Previous note: This dialogue is based on a real debate held on an Internet forum, of which I participated. Although I am responsible for the final form of the writing, I must thank those who participated in that debate (mainly Felix and Palermo), because their opinions inspired much of this dialogue. I also appreciate the valuable contributions of Lic. Néstor Martínez and Fr. Dr. Miguel Barriola, who significantly enriched this writing.

Table of contents.

I. Trinitarian dogma is not irrational.

II. Trinitarian dogma is not unbiblical.

III. The Trinitarian dogma belongs to Divine Revelation.

I. Trinitarian dogma is not irrational

Philip and Paul met to debate the dogma of the Holy Trinity. Philip is a Jehovah’s Witness and Paul is Catholic. Both have prepared for this meeting.

Philip: I have three major objections against the Catholic dogma of the Trinity:

  • The first is that it is irrational, because it is absurd to think that three beings are one being. It is obvious that three is different from one.
  • The second is that there are many biblical texts that contradict it, as we will see later.
  • The third is that it is a merely human doctrine, without biblical foundation. No text in the Bible says that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are one God.

Paul: Let’s consider your three objections one by one, starting with the first. Your accusation of irrationality against the dogma of the Holy Trinity is based on a serious misunderstanding. The trinitarian dogma would be effectively irrational if it said that three different beings are the same being, or that three is equal to one;but it does not say that, but rather that there is a single divine substance, essence or nature (one God) and three subsistences, hypostases or divine persons (the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit). If “divine essence” were synonymous with “divine person”, you would be right;but since it is not, you are wrong.

Philip: What then, according to Catholic doctrine, is the difference between “divine essence” and “divine person”?

Paul: The concept of “divine essence” answers the question “What is God?”God is the absolute, necessary, infinite, most perfect, most simple Being… These attributes and others like them belong to the only divine essence.

On the other hand, the concept of “divine person” answers the question “Who is God?”The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are God, but they are not three gods, but one God. The three divine persons are the same (God), but they are so in such a way that they are not the same: The Father is neither the Son nor the Holy Spirit, the Son is not the Father nor the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit is neither the Son nor the Father.

The one divine substance subsists in three distinct “subsistences.”With a somewhat bold expression, but ultimately justifiable, we could say that he subsists “in three different ways”, as Father, as Son and as Holy Spirit. The three divine persons have everything in common, except their relations of origin (or opposition):

  • Paternity: The Father eternally begets the Son.
  • Sonship: The Son is eternally begotten by the Father.
  • Active exhalation: The Father and the Son eternally exhale the Holy Spirit.
  • Passive expiration: The Holy Spirit is breathed out eternally by the Father and the Son.

These relations of origin (except the active expiration, which corresponds to two persons) constitute the three divine persons. Accordingly, the Father is also characterized by being the originless origin of the other two divine persons.

The intimate life of the Trinity is a ceaseless dance of infinite love. The Father eternally gives to the Son all his divine substance. The Son responds by giving him in turn his entire divine being (equal to that of the Father). The love of the Father and the Son is fruitful;It is the person-gift, the Holy Spirit.

It is important to note that the concept of “person”, applied to divine persons and human persons, has an analogical, not univocal, meaning. If we thought that in Trinitarian dogma the word “person” has exactly the same meaning as in modern language, we would affirm the existence of three divine individuals, each with their separate consciousness, intelligence and will, and thus we would fall into the absurdity of tritheism. That is why today it is more necessary than ever for Christians not to limit ourselves to repeating the traditional formulations of Trinitarian dogma, but rather to try to explain them, maintaining their meaning.

Philip: So I’ll rephrase my first objection. The doctrine you have exposed contradicts the principle of “comparative identity”: If A is C and B is C, then A is B. If the Father is God and the Son is God, then the Father is the Son and the Trinitarian dogma is false.

Paul: This new version of your first objection is more subtle than the previous one, but it is also wrong.

There are three types of identity:

  • real but not conceptual identity, as between “a man” and “my father”;
  • conceptual but not real identity, as between “triangle” and “polygon with three sides”;
  • real and conceptual identity, as between “man” and “rational animal.”

It is evident that the principle of comparative identity has general validity when the three identities considered are real and conceptual identities and also when the three are only conceptual. In particular, the first case occurs when A, B and C are three absolute realities. Your refutation would be correct if the phrases “the Father is God”, “the Son is God” etc. They will raise identities between two absolute realities;but this is not the case, because in God there is a single absolute reality (the divine substance) and three relative realities (the divine persons, constituted by their opposite relations). If we considered the divine persons as absolute realities, we would affirm the existence, not of the Trinity, but of a heretical “quaternity” in God.

