Click to View

Click to View

"Should you believe in the Trinity?"
Part 2: Bible section refuted
Brace yourself for the single most satanic and deceptive booklet ever printed in world history! Jehovah's Witnesses use it door to door to convert people to their false doctrine.

Click to View
Scroll Down in this frame to view

You are in Part 2: Bible section refuted of the Watchtower's "Should your believe in the Trinity?" booklet.
See also Part 1:
Trinity is pagan section

Direct your friends who are being preyed upon by JW cult members to this page, but do not put this page on another web site because it is being constantly updated.

Let us know what you think of this page! Email us!

"Should your believe in the Trinity"

 Our comments and expose of booklet

 Text of Watchtower booklet

Click to View

 In this column down to the bottom, we will expose the satanic quoting practices of the Watchtower. If you can get a Jehovah's Witness to merely read our document, they will leave the organization.

 Begin booklet text below

 Begin our comments below

What Does the Bible Say About God and Jesus?
If people were to read the Bible from cover to cover without any preconceived idea of a Trinity, would they arrive at such a concept on their own? Not at all.

This is false! A simple reading of these verses would convince anyone of Trinity! John 1:1 and John 20:28, where Thomas said to Jesus, "My Lord and My God" where Jesus is called God and Mt 28:18-19 where we are commanded to be baptized in the name of three different persons. Although these verses do not teach the developed 4th century trinity doctrine, they more than teach the deity of Christ and the personality of the Holy Spirit.

God Is One, Not Three
THE Bible teaching that God is one is called monotheism. And L. L. Paine, professor of ecclesiastical history, indicates that monotheism in its purest form does not allow for a Trinity: "The Old Testament is strictly monotheistic. God is a single personal being. The idea that a trinity is to be found there . . . is utterly without foundation." Was there any change from monotheism after Jesus came to the earth? Paine answers: "On this point there is no break between the Old Testament and the New. The monotheistic tradition is continued. Jesus was a Jew, trained by Jewish parents in the Old Testament scriptures. His teaching was Jewish to the core; a new gospel indeed, but not a new theology. . . . And he accepted as his own belief the great text of Jewish monotheism: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one God.'"

Trinity doctrine is considered by scholars to be monotheistic. Paine was a Bible trasher who said of the Bible: "Its presuppositions of a divine miraculous origin and character, differentiating the Bible from all other religious literature, can no longer be admitted." (Paine, A Critical History Of The Evolution Of Trinitarianism, 1900, p269)

Although Paine is a Bible trasher, much of what he says in irrelevant to the discussion, as Trinitarians agree that there was a progression of doctrine from the Old to the New Testaments. In the same way that final resurrection and judgement were not present in the Old Testament but expanded in the New, so too with the doctrine of God. After all Gen 1 says, "Let us make man in Our image". So the seeds of trinity are clearly present!

Not a Plural God

JESUS called God "the only true God." (John 17:3) Never did he refer to God as a deity of plural persons.

Go here for truth about John 17:3.

The quickest way to see the mistake in the Jehovah's Witness interpretation of John 17:3 is in Eph 4:4-6. ("there is one God and one Lord") If "One God" excludes Jesus from God, then "One Lord" excludes God from being Lord. Yet we know that they share these identical characteristics. learn more

That is why nowhere in the Bible is anyone but Jehovah called Almighty. Otherwise, it voids the meaning of the word "almighty." Neither Jesus nor the holy spirit is ever called that, for Jehovah alone is supreme.

Hippolytus certainly applies Rev 1:8 to Christ and calls Jesus "The Almighty" several times. But even if the Father is alone called the Almighty, this still doesn't prove Jesus is a created angel!

At Genesis 17:1 he declares: "I am God Almighty." And Exodus 18:11 says: "Jehovah is greater than all the other gods."

We draw your attention to the fact that Jehovah's Witnesses are actually polytheists! They hide this from you now, but they will teach you their polytheism in time! While Christians interpret the "other god's" of Ex 18:11 to be false idol God's, JW's believe this expression refers to a host of lessor god's Jehovah created including Jesus, the devil and man! To prove our point, merely ask any JW if Jesus and the devil are gods?

In the Hebrew Scriptures, the word Želoh'ah (god) has two plural forms, namely, Želo·him' (gods) and Želo·heh' (gods of). These plural forms generally refer to Jehovah, in which case they are translated in the singular as "God." Do these plural forms indicate a Trinity? No, they do not. In A Dictionary of the Bible, William Smith says: "The fanciful idea that [Želo·him'] referred to the trinity of persons in the Godhead hardly finds now a supporter among scholars. It is either what grammarians call the plural of majesty, or it denotes the fullness of divine strength, the sum of the powers displayed by God."

Plural of Majesty did not exist until after the entire Old Testament was completed meaning it is impossible for a poetic device to be used, when it did not exist! The first use of "plural of majesty" by the Jews was about 200 AD. Click for more on the "plural of majesty" argument.

Look what Smith's dictionary said in the same article!

"The name (Jehovah) is never applied to a false god, nor to any other being except one, the ANGEL-JEHOVAH who is thereby marked as one with God and who appears again in the New Covenant as 'God manifested in the flesh.'" (William Smith: A Dictionary Of The Bible, p220)

The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures says of Želo·him': "It is almost invariably construed with a singular verbal predicate, and takes a singular adjectival attribute."

To illustrate this, the title Želo·him' appears 35 times by itself in the account of creation, and every time the verb describing what God said and did is singular. (Genesis 1:1-2:4) Thus, that publication concludes: "[ŽElo·him'] must rather be explained as an intensive plural, denoting greatness and majesty."

Plural of Majesty did not exist until after the entire Old Testament was completed meaning it is impossible for a poetic device to be used, when it did not exist! The first use of "plural of majesty" by the Jews was about 200 AD. Click for more on the "plural of majesty" argument.

While we agree that some uniformed Trinitarians do indeed interpret elohim a "plural of majesty", it certainly is not the majority view. Remember, not only is the word elohim plural, but Genesis 1 says, "Let us make man in our image". but also, corresponding verbs are also plural in many places in reference to God.

The Bible also uses the words Želo·him' and Želo·heh' when referring to a number of false idol gods. (Exodus 12:12; 20:23) But at other times it may refer to just a single false god, as when the Philistines referred to "Dagon their god [Želo·heh']." (Judges 16:23, 24) Baal is called "a god [Želo·him']." (1 Kings 18:27) In addition, the term is used for humans. (Psalm 82:1, 6) Moses was told that he was to serve as "God" [Želo·him'] to Aaron and to Pharaoh.-Exodus 4:16; 7:1.

We told you that Jw's were polytheists. They believe that Dagon is a false idol god, that doesn't really exist, but that men are real gods, along with the devil who is the real god of this world! Moses was functioning LIKE God to Pharaoh, not that Moses was actually a god. So JW's believe in a whole range of created gods, including Jesus, Moses and the Devil!

