The seventh line of evidence against the Trinity
This is a real important point they raise, in their defence against the doctrine of the trinity; they want to use a double standard; applying one standard on true Christians while utilising a different stand for themselves. In a section called "Do any of the scriptures that are used by Trinitarians to support their belief provide a solid basis for that dogma?" They suggest the following:
This goes against everything that a true Christian is. It in fact is just how the watchtower arrives at their conclusions: they start with a belief already established and then search the scriptures to justify that which they predetermined is the case. To really understand the situation, they (the watchtower) only use 6% of the bible teaching in their own publications. And it gets worse, on their key doctrines they will not use the bible in a full fashion either.A person who is really seeking to know the truth about God is not going to search the Bible hoping to find a text that he can construe as fitting what he already believes. He wants to know what God’s Word itself says. He may find some texts that he feels can be read in more than one way, but when these are compared with other Biblical statements on the same subject their meaning will become clear. It should be noted at the outset that most of the texts used as “proof” of the Trinity actually mention only two persons, not three; so even if the Trinitarian explanation of the texts were correct, these would not prove that the Bible teaches the Trinity. Consider the following:(Unless otherwise indicated, all the texts quoted in the following section are from RS.)
Above we have the interesting statement, "A person who is really seeking to know the truth about God is not going to search the Bible hoping to find a text that he can construe as fitting what he already believes. He wants to know what God’s Word itself says." But the reality is that the Watchtower are not consistent in their own words; and never have been. As Ex - Jehovah witness Governing body member Raymond Franz makes clear:
I must say it was one the most disillusioning experiences of my life; It came as a rude awakening to me, to see what actually went on: I envisioned the governing body as a body of men, to whom the bible - God's word was the controlling force in every one of their decisions, to really dig into the scriptures. to make sure everything they did was soundly based on the bible. And when I got into the governing body -- I found that the bible was rarely appealed too. Was rarely used, it was mainly a discussion of Organisational policies. ..... again and again, if issue came up even though scriptures were presented; if their was an organisational policy. That policy would take precedence over the scripture, and I could help but to think of Jesus' words in Matt. 15:1-9.Therefore, it is far more likely that the bible's clear testimony on the doctrine of trinity is outstandingly strong and indisputable. Let us not forget the very words of the Organisation 34 years ago in regards to the trinity which stated the following:
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, faultfinding 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).The Organisation seems to not be very consistent in our beliefs concerning the bible and what it teaches: on one hand, they believe that if it properly handled that "A person who is really seeking to know the truth about God is not going to search the Bible hoping to find a text that he can construe as fitting what he already believes. He wants to know what God’s Word itself says." And yet, on the other hand, they say "They say that it is sufficient to read the Bible exclusively ... they have reverted right back to the apostate doctrines that commentaries by Christendom's clergy were teaching 100 years ago . . . " What is the truth? either it doesn't teach the trinity or it does teach the trinity! the Organisation seem to not have an answer.
They offer the following arguments under the section called "Texts in which a title that belongs to Jehovah is applied to Jesus Christ or is claimed to apply to Jesus":
Alpha and Omega: To whom does this title properly belong?
In this first point, we see how the Organisation has to twist clear scriptures about Christ's divinity "to their own destruction" (2 Peter3). In trying to distinguish the title from that of Christ; and applying it to God alone. Which is not possible in this text; let us consider it closely once more:(1) At Revelation 1:8, its owner is said to be God, the Almighty. In Re 1 verse 11 according to KJ, that title is applied to one whose description thereafter shows him to be Jesus Christ. But scholars recognize the reference to Alpha and Omega in Re 1 verse 11 to be spurious, and so it does not appear in RS, NE, JB, NAB, Dy.
John to the seven churches that are in Asia: Grace to you and peace from him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven spirits who are before his throne, and from Jesus Christ the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of kings on earth. 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.” (Revelations 1: 4-8)The passage starts with two persons being spoken of "Grace to you and peace from him who is and who was and who is to come, .... and from Jesus Christ the faithful witness," no doubting here that their are two persons in view the Father and Son. But then it goes from 2 people to one main person Jesus Christ being identified as "To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood" who "is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him," both are clear identifications to it being Christ who she his blood, who was pierced.
Now we turn to the verse which the witnesses are misrepresenting: "“I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.” There is only one person in view Jesus Christ .. the one who will return very soon. Who is also identified by the same name in Chapter 22:
Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense with me, to repay each one for what he has done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end. .... “I, Jesus, have sent my angel to testify to you about these things for the churches. I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star. .... He who testifies to these things says, “Surely I am coming soon.” Amen. Come, Lord Jesus!
