Here is the most bizarre statement ever made because the underline assumption being promoted is the "Post-modernism" ideal called pragmatism. It is the idea that no one can be certain on anything that is spoken by anyone. In this case, like those post-modern "Christians" who says, we cannot be sure of such a thing is the case! Here the watchtower are promoting the same with the bible. And there lies a problem, If God word is not clear in its teaching; then neither can man be certain of anything (and that is the case with the Watchtower).If a passage can grammatically be translated in more than one way, what is the correct rendering? One that is in agreement with the rest of the Bible. If a person ignores other portions of the Bible and builds his belief around a favorite rendering of a particular verse, then what he believes really reflects, not the Word of God, but his own ideas and perhaps those of another imperfect human.
There is only one true interpretation of the biblical passages that we will examine and that is not the Watchtower twisted eisegetical inference. Let us now turn to them:
The first scripture comes from John 1:1, 2:
In this example, we see how having a faulty rendering and a bias for it can lead one to believe that the "New World Translation" and its rendering "And the word was a god" which is not based on the Greek at this point; but is based on the Organisation already established beliefs that Christ was not God, but a created Spirit being. The trouble in this is evident, the Greek does not include "a" which states "kai theos een ho logos" which literally speaks of the nature of the subject, meaning as a human, my nature is human, therefore I am one. But the nature of the Word is divine; therefore, he is God.RS reads: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God.” (KJ, Dy, JB, NAB use similar wording.) However, NW reads: “In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. This one was in the beginning with God.” Which translation of John 1:1, 2 agrees with the context?
Now comes the real issue in this matter: if the statement was "a god" would not indicate a separate and distinct being, but that "all that is the Word is all of God" meaning Jesus is all that God is: Oneness.
Now let's consider the second part of this statement:
John 1:18 says: “No one has ever seen God.” Joh 1 Verse 14 clearly says that “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us . . . we have beheld his glory.” Also, John 1 verses 1, 2 say that in the beginning he was “with God.” Can one be with someone and at the same time be that person? At John 17:3, Jesus addresses the Father as “the only true God”; so, Jesus as “a god” merely reflects his Father’s divine qualities.—Heb. 1:3.Now here we have a bunch of verses, that are ripped out of context and completely ignored for their true meaning. Lets us consider them: In John 1:18 we have a partial reference, it actually says "No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known." John 1:14 says "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth." This is about one of the 3 persons who are the one being of God.
Notice the reoccurring idea "Can one be with someone and at the same time be that person?" A straw man, a false argument. The trinity is One being of God; who has existed as three persons. What this attack is on is "oneness" not Trinitarians'.
No problem here. Still is a Trinitarian believer. Now lets consider what this man actually said on John 1:1:Is the rendering “a god” consistent with the rules of Greek grammar? Some reference books argue strongly that the Greek text must be translated, “The Word was God.” But not all agree. In his article “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1,” Philip B. Harner said that such clauses as the one in John 1:1, “with an anarthrous predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning. They indicate that the logos has the nature of theos.” He suggests: “Perhaps the clause could be translated, ‘the Word had the same nature as God.’” (Journal of Biblical Literature, 1973, pp. 85, 87)
The RSV and the Jerusalem Bible translates, "The word was God." The NEB has "What God was, the Word was." The Good News for modern man - "He was the Same as God." The problem with all of these translations is that they could represent clause A and B. This does not mean, of course, that the translators were not aware of the issues involved, nor does it necessarily mean that they regarded the Anarthrous Theos as definite because it proceeds the Verb. In all of these cases the English reader might not understand exactly what John was trying to express. Perhaps the clause could be translated, "the Word had the same nature as God." This would be one way of representing John's thought, which is, as I understand it, that ho logos, no less than ho theos, had the nature of theos.It would appear that the Organisation are play fast and loose with the sources they choose to use; in that they are forcing them to say something which they do not believe nor did they intend to communicate. A clear case of dishonesty.
Now what about the next part of this argument that is given:
To further muddy the waters in this article they present the idea of "deception on the part of translators" which is not the case. Since there is no "ho" in the sentence to begin with; there would no possible way for the Organisation insert it as their were. But the issue here is why do they feel justified in this attack based on foreign texts being cited: John 6:70 and 9: 17 are irrelevant to the subject of the correct translation of John 1:1.Thus, in this text, the fact that the word the·os′ in its second occurrence is without the definite article (ho) and is placed before the verb in the sentence in Greek is significant. Interestingly, translators that insist on rendering John 1:1, “The Word was God,” do not hesitate to use the indefinite article (a, an) in their rendering of other passages where a singular anarthrous predicate noun occurs before the verb. Thus at John 6:70, JB and KJ both refer to Judas Iscariot as “a devil,” and at John 9:17 they describe Jesus as “a prophet.”
In adding the word "ho" which is an a in the English would not prove Jesus is another God besides Jehovah (which means J.W are polytheists); it would only prove that Jesus and God are the same person (Unitarianism, oneness) And therefore, it would disqualify not only the Trinity; but also Jehovah Witness' too.
Now let us consider the next statement by the Organisation:
Here is the partial quote given by the Organisation; but let now see the fuller quote:John J. McKenzie, S.J., in his Dictionary of the Bible, says: “Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated ‘the word was with the God [= the Father], and the word was a divine being.’”—(Brackets are his. Published with nihil obstat and imprimatur.) (New York, 1965), p. 317.
In the words of Jesus and in much of the rest of the NT the God of Israel (Gk. ho theos) is the Father* of Jesus Christ. It is for this reason that the title ho theos, which now designates the Father as a personal reality, is not applied in the NT to Jesus Himself; Jesus is the Son of God (of ho theos). This is a matter of usage and not of rule, and the noun [Gk. ho theos] is applied to Jesus a few times. "Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated "the word was with the God [= the Father], and the word was a divine being." Thomas invokes Jesus with the titles which belong to the *Father, "My Lord and my God" (Jn 20:28). "The glory of our great God and Savior" which is to appear can be the glory of no other than Jesus (Tt 2:13)" (Dictionary of the Bible, John L. McKenzie, God, p317)Upon reading this statement, it once again appears that this man is speaking of the Orthodox belief in the trinity; and in the process of making a valid distinction between the person of the Father (ho theos) and that of Son. His full quote is seen as a shining testimony against these heretics of WATCHTOWER.