From revelation we know that between each of the divine persons and the divine substance there is real identity and conceptual distinction and that between the divine persons there is real and conceptual distinction (even, conceptual opposition).

Now, it is not true that the principle of comparative identity has general validity when the identities between A and C and between B and C are real but not conceptual. We can give the following counterexample taken from Aristotelian philosophy: Let A be action, B be passion and C be movement. Between A and C and between B and C there is real but not conceptual identity;but between A and B there is real distinction and conceptual opposition.

Consequently, it is not possible to demonstrate that the principle of comparative identity is valid in the case in question.

Philip: Everything you have said is very interesting, but incomprehensible.

Paul: We are talking about nothing less than the sublime mystery of God. And God is the absolute mystery, ultimately incomprehensible. But after what has been said you must recognize that your objection is not conclusive. Trinitarian dogma (like all other Christian dogmas) does not contain or imply any irrationality, any contradiction. However, this dogma is suprarational, because it cannot be fully understood by our finite intelligences. If it were not so, it would not be the mystery of God.

Philip: You still have to answer my other two objections and either of them is lethal to Trinitarian dogma.

Paul: Before going on to answer your second objection, I would like to explain a little more what Christian doctrine says about the Trinity, comparing it with the three main theological errors in this matter:

  • A very gross error consists in considering that the three divine persons are three different divine substances, that is, three gods. This tritheism is evidently contrary to philosophical reason (which demonstrates the oneness of God) and biblical monotheism. Christianity is a religion as monotheistic as Judaism and Islam, but with a much richer notion of God. Currently the tritheistic error occurs in the Mormon religion.
  • Another error consists of considering that only the Father is God, while the Son and the Holy Spirit are exalted creatures, but not divine in the proper sense. This subordinationism was supported in the 4th century by heretics such as Arius and Macedonian and currently occurs to a certain extent in the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses.
  • A more subtle error consists of considering that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are three modes of manifestation of God in the history of salvation, but that within God there is only one person, the Father. This modalism was supported in the 3rd century by Sabellius and other heretics.

These three great errors have a common origin: The attempt to rationally master the mystery of God leads to accepting some of its aspects and rejecting others. Thus theology becomes more understandable, but the mystery of God revealed by Christ is betrayed.

II. Trinitarian dogma is not unbiblical.

Philip: Now it is clearer to me what Catholic doctrine says and what it does not say. But, moving on to my second objection, I will show you that the truth about God is along the lines of what you call “subordinationism.”

It will be enough for me to quote two biblical texts:

  • 1 Corinthians 8:6: “For us there is only one God, the Father, from whom all things come and for whom we are;and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are and through whom we are“

Therefore only the Father is God. There is no God the Son or God the Holy Spirit. Jesus Christ is simply “Lord”, someone superior to us, whom we must obey, but distinct from God.

  • Ephesians 1:17: “That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may grant you the spirit of wisdom and revelation to know Him perfectly“

From this text it is deduced that the Father is the God of Jesus, that He controls the Holy Spirit and that the purpose of the gift of the Spirit is to perfectly know only the Father.

Paul: Let me take an introductory detour before directly answering your second objection. God is the infinite and immutable Being and therefore the mystery of God revealed by Christ is an infinite and immutable truth. However, men, recipients of Divine Revelation, are finite and mutable beings, who develop in history. Taking this into account, these two things are easily understood:

  • That the self-revelation of God to men in history must have occurred through a long, gradual and progressive historical process;
  • and that, even after the history of revelation has reached its objective plenitude in Christ, there is still to be a history of the subjective understanding of revelation, a development of Christian doctrine, in the Church.

Therefore, we should not be surprised that in the Tradition of the Church and even within Sacred Scripture itself we can see an evolution of dogma and theology. This represents the fulfillment of a promise made by Jesus at the Last Supper: The Holy Spirit himself remembers the words of Jesus to his disciples gathered in the Church, teaches them their true meaning and guides them to the complete truth (cf. John 14:26; 16:13).