Clearly, from just allowing the full context of Revelations 1 and 22 stand to testify of its own meaning, then Jesus Christ is the only person in view. Since he is the one whom will return to exercise judgement. And no matter how the Organisation wants to twist this, it can't get around the plain truth.
Now let us consider the next objection made in this argument:
No question. That many translations render the word "Lord" as Jehovah since that is what it means. But what they will not do is ignore the fact that Rev. 1:4-8 is about Christ, not the Father. Therefore, it is not even an argument at this point.(2) Many translations of Revelation into Hebrew recognize that the one described in Re 1 verse 8 is Jehovah, and so they restore the personal name of God there. See NW, 1984 Reference edition.
Now let's deal with the next part of this argument:
Indeed, no Christians will argue with the truth being presented in scripture that the Father becomes our Father via the work of Christ on the cross and adoption of the Spirit. This argument is made from ignorance of Christian truth.(3) Revelation 21:6, 7 indicates that Christians who are spiritual conquerors are to be ‘sons’ of the one known as the Alpha and the Omega. That is never said of the relationship of spirit-anointed Christians to Jesus Christ. Jesus spoke of them as his ‘brothers.’ (Heb. 2:11; Matt. 12:50; 25:40) But those ‘brothers’ of Jesus are referred to as “sons of God.” (Gal. 3:26; 4:6)
Now lets deal with the next part of this argument:
The argument is moot. The verse does not need to mention Jesus for it to be about him; in fact, when one reads the section it is all about Christ. Verses 16, 20-21 does state that it is Jesus who is going to return.(4) At Revelation 22:12, TEV inserts the name Jesus, so the reference to Alpha and Omega in Re 22 verse 13 is made to appear to apply to him. But the name Jesus does not appear there in Greek, and other translations do not include it.
Now let's deal with the final part of this argument:
This is a bankrupt argument. No Trinitarian would suggest that the title "alpha and omega" being applied to the Father and the Son in scripture implies they are the "same person," anymore than does the title "apostle" being used of Jesus and the twelve mean they are the same person. That again, reveal the flaws in the Organisation at this point. A failure to understand what it is that the trinity is and what we Trinitarian have taught on the subject from the beginning.(5) At Revelation 22:13, the Alpha and Omega is also said to be “the first and the last,” which expression is applied to Jesus at Revelation 1:17, 18. Similarly, the expression “apostle” is applied both to Jesus Christ and to certain ones of his followers. But that does not prove that they are the same person or are of equal rank, does it? (Heb. 3:1) So the evidence points to the conclusion that the title “Alpha and Omega” applies to Almighty God, the Father, not to the Son.
What is being espoused here is not Trinitarian, but is modalism to the core: as Trinitarians, we believe and have taught God is one in being, but has eternally existed as three persons; who are the Father, the Son, and the Spirit.
The second full argument is the following one by the Organisation:
Now this is a totally bogus argument to begin with. The title "Saviour" scripturally is applied to all three persons. There is no denying that in some sense that other people have been called "saviour" but only in a very limited sense; it may be even possible that such persons were acting in a fashion which would be a foreshadow of the one true Saviour Jesus Christ.Savior: Repeatedly the Scriptures refer to God as Savior. At Isaiah 43:11 God even says: “Besides me there is no savior.” Since Jesus is also referred to as Savior, are God and Jesus the same? Not at all. Titus 1:3, 4 speaks of “God our Savior,” and then of both “God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior.” So, both persons are saviors. Jude 25 shows the relationship, saying: “God, our Savior through Jesus Christ our Lord.” (Italics added.) (See also Acts 13:23.) At Judges 3:9, the same Hebrew word (moh·shi′a‛, rendered “savior” or “deliverer”) that is used at Isaiah 43:11 is applied to Othniel, a judge in Israel, but that certainly did not make Othniel Jehovah, did it? A reading of Isaiah 43:1-12 shows that Isa 43 verse 11 means that Jehovah alone was the One who provided salvation, or deliverance, for Israel; that salvation did not come from any of the gods of the surrounding nations.
Now what about these passages mentioned: Isaiah 43 is the first one mentioned .. and it is kind of important to note that Jesus took this scripture and applied it to himself in John 13, Luke 24, and acts 1. The next scripture mentioned is Titus 1:3-4, well there is no problem with this scripture but in verse 4 it says "Jesus is the saviour." In verse 2: 13 it say Jesus is the "great God and Saviour" and in 3:6 it says the same.
Jude 25 is a very important section as declare a truth that no Trinitarian denies that God the Father saved man through his Son, but nevertheless Jesus is the Saviour. Acts 13:23 is not a good place for them to dine on as it calls Jesus the Savour. None of these scriptures actually refute the Christian beliefs on the trinity.
