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

by slimboyfat 158 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Phizzy
    Phizzy

    I like this bit from the Article in Rivergang's link :

    " If however, the Ancient Church did not remain within the truth – as various protestant groups and heresies maintain – then they have a serious problem. They place themselves in the predicament of acknowledging the authority of an apostate Church that ruled on the Canon of the New Testament! How can they trust the Canon of the 27 books of the New Testament, if it was composed by alleged apostates of the truth? How can they be certain that those involved had made the correct choice as to which books are divinely inspired or not, if they had apostatized from the divine truth? If the Church had apostatized, how can they be sure that those people hadn’t chosen the books that were considered expedient and rejected those that weren’t to their advantage? If, on the other hand, they trust the Canon of the New Testament, then they –unwittingly- also trust the Church that created that Canon!"

  • slimboyfat
    slimboyfat

    I think the canon was probably settled in the second century. The idea that it took until the 4th century doesn’t seem credible to me. See David Trobisch’s book The First Edition of the New Testament.

    The first record of something (canon list by Athanasius in the 4th century) doesn’t mean that’s the first time it existed. There’s plausible evidence that Origen listed the canon already in the 3rd century, and good internal evidence that the New Testament was a discrete collection by the mid second century.

    https://timothypauljones.medium.com/apologetics-the-earliest-surviving-listing-of-the-new-testament-canon-36e6f5c02436

  • aqwsed12345
    aqwsed12345

    @Earnest

    Jason BeDuhn's commentary, particularly in Truth in Translation, is often used to support the New World Translation (NWT)'s rendering of John 1:1 as "a god." However, BeDuhn himself did not fully endorse this translation. He preferred the term "divine" to describe the theos in John 1:1c, a choice that indicates a qualitative understanding of the word. He did not affirm the idea that Jesus is "a god" in the sense of being a separate deity, nor did he imply polytheism. Instead, BeDuhn’s preferred rendering of "divine" captures the qualitative nature of Jesus’ divinity, consistent with the understanding of Christ’s unique divine nature. His statement that "the meaning is the same in either case" should be understood within the context of recognizing that while the grammar may permit certain translations, not all of them are theologically valid or appropriate.

    BeDuhn himself acknowledged that the term "divine" could allow for a Trinitarian interpretation. In a private correspondence, he wrote that his rendering "leaves open" the possibility of understanding the Word as fully divine and of the same essence as the Father. Thus, the suggestion that BeDuhn supports the NWT's rendering of John 1:1c as "a god" is misleading. His approach was more nuanced, and he did not promote a translation that would lead to theological polytheism or subordinationism.

    Philip Harner’s seminal article on qualitative anarthrous predicate nouns is another key source often cited by proponents of the NWT’s rendering. Harner’s research focused on how the placement of anarthrous predicate nouns (nouns without the definite article) before the verb, as in John 1:1c, typically emphasizes the qualitative aspect of the noun, rather than definiteness or indefiniteness.

    Harner explicitly stated that John’s intention in using this grammatical structure was to emphasize the nature or essence of the Word as divine, not to indicate that the Word was a separate, subordinate deity. His comment that there may be "some connotation of definiteness" does not imply that John meant to suggest that the Word was "a god," but rather, that the Word possesses the divine nature fully and shares in the same essence as God. Harner’s primary conclusion was that John 1:1c emphasizes the divine nature of the Word, which is consistent with Trinitarian theology. His research does not support the indefinite article "a god," as used by the NWT.

    The grammatical structure of John 1:1c, in which theos precedes the verb without the article, is designed to emphasize the qualitative nature of the noun. The absence of the article does not automatically make theos indefinite, and translating it as "a god" introduces significant theological confusion, as it suggests polytheism or henotheism, neither of which align with the biblical witness of monotheism.

    As scholars like Wallace, Harner, and Harris have pointed out, the use of theos in John 1:1c emphasizes that the Word shares fully in the divine nature. The Word (Logos) is distinct from the Father in person but shares the same divine essence. The qualitative force of theos shows that the Word is fully divine, which is essential for maintaining biblical monotheism. Translating this as "a god" would indeed be grammatically possible, but as Murray Harris notes, it would be theologically inappropriate because it would imply the existence of multiple gods, which contradicts the monotheistic foundation of both the Old and New Testaments.

    Translating John 1:1c as "a god" would introduce polytheism, even if only two separate divine beings are mentioned (the Father and the Word). Polytheism is not just the belief in many gods but includes any belief in multiple distinct gods, regardless of their number. Deuteronomy 6:4 and Isaiah 45:5 emphasize the absolute singularity of God, and translating theos as "a god" undermines the clear biblical assertion that there is only one true God. The qualitative reading of theos in John 1:1c maintains that the Word shares fully in the divine essence of the one God, distinct in person but not in essence.