Jesus a Separate Creation

Thus, Jesus had an existence in heaven before coming to the earth. But was it as one of the persons in an almighty, eternal triune Godhead? No, for the Bible plainly states that in his prehuman existence, Jesus was a created spirit being, just as angels were spirit beings created by God. Neither the angels nor Jesus had existed before their creation.

This is the most critical issue. JW's teach that Jesus is a created angel. Yet no where in the Bible does it say Jesus is an angel, or created. Further, the Bible flat out rejects that Jesus was an angel in Heb 1:5 "For to which of the angels did He ever say, "Thou art My Son"." The answer, of course is, "God never called any angel His Son." Heb 1:5 categorically proves Jesus is not the angel Michael, as JW falsely teach He is.

Jesus, in his prehuman existence, was "the first-born of all creation." (Colossians 1:15, NJB)

Even the simplest word study on "first-born" will show that it never refers to the creation of Jesus, rather, it means Jesus is pre-eminent over creation, being the creator! Read Col 1:14-18 again and remember the Watchtower added the word [other] in square brackets even though it is not in the original Bible. They do this because without the word [other] the passage clearly refutes their false doctrine about Jesus.

He was "the beginning of God's creation." (Revelation 3:14, RS, Catholic edition).

"Beginning" [Greek, ar·khe'] cannot rightly be interpreted to mean that Jesus was the 'beginner' of God's creation. In his Bible writings, John uses various forms of the Greek word ar·khe' more than 20 times, and these always have the common meaning of "beginning." Yes, Jesus was created by God as the beginning of God's invisible creations.

Rev 21:6 and 22:13 say: "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning [Greek, ar·khe'] and the end." So if beginning is applied to God in Rev 21:6 and to Jesus in 22:13, it obviously denotes "the creator" "the one who starts and stops time" "the originator". So this proves beyond question that Rev 3:!4 means that Jesus is the "originator of creation: the creator" not the first of God's creation. Only a JW could twist something so simple as this! If beginning in Rev 3:14 proves Jesus is a creature then Rev 21:6 proves God is a creature!

Notice how closely those references to the origin of Jesus correlate with expressions uttered by the figurative "Wisdom" in the Bible book of Proverbs: "Yahweh created me, first-fruits of his fashioning, before the oldest of his works. Before the mountains were settled, before the hills, I came to birth; before he had made the earth, the countryside, and the first elements of the world." (Proverbs 8:12, 22, 25, 26, NJB)

There is nothing in the Bible that connects Jesus with the "created wisdom" of Prov 8. The simplest way to prove JW's wrong in Prov 8 is to note that in Proverbs chapters 1-9, "Wisdom" is being personified as a WOMAN! If Jesus Christ, the Son of God, was what God was referring to in this passage, wisdom would be personified as a man! Nothing more ever needs to be said about this silly interpretation. Of course the JW interpretation of Prov 8 also proves that God had no wisdom before he created Christ. Only a JW would think this is logical.

But it gets even worse for JW's. The very word "created" [Hebrew: qanah] in Prov 8:12 is an obscure translation. The actual hebrew word is derived from "to get" not "create" or "origin". For example of the 82 times this word is used, the NASB never translates the word created. 90% of the translated words are "bought, possessed" etc. For JW's to have any argument at all, the verse must have used the normal words for created "bara" or "asha" as in Gen 1:1, but these words are not in Prov 8.

While the term "Wisdom" is used to personify the one whom God created, most scholars agree that it is actually a figure of speech for Jesus as a spirit creature prior to his human existence.

This is an outright lie. Most scholars see absolutely no connection with Jesus in Prov 8. The only scholars who do see a connection are Bible haters, who not only trash the deity of Christ, but the virgin birth as well! Notice they dare not actually name any "scholars" who agree with them!

It no doubt was to this master craftsman that God said: "Let us make man in our image." (Genesis 1:26) Some have claimed that the "us" and "our" in this expression indicate a Trinity. ... when God used "us" and "our," he was simply addressing another individual, his first spirit creation, the master craftsman, the prehuman Jesus.

We find it incredible that JW's believe they were created by a creature! Oh they will say, "God created THROUGH Jesus." But the Bible clearly states that Jesus had a direct hand in creating all things. (Jn 1:3; Col 1:16) Even Jehovah says to Jesus, "the heavens are the works of your (Jesus') hands." Heb 1:10 Only God creates! Angels are NEVER said to create anything. Yet remember, JW believe that the angel Michael, is our creator. Heb 1:5 proves Jesus cannot be an angel.

Could God Be Tempted?

AT MATTHEW 4:1, Jesus is spoken of as being "tempted by the Devil." So if Jesus had been God, he could not have been tempted.-James 1:13.

The JW logic is this: 1. Jesus was tempted. 2. God cannot be tempted. 3. Jesus cannot be God. We call these false dilemmas where you sew three unrelated Bible verses together to prove something.

Here is some of the same kind of logic for JW's: 1. An angel is not a man. 2. Jesus was a man. 3. Jesus was never an angel.

Of course, as part of the incarnation and the plan of God becoming man, as seen in Phil 2:6-8, Jesus became a man in order to prove that God could be tempted and not sin. Such a simple and beautiful gospel principle JW's will never comprehend.

But what test of loyalty would that be if Jesus were God? Could God rebel against himself? No, but angels and humans could rebel against God and did. The temptation of Jesus would make sense only if he was, not God, but a separate individual who had his own free will, one who could have been disloyal had he chosen to be, such as an angel or a human.

Once again, JW's confuse trinity doctrine with modalism. How the Watchtower loves deceiving and confusing their own people! Jesus and the Father are both GOD. Joe and Frank are both MEN. But Jesus can rebel against the Father just as Joe can rebel against Frank. Is that so complicated?

How Much Was the Ransom?

If Jesus, however, were part of a Godhead, the ransom price would have been infinitely higher than what God's own Law required. (Exodus 21:23-25; Leviticus 24:19-21) It was only a perfect human, Adam, who sinned in Eden, not God. So the ransom, to be truly in line with God's justice, had to be strictly an equivalent-a perfect human, "the last Adam."

Here JW's judge the Judge! For example, JW's will reason that eternal conscious torment is false doctrine because "a loving God wouldn't do it to men". Yet JW do believe God will do it to the devil and his evil angels for eternity in conscious pain! So here they judge God by saying, "God you cannot save man yourself... you must program this created robot with free will that will never sin like Adam and save the world!" Sorry, but I love the idea that no created thing was capable of saving man, only God himself, who came to earth to save man. Rev 5:2-5 teaches just this:

"Who is worthy to open the book and to break its seals?" And no one in heaven, or on the earth, or under the earth, was able to open the book, or to look into it." But Jesus was found worthy and all creation worshipped him for it in Rev 5:11-14.

How could any part of an almighty Godhead-Father, Son, or holy spirit-ever be lower than angels?