And the next Authority mentioned in this argument by the Organisation is A T Robertson:
Well, it seems like they have another scholar to back their claim; but what is the real truth on this matter. Let us find out:In harmony with the above, AT reads: “the Word was divine”; Mo, “the Logos was divine”; NTIV, “the word was a god.”
And the Word was God (kai theos en ho logos). By exact and careful language John denied Sabellianism by not saying ho theos en ho logos. That would mean that all of God was expressed in ho logos and the terms would be interchangeable, each having the article. The subject is made plain by the article (ho logos) and the predicate without it (theos) just as in John 4:24 pneuma ho theos can only mean "God is spirit," not "spirit is God." So in 1 John 4:16 ho theos agape estin can only mean "God is love," not "love is God" as a so-called Christian scientist would confusedly say. For the article with the predicate see Robertson, Grammar, pp. 767f. So in John 1:14 ho Logos sarx egeneto, "the Word became flesh," not "the flesh became Word." Luther argues that here John disposes of Arianism also because the Logos was eternally God, fellowship of the Father and Son, what Origen called the Eternal Generation of the Son (each necessary to the other). Thus in the Trinity we see personal fellowship on an equality.The reality this man was Trinitarian, and the above statement with others proves the fact to the point of no return. He also said the following:
A word should be said concerning the use and non-use of the article in John 1:1, where a narrow path is safely followed by the author. "The Word was God." It both God and Word were articular, they would be coextensive and equally distributed and so interchangeable. But the separate personality of the Logos is affirmed by the construction used and Sabellianism is denied. If God were articular and Logos non-articular, the affirmation would be that God was Logos, but not that the Logos was God. As it is, John asserts that in the Pre-incarnate state the Logos was God, though the Father was greater than the Son (John 14:28). The Logos became flesh (1:14), and not the Father. But the Incarnate Logos was really "God only Begotten in the bosom of the Father" (1:18 correct text).In other words, the fact that the "ho" is not seen in the text proves that we are dealing with two persons who are as to their nature: the One and True eternal God (along with the Spirit). Watchtower have been deceptive in this matter.
The second scripture comes from John 8:58:In his German translation Ludwig Thimme expresses it in this way: “God of a sort the Word was.” Referring to the Word (who became Jesus Christ) as “a god” is consistent with the use of that term in the rest of the Scriptures. For example, at Psalm 82:1-6 human judges in Israel were referred to as “gods” (Hebrew, ’elo·him′; Greek, the·oi′, at John 10:34) because they were representatives of Jehovah and were to speak his law.See also NW appendix, 1984 Reference edition, p. 1579.
It is important to note the bias of the New World Translation at this point: where all great scholarly translation see ego′ eimi′ as "I am." The NWT translates it as "I have been" because they use their pre-existing beliefs to inform the correctness of a translation. a good way to how the Watchtower translate passage to hide the true meaning is to compare the passage with others:RS reads: “Jesus said to them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am [Greek, e·go′ ei·mi′].’” (NE, KJ, TEV, JB, NAB all read “I am,” some even using capital letters to convey the idea of a title. Thus they endeavor to connect the expression with Exodus 3:14, where, according to their rendering, God refers to himself by the title “I Am.”) However, in NW the latter part of John 8:58 reads: “Before Abraham came into existence, I have been.” (The same idea is conveyed by the wording in AT, Mo, CBW, and SE.) Which rendering agrees with the context?
Then the Jews said to him: “You are not yet 50 years old, and still you have seen Abraham?” Jesus said to them: “Most truly I say to you, before Abraham came into existence, I have been.” So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid and went out of the temple. (John 8:57-59)
I am not talking about all of you; I know the ones I have chosen. But this was so that the scripture might be fulfilled: ‘The one who was eating my bread has lifted his heel against me.’ From this moment on, I am telling you before it occurs, so that when it does occur you may believe that I am he. Most truly I say to you, whoever receives anyone I send receives me also, and whoever receives me receives also the One who sent me.” (John 13: 18-20)
Then Jesus, knowing all the things that were going to happen to him, stepped forward and said to them: “Whom are you looking for?” They answered him: “Jesus the Nazarene′.” He said to them: “I am he.” Now Judas, his betrayer, was also standing with them. However, when Jesus said to them, “I am he,” they drew back and fell to the ground.So he asked them again: “Whom are you looking for?” They said: “Jesus the Nazarene′.” Jesus answered: “I told you that I am he. So if you are looking for me, let these men go.” This was to fulfill what he had said: “Of those whom you have given me, I have not lost a single one.” (John 18:4-9)Now here is the point in this little test: If the Organisation are concerned with the truth about Christ when translation John 8:58; what then happened to that concern when it comes to John 13: 18-20 and 18:4-9? Or we can keep it to the same Chapter as where they have purposefully changed the wording to suit their own agendas. And ask why they change the Words in 8:21-24 to add in "the one" which is not in the Greek? All it says is "I am."
It is this kind of inconsistency that reveals just how out of touch this Organisation truly is with God, they continually change the words of scripture to justify their false beliefs.
The question of the Jews (Joh 8 verse 57) to which Jesus was replying had to do with age, not identity. Jesus’ reply logically dealt with his age, the length of his existence. Interestingly, no effort is ever made to apply e·go′ ei·mi′ as a title to the holy spirit.And to say that the question in verse 57 was about age, not identity; that misses the real issue. They misunderstood his claim as have some time and space flow, when it did not. He was speaking of another plain of existence.
