A Question for Jehovah's Witnesses

[amigo de christo]

rev 1
12 And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks;
13 And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle.
14 His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire;
15 And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters.
16 And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength.
17 And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last:

The beautiful savior.
The creator of everything visible and invisible.
Eyes like flames of fire.
I WORSHIP YOU JESUS.

GOD BE HIS WORD . and HIS WORD BE HE . i heard a VOICE and yet WHOM DID JOHN SEE , JESUS THE CHRIST .
I am alpah and omega.
We all know JESUS corrected error , even the error of his own desciples . REMEMBER when peter
tried to tell him , NOT SO LORD , this shall not come
JESUS REBUKED HIM . JESUS rebuked the desciples when they too had desired to know whom amongst them
would be greatest .
HE also corrected the two when their mother tried to ask JESUS to grant to them to sit upon his right and his left hand .
BUT YOU KNOW What i noticed .
HOW COME WHEN THOMAS SAID MY LORD AND MY GOD , DIDNT JESUS REBUKE HIM . EXACTLY .
even the angel corrected john when he tried to kneel before him .
YET I SEE MANY in heaven kneeling before and casting crowns before THE LAMB OF GOD . exactly my friend .

 

[rebuilder 454]

rev 1
12 And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks;
13 And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle.
14 His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire;
15 And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters.
16 And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength.
17 And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last:

The beautiful savior.
The creator of everything visible and invisible.
Eyes like flames of fire.
I WORSHIP YOU JESUS.

17
And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead.

........IN WORSHIP

WORTHY ARE YOU JESUS
WORTHY ARE YOU JESUS
WORTHY ARE YOU JESUS
WORTHY ARE YOU JESUS
WORTHY ARE YOU JESUS
WORTHY ARE YOU JESUS

 

[amigo de christo]

17
And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead.

........IN WORSHIP

WORTHY ARE YOU JESUS
WORTHY ARE YOU JESUS
WORTHY ARE YOU JESUS
WORTHY ARE YOU JESUS
WORTHY ARE YOU JESUS
WORTHY ARE YOU JESUS

take note of what the angel also said to JOHN .
GET UP , i am but your brethren , WORSHIP GOD .
yet , i dont see JESUS saying in heaven HEY GET UP , STOP WORSHIPPING ME , WORSHIP GOD .
HE WHO HONORS THE SON HONORS THE FATHER .
HE who dishonors the SON dishonors the FATHER .
and , well that IS A FACT .

 

[amigo de christo]

17
And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead.

........IN WORSHIP

WORTHY ARE YOU JESUS
WORTHY ARE YOU JESUS
WORTHY ARE YOU JESUS
WORTHY ARE YOU JESUS
WORTHY ARE YOU JESUS
WORTHY ARE YOU JESUS

My advice is very simple . Do not even follow a JW to burger king let alone to its doctrine .

 

[rebuilder 454]

HEB 1
6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.

ALL YOU HEAVENLY HOSTS WORSHIP JESUS. !!!!!!!!
FALL DOWN NOW AND WORSHIP THE GOD MAN,THE KING OF THE UNIVERSE !!!!!!!!!



WORSHIP JESUS
WORSHIP JESUS
WORSHIP JESUS
WORSHIP JESUS
WORSHIP JESUS
WORSHIP JESUS
WORSHIP JESUS
WORSHIP JESUS
WORSHIP JESUS
WORSHIP JESUS

 

[amigo de christo]

HEB 1
6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.

ALL YOU HEAVENLY HOSTS WORSHIP JESUS. !!!!!!!!
FALL DOWN NOW AND WORSHIP THE GOD MAN,THE KING OF THE UNIVERSE !!!!!!!!!



WORSHIP JESUS
WORSHIP JESUS
WORSHIP JESUS
WORSHIP JESUS
WORSHIP JESUS
WORSHIP JESUS
WORSHIP JESUS
WORSHIP JESUS
WORSHIP JESUS
WORSHIP JESUS

Me thinks folks forget that too . WHEN that heavenly host did appear , WHOM was it worshipping .
WELL GOD OF COURSE , THE SON OF COURSE . HE who honors the SON HONORS THE FATHER .
IF YE have seen ME PHILLIP , YE HAVE SEEN THE FATHER . so why ya keep saying SHEW US THE FATHER .
exactly my friend . the diety of CHRIST is under attack , SPECIALLY IN THESE LATTER HOURS upon earth .
WHY . because IF JESUS really BE WHO HE SAY HE BE
then how on earth can all the other religoins also be right or be okay . YOU SEE
in order to MERGE THE RELIGOINS as one , WELL JESUS has to be seen as but just another man or another prophet
MANY gonna wail loudly on the day of the LORD . NOW even the very gospel itself is coming under attack
by this generation even within christendom itself . AND they do as they do
with the idea that the merging of all religoins , the idea that GOD is with all religoins
will bring PEACE N SAFETY UNTO THE WORLD . OH NOT IT WONT .
Rather its about to bring this
FOR WHEN THEY SHALL SAY PEACE N SAFETY , KAMBOOM SUDDEN DESTRUCTION COMETH UPON THEM ALL
and believe you me they will not ESCAPE . oh the signs are quite clear as to what DAYS THESE BE MY FRIEND .

