Hi Alan,
I have heard every argument about “a god” from a JW . She and I actually study together. I have learned a great deal about my own Catholicism from her.
The NWT is the only contemporary bible that I know of that translates John1.1 as “a god”. I guess it is all in each religions interpretation of scriptures as to how they read John 1.1. Actually I think that the JW"s protest too much that Jesus is not God. Just as you have your scholars saying your rendition of John 1.1 is the right one there are just as many scholars that say other wise.
In reading Catholic and even Protestant bibles one knows that Jesus is part of the Trinity and therefore God.
I don’t know too much about Mr. Barkley but he not being Catholic doesn’t have the guidance of the Magisterium .
God Bless
Jeanne
Dear Jeanne,
Well, as I had earlier quoted, I fully agree with following statement, and this, as be stated by a very reliable Catholic source:
“The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective…”
Taken from: Richard, R. L. (b.?-d.?). Article on “Trinity, Holy” appearing within: The New Catholic Encyclopedia. Prepared by an Editorial Staff at the Catholic University of America, Washington, D. C. (New York, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967-c1989), vol. XIV [14], pp. 299 (italics theirs). BX841 .N44 1967 / 66-022292.
And again, the import of such a statement becomes all the more
significant when we appreciate the very important fact that “the Apostolic Fathers” are those who were said to have lived during the same time period as the Apostles themselves; perhaps, with some having even been directly instructed by them.
Therefore, it is my contention that if, even from among “the Apostolic Fathers,” “there had been
nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective [as a Trinitarian concept of God, that is, as can be discoverd within any of their writings]” and, especially, for this teaching to not have ever been a part of the Christian “profession of faith,” that is, as expressed within any Christian ‘declaration of belief,’ until the end of the 4th century, then this would
unequivocally substantiate the fact that neither the Apostles nor any of the earliest of Christians could have ever
believed,
taught, or
defended any such radically new concept about God - especially as different than what the Jews had believed about their God many centuries before.
As for having our own scholars which support the “a god” translation of
theos within John 1:1c, please, keep in mind, my reply to you had been in response to the link of which you, yourself, had provided, one apparently meant to discredit Jehovah’s Witnesses
New World Translation.
And, when they had cited Barclay as against Jehovah’s Witnesses
New World Translation rendering, by putting into proper perspective the abuse of that scholars’ statements, I have only attempted to demonstrate that, when it comes to those who would rally against us, these are being quite disingenuous with their sources, often misrepresenting the true facts of the matter (and, perhaps as you too have seen, even in how they may also do so against the Catholic Church as well).
Now, with respect to your comment, “I think that the JW"s protest too much that Jesus is not God,” as you must admit, having the proper view and appreciation of God and Jesus are, indeed, quite important. In fact, I am quite certain that such an item of importance would also be the same view of the Vatican as well. As emphasizing the importance of remaining within the correct view, within the Bible we read:
“If anybody does not keep within the teaching of Christ but goes beyond it, he cannot have God with him;…” - (2 John 9a, Catholic
Jerusalem Bible, 1966).
Therefore, in view of this (and other such statements within the Bible), it is my opinion that this, in itself, would require that we acquire a correct view of such important spiritual matters, that is, in order to ‘have God with us.’
Agape, Alan.
Good Companion Books
. (if we didn’t have a skull and brain the head would kinda just flop around and the eyes would pop out!) I don’t think the Good Lord wants regurgitating robot’s. He gave us brains , to think, wonder, discern,discuss and yes, sometimes disagree.