Let us consider the whole section and not just one verses, here is the context:
In answer the Jews said to him: “Are we not right in saying, ‘You are a Samaritan and have a demon’?”Jesus answered: “I do not have a demon, but I honor my Father, and you dishonor me. But I am not seeking glory for myself;+ there is One who is seeking and judging. Most truly I say to you, if anyone observes my word, he will never see death at all.” The Jews said to him: “Now we do know that you have a demon. Abraham died, also the prophets, but you say, ‘If anyone observes my word, he will never taste death at all.’ You are not greater than our father Abraham, who died, are you? The prophets also died. Who do you claim to be?” Jesus answered: “If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father who glorifies me, the one who you say is your God. Yet you have not known him, but I know him. And if I said I do not know him, I would be like you, a liar. But I do know him and am observing his word. Abraham your father rejoiced greatly at the prospect of seeing my day, and he saw it and rejoiced.” Then the Jews said to him: “You are not yet 50 years old, and still you have seen Abraham?” Jesus said to them: “Most truly I say to you, before Abraham came into existence, I have been.” So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid and went out of the temple. (Verses 49-59)The words by the Jews in verse 57 are not in a form of question, it is a statement. And in this statement we see that they are expressing their confusion over Christ words; they do not understand what he is actually implying by his words. And it is the same confusion that the Organisation are having because of their false tradition are held up on a higher platform then scriptures themselves; and as a result, they are reinterpreting clear texts of scripture to justify the unjustifiable that being (1) Jesus is not God, but an angel. (2) God created Jesus, which means he is "a creation" and ultimately a false god.
In Jesus words in verse 56 we have yet again a gross ideal being snuck in and that is "at the prospect" it is not in the Greek, it actually read "Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day and he saw it and was glad in it." Referring back to Genesis 18 and 22 where we have the meeting of Abraham and the Lord, and then the sacrifice of Isaac.
As it is always the case with the Organisation, they even twist a Trinitarian scholars words on the subject of John 8:58; in order to fit their false interpretation of things. But let us consider what John A T Robertson actually says:Says A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, by A. T. Robertson: “The verb [ei·mi′] . . . Sometimes it does express existence as a predicate like any other verb, as in [e·go′ ei·mi′] (Jo.Joh 8:58).”—Nashville, Tenn.; 1934, p. 394.See also NW appendix, 1984 Reference edition, pp. 1582, 1583.
I am (ego eimi). Undoubtedly here Jesus claims eternal existence with the absolute phrase used of God. The contrast between genesthai (entrance into existence of Abraham) and eimi (timeless being) is complete. See the same contrast between en in 1:1 and egeneto in 1:14. See the contrast also in Psa. 90:2 between God (ei, art) and the mountains (genethenai)." (A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures, 5:158-159. 25. )
This is a poor name in lieu of a better one for the present of past action still in progress. Usually an adverb of time (or adjunct) accompanies the verb...Often it has to be translated into English by a sort of "progressive perfect" ('have been'), though, of course, that is the fault of English..."The durative present in such cases gathers up past and present time into one phrase" (Moulton, Prol., p. 119)...It is a common idiom in the N.T. In Jo. 8:58 eimi is really absolute. (A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1932) 5:158-159)The point here is not that he is denying Christ divinity; rather, that he thinks the English translation do not capture the true significance of the Greek at this juncture.
The third scripture comes from Acts 20:28:
Well here we have the battle of translations: Which one is a better translation? But the Organisation really does not have a hope in Hell in winning this battle. For it is not the translations that are to be considered, but the Greek that is the stating point. And what does the Greek say at Acts 20:28 "prosechete heautois kai panti tō poimniō en hō hymas to Pneuma to Hagion etheto episkopous poimainein ten ekklesian tou Theou hen peripoiesato dia tou haimatos tou idiou" this is the statement that needs to be consider for translation. And this is the key portion "tou Theou hen peripoiesato dia tou haimatos tou idiou."JB reads: “Be on your guard for yourselves and for all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you the overseers, to feed the Church of God which he bought with his own blood.” (KJ, Dy, NAB use similar wording.) However, in NW the latter part of the verse reads: “the blood of his own [Son].” (TEV reads similarly. Although the 1953 printing of RS reads “with his own blood,” the 1971 edition reads “with the blood of his own Son.” Ro and Da simply read “the blood of his own.”)Which rendering(s) agree with 1 John 1:7, which says: “The blood of Jesus his [God’s] Son cleanses us from all sin”? (See also Revelation 1:4-6.) As stated in John 3:16, did God send his only-begotten Son, or did he himself come as a man, so that we might have life? It was the blood, not of God, but of his Son that was poured out.See also NW appendix, 1984 Reference edition, p. 1580.
Clearly, when see it and understand that Theou means God, not Son which is Hurius. Therefore, this verse is unequivocal in its words .. It is calling Jesus the God, who shed his blood.
The fourth scripture comes from Romans 9:5:
Romans 9:5:
JB reads: “They are descended from the patriarchs and from their flesh and blood came Christ who is above all, God for ever blessed! Amen.” (KJ, Dy read similarly.) However, in NW the latter part of the verse reads: “from whom the Christ sprang according to the flesh: God, who is over all, be blessed forever. Amen.” (RS, NE, TEV, NAB, Mo all use wording similar to NW.)
Is this verse saying that Christ is “over all” and that he is therefore God? Or does it refer to God and Christ as distinct individuals and say that God is “over all”? Which rendering of Romans 9:5 agrees with Romans 15:5, 6, which first distinguishes God from Christ Jesus and then urges the reader to “glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ”?
Here we have another complete redefinition of what Paul is saying here: before anything we must recall that the trinity is one being of God; who has eternally existed as 3 persons. This truth help us understand this scripture in totality.
First, the scripture is plain in its meaning "To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen." One should note that this is the way it reads: according to the flesh, is the Christ who is God over all. Second, the NWT translation does not prove the stated premise; because it has no validity as it was not based on the Greek.
Third, even if we grant it, it still is not clear in giving the Jehovah' understanding. "from whom the Christ sprang according to the flesh: God, who is over all, be blessed forever." Seem to be identifying Jesus as the God-man. Fourth, Romans 15:5-6 does not help either as all it proves is that the Father is a distinct person from the Son, but they are both the one true God (along with the Spirit).
