Can One Be Christian and Not Believe In The Trinity?

[GodsGrace]

Just reviewing this thread, I would like to address your assertions.....it is apparent that your interpretation of Scripture is coloured by your trinitarian bias.

And yours is colored by the JW bias.

I bring to your attention that the Trinity existed from the beginning...

The JW exist from 1840 or so.

What do those verses really say that their Jewish writers would have understood in the first century when the trinity doctrine did not exist? It is a later addition, not taught by Jesus or ever stated by his Father.

The Tinity is all throughout the bible...
both the OT and the NT.

Misinterpretation and misapplication can make Scripture seem to say what it never did. The Bible was not written to imply a god that the Jews never knew. All of the first Christians were Jewish....so they understood everything Jesus and his apostles taught through a Jewish lens, not a Catholic one.

Your hatred of the CC colors everything you believe...
The Apostles believed Jesus is God.

The word “god” is “theos” in Greek. Both Father and Son are said to carry the title “theos” in the Bible, but so do others.....but nowhere in Scripture is the Holy Spirit said to be “theos”.

It is “God’s spirit”, so it is something belonging to God, coming from God....but is not God, or even a person. At best, you have two “gods” indicated in the Bible.....but that does not explain why others are referred to as “gods”, using the same word.

So a first consideration would be to define the word “theos” as it was understood back in Jesus’ day.

Theos already has a meaning.
No need to redefine it.


And I now leave you to @HealthyShape who, I'm sure, has much more stamina than I do in dealing with you and your book-like posts.

I do pray for all Witnesses - that they might come to know the one true God one day and worship HIM and not Russel and his cohorts.

And yes, let me add, that even the Catholic Church teaches Christian theology -
something that the JWs do NOT.

According to Strongs Concordance, the primary definition of “theos” is....

1. “a god or goddess, a general name of deities or divinities.”

So anyone or anything considered to be a “god” or of divine nature, or given God’s authority, was called “theos”.

The Greeks had hundreds of gods, but they all had names and were referred to as such. The God of the Jews at that time, however, was nameless (because the Jewish leadership had decided that the divine name was too sacred to be uttered....so they referred Jehovah only as “the Lord” or “Adonai”. That was an act of disobedience, as God had told Moses in Exodus 3:15....

“And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, Jehovah, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations.” (ASV)

In the Jewish Tanakh, the divine name appears in the Hebrew text.

”Theos” is also used in the Bible....to...

1. refers to the things of God
2. his counsels, interests, things due to him
3. whatever can in any respect be likened unto God, or resemble him in any way
   
   1. God's representative or viceregent
      
      1. of magistrates and judges”

As you can see, this word does not refer exclusively to “God” with a capital “G”.

In John 10:31-36 Jehovah himself calls his judges, “gods” (theos) because they represented him to the people.
Satan is called “theos” in 2 Cor 4:4....so it is obvious that, as the definition implies, it has a wide range of meanings.

There were no capital letters nor any punctuation in Greek...so unless the word “theos” was preceded by the definite article, (“ho”) context would determine which “theos” was the intended subject.

In John 1:1 there is “ho theos” referring to Jehovah and “theos” referring to the Word (“ho logos”) who is ‘God like or divine’ but not an equal deity with his God and Father.

When Jesus taught us “the Lord’s Prayer”...he said “Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name”....not “my name”. The loss of God’s name was the platform upon which the trinity was founded.

Had John 1:1 been correctly translated it would have read...
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with Jehovah, and the Word was divine”. (or “God like”).


Do you see that word “through” there.....which indicates agency......
Something that is done “through” an agent or an agency is done in a representative way. Jesus was the “us “ and “our” in Gen 1:26. God created everything “through” the agency of his “firstborn” son. (Col 1:15-17) John 1:2-3 also says this...and indicates a “beginning”. If the Son was the “beginning of God’s creation” as it says in Rev 3:14, then Christendom has a dilemma.

Yes....’sitting at God’s right hand’, after he had provided the sacrifice that rescued the human race from sin and death, was foreshadowed in Psalm 110:1 where David’s “Lord” (Messiah) is told by his God Jehovah, to ‘sit at his right hand until he makes his enemies a stool for his feet’.