    @ slimboyfat

    You're right in bringing up William Barclay's situation, and it's a perfect illustration of how theological nuances can be misunderstood or misused. Here's why Barclay's frustration with being quoted by Jehovah's Witnesses is significant and why his argument about John 1:1 should not be used to deny Christ's divinity, even if he suggested theos could be qualitative in John 1:1c.

    William Barclay did suggest that theos in John 1:1c ("and the Word was God") is qualitative, which means it describes the nature or essence of the Word (Logos), not necessarily identifying it as "the God" (ho theos). However, this does not diminish the divinity of the Word. A qualitative reading of theos would mean that the Word has the very nature of God, or shares in the divine essence. In essence, the Logos is divine, fully possessing God's attributes.

    Jehovah's Witnesses, in their New World Translation, render John 1:1c as "the Word was a god," implying that Jesus is a lesser, created being, not truly divine. This is a misreading of both the Greek and the broader theological implications. Barclay was horrified because his nuanced argument about the qualitative nature of theos was being used to support a theology that he did not endorse. He did not deny Christ’s divinity, nor did he argue for a subordinate or created Jesus, as the Watchtower does.

    Jehovah's Witnesses often selectively quote scholars like Barclay to lend credibility to their arguments, but they ignore the broader context of these scholars' work. Barclay believed in the uniqueness and divine nature of Christ, even if his views on universalism were controversial. Quoting his linguistic points without addressing his overall theological stance is misleading.

    While Barclay did hold to some controversial views, such as universalism (the belief that all will eventually be saved), it’s important to separate his views on universalism from his views on Christ’s nature. The fact that he didn't want to be associated with the Jehovah's Witnesses' Christology shows that he still held a fundamentally orthodox view of Jesus' divine nature. His frustration reflects that even those who may stray in some areas of doctrine can be protective of core Christian truths like the divinity of Christ.

    Barclay’s argument about theos in John 1:1c does not support the Jehovah's Witnesses’ Arian-like view of Jesus as a created being. Even though he believed theos was qualitative, that still affirms Christ’s full divinity—exactly the opposite of what Jehovah's Witnesses try to argue. Barclay himself would have been appalled to see his work misrepresented in defense of a view that denies Jesus' true divinity.

  • aqwsed12345
    aqwsed12345

    @slimboyfat

    The claim that the canon was "settled" in the second century, as you suggest, overlooks the complexity of early Christian history. While it is true that many of the books that became part of the New Testament were recognized and used by Christians in the second century, the process of agreeing on a fixed, authoritative list took time. The Church did not possess an "official" New Testament canon until the fourth century, largely because there was no central authority to enforce such a list until Christianity became legally recognized under Constantine.

    Early Christian communities used a variety of texts, and while many of the New Testament books were widely accepted early on, others (such as Hebrews, James, Revelation, and 2 Peter) faced some dispute. Likewise, some texts that were initially popular among early Christians (such as the Shepherd of Hermas, the Epistle of Barnabas, or 1 Clement) were not ultimately included in the canon. The process of forming a universally accepted New Testament canon required discerning which texts were genuinely apostolic and which were not.

    While you reference David Trobisch’s work and suggest the canon was settled earlier, we need to be cautious with assumptions about the early period. Yes, there were discussions and collections of writings that resembled a canon, but the formal and universally accepted canon we recognize today was only fixed in the fourth century, particularly through synods like the Synod of Hippo (393 AD) and the Council of Carthage (397 AD), which reaffirmed the 27 books we now hold as Scripture. These councils did not create the canon but confirmed what had already been used in the liturgy and believed by the Church for centuries.

    The issue here is not that the canon was suddenly invented in the fourth century; rather, it was formally recognized after a long process of discernment. The fact that Athanasius’s letter from 367 AD provides the first surviving formal list identical to the modern New Testament canon is not an argument that no canon existed before this. Instead, it shows that Athanasius was affirming what had increasingly become the accepted body of sacred Scripture, a process guided by the Church and the Holy Spirit.

    You reference Origen and suggest that he listed the 27 books of the New Testament canon. While Origen is indeed an important early Christian figure, it is important to recognize that Origen himself acknowledged that there was still debate about certain books. For instance, Origen mentions in his writings that 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Hebrews were questioned in some Christian communities. This shows that while Origen had a high regard for many of the books that eventually became canonical, the canon was not universally agreed upon in his time.