(See also 2 Corinthians 1:3 and Ephesians 1:3.) Consider what follows in Romans chapter 9. Ro 9 Verses 6-13 show that the outworking of God’s purpose depends not on inheritance according to the flesh but on the will of God. Ro 9 Verses 14-18 refer to God’s message to Pharaoh, as recorded at Exodus 9:16, to highlight the fact that God is over all. In Ro 9 verses 19-24 God’s superiority is further illustrated by an analogy with a potter and the clay vessels that he makes. How appropriate, then, in Ro 9 verse 5, the expression: “God, who is over all, be blessed forever. Amen”!—NW.
Now we get into a rather short commentary on Romans 9 as a whole; there is no reason to go into the whole text as it has no real attachment to the use of Romans 9:5 in connection to the Triune God .. in a citation of Jesus being God. However, it must be noted the whole chapter as it is a strong teaching on God sovereign choice in all who believe in Christ; yet the Organisation, has made a strong stance against this truth.
The ignorance that is evident in this matter is clear because they do not even once mention this fact anywhere in this short comment.
The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology states: “Rom. 9:5 is disputed. . . . It would be easy, and linguistically perfectly possible to refer the expression to Christ. The verse would then read, ‘Christ who is God over all, blessed for ever. Amen.’ Even so, Christ would not be equated absolutely with God, but only described as a being of divine nature, for the word theos has no article. . . . The much more probable explanation is that the statement is a doxology directed to God.”—(Grand Rapids, Mich.; 1976), translated from German, Vol. 2, p. 80.See also NW appendix, 1984 Reference edition, pp. 1580, 1581.
Even if this statement could be utilised to make the conclusions that watchtower is trying to establish; there is one enormous error that blocks any attempt. In the first place, this is not a sound way to show respect to ones work by using to disprove a doctrine that it possibly else where affirms. But even worse, lies in the fact that the section that is quoted we have this little dotted areas called ellipses which tells us that some information is missing that the watchtower does not want us to know. But since it is hard to track down this source, there will be no interaction as of yet.
But how about we consider just one persons witness to this verse who actually knows it correct meaning. Let us consider the following words from late Raymond E Brown:
This conclusion is made upon serious examination of the text.#12. Rom 9:5 joins three clauses: "Of their race [i.e., the Israelites] is the Christ according to the flesh the one who is over all God blessed forever. Amen.” To whom do the italicized words refer? It has been claimed that this verse has been subjected to more discussion than any other verse in the NT. The problem may be phrased in terms of various punctuations of which two are dominant: (a) A full stop (period) may be put after “flesh” as in Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus, so that the following words become a separate sentence blessing the God who is over all forever–a reference to God the Father. Why Paul should stop at this point in his chain of thought and introduce a doxology to the Father is not clear; for 9:1-5 concerns Christ; and one would expect praise of Christ, not of the Father. Yet if one takes the whole context of Rom 9:1-5, Paul might be praising God for the privileges of Israel that have been listed, especially the gift of the Messiah (Christ). The word order in the Greek offers considerable difficulty for this interpretation. In independent doxologies “blessed” normally comes first in the Greek sentence (II Cor 1:3; Eph 1:3); here it is the sixth word in the sentence. The presence of the participle translated “who is” is also awkward for this interpretation, for it is superfluous. Such a construction is normal only if there is an antecedent in the previous clause (II Cor 11:31; Rom 1:25). (b) A full stop may be put at the end, after “forever,” and a comma after “flesh.” All the words after “flesh,” then, are a relative clause modifying “Christ,” thus: “… the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all God blessed forever.” This interpretation would mean that Paul calls Jesus God. From a grammatical viewpoint this is the better reading. Also, the contextual sequence is excellent; for, having spoken of Jesus’ descent according to the flesh, Paul now emphasizes his position as God. The major objection to this interpretation is that nowhere else does Paul speak of Jesus. Distinguished scholars aligned on both sides of the issue. Personally, I am swayed by the grammatical evidence in favor of (b) whereby the title “God” is given to Jesus. But one may claim no more than plausibility.
The fifth scripture comes from Philippians 2:5-6
The passage is a straight forward one to understand; yet for the Organisation, it is seems as though they have a very bad issue of allowing the context define its own teaching. Instead, they have tradition that they must hold to and therefore, they must reinterpret the scriptures in light of such a stand point.KJ reads: “Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.” (Dy has the same wording. JB reads: “he did not cling to his equality with God.”) However, in NW the latter portion of that passage reads: “who, although he was existing in God’s form, gave no consideration to a seizure [Greek, har·pag·mon′], namely, that he should be equal to God.” (RS, NE, TEV, NAB convey the same thought.) Which thought agrees with the context?
And here we have the famous passage from Philippians 2; still it seems the plain reading even from a corrupt translation such as NWT refuse to be silenced. Notice the translations:
Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.” (Phil. 2:5-6)And the NWT'S rendering:
Keep this mental attitude in you that was also in Christ Jesus, who, although he was existing in God’s form, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God. (Phil. 2:5-6)Now there we have the section in the KJ and the NWT they are very similar in nature. This is simple to follow through that the words teach the deity of Christ and the humility of Christ; in that when he took on flesh (he become the "God-man") he before doing this considered it to be "equal" when he became a man, he thought that in his form of man to be unjust or not consider to be of an equal standing.
The matter is to understood that the passage is teaching that Jesus in his pre-incarnate existence was every bit just as God as is the Father, but that he held back or restricted himself from demonstrating the full range of being God when he became a man. And in fact, even in his time on earth - he was both God and man, he never stripped himself of deity.
And this point is well seen in the passage when we consider another translation:
Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others. Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. (Verses 4-7)It is important to take this section as a whole as it is a testament to the reality of Christ Jesus' pre-existence, and his divine nature - for he is God. Paul is giving the believers at Philippi a lesson in humility; and therefore, Christ is the highest example of such a quality. For Christ is the 2nd person of the trinity; the Son (the Word of John 1:1, 14).
Jesus the Son, the eternal God in his pre-incarnation period; considered it be nothing short of robbery to become a man, and retain the full measure of what it is to be Divine in the use of attributes. Therefore, he chose in himself to withhold such attributes from being fully recognised by men. Tue sign of what it is to be humble in the sight of the Lord.