 

[amigo de christo]

HEB 1
6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.

ALL YOU HEAVENLY HOSTS WORSHIP JESUS. !!!!!!!!
FALL DOWN NOW AND WORSHIP THE GOD MAN,THE KING OF THE UNIVERSE !!!!!!!!!



WORSHIP JESUS
WORSHIP JESUS
WORSHIP JESUS
WORSHIP JESUS
WORSHIP JESUS
WORSHIP JESUS
WORSHIP JESUS
WORSHIP JESUS
WORSHIP JESUS
WORSHIP JESUS

The second adam IS THE LORD from heaven . THE WORD really was with GOD and GOD IS HIS WORD
and HIS WORD REALLY DID BECOME FLESH . yet many seem to reject HIS WORDS and HIS TEACHINGS .
something they do unto their own destruction ....................

 

[amigo de christo]

Heed not the popes or vatican
heed not the jw or the mormon , nor sadly many within prostestant land either .
TIME WE BIBLE UP and READ , n HEED and LEARN THAT GOD , HIS CHRIST and the doctrine later the apostels
TAUGHT BY THE SPIRIT . and do so quickly cause this delusion is taking hold of many now .
Who is a liar . but he who denies JESUS IS THE CHRIST
he is ANTI CHRIST . all other religoins DENY HE IS THE CHRIST and well of course atheists do too .
TIME WE BIBLE UP . TIME WE GET REFRESHED and STAY REFRESHED in them words that i KNOW THE SPIRIT INSPIRED .

 

[amigo de christo]

HE WHO DOETH TRUTH COMETH TO THE LIGHT
NOT HE WHO DENIETH TRUTH .
who IS THE LIGHT OF GOD , JESUS IS
WHO IS THE TRUTH THE WAY AND THE LIFE , JESUS IS . KEEP THAT IN MIND .

 

[The Learner]

If you want to believe that there is no difference between God's Holy Spirit, as "God is A Spirit", vs a fake bible that says "God is spirit".. which proves that this book makes no distinction between The Devil's Spirit and God's... they you just help yourself to it. @Runningman ..

Even an unbeliever would understand this, but you are not able..

Im not surprised.

Our Brother Behold is Jesus Only or Oneness, maybe UPC this teaching is known as Modalism --- 3 modes or masks within the ONE G_d.


You are in Part 1: Pagan section refuted of the Watchtower's "Should you believe in the Trinity?" booklet.
See also Part 2: "Trinity is not Biblical" section

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

"Should you believe in the Trinity"	Our comments and expose of booklet
Text of Watchtower booklet	In this column down to the bottom, we will expose the satanic quoting practices of the Watchtower. If you can get a Jehovah's Witness to merely read this one page, they will leave the organization.
Begin booklet text below​	Begin our comments below​
Trinity, Should You Believe It? DO YOU believe in the Trinity? Most people in Christendom do. After all, it has been the central doctrine of the churches for centuries. In view of this, you would think that there could be no question about it. But there is, and lately even some of its supporters have added fuel to the controversy.	Number of Jehovah's Witnesses who have left the organization after reading this page: coming
Why should a subject like this be of any more than passing interest? Because Jesus himself said: "Eternal life is this: to know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent." So our entire future hinges on our knowing the true nature of God, and that means getting to the root of the Trinity controversy. Therefore, why not examine it for yourself?-John 17:3, Catholic Jerusalem Bible (JB).	The quickest way to see the mistake in the Jehovah's Witness interpretation of John 17:3 is in Eph 4:4-6. ("there is one God and one Lord") If "One God" excludes Jesus from God, then "One Lord" excludes God from being Lord. Yet we know that they share these identical characteristics. Jehovah is not only called the Only true God (John 17:3), but the "Only Saviour" (Isa 43:11; 45:21; Hos 13:4; Jude 25) , "Only King" (Zech 14:9). If John 17:3 excludes Jesus from being "True God", then Jesus is also excluded from being a Saviour or King. Click link for more.
Various Trinitarian concepts exist. But generally the Trinity teaching is that in the Godhead there are three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; yet, together they are but one God. The doctrine says that the three are coequal, almighty, and uncreated, having existed eternally in the Godhead.	Jesus is coequal with the Father being the same class of uncreated being, but not equal (subordinate) with the Father in rank. JW's deliberately confuse these two important issues. A wife is coequal with her husband as a class of created being called "man", but no equal (subordinate) with her husband in rank. Eph 5:23

 

[The Learner]

Others, however, say that the Trinity doctrine is false, that Almighty God stands alone as a separate, eternal, and all-powerful being. They say that Jesus in his prehuman existence was, like the angels, a separate spirit person created by God, and for this reason he must have had a beginning. They teach that Jesus has never been Almighty God's equal in any sense; he has always been subject to God and still is. They also believe that the holy ghost is not a person but God's spirit, his active force.
Supporters of the Trinity say that it is founded not only on religious tradition but also on the Bible.	Christians do not found the trinity upon tradition at all. We reject all human creeds and abide ONLY in the concept of trinity in the Bible where Jesus is uncreated divine God (like the Father) and the Holy Spirit is a person.
Critics of the doctrine say that it is not a Bible teaching, one history source even declaring: "The origin of the [Trinity] is entirely pagan."-The Paganism in Our Christianity.	This source trashes all of Christianity, not just trinity and is a satanic quote! It is the Watchtower "Star Witness" to prove trinity is pagan used several times in this booklet. Click on link for a real eye opener!