Taking this introduction into account we will be able to understand the fact that in the New Testament the word “God” generally (although not always) designates the Father and that, however, this does not imply in any way denying the divinity of the Son and the Holy Spirit. As we will see in the answer to your third objection, there are many excellent reasons to affirm that Trinitarian doctrine is implicitly contained in the Divine Revelation transmitted in writing in the Bible and that therefore the explicit formulation of Trinitarian dogma is not a corruption but an authentic development of Christian doctrine. At this point it is enough for me to show that your argument is not conclusive.

In 1 Corinthians 8:6 (as in many other passages in the New Testament) Jesus Christ is called “Lord”, a title that clearly indicates his divine character. The Hebrew equivalent of the Greek “Kyrios” (Lord) is “Adonai”, the word that the Jews used, when reading the Scriptures, to replace the sacred tetragram (YHWH), the unpronounceable name of God.

Philip: If you believe that Jesus is God because the Bible calls him “Lord,” then you should believe that David is God, since in 2 Samuel 16:9 Abishai calls David “my lord.”In reality the word “lord” is applied in the Bible not only to God, but also to kings, leaders, etc.

Paul: For now I am not trying to prove the divinity of Jesus, but only to show the ineffectiveness of your reasoning. At this point it is enough for me to establish the possibility that “Lord” is a way of addressing God, something that you yourself admit.

In any case, I emphasize that our text designates Jesus as the only Lord, implying that his lordship is not that of any “lord”, but the unlimited sovereignty of the only God. This interpretation, which is mandatory when considering the New Testament as a whole, is reinforced here by the parallelism raised between the relationship of the Father with the world and men and the relationship of the Son with the world and men.

Regarding Ephesians 1:17, the dogma of the Incarnation allows us to maintain that, although the Father is the God of Jesus Christ (the incarnate Son of God), the Son is God like the Father (consubstantial with the Father). On the other hand, your statements about the Holy Spirit cannot be inferred with certainty from this text.

Philip: Since I have not yet convinced you, I will quote several more biblical texts that prove that the Son is not God:

  • Proverbs 8:22: “Yahweh He created me, the first of his path, before his oldest works“

Who speaks here is the Wisdom of God. According to 1 Corinthians 1:24 Christ is the Wisdom of God. Therefore Christ was created and cannot be God.

  • 1 Corinthians 15:28: “When all things have been submitted to him, then the Son also will submit to Him who has submitted all things to him, so that God may be all in all.“

According to Psalms 110:1, the one who subjects all things to the Messiah is Yahweh. Therefore the Son submits to Yahweh. This implies that the Son is not God.

  • Colossians 1:16: “For in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, Thrones, Dominions, Principalities, Powers: everything was created by him and for him.“

This text says that all things were made through Christ. Therefore Christ was the last being created directly by God.

  • Revelation 3:12:

“I will make the victor a pillar in the Sanctuary of my God, and he will not go out again;and I will engrave on it the name of my God, and the name of the City of my God, the new Jerusalem, which comes down from heaven sent by my God, and my new name“

The one speaking here is Jesus. Therefore Jesus is not God.

  • Revelation 3:14:

“To the Angel of the Church of Laodicea write: Thus speaks the Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the Beginning of God’s creation.”

Here Jesus says that he was the first created being. Therefore Jesus is not God.

Paul: Let’s first consider your quote from the book of Proverbs. What we have said about the gradual and progressive character of revelation allows us to understand the fact that in the Old Testament there is no open revelation of the mystery of the triune God but nothing more than indications of said mystery, which can only be appreciated as such in the light of the New Testament. The Old Testament presents God as the absolute mystery, who nevertheless manifests himself through his “Word” and his “Spirit.”The revelation of the New Testament allows us to identify these two “mediations” with the divine persons of the Son and the Holy Spirit, respectively.

“Wisdom” is another of the divine attributes that in some passages of the Old Testament appear personified, hinting at the doctrine of the Trinity. This is what happens, for example, in Proverbs 8:22. However, it is not correct to use this verse in an anachronistic and accommodating way as decisive proof that the Son of God is a creature. With equal (lack of) right, two other verses from the same chapter (Proverbs 8:24-25) could be used to demonstrate that the Son was begotten, not created. The literal meaning of these texts does not refer to the procession of the second person of the Trinity.

Turning now to your quotes from the New Testament, I will make two general comments.