In the Bible, reference to the “right hand” could be both symbolic and literal.
In co-regency, the son and heir of a king could share rulership with his father by sitting at his right hand. In effect sitting on his father’s throne. He was co-ruler but under the authority of his father, the King. Jesus is said to be a son, a king and an heir. (Luke 1:32-33; Heb 1:2) He cannot be his own heir. What is he inheriting that God doesn’t already have?

This is not worship, but obeisance. No one worshipped Jesus, who was a man. That would have been unacceptable to a Jew....blasphemy in fact. Nowhere did the angels or the apostles “worship” the Son of God, but showed due respect to his superior position, as their angelic commander and as their human Messiah.

The Greek Word “pro·sky·neʹo” means to bow down as a mark of respect....a common practice in Bible times. It is used of the magi who came looking for the new “King of the Jews”...they bowed in respect to the new monarch, not to a new god.
To translate “pro·sky·neʹo” as worship should only be done with respect to Jehovah alone....never to a human....or to any other god.

This bowing in respect is all through the Bible....and it’s not worship. (Josh 5:13-15; Gen 18:1-2)

Again what you highlighted escapes your notice....it’s the phrasing that seems to imply what Christendom wants to believe....but it clearly says in the second highlighted sentence...”God, Your God, has anointed You.” Does God have a God? (Rev 3:12)

In Greek those verses could correctly read.....
“about the Son it says.....God is your throne forever and ever” and then the next part makes sense...the subject of the address has a God who anointed him for that position. God doesn’t anoint himself.

Yes ‘agency’ explains that. The Son is “the firstborn of ALL CREATION”....which makes him part of that creation. (Col 1:15-17) “all things were created through him and for him”.....creation came” through” the Son and was made “for him”. Think about that.

He was not just a man at all...he was the only sinless man born of a woman, which is the only way he could become our redeemer. He had to offer to God the set price of redemption....”a life for a life”, which in this case was “a sinless life for the sinless life” Adam took from his children. If he had been more that 100% human, his sacrifice would not have met the criteria and would have been invalid.

Jesus was going to be the “prophet like Moses” as Peter identifies in Acts 3:22....
“Moses said, ‘The Lord God will raise up for you a prophet like me from your brothers. You shall listen to him in whatever he tells you.” (ESV) He was quoting Deut 18:15. (Acts 7:37)

So, not just a man....and not just a prophet....he was “God’s holy servant” (Acts 4:27, 30)
God has servants....he is not his own servant.

 

[HealthyShape]

Just reviewing this thread, I would like to address your assertions.....it is apparent that your interpretation of Scripture is coloured by your trinitarian bias.

What do those verses really say that their Jewish writers would have understood in the first century when the trinity doctrine did not exist? It is a later addition, not taught by Jesus or ever stated by his Father.

Misinterpretation and misapplication can make Scripture seem to say what it never did. The Bible was not written to imply a god that the Jews never knew. All of the first Christians were Jewish....so they understood everything Jesus and his apostles taught through a Jewish lens, not a Catholic one.


The word “god” is “theos” in Greek. Both Father and Son are said to carry the title “theos” in the Bible, but so do others.....but nowhere in Scripture is the Holy Spirit said to be “theos”.

It is “God’s spirit”, so it is something belonging to God, coming from God....but is not God, or even a person. At best, you have two “gods” indicated in the Bible.....but that does not explain why others are referred to as “gods”, using the same word.

So a first consideration would be to define the word “theos” as it was understood back in Jesus’ day.

According to Strongs Concordance, the primary definition of “theos” is....

1. “a god or goddess, a general name of deities or divinities.”

So anyone or anything considered to be a “god” or of divine nature, or given God’s authority, was called “theos”.

The Greeks had hundreds of gods, but they all had names and were referred to as such. The God of the Jews at that time, however, was nameless (because the Jewish leadership had decided that the divine name was too sacred to be uttered....so they referred Jehovah only as “the Lord” or “Adonai”. That was an act of disobedience, as God had told Moses in Exodus 3:15....