JW's say Jesus was created an angel. We ask: "How could an angel be made lower than an angel?" Obviously then, Jesus who was uncreated God, could become man through the incarnation. The fact that JW's cannot understand this merely confirms what 1 Tim 3 says: "Great is the mystery of godliness: God who was revealed in the flesh". There are many things in scripture we cannot understand!

How the "Only-Begotten Son"?

THE Bible calls Jesus the "only-begotten Son" of God. (John 1:14; 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9) Trinitarians say that since God is eternal, so the Son of God is eternal. But how can a person be a son and at the same time be as old as his father? ... Can a man father a son without begetting him?

Jesus fulfilled the prophecy where God proclaimed, "You are my Son, Today I have begotten thee." Ps 2:7. Yet the three times (Acts 13:33; Heb 1:5; 5:5) this passages is quoted and applied to Jesus in the New Testament, it NEVER refers to a "creation point of beginning" as JW's deceptively imply. In fact, Acts 13:33 clearly indicates that Jesus was begotten AT THE RESURRECTION! It says: "God has fulfilled this promise to our children in that He raised up Jesus, as it is also written in the second Psalm, 'Thou art My Son; today I have begotten Thee.'" Acts 13:33 The expression "Only begotten", regardless of how it is defined, never refers to Jesus supposed creation point!

The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, edited by Gerhard Kittel, says: "[Mo·no·ge·nes'] means 'of sole descent,' i.e., without brothers or sisters."

Look what important section they left out:

Hence Mono-genes, means "of sole descent," i.e., without brothers or sisters. This gives us the sense of only-begotten. The ref. is to the only child of one's parents, primarily in relation to them. Mono-genes is stronger than [Greek], for it denotes that they have never had more than this child. But the word can also be used more generally without reference to derivation; in the sense of "unique," "unparalleled," "incomparable," (Kittel, Mono-genes) So Kittle admits what we know to be true, namely that "only begotten" also means unique without reference to a beginning point.

This book also states that at John 1:18; 3:16, 18; and 1 John 4:9, "the relation of Jesus is not just compared to that of an only child to its father. It is the relation of the only-begotten to the Father."

Look what important section they left out. The very conclusion the Watchtower suggests in their satanic little booklet, is the one Kittel says he is "very emphatically against taking".

"In 3:16, 18; 1 Jn. 4:9; 1:18 the relation of Jesus is not just compared to that of an only child to its father. It is the relation of the only-begotten to the Father. Similarly in Jn. 1:14: [Greek], His glory is not just compared with that of an only child; it is described as that of the only-begotten Son. Grammatically both interpretations are justifiable. But the total usage of Mono-genes is very emphatically against taking [Greek] Mono-genes as a mere comparison. (Kittel, Mono-genes) more Watchtower satanic quoting practices!

Was Jesus Considered to Be God?

WHILE Jesus is often called the Son of God in the Bible, nobody in the first century ever thought of him as being God the Son.

More lies! Read our history section and learn what first century Christians believed!

John 1:1 Jesus is called God.

John 20:28 Thomas calls Jesus, "My Lord and My God."

John 5:18 Jesus taught He was equal with God and was almost stoned for it!

Is God Always Superior to Jesus?

Jesus Distinguished From God

In prayer to God, that is, the Father, Jesus said, "You, the only true God." (John 17:3) At John 20:17 he said to Mary Magdalene: "I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God." (RS, Catholic edition) At 2 Corinthians 1:3 the apostle Paul confirms this relationship: "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." Since Jesus had a God, his Father, he could not at the same time be that God.

More evil deception from the Watchtower. All Trinitarians teach that Jesus is distinct from God, the Father. Only Modalists, who are themselves Anti-Trinitarians, do not believe that Jesus is not distinguished from God, the Father.

The apostle Paul had no reservations about speaking of Jesus and God as distinctly separate: "For us there is one God, the Father, . . . and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ." (1 Corinthians 8:6, JB) The apostle shows the distinction when he mentions "the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and of the elect angels." (1 Timothy 5:21, RS Common Bible) Just as Paul speaks of Jesus and the angels as being distinct from one another in heaven, so too are Jesus and God.

All Trinitarians totally agree! Jesus and the Father are separate persons!

Jesus' words at John 8:17, 18 are also significant. He states: "In your own Law it is written, 'The witness of two men is true.' I am one that bears witness about myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness about me." Here Jesus shows that he and the Father, that is, Almighty God, must be two distinct entities, for how else could there truly be two witnesses?

All Trinitarians totally agree! Jesus and the Father are separate persons!

Jesus further showed that he was a separate being from God by saying: "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone." (Mark 10:18, JB) So Jesus was saying that no one is as good as God is, not even Jesus himself. God is good in a way that separates him from Jesus.

The Watchtower deception is that the last four paragraphs in their booklet disprove trinity! How can it disprove trinity, when all Trinitarians agree that Jesus and the Father are separate persons?

God's Submissive Servant

TIME and again, Jesus made statements such as: "The Son cannot do anything at his own pleasure, he can only do what he sees his Father doing." (John 5:19, The Holy Bible, by Monsignor R. A. Knox) "I have come down from heaven to do, not my will, but the will of him that sent me." (John 6:38) "What I teach is not mine, but belongs to him that sent me." (John 7:16) Is not the sender superior to the one sent?

Trinitarians also agree that Jesus is submissive to the Father. Phil 2:6-8 plainly teaches that Jesus gave up equality with God at the incarnation and became a servant in order to save us.

Click here for more details about the Submission of Christ to the Father. Just as a wife is to submit to her husband, Christ chose to submit to God. Just because a wife submits to her husband, she is not a lower form of creature. So too, Christ is equal to the Father as a class of being, but a lower rank in authority.

Jesus Had Limited Knowledge

WHEN Jesus gave his prophecy about the end of this system of things, he stated: "But of that day or that hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." (Mark 13:32, RS, Catholic edition) Had Jesus been the equal Son part of a Godhead, he would have known what the Father knows. But Jesus did not know, for he was not equal to God.

Phil 2:6 clearly says that Jesus gave up equality with God at the incarnation and became a servant in order to save us. In the process of becoming fully human, Jesus emptied himself. Luke 2:52 says that as the child grew, Jesus "increased in wisdom". The fact that he emptied himself of knowledge, does not mean he never was all knowing, or that he any less God because of such? Jehovah's Witnesses argue that Jesus was a powerful and knowledgeable angel who co-created the heaven and earth, yet gave up that power and knowledge when he became a man. If Jesus having limited knowledge proves Jesus never was God, then it also proves Jesus was never an angel! See how silly JW reasoning is?

Large inset text in center page 19

'New Testament research has been leading an increasing number of scholars to the conclusion that Jesus certainly never believed himself to be God.' -Bulletin of the John Rylands Library

The Watchtower totally misleads the reader by not only omitting incredibly important information, but not even using ellipses (i.e. ". . .") to warn the reader something has been removed from the large inset text in the middle of page 19! Look what they removed!