 

[The Learner]

What, exactly, is the Trinity? How do supporters of it explain it? How Is the Trinity Explained?
The Roman Catholic Church states: "The Trinity is the term employed to signify the central doctrine of the Christian religion . . . Thus, in the words of the Athanasian Creed: 'the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God.' In this Trinity . . . the Persons are co-eternal and co-equal: all alike are uncreated and omnipotent."-The Catholic Encyclopedia. Thus, the Trinity is considered to be "one God in three Persons." Each is said to be without beginning, having existed for eternity. Each is said to be almighty, with each neither greater nor lesser than the others.	Again the Watchtower defines trinity from a 12th century creed, not the Bible. The creed contradicts the Bible. Jesus is coequal with the Father being the same class of uncreated being, but not equal (subordinate) with the Father in rank. JW's deliberately confuse these two important issues. A wife is coequal with her husband as a class of created being called "man", but no equal (subordinate) with her husband in rank. Eph 5:23
"Beyond the Grasp of Human Reason" THIS confusion is widespread. The Encyclopedia Americana notes that the doctrine of the Trinity is considered to be "beyond the grasp of human reason." The disciples of Jesus were the humble common people, not the religious leaders	Satanic Quote! The full quote is: ""It is held that although the doctrine is beyond the grasp of human reason, it is, like many of the formulations of physical science, not contrary to reason, and may be apprehended (though it may not be comprehended) by the human mind." Further, Paul, who wrote 1/2 the New Testament said that the trinity and the incarnation of Jesus "great is the mystery of godliness" 1 Tim 3:1. Peter said of the same Paul, "our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, 16 as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction" 2 Peter 3:15f.

 

[The Learner]

"Beyond the Grasp of Human Reason": Is such reasoning hard to follow? Many sincere believers have found it to be confusing, contrary to normal reason, unlike anything in their experience. How, they ask, could the Father be God, Jesus be God, and the holy spirit be God, yet there be not three Gods but only one God?	We ask Jehovah's Witnesses to explain, "from human reasoning, and their own personal experience", how God could have not beginning, or how could Jesus as a spirit being, become flesh? Many aspects of God are above human reasoning and experience. This argument is deceptive and hypocritical as this direct quote from a Watchtower publication proves: Did God have a beginning? Ps. 90:2: "even from time indefinite to time indefinite you are God." Is that reasonable? Our minds cannot fully comprehend it. But that is not a sound reason for rejecting it. Consider examples: (1) Time. No one can paint to a certain moment as the beginning of time. And it is a fact that, even though our lives end, time does not. We do not reject idea of time because there are aspects of it that we do not fully comprehend. Rather, we regulate our lives by it. (2) Space. Astronomers find no beginning or end to space. The farther they probe in to the lie universe, the more there is. They do not reject what the evidence shows; many refer to space as being infinite. The same principle applies to the existence of God. Other examples: (1) Astronomer; tell us that the heat of the sun at its core is 27,000,000 degrees Fahrenheit (15,000,000' W. Do we reject that idea because we cannot fully size comprehend such intense heat? (2) They tell us that of our Milky Way is so great that a Beam of light traveling at over 186,000 miles per second (300,000 km/sec) would require 100,000 years to cross it. Do our minds really comprehend such a distance? ... But it is well known that scientists do not fully comprehend the functioning of the genes that are within living cells and that determine how these cells will grow. Nor do they fully understand the functioning of the human brain. Yet, who would deny these exist? Should we really expect to understand everything about a Person who is so great that he could bring into existence the universe, with all its intricate design and stupendous size? (Reasoning from the scriptures, Watchtower publication, 1989, p 148-149) If JW's reject the trinity because it is hard to understand, then they might as well reject God himself!
Thus, A Dictionary of Religious Knowledge says: "Precisely what that doctrine is, or rather precisely how it is to be explained, Trinitarians are not agreed among themselves."	A few sentences later, "It is not possible for the human intellect to comprehend fully the divine nature." Lyman is not only talking about the Trinity, but the nature of God in general! Do JW's understand the nature of God? No! But what is worse, Lyman trashes the whole of Christianity, not just the Trinity!
We can understand, then, why the New Catholic Encyclopedia observes: "There are few teachers of Trinitarian theology in Roman Catholic seminaries who have not been badgered at one time or another by the question, 'But how does one preach the Trinity?' And if the question is symptomatic of confusion on the part of the students, perhaps it is no less symptomatic of similar confusion on the part of their professors."	The source in the middle of a discussion of three things: 1. "Trinitarian theology". 2. "Trinitarian doctrine". 3. "Trinitarian mystery with a wealth of scriptural quotation". The confusion is not with the trinity of the Bible, (#3) "the Biblical message speaking for itself, should be the heart and substance of the communication both in preaching and in catechesis". Another satanic quote!
Catholic theologian Hans Küng observes in his book Christianity and the World Religions that the Trinity is one reason why the churches have been unable to make any significant headway with non-Christian peoples. He states: "Even well-informed Muslims simply cannot follow, as the Jews thus far have likewise failed to grasp, the idea of the Trinity. . . . The distinctions made by the doctrine of the Trinity between one God and three hypostases do not satisfy Muslims, who are confused, rather than enlightened, by theological terms derived from Syriac, Greek, and Latin. Muslims find it all a word game. . . . Why should anyone want to add anything to the notion of God's oneness and uniqueness that can only dilute or nullify that oneness and uniqueness?"	It is totally dishonest for Jehovah's Witnesses is it to quote Kung: "Muslims find trinity offensive" when the full quote says that Muslims find trinity, INCARNATION and the Sonship of Christ offensive. What a ridiculous and satanic argument the Watchtower makes. Muslims find the Watchtower religion theology AS OFFENSIVE as trinity theology. . . but what does that really prove? Nothing! Muslims reject that Jesus preexisted his incarnation and that Jesus even died on the cross at all! The Jews thus far have likewise failed to grasp, the idea... that Jesus was the messiah that Jesus was the Son of God Messiah would be killed much less raise from the dead! that the Messiah's kingdom is spiritual that the messiah was not going to conquer Rome in 30 AD during the triumphal entry