The third full argument is the following one by the Organisation:
What is this trying to refute the Trinity or Jehovah witness 'two God theory' when they say "Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me." If they seriously considered just what is being said; they would realise this actually refutes their doctrine of God creating Jesus. If no God was formed before him.... and yet "shall there be any after me" and this is speaking to false Gods that are created.God: At Isaiah 43:10 Jehovah says: “Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me.” Does this mean that, because Jesus Christ is prophetically called “Mighty God” at Isaiah 9:6, Jesus must be Jehovah? Again, the context answers, No! None of the idolatrous Gentile nations formed a god before Jehovah, because no one existed before Jehovah. Nor would they at a future time form any real, live god that was able to prophesy. (Isa. 46:9, 10) But that does not mean that Jehovah never caused to exist anyone who is properly referred to as a god. (Ps. 82:1, 6; John 1:1, NW) At Isaiah 10:21 Jehovah is referred to as “mighty God,” just as Jesus is in Isaiah 9:6; but only Jehovah is ever called “God Almighty.”—Gen. 17:1.
Then when in the entire time of his creative process did he violate his own word by creating a god that he said there would none? Again the false application of John 1:1 does not help here either ... it reads in the Greek "And the word was God" to insert "a" would only prove modalism, not your two God theory.
To even state "that does not mean that Jehovah never caused to exist anyone who is properly referred to as a god." Begs the question, and assume a position that has not been established. This is nothing but a circular argument and it falls flat.
The fourth full argument is the following one by the Organisation:
Once again, using illogical argumentation as this does not prove that what the Organisation is teaches is actually correct. This argumentation is not a refutation of the trinity; but of modalism which has been condemned by all knowledgeable Christians.If a certain title or descriptive phrase is found in more than one location in the Scriptures, it should never hastily be concluded that it must always refer to the same person. Such reasoning would lead to the conclusion that Nebuchadnezzar was Jesus Christ, because both were called “king of kings” (Dan. 2:37; Rev. 17:14); and that Jesus’ disciples were actually Jesus Christ, because both were called “the light of the world.” (Matt. 5:14; John 8:12) We should always consider the context and any other instances in the Bible where the same expression occurs.
And such an argument as "If a certain title or descriptive phrase is found in more than one location in the Scriptures, it should never hastily be concluded that it must always refer to the same person. Such reasoning would lead to the conclusion that Nebuchadnezzar was Jesus Christ, because both were called “king of kings" proves one thing Watchtower either refuse educate its people on the actual doctrine or do not know it themselves.
The eighth line of evidence against the Trinity
In an attempt at denying the doctrine of the Trinity; in particular the divinity of Christ through an illogical attack: under the title "Application to Jesus Christ by inspired Bible writers of passages from the Hebrew Scriptures that clearly apply to Jehovah" they state the following:
The conclusion that is being made is that Christ is nothing more than a human agent. How they arrive at this conclusion is not through biblical exegesis; but it is in fact, through reading your own presuppositions into the context - instead of allowing the context define its own truths, they force their own beliefs on the text of scripture.Why does John 1:23 quote Isaiah 40:3 and apply it to what John the Baptizer did in preparing the way for Jesus Christ, when Isaiah 40:3 is clearly discussing preparing the way before Jehovah? Because Jesus represented his Father. He came in his Father’s name and had the assurance that his Father was always with him because he did the things pleasing to his Father.—John 5:43; 8:29. Why does Hebrews 1:10-12 quote Psalm 102:25-27 and apply it to the Son, when the psalm says that it is addressed to God? Because the Son is the one through whom God performed the creative works there described by the psalmist. (See Colossians 1:15, 16; Proverbs 8:22, 27-30.) It should be observed in Hebrews 1:5b that a quotation is made from 2 Samuel 7:14 and applied to the Son of God. Although that text had its first application to Solomon, the later application of it to Jesus Christ does not mean that Solomon and Jesus are the same. Jesus is “greater than Solomon” and carries out a work foreshadowed by Solomon.—Luke 11:31.
And that is not even a good thing to make a point of - it is the most incredible thing as it show a great disrespect for God and his word. Lets consider what is said:
Why does John 1:23 quote Isaiah 40:3 and apply it to what John the Baptizer did in preparing the way for Jesus Christ, when Isaiah 40:3 is clearly discussing preparing the way before Jehovah? Because Jesus represented his Father. He came in his Father’s name and had the assurance that his Father was always with him because he did the things pleasing to his Father.—John 5:43; 8:29.The conclusion in asking "why John 1:23 quotes Isaiah 40:3" is that "Jesus is representing the Father." While this is partially correct; it is not the full truth of the matter. It is important to note that John is not the only one who appeals to Isaiah 40 in the "preparation of the Lord," but what is the reality of this matter:
A voice cries: “In the wilderness prepare the way of the Lord; make straight in the desert a highway for our God. Every valley shall be lifted up, and every mountain and hill be made low; the uneven ground shall become level, and the rough places a plain.The passage is very clear on the nature of the one being describing in the words "prepare the way of the Lord; make straight in the desert a highway for our God." It is a clear scripture describing a visible manifestation of God's glory. Even in the words, "Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together, for the mouth of the Lord has spoken." God is revealing through the Prophet Isaiah that God would come to his creation, in a very special manner.