"the fact has to be faced that New Testament research over, say, the last thirty or forty years has been leading an increasing number of reputable New Testament scholars to the conclusion that Jesus himself may not have claimed any of the Christological titles which the Gospels ascribe to him, not even the functional designation 'Christ', and certainly never believed himself to be God." (Bulletin of The John Rylands Library, Vol 50, (1967-68) p 247-261, "Jesus As 'Theos' In The New Testament", by G. H. Boobyer)

These same researchers have concluded that Jesus not only wasn't God, but wasn't even the Christ! Who are these leading researchers who in the last 30 years have rejected that Jesus is God? Why liberal theologians who also trash the whole Bible! Research from 1940-1970 by Bible haters, doesn't change the conclusions of real Bible students of the previous 1900 years that Jesus did in fact believe he was God!

Jesus Continues Subordinate

Similarly, we read at Hebrews 5:8 that Jesus "learned obedience from the things he suffered." Can we imagine that God had to learn anything? No, but Jesus did, for he did not know everything that God knew. And he had to learn something that God never needs to learn-obedience. God never has to obey anyone.

Speaking of the resurrection of Jesus, Peter and those with him told the Jewish Sanhedrin: "God exalted this one [Jesus] . . . to his right hand." (Acts 5:31) Paul said: "God exalted him to a superior position." (Philippians 2:9) If Jesus had been God, how could Jesus have been exalted, that is, raised to a higher position than he had previously enjoyed? He would already have been an exalted part of the Trinity. If, before his exaltation, Jesus had been equal to God, exalting him any further would have made him superior to God.

Phil 2:5-6 teaches that Jesus was equal with God in his pre-earth existence but gave that equality up when he became a man. He then learned obedience (something new for God who always gives the orders) and died on the cross for us. At the resurrection and ascension, God highly exalted him. Is that so hard to understand?

Click here for more details about the Subordination of Christ to the Father. JW don't realize that Trinitarians actually teach this!

Paul also said that Christ entered "heaven itself, so that he could appear in the actual presence of God on our behalf." (Hebrews 9:24, JB) If you appear in someone else's presence, how can you be that person? You cannot. You must be different and separate.

More JW confusion by not knowing the difference between trinity and modalism.

In agreement with the foregoing, the Bulletin of the John Rylands Library in Manchester, England, states: "In his post-resurrection heavenly life, Jesus is portrayed as retaining a personal individuality every bit as distinct and separate from the person of God as was his in his life on earth as the terrestrial Jesus. Alongside God and compared with God, he appears, indeed, as yet another heavenly being in God's heavenly court, just as the angels were-though as God's Son, he stands in a different category, and ranks far above them." The Bulletin also says: "What, however, is said of his life and functions as the celestial Christ neither means nor implies that in divine status he stands on a par with God himself and is fully God. On the contrary, in the New Testament picture of his heavenly person and ministry we behold a figure both separate from and subordinate to God."

The author of this article denies the inspiration of the Bible! Although the author denies Jesus is God, he also denies in the same article that Jesus is the Christ:

"the fact has to be faced that New Testament research over, say, the last thirty or forty years has been leading an increasing number of reputable New Testament scholars to the conclusion that Jesus himself may not have claimed any of the Christological titles which the Gospels ascribe to him, not even the functional designation 'Christ'

In the everlasting future in heaven, Jesus will continue to be a separate, subordinate servant of God. "Then the Son himself will be subjected to the One who has subjected everything to him, so that God may be all in all."-1 Corinthians 15:24, 28, NJB.

Trinitarians agree! But do JW's understand this Trinitarians agree! This is supposed to proof trinity is false. Yet Trinitarians teach the exact same thing! How deceptive to use arguments against Trinitarians when they agree!

Jesus Never Claimed to Be God

The fact is that Jesus is not God and never claimed to be. This is being recognized by an increasing number of scholars. As the Rylands Bulletin states: "The fact has to be faced that New Testament research over, say, the last thirty or forty years has been leading an increasing number of reputable New Testament scholars to the conclusion that Jesus . . . certainly never believed himself to be God."

The Bulletin also says of first-century Christians: "When, therefore, they assigned [Jesus] such honorific titles as Christ, Son of man, Son of God and Lord, these were ways of saying not that he was God, but that he did God's work."

Wow is the devil laughing at Jehovah's Witnesses who carry his satanic little Watchtower booklet around! This modernist from the Rylands Bulletin is getting a lot of press time! This is the second time they have quoted this statement! Again we remind you that the author said in the same sentence. Take close look at where they put the ellipse [ . . . ] "reputable New Testament scholars to the conclusion that Jesus ... himself may not have claimed any of the Christological titles which the Gospels ascribe to him, not even the functional designation 'Christ ... certainly never believed himself to be God."

Such a quote is outright proof of satanic deception!

Thus, even some religious scholars admit that the idea of Jesus' being God opposes the entire testimony of the Bible. There, God is always the superior, and Jesus is the subordinate servant.

Now you know the kind of scholars that the JW's rely upon to promote their doctrine... Bible trashers! The Rylands Bulletin article was written by a man who rejects the inspiration of the Bible itself! Buy these are the only scholars the watchtower can find to agree with them!

The Holy Spirit-God's Active Force

THE Bible's use of "holy spirit" indicates that it is a controlled force that Jehovah God uses to accomplish a variety of his purposes. To a certain extent, it can be likened to electricity, a force that can be adapted to perform a great variety of operations.

Truth, the Bible's use of Holy Spirit leaves us with no conclusion other than He is a person. Click here and judge for yourself!

"On the whole, the New Testament, like the Old, speaks of the spirit as a divine energy or power." -A Catholic Dictionary

Deceptive quoting. Click on link to see full text.

Not a Person

ARE there not, however, Bible verses that speak of the holy spirit in personal terms? Yes, but note what Catholic theologian Edmund Fortman says about this in The Triune God: "Although this spirit is often described in personal terms, it seems quite clear that the sacred writers [of the Hebrew Scriptures] never conceived or presented this spirit as a distinct person."

Another deceptive quote. Fortman, is commenting only on the Old Testament, where many things were not as fully revealed as they are in the New Testament. Fortman says in the very next paragraph: "However, these writers definitely do give us the words that the New Testament uses to express the trinity of persons, Father, Son, Word, Wisdom, Spirit. And their way of understanding these words helps us to see how the revelation of God in the New Testament goes beyond the revelation of God in the Old Testament."

In the Scriptures it is not unusual for something to be personified. Wisdom is said to have children. (Luke 7:35) Sin and death are called kings. (Romans 5:14, 21) At Genesis 4:7 The New English Bible (NE) says: "Sin is a demon crouching at the door," personifying sin as a wicked spirit crouching at Cain's door. But, of course, sin is not a spirit person; nor does personifying the holy spirit make it a spirit person.

While we agree that personification is found throughout the Bible, it is impossible for the Holy Spirit to be explained as personification.

At Matthew 28:19 reference is made to "the name . . . of the holy spirit." But the word "name" does not always mean a personal name, either in Greek or in English. When we say "in the name of the law," we are not referring to a person. We mean that which the law stands for, its authority. Robertson's Word Pictures in the New Testament says: "The use of name (onoma) here is a common one in the Septuagint and the papyri for power or authority." So baptism 'in the name of the holy spirit' recognizes the authority of the spirit, that it is from God and functions by divine will.

Robertson, a Trinitarian, is right in his comments. The expression, "open up in the name of the law" is common today. Stated more accurately, "open up by the authority vested in me by the king (president, minister of justice etc.) as it is written in his law. The power of Mt 28:19 is that all three, Father, Son and Holy Spirit share the same name! It does not say, "In the name of the Father, name of the Son and name of the Holy Spirit". So this invalidates the JW argument, because all three are seen as persons with authority! Authority of law has its source in persons not electricity! So Mt 28:19 is an example of metonymy. (a device whereby one thing is used as a substitute for another with which it is closely identified. "Word today came from the White House..." it actually came from someone in the White House) "Name" meaning "authority" is substituted for the person himself from which the authority is derived. Again, electricity does not have any inherent authority and the JW explanation is ridiculous at best!

Another key point in Mt 28:19 is that it makes no sense to suggest the passage is saying, "Open up in the name of a person (F), person (S), thing (HS)." All three are persons or none are person! There are no exceptions to this anywhere!

Having said all this. There no compelling reason why we must consider the use of "name" to be metonymy. In the book of acts, the name into which they were baptized was a literal name, "Jesus" Acts 2:38; 4:12; 19:5.

Finally sinners are baptized INTO (greek: eis) the name of Jesus, and baptized into Christ as in Gal 3:27, 1 Cor 12:13 etc.

The "Helper"

JESUS spoke of the holy spirit as a "helper," and he said it would teach, guide, and speak. (John 14:16, 26; 16:13) The Greek word he used for helper (pa·ra'kle·tos) is in the masculine gender. So when Jesus referred to what the helper would do, he used masculine personal pronouns. (John 16:7, 8) On the other hand, when the neuter Greek word for spirit (pneu'ma) is used, the neuter pronoun "it" is properly employed.

What the watchtower is saying here is correct. Rules of grammar dictate the gender of the pronouns. The neuter gender argument against trinity is refuted, click here to view.

In case you hadn't noticed, the use of HE in John 14:16 is also proper.

Most Trinitarian translators hide this fact, as the Catholic New American Bible admits regarding John 14:17: "The Greek word for 'Spirit' is neuter, and while we use personal pronouns in English ('he,' 'his,' 'him'), most Greek MSS [manuscripts] employ 'it.'"

So if something is referred to as an "it" cannot be a person? Such an argument displays a dismal understanding of Greek because Jesus is referred to as "it" 5 times in: Mt 2:8, 11, 13, 14, 20, 21 and John the Baptist is referred to as "it" 8 times: Lk1:59, 60, 62, 63, 66, 67. Click for more.

Usage of "He" in reference to the Holy Spirit:

  1. Pronoun is neuter: Rom 8:26
  2. Pronoun is masculine to agree with its antecedent - Helper (paraclete): Jn 14-16
  3. Pronoun is masculine in reference to Neuter spirit: Jn 16:13 (first time he is used in NASB)
  4. Pronoun lacking in Greek, but supplied by translators: Jn 16:13 (2nd through 6th times He is used in NASB) Acts 8:16; 1 Pet 1:11; Rom 8:27 (twice); In 1 Corinthians 12:11 the pronoun is the implied subject of the verb BOULETAI, "he wills".

So when the Bible uses masculine personal pronouns in connection with pa·ra'kle·tos at John 16:7, 8, it is conforming to rules of grammar, not expressing a doctrine.

This is correct, the rules of grammar do dictate the gender of pronouns. But this just proves the Holy Spirit is a person all the more because the rules of grammar in John 16:13 dictate that the pronoun should be neuter (it) because the neuter "spirit" is its object. Yet we find that Jesus deliberately broke the rules of grammar to emphasize the Holy Spirit is a person in John 16:13. Jesus used the masculine "He" next to the neuter "spirit" rather than the correct "it"!

AT Robertson says in Jn 16:13, that a "masculine demonstrative pronoun, though followed by neuter [pneuma] in apposition."

Robertson may be right, although the pronoun is lacking, except its first occurrence. (the rest being supplied by translators). In verse 14 the same masculine pronoun is used as at the beginning of v 13. It is possible, however, that these masculine pronouns may in fact refer back to v 7, although such is possible, it is far from certain!

A Catholic Dictionary: "On the whole, the New Testament, like the Old, speaks of the spirit as a divine energy or power."

We don't dispute that the Holy Spirit is associated with divine power or energy, but this doesn't prove the Holy Spirit is mere energy and nothing more! Deceptive quote! The dictionary says in the same article:

"Poetical personification would be quite out of place here, and Meyer rightly treats the words as decisive. In the fourth Gospel, however, this personal existence is stated more fully and plainly"

No Part of a Trinity

VARIOUS sources acknowledge that the Bible does not support the idea that the holy spirit is the third person of a Trinity. For example:

The Catholic Encyclopedia: "Nowhere in the Old Testament do we find any clear indication of a Third Person."

Now imagine this. JW quoting a catholic Trinitarian source to prove the Holy Spirit is not a person. We know we are in for more satanic quoting practices! We agree that there is no clear indication that the Holy Spirit is the third member of the trinity because TRINITY WAS NOT CLEARLY REVEALED UNTIL THE NEW TESTAMENT! And that is exactly what the same Catholic encyclopedia says!

Catholic theologian Fortman: "The Jews never regarded the spirit as a person; nor is there any solid evidence that any Old Testament writer held this view. . . . The Holy Spirit is usually presented in the Synoptics [Gospels] and in Acts as a divine force or power."

Again we agree that the Old Testament was not fully revealed as a person. JW's believe that Michael was never revealed in the Old Testament as our saviour and creator!

The New Catholic Encyclopedia: "The O[ld] T[estament] clearly does not envisage God's spirit as a person . . . God's spirit is simply God's power. If it is sometimes represented as being distinct from God, it is because the breath of Yahweh acts exteriorly." It also says: "The majority of N[ew] T[estament] texts reveal God's spirit as something, not someone; this is especially seen in the parallelism between the spirit and the power of God."

We agree with all these statements in the Catholic Encyclopedia! So what? But look what they left out of the same article:

"As a result of the teaching of Christ, the definite personality of the Third Person of the Trinity is clear. However, in most cases, the phrase "spirit of God" reflects the OT notion of "the power of God."
Although the NT concepts of the spirit of God are largely a continuation of those of the OT, in the NT there is a gradual revelation that the Spirit of God's a Person."

Hence, neither the Jews nor the early Christians viewed the holy spirit as part of a Trinity. That teaching came centuries later. As A Catholic Dictionary notes: "The third Person was asserted at a Council of Alexandria in 362 . . . and finally by the Council of Constantinople of 381"-some three and a half centuries after holy spirit filled the disciples at Pentecost!

More satanic deception and lies! JW's are trying to deceive you into thinking that the first time the Holy Spirit was thought of as the their person of the trinity is in 362 AD. Look what they left out of the same article:

"But is a personal existence clearly attributed to the Spirit? No doubt, all through the N.T. his action is described as personal."

So obviously the quote used by the Watchtower is misleading and deceptive! Click here for further proof in 100-200 AD that early Christians clearly understood the Holy Spirit as the divine third member of the trinity. Here are two snips that are dated 100 and 150 AD, long before 362 AD!

Ignatius wrote in 100AD: "There are not then either three Fathers, or three Sons, or three Paracletes, but one Father, and one Son, and one Paraclete. Wherefore also the Lord, when He sent forth the apostles to make disciples of all nations, commanded them to "baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," not unto one [person] having three names, nor into three [persons] who became incarnate, but into three possessed of equal honour."

150 AD Justin Martyr said: "We will prove that we worship him reasonably; for we have learned that he is the Son of the true God Himself, that he holds a second place, and the Spirit of prophecy a third."

What About Trinity "Proof Texts"?

Three in One

THE New Catholic Encyclopedia offers three such "proof texts" but also admits: "The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not taught in the O[ld] T[estament]. In the N[ew] T[estament] the oldest evidence is in the Pauline epistles, especially 2 Cor 13.13 [verse 14 in some Bibles], and 1 Cor 12.4-6. In the Gospels evidence of the Trinity is found explicitly only in the baptismal formula of Mt 28.19."

We don't even attempt to defend the Catholic 4th century developed doctrine of three in one. We defend the personality of the Holy Spirit and that Jesus is uncreated God.

In those verses the three "persons" are listed as follows in The New Jerusalem Bible. Second Corinthians 13:13 (14) puts the three together in this way: "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all."

Notice even the Watchtower can see that these three passages clearly speak of PERSONS!

Do those verses say that God, Christ, and the holy spirit constitute a Trinitarian Godhead, that the three are equal in substance, power, and eternity? No, they do not, no more than listing three people, such as Tom, Dick, and Harry, means that they are three in one.

We agree these passages do not teach the 4th century developed Catholic trinity! We don't even care to defend it! All we need to show is that the Holy Spirit is a person and it is game over the Jehovah's Witnesses. Notice that even the Watchtower admits three persons are clearly indicated: Tom, Dick, and Harry. Although the passages to not indicate they are three in one, they do indicate all three are persons! Game over!

This type of reference, admits McClintock and Strong's Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, "proves only that there are the three subjects named, . . . but it does not prove, by itself, that all the three belong necessarily to the divine nature, and possess equal divine honor."

Again we completely agree! These passages do indeed prove three persons are named! Game over again!

Although a supporter of the Trinity, that source says of 2 Corinthians 13:13 (14): "We could not justly infer that they possessed equal authority, or the same nature." And of Matthew 28:18-20 it says: "This text, however, taken by itself, would not prove decisively either the personality of the three subjects mentioned, or their equality or divinity."

Why did the Watchtower not tell you about what McClintock does go on to say:

"Here we might infer, from the parallelism of the third member of the passage with the two former, the personality of the Holy Spirit"

Regarding John 10:30, John Calvin (who was a Trinitarian) said in the book Commentary on the Gospel According to John: "The ancients made a wrong use of this passage to prove that Christ is . . . of the same essence with the Father. For Christ does not argue about the unity of substance, but about the agreement which he has with the Father."

We agree with Calvin, but remember that when Jesus uttered this statement, the Jews immediately wanted to stone Him. Look at the very next verse: "'I and the Father are one.' The Jews took up stones again to stone Him. ... The Jews answered Him, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God."" Merely agreeing with God would not cause them to want to Stone Jesus. The Jews believed they themselves were in agreement with God! If mere agreement with the Father was all Jesus meant, then they should have stoned Moses for the same kind of agreement. The truth is, the Jews understood this statement as a declaration of equality with the Father as being uncreated God. In this passage Jesus never says, "I am not God".

Click here for more details.

"Making Himself Equal to God"?

"The ancients made a wrong use of [John 10:30] to prove that Christ is . . . of the same essence with the Father." -Commentary on the Gospel According to John, by John Calvin

Again we agree with Calvin. John 10:30 cannot be used to prove 4th century Catholic developed trinity doctrine. We would never claim that we can prove from John 10:30 that Jesus was the same essence as the Father. But Calvin flat out states that the text does prove Jesus to be uncreated God! (But JW's won't let you read that part!) He even mentions their false doctrine specifically in the same paragraph!

ANOTHER scripture offered as support for the Trinity is John 5:18. It says that the Jews (as at John 10:31-36) wanted to kill Jesus because "he was also calling God his own Father, making himself equal to God."

Jehovah's Witnesses know they are in deep trouble with this verse and resort to tricks. They imply that Jesus did not teach he was equal with God, but the Jews said this as a false charge because they misunderstood what Jesus was actually saying. Problem is that it is John the apostle who said Jesus was "calling God his Father, making himself out equal with God." This in fact is true! So take careful note that John, as the narrator the Gospel of John, flat out states that Jesus was "calling God his Father, making himself out equal with God." Click here for a detailed look at John 5:18.

"Equal With God"?

AT PHILIPPIANS 2:6 the Catholic Douay Version (Dy) of 1609 says of Jesus: "Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God." The King James Version (KJ) of 1611 reads much the same. A number of such versions are still used by some to support the idea that Jesus was equal to God. But note how other translations render this verse:

1869: The New Testament, by G. R. Noyes.
1965: Das Neue Testament, revised edition, by Friedrich Pfäfflin.
1968: La Bibbia Concordata.
1976: Today's English Version.
1984: New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures.
1985: The New Jerusalem Bible.

Jehovah's Witnesses cannot find one single reputable known translation that translates Phil 2:6 the way they think it should be. So they go back 130 years or find obscure one man transitions by fellow Anti-Trinitarians. Of course we commend them for quoting the New Jerusalem Bible which agrees with the KJV.

In this regard, Ralph Martin, in The Epistle of Paul to the Philippians, says of the original Greek: "It is questionable, however, whether the sense of the verb can glide from its real meaning of 'to seize', 'to snatch violently' to that of 'to hold fast.'"

Trinitarians take both the active and passive of "harpagmos" (grasped). Martin flat out says that both are possible in the Greek. But either way, the text still teaches that Jesus was either equal to God as a possession or able to be equal with God, as an inherent right that the Father could not refuse.

Here is how Martin interprets the passage: "The eternal Son of God, however, faced with a parallel temptation, renounced what was his by right, and could actually have become his possession by the seizure of it, viz. equality with God, and chose instead the way of obedient suffering as the pathway to his lordship."

Notice that Martin takes the active, just like JW's but still comes to the conclusion opposite to JW!

The Expositor's Greek Testament also says: "We cannot find any passage where [har·pa'zo] or any of its derivatives has the sense of 'holding in possession,' 'retaining'. It seems invariably to mean 'seize,' 'snatch violently'. Thus it is not permissible to glide from the true sense 'grasp at' into one which is totally different, 'hold fast.'"

Jehovah's Witnesses project the false impression that since Kennedy takes the active interpretation of harpazo (grasped at), that Jesus is a creature. In fact Kennedy out right states that the passage teaches Jesus is uncreated God.

Kennedy's assessment is that the text of Phil 2:6-10 clearly portrays Jesus as deity (uncreated God.) Kennedy's interpretation is summed up in our paraphrase: "Although Jesus while he walked the earth, knew he had existed before all time as uncreated God, He did not violently force [active har·pa'zo] men to accept his equality with God with the use of his inherent divine powers. Instead, he chose the path of humility that lead first to death, then to being proclaimed worthy of worship after the resurrection and exhalation by God to possess a name among men equal to Jehovah of the Old Testament.

The context of the surrounding verses (3-5, 7, 8, Dy) makes it clear how verse 6 is to be understood. The Philippians were urged: "In humility, let each esteem others better than themselves." ... Jesus, who 'esteemed God as better than himself,' would never 'grasp for equality with God,' but instead he "humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death."



There are two ways to view the humility of Jesus in the passage:

  1. Jesus was equal with God, but gave up such. This example of humility we should follow.
  2. Jesus was a creature, who never claimed to equal with God. This is not an example of humility but sanity. To suggest this, violates common sense and the context of humility!

The Anti-Trinitarian view gives praise to a creature, for merely staying within the boundaries of who he knew he really was. A servant is not praised as humble because he does not kill his king to take his place. If the humility of Christ, as the text says, is not trying to become equal with God, this is not an act of humility, it is an act of sanity. Jesus, the creature, who did not try to become equal with God is no more worthy of praise, then we are when we deny being equal with God. The Anti-Trinitarian view, therefore, is preposterous because Jesus is praised as humble for not leading a coup against God's authority.

"I Am"

AT JOHN 8:58 a number of translations, for instance The Jerusalem Bible, have Jesus saying: "Before Abraham ever was, I Am." Was Jesus there teaching, as Trinitarians assert, that he was known by the title "I Am"? And, as they claim, does this mean that he was Jehovah of the Hebrew Scriptures, since the King James Version at Exodus 3:14 states: "God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM"?

Click here for a detailed look at Jn 8:58 that proves Jesus is uncreated!

Jehovah's Witnesses know they cannot explain John 8:58 and are all "over the map", trying to convince themselves why a simple present tense Greek phrase, should not be translated as present tense "I am" in English.

The circus of Watchtower grammatical flip flops in translating John 8:58 is fully exposed by clicking here.

At Exodus 3:14 (KJ) the phrase "I AM" is used as a title for God to indicate that he really existed and would do what he promised. The Pentateuch and Haftorahs, edited by Dr. J. H. Hertz, says of the phrase: "To the Israelites in bondage, the meaning would be, 'Although He has not yet displayed His power towards you, He will do so; He is eternal and will certainly redeem you.' Most moderns follow Rashi [a French Bible and Talmud commentator] in rendering [Exodus 3:14] 'I will be what I will be.'"

Dr, Hertz is a Jewish Rabbi who share a common desire with JW's to dispel any connection with the "I Am" of Jehovah in Ex 3 and the "I Am" of Jesus in John 8:58. The fact remains that when the Watchtower searched long and hard enough, they finally found a Rabbi that would say what they wanted. We could quote a pile of Rabbi's who are honest enough to admit that Ex 3 should be rendered "I am who I am"... "I am".

The expression at John 8:58 is quite different from the one used at Exodus 3:14. Jesus did not use it as a name or a title but as a means of explaining his prehuman existence.

JW's are wrong when they say there is no connection of Jn 8:58 with Ex 3:14. But they have not yet comprehended that the major backdrop of Jesus' words, "I AM" are found in Isaiah chapters 40-55. The connection is so clear and unmistakable, that we classed the connection of Jn 8:58 with Is 40-55 in the category of irrefutable! Click here for the amazing outline! In this outline you will see how Jesus deliberately echoes a pattern of themes that are unique to Jehovah by using the expression "I AM" (Greek: ego eimi; Hebrew: ani hu). The high density of I AM sayings of Jehovah found in Chapters 40-55 of Isaiah match the high density of I AM sayings of Jesus in the gospel of John.

Hence, note how some other Bible versions render John 8:58 ...

The Watchtower again digs back 150 years to find obscure "one man paraphrased" non-english Bible's. No major translation renders it the way JW's say it should be.

"The Word Was God"

AT JOHN 1:1 the King James Version reads: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Trinitarians claim that this means that "the Word" (Greek, ho lo'gos) who came to earth as Jesus Christ was Almighty God himself.

Click here for a detailed look at how Jn 1:1 proves Jesus is not a creature.

The irrefutable argument stated:

This verse is so simple it is impossible to get it wrong. An illustrated paraphrase of the text would be:

  • "In the beginning was EVE, and EVE was with MAN, and EVE was MAN. SHE was in the beginning with MAN."

Even adopting the Jehovah's Witnesses paraphrase, the New World Translation's, (NWT hereafter) unscholarly insertion of "a god" of the text makes no difference:

  • "In the beginning was EVE, and EVE was with MAN, and EVE was a MAN.

Someone who is "with" another person cannot also be that other person. Note, however, that here again the context lays the groundwork for accurate understanding. Even the King James Version says, "The Word was with God." (Italics ours.) Someone who is "with" another person cannot be the same as that other person. In agreement with this, the Journal of Biblical Literature, edited by Jesuit Joseph A. Fitzmyer, notes that if the latter part of John 1:1 were interpreted to mean "the" God, this "would then contradict the preceding clause," which says that the Word was with God.

Again the Watchtower confuses modalism with trinity. Such deliberate deception. No Trinitarian says that Jesus is the same person as the Father so the argument is irrelevant, but JW's are too blind to notice this deception. They just say, "Ya, that's right, trinity is obviously wrong.?" We wish they knew Trinitarians agree that it is wrong! We fully agree with author Harner's comment in the Journal of Biblical Literature edited by Fitzmyer. Only deception would quote something Trinitarians agree with in order to refute them.

The Journal of Biblical Literature says that expressions "with an anarthrous [no article] predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning." As the Journal notes, this indicates that the lo'gos can be likened to a god. It also says of John 1:1: "The qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun [the·os'] cannot be regarded as definite."