    Origen’s contribution is critical, but it does not prove that a settled, universally accepted canon existed as early as the third century. The Muratorian Fragment, a document from the late second century, also lists many books of the New Testament, but it still omits some (like Hebrews) and includes others (like the Apocalypse of Peter) that were later excluded. This shows that while there was significant agreement on many New Testament writings, there was still no finalized canon in the second or third centuries.

    You raise a valid point that just because the Festal Letter of Athanasius is the first formal list we have from the fourth century, it doesn’t mean that the Church was in complete disarray before that. However, the key issue remains: the canon of the New Testament, as we know it today, was ultimately recognized and affirmed by the Church—the same Church that many Protestant groups claim to have fallen into “apostasy”.

    This presents a dilemma for groups that reject the authority of the Catholic Church while still accepting the New Testament canon, which was discerned and preserved by that same Church. How can one trust that the Church made the right decisions about the canon if one believes that the Church had already fallen away from the truth? To accept the canon without acknowledging the Church’s role in preserving it is inconsistent.

    You mention that some scholars suggest Origen listed the entire canon, and while that might provide insight into how early Christians viewed certain texts, the broader question is about who had the authority to discern the canon. Even if there were early collections of New Testament books, the authority to define and recognize the canon officially came from the Church, not individual theologians or local communities.

    As Tertullian and St. Irenaeus both noted in their writings, apostolic succession was key in maintaining doctrinal integrity. The Church, through its apostolic authority, was entrusted with preserving and interpreting Scripture. The councils that later affirmed the canon did so based on the long-standing tradition of the Church, which preserved the apostolic teaching. This is the same Church that Protestant groups now question when it comes to doctrine but rely on when it comes to the canon.

    While it is true that the New Testament canon developed over time and that many of the texts were recognized early on, the formal recognition of the canon took place under the authority of the Church in the fourth century. Early lists like those from Origen or the Muratorian Fragment give us insight into the gradual process, but the finalization of the canon was the work of the broader Church.

    Protestants who accept the New Testament canon must reconcile the fact that it was the Catholic Church, which they claim fell into error, that discerned and protected the canon of Scripture they now use. Without the Church’s authority in this process, it becomes difficult to explain how the correct books were chosen, especially since early Christian communities did not always agree on the contents of the canon.

    Thus, the Catholic Church's role in canon formation is indispensable, and to accept the canon of Scripture without acknowledging the Church’s authority is inconsistent. The canon did not "happen" by accident; it was discerned and protected through the authority Christ gave to his Church.

  • Blotty
    Blotty

    "Protestants who accept the New Testament canon must reconcile the fact that it was the Catholic Church, which they claim fell into error, that discerned and protected the canon of Scripture they now use. " - this is a misrepresentation of protestants... a simple search on google will tell anyone otherwise

  • Blotty
    Blotty

    " A qualitative reading of theos would mean that the Word has the very nature of God, or shares in the divine essence. In essence, the Logos is divine, fully possessing God's attributes." - not quite true.. but sure go on believing that - plenty of evidence to suggest otherwise

    and how is it when I cite Dan wallace and Harner its "quote mining" yet you do the same thing and apparently its ok... make up your mind its one standard for everyone not one for you and one for anyone who supports JW - get off your high horse.
    (cite one quote I used out of its context and "quote mined" - go on, try me - you do the exact same thing with church fathers - Ninc)

    "Translating John 1:1c as "a god" would introduce polytheism, even if only two separate divine beings are mentioned (the Father and the Word). Polytheism is not just the belief in many gods but includes any belief in multiple distinct gods"

    - it would not "a god" is like saying "divine" or is of a certain category just like "a human" or "human"

    Philo, Origen and Justin ALL talk about "second gods" Origen even talks about "gods" by participation
    Arently none of these effect monotheism or worshipping only YHWH - because there was space where other "gods" who were NOT WORSHIPPED existed as evidenced from other early Christian writings.
    Why did the LXX translate Elohim as aggelos? try a google search of the translators... or look at actaul acedmic material - shouldnt be too hard for you to work it out

  • aqwsed12345
    aqwsed12345

    Your claim that my statement about Protestants needing to reconcile the Catholic Church's role in determining the New Testament canon is a misrepresentation is unfounded. While it is true that Protestant scholars and traditions may have different perspectives on how the canon was discerned, the historical fact remains that the formal recognition of the New Testament canon was done by the Catholic Church in the fourth century. Synods like the Synod of Hippo (393 AD) and the Council of Carthage (397 AD) reaffirmed the 27 books of the New Testament that are recognized today.

    While some Protestants may argue that the canon existed earlier in an informal sense, the official and universally accepted canon was recognized and preserved by the Catholic Church. This is not a misrepresentation but a historical reality. The point being made is that if one accepts the New Testament canon as it stands today, one must recognize that the process was guided by the same Church many Protestants claim fell into error.