“And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, Jehovah, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations.” (ASV)

In the Jewish Tanakh, the divine name appears in the Hebrew text.

”Theos” is also used in the Bible....to...

1. refers to the things of God
2. his counsels, interests, things due to him
3. whatever can in any respect be likened unto God, or resemble him in any way
   
   1. God's representative or viceregent
      
      1. of magistrates and judges”

As you can see, this word does not refer exclusively to “God” with a capital “G”.

In John 10:31-36 Jehovah himself calls his judges, “gods” (theos) because they represented him to the people.
Satan is called “theos” in 2 Cor 4:4....so it is obvious that, as the definition implies, it has a wide range of meanings.

There were no capital letters nor any punctuation in Greek...so unless the word “theos” was preceded by the definite article, (“ho”) context would determine which “theos” was the intended subject.

In John 1:1 there is “ho theos” referring to Jehovah and “theos” referring to the Word (“ho logos”) who is ‘God like or divine’ but not an equal deity with his God and Father.

When Jesus taught us “the Lord’s Prayer”...he said “Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name”....not “my name”. The loss of God’s name was the platform upon which the trinity was founded.

Had John 1:1 been correctly translated it would have read...
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with Jehovah, and the Word was divine”. (or “God like”).


Do you see that word “through” there.....which indicates agency......
Something that is done “through” an agent or an agency is done in a representative way. Jesus was the “us “ and “our” in Gen 1:26. God created everything “through” the agency of his “firstborn” son. (Col 1:15-17) John 1:2-3 also says this...and indicates a “beginning”. If the Son was the “beginning of God’s creation” as it says in Rev 3:14, then Christendom has a dilemma.

Yes....’sitting at God’s right hand’, after he had provided the sacrifice that rescued the human race from sin and death, was foreshadowed in Psalm 110:1 where David’s “Lord” (Messiah) is told by his God Jehovah, to ‘sit at his right hand until he makes his enemies a stool for his feet’.

In the Bible, reference to the “right hand” could be both symbolic and literal.
In co-regency, the son and heir of a king could share rulership with his father by sitting at his right hand. In effect sitting on his father’s throne. He was co-ruler but under the authority of his father, the King. Jesus is said to be a son, a king and an heir. (Luke 1:32-33; Heb 1:2) He cannot be his own heir. What is he inheriting that God doesn’t already have?

This is not worship, but obeisance. No one worshipped Jesus, who was a man. That would have been unacceptable to a Jew....blasphemy in fact. Nowhere did the angels or the apostles “worship” the Son of God, but showed due respect to his superior position, as their angelic commander and as their human Messiah.

The Greek Word “pro·sky·neʹo” means to bow down as a mark of respect....a common practice in Bible times. It is used of the magi who came looking for the new “King of the Jews”...they bowed in respect to the new monarch, not to a new god.
To translate “pro·sky·neʹo” as worship should only be done with respect to Jehovah alone....never to a human....or to any other god.

This bowing in respect is all through the Bible....and it’s not worship. (Josh 5:13-15; Gen 18:1-2)

Again what you highlighted escapes your notice....it’s the phrasing that seems to imply what Christendom wants to believe....but it clearly says in the second highlighted sentence...”God, Your God, has anointed You.” Does God have a God? (Rev 3:12)

In Greek those verses could correctly read.....
“about the Son it says.....God is your throne forever and ever” and then the next part makes sense...the subject of the address has a God who anointed him for that position. God doesn’t anoint himself.

Yes ‘agency’ explains that. The Son is “the firstborn of ALL CREATION”....which makes him part of that creation. (Col 1:15-17) “all things were created through him and for him”.....creation came” through” the Son and was made “for him”. Think about that.

He was not just a man at all...he was the only sinless man born of a woman, which is the only way he could become our redeemer. He had to offer to God the set price of redemption....”a life for a life”, which in this case was “a sinless life for the sinless life” Adam took from his children. If he had been more that 100% human, his sacrifice would not have met the criteria and would have been invalid.