 

[The Learner]

"Not a God of Confusion" HOW could such a confusing doctrine originate? The Catholic Encyclopedia claims: "A dogma so mysterious presupposes a Divine revelation."	The very next sentence in the quote is, "When the fact of revelation, understood in its full sense as the speech of God to man, is no longer admitted, the rejection of the doctrine follows as a necessary consequence". In other words, without God revealing the trinity in the Bible BY DIVINE REVELATION, we would not understand it. The same article includes a whole section of where trinity IS REVEALED in the Bible. Another satanic Watchtower quote! Note that the source differentiates between "trinity dogma" and "Biblical trinity", a concept few JW's understand, but would do truth a favour by learning the difference!
Catholic scholars Karl Rahner and Herbert Vorgrimler state in their Theological Dictionary: "The Trinity is a mystery . . . in the strict sense . . . , which could not be known without revelation, and even after revelation cannot become wholly intelligible." However, contending that since the Trinity is such a confusing mystery, it must have come from divine revelation creates another major problem. Why? Because divine revelation itself does not allow for such a view of God: "God is not a God of confusion."-1 Corinthians 14:33, Revised Standard Version (RS). In view of that statement, would God be responsible for a doctrine about himself that is so confusing that even Hebrew, Greek, and Latin scholars cannot really explain it?	What a silly deceptive argument the Watchtower uses. Notice the source clearly states that God did reveal the trinity in the Bible. But the idea is still not totally clear! Even Jehovah Himself could not be known without revelation and even after revelation cannot become wholly intelligible!!! How unscholarly of Jehovah's Witnesses to make this argument! God answers prayer, do JW's know how? God created the world from nothing, do JW's understand how? Because God did not explain HOW, does this make him a God of confusion? Hardly! We want Watchtower leaders to explain the nature of God to us and HOW he works! Yes, God is all knowing, but how can God be all-knowing? Explain that! JW's and no one else can! There is a long list of things JW's believe but cannot explain!
Is It Clearly a Bible Teaching? "Trinity" in the Bible?	We must take this time to make an important observation about the "slight of hand" tactics of Jehovah's Witnesses as they try to convince you trinity is not taught in the Bible. When the Watchtower says, "the word trinity is not found in the Bible." They are right, but neither are a lot of the words JW's use in their religion, yet they think the concept behind the word is taught in the Bible. When the Watchtower says, "the concept of trinity is not taught in the Old Testament". They are right, but many concepts that are taught in the New Testament like trinity and the Lord's Supper, were also lacking in the Old Testament. Doctrine in the Bible developed between the Old Testament and the New Testament. When the Watchtower says, "trinity is not EXPLICITY taught in the New Testament", they are right and all Trinitarians would agree! The key word is "explicit", for it means: "trinity, as defined in the Nicene or Athanasian creeds is not taught in the Bible.". Explicit implies "ontology". But the Biblical trinity (uncreated deity of Christ and personality of the Holy Spirit) are taught in the scripture. Notice that while the watchtower quotes Trinitarians sources who will say Trinity is not taught in the Old Testament, they never find Trinitarian sources saying, "trinity is not taught in the New Testament." The Watchtower will quote Trinitarian sources who will say trinity is not "explicitly" taught in the New Testament, these same sources all clearly state that "trinity" IS TAUGHT in the New Testament. This slight of hand tactic is missed by most first time readers (and all JW's) of their book of deceptions, it is quite obvious to the true students of the Bible.
A PROTESTANT publication states: "The word Trinity is not found in the Bible . . . It did not find a place formally in the theology of the church till the 4th century." (The Illustrated Bible Dictionary)	The full quote says, "It must be remembered that the OT was written before the revelation of the doctrine of the Trinity was clearly given." . . . "The word Trinity is not found in the Bible . . . It did not find a place formally in the theology of the church till the 4th century . . . Although Scripture does not give us a formulated doctrine of the Trinity, it contains all the elements out of which theology has constructed the doctrine." The word Trinity is not found in the Bible, but so what? Neither are the words, "theocracy" "Jehovah's Witnesses" "Circuit Assemblies" etc.

