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