Jesus was going to be the “prophet like Moses” as Peter identifies in Acts 3:22....
“Moses said, ‘The Lord God will raise up for you a prophet like me from your brothers. You shall listen to him in whatever he tells you.” (ESV) He was quoting Deut 18:15. (Acts 7:37)

So, not just a man....and not just a prophet....he was “God’s holy servant” (Acts 4:27, 30)
God has servants....he is not his own servant.

Text flooding from a cult member - a Jehovah Witness. Your sectarian interpretations are not arguments, they are just your opinions.

You are not an orthodox Christian, so your profile label is misleading to newcomers. Individuals, sects, cults and heretics can fantasize whatever they want, but the church already solved and decided these questions long time ago and has been defending Trinity successfully for 2,000 years.

Jehovah Witnesses who originated in the 18th century in the USA and immediately failed their own prophecy about the end of the world, can hardly be trusted more than the church. Not to mention true sectarian manipulative practices used against the members who want to criticize the leaders, to leave or left the cult.

I would recommend anyone to read at least one book from a former member of the Jehovah Witnesses to not fall into the trap and to realize what it is about and how toxic/dangerous it is.

 

[Lambano]

GOD IS ONE.
But in One God are 3 PERSONS....
NOT natures, NOT essence, but Persons.
With ONE NATURE
ONE WILL
ONE ETERNAL EXISTANCE.

How would you define the concept of "Personhood"? What is a "Person"?

Ironically, my biggest argument for the distinct personhood of the Father and the Son is the fact that the Bible portrays the Son has having a will distinct from the Father's (Luke 22:42) and a distinct dual human/divine nature. But, we already discussed that and didn't get anywhere. So, discarding those two, what's your argument for the distinct Personhoods of Father and Son?

@GodsGrace, I note that you've stayed out of @Graham's Oneness vs. Trinity threads. I encourage you to give it a go.

 

[GodsGrace]

How would you define the concept of "Personhood"? What is a "Person"?

Ironically, my biggest argument for the distinct personhood of the Father and the Son is the fact that the Bible portrays the Son has having a will distinct from the Father's (Luke 22:42) and a distinct dual human/divine nature. But, we already discussed that and didn't get anywhere. So, discarding those two, what's your argument for the distinct Personhoods of Father and Son?

@GodsGrace, I note that you've stayed out of @Graham's Oneness vs. Trinity threads. I encourage you to give it a go.

L ,,,I'm so TIRED of debating this topic with other "Christians".
It's one thing to discuss that it may not be understood and so ask questions such as what is a PERSON....
but to deny that Jesus is God is pure heresy and I've always felt that this topic should not even be allowed on Forums - but it's a popular topic, so...

Be back after lunch....

 

[HealthyShape]

And I now leave you to @HealthyShape who, I'm sure, has much more stamina than I do in dealing with you and your book-like posts.

Me? Absolutely not! I do not want to lose my time debating all kinds of heretics in "Christians only" sections of the forums. Moderators should take action, finally.

Because of their lethargy, cults and various individual heresies are overrepresented and the orthodox Christianity is underrepresented, here.
And because these unorthodox views and teachings are tolerated without moderation, any orthodox post gets drowned in the huge amount of text sectarians are posting.

And they loooove to create long posts so that nobody can untangle all the lies and errors in them unless having all days free and nothing better to do.

 

[Lambano]

L ,,,I'm so TIRED of debating this topic with other "Christians".

Sister GG, I've been told too many times, don't ask questions; don't even think. If you question the theological system, your faith is deficient and you're not one of us (and the usually unstated but sometime explicitly said aloud, "and you're probably going to Hell when you die".)

Perhaps what I really need is to outgrow the need for affirmation, the need to belong to the group.

 

[Lambano]

I would say half or more participants here are not from any orthodox church and so the amount of the posts and text is skewed to their side.

Who else resorts to an internet forum? Those who don't fit in to established religious structures.

 

[HealthyShape]

Who else resorts to an internet forum? Those who don't fit in to established religious structures.

