That is very easy to argue with. But I wouldn't be allowed to do so on this Islamic discussion board. I've already had plenty of warnings.
To me, Islam makes the most sense of ANY religion in its teaching about God (Allah). There is One God. No equals, no sons of God, no one can be equal, or be compared to or approach God, avoid Shirk, etc. The shahada sums it up. There is no God but God and Mohammad is his Messenger. Now that is hard to argue with is it not? :statisfie
You follow the Bible surely? Hebrews 2:7 speaks of angels (quoting Psalms 8:5). But in that verse in Psalms the actual Hebrew word used is "elohim" which literally means: "gods". So the Bible calls the angels: "gods". Similarly Isaiah 9:6 calls Jesus: "Mighty God" Hebrew: "el-gibbor"
Early apologists and theologians like Justin Martyr and Origen referred to Jesus as a second God. It was only centuries later orthodoxy that branded such ideas as heresy.
The angels are not false gods. The Bible calls them "gods" in an approving way. Similarly the Israelite judges was called gods in Psalms 82:6 "I said, ‘You are “gods”; you are all sons of the Most High." When accused of making himself "God" by the Jews, Jesus pointed to Psalms 82:6 and compared his godship to their's (John 10:34-36) in order to defend his position. If Jesus had been claiming to be God Almighty then this argument would have been no defence at all.
I thought that I had made that clear. Yes I do claim that. This was the understanding that the early Christians had from the beginning. In the book "Early Christian Doctrines" by J. N. D. Kelly. Apologist Justin Martyr is quoted as speaking of Jesus as "a second God" on page 101 and on page 148. On page 132, Origen is cited as saying that John "accurately describes the Son simply as theos, not ho theos [referring to John 1:1]. In relation to the God of the universe He merits a secondary degree of honour; for He is not absolute goodness and truth, but His goodness and truth are a reflection and image of the Father's." And on page 128 Origen is quoted as saying that "His Deity is derivative and He is thus a "secondary God" (deuteros theos)."
Did you know that one of the very earliest translations of John's gospel, into Sahidic Coptic in the thid century, also translated the verse to say that the Logos was "a god"? This well reflected Christian understanding of the verse before fourth century trinitarianism took control.
So it sounds to me as though the JW approach is mostly to rely on Origen. What about all the Greek grammar rules that go against Origen's interpretation of John 1:1? There is Granville Sharp's rule, Colwell's rule, etc... Any good Greek grammarian will have no problem disposing of Origen's misinterpretation of John 1:1.
When I used to study Greek I read the JW New World Translation. I felt that it was inconsistent and reflected a real theological bias. Grammatically and contextually it is highly unlikely that the Logos could be "a god" in John. Origen is not well supported at all by scholars or grammarians.
We keep seeing this term "polytheist". If you define this word to refer to those who worship many pagan gods, then no. Christians did not do that. But the Bible, the Jews and the early Christians all agree that the word "god" has a wide meaning and can properly be applied to others apart from the Almighty.