And the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together, for the mouth of the Lord has spoken.” (Isaiah 40:3-5)
It is the same manner to which Prophet Malachi tells us of in his writings, when he says "Behold, I send my messenger, and he will prepare the way before me. And the Lord whom you seek will suddenly come to his temple; and the messenger of the covenant in whom you delight, behold, he is coming, says the Lord of hosts." The Organisation seems to be ignorant of what the bible actually teaches. And in fact, the quote above from an ex- Jehovah Witness make this point abundantly clear.
The second part of this argument states the following things:
Why does Hebrews 1:10-12 quote Psalm 102:25-27 and apply it to the Son, when the psalm says that it is addressed to God? Because the Son is the one through whom God performed the creative works there described by the psalmist. (See Colossians 1:15, 16; Proverbs 8:22, 27-30.) It should be observed in Hebrews 1:5b that a quotation is made from 2 Samuel 7:14 and applied to the Son of God. Although that text had its first application to Solomon, the later application of it to Jesus Christ does not mean that Solomon and Jesus are the same. Jesus is “greater than Solomon” and carries out a work foreshadowed by Solomon.—Luke 11:31.Here again, we meet the same old tired argument against modalism in the words "the later application of it to Jesus Christ does not mean that Solomon and Jesus are the same." The Organisation does not know the first thing about the doctrine it is straw-manning in this second part of the argument.
The ninth line of evidence against the Trinity
In this attempt the Organisation seeks to use another "encyclopaedia" to try and justify its position on the truth of the Trinity - that being "the Trinity is a false doctrine that is not found in the bible," under the statement "Scriptures that mention together the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" we find the following statement:
It would appear that they have made a case, as good as they could possible establish. But as we will find out momentarily that they lack any credibility in their argument as it has no foundation to it. The Organisation states,Matthew 28:19 and; 2 Corinthians 13:14 are instances of this. Neither of these texts says that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are coequal or coeternal or that all are God. The Scriptural evidence already presented on pages 408-412 argues against reading such thoughts into the texts.McClintock and Strong’s Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, though advocating the Trinity doctrine, acknowledges regarding Matthew 28:18-20: “This text, however, taken by itself, would not prove decisively either the personality of the three subjects mentioned, or their equality or divinity.” (1981 reprint, Vol. X, p. 552) Regarding other texts that also mention the three together, this Cyclopedia admits that, taken by themselves, they are “insufficient” to prove the Trinity. (Compare 1 Timothy 5:21, where God and Christ and the angels are mentioned together.)
Matthew 28:19 and; 2 Corinthians 13:14 are instances of this. Neither of these texts says that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are coequal or coeternal or that all are God. The Scriptural evidence already presented on pages 408-412 argues against reading such thoughts into the texts.It is there opinion that they have presented the scriptural evidence on "pages 408-412" which as we have already covered in these articles, and have shown that they are in error and need to drop this matter all together as they do not even understand the doctrine they are trying refute. This is seen in the constant straw man of attacking the modalism position as if it is the Trinitarian position. In this matter we see that they are not being accurate with scripture or with the doctrine.
But notice the assertion above "Neither of these texts says that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are coequal or coeternal or that all are God." Again, it is not our position you can find the truths of the trinity in a few scriptures, but that the whole tenor of scripture which declares it to be true. The above scriptures mention are important to the doctrine
While you may not get the things you are desiring from these two verses; we do however, find such things being made abundantly clear in all of scripture: take the Omni-attributes of all powerful, all knowing, and everywhere present. These are just some of the very things that define who God truly is, and in each point - all three persons are described being each one of these.
God the Father is All powerful (Psalms 19: 1-6 ) God the Son is All knowing (John 21: 15-19, Mark 2: 1-12) God the Holy Spirit is Present - Everywhere (Psalms 139: 7-12 ); all true signatures of being Divine are seen in such texts. And therefore, All three persons are equally that one being of God and that is the biblical testimony.