 

[The Learner]

And a Catholic authority says that the Trinity "is not . . . directly and immediately [the] word of God."-New Catholic Encyclopedia.	The source is talking about the 4th century trinity creed not the deity of Christ and the personality of the Holy Spirit., "The 4th-century articulation of the triadic mystery is at least implicitly the word of God, hence part of the Christian credo. On the other hand, it is not, as already seen, directly and immediately word of God." The source goes on to say that "the Trinitarian mystery" as taught in the 4th century, can be supported "a wealth of scriptural quotation".
The Catholic Encyclopedia also comments: "In Scripture there is as yet no single term by which the Three Divine Persons are denoted together. The word [tri'as] (of which the Latin trinitas is a translation) is first found in Theophilus of Antioch about A. D. 180. . . . Shortly afterwards it appears in its Latin form of trinitas in Tertullian." However, this is no proof in itself that Tertullian taught the Trinity.	Satanic quote! Look what the Watchtower left out to deceive you! (notice the ellipse: ". . .") "The word [tri'as] (of which the Latin trinitas is a translation) is first found in Theophilus of Antioch about A. D. 180. He speaks of "the Trinity of God [the Father], His Word and His Wisdom" ("Ad. Autol.", 11, 15, P. G., VI, 1078). The term may, of course, have been in use before his time. Shortly afterwards it appears in its Latin form of trinitas in Tertullian." What lies and deception! The part the Watchtower left out says that Theophilus (180 AD) not only taught the trinity BEFORE Tertullian (200 AD) but that the word Trinity itself was used before Theophilus. So the source is actually teaching that the use of the word trinity predated Tertullian by two generations!
The Catholic work Trinitas-A Theological Encyclopedia of the Holy Trinity, for example, notes that some of Tertullian's words were later used by others to describe the Trinity. Then it cautions: "But hasty conclusions cannot be drawn from usage, for he does not apply the words to Trinitarian theology."	The selective quoting of the Watchtower deliberately misleads the reader to the wrong conclusion that that Tertullian never used the word trinitas in reference to the Trinity. Such is a lie as can see by reading what Terullian wrote himself! A simple reading of the entire quote in context proves that it was the words, "substantia", "consubstantialis" and "consubstantivus" that Tertullian never applied to Trinitarian theology. "The great African fashioned the Latin language of the Trinity, and many of his words and phrases remained permanently in use: the words Trinitas and persona, the formulas 'one substance in three persons,' 'God from God, light from Light.' He uses the word substantia 400 times, as he uses consubstantialis and consubstantivus, but hasty conclusions cannot be drawn from usage, for he does not apply the words to Trinitarian theology"
Testimony of the Hebrew Scriptures WHILE the word "Trinity" is not found in the Bible, is at least the idea of the Trinity taught clearly in it? For instance, what do the Hebrew Scriptures ("Old Testament") reveal? The Encyclopedia of Religion admits: "Theologians today are in agreement that the Hebrew Bible does not contain a doctrine of the Trinity."	Eliade and Trinitarians admit that the Old Testament did not reveal the trinity, but so what? There is a clear development of doctrines that all Bible students recognize from the Old to the New Testaments. But the source (Eliade) actually says that the basic trinity doctrine is taught in the New Testament! Further: Nowhere in the Old Testament do we find the words or any clear indication of... baptism the Lord's supper second coming that Jesus was the agent of creation that the Messiah was to be raised from the dead the apostles did not understand Jesus would die, be raised or believe in the second coming during Jesus ministry that Jesus Christ was the "Rock that followed" the Jews through the wilderness Learn more true
And the New Catholic Encyclopedia also says: "The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not taught in the O[ld] T[estament]."	So what, neither is the doctrine of the Lord's supper or that Jesus was the agent of creation! Learn more true

 

[The Learner]