This statement is completely illogical -- What does this statement "gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God." mean. And how does it even begin to accurately represent what the Incarnation includes in its truth. Just what is the point here! Even more how does this prove that Jesus is not God but "an angel" or a "spiritual being" I cannot see the connection. As for the verse from John 14:28 it is not teaching what watchtower is trying to insert.Php 2 Verse 5 counsels Christians to imitate Christ in the matter here being discussed. Could they be urged to consider it “not robbery,” but their right, “to be equal with God”? Surely not! However, they can imitate one who “gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God.” (NW) (Compare Genesis 3:5.) Such a translation also agrees with Jesus Christ himself, who said: “The Father is greater than I.”—John 14:28.
It is just teaching that When Jesus was on earth as a man, he considered himself to inferior to the father in rank not nature.
It would appear this "Expositor's Greek testament" is agreeing with the watchtower's foolish notions; but what is the truth of the matter. Let us consider it in full context:The Expositor’s Greek Testament says: “We cannot find any passage where [har·pa′zo] or any of its derivatives [including har·pag·mon′] has the sense of ‘holding in possession,’ ‘retaining’. It seems invariably to mean ‘seize,’ ‘snatch violently’. Thus it is not permissible to glide from the true sense ‘grasp at’ into one which is totally different, ‘hold fast.’”—(Grand Rapids, Mich.; 1967), edited by W. Robertson Nicoll, Vol. III, pp. 436, 437.
A more important question is whether τὸ ε. ἰ. θ. was possessed by Christ in virtue of His being ἐν μορ. θεοῦ. This will depend on the sense of ἁρπαγμός. It is generally admitted now that ἁρπαγμός may be regarded as = ἅρπαγμα. (See especially Zahn, Luthardt’s Zeitschr., 1885, pp. 244–249.) Cf. θεσμός, lit. = “the laying down,” “ordaining” of a thing, which comes to mean “the thing laid down,” the ordinance or statute; ἱλασμός, lit. = a propitiating, appeasing, but usually the propitiatory offering, that by which propitiation is made (see Hatz., Einl., p. 180). Myr., Hfm., Beet and others wish to keep the active meaning, and translate, “Did not consider the being on an equality with God as a means of robbing”. But it seems impossible to accept this sense when we have no hint of what is to be robbed. Lft., Hpt., Vinc. and others, regarding ἁρπαγμός as = ἅρπαγμα, translate, “Did not look upon His equality with God as a prize to be clutched”. That is to say, τὸ ε. ἰ. θ. is something which He already possessed and resolved not to cling to. But will ἁρπαγμός admit of this meaning? We cannot find any passage where ἁρπάζω or any of its derivatives has the sense of “holding in possession,” “retaining”. It seems invariably to mean “seize,” “snatch violently”. Thus it is not permissible to glide from the true sense “grasp at” into one which is totally different, “hold fast”. Are we not obliged, then, to think of the ἁρπαγμός (= ἅρπαγμα) as something still future, a res rapienda? Cf. Catena on Mark 10:41 ff. (quoted by Zahn), Jesus’ answer to the sons of Zebedee, οὐκ ἐστὶν ἁρπαγμὸς ἡ τιμή, “the honour is not one to be snatched”. Observe how aptly this view fits the context. In Philippians 2:10, which is the climax of the whole passage, we read that God gave Jesus Christ as a gift ( ἐχαρίσατο) the name above every name, i.e., the name (including position, dignity and authority) of κύριος, Lord, the name which represents the O.T. Jehovah. But this is the highest place Christ has reached. He has always (in Paul’s view) shared in the Divine nature ( μ. θεοῦ). But it is only as the result of His Incarnation, Atonement, Resurrection and Exaltation that He appears to men as on an equality with God, that He is worshipped by them in the way in which Jehovah is worshipped. This position of κύριος is the reward and crowning-point of the whole process of His voluntary Humiliation. It is the equivalent of that τελείωσις of which the Epistle to the Hebrews speaks. This perfection “He acquired as He successively seized the occasions which His vocation as author of salvation presented to Him, a process moving on the lines of His relations to mortal, sinful men” (Davidson, Hebrews, p. 208).Here is a larger section of the text from which the Organisation partially cited; but it is not all that is said, let us also consider what else is said in this commentary for our understanding:
The Word is distinguishable from God and yet θεὸς ἧν ὁ λόλος, the Word was God, of Divine nature; not “a God,” which to a Jewish ear would have been abominable; nor yet identical with all that can be called God, for then the article would have been inserted (cf. 1 John 3:4). “The Christian doctrine of the Trinity was perhaps before anything else an effort to express how Jesus Christ was God ( θεός) and yet in another sense was not God ( ὁ θεός), that is to say, was not the whole Godhead.” Consult Du Bose’s Ecumenical Councils, p. 70–73. Luther says “the Word was God” is against Arius: “the Word was with God” against Sabellius. (John 1:1c)
John 1:1-5. The Logos described. The first five verses describe the pre-existence, the nature, the creative power of the Logos, who in the succeeding verses is spoken of as entering the world, becoming man, and revealing the Father; and this description is given in order that we may at once grasp a continuous history which runs out of an unmeasured past, and the identity of the person who is the subject of that history.
This equality with God, therefore, consists in the κυριότης, the Lordship to which He has been exalted. “He did not regard the being on an equality with God as a thing to be seized, violently snatched.” Cf. Heliodor., Ethiop., vii., 20, οὐχ ἅρπαγμα οὐδὲ ἕρμαιον ἡγεῖται τὸ πρᾶγμα. He might have used the miraculous powers inherent in His Divine nature in such a way as to compel men, without further ado, to worship Him as God. Instead of that He was willing to attain this high dignity by the path of humiliation, suffering and death.It is upon reading such expositions of key passages that one learns that the Organisation is in error, for these people were clearly not in line with Jehovah Witness' Organisation - In fact, it appears that they are Trinitarians having made reference to the doctrine in connection to John 1c.