Now the Organisation offers a quote from a Trinitarian who they believe supports their conclusions on the Trinity:
McClintock and Strong’s Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, though advocating the Trinity doctrine, acknowledges regarding Matthew 28:18-20: “This text, however, taken by itself, would not prove decisively either the personality of the three subjects mentioned, or their equality or divinity.” (1981 reprint, Vol. X, p. 552)Well, now they seem to have gotten a result and this time it is from a Trinitarian; they claim that "Regarding other texts that also mention the three together, this Cyclopedia admits that, taken by themselves, they are “insufficient” to prove the Trinity" but is this statement being respected for what it teaches or is being quote mined, let us consider it in full:
The texts relating to the doctrine of the Trinity may be divided into two classes - those in which the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are mentioned in connection, and those in which these three subjects am mentioned separately, and in which their nature and mutual relation are more particularly described. 1. The first class of texts, taken by itself, proves only that there in the three subjects named, and that there is a difference between them; that the Father in certain respects differs from the Son, etc.; but it does not prove, by itself, that all the three belong necessarily to the divine nature, and possess equal divine honour. In proof of this, the second class of texts must be adduced. The following texts are placed in this [first] class: Mt 28:18-20.
This text, however, taken by itself, would not prove decisively either the personality of the three subjects mentioned, or their equality or divinity. ...
2 Cor. 13:14, " The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and beloved of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all." Here we might infer, from the parallelism of the third member of the passage with the two former, the personality of the Holy Spirit; but we could not justly infer that they possessed equal authority, or the same nature. John 14:26 offers three different personal subjects ... Mt 3:16-17, has been considered a very strong proof text for the whole doctrine of the Trinity. But though three personal subjects are mentioned ... 2. We now turn to the second class of texts, viz. those in which the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are separately mentioned and in which their nature and essential relation are taught. These texts prove (a) that the Son and Holy Spirit, according to the doctrine of the New Test, are divine, or belong to the one divine nature; and (b) that the three subjects are personal and equal ... The Deity of Christ: To prove the deity of Christ we present three classes of texts (McClintock and Strong: Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, vol x, Trinity, p 552)Now the last words are very crucial and worth repeating: "These texts prove (a) that the Son and Holy Spirit, according to the doctrine of the New Test, are divine, or belong to the one divine nature; and (b) that the three subjects are personal and equal ... The Deity of Christ: To prove the deity of Christ we present three classes of texts" It turns out that if the Organisation were interested in truth, they would not need to misrepresent someone in such a despicable fashion.
The tenth line of evidence against the Trinity
In an attempt at disproving the Trinity; the Organisation now turn to a famous argument which is used by all kinds of people of other faiths. Under the title "Texts in which the plural form of nouns is applied to God in the Hebrew Scriptures" they utilise the following argument:
So here is the first portion of the argument, and we learn these heretic, these trinity deniers have to make a case on a text which in and of itself refutes their very argument. In Genesis 1 there is so much evidence for the trinity at work in Creation, and to ignore it or brush it aside as if it is not there is just plain ignorance and as Peter say "to twist the scriptures to one own destruction." And it is a vain attempt at refuting the trinity from the very source that the Organisation says "if you study alone.. you will come to the conclusions of Trinitarians." a tacit implication that the bible does teach it, and they just wont accept it because of their own preconceived notions.At Genesis 1:1 the title “God” is translated from ’Elo·him′, which is plural in Hebrew. Trinitarians construe this to be an indication of the Trinity. They also explain Deuteronomy 6:4 to imply the unity of members of the Trinity when it says, “The LORD our God [from ’Elo·him′] is one LORD.”
But even if we do find some implicit idea of "plural of majesty" in the word Elohim; such an argument does not discount the bible reality of the Trinity being revealed in the New Testament as a divine truth as to God's mode of existence; being 1 in Being and 3 in persons.
This "Plural of majesty" statement is an excuse as it was not thought of until Christians (who were arguing biblically for the Trinity) had been on the scene for several centuries: in other words, it was a way that the Jews concoct to explain away scriptures clear testimony to the Trinity. But even, if we take the statement as some kind of expression to describe God splendour and Character; it still does not disprove the trinity.The plural form of the noun here in Hebrew is the plural of majesty or excellence. (See NAB, St. Joseph Edition, Bible Dictionary, p. 330; also, New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol. V, p. 287.) It conveys no thought of plurality of persons within a godhead. In similar fashion, at Judges 16:23 when reference is made to the false god Dagon, a form of the title ’elo·him′ is used; the accompanying verb is singular, showing that reference is to just the one god. At Genesis 42:30, Joseph is spoken of as the “lord” (’adho·neh′, the plural of excellence) of Egypt.