First of all, your arguments are based on texts in which God appears as the God of Jesus. In this sense you could have strengthened your position by mentioning that Jesus prayed to his Father God. The refutation of these arguments is relatively simple if the dogma of the Incarnation is taken into account. Your objections would be valid if you were arguing with Monophysites (heretics who denied the human nature of Christ and believed that He had only one nature, the divine nature). But Catholics (and all true Christians) believe that Christ is one person (the Son, second person of the Holy Trinity, divine person) with two real and complete natures, human and divine, without mixture or confusion, without division or separation (as the dogmatic formula of the Council of Chalcedon, from the year 451, says). That is to say that Jesus Christ is true God and true man. In the Incarnation the Son becomes man without ceasing to be God. To the only person who receives the names of Jesus, Christ, Son of God, Lord etc. Both the properties that correspond to its divine nature and those that correspond to its human nature can be applied to it. This is called in theological language “communication of languages” (today one could speak of “communion of properties”). For this reason we can say, for example, that the man Jesus performed miracles (something that only God can do) or that, in Christ, God died on the cross (something that can only happen to man);Also for this reason we can say, with the Council of Ephesus (of the year 431), that Mary is the Mother of God, since she is the Mother (according to human generation) of One who is personally God.

All this allows us to understand that there are some texts in the New Testament that apparently suggest a subordination of the Son to the Father, while others manifest the equality of the Father and the Son. In some cases the point of view of Jesus’ humanity is considered and in other cases the point of view of his divinity is considered. Both approaches are complementary, not contradictory.

Secondly, the fact that the three divine persons possess in common all the attributes of divinity and receive the same adoration and glory does not imply that they are interchangeable, so to speak. From what we have said about the relations of origin it emerges that there is an order in the Trinity: The Son proceeds from the Father by generation and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son by expiration. Thus, the Father is the first person of the Trinity, the Son the second and the Holy Spirit the third. According to the Christian faith, the gift of God in the history of salvation comes from the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit and leads in the Holy Spirit through Christ to the Father.

Returning now to 1 Corinthians 15:28, we see that the Son leaves the Father and returns to the Father, but returns bringing redeemed humanity with him, having fulfilled his mission of reconciling the world to God.

Philip: Your reply is based on the dogma of the Incarnation, but you have not demonstrated that this dogma is true.

Paul: That is true, but it is also true that I do not need to prove it, because here I am only trying to prove that your biblical arguments are inconclusive. You are the one who should prove that the dogma of the Incarnation is false, so that your objections against the Trinity would be effective.

Philip: I don’t think you can base your faith on the Incarnation. But I have a doubt about Catholic doctrine: Do you say that there are two Jesuses, one of human nature and the other of divine nature?

Paul: No. The division of Jesus into two subjects or persons, one of human nature and the other of divine nature, is the heresy called “Nestorianism” (taught by Nestorius in the 5th century). The Catholic dogma of the Incarnation establishes that Jesus Christ is a single person (divine) with two natures (human and divine).

Furthermore, Catholics believe that the incarnation of the Son of God was not provisional. He assumed human nature forever. Jesus Christ was not only true God and true man during his earthly life but he is also true today. In his resurrection, Christ did not stop being a man and became an angel;He is still a man (with body and soul), but now he is an exalted man, who lives united with the Father in the bosom of the Trinity. Right now Jesus, a true man, reigns glorified in the embrace of the Father, in the perfect happiness of heaven.

III. The Trinitarian dogma belongs to Divine Revelation.

Philip: My third objection still stands. No text in the Bible teaches the Trinitarian dogma, from which I deduce that this is a mere human invention.

Paul: Before moving on to rebut your third objection, please explain to me what Jehovah’s Witnesses believe about the nature of the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Philip: Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that the Son is a divine being, but he is not God, but the archangel Saint Michael, the main creature of God. And we also believe that the Holy Spirit is not a person, but the active force of God.

Paul: My answer to your third objection will show that your statements about the Son and the Holy Spirit are contrary to revelation. But first I want to emphasize that both statements are also contrary to reason:

  • If the Son is truly a divine being, then his essence is the divine essence and therefore he is God. The idea of ​​a “divine being distinct from God” is self-contradictory.
  • If the Holy Spirit is truly the Spirit of God, then it cannot be an impersonal force. Every person is a spirit and every spirit is a person. The idea of ​​an “impersonal spirit” is self-contradictory.

Philip: Instead of responding to those arguments, I will now listen to what you have to say in favor of the credibility of Trinitarian dogma.