Similarly, in his book The Triune God, Jesuit Edmund Fortman admits: "The Old Testament . . . tells us nothing explicitly or by necessary implication of a Triune God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. . . . There is no evidence that any sacred writer even suspected the existence of a [Trinity] within the Godhead. . . . Even to see in [the "Old Testament"] suggestions or foreshadowings or 'veiled signs' of the trinity of persons, is to go beyond the words and intent of the sacred writers."-Italics ours.	Satanic quote: Fortman's comments are clearly restricted to the Old Testament "sacred writers" as the context proves. But the ellipse ". . ." makes it appear that Forman is say "any sacred writer" includes the New Testament writers as well. Forman spends several chapters discussing in detail JUST HOW many New Testament "sacred writers", not only "suspected" the trinity, but taught it! A few sentences later Forman says, "However, these [Old Testament] writers definitely do give us the words that the New Testament uses to express the trinity of persons" Such deception! The way the watchtower deliberately misquotes sources, it is an insult to intelligence for them to worry about telling us when they add italics! "Italics ours". Talk about swallowing a camel!
Testimony of the Greek Scriptures WELL, then, do the Christian Greek Scriptures ("New Testament") speak clearly of a Trinity? The Encyclopedia of Religion says: "Theologians agree that the New Testament also does not contain an explicit doctrine of the Trinity."	The key word here is "explicit". The very next sentence says, "In the immediate post New Testament period of the Apostolic Fathers no attempt was made to work out the God-Christ (Father-Son) relationship in ontological terms". A few sentences later, "The shift is from function to ontology, from the "economic trinity" (Father, Son, and Spirit in relation to us) to the "immanent" or "essential Trinity" (Father, Son, and Spirit in relation to each other). It was prompted chiefly by belief in the divinity of Christ and later in the divinity of the Holy Spirit, but even earlier by the consistent worship of God in a trinitarian pattern and the practice of baptism into the threefold name of God." This discussion is well above the understanding of 99% of Jehovah's Witnesses, but they would do truth a favour by spending a few weeks learning studying what is meant by the terms: "economic trinity", "ontology, "immanent Trinity", "essential Trinity" and how the source is using the term "explicit". But things get worse for JW's because Eliade views Logos Christology as influence by Greek paganism and an intermediate bridge between apostolic teaching and Arianism (Watchtower theology). Eliade specifically includes the Arian view as a later development and not the original apostolic faith! But what is worse, notice the following quote from a source used by the Watchtower elsewhere that states that John did explicitly state "biblical trinity" (deity of Christ and personality of Holy Spirit): "Considering the strict Monotheism of the NT.,-such language implies the divinity, as well as the personality, of Father, Son and Holy Ghost, and they are sufficient warrant for refusing to believe that N.T. writers did not know the doctrine, because they did not, like St. John, state it explicitly." (A Catholic Dictionary, William E. Addis & Thomas Arnold, 1960, p 822-830) Theologians agree that the Bible also does not contain any explicit... prohibition against blood transfusions, since they did not exist then. organization larger than the local church headed in one city like Rome or Brooklyn. The doctrine the church being governed from one world headquarters did not form part of the apostles' preaching, as this is reported in the New Testament, but first developed in 606 AD in Rome. (1300 years before Brooklyn which was 1800 years too late to be in the Bible!) Click here for further discussion about Economic and essential trinity
Jesuit Fortman states: "The New Testament writers . . . give us no formal or formulated doctrine of the Trinity, no explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons. . . . Nowhere do we find any trinitarian doctrine of three distinct subjects of divine life and activity in the same Godhead."	The Watchtower again fails to differentiate between "elemental Trinitarian" doctrine of the Bible and "formulated Trinitarian" doctrine of the 4th century. This is another satanic quote: Look what is missing in the ellipses ". . .": "the New Testament writers together they tell us there is only one God, the creator and lord of the universe, who is the Father of Jesus. They call Jesus the Son of God, Messiah, Lord, Savior, Word, Wisdom. They assign Him the divine functions of creation, salvation, judgment. Sometimes they call Him God explicitly. They do not speak as fully and clearly of the Holy Spirit as they do of the Son, but at times they coordinate Him with the Father and the Son and put Him on a level with them as far as divinity and personality are concerned. They give us in their writings a triadic ground plan and triadic formulas. They do not speak in abstract terms of nature, substance, person, relation, circumincession, mission, but they present in their own ways the ideas that are behind these terms. They give us no formal or formulated doctrine of the Trinity, no explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons. But they do give us an elemental trinitarianism, the data from which such a formal doctrine of the Triune God may be formulated." See more
The New Encyclopædia Britannica observes: "Neither the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament."	Watchtower again deliberately confuses the issue by using the word "explicit". This Britannica quote is lifted from the middle of a discussion of the elemental doctrine of the trinity, as the Bible teaches, and the explicit developed doctrine of the 4th century. Notice what Britannica says a few sentences later in the same article: "Thus, the New Testament established the basis for the doctrine of the Trinity. The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies."
Bernhard Lohse says in A Short History of Christian Doctrine: "As far as the New Testament is concerned, one does not find in it an actual doctrine of the Trinity."	Satanic quote, notice the whole section: First, it is important to note that the doctrine of the Trinity does not go back to non-Christian sources [pagan], as has sometimes been supposed in the past. There has been no lack of attempts to find the initial form of the doctrine of the Trinity in Plato, or in Hinduism, or in Parsiism. All such attempts may be regarded today as having floundered. ... As far as the New Testament is concerned, one does not find in it an actual doctrine of the Trinity. This does not mean very much, however, for generally speaking the New Testament is less intent upon setting forth certain doctrines than it is upon proclaiming the kingdom of God, a kingdom that dawns in and with the person of Jesus Christ. At the same time, however, there are in the New Testament the rudiments of a concept of God that was susceptible of further development and clarification, along doctrinal lines. ... Speaking first of the person of Jesus Christ ... In other passages of the New Testament the predicate "God" is without a doubt applied to Christ