Yes, partly. Also, some cults are very pro-active in "evangelizing" other Christians to persuade them that they have the truth. And so they are very active on internet. It is easier than going from door to door in real life.

 

[HealthyShape]

So, some Jehovah Witnesses who are disabled or ill are serving their organization this way. Almost as a full time job (that may be why such long posts).

 

[GodsGrace]

How would you define the concept of "Personhood"? What is a "Person"?

A person is an entity that is distinct from another entity.
You and I are human...that is our nature/essence.
But we are two different persons.
PS...I didn't mean by this that Person in human terms is the same as Person in theology.
(why make it easy!)

In this way we mean that the Father is not the Son, the Holy Spirit is not the Father, etc.
Each Person of the Tinity has distinct way of reasoning, speaking and understanding.

But each Person is identical in attributes: Power, love, holiness, knowledge, etc.

The Persons of the Trinity cannot exist separately from one another - as humans are able to.
It means, basically, that each Person is an I, which is distinguished from a You.

Let's see if Gemini can explain it better. I've found that it usually gives good answers:

Yes...I like it..here it is:

In Trinitarian theology, "personhood" distinguishes the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as distinct centers of consciousness and relationship within one divine Being (essence), meaning each "I" relates as "You" to the others, defined not by independence but by their unique, eternal, and interdependent relationships (e.g., Father begets Son, Spirit proceeds). It signifies individual existence and unique relational properties (like paternity or spiration) that preserve unity while affirming three hypostases (persons) sharing one ousia (essence).

Key Aspects of Divine Personhood:

• Relationality: Persons in the Trinity aren't isolated; they are constituted by their relationships (Father is Father because of the Son, etc.).
• Distinct but Undivided: Each Person is fully God, sharing the same divine nature, but is distinct through unique "personal properties" or relations (e.g., the Son is eternally begotten, the Spirit eternally proceeds).
• Center of Consciousness: Each Person possesses self-awareness and speaks/acts as "I," interacting with the others as "You" (e.g., Jesus praying to the Father).
• Eternal & Co-equal: All three Persons are eternal, co-existent, and equal in power, love, and attributes, not roles or manifestations.
• Not Human Analogy (Fully): While human personhood (being a rational, self-aware individual) mirrors this, divine personhood is foundational, understood first in God's unique communion, then applied analogically to humans made in His image.

Historical Development:

• Early Church Fathers like the Cappadocians (Basil, Gregory of Nyssa) developed this concept to articulate the biblical witness to one God in three Persons, using "person" (Greek hypostasis) to emphasize the distinct realities of Father, Son, and Spirit, preventing Sabellianism (modalism) or Arianism.

In essence, divine personhood describes the Father, Son, and Spirit as three eternally related, distinct, and co-equal centers of divine life within the one shared divine nature.

Ironically, my biggest argument for the distinct personhood of the Father and the Son is the fact that the Bible portrays the Son has having a will distinct from the Father's (Luke 22:42) and a distinct dual human/divine nature. But, we already discussed that and didn't get anywhere. So, discarding those two, what's your argument for the distinct Personhoods of Father and Son?

Did we discuss this?
I don't have a very good knowledge of the WILLS of Jesus.
It's not an easy topic and I don't fully understand it.

It might be the Orthodox (capital O) that believe that Jesus had 2 wills.
They attribute the will to the NATURE of something.

I think Bill Craig believes Jesus has only one will...
attributing will to the person (and not to the nature)

This was discussed at the council of Calcedonia 451AD.
Jesus had 2 natures, Divine and Human.

But how many wills does He have?
A case could be made for both...
my personal OPINION is that Jesus has to have two wills,
a divine will and a human will.

I'm going to have to go with that even though I also believe the will is attributable to the PERSON and not to the NATURE of something.

Confusing?
Yes.

Luke 22 would seem to confirm this.

@GodsGrace, I note that you've stayed out of @Graham's Oneness vs. Trinity threads. I encourage you to give it a go.

Took a look before lunch.
We'll see.

I DO believe we have to respond to these people.

 

[GodsGrace]

Me? Absolutely not! I do not want to lose my time debating all kinds of heretics in "Christians only" sections of the forums. Moderators should take action, finally.