Paul: Good. I will proceed as follows:

  • I will assume the following truths, since you also accept them: The truth of the Bible in general and those of the oneness of God and the divinity of the Father in particular.
  • I will demonstrate based on Holy Scripture that God manifests himself in the history of salvation as Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
  • I will conclude that God is in himself Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Philip: OK.So try to show me that God manifests himself in the Bible as Trinity.

Paul: There would be a lot to say about this, but for the sake of brevity I will limit myself at first to pointing out that the New Testament contains quite a few Trinitarian formulas, and I will particularly emphasize two of them:

  • Matthew 28:19: “IDTherefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit“.
  • 2 Corinthians 13:13: “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with you all“

Philip: The Bible does not contain trinitarian trinitarian formulas. Just because the words “Father,” “Son,” and “Holy Spirit” appear in a single sentence does not mean that they are one God. Otherwise the three sons of Noah would be a trinity, since their names appear in Genesis 5:32.

Paul: The first text I cited is precisely the end of the Gospel of Matthew. The risen Christ commands his disciples to go throughout the world, preach the gospel to all peoples and baptize them.”in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit“. It is inconceivable that in this solemn ending, in this formula that immediately began to be used in the baptismal liturgy, God has been associated with two simple creatures (as if we were to say, in the name of God, Saint Peter and Saint Paul). It is clear that this baptismal formula places the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit on the same level. The three (evidently different from each other) equally belong to the reality of God.

The second text I cited is precisely the end of 2 Corinthians. This solemn Pauline greeting is similar to the previous text, since it places on the same level (within the reality of God) the gifts of the three divine persons: God (the Father), the Lord Jesus Christ (God the Son) and the Holy Spirit. I emphasize that this beautiful prayer to the Trinity is prayed at each Holy Mass by the celebrant.

Philip: This argument seems like pure speculation to me. You have shown us that the Bible explicitly says that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are one God.

Paul: It is true that this proposition does not appear explicitly in the Bible. The quote usually cited by some fundamentalist Protestant groups (1 John 5:7-8) does not correspond to the authentic text, since the mention of the Trinity comes from a late interpolation.

But it is also true that this proposition is implicitly contained in the Bible. We have already seen that in biblical revelation three “persons” appear linked to the reality of God. There is no doubt that the Father is God. We will now prove from the New Testament that the Son is God and later that the Holy Spirit is God.

Regarding the divinity of Jesus Christ, there are many ways to show that it is implied throughout the New Testament:

  • A very efficient approach, which I do not need to develop here, arises from considering that the resurrection of Jesus confirmed with divine testimony his claim, also corroborated by his works and words, to be the absolute bearer of salvation (or “Kingdom of God”) and to be equal to God.
  • Another important approach is the one centered on the miracles of Jesus: These also provide a privileged perspective to recognize his divinity.

Philip: If you believe that Jesus is God because he performed miracles, you should also believe that Elisha is God. Elisha, like Jesus, raised the dead, multiplied bread, and healed a leper (2 Kings 4-5).

Paul: The case of Jesus is different from that of Elisha, but we do not need to enter into that discussion now. Since you accept the inerrancy of the Bible, I will follow the simplest path, that of direct scriptural proof: If the Bible always teaches the truth and if it teaches that the Son is God, then truly the Son is God.

In order not to go on too long, I will mention only seven texts that clearly explain that the Son is God:

  • John 1:1: “In the beginning there was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God“
  • John 20:28: “Thomas answered him: ‘My Lord and my God.’“
  • Romans 9:5: “and the patriarchs;from whom also comes Christ according to the flesh, who is above all things, God blessed forever. Amen.“
  • Philippians 2:5-11: “Have among yourselves the same sentiments as Christ: Who, being divine in condition, did not greedily retain equality with God. But he emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men and appearing in appearance like a man;and he humbled himself, obeying even unto death, even death on a cross. Therefore God exalted him and gave him the Name that is above every name. So that at the name of Jesus every knee may bow in heaven, on earth and in the underworld, and every tongue may confess that Christ Jesus is Lord to the glory of God the Father“
  • Titus 2:13: “awaiting the happy hope and the Manifestation of the glory of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ“.
  • Hebrews 1:8: “But of the Son: ‘Your throne, O God, forever and ever’“
  • Revelation 1:8: “I am the Alpha and the Omega, says the Lord God, He who is, who was, and who is to come, the Almighty“

Philip: None of these seven texts prove that the Son is God. Let’s look at them one by one.