    Your objection that a qualitative reading of "theos" in John 1:1c does not mean that the Word shares the same divine essence as God is based on a misunderstanding of how scholars interpret the text. The qualitative nature of "theos" in this verse indicates that the Word possesses the same nature as God. The absence of the definite article before "theos" does not imply that Jesus is a lesser god, but rather emphasizes His divine essence.

    Scholars like Philip Harner and Dan Wallace have argued extensively that the qualitative nature of "theos" in John 1:1c points to the Word being fully divine, not merely a being with divine-like qualities. Your comparison of "a god" with "a human" misses the point of the theological significance of this passage. In Greek, the placement of "theos" without the definite article before the verb emphasizes the nature or essence of the Word as divine, not as a separate, lower-ranked god.

    The argument that translating John 1:1c as "a god" would not introduce polytheism because it merely suggests the Word is "divine" or "in a category like human" is problematic. In the context of ancient Jewish monotheism, which strongly rejects the existence of multiple gods, translating "theos" as "a god" would introduce a division within the Godhead and imply the existence of more than one divine being, which contradicts the biblical assertion of one true God (Deuteronomy 6:4, Isaiah 45:5).

    The early Christian understanding, as reflected in the writings of the Church Fathers, upheld that Christ shares fully in the divine nature of God. Translating "theos" as "a god" misrepresents the early Christian monotheistic belief that the Word is not a separate deity but one in essence with the Father.

    Philo, Origen, and Justin indeed speak of "second gods" or "gods by participation," but their use of these terms must be understood in their proper context. These thinkers were exploring how the divine Word (Logos) or other heavenly beings could be understood within the framework of strict monotheism. When Philo or Origen speak of "second gods," they are not advocating for polytheism or the worship of other gods. Rather, they use this language to describe beings that participate in divine attributes, without compromising the oneness of God.

    Origen, for example, speaks of beings "called gods" by participation but makes it clear that they are not gods in the same sense as the one true God. His reference to "gods by participation" emphasizes their derived divinity, not independent godhood. These discussions do not support the idea of multiple gods in the same sense as the Father, nor do they provide grounds for interpreting John 1:1c as "a god" in the way the New World Translation does.

    The translation of "Elohim" as "aggelos" in the Septuagint (LXX) in some instances is a reflection of Jewish interpretive traditions, where "Elohim" could refer to divine beings or angels. This translation choice was made to clarify the meaning in contexts where "Elohim" referred to beings other than God. However, this does not support the idea that Jesus, as the Word, should be understood as "a god" in John 1:1c. The context of John 1:1c is entirely different, as it speaks of the Word's eternal existence and divine nature, not of angels or lesser divine beings.

    Your argument attempts to equate the term "a god" with a lower divine being, supported by selective interpretations of early Christian writers and Jewish translation traditions. However, the broader theological context, the qualitative force of "theos" in John 1:1c, and the early Christian understanding of Christ's divinity point to a much more profound reality: the Word is fully and truly divine, sharing the same essence as the Father. The translation "a god" introduces confusion and theological errors, such as polytheism or henotheism, which contradict the monotheistic foundation of the Bible.

  • Blotty
    Blotty

    "they use this language to describe beings that participate in divine attributes, without compromising the oneness of God." - would this not fall under "qualitative", I think you'll find it would

    notice Jesus' quote from psalms has a plural noun before the verb

  • peacefulpete
    peacefulpete

    When we speak of 'canon' we must ask who's canon? Surely everyone knows each branch of Christianity had its own collection of writings and this in a diminished way continues today. All of the discussion above is focused upon a Proto-orthodox branch that dominated in later centuries. The Nag Hamadi library should illustrate that point. Christianity went through a bottleneck; all earlier forms of Christianity were lost under the domination of the 'Catholic' form. All branches today spring from it.

    Many have elevated the Muratorian list as just the proof they needed to suppose an early consensus. It's not sober objectivity that leads to that conclusion. The Muratorian fragment list was redacted in the 8th century, when previous version/s were written is unknown. Some speculate the late second while others see very good reasons (it's use as a prologue, it's Latin reflects an earlier Latin vorlage not Greek, it's lack of mention by earlier heresiologists and writers, etc.) to date it to the 4th.

    see: The Muratorian Fragment: Text, Translation and Commentary” (Mohr Siebeck: 2022)

    The fragment itself demonstrates that hundreds of years later than the supposed date of Jesus, even the proto-orthodox branches of the faith had not yet agreed upon what writings were approved.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit