In this article our goal is to correct the Watchtower on its many falsehoods concerning the doctrine of the trinity. It is always important that we know what the truth of a matter is; rather than be misled into a tangled web such as the one the Organisation has weaved for it's adherers to be lost in. And therefore, we will start with their definition:
The central doctrine of religions of Christendom. According to the Athanasian Creed, there are three divine Persons (the Father, the Son, the Holy Ghost), each said to be eternal, each said to be almighty, none greater or less than another, each said to be God, and yet together being but one God. Other statements of the dogma emphasize that these three “Persons” are not separate and distinct individuals but are three modes in which the divine essence exists. Thus some Trinitarians emphasise their belief that Jesus Christ is God, or that Jesus and the Holy Ghost are Jehovah. Not a Bible teaching.Here we have their definition of what the trinity is and they are correct in these words "there are three divine Persons (the Father, the Son, the Holy Ghost)," This is the biblical reality concerning the doctrine of the trinity. As we see in many passages such Matthew 3:13-17, 28:19, John Chapters 14-16, Romans 8:12-30, 2 Corinthians 13:11-14 (particularly vs. 14); Titus 3: 4-7; 1 Peter 1: 1-2, Jude 1:17-23 and many more. It is beyond any scriptural bounds and reason for Man to deny the trinity and class himself as a Christian. But now notice what else is subtly inferred as a teaching of the trinity; here are the words: " Other statements of the dogma emphasise that these three “Persons” are not separate and distinct individuals but are three modes in which the divine essence exists." Such a statement betrays the Watchtowers weak understanding of the matter; no Trinitarian would ever confuse or conflate "persons" with "modes." Modes is a heresy known as Modalism. It is not the doctrine of trinity.
And of course, the idea of "Modalism" is not biblical; but the truth of the trinity is firmly established in scripture. And as an old issue of Watchtower correctly indicates
From time to time, there have arisen from among the ranks of Jehovah's people those, who, like the original Satan, have adopted an independent, fault-finding attitude . . . They say that it is sufficient to read the Bible exclusively, either alone or in small groups at home. But, strangely, through such bible reading,' they have reverted right back to the apostate doctrines that commentaries by Christendom's clergy were teaching 100 years ago . . . (Watchtower, Aug. 15, 1981)This is a rather telling statement and admission on the part of Watchtower, they state "by reading the bible alone ... you will revert back to apostate doctrines of 100 years ago." What doctrines do they believe Christendom taught 100 year before this state: The Trinity. But it is not just that "the witness" will believe the trinity; the more subtle point being made is this the bible actually teaches the trinity. So how do we square off the idea that they in one moment say "the bible does teach it" but then in the next moment "the bible does not teach it."
Well they will claim that they are receiving "new light" which is an excuse - new revelation is not meant to contradict Old revelation; but supplement it and expand the truths by bringing them to their fuller fruition. An issue this quotation raises which can be seen in other publications is the mind control frame of living... " have adopted an independent, fault-finding attitude" This is frowned upon in the society.
It is important to understand the power that this organisation has over those who adhere to it: this is done through mind control tactics and manipulation such as the following words:
Thus the Bible is an organisational book and belongs to the Christian congregation as an organisation, not to individuals, regardless of how sincerely they may believe that they can interpret the Bible, (Watchtower, Oct. 1, 1967, p. 587)
We all need help to understand the Bible, and we cannot find the Scriptural guidance we need outside the 'faithful and discreet slave' organization," (Watchtower, Feb. 15, 1981).
All who want to understand the Bible should appreciate that the "greatly diversified wisdom of God" can become known only through Jehovah's channel of communication, the faithful and discreet slave," (Watchtower, Oct. 1, 1994, p. 8).It is right there in there own publications, in their very own words "the bible" is not for the individual to "interpret" but it must be done by who? Only one group have that apparent gift and calling "Jehovah's channel of communication, the faithful and discreet slave," and what they say- must go, because to argue against them is to argue with God.
The first line of Evidence against the Trinity
One of the constant irritations that comes through in studying the Organisation is continuous double standard that it places on it's adherents; which is a big problem if you truly want to understand why they believe what they believe. And it is this "do not study sources outside the Organisation" The witness is forbidden from doing so, the Organisation calls such work the works of the devil. But at the same point, they themselves do not refrain from reading and utilising such works.
It is as Dr James R White says, "Inconsistency is a sign of a failed argument." Now we come to a bunch of out of context Encyclopaedias that are used as if they support their contention. In saying the trinity is not biblical:
It appears as though this statement is conforming to their particular beliefs on the surface of things. But there are a few problems that need to be considered: (1) it is an out of context citation. (2) the full picture is somewhat negated.The New Encyclopædia Britannica says: “Neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord’ (Deut. 6:4). . . . The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies. . . . By the end of the 4th century . . . the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since.”—(1976), Micropædia, Vol. X, p. 126.
And it is for those reason we need to see the full quote:
There is the full citation that the Society was referring too, the part italicised is the portion they quoted as their support. But in the underline section we see the portion that they failed to mention which refutes their assertion of it not being in the bible - as we can see from the encyclopaedia that it confirms it is biblical: in the last words " Thus, the New Testament established the basis for the doctrine of the Trinity." And even just going upon their own inconsistent writings we can gather that they believe this is the case.Trinity, in Christian doctrine, the unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three persons in one Godhead.
Neither the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Hebrew Scriptures: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord” (Deuteronomy 6:4). The earliest Christians, however, had to cope with the implications of the coming of Jesus Christ and of the presumed presence and power of God among them—i.e., the Holy Spirit, whose coming was connected with the celebration of the Pentecost. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were associated in such New Testament passages as the Great Commission: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19); and in the apostolic benediction: “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all” (2 Corinthians 13:14). Thus, the New Testament established the basis for the doctrine of the Trinity.
The second quote which the witness place ellipsis through out to cover certain portions that would refute their belief, here is the quote:
Here is the second citation that the Organisation utilised in their attempt; and as we can see the parts that are italicised is what they used; but the parts that are underlined is what they did not see fit to mention in their magazine. And as usual, it shows us just how desperate they are. This is dealing the early controversy in the church known as Arianism. This dispute did not lead them to come up with the doctrine of the trinity as it was believe on from the beginning. Rather it lead them to seek better ways to communicate this divine truth of the trinity.The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies. Initially, both the requirements of monotheism inherited from the Hebrew Scriptures and the implications of the need to interpret the biblical teaching to Greco-Roman religions seemed to demand that the divine in Christ as the Word, or Logos, be interpreted as subordinate to the Supreme Being. An alternative solution was to interpret Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three modes of the self-disclosure of the one God but not as distinct within the being of God itself. The first tendency recognized the distinctness among the three, but at the cost of their equality and hence of their unity (subordinationism); the second came to terms with their unity, but at the cost of their distinctness as “persons” (modalism). It was not until the 4th century that the distinctness of the three and their unity were brought together in a single orthodox doctrine of one essence and three persons. The Council of Nicaea in 325 stated the crucial formula for that doctrine in its confession that the Son is “of the same substance [homoousios] as the Father,” even though it said very little about the Holy Spirit. Over the next half century, Athanasius defended and refined the Nicene formula, and, by the end of the 4th century, under the leadership of Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus (the Cappadocian Fathers), the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since. It is accepted in all of the historic confessions of Christianity, even though the impact of the Enlightenment decreased its importance
Now lets deal with the third reference given by the Organisation:
The New Catholic Encyclopaedia states: “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.”—(1967), Vol. XIV, p. 299.
After looking for this quote, it would appear that it no longer exists or never did. Since the Organisation has a major problem with correctly citing what they utilise; it does not surprise me at all. The closest thing I can find is this:
But even when comparing these things, it becomes very obvious that it not the exact thing. Therefore, we are left with nothing to consider.It is manifest that a dogma so mysterious presupposes a Divine revelation. When the fact of revelation, understood in its full sense as the speech of God to man, is no longer admitted, the rejection of the doctrine follows as a necessary consequence. For this reason it has no place in the Liberal Protestantism of today. The writers of this school contend that the doctrine of the Trinity, as professed by the Church, is not contained in the New Testament, but that it was first formulated in the second century and received final approbation in the fourth, as the result of the Arian and Macedonian controversies. In view of this assertion it is necessary to consider in some detail the evidence afforded by Holy Scripture. Attempts have been made recently to apply the more extreme theories of comparative religion to the doctrine of the Trinity, and to account for it by an imaginary law of nature compelling men to group the objects of their worship in threes. It seems needless to give more than a reference to these extravagant views, which serious thinkers of every school reject as destitute of foundation.
Now lets deal with the fourth reference given by the Organisation:
In The Encyclopedia Americana we read: “Christianity derived from Judaism and Judaism was strictly Unitarian [believing that God is one person]. The road which led from Jerusalem to Nicea was scarcely a straight one. Fourth century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching.”—(1956), Vol. XXVII, p. 294L.The exact nature of quote seem to be very dubious - it seems to be saying that the teaching of the trinity was not known before the 4th century. How it goes about trying to prove this assertion is not clear, and it is not given any real treatment.
And here's just one important quote from the early church:
I see in all three essentials— substance, genus, name. We speak of man, servant, curator (curatorem)—man, by reason of substance; servant, by reason of genus or condition; curator, by reason of denomination. We speak also of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: these, however, are not names which have only supervened at some after period, but they are subsistences. Again, the denomination of man is not in actual fact a denomination, but a substance common to men, and is the denomination proper to all men. Moreover, names are such as these—Adam, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob: these, I say, are names. But the Divine Persons are names indeed: and the names are still the persons; and the persons then signify that which is and subsists—which is the essence of God. (A small section from Gregory Thaumaturgus; work on the trinity)This work above is said to have been written in the 3rd century (date unknown), but possibly 250-280ad. And the Trinity is clearly being taught in the statement, "But the Divine Persons are names indeed: and the names are still the persons; and the persons then signify that which is and subsists—which is the essence of God." There simply is no reason for the Organisation (watchtower) to misrepresent the facts as they have done here.
Now let us deal with the next quotation provided by the Organisation:
According to the Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel, “The Platonic trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave birth to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian churches. . . . This Greek philosopher’s [Plato, fourth century B.C.E.] conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all the ancient [pagan] religions.”—(Paris, 1865-1870), edited by M. Lachâtre, Vol. 2, p. 1467.
Here is the next attack on the doctrine of the trinity; it should be noted that the Watchtower has given us one of the easiest statement to refute: Notice in the statement that ellipses appear twice, this tells us that there is something being purposefully omitted from citation. Let us now consider the whole statement:
The Platonic trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave birth to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian churches. ... This Greek philosopher's conception of the divine trinity ... can be found in all the ancient [pagan] religions."(French Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel [New Universal Dictionary], Vol. 2, p. 1467,
Anyone with even the slightest bit of logic and reason would be able to see that the Quote has nothing to do with Christian doctrine. The very words tell us what is being spoken of "The Platonic trinity" is some concept that Plato came up with based on the Pagan concepts. But then it says this "appears to be," can only suggest a possible connect and not an actual connection: it is purely conjecture on the part of this Man.
And this conjecture is worked into a real connection in the Jehovah Witness mind. What is worse is the fact that there is nothing to this quote: What is the "platonic trinity" and how does it even parallel?
Now let us deal with the final quotation provided by the Organisation:
John L. McKenzie, S.J., in his Dictionary of the Bible, says: “The trinity of persons within the unity of nature is defined in terms of ‘person’ and ‘nature’ which are G[ree]k philosophical terms; actually the terms do not appear in the Bible. The trinitarian definitions arose as the result of long controversies in which these terms and others such as ‘essence’ and ‘substance’ were erroneously applied to God by some theologians.”—(New York, 1965), p. 899.
Here is the quote that they give which seems to paint a picture that the trinity is not biblical in nature; but is in reality a later concoction. But again this is the interpretation they want you take home from reading this; it is however, not the truth as the man puts it in his own words, which are the following ones:
The trinity of God is defined by the Church as the belief that in God are three persons who subsist in one nature. The belief as so defined was reached only in the 4th and 5th centuries AD and hence is not explicitly and formally a biblical belief. The trinity of persons within the unity of nature is defined in terms of "person" and "nature" which are Gk philosophical terms; actually the terms do not appear in the Bible. The trinitarian definitions arose as the result of long controversies in which these terms and others such as "essence" and "substance" were erroneously applied to God by some theologians. ... Without an explicit formula the NT leaves no room to think that Jesus is Himself an object of the adoption which He communicates to others. He knows the Father and reveals Him. He therefore belongs to the divine level of being; and there is no question at all about the Spirit belonging to the divine level of being. What is less clear about the Spirit is His personal reality; often He is mentioned in language in which His personal reality is not explicit. (Dictionary of the Bible, John L. McKenzie, Trinity, p899)
And indeed it could be taken as support if the whole context is ignore completely, only favouring that which best aligns with the Organisation on "private interpretation" of what the bible teaches. The issue that this man had was not that God did not exist in the tri-personal mode; but that human language does not do justice to God's mode of existence.
As a Trinitarian, I shapely disagree on biblical grounds because the bible is clear on what it teaches. Our personal issues do not even come into the equation. We might also want to take note of how this gentlemen understand John 1:1, there we read the following:
As a Trinitarian, I shapely disagree on biblical grounds because the bible is clear on what it teaches. Our personal issues do not even come into the equation. We might also want to take note of how this gentlemen understand John 1:1, there we read the following:
John 1:1 should rigorously be translated "the word was with the God [the Father], and the word was a divine being."",
It is right there we see this man true beliefs being presented .. He believe exactly the same as all Trinitarians do; even if he had some issues with the exact manner that Christians have taught it in the past. He stall believed that God the father and the Word are both "divine in nature" the same being. Therefore, the Organisation is in error.
However, the one issue that I do not hide here is that I do not believe Catholicism is the truth.
The second line of evidence against the Trinity
In their attempt at disproving the trinity the first person they assault is the Holy Spirit; because they believe that this is the easiest one to render as being false. Their belief is that the Holy Spirit is nothing more than an "active force" an impersonal current of electricity. How they arrive at this idea is like everything else they interpret the bible incorrectly.
And another reason they do this kind of thing is because the Organisation has put themselves up there as being everything that the Holy Spirit is according to the scripture:
Some individual texts that refer to the holy spirit (“Holy Ghost,” KJ) might seem to indicate personality. For example, the holy spirit is referred to as a helper (Greek, pa·ra′kle·tos; “Comforter,” KJ; “Advocate,” JB, NE) that ‘teaches,’ ‘bears witness,’ ‘speaks’ and ‘hears.’ (John 14:16, 17, 26; 15:26; 16:13) But other texts say that people were “filled” with holy spirit, that some were ‘baptized’ with it or “anointed” with it. (Luke 1:41; Matt. 3:11; Acts 10:38) These latter references to holy spirit definitely do not fit a person. To understand what the Bible as a whole teaches, all these texts must be considered. What is the reasonable conclusion? That the first texts cited here employ a figure of speech personifying God’s holy spirit, his active force, as the Bible also personifies wisdom, sin, death, water, and blood. (See also pages 380, 381, under the heading “Spirit.”)
It would appear that the Organisation is playing lose and fast with the biblical evidence regarding the Holy Spirit. They conflating two distinct issues and arriving at an imbalanced conclusion. Notice if you will they state with "the traits of him being personal" and then move on to the "traits of his divine work" and conclude that the first are not giving us a true picture, whereas the second are giving us the full picture.
Now we have to keep in mind those two distinct factors to be able to correctly understand the Spirit of God:
It is also important that we consider these things as two distinct point that are equally necessary in determining who the Holy Spirit is. We can not play one off the other; neither can we dismiss one other the other.(1) Texts that speak to the Spirit individual Personality (or his person hood); as well as his Divinity.(2) Texts that specifically speak to any number of his roles in Salvation and the life of the Believer.
The statement says this: "That the first texts cited here employ a figure of speech personifying God’s holy spirit, his active force, as the Bible also personifies wisdom, sin, death, water, and blood." This is a very blasphemous Charge to make as it is making a compassion between the Holy Spirit and that of Sin and death which must never be made. And it plain ridiculous too.
Let's consider just one example of "personification" of the Spirit:
Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you. And when he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment: concerning sin, because they do not believe in me; concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you will see me no longer; concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged. “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you. (John 16: 7-15)The amount of personal pronouns being used of the Holy Spirit is very important in our understanding of the Holy Spirit. He is a Person (have the attribute of being "personal"). How for example, does an "impersonal active force" convict the world? That is only something God does through the act of regeneration. Even more importantly is that key term "Speak" that suggests being personal and covenantal in nature which speaks to being more than a force.
The phrase "the Spirit of truth" is an interesting one, to say the least as it points out that this being is God by nature for only God is the Source of truth. An impersonal force can not be said to be an arbiter of truth.
And this is why the bible is clear on who the Holy Spirit is: he is personal and is God for an inactive force can not have fellowship.
The next argument made is very interesting, because it backfires on these people:
Notice the Claim is that "nowhere in the Scriptures is a personal name applied to the holy spirit." and this is why they believe him to be impersonal. So what is the truth of this matter:The Holy Scriptures tell us the personal name of the Father—Jehovah. They inform us that the Son is Jesus Christ. But nowhere in the Scriptures is a personal name applied to the holy spirit.
How lovely is your dwelling place, O Lord of hosts! My soul longs, yes, faints for the courts of the Lord; my heart and flesh sing for joy to the living God. (psalms 84:1-2)Here we have one of the many times in the Old testament where God is identified as being LORD (YHWH). This is the name of the Living God as the Old testament testifies in all it's truthfulness unto mankind.
Now the New testament Identifies both the Son and the Holy Spirit by this Divinely revealed Name to which God revealed to Moses in Exodus 3. Let us consider a few examples:
I am not speaking of all of you; I know whom I have chosen. But the Scripture will be fulfilled, ‘He who ate my bread has lifted his heel against me.’ I am telling you this now, before it takes place, that when it does take place you may believe that I am he. Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever receives the one I send receives me, and whoever receives me receives the one who sent me.” (John 13:18-20).
because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.” For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” (Romans 10: 9-13)In these passages we see that the writers being led by the Spirit had no issue in calling Jesus Christ, the "great I am" (John 13) which is also pointing back Isaiah 43:10 (also consider Acts 1:9) And then applying divine name again to Christ by the term "Lord" Which Yahweh/ I am. Watchtower are truly demonic at this point.
Now let us see the biblical testimony to the Spirit being Yahweh:
Therefore I want you to understand that no one speaking in the Spirit of God ever says “Jesus is accursed!” and no one can say “Jesus is Lord” except in the Holy Spirit. Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there are varieties of service, but the same Lord; and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God who empowers them all in everyone .... All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills. (1 Corinthians 12: 3-6,11)
Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another. For this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit. (2 Corinthians 3: 17-18)Like it was with the Son; now we make the case for the Holy Spirit being identified by the Same name "Yahweh," in the above scriptures we see that the Spirit is the dispenser of the spiritual gifts. But if we take notice it is only the Spirits role in Salvation being referred to: he alone lead a man declared Christ as Lord; and he alone is the one whom is refer to as the "same Spirit" the "same Lord" and the "Same God."
Therefore the flow of the context makes it clear that the Holy Spirit is Yahweh. And the same point is seen in the second passage which is seen in Acts 5:3-5.
Now lets deal with the next argument offered by the Organisation:
Here is one of the most convoluted arguments ever presented, so just because some texts do not present the Holy Spirit being present with the Father and the Son. Therefore, the Holy Spirit can not be God. Let us consider the texts and then consider the reason why? First text mention comes from Acts 7, verses 57-58 which states:Acts 7:55, 56 reports that Stephen was given a vision of heaven in which he saw “Jesus standing at God’s right hand.” But he made no mention of seeing the holy spirit. (See also Revelation 7:10; 22:1, 3.)
You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you. Which of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? And they killed those who announced beforehand the coming of the Righteous One, whom you have now betrayed and murdered, you who received the law as delivered by angels and did not keep it.” Now when they heard these things they were enraged, and they ground their teeth at him. But he, full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. And he said, “Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.” But they cried out with a loud voice and stopped their ears and rushed together at him. Then they cast him out of the city and stoned him. And the witnesses laid down their garments at the feet of a young man named Saul. (Acts 7:51-53, 54-58)Now we have a fair section of this passage to consider, we can actually see that God the Father and the Son of Man (the Son) are indeed seen together; and are distinct persons from each-other, but nevertheless the whole testimony of Scripture says they are that ONE GOD (as much as is the Holy Spirit. But we also are told two times of the Spirit of God once in his role in mankind when we are told "you always resist the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you." And then the second time, is mention as to his personal interaction when it says "But he, full of the Holy Spirit."
Why may ask, if the lack of one member of the trinity is an affirmation of him not being God then how does that work in the case of Act 9 when Only Jesus Christ is mention, and not the Father in the conversion of Apostle Paul?
The second scripture mentioned is from Revelation 7: 10:
After this I looked, and behold, a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, with palm branches in their hands, and crying out with a loud voice, “Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!” And all the angels were standing around the throne and around the elders and the four living creatures, and they fell on their faces before the throne and worshipped God, saying, “Amen! Blessing and glory and wisdom and thanksgiving and honor and power and might be to our God forever and ever! Amen.” (Revelation 7:9-12)Like the first example, we are being misled into being told that if the Spirit is God; then every scripture must address it - in order for it to be the case. But that is not how we arrive at the conclusions about the this subject! We arrive at it based on all of scripture and not a carefully selected passage.
In fact, this passage refutes their claims about Christ no longer being in existence: they claim that at the crucifixion the body of Jesus disintegrated; however, this text like many in the book of revelation make it clear Jesus is still alive. Here the title "the lamb" is used by John to indicate whom is being spoke of (See also John 1:29). But here we just need to look at Revelations 1 to see that it is Christ he see when he is in the Spirit.
And again, we may ask if the lack of one member of the trinity is an affirmation of him not being God then how does that work in the case of Revelation 7 when Only Jesus Christ is mention, and not the Father in the conversion of Apostle John?
Now we come to the final statement in this section and it once again is from a encyclopaedia:
The New Catholic Encyclopedia admits: “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.” (1967, Vol. XIII, p. 575) It also reports: “The Apologists [Greek Christian writers of the second century] spoke too haltingly of the Spirit; with a measure of anticipation, one might say too impersonally.”—Vol. XIV, p. 296.
In the first quote given from the Catholic Encyclopaedia, we are told that it says of the Spirit "God Spirit as something, not some one" but let us not consider this source:
Here we have the full quote by this source, in the italics we see the portion they purposefully use to buttress their own ideas; but in the underlined portion, we see what they left out: and they done so because it would refute their claim of the Holy Spirit being "an impersonal force" when it say there is one passage that speaks of him as a person (which is incorrect); and that there are other passages that from Paul and John which forcefully imply person hood.The majority of NT texts reveal God's spirit as something, not someone; this is especially seen in the parallelism between the spirit and the power of God. ... The only passage in the Synoptic Gospels that clearly speaks of the person of the Holy Spirit is the Trinitarian formula in Mt 28.19. ... The statement in Acts 15.28, "the Holy Spirit and we have decided," alone seems to imply full personality. ... However, the Trinitarian formulas employed by St. Paul (e.g., 2 Cor 13.13), indicate a real personality. ... So clearly does St. John see in the Spirit a person who takes Christ's place in the Church, that he uses a masculine pronoun (Greek) in reference to the Spirit even though [spirit] is neuter in gender ( 16.8, 13-16). Consequently, it is evident that St. John thought of the Holy Spirit as a Person, who is distinct from the Father and the Son, and who, with the glorified Son and the Father, is present and active in the faithful (14.16; 15.26; 16.7).
Therefore, it appears that the Organisation has misled its own people into believing something cannot substantiate clearly.
The third line of evidence against the Trinity
In this attempt at refuting the trinity under the title "Does the Bible agree with those who teach that the Father and Son are not separate and distinct individuals?" We find the following arguments which all cults give against the trinity; but fail to see the fact that it helps our case and destroy their own. Let us now see the argument:
Matt. 26:39, RS: “Going a little farther he [Jesus Christ] fell on his face and prayed, ‘My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt.’” (If the Father and the Son were not distinct individuals, such a prayer would have been meaningless. Jesus would have been praying to himself, and his will would of necessity have been the Father’s will.)
Trinity teaches that there Only One true God who has revealed himself through history and in the pages of the his very word to be 3 co eternal and co equal persons: namely the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. The bible clear, truly clear on the fact that there are 3 persons who are called Yahweh as seen in my response above in 2nd part of the second line of evidence.John 8:17, 18, RS: “[Jesus answered the Jewish Pharisees:] In your law it is written that the testimony of two men is true; I bear witness to myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness to me.” (So, Jesus definitely spoke of himself as being an individual separate and distinct from the Father.)
Therefore, when they say that these passage speak of 2 persons in communion; they are correct for once, but they are not refuting the trinity but only oneness. And the term "individuals" in their view refer to 2 Gods which is not biblical founded, it is an assumption on their part.
The fourth line of evidence against the Trinity
In this attempt to refute the trinity they have the following statements, under the title: "Does the Bible teach that all who are said to be part of the Trinity are eternal, none having a beginning?" To which we will be responding to on a biblical basis:
Col. 1:15, 16, RS: “He [Jesus Christ] is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation; for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth.” In what sense is Jesus Christ “the first-born of all creation”?
(1) Trinitarians say that “first-born” here means prime, most excellent, most distinguished; thus Christ would be understood to be, not part of creation, but the most distinguished in relation to those who were created. If that is so, and if the Trinity doctrine is true, why are the Father and the holy spirit not also said to be the firstborn of all creation? But the Bible applies this expression only to the Son. According to the customary meaning of “firstborn,” it indicates that Jesus is the eldest in Jehovah’s family of sons.Now in there attempt to give a reasoned defence for their misapplication of the term "prōtotokos" they ask the question: "In what sense is Jesus Christ “the first-born of all creation”?" That is a good question! And unfortunately one that will not be answered not by the Organisation at least. Instead they will have a pre-arranged meaning that they will shoehorn into the context (while at the same time ignoring the context).
There meaning is first born as in first created; but that is not even biblical attested. It is a false assumption being read back into the context.
Next, we see that in trying to give the meaning which Christian for many centuries have come away with through exegeting the full context is the following misapplication: "Trinitarians say that “first-born” here means prime, most excellent, most distinguished; thus Christ would be understood to be, not part of creation, but the most distinguished in relation to those who were created." Now that is not even close to the understanding Trinitarians have and hold too.
The correct meaning is that the term "first born" does not infer being created; but in fact it hold the meaning of pre-eminence and supremacy of all things due to first his divine nature and second his headship over the Church.
And why does the Father and the Holy Spirit not have the Same title of Honour: it is simply because Christ is the one who took the punishment of our sins. The Father is fount-head of our Salvation And the Spirit is the true vicar of Christ who alone apply the act of salvation each member of the Body of Christ.
Now let us deal with the second question that is asked in this section:
(2) Before Colossians 1:15, the expression “the firstborn of” occurs upwards of 30 times in the Bible, and in each instance that it is applied to living creatures the same meaning applies—the firstborn is part of the group. “The firstborn of Israel” is one of the sons of Israel; “the firstborn of Pharaoh” is one of Pharaoh’s family; “the firstborn of beast” are themselves animals. What, then, causes some to ascribe a different meaning to it at Colossians 1:15? Is it Bible usage or is it a belief to which they already hold and for which they seek proof?Such an answer reveals the lack of understanding what the Christian position is on the term "prōtotokos." In the bible words can have multiple meaning; but there is only one use when it is placed in a particular context.
The real situation being made clear in such a state as:
The philosophy being promoted behind this kind of statement is known as "pragmatisms" whereby words do not have one clear meaning; and therefore, it could have an endless number of themes and meanings. In the end, subjective pragmatism leads to bankruptcy because if it were true; then no one (not even the Jehovah witness') can know the meanings of words in everyday use.Before Colossians 1:15, the expression “the firstborn of” occurs upwards of 30 times in the Bible, and in each instance that it is applied to living creatures the same meaning applies—the firstborn is part of the group.
But the sad reality is in the fact, that man does not operate in such a fashion, we expect others to know exactly what we mean by the words we use; therefore, why do the Jehovah witness hold God to a standard they themselves are inconsistent with?
The question being asked "What, then, causes some to ascribe a different meaning to it at Colossians 1:15? Is it Bible usage or is it a belief to which they already hold and for which they seek proof? " It is contextually biblical.
In the first place, when we consider the context:
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. (Verse 15). He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. (Verse 18)Does the idea behind first-born which the organisation's usage "the firstborn is part of the group" make sense in both of these verses. The clear answer is: No. Consider the second usage in this passage in verse 18 - "the first born is a part of a group" mean that Christ is "firstborn from the dead." as in the first one from the dead.. what then of the instances such a Lazarus, Jairus' daughter who rose from the dead before Christ did.
The term "prototokos" refers to Christ's supremacy and pre-eminence as the one who is the Head over his Church and over the Dead.
Now let us consider the third point which the Organisation raises:
(3) Does Colossians 1:16, 17 (RS) exclude Jesus from having been created, when it says “in him all things were created . . . all things were created through him and for him”? The Greek word here rendered “all things” is pan′ta, an inflected form of pas. At Luke 13:2, RS renders this “all . . . other”; JB reads “any other”; NE says “anyone else.” (See also Luke 21:29 in NE and Philippians 2:21 in JB.) In harmony with everything else that the Bible says regarding the Son, NW assigns the same meaning to pan′ta at Colossians 1:16, 17 so that it reads, in part, “by means of him all other things were created . . . All other things have been created through him and for him.” Thus he is shown to be a created being, part of the creation produced by God.The watchtower are masters at fusing their pre-committed belief with basic presupposed questions and results in a flawed conclusion. Or to put it in more simplistic fashion, it is a circular question that is being posed:
(1) Our conclusion is "Jesus is a created "god" in his pre-human existence."Again, we see another fallacious reason being hoisted into this matter - when it reads like this "The Greek word here rendered “all things” is pan′ta, an inflected form of pas. At Luke 13:2, RS renders this “all . . . other”; JB reads “any other”; NE says “anyone else.” (See also Luke 21:29 in NE and Philippians 2:21 in JB.)"
(2) The premise is "Jesus is not the true God whom is uncreated."
(3) Therefore, Jesus is not God but is a creation of God
This is known as the illegitimate totality transfer in theological studies; whereby all possible uses of a word in all possible contexts are taken and lobbed them together and assume all mean the same. It is the same with "first-born." Context defines the meaning and usage of particular word; and not the word define the meaning of the context.
Now lets consider the last statement, "NW assigns the same meaning to pan′ta at Colossians 1:16, 17 so that it reads, in part, “by means of him all other things were created . . . All other things have been created through him and for him.” Thus he is shown to be a created being, part of the creation produced by God."
In the Greek, the verse does not read: "of him all other things were created." it in fact, reads in the original language "of him all things were created;" It is important that the biblical texts be treated with absolute respect and not used in a way to reveal a hate for that which God has taken time to reveal.
Now let's move onto the next argument given by the Organisation:
It seems as though the Watchtower once again has to start with the assumptions which form the net of their devious ideology. Notice what is said " “The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him . . . ‘And to the angel of the church in La-odicea write: “The words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning [Greek, ar·khe′] of God’s creation.”’” (KJ, Dy, CC, and NW, as well as others, read similarly.) Is that rendering correct? " Now the point needs to be made Watchtower do not care one way or the other. They have no true understanding of the bible, no Greek scholar-ship. All they are left with is conjecture.Rev. 1:1; 3:14, RS: “The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him . . . ‘And to the angel of the church in La-odicea write: “The words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning [Greek, ar·khe′] of God’s creation.”’” (KJ, Dy, CC, and NW, as well as others, read similarly.) Is that rendering correct? Some take the view that what is meant is that the Son was ‘the beginner of God’s creation,’ that he was its ‘ultimate source.’ But Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon lists “beginning” as its first meaning of ar·khe′. (Oxford, 1968, p. 252) The logical conclusion is that the one being quoted at Revelation 3:14 is a creation, the first of God’s creations, that he had a beginning. Compare Proverbs 8:22, where, as many Bible commentators agree, the Son is referred to as wisdom personified. According to RS, NE, and JB, the one there speaking is said to be “created.”)
Now dealing with the Organisation's charge "that beginning mean the first creature made by God" there is a huge problem with that notion: it rest on an illogical idea, and that is the fact that "beginning" which is arché in the Greek has another purpose when it is used in this passage. Jesus is personally correct an error similar to that of Jehovah Witness: Christ is the initiator or originator of all things.
Finally, we come to the final argument put forth by the Organisation:
Prophetically, with reference to the Messiah, Micah 5:2 (KJ) says his “goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.” Dy reads: “his going forth is from the beginning, from the days of eternity.” Does that make him the same as God? It is noteworthy that, instead of saying “days of eternity,” RS renders the Hebrew as “ancient days”; JB, “days of old”; NW, “days of time indefinite.” Viewed in the light of Revelation 3:14, discussed above, Micah 5:2 does not prove that Jesus was without a beginning.
Now here is one argument that is important to follow through to get the fullness of its point; the bottom line is that they are denying Jesus eternal existence and him being God. But there is one problem, and that is the context of Micah 5 - let us consider it carefully:
Now muster your troops, O daughter of troops; siege is laid against us; with a rod they strike the judge of Israel on the cheek. But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are too little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose coming forth is from of old, from ancient days. Therefore he shall give them up until the time when she who is in labour has given birth; then the rest of his brothers shall return to the people of Israel. And he shall stand and shepherd his flock in the strength of the Lord, in the majesty of the name of the Lord his God. And they shall dwell secure, for now he shall be great to the ends of the earth. And he shall be their peace.We should see the error that the Organisation has made when the whole section is read with no interruptions; when we consider the phrase "whose coming forth is from of old, from ancient days." It is obviously a usage of Hebrew Parallelism; the idea is to say something in two way with a sight variant in the second sentence from the first. But in both they convey the very same point: and in this case it is speaking the eternal one who becomes a man, in the person of Jesus Christ.
But now it must said that this passage is not just speaking of his incarnation; it is in fact, speaking to the eternal covenant in his blood, in these words "then the rest of his brothers shall return to the people of Israel. And he shall stand and shepherd his flock in the strength of the Lord, in the majesty of the name of the Lord his God. And they shall dwell secure, for now he shall be great to the ends of the earth. And he shall be their peace." Therefore, the two point in this passage are clear: his incarnation and his death for sinners.
The fifth line of evidence against the Trinity
Now we enter into a tactic which many cult like to do and that isolate the passages which agree with their own stand-point; and ignore those which refute another stand-point that they had adopted as default of the cult itself. In this case it is that they accept the passages which teach Christ's humanity, but reject those which speak to his divinity.
Under the title "Does the Bible teach that none of those who are said to be included in the Trinity is greater or less than another, that all are equal, that all are almighty?" We find the following the arguments:
Under the title "Does the Bible teach that none of those who are said to be included in the Trinity is greater or less than another, that all are equal, that all are almighty?" We find the following the arguments:
Mark 13:32, RS: “Of that day or that hour no ones knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” (Of course, that would not be the case if Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were coequal, comprising one Godhead. And if, as some suggest, the Son was limited by his human nature from knowing, the question remains, Why did the Holy Spirit not know?)
No Trinitarian has problem with this verse in relation to Christ's humanity but in his divine nature he knows all things; but it's not his place to know the point of his return; it is his Fathers. This does not indicate that Jesus is inferior to the Father - it reveals that each member of the trinity has different role in creation, salvation and full redemption. And yet, all three are equal before each other as being God.
It would seem that it is the Jehovah Witness would have a problem with this passage, for it has an order which highlights Christ being more than just a human.. he is the God - man. Now let's consider the next passage that the organisation puts forth:
Matt. 20:20-23, RS: “The mother of the sons of Zebedee . . . said to him [Jesus], ‘Command that these two sons of mine may sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your kingdom.’ But Jesus answered, . . . ‘You will drink my cup, but to sit at my right hand and at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.’” (How strange, if, as claimed, Jesus is God! Was Jesus here merely answering according to his “human nature”? If, as Trinitarians say, Jesus was truly “God-man”—both God and man, not one or the other—would it truly be consistent to resort to such an explanation? Does not Matthew 20:23 rather show that the Son is not equal to the Father, that the Father has reserved some prerogatives for himself?)
A failure to understand the context and it's purpose. Here we see that the disciples are highly selfish in terms of their own place in Christ kingdom: instead of learning from Christ's lessons on what true discipleship is, they are all desire the greater place in the kingdom (even though they are give great places as the 12 who rain over the tribes).
But that time till the second coming and judgement, all believers are to be "like Children" who are to be ever dependant on another (Matthew 18:1-6; 19:13-15). As believers, we all need to rely on Christ who is providing every spiritual blessing through the Holy Spirit, according to the Father's will. The bible is very clear on the matter of tri-personal nature of God.
Now what about the question: " Does not Matthew 20:23 rather show that the Son is not equal to the Father, that the Father has reserved some prerogatives for himself?" No, the assumption being read into this one verse are evident, but not proven. Of course, each person has different role, but that does not prove what is being asserted "inequality of the persons."
Now lets consider the next passage that the organisation puts forth:
Matt. 12:31, 32, RS: “Every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. And whoever says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.” (If the Holy Spirit were a person and were God, this text would flatly contradict the Trinity doctrine, because it would mean that in some way the Holy Spirit was greater than the Son. Instead, what Jesus said shows that the Father, to whom the “Spirit” belonged, is greater than Jesus, the Son of man.)
Again, a misunderstanding of the context and it's purpose. Each person of the trinity has different roles in Creation, salvation, and full redemption, yet none of them are inferior to the others: (1) the Father would be the grand architect of all things, he is the fount-head of salvation. (2) the Son is the very means of salvation taking place - he is the one who came to give his sinless life to redeem man. (3) the Holy Spirit is the vicar of Christ's works - he vicariously applies the benefits of salvation to every person who believes by regenerating them and sanctifies them.
It is in this sense of the passage above, when those who were confronting the lord and accusing him of "demon possessed" (verses 24-29) and then Christ says that this kind of charge is blasphemous in nature. The Spirit of God and Christ is the one who does the initiation work of bringing a dead sinner to life in Christ by regeneration (John 3:1-15).
Now let us consider the next verse that the organisation puts forth:
John 14:28, RS: “[Jesus said:] If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I go to the Father; for the Father is greater than I.”
At least it is a full verse they are misunderstanding in this argument. Now what is Jesus saying; let us consider the context of this verse:
These things I have spoken to you while I am still with you. But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you. Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you. Not as the world gives do I give to you. Let not your hearts be troubled, neither let them be afraid. You heard me say to you, ‘I am going away, and I will come to you.’ If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I. And now I have told you before it takes place, so that when it does take place you may believe. I will no longer talk much with you, for the ruler of this world is coming. He has no claim on me, but I do as the Father has commanded me, so that the world may know that I love the Father. Rise, let us go from here. (Verses 14: 25-31).Upon reading the context, we are informed that Jesus is speaking of his future crucifixion, resurrection and ascension, in these words "Let not your hearts be troubled, neither let them be afraid. You heard me say to you, ‘I am going away, and I will come to you." This is comforting passage for the disciple for they will soon be left on the earth alone without Christ.
But he promises the coming Holy Spirit, with two important focuses: (1) "He will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all I have said to you" in other words, the Spirit will bring you great truth concerning me that you can build your lives upon. true faith in Christ. (2) "Peace I give .. not as the world gives" in this we see that the peace Christ will give through the Spirit is an eternal comforting pleasure that never leaves us, unlike that which the world can offer people.
The passage in reality declares that God is triune: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Each have different roles in man's salvation as we saw above. It also proves the dual natures of Christ (God and man). They are also equal in nature as the whole Chapter declares.
Now let us consider the next verse that the organisation puts forth:
A clear mispresentation of what the passage is speaking too; the issue that Paul was addressing in 1 Corinthians 11 is misuse of the communion, there is nothing in the passage which would lead one to conclude that Paul was denying Christ divinity. In fact, the very verse mention is being misunderstood. It is not telling us that Christ is not God, but give a order of hierarchy in the body of Christ. The question that this passage underlines is this: there has to some order in the church's existence as to how the people are to act in reference morality, in reference to the ordinances, in reference to the gifts.1 Cor. 11:3, RS: “I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.” (Clearly, then, Christ is not God, and God is of superior rank to Christ. It should be noted that this was written about 55 C.E., some 22 years after Jesus returned to heaven. So the truth here stated applies to the relationship between God and Christ in heaven.)
And chapter 11: 3 gives us the order of all who are involved: (1) the head of every man is Christ. (2) the head of every women is husband. (3) and the head of Christ is God. This does refer to the nature, but their position. Just men are not superior to women, and women are inferior to men; they are equal in nature as humans; And like wise Christ is not inferior to the Father, the Father is not superior to Christ; they are equal in nature as they are both the one true God (as is the Holy Spirit). And that is the point in all of this.
Now let us consider the next verse that the organisation puts forth:
This Argument is based on ignorance of what the Trinity teaches: we believe and the doctrine enunciates that there is one almighty; but in this we see the grand reality that this title is applied to all three persons: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. It is not on the testimony of one word being ascribed to each of the persons, bit is in fact, due to the fact that the writer employ the name and attributes to each.1 Cor. 15:27, 28 RS: “‘God has put all things in subjection under his [Jesus’] feet.’ But when it says, ‘All things are put in subjection under him,’ it is plain that he is excepted who put all things under him. When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things under him, that God may be everything to every one.”
But for one thing, we can consider a few examples of the word "almighty" being applied to another person. Let us consider just a few:
To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood and made us a kingdom, priests to his God and Father, to him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen. Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him, and all tribes of the earth will wail on account of him. Even so. Amen. “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.” (Revelation 1:5-8)This passage is clear that it is not the Father being called "Almighty;" it is in fact, the Son as we can see in the words "To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood ..... Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him, and all tribes of the earth will wail on account of him." Christ is being put in view as the Redeemer; as the one whom was "pierced."
But next we see that it gets more focused in these words: "I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty." The only Person in view in the previous verses and even those that are to come after is God the Son, Jesus Christ. No amount of wiggling around this will change the facts.
Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words. And he who searches hearts knows what is the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God. And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified. (Romans 8:26-30)Here we have one of most powerful, most beautiful pictures of believers salvation as being a definite work that is imperishable and incorruptible as to it's nature. But we will not get into that issue here as there are a few important points on the Holy Spirit: in the words, "but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words ... because the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God." It is very important to two things :
(1) the Spirit here is said to be personal using the term "He, himself" just as John Chapters 14-16, and Acts 13 does - It is a personal reference as the personhood of the Holy Spirit. (2) we are told that the Spirit "intercedes for the saints" Just as Jesus is said to intercede for us in Hebrews 7:25, and in 1 John 2:1-2. shows without a doubt that the Spirit is both personal, and is God himself in the 3rd person; and not a mere "impersonal force."
The sixth line of evidence against the Trinity
In an attempt to disprove the Trinity, the organisation offers up the sixth set of arguments to make their case. They spout out the verses which apparently teach "only the Father is God" but what is the truth of this issue:
The assumption being made in this argument is clear: "Jesus cannot be the one true God, because he himself said that the father is the only true God." But the error is to think that their reading of the text is the correct one. Let us consider the passage:Jesus said in prayer: “Father, . . . this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.” (John 17:1-3, RS; italics added.) (Most translations here use the expression “the only true God” with reference to the Father. NE reads “who alone art truly God.” He cannot be “the only true God,” the one “who alone [is] truly God,” if there are two others who are God to the same degree as he is, can he? Any others referred to as “gods” must be either false or merely a reflection of the true God.)
When Jesus had spoken these words, he lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, “Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you, since you have given him authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him. And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. I glorified you on earth, having accomplished the work that you gave me to do. And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.Christ is not saying that he is not God in this passage, he is highlighting the fact, that salvation is to know "the Father, and the Son." The fact remains that the Father is the Only true God; but that does not mean he is the only person but that there is only one true God. In 1 John 2, we have a very similar truth being stated: "Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son. No one who denies the Son has the Father. Whoever confesses the Son has the Father also." It is clear that both the Father and Son are the one true God; as is the Holy Spirit.
We may ask, since they believe that only the father is the true God... and they believe to some degree that Jesus is "a god" but not the true God. Does this mean that they believe in a false god? Which means what? that they are polytheists and are in direct violation of the biblical teaching on God. Evidently, through their deceptive teaching they have led their adherers in a grace error idolatry by calling Jesus a false god.
Now lets consider the next argument put forth by the Organisation:
Here is an interesting argument that refutes it very own conclusion. As the bible is clear that both God and Lord are used of all three persons. And that is indisputable fact. But what does this one passage teach us:1 Cor. 8:5, 6, RS: “Although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many ‘gods’ and many ‘lords’—yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.” (This presents the Father as the “one God” of Christians and as being in a class distinct from Jesus Christ.)
Therefore, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that “an idol has no real existence,” and that “there is no God but one.” For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”— yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.Paul's point here is to stress the importance that the Corinthian believers in Christ has a true security being presented in Christ; and it is paramount that they forsake all the former way of their past life before Christ. And it is very thing which they were having trouble abandoning. By this point, Paul had spoke on several issues that were of concern: human philosophical speech (Chapters 1-3) the true position of Apostles in the church (Chapter 4) Sexual immorality and lawsuits (Chapters 5-6) And the position of marriage (Chapter 7).
So now we come to chapter 8, and we are dealing with the idol worship practices in Corinth; and how a true Christian forsake and hate such practices. And even, in the midst of the truth that there is indeed one true God - All other gods are "an idol has no real existence,” they are for a lack of a better figments of ones own imagination. They are in fact, acts of wicked suppression of the truth of the one true God - man cannot escape God.
The terms God "Theos" and Lord "Kurius" are through out the new testament used interchangeably of all three persons. the Son ("Lord"John 13:18-20, Romans 10: 9-13 "God" Hebrews 1:8-9) The Holy Spirit ("Lord" 1 Corinthians 12: 3-6,11; 2 Corinthians 3:17-18, "God" Acts 5:3-5 ) And as we know the Father is continuously called both by Christ (Mark 12).
Now lets consider the next argument put forth by the Organisation:
Wow! Hold up, hold on. In this argument they present something which refutes there belief concerning Christ - who "disintegrated at his death." This above claim has served not refute Christian beliefs but the false claims of the Organisation. Such as the following one: which needs to be considered very closely:1 Pet. 1:3, RS: “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ!” (Repeatedly, even following Jesus’ ascension to heaven, the Scriptures refer to the Father as “the God” of Jesus Christ. At John 20:17, following Jesus’ resurrection, he himself spoke of the Father as “my God.” Later, when in heaven, as recorded at Revelation 3:12, he again used the same expression. But never in the Bible is the Father reported to refer to the Son as “my God,” nor does either the Father or the Son refer to the holy spirit as “my God.”)For comments on scriptures used by some in an effort to prove that Christ is God, see pages 212-216, under the heading “Jesus Christ.”
The Watchtower organization says that Jesus did not rise from the dead in the same body he died in (You Can Live Forever on Paradise Earth, pp. 143-44).The thought behind the "Jesus did not rise from the dead in the same body " corresponds to the teaching that after his death his body was Annihilated. It was literally disintegrated from the face of the earth. How they explain the clear appearances is that God tricked people into believing things such as someone appearing to make them feel good.
And here is the justification that the Organisation uses to support their conclusion:
“Christ died once for all time concerning sins, a righteous person for unrighteous ones, that he might lead you to God, he being put to death in the flesh, but being made alive in the spirit [“by the Spirit,” KJ; “in the spirit,” RS, NE, Dy, JB].” (At his resurrection from the dead, Jesus was brought forth with a spirit body. In the Greek text the words “flesh” and “spirit” are put in contrast to each other, and both are in the dative case; so, if a translator uses the rendering “by the spirit” he should also consistently say “by the flesh,” or if he uses “in the flesh” he should also say “in the spirit.”)The point that the Organisation is suggesting here and else where is that "man does not have a soul that is distinct from the body" but that it is fused and integrated thing, so it is as "you are a living soul" means that your very body is a soul. Therefore, when Christ rose he rose as a spiritual body and not a physical body. But this point contradicts itself.
For if the body you are born with is a "soul" then because they believe that the body and spirit and soul are all one in the same, then it is hard to argue that he did not rise both in physical sense and Spiritual too; hence, they are argue for "annihilation" to escape the difficulty they are led into by such a teaching.
But now lets deal with the main question being posed: "Christ cannot be God, because he called the father God" and what would you expect of the divine Son who has been in communion since before all thing came into being. An Atheist!
Now lets consider a few section from 1 peter 1:
Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who are elect exiles of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood: May grace and peace be multiplied to you. (1 peter 1:1-2)
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you, who by God's power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time (verses 3-5)
Concerning this salvation, the prophets who prophesied about the grace that was to be yours searched and inquired carefully, inquiring what person or time the Spirit of Christ in them was indicating when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glories. It was revealed to them that they were serving not themselves but you, in the things that have now been announced to you through those who preached the good news to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven, things into which angels long to look. (verses 10-12)Now we see that the Apostle peter is clear on what he believes to the truth: (1) that God is tri-personal in nature. (2) that each person has a distinct role in Salvation. (3) that Jesus resurrection is both Physical and Spiritual in order for salvation to be true.
Now lets consider the next argument put forth by the Organisation:
In Theological Investigations, Karl Rahner, S.J., admits: “Θεός [God] is still never used of the Spirit,” and: “ὁ θεός [literally, the God] is never used in the New Testament to speak of the πνεῦμα ἅγιον [holy spirit].”—(Baltimore, Md.; 1961), translated from German, Vol. I, pp. 138, 143.