The sixth scripture comes from Colossians 2:9
Here is a nice attempt at handling scripture, yet misunderstanding the context, misrepresenting the Trinitarian truths in the passage. Let consider it as a whole:KJ reads: “In him [Christ] dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead [Greek, the·o′te·tos] bodily.” (A similar thought is conveyed by the renderings in NE, RS, JB, NAB, Dy.) However, NW reads: “It is in him that all the fullness of the divine quality dwells bodily.” (AT, We, and CKW read “God’s nature,” instead of “Godhead.” Compare 2 Peter 1:4.)Admittedly, not everyone offers the same interpretation of Colossians 2:9. But what is in agreement with the rest of the inspired letter to the Colossians? Did Christ have in himself something that is his because he is God, part of a Trinity? Or is “the fullness” that dwells in him something that became his because of the decision of someone else? Colossians 1:19 (KJ, Dy) says that all fullness dwelt in Christ because it “pleased the Father” for this to be the case. NE says it was “by God’s own choice.”
Therefore, as you received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in him, rooted and built up in him and established in the faith, just as you were taught, abounding in thanksgiving. See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority. (Colossians 2: 6-10)It is right there, we start in verse 6, Paul is presenting Christ as the our full and final sufficiency in all things because we have "received Christ Jesus as Lord," in other words Christ has full authority over all the Saints, and we have an ever lasting assurance. Therefore we "walk in him" our lives are to built up in Christ, they are to be completely surrounded by Christ's goodness, his truth as found in scripture. And all "philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world," in Christ our Lord and Saviour, we are safe from all such things- they wont take us captive. Things such as "the lies and falsehood of the Organisation" And in verse 9-10 we have the reason why we are secure in Christ, it is because "whole fullness of deity dwells bodily" it was not given, he did not just suddenly possess this .. he has always been divine by nature (the bible is clear on that).
Since they claim to know the context; then the question that needs to be asked, and demands answering is this: Why is that the Organisation to not see fit to even comply to the command to "so walk in him (Christ), rooted and built up in him and established in the faith," they would rather only listen to traditions of men (the organisation) which has no foundation in this biblical passage or any other. It tells the true Christ to be careful that "no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ." It is there in the text, Christ is to be the centre of the believer existence, yet the Organisation forsake this fact by putting themselves at the centre of things. Perfect falling in line with the warning of Paul.Consider the immediate context of Colossians 2:9: In Col 2 verse 8, readers are warned against being misled by those who advocate philosophy and human traditions. They are also told that in Christ “are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” and are urged to “live in him” and to be “rooted and built up in him and established in the faith.” (Col 2 Verses 3, 6, 7) It is in him, and not in the originators or the teachers of human philosophy, that a certain precious “fulness” dwells. Was the apostle Paul there saying that the “fulness” that was in Christ made Christ God himself? Not according to Colossians 3:1, where Christ is said to be “seated at the right hand of God.”—See KJ, Dy, TEV, NAB.
Citing Chapter 3:1 does nothing to prove the Organisations point either, lets consider the context:
If then you have been raised with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. Set your minds on things that are above, not on things that are on earth. For you have died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God. When Christ who is your life appears, then you also will appear with him in glory. Colossians 3:1-4)The context reveals that just as it is the case, that Christ is to the centre of the believer's existence. He is our very lifeline, so to it is in this passage. There is a very interesting statement in this verse "For you have died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God." Our lives are united, are complete in Christ . We are to "Set your minds on things that are above, not on things that are on earth." The Jehovah cannot fulfil this command, because their faith is based on the earthly parameters. Since they believe most of the "other sheep" will be on earth and not in heaven (totally contrary to scripture). This is a deceitful thing.
Also in the expression "fullness of deity" we must understand that Colossians was written to battle an early form of Gnosticism. Which believed that Christ was only a demi God type of Spirit. And so, Paul had already in Chapter one that he was and is the one true God who became a man, now he is re-establishing that fact in light of believers sufficiency in Christ; by taking it from the opposite vein in that the Man Jesus, was truly God by nature.
It seems to be the case that the Organisation will quote anything to make their case; even if what is quoted refutes their assertions. Notice what is said above about the term 'theotes' as it goes onto read "means “divinity, divine nature.”" And that is the issue to which they greatly err in. It is further seen by Scholar James R White, who sates the following:According to Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon, the·o′tes (the nominative form, from which the·o′te·tos is derived) means “divinity, divine nature.” (Oxford, 1968, p. 792) Being truly “divinity,” or of “divine nature,” does not make Jesus as the Son of God coequal and coeternal with the Father, any more than the fact that all humans share “humanity” or “human nature” makes them coequal or all the same age.
... The term Paul uses here of Christ refers to the very essence of deity rather than a mere quality or attribute. Thayer notes as one of his sources the work of Richard Trench on synonyms in the New Testament. Trench said of these two terms (i.e. theotes and theiotes): ... yet they must not be regarded as identical in meaning, nor even as two different forms of the same word, which in the process of time have separated off from one another, and acquired different shades of significance. On the contrary, there is a real distinction between them, and one which grounds itself on their different derivations; theotes being from Theos, and theiotes not from to theion, which is nearly though not quite equivalent to Theos, but from the adjective theios... But in the second passage (Col. ii. 9) St. Paul is declaring that in the Son there dwells all the fullness of absolute Godhead; they were no mere rays of divine glory which gilded Him, lighting up His person for a season and with a splendour not his own; but He was, and is absolute and perfect God; And the Apostle uses theotes to express the essential and personal Godhead of the Son. "This is why B.B. Warfield hit it on the head when he said of this passage, 'that is to say, the very Deity of God, that which makes God God, in all its completeness, has its permanent home in Our Lord, and that in a "bodily fashion," that is, it is in Him with a clothed body.'" (Forgotten Trinity, pp. 85-86)We also can consider the words of Dr Bob Morey on this verse,
Is only found here in the New Testament. It is derived from theos and means 'absolute Deity.' All the lexicons, grammars, and commentaries define theotetos as absolute Deity.' Thayer defines it as 'deity, i.e., the state of being God."It turns out that the Organisation are once again being dishonest.