 

[amigo de christo]

Others, however, say that the Trinity doctrine is false, that Almighty God stands alone as a separate, eternal, and all-powerful being. They say that Jesus in his prehuman existence was, like the angels, a separate spirit person created by God, and for this reason he must have had a beginning. They teach that Jesus has never been Almighty God's equal in any sense; he has always been subject to God and still is. They also believe that the holy ghost is not a person but God's spirit, his active force.
Supporters of the Trinity say that it is founded not only on religious tradition but also on the Bible.	Christians do not found the trinity upon tradition at all. We reject all human creeds and abide ONLY in the concept of trinity in the Bible where Jesus is uncreated divine God (like the Father) and the Holy Spirit is a person.
Critics of the doctrine say that it is not a Bible teaching, one history source even declaring: "The origin of the [Trinity] is entirely pagan."-The Paganism in Our Christianity.	This source trashes all of Christianity, not just trinity and is a satanic quote! It is the Watchtower "Star Witness" to prove trinity is pagan used several times in this booklet. Click on link for a real eye opener!

did GOD CREATE HIMSELF . DID GOD CREATE HIS OWN WORDS
DID GOD CREATE HIS OWN SPIRIT . THEN KNOW AND UNDERSTAND
JESUS WAS NEVER CREATED , RATHER HE CREATED BY GOD . GOD IS HIS WORD AND HIS WORD BE HE .
HOW DID GOD CREATE THE WORLD AND ALL THAT WAS , HE SPOKE , HE CREATED BY JESUS CHRIST HIS WORD HIS SPIRIT
HIS OWN ESSENCE . THAT TOO IS A FACT

 

[The Learner]