  • John 1:1: “the Word was God” is a bad translation. The correct translation is “the Word was divine” or “the Word was a divine being.”
  • John 20:28: “My Lord” refers to Jesus and “My God” refers to God (the Father).
  • Romans 9:5: “God blessed forever” does not refer to Christ, but to God (the Father).
  • Philippians 2:5-11: This text says that Jesus had the “form” of God, not that he was God.
  • Titus 2:13: The expression “of the great God and our Savior, Jesus Christ” is a bad translation. The correct translation, according to Paul Bessom, is: “of the great God and our Savior, Jesus Christ.”There is here (as in Titus 1:4 and other biblical texts) a distinction between “God” and “the Savior.”
  • Hebrews 1:8: The expression “Your throne, O God!”It’s a bad translation. The correct translation, according to Wescott, is “Your throne is in God.” There is here (as in Hebrews 1:9 and other biblical texts) a distinction between “God” and “the Son.”
  • Revelation 1:8: The one who speaks here is not Jesus but, as the same text says, “the Lord God” (Yahweh, that is, the Father).

Paul: In three of the seven cases you propose a new translation and in the remaining four cases you propose a new interpretation of the sacred text.

  • Regarding translations, there is a broad consensus among experts that the version of the Bible used by Jehovah’s Witnesses (the so-called “New World Translation”) has introduced numerous adulterations and distortions of the biblical text, to try to hide the discrepancies between it and the doctrine of the sect.
  • Regarding exegesis, it should be emphasized that Jehovah’s Witnesses interpret the Bible outside of the entire Sacred Tradition of the Church, guided only by the authorities of the sect, which from Charles Russell onwards have considered themselves (without any basis) as the only authorized interpreters of the Word of God.

We could continue the discussion about the seven texts, but in order not to prolong this debate too much, I propose that we focus on a problem of translation (the text of John 1, the most direct affirmation of the divinity of the Son) and a problem of exegesis (the text of Philippians, the most expressive on our topic). These two texts are enough and more than enough to prove the divinity of the Son.

Philip: OK.

Paul: Let’s look first at Philippians 2:5-11. This magnificent text, which summarizes the entire mystery of Christ, contains a hymn that most likely predates the written work of Saint Paul. Here, in addition to the preexistence and incarnation of the Son, the following statements are clearly stated:

1) That Christ is of divine condition (that is, that he is God).

2) That Christ is equal to God (the Father);therefore Christ is God like the Father (not another God but the same God).

3) That God (the Father) granted Christ “the Name that is above every name” (the holy and ineffable name of God);therefore, Christ is God.

4) That every knee must bow before Christ and every tongue must confess that He is Lord (God). The allusions to Isaiah 45:23 (“every knee bow”, “and every tongue confess”), where the same is said of Yahweh), further underline the divine character (in itself evident in this context) of the title “Lord”.

Philip: I will answer your four arguments:

  • The text you cited proves that Jesus Christ has a divine nature, but not that he is God. According to 2 Peter 1:4, when we learn from God we also become “partakers of divine nature“If we, who are not God, have divine nature, the fact that Jesus has divine nature does not prove that he is God.
  • If Jesus was equal to God, then why does the biblical text say that his form of God was not something he wanted to take over?If Jesus was God, then he must never have even wanted to be, because he already was.
  • Philippians 2:9 says “Therefore God exalted him and gave him the Name that is above every name.” If Jesus is God, then why does he need to be exalted?God exalted him, but below Himself. Although God gave Jesus a name that is above every other name, this name is not said to be above the name of God.
  • All titles applied by the Bible to Jesus Christ also apply to people other than God. For example, Nebuchadnezzar was called “king of kings” (Daniel 2,37) and although this title is very important, Nebuchadnezzar is not God. The same goes for the title “Lord.”