The seventh scripture comes from Titus 2:13
It appears that the Organisation once again, is up to it old tricks of pitting one verse against another in saying "Which translation agrees with Titus 1:4, which refers to “God the Father and Christ Jesus our Saviour”? This is a terrible way to arrive at the truth of a matter because it neglect to acknowledge the fact that the whole scripture is about Christ. Now lets consider what is being said in this statement:RS reads: “Awaiting our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ.” (Similar wording is found in NE, TEV, JB.) However, NW reads: “while we wait for the happy hope and glorious manifestation of the great God and of the Savior of us, Christ Jesus.” (NAB has a similar rendering.)Which translation agrees with Titus 1:4, which refers to “God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior”? Although the Scriptures also refer to God as being a Savior, this text clearly differentiates between him and Christ Jesus, the one through whom God provides salvation.
Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, for the sake of the faith of God's elect and their knowledge of the truth, which accords with godliness, in hope of eternal life, which God, who never lies, promised before the ages began and at the proper time manifested in his word through the preaching with which I have been entrusted by the command of God our Saviour; To Titus, my true child in a common faith: Grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Saviour.According to their logic that since the 4 verse say that the Father is "God" and that Jesus Christ is "the Saviour," then logically following since they believe God cannot be more then one "person" then does it not follow that "Saviour" can not be more than one person. If that is the case, then they have just restricted the Saviour to Christ alone.. thereby invalidating the 3rd verse which calls God "the Saviour."
But this kind of reason is in fact unbiblical and illogical based on the simply truth that Christ is called God in many places in the New testament. And here is just one such place.
But the issue is far more complex in Titus 2:13, for we read the following:
For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people, training us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age, waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works.Unlike Chapter 3:4-7 which speaks of all three persons of the trinity; this chapter is only dedicated to one of the persons: Jesus Christ. There is no place in this section to which you read another person into its wording. It starts with these words "For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people," and then state "our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ" and finally finishes " to purify for himself a people" It is unreasonable and unbiblical to read more than one person in this section because there is only one person who brings "the grace of God" who is the "great God and saviour" and who is "the one who redeems a people for himself." It is Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
And considering the grammatical rule in Greek which James R White speaks on in his book "the forgotten Trinity." He states in an article on this subject:
Basically, Granville Sharp's rule states that when you have two nouns, which are not proper names (such as Cephas, or Paul, or Timothy), which are describing a person, and the two nouns are connected by the word "and," and the first noun has the article ("the") while the second does not, *both nouns are referring to the same person*. In our texts, this is demonstrated by the words "God" and "Savior" at Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1. "God" has the article, it is followed by the word for "and," and the word "Savior" does not have the article. Hence, both nouns are being applied to the same person, Jesus Christ. This rule is exceptionless. One must argue solely on theological grounds against these passages. There is truly no real grammatical objection that can be raised. Not that many have not attempted to do so, and are still trying. However, the evidence is overwhelming in favor of the above interpretation. Lets look at some of the evidence from the text itself.The point here is that Titus 2:13 and its context defines its own subject meaning; the organisation cannot get around it without their assumptions being exposed.
Once again, we see the cogs of this organisation being pushed into overdrive; since they cannot refute the clear meaning of Titus 2:13. They are reduced to putting for a text from a different book by Paul to try and dissolve the truth in Titus 2:13. And again it fails.Some argue that Titus 2:13 indicates that Christ is both God and Savior. Interestingly, RS, NE, TEV, JB render Titus 2:13 in a way that might be construed as allowing for that view, but they do not follow the same rule in their translation of 2 Thessalonians 1:12.
Let us now consider the context of 2 Thessalonian 1 to see if it proves that Jesus is not God as Paul has made the case in Titus 2:11-14:
This is evidence of the righteous judgment of God, that you may be considered worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you are also suffering— since indeed God considers it just to repay with affliction those who afflict you, and to grant relief to you who are afflicted as well as to us, when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might, when he comes on that day to be glorified in his saints, and to be marveled at among all who have believed, because our testimony to you was believed. To this end we always pray for you, that our God may make you worthy of his calling and may fulfill every resolve for good and every work of faith by his power, so that the name of our Lord Jesus may be glorified in you, and you in him, according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ.There is the larger context, and yes it is making a distinction between the person of the Father and the Person of the Son as does the trinity. Nothing there to refute it. The question in this to ask is this: if the term God being applied to another person than Jesus mean he is not God; then logically following this reasoning, does it mean that because Jesus is identified as "Lord" imply that the father is not the Lord too?
The term "Lord" implies Sovereign Master of all Creation. therefore, it speaks to Christ divine nature. And God the father is Called Lord too, which indicate that he is the Sovereign Master too.
I have no idea of what this person actually said in context. The Organisation has this real nifty way to isolate thing and course them to agree with their own ideas. Well, having found this man's commentary on Titus 2:11-14 and read it; it is important to note that even he got it wrong because the passage teaches the very opposite notion to what he concludes. And here is a good section of a sermon by John MacArthur who demonstrates that there are not two persons being spoken but one: Jesus Christ.Henry Alford, in The Greek Testament, states: “I would submit that [a rendering that clearly differentiates God and Christ, at Titus 2:13] satisfies all the grammatical requirements of the sentence: that it is both structurally and contextually more probable, and more agreeable to the Apostle’s way of writing.”—(Boston, 1877), Vol. III, p. 421.See also NW appendix, 1984 Reference edition, pp. 1581, 1582.
John MacArthur states:
In fact, he says the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory. And who is the glory? Indeed, the glory is our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus. So in this text the Lord is called grace in verse 11. He's called glory in verse 13. He's called kindness in verse 4 of chapter 3 and He's called love in the same verse. He is the personification of grace and glory and kindness and love. We saw the kindness, the love and the grace in His first coming, we'll see the glory in His Second Coming. I think as so often in other parts of the Scripture you don't have a separation of the Rapture called the blessed hope and the Second Coming called the appearing, although we could make those distinctions certainly in our eschatology. I think Paul is just sweeping up the whole concept of the return of Christ as the culmination of the final salvation which delivers us from the very presence of sin. Then we will receive immortal bodies, this incorruptible will put...this corruptible will put on incorruption, this mortal will put on immortality and we shall be triumphant in our absolute holiness.So we have seen that the Organisation cannot be consistent even with one text.