Because of their lethargy, cults and various individual heresies are overrepresented and the orthodox Christianity is underrepresented, here.
And because these unorthodox views and teachings are tolerated without moderation, any orthodox post gets drowned in the huge amount of text sectarians are posting.

And they loooove to create long posts so that nobody can untangle all the lies and errors in them unless having all days free and nothing better to do.

Yes sir.
Agreed 100% on all.

The reason I post is precisely for those reading along.
So much misinformation...it requires correction.

Christianity is being changed...
it's tenets are being trampled upon.

Good to know you're here to defend the faith.

 

[GodsGrace]

Sister GG, I've been told too many times, don't ask questions; don't even think.

We must ask questions.
We must understand our faith.

Some go to a Service or to Mass, maybe speak to the pastor every now and then or confess their sins on a regular basis.
If they're sincere and are doing their best to live for God then nothing else is really necessary for salvation.
Jesus saves....whether the person understands the soteriology or not.

Others need to understand what they believe (I'm one of those and you are too).
This is fine too.
A member posted to me just today that since I want to be too knowledgeable I must not be spiritual.
We each need something different and God will supply what we need in order to have a good relationship with Him.

If you question the theological system, your faith is deficient and you're not one of us (and the usually unstated but sometime explicitly said aloud, "and you're probably going to Hell when you die".)

You shouldn't be hanging with such ignorant folk.

Perhaps what I really need is to outgrow the need for affirmation, the need to belong to the group.

The only group you need to belong to is the Church - capital C.
The Body of Christ.

And, if at all possible, to not disseminate doctrine that is anti-Christian.
I said ANTI-CHRISTIAN....
I did NOT say incorrect doctrine, since I'm sure all denominations teach something or other that may not be correct teaching...
but the main tenets of Christianity must be adhered to.

 

[Triumph1300]

I stated that someone that does NOT believe Jesus is God is Christian??

Sorry for getting back so late.
I have been occupied with work.

Actually the question was like this in simpler words:

Do you consider the United Pentecostal Church a Christian Church?

 

[amigo de christo]

Sorry for getting back so late.
I have been occupiued with work.

Actually the question was like this in simpler words:

Do you consider the United Pentecostal Church a Christian Church?

did you know that GOD had set up Israel for to be a people to serve HIM .
He gave them a key city named JERSUALEM , EVEN a holy temple built after the pattern in the heavens .
DID you know , however
that at times HE called it the synangogue of satan .
I am very sor rowful to have to report
That MUCh of this has overtaken even christendom who has went the way as did the jews of old .
Many houses called christain are now syngagoues of satan . AND if people find that hard to beleive .
WELL bring the words ,of JESUS , of the apotestls and prophets into such places
AND watch them do exactly as did the jews
CAST HIS WORDS BEHIND THEM , holler PREACH TO US SMOOTH THINGS
away with this biblical JESUS . I am warning us all
WE DO have a massive delusion and a massive falling away occuring RIGHT NOW and its only getting worse .
GET THEM IN THE BIBLE NOW . WE must simply do as DID JESUS and the apostels
WHOSE concern was not tied into EARTHERN KIN GDOMS of men , of politics and etc
THEY FOCUS was ON JESUS , ON HIS GOSPEL , ON HIS teachings
and their kingdom HEAVENLY . i advise us all to return to the pages of the bible now and let us exhort one another
daily and examine ourselves to see IF we aer walking in the same FAITH as did they .

 

[Button]

Short answer to the OP question,yes. Jesus never taught it. Why would I believe it?

 

[Aunty Jane]

I bring to your attention that the Trinity existed from the beginning...

The JW exist from 1840 or so.

LOL...didn’t you know that the Bible speaks of Jehovah’s Witnesses going back to the days of ancient Israel?
Isa 43: 10, 12...ASV...
“Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. . . . I have declared, and I have saved, and I have showed; and there was no strange god among you: therefore ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and I am God.”

Christians too are Jehovah’s Witnesses...a “great cloud” of them...
Heb 12:1-2 ESV...
“Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God.”