Consider the following words on this matter:
Of all these views the pluralis majestaticus has the least support. It is foreign to the usus loquendi of the earliest language; it is degrading instead of honoring to Deity, and Aben Ezra shows that the few seeming examples brought from the Hebrew Scriptures, such as Num. xxii. 6; Dan. ii. 36, do not bear it out – the latter, moreover, being an Aramaic mode of speech. If we depart at all from the patristic view of an allusion to a plurality of idea in the Deity [i.e. the Trinity], the next best is that of Maimonides ...It would appear that the Organisation are dining on a slippery slope to make such a claim; even worse, they are committing a fallacy in the process: it is called "anachronism" reading a later idea back into an early part of history; where it has no place to begin with.
Catch the inconsistency in their statement, they begin with saying "The Greek language does not have a ‘plural of majesty or excellence.’" Which is quite true; and that is the same with Hebrew as well. It exists in nether language. But what is even more interesting is how they claim on one hand that Greek does not have it, and yet on the other hand, they accuse the translators of hiding the evidence by translating the Hebrew into Greek.The Greek language does not have a ‘plural of majesty or excellence.’ So, at Genesis 1:1 the translators of LXX used ho The·os′ (God, singular) as the equivalent of ’Elo·him′. At Mark 12:29, where a reply of Jesus is reproduced in which he quoted Deuteronomy 6:4, the Greek singular ho The·os′ is similarly used.
It seems as though the Organisation is running out of lies to print in their magazines. Why not tell the truth at this point, in that you are speaking out of your own imaginations and are trying to escape the reality that you are making complete fools of yourself by what you have admitted in the past about the bible and the trinity. And that it is biblical attested.
And here we have a perversion of the name of the Lord: it is in fact, YAHWEH, not JEHOVAH; but truth for the sake of your lies is thrown to the wolves. And YAHWEH is clearly through the Old and New Testaments - for example in Psalms 19: 7-11 it is found in the word "LORD." The nation of Israel indeed believed in the One true God who was revealed as 1 in being and power; yet through scriptures he revealed himself in 3 persons too (Isaiah chapters 40-59 as examples)At Deuteronomy 6:4, the Hebrew text contains the Tetragrammaton twice, and so should more properly read: “Jehovah our God is one Jehovah.” (NW) The nation of Israel, to whom that was stated, did not believe in the Trinity. The Babylonians and the Egyptians worshiped triads of gods, but it was made clear to Israel that Jehovah is different.
The eleventh line of evidence against the Trinity
In this attempt at disproving the trinity, the Organisation seeks to dismiss two passages strong attestation to Christ being God. In a section called "Other scriptures that are said by Trinitarians to express elements of their dogma" we are told the following:
Again, Trinitarian do not claim that every text has to state that "all persons" are active in acts of Salvation, Resurrection, and any other important biblical truth. As I have said before and I will say it again here: the whole bible declares that God is one in being and that one being has existed eternally as three persons.Notice that the first of these texts refers to only the Son; the other refers to both Father and Son; neither refers to Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and says that they comprise one God.
This truth is not based on scripture, or even a selection of scriptures; but on the whole tenor of scripture - this is the point of the doctrine of the trinity.
No, such a view would not bring conflict to Galatians 1 in any way shape or form: Jesus Christ was raised by all three persons: The father in 1 Peter 1:3-5 , The Son in John 2:19-22, and the Holy Spirit in Romans 1: 4-5; and yet in acts 2: 22-24, 32-33 it says that God raised him up. To put this all together, Christ's resurrection was an act which all three persons were involved in, and since only God has this ability to resurrect a person; then the only biblical conclusion is that all three persons are that one true God.By what he here said, did Jesus mean that he would resurrect himself from the dead? Does that mean that Jesus is God, because Acts 2:32 says, “This Jesus God raised up”? Not at all. Such a view would conflict with Galatians 1:1, which ascribes the resurrection of Jesus to the Father, not to the Son. Using a similar mode of expression, at Luke 8:48 Jesus is quoted as saying to a woman: “Your faith has made you well.” Did she heal herself? No; it was power from God through Christ that healed her because she had faith. (Luke 8:46; Acts 10:38) Likewise, by his perfect obedience as a human, Jesus provided the moral basis for the Father to raise him from the dead, thus acknowledging Jesus as God’s Son. Because of Jesus’ faithful course of life, it could properly be said that Jesus himself was responsible for his resurrection.
There is no contradiction between the books of the bible on any subject that it broaches on; the only ones that are in error are the Organisation for thinking "humanistically" on the subject. And therefore, it is them who are at fault.
It never ceases to amaze me how the Watchtower quotes people with a careless attitude - here is the perfect example: we are lead to think that John AT Robertson is speaking in a way that conforms to the Organisations beliefs. But the reality is far from that, they have contextually disrobed Robertson's thoughts at this point.Says A. T. Robertson in Word Pictures in the New Testament: “Recall [John] 2:19 where Jesus said: ‘And in three days I will raise it up.’ He did not mean that he will raise himself from the dead independently of the Father as the active agent (Rom. 8:11).”—(New York, 1932), Vol. V, p. 183.