The eighth scripture comes from Hebrews 1:8
Now such an answer leads one to make the following observation: If we are to take Christ words in the Gospel with any measure of seriousness, when he states the scriptures testify concerning him (John 5:39-47, Luke 24: 25-27, 44-49 also consider 2 Timothy 3:14-17). Therefore, when these people state that Psalms 45 is about a King (true in the original context); and not Jesus. They are incorrect in their assumption. It is the Spirit of God who communicates through the writer of Hebrews that this section was about Christ... The Organisation do not have a problem with Christians at this point, they have a problem with God which shows their disobedience. The way that the New World Translation has translated the verse, has absolutely no baring or support from the Hebrew or Greek translations. The Greek New Testament at Hebrews 1:8-9 reads:RS reads: “Of the Son he says, ‘Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever.’” (KJ, NE, TEV, Dy, JB, NAB have similar renderings.) However, NW reads: “But with reference to the Son: ‘God is your throne forever and ever.’” (AT, Mo, TC, By convey the same idea.)Which rendering is harmonious with the context? The preceding verses say that God is speaking, not that he is being addressed; and the following verse uses the expression “God, thy God,” showing that the one addressed is not the Most High God but is a worshiper of that God. Hebrews 1:8 quotes from Psalm 45:6, which originally was addressed to a human king of Israel.
But of the Son he says,“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.Therefore, when the Spirit of God, takes such sections from Psalms 45 and 102 and applies them to Christ's eternal rule as the coming king - and in doing such a thing he attribute creation in to the Son in the process of his first chapter (as John and Paul does) it is valid and true, and must be believed without hesitation. The other important point to put forth here is this: in light of the popular teachings of the Society concerning Christ being Arch Angel Michael (who is just an angel) Hebrews 1 states this as a good point of refutation "For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son, today I have begotten you”? Or again, “I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son”?" It is clear that Jesus not just an angel according to this chapter.
You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.”
Again, this is tantamount to calling the Holy Spirit a liar which is not, He is the Spirit of truth. And indeed, it may have been originally writing concerning Solomon. But since the Holy Spirit used to highlight the truth concerning Christ, which the Organisation so far have not been successful at disproving. It is vital to recognise that in this attack on the scriptures testimony of Christ; there is also a outright attack on the sufficiency of the Scriptures as well.Obviously, the Bible writer of this psalm did not think that this human king was Almighty God. Rather, Psalm 45:6, in RS, reads “Your divine throne.” (NE says, “Your throne is like God’s throne.” JP [verse 7]: “Thy throne given of God.”) Solomon, who was possibly the king originally addressed in Psalm 45, was said to sit “upon Jehovah’s throne.” (1 Chron. 29:23, NW) In harmony with the fact that God is the “throne,” or Source and Upholder of Christ’s kingship, Daniel 7:13, 14 and Luke 1:32 show that God confers such authority on him.
As for the allusion to Daniel 7 and Luke 1 -- in the first place, it is not an issue for Trinitarians, as we believe that God the father conferred on Christ his position of Kingship. But that in and of itself does not disprove Christ eternal glory as God.
The error in the Society's handling of this matter is to assume that BF Westcott was speaking on the same level as they are. First, the issue is you never compare two translations (albeit one a corrupt one and the other one a good one) to arrive at the truth. That is not how things are done in the field of Textual Criticism. Second, This scholar was not comparing translations but the Greek manuscripts particularly the Septuagint.Hebrews 1:8, 9 quotes from Psalm 45:6, 7, concerning which the Bible scholar B. F. Westcott states: “The LXX. admits of two renderings: [ho the·os′] can be taken as a vocative in both cases (Thy throne, O God, . . . therefore, O God, Thy God . . . ) or it can be taken as the subject (or the predicate) in the first case (God is Thy throne, or Thy throne is God . . . ), and in apposition to [ho the·os′ sou] in the second case (Therefore God, even Thy God . . . ). . . . It is scarcely possible that [’Elo·him′] in the original can be addressed to the king. The presumption therefore is against the belief that [ho the·os′] is a vocative in the LXX. Thus on the whole it seems best to adopt in the first clause the rendering: God is Thy throne (or, Thy throne is God), that is ‘Thy kingdom is founded upon God, the immovable Rock.’”—The Epistle to the Hebrews (London, 1889), pp. 25, 26.
Therefore, even if he favour a different reading of this particular verse, it is not right to read the Organisation's bias into his thoughts at this junction. Here is a small excerpt from his Sermon on the HOLY TRINITY based on 1 John 5:20,
We learn through the experience of history, and through the experience of life, how God acts, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and by the very necessity of thought we are constrained to gather up these lessons into the simplest possible formula. So we come to recognise a Divine Trinity, which is not sterile, monotonous simplicity; we come to recognise a Divine Trinity which is not the transitory manifestation of separate aspects of One Person or a combination of Three distinct Beings. We come to recognise One in whom is the fulness of all conceivable existence in the richest energy, One absolutely self-sufficient and perfect, One in whom love finds internally absolute consummation, One who is in Himself a living God, the fountain and the end of all life. Our powers of thought and language are indeed very feeble, but we can both see and to some extent point out how this idea of the Father revealed through the Son, of the Son revealed through the Spirit, one God, involves no contradiction, but offers in the simplest completeness of life the union of the "one" and the "many" which thought has always striven to gain: how it preserves what we speak of as "personality" from all associations of finiteness; how it guards us from the opposite errors which are generally summed under the terms Pantheism and Deism, the last issues of Gentile and Jewish philosophy; how it indicates the sovereignty of the Creator and gives support to the trust of the creature. We linger reverently over the conception, and we feel that the whole world is indeed a manifestation of the Triune God, yet so that He is not included in that which reflects the active energy of His love. We feel that the Triune God is Lord over the works of His will, yet so that His Presence is not excluded from any part of His Universe.Once again, it is clear that the Organisation have misrepresented another tremendous passage and also a great scholar and preacher.