The Watchtower extracts an isolated quote, and draws the opposite conclusion that the author later states to be his interpretation. Even worse, Harner (Journal of Biblical Literature) flatly denies that John 1:1c could be translated "a god" or "divine".

So John 1:1 highlights the quality of the Word, that he was "divine," "godlike," "a god," but not Almighty God.

Wrong, the very article in the Journal of Biblical Literature, written by Harner, specifically rules this out! How satanic to use the quote the way JW's do!

Harner's final conclusion in the Journal as to how the verse should be translated is this: "Perhaps the clause could be translated, "the Word had the same nature as God." This would be one way of representing John's thought, which is, as I understand it, that ho logos, no less than ho theos, had the nature of theos." How satanic they fail to tell the reader this!

Joseph Henry Thayer, a theologian and scholar who worked on the American Standard Version, stated simply: "The Logos was divine, not the divine Being himself."

Thayer, like Jehovah's Witnesses, was a Unitarian who believed Jesus was a creature. The quote is supposedly from Joseph Henry Thayer's "personal copy" of Griesbach's Greek New Testament text, 1809, with Thayer's handwritten comments on John 1:1 interleaved. You won't find this quote in any book, neither do we know for sure who wrote the comment. It is a handwritten comment in a book Thayer owned. Even if it is Thayer's own handwriting how do we know that is what he thought the text mean, or whether he was just scribbling in what he thought it COULD NOT MEAN! For the Watchtower to even make reference to this obscure quote is a sign of desperation!

And Jesuit John L. McKenzie wrote in his Dictionary of the Bible: "Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated . . . 'the word was a divine being.'"

The Watchtower takes little bits of McKenzie's comments on Jn 1:1 (a god) and leaves the false impression in the mind of the reader that McKenzie agreed with the JW's mistranslation.

McKenzie is not a polytheist like JW's who have a whole hierarchy of created Gods. Rather McKenzie uses the term "a divine being" in the sense of Jesus not being a creature. McKenzie would call the Father "a divine being". So the quote is doesn't help JW's at all, when read in context and is deceptive the way they use it.

No Conflict

DOES saying that Jesus Christ is "a god" conflict with the Bible's teaching that there is only one God? No, for at times the Bible employs that term to refer to mighty creatures. Psalm 8:5 reads: "You also proceeded to make him [man] a little less than godlike ones [Hebrew, Želo·him']," that is, angels. In Jesus' defense against the charge of the Jews, that he claimed to be God, he noted that "the Law uses the word gods of those to whom the word of God was addressed," that is, human judges. (John 10:34, 35, JB; Psalm 82:1-6) Even Satan is called "the god of this system of things" at 2 Corinthians 4:4.

Wow, JW's have forgotten that even the Father is called "a god" many times in scripture, even in their corrupt sectarian paraphrase they call a Bible, the New World Translation!

But here the polytheism of the Watchtower begins to shine through! Men are Gods, Angels are Gods even the Devil is a God. It should be obvious that the Bible applies the word "God" in figurative, symbolic and poetic ways not to be used as the back drop of polytheism!

Because of his unique position in relation to Jehovah, Jesus is a "Mighty God."-John 1:1; Isaiah 9:6. But does not "Mighty God" with its capital letters indicate that Jesus is in some way equal to Jehovah God? Not at all. Isaiah merely prophesied this to be one of four names that Jesus would be called, and in the English language such names are capitalized. Still, even though Jesus was called "Mighty," there can be only one who is "Almighty." To call Jehovah God "Almighty" would have little significance unless there existed others who were also called gods but who occupied a lesser or inferior position.

So according to the JW system of polytheism, The Father is at the top, being called "Almighty God" and Jesus is second below Him being called "Mighty God".

Problem is, the Father is also called "Mighty God" in Isa 10:21 and Jer 32:18. This proves that the two terms are synonymous and used exclusively of uncreated beings.

The Bulletin of the John Rylands Library in England notes that according to Catholic theologian Karl Rahner, while the·os' is used in scriptures such as John 1:1 in reference to Christ, "in none of these instances is 'theos' used in such a manner as to identify Jesus with him who elsewhere in the New Testament figures as 'ho Theos,' that is, the Supreme God." And the Bulletin adds: "If the New Testament writers believed it vital that the faithful should confess Jesus as 'God', is the almost complete absence of just this form of confession in the New Testament explicable?"

Here we go again with the same Rylands Library article by Karl Rahner. This is the fourth time the Watchtower has quoted this man who denies the inspiration of the Gospels! Notice the Watchtower goes out of their way to tell you Rahner is a CATHOLIC! Yes indeed! A Catholic who rejects the Bible is God's inspired word!

It is very sad that the general public who read this Watchtower booklet, are not aware that many of the quotes are from Bible trashers like Rahner. Such quotes are valueless.

But what about the apostle Thomas' saying, "My Lord and my God!" to Jesus at John 20:28? To Thomas, Jesus was like "a god," especially in the miraculous circumstances that prompted his exclamation. Some scholars suggest that Thomas may simply have made an emotional exclamation of astonishment, spoken to Jesus but directed to God. In either case, Thomas did not think that Jesus was Almighty God.

Jn 20:28 is about as clear an affirmation of the fact Jesus is uncreated God, as you can find. Not only does the text say that Thomas specifically directed, "My Lord and my God" to Jesus, but here is another example, like in Jn 1:1 where HO THEOS is used, except this time it is addressed to Jesus.

Thomas's statement is so powerful that the Watchtower concludes the Thomas spoke the words to the Father, THROUGH Jesus and that Jesus was not really Thomas' Lord or God. The fact Thomas did address Jesus as his God, proves that Thomas did think of Jesus as the almighty creator God.

Worship God on His Terms

Therefore, if we want God's approval, we need to ask ourselves: What does God say about himself? How does he want to be worshiped? What are his purposes, and how should we fit in with them? An accurate knowledge of the truth gives us the right answers to such questions. Then we can worship God on his terms.

Problem for Jehovah's Witnesses, Jesus worshipped many times in the Bible. (Seven times in Matthew 2:11; 8:2; 9:18; 14:33; 15:25; 28:9,19; plus many others) Further, the worship of Jesus was the common practice among Christians in both private and public worship services from 30 AD to 200 AD.

Dishonoring God

Beyond a doubt, the Trinity doctrine has confused and diluted people's understanding of God's true position. It prevents people from accurately knowing the Universal Sovereign, Jehovah God, and from worshiping him on his terms. As theologian Hans Küng said: "Why should anyone want to add anything to the notion of God's oneness and uniqueness that can only dilute or nullify that oneness and uniqueness?" But that is what belief in the Trinity has done.


Go back to Part 1: "Trinity is of pagan origin" section 



Go To Alphabetical Index Of Deceptive Quotes

Written By Steve Rudd, Used by permission at:

Click to View