Here is the full quote or at least a larger section of it:
No one taketh it away from me (oudei airei authn ap emou). But Aleph B read hren (first aorist active indicative of airw, to take away), probably correct (Westcott and Hort). "John is representing Jesus as speaking sub specie aeternitatis" (Bernard). He speaks of his death as already past and the resurrection as already accomplished. Cf. John 3:16 . Of myself (ap emautou). The voluntariness of the death of Jesus repeated and sharpened. D omits it, probably because of superficial and apparent conflict with John 5:19 . But there is no inconsistency as is shown by John 3:16 ; Romans 5:8 . The Father "gave" the Son who was glad to be given and to give himself. I have power to lay it down (exousian ecw qeinai authn). Exousia is not an easy word to translate (right, authority, power, privilege). See Romans 1:12 . Restatement of the voluntariness of his death for the sheep. And I have power to take it again (kai exousian ecw palin labein authn). Note second aorist active infinitive in both cases (qeinai from tiqhmi and labein from lambanw), single acts. Recall John 2 19 where Jesus said: "And in three days I will raise it up." He did not mean that he will raise himself from the dead independently of the Father as the active agent ( Romans 8:11 ). I received from my Father (elabon para tou patro mou). Second aorist active indicative of lambanw. He always follows the Father's command (entolh) in all things ( Romans 12:49 ; Romans 14:31 ). So now he is doing the Father's will about his death and resurrection.If taken in the its fullest sense, Robertson is in fact, saying that Jesus never acted independently as some rogue deity - but was always in perfect harmony with the father (even the Spirit) as John 5:19-30 teaches. In other words, When Jesus says "I will raise my self up" and when it is recorded of the Father as being "the one who raised him up" as well as the Spirit being "the one who raised him up" it is all true - the resurrection was not just Jesus, but all three person who are that one God at work in harmony.
Again, this is either showing ignorance of the context or it is showing ignorance to what Trinitarians believe concerning this passage. While the whole chapter does reveal the unity of the persons as to the nature; it is not its sole purpose, it is show the unity in the redemption of the believers That is why if it is read from verse 24- 30 it gives a clear picture:When saying, “I and the Father are one,” did Jesus mean that they were equal? Some Trinitarians say that he did. But at John 17:21, 22, Jesus prayed regarding his followers: “That they may all be one,” and he added, “that they may be one even as we are one.” He used the same Greek word (hen) for “one” in all these instances. Obviously, Jesus’ disciples do not all become part of the Trinity. But they do come to share a oneness of purpose with the Father and the Son, the same sort of oneness that unites God and Christ.
the Jews gathered around him and said to him, “How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly.” Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father's name bear witness about me, but you do not believe because you are not among my sheep. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. I and the Father are one.”This passage is a very important one to wrestle with; and when we come to the passages meaning, which is seen in the statement "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand." It is clearly speaking to Salvation. Earlier in the chapter we have attestation to his divinity in verses 14-18.
As for the detour to Chapter 17: 21-22 .. (a tactic of the cults) it is a different passage, and a different theme. Not to get the points mixed up.
The twelfth line of evidence against the Trinity
In this attempt to disprove the doctrine of Trinity and it truth, the Organisation seeks to present the out-come of such a belief, this is in reality the last part of the original chapter. Under the section they title "In what position does belief in the Trinity put those who cling to it?" They present the following conclusions:
It would appear that evidence that has thus been presented is not clear in what they have been seeking to disprove - through misquotations of the bible, misquotations of different authorities, and even misidentifying what Trinitarians believe. And yet, they have the audacity to claim "It puts them in a very dangerous position." Which only reveals the fact that they are not interesting in the truth, in accuracy or even in anything apart from their own misgivings. It is important that we note that the Jehovah witness are guilty of not even teaching the bible in its entirety (even just the gospel); they sooner teach the watchtower publications. And fool people into believing they are consistent in their views.It puts them in a very dangerous position. The evidence is indisputable that the dogma of the Trinity is not found in the Bible, nor is it in harmony with what the Bible teaches. (See the preceding pages.) It grossly misrepresents the true God. Yet, Jesus Christ said: “The hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for such the Father seeks to worship him. God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.” (John 4:23, 24, RS) Thus Jesus made it clear that those whose worship is not ‘in truth,’ not in harmony with the truth set out in God’s own Word, are not “true worshipers.” To Jewish religious leaders of the first century, Jesus said: “For the sake of your tradition, you have made void the word of God. You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said: ‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’” (Matt. 15:6-9, RS) That applies with equal force to those in Christendom today who advocate human traditions in preference to the clear truths of the Bible.