Jehovahs Witnesses have always been in existence....all serving their God Jehovah, along with his appointed King Christ Jesus who is seated at the right hand of his God, but the throne is not his....it is the throne of his Father who is, and always will be our Sovereign.

Jesus calls himself “the Faithful and True Witness”....(Rev 3:14)...so we are in good company in defining who is “the only true God” (John 17:3) and who is not....

We agree with the apostles who said unequivocally....

“...that “there is no God but one.” For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”— yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.” (1 Cor 8:4-6 ESV)

And the Holy Spirit doesn’t even get a mention....why? Because it’s not a person.

The Tinity is all throughout the bible...
both the OT and the NT.

There is not a single unequivocal statement by either God or his Son that they are one and the same God.
If there was one unequivocal statement to that effect, this topic would not have ever been raised.

Your hatred of the CC colors everything you believe...
The Apostles believ

My hatred is for the lies that millions have swallowed in the vain belief that the CC is somehow even a shadow of original Christianity. Sorry...there is not even the remotest resemblance.

Theos already has a meaning.
No need to redefine it.

You don’t like the definition, which is from Christendom’s own resources, because it fights with your doctrine? Not my problem. I have explained it as clearly as Strongs Concordance states.

I do pray for all Witnesses - that they might come to know the one true God one day and worship HIM and not Russel and his cohorts.

Please save your efforts, and direct them at all those who have swallowed your own ‘cool ade’.
The majority accept what you accept....there is your red flag. Where will I find the true God in the divided mess that is Christendom? Will the real Christians please stand up....

And yes, let me add, that even the Catholic Church teaches Christian theology -
something that the JWs do NOT.

It certainly teaches theology...but it’s skewed interpretation of Scripture is not fully revealed until a thorough study of the Bible is undertaken. I have studied the Bible with many Catholic people over decades, who were furious to discover that that they have not been taught even a modicum of Bible truth. Nothing they were taught was from the Bible. All were pagan adoptions covered over with a Christian label. A very thin veneer that was so easy to remove to discover what was underneath.

So....who are Jehovah’s true Witnesses, and who are not serving a foreign god who was invented by an apostate religious system spawned by the devil, hundreds of years after Christ’s death? Jesus and his apostles warned that this apostasy would take place and that it was beginning at the end of the first century....how far back does it go? Are you not all taken in by the fact that “the church” denies that it ever happened?

You fail to understand what Jesus warned about....he said that the majority would be on the wrong road and that “few” would even find the “narrow gate” that led to the right one. (Matt 7:13-14) His rejection and condemnation are irrevocable. (Matt 7:21-23)

If you hold a majority view, you also have a lot of company, but you are all heading in the wrong direction.
You won’t know it’s the wrong road until it’s too late...because you have been taught to love what God hates.

None will be able to say they weren’t warned....”just like the days of Noah”, as Jesus said. (Matt 24:37-39)

 

[GRACE ambassador]

Sorry for getting back so late.
I have been occupied with work.

Actually the question was like this in simpler words:

Do you consider the United Pentecostal Church a Christian Church?

Depends; what Is their 'gospel'?

 

[Aunty Jane]

Depends; what Is their 'gospel'?

Isn’t it sad that you even have to ask that question?
How many “gospels” are there?

I repeat...will the real Christians please stand up....and look! They are all standing! Who is which?

 

[Wrangler]

Christians too are Jehovah’s Witnesses...a “great cloud” of them...
Heb 12:1-2 ESV...
“Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God.”

Jehovahs Witnesses have always been in existence....all serving their God Jehovah, along with his appointed King Christ Jesus who is seated at the right hand of his God, but the throne is not his....it is the throne of his Father who is, and always will be our Sovereign.

Jesus calls himself “the Faithful and True Witness”....(Rev 3:14)...so we are in good company in defining who is “the only true God” (John 17:3) and who is not....

I do believe you are introducing strangers to their Bible. Well done!

 

[Wrangler]

How many “gospels” are there?

I say there is only one - the good news of Jesus Christ. And there are billions of witnesses. What say you?