closer approximation to early christian beliefs and practices than other groups.

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

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

scholar

aqwswed12345

Your objection rests on the claim that the anarthrous "theos" (without a definite article) in John 1:1c is qualitative, and you emphasize that the New World Translation (NWT) reflects this understanding correctly by rendering it as "a god." You also argue that calling the Word "divine" is merely describing a quality of the Word rather than identifying Him as God.

-----

Note what one notable Catholic commentary by an Australian Catholic theologian says regarding the translation and commentary of John1:1:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was turned toward God, and what God was the Word also was"

'This verse concludes with a description of the consequences of the intense intimacy between the Word and God. Although the traditional translation is "and the Word was God", there is a danger that this might lead the contemporary reader of the English text to collapse the Word and God into one: they are both God. The author has gone to considerable trouble to indicate that an identification between the Word and God is to be avoided. The Greek sentence (kai theos en ho logos) places the complement (theos:God) before 'to be' and does not give it an article. It is extremely difficult to catch this nuance in English , but the author avoids saying that the Word and God were one and the same thing. The translation 'what God was the Word also was' indicates that the Word and God retain their uniqueness, despite their oneness that flows from their inimacy' - Sacra Pagina, The Gospel of John , Francis J. Moloney, SDB,1998, pp.33,35, The Liturgical Press, Collegeville, Minnesota,

Such difficulty is nicely resolved by the NWT's rendering for the Anarthrous Nominative predicative noun-theos in John 1:1 as the indefinite, qualitative ' a god' or 'divine'.

-----

You accuse Catholic theologians of being influenced by Neo-Platonism, suggesting that this influence is what drives their theological conclusions. However, this is a misrepresentation of Church doctrine. The affirmation of the Word's full divinity in John 1:1c is rooted in the biblical and historical understanding of the Christian faith, long predating Neo-Platonism. While some philosophical terms were later adopted to clarify the nature of the Trinity, the core belief that the Word is fully divine (not "a god") comes from the apostolic teaching itself.

Absolutely not! Trinitarianism is rooted in Neo-Platonism which predates Nicea and was the current philosophical doctrine at that time which influenced some of the Church Fathers. You acknowledge this by the fact that there was an adoption of many Greek and Latin terms from Greek philosophy later incorporated in Church doctrine or theology prior to and after Nicea.

scholar JW

University of Sydney

Department of Religion

167

How did JWs arrive at a clearer understanding of what the Bible teaches than other Christian denominations?

by slimboyfat in

for jws who believe that jehovah had a hand in reviving the truth in the nineteenth century this is enough explanation for how jws managed to achieve a closer approximation to early christian beliefs and practices than other groups.

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

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

scholar

aqwsed12345

In John 1:1, the context clearly refers to the divine nature of the Word (Logos). The statement "καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος" ("and the Word was God") affirms the deity of Jesus Christ. The capitalization of "God" in English reflects the qualitative nature of the Greek construction, where "theos" without the article is used to emphasize divine essence rather than to suggest a second, lesser god.

---

Bunkum! The context clearly shows that the anarthrous theos in the last clause of John 1:1 is not only indefinite as the noun omits the definite article but it is also qualitative.Wisely, the NWT Committee. stated in the Appendix article on John 1:1 in 1950 the following: "Every honest person will have to admit that John's saying that the Word or Logos 'was divine' is not saying that he was the God with whom he was. It merely tells of a certain quality about the Word or Logos, but it does not identify him as one and the same as God".

It would appear that you and your Roman Catholic theologians some being mystics have been influenced by Neo-Platonism originated with Plotinus which accounts for the theological mumbo-jumbo dressed up as biblical theology but is nothing but Mysticism rather than sound Biblical scholarship, presented in the 'celebrated' NWT -the most brilliant translation of the Bible ever made which puts modern scholars to shame.

scholar JW

University of Sydney

167

How did JWs arrive at a clearer understanding of what the Bible teaches than other Christian denominations?

by slimboyfat in

for jws who believe that jehovah had a hand in reviving the truth in the nineteenth century this is enough explanation for how jws managed to achieve a closer approximation to early christian beliefs and practices than other groups.

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

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

scholar

aqwsed12345

A prime example is the rendering of John 1:1 in the NWT as "the Word was a god," rather than "the Word was God." This translation violates standard Greek grammar and has been rejected by mainstream biblical scholars across various denominations. The translation reflects the Jehovah’s Witnesses' denial of Christ's deity rather than a "fresh" or "innocent" reading of the text. Similar issues arise with their translation of Colossians 1:16-17, where the word "other" is inserted to suggest that Christ is a created/made being (while according to the NT the Son is born/begotten), despite the absence of the term in the Greek text.

---

Utter nonsense! The NWT's rendering of John1:1 does not violate any rules of Greek grammar.A careful study of any published greek grammars right up to the present would confirm that the rendering 'a god' or 'divine' is accurate and theologically acceptable. there have many articles published in academic journals on this subject and again there is no real problem with this particular rendering in this instance of theos.

I studied NT Greek under the tutelage of Dr. John A Lee at the University of Sydney for the sole purpose of understanding this subject and was letter from Dr. Lee was given to the class which contained his opinion of the translation of this verse which stated that grammar alone cannot settle this issue but comes down to interpretation.

scholar JW

153

When JW.org drops 607BCE...

by Nathan Natas in

probably everyone else thought of this long ago, but i, being an "independent thunker" thunk of it just a coupla weeks ago.. we all know that since the year zero (on the fredfranzian calendar) the wtb&ts has defied archaeology and insisted that jerusalem was destroyed in 607 bce, even though the physical evidence shows that 587 bce is a more likely date.

in fact, the book "the gentile times reconsidered: have jehovah's witnesses been wrong all along about 607 bce?

" by carl olof jonsson and rud persson made this conversation public.. it is a difference of 20 years.

scholar

Jeffro

Not odd at all. Young correctly indicates that it was 587 BCE, provides reasons, and concludes that it is therefore the preferred position despite some other sources still using the incorrect 586 BCE. Only odd thing is your inability to process information.

--

What is odd is that you are unable to recognize the difference between an opinion and dogmatism. The fact is that as with your contrivance as with Young's discussion, both are based on some assumptions hence an opinion.

scholar JW

153

When JW.org drops 607BCE...

by Nathan Natas in

probably everyone else thought of this long ago, but i, being an "independent thunker" thunk of it just a coupla weeks ago.. we all know that since the year zero (on the fredfranzian calendar) the wtb&ts has defied archaeology and insisted that jerusalem was destroyed in 607 bce, even though the physical evidence shows that 587 bce is a more likely date.

in fact, the book "the gentile times reconsidered: have jehovah's witnesses been wrong all along about 607 bce?

" by carl olof jonsson and rud persson made this conversation public.. it is a difference of 20 years.

scholar

Jeffro

Steinmann is also correct. Good on him. The selected sources that incorrectly place the end of the siege in the wrong year also have the wrong year for the start of the siege. No surprises here.

--

The matter is further complicated by debate about the length of the siege of Jerusalem. Further, I have just accessed the book by Robb Andrew Young who supports 587 BCE rather than 586. In his study on page 21 he states "The correct date of 587 BCE for the Babylonian conquest of Jerusalem is substantiated by examination of the exile of Jehoiachin".Then in the very next paragraph, he begins "It is thus preferable, in my opinion, to date the fall of Jerusalem to 587 BCE".

Methinks rather an odd comment considering he discusses the subject at some length of som 4 pages with extensive footnotes.

scholar JW