Paul: Here are my replies to your weak objections:

  1. 2 Peter 1:4 and subsequent Christian theology use the concept of “participation” in the precise sense that this term had in ancient Greek philosophy. Therefore it is necessary to distinguish between “being” of divine nature and “participating” in divine nature. Being divine in nature is identical to being God. On the other hand, to say that the Christian “participates” in the divine nature means that, through a very free and free gift from God, in a hidden way on earth and in a manifest way in heaven, he can know and love as God knows and loves, without ceasing to be a creature of God. In the Christian perspective (very different from the pantheist) the mystical union of the human being with God does not nullify the infinite difference between the two.
  2. Philippians 2:6 says that Christ, “being divine in form, did not greedily regard equality with God.”That is to say that, despite being of divine nature (that is, being God), the Son renounced visibly manifesting his equality with God by assuming human nature in the Incarnation.
  3. Obviously Philippians 2:9 does not say that the Name of Jesus is above the Name of God. This would be totally absurd. What it says is that God “gave him the Name that is above every name.”It is evident that this Name is the Name of God, not a name above the Name of God. You say that “the Name which is above every name” is below the name of God, but that is exactly the opposite of what the biblical text says.
  4. You do not respond to my argument, which consists of interpreting “Lord” here as “God”, with clear biblical foundation.

Philip: According to scholars, the correct translation of John 1:1 is: “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was toward God and the Word was a divine being“.

  • The “God” with whom the Word is is “tòn Theón” (“the God”, with article).
  • The “god” that is the Word is “theòs” (“god”, without article).

Since this last “theòs” does not have a definite article, then it turns out that the “Logos” (the Word) is not “Theòs”, but has qualities of “theòs”. He is a divine being, but he is not God. If you want an erudite explanation, read the Journal of Biblical Literature, volume 92.

Paul: My answer will have three moments:

  • First of all, I cannot admit that you support your thesis on the authority of “the scholars.”The vast majority of scholars, over two millennia, despite their various religious and philosophical tendencies, have supported the traditional translation, which is a clear affirmation of the divinity of Jesus Christ, Son of God the Father;so you are not really referring to “the scholars”, but to the scholars of your “unitarian” (anti-Trinitarian) tendency.
  • Secondly, I want to emphasize that our verse does not present any problem of textual criticism, which is why our discussion is strictly reduced to a simple problem of translation.

Among the thousands of surviving ancient New Testament manuscripts, there is no variant of the Greek text of John 1:1. This can be verified in any Internet search engine using the keywords “Greek New Testament Critical Edition” or similar, which results in a very abundant material.

Thirdly, I will go on to refute your thesis. Since my knowledge of biblical Greek is very limited, I will limit myself to:

  • show that the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ translations of the prologue of the Gospel of John are not consistent with your thesis;
  • give a historical-theological argument;
  • consult an expert in biblical Greek.

Let’s consider the internal coherence of your thesis. It is important to note that within the same prologue of the Gospel of John (1:1-18) God is named without an article four other times (1):

  • 1.6: “There was a man, sent from God, named John”: “ápestalménos paraà Theoû“.
  • 1.12: “To those who received him, he gave power to become children of God”: “tékna Theoû genésthai“.
  • 1.13: “But of God, they are born”: “ek Theoû égennéthesan“.
  • 1.18: “No one has ever seen God”: “Theòn oúdeìs èóraken pópote“.

Now, the New Testament editions of Jehovah’s Witnesses use the word “God” on these four occasions, which is correct but incompatible with your thesis. It is therefore evident that the translation principle on which you rely is an ad hoc invention to accommodate the text of John 1:1 to the doctrine of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Let us now consider a second argument. The prologue of the Gospel of John ends in John 1:18: “No one has ever seen God: the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has told.“However, in the tradition of ancient manuscripts there is a variant: In some manuscripts it reads “an only Son God” rather “the only son“. Well, behold, the Greek text that I indicated agrees with that minority version: There it reads, in verse 18, “monogenes Theos“. Now, which of these two explanations of this variant seems more plausible?:

  • Within the primitive Christian community, made up of Jehovah’s proto-Witnesses, there were a few Catholics who since then were dedicated to adulterating the biblical texts to make them compatible with their Trinitarian heresy.
  • The two texts express in different words one of the basic beliefs of the early Christian community.

Let us finally consider the opinion of a Doctor of Sacred Scripture. In these notes that I leave for you to study carefully, the falsity of the translation of John 1:1 that you use is demonstrated (2).

In conclusion: While it is true that the word “Theòs” in the New Testament commonly designates the Father, it is also clear that John 1:1 is one of the exceptions. Obviously John 1:1 cannot mean that the Son is the Father, but rather that the Son is God like the Father (the same God, not a second God).

Philip: Even if your translation were correct, it would not demonstrate the divinity of the Son. In Psalm 82:6 Yahweh himself calls “gods“to the men who are”children of the Most High“Although these men are called gods, none of them is Yahweh. The same goes for Jesus.