Now what about this statement, "The evidence is indisputable that the dogma of the Trinity is not found in the Bible, nor is it in harmony with what the Bible teaches." It is so "indisputable" that in the 1981 watchtower that such a statement was refuted by the Organisation; showing that they are not consistent in what they have said in the past. That issue said that by independent reading... one would be diverted back to what Christendom taught a hundred years before." Meaning the trinity; Eternal fire, and the Soul.
It appears that Jesus words in Matthew 15 and Mark 7 are perfectly fitting with the Watchtower who have added false doctrines; have added many extra biblical publications, distort the truth concerning God as found in the bible, and even mangle passages on Salvation. And here we have one of the most damning examples of a tradition:
In claiming Christians have "advocated human traditions in preference to the clear truths of the Bible." Indeed the Organisation and all the witnesses who believe such a thing concerning Jesus "being arch angel Michael" are guilty of the very thing they are claiming that Christianity are of doing. There is not a single passage in the entire bible that identifies Jesus as Michael-- Jude 9, and 1 Thessalonians 4 do not lend support to this tradition of men.The name of this Michael appears only five times in the Bible. The glorious spirit person who bears the name is referred to as “one of the chief princes,” “the great prince who has charge of your [Daniel’s] people,” and as “the archangel.” (Dan. 10:13; 12:1; Jude 9, RS) Michael means “Who Is Like God?” The name evidently designates Michael as the one who takes the lead in upholding Jehovah’s sovereignty and destroying God’s enemies.At 1 Thessalonians 4:16 (RS), the command of Jesus Christ for the resurrection to begin is described as “the archangel’s call,” and Jude 9 says that the archangel is Michael. Would it be appropriate to liken Jesus’ commanding call to that of someone lesser in authority? Reasonably, then, the archangel Michael is Jesus Christ. (Interestingly, the expression “archangel” is never found in the plural in the Scriptures, thus implying that there is only one.)
In fact, it gets worse because the Jehovah witness did not originate this teaching; it has been a belief of several different group over the past several centuries. Most notably the Seventh day Adventists and even Christadelphians and others. It is known that Charles T Russel of the bible students (later: J.W's) was influence by a few people who also founded other deviant sects.
Now lets contend with the final point in this section which is the following statement:
Now I am not even sure of this kind of objection in regards to its point, so because a creed says the persons of trine God are "incomprehensible" that means the triune God is unknowable. This is completely missing the point of what the creed is speaking too. Let us consider it briefly to see what it means:Regarding the Trinity, the Athanasian Creed (in English) says that its members are “incomprehensible.” Teachers of the doctrine often state that it is a “mystery.” Obviously such a Trinitarian God is not the one that Jesus had in mind when he said: “We worship what we know.” (John 4:22, RS) Do you really know the God you worship?Serious questions confront each one of us: Do we sincerely love the truth? Do we really want an approved relationship with God? Not everyone genuinely loves the truth. Many have put having the approval of their relatives and associates above love of the truth and of God. (2 Thess. 2:9-12; John 5:39-44) But, as Jesus said in earnest prayer to his heavenly Father: “This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ.” (John 17:3, NW) And Psalm 144:15 truthfully states: “Happy is the people whose God is Jehovah!”—NW.
The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible. (verses 9-12)Now we can also include another version here:
What quality the Father has, the Son has, and the Holy Spirit has. The Father is uncreated, the Son is uncreated, the Holy Spirit is uncreated. The Father is immeasurable, the Son is immeasurable, the Holy Spirit is immeasurable. The Father is eternal, the Son is eternal, the Holy Spirit is eternal. And yet there are not three eternal beings; there is but one eternal being. So too there are not three uncreated or immeasurable beings; there is but one uncreated and immeasurable being.It is always important to understand what a creed means by its full context, and when it say that the persons are "incomprehensible, immeasurable" it is not speaking to the nature of, or the mode of existence. But rather the fact that as a man (any man) can never fully understand the fullness of what God is. Indeed, all true Christ know God because he has revealed himself clearly in scripture to us; and by the work of the Holy Spirit. But we can in this life, only know what we know to a certain limit; even the one true God has chosen not to reveal his fullness to us now.
There is a real interesting point in this: the Organisation claim that "they know the true God" but it is very strange that even in their "new light" theory.. they cannot know what they are supposedly taught one moment is a eternal unchanged truth concerning God; for they could wake up tomorrow and find that what they had believe to be correct has been superseded by another "new truth" and only to have it superseded by a former light of truth at another point.
Therefore, in reality, they cannot claim to know the one true God and his ways in a full sense.