Paul: It is not serious to compare that text, in which the psalmist equates the princes and judges of Israel with the members of the heavenly court, with a text like John 1:1, which identifies the Word (the Son) with God in the most formal way possible.

Moving now to the topic of the Holy Spirit, I will tell you that:

  • His divinity is manifested, for example, in 1 Corinthians 2:10: “the Spirit searches everything, even to the depths of God“(this is something only God can do).
  • His personality is manifested, for example, in Acts 15:28: “That the Holy Spirit and we have decided not to impose more burdens on you than these essential ones.“(impersonal entities cannot make decisions).
  • He is the “other Paraclete” sent by the Father (cf. John 14:16). If the first Paraclete (the Son) is a divine person, as we have shown, the second is also one.

In conclusion: God manifests himself in salvation history as Father, Son and Holy Spirit (three divine persons and one living and true God). This necessarily implies that God is in Himself Father, Son and Holy Spirit, because otherwise there would be no true self-revelation and self-communication from God to man. Conversely, if God, who is eternally Father, Son and Holy Spirit, freely decides to manifest himself in history, he must necessarily manifest himself as what He is in Himself: The unity God.

The dogma of the Holy Trinity belongs to the revelation of God in Christ. If someone does not believe in the Trinity (or the Incarnation) he is not a Christian (objectively).

Author: Daniel Churchs Grèzes

Fountain: magazinefeyrazon.wordpress.com

Notes:

(1) For practical reasons I quote here the Greek text in Latin characters. Readers can compare these quotes with the true Greek text (in Greek characters) by clicking on the link indicated above.

(2) I reproduce here a note by Fr. Dr. Miguel A. Barriola, dated 02/27/2003:

Dear friend:

It is seen that the “Witnesses”, outside of any tradition, only seek to maintain, whatever the cost, their own ways of interpreting. Because, in previous presentations of “their” Bible they translated “The Word was “a” God”, in order to escape the most obvious version: “it was God”.

They wanted to base it scientifically, based on the (supposed) use of the Greek language. They said that, lacking the article for the noun “Theós” (something that did not happen the first time: “prós ton Theon” (the Word was heading towards he God), interpret this omission as a variation in the second use of the term (Theós).

Now, in this new translation they manage to adjectivize a clear noun in the original text (the Word was divine).

But the fact is that the Lógos is not called “théios” (= divine), with an adjective, nor “Théos tis” (= a god), in the Hellenistic sense, but: God, simply, a noun.

It must be clarified that the predicate, in general, is not accompanied by an article. If it is said: “Simon is a fisherman”, it means that the subject belongs to the category of those who exercise that trade. He does not exhaust it or monopolize it. On the other hand, if you want to give emphasis, expressing, for example: “John is ho Theologians” (= “the” theologian), the articulated attribute indicates something special, outstanding in the genre. It is a “theologian par excellence.” Thus Pilate’s question: “are you king?(Jn 18:37) is investigating the condition that Jesus would say he shared with other monarchs. On the other hand, in Jn 19:19: “Jesus ho nazaráios, ho basiléus ton ioudáion” (= he Nazarene, he king of the Jews), the articles that precede the attributes are pointing out that this is a very specific and unique character.

In the same Prologue we have an attribute with an article, but that precisely highlights the total singularity, out of the ordinary, unmatched of the subject to which it is endorsed: (1, 9): En to phos to alethinón (= was the light, the true”); not just any type of light, but the only authentic one. (On the other hand, in the same sense, only with a denial, v. 8° had ruled out that the Baptist was “the” light).

In 1, 1, the omission of the article before the noun “Theós”, therefore, means that the Word belongs to the category of God, it is God. Which, obviously, does not have to be understood in the “gender – individual” way, because other biblical places provide details about the one God, with whom, however, three different people are identified, who neither divide him nor multiply him in a polytheism.

For the rest (as H. Hébert points out, Jehovah’s Witnesses – Their history and doctrine, Madrid 1977, p.- 173), the same context opposes understanding “Theós” without an article in a different light, since, according to a very Semitic procedure, the second and third propositions of the verse begin with the last word of the preceding phrase:

“In the beginning it was the Logos

and the Logos was aimed at God

and God (attribute) was the Lógos”.

This repetition of the final word implies the use of the same meaning both times. Otherwise the author (without notifying his reader of changes in meaning) would sow confusion.

Hoping to have contributed something useful to your discussion, it is at your disposal:

MA Barriola