The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology similarly states: "The N[ew] T[estament] does not contain the developed doctrine of the Trinity. 'The Bible lacks the express declaration that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are of equal essence' [said Protestant theologian Karl Barth]."	Watchtower again confuses Biblical trinity as taught by the apostles and the "developed doctrine of the trinity" as taught by the 4th century creeds. Notice what is missing in the Watchtower Satanic quoting practices: "The NT does not contain the developed doctrine of the Trinity. "The Bible lacks the express declaration that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are of equal essence and therefore in an equal sense God himself. And the other express declaration is also lacking, that God is God thus and only thus, i.e. as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. These two express declarations, which go beyond the witness of the Bible, are the twofold content of the Church doctrine of the Trinity" ... But the NT does contain the fixed, three-part formula of 2 Cor. 13:13 (EVV 14) in which God, the Lord Jesus Christ and the Spirit are mentioned together (cf. I Cor. 12:4 ff.). The Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit occurs only in the baptismal formula in Matt. 28:19."
Yale University professor E. Washburn Hopkins affirmed: "To Jesus and Paul the doctrine of the trinity was apparently unknown; . . . they say nothing about it."-Origin and Evolution of Religion.	Satanic quote! Look at the sentence before! "The beginning of the doctrine of the Trinity appears already in John " (c. 100). "To Jesus and Paul the doctrine of the trinity was apparently unknown; . . . they say nothing about it." (Origin and Evolution of Religion, E. W. Hopkins, p. 336) But Washburn Hopkins trashes the whole of Christianity, not just trinity in the same chapter that the Watchtower quotes from: "Christianity, though built upon the rock of Peter, utilized for the construction of its church much pagan material, some of which had filtered through Jewish sources, while some was inherited from Mediterranean and Grecian cults. Baptism, fast, purification, vigil, the hope of immortality and resurrection, miraculous cures, water turned into wine, all these were pre-Christian." (Origin and Evolution of Religion, E. W. Hopkins, Ch 20, The Christian Trinity). Notice what else this "Yale Professor" said in another one of his books: "Finally, the life, temptation, miracles, parables, and even the disciples of Jesus have been derived directly from Buddhism" Notice the only ones who the watchtower can find will say trinity is of pagan origin, are atheists and Christianity trashers! Yet even this Bible trasher admits John taught the trinity!
Historian Arthur Weigall notes: "Jesus Christ never mentioned such a phenomenon, and nowhere in the New Testament does the word 'Trinity' appear. The idea was only adopted by the Church three hundred years after the death of our Lord."-The Paganism in Our Christianity.	Satanic quote! Another Christianity trashers! Weigall claims that almost every major element of Watchtower doctrine is derived from paganism! Notice the only ones who the watchtower can find will say trinity is of pagan origin, are atheists and Christianity trashers! Remember, Weigall is the Watchtower's "star witness" and is used as the key quote in the introduction and throughout their booklet.
Taught by Early Christians? DID the early Christians teach the Trinity? Note the following comments by historians and theologians: "Primitive Christianity did not have an explicit doctrine of the Trinity such as was subsequently elaborated in the creeds."-The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology.	The reader needs to know what is meant by "explicit doctrine of the trinity" taught in the 4th century. Trinitarians totally agree with this statement, because they know it doesn't refute trinity as taught by the apostles!
"The early Christians, however, did not at first think of applying the [Trinity] idea to their own faith. They paid their devotions to God the Father and to Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and they recognised the . . . Holy Spirit; but there was no thought of these three being an actual Trinity, co-equal and united in One." -The Paganism in Our Christianity.	Satanic quote! Here we go again quoting the Watchtower's "star witness", Christianity trasher, Arthur Weigall! You simply must click here to see the details. If this doesn't convince you the Watchtower is deceptive, nothing will!
"At first the Christian faith was not Trinitarian . . . It was not so in the apostolic and sub-apostolic ages, as reflected in the N[ew] T[estament] and other early Christian writings."-Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics.	Satanic quote! Look at the phrase they left out at the ellipse ". . ." "in the a strictly ontological reference". Again, the watchtower deliberately misleads the reader by failing to give the context of the discussion. Jehovah's Witnesses need to learn the meaning of these key phrases omitted in their little devil booklet: "strictly ontological reference", "Economic and essential trinity". The whole quote is as follows: "Economic and essential trinity:- (a) The transition from the Trinity of experience to the Trinity of dogma is describable in other terms as the transition from the economic or dispensational Trinity [Greek] to the essential, immanent or ontological Trinity [Greek]. At first the Christian faith was not Trinitarian in the a strictly ontological reference. It was not so in the apostolic and sub-apostolic ages, as reflected in apostolic the NT and other early Christian writings." Click here for further discussion about Economic and essential trinity
"The formulation 'one God in three Persons' was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. . . . Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective."-New Catholic Encyclopedia.	Satanic quote, look what they left out! Again they confuse elemental trinity as taught by the apostles and 4th century trinity as taught by the creeds. "Question of Continuity and Elemental Trinitarianism: From what has been seen thus far, the impression could arise that the Trinitarian dogma is in the last analysis a late 4th-century invention. In a sense, this is true; but it implies an extremely strict interpretation of the key words Trinitarian and dogma. Triadic Consciousness in the Primitive Revelation. The formulation "one God in three Persons" was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective; among the 2d-century Apologists, little more than a focusing of the problem as that of plurality within the unique Godhead. ... From the vocabulary and grammar of the Greek original, the intention of the hagiographer to communicate singleness of essence in three distinct Persons was easily derived. ... If it is clear on one side that the dogma of the Trinity in the stricter sense of the word was a late arrival, product of 3 centuries' reflection and debate, it is just as clear on the opposite side that confession of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit-and hence an elemental Trinitarianism-went back to the period of Christian origins."

 

[The Learner]

What the Ante-Nicene Fathers Taught THE ante-Nicene Fathers were acknowledged to have been leading religious teachers in the early centuries after Christ's birth. What they taught is of interest.	We must note that none of these early writings of Christians after the apostolic age, are authoritative. However, the Watchtower knows it is in big trouble in this area and must resort to outright satanic deception to deceive their blind followers into thinking that the earliest Christians denied the deity of Christ (being uncreated) and the personality of the Holy Spirit. We also draw your attention that all the dates the Watchtower uses are when the writer died. The actual standard accepted dates of when the texts were written are consistently 20-50 years earlier! But these writings are so powerful against JW doctrine, that it is in their best interest to keep them as distant as possible from the apostolic age! You can view our complete reference page of Anti-Nicene fathers by clicking here.
Justin Martyr, who died about 165 C.E., called the prehuman Jesus a created angel who is "other than the God who made all things." He said that Jesus was inferior to God and "never did anything except what the Creator . . . willed him to do and say." View Justin Martyr quotes	Look at the exact quoted words of Justin. The key phrases, "created angel" and " inferior to God" are not Justin's but the Watchtowers! Justin never said this! Justin taught that before incarnation that Jesus was God, not a created angel. Justin explicitly taught the uncreated deity of Christ and the personality of the Holy Spirit. Further, Justin outright said that all three were to be worshipped as God! Justin never says Jesus is a created angel. Justin never refers to Jesus as an angel before creation. Justin, however, does refer to Jesus as the "angel of the Lord" after creation in various appearances to man. Many but not all Trinitarians would have no problem affirming, along side of Justin, that Jesus as uncreated God, was referred to as the Angel of Jehovah. View Justin Martyr quotes
Irenaeus, who died about 200 C.E., said that the prehuman Jesus had a separate existence from God and was inferior to him. He showed that Jesus is not equal to the "One true and only God," who is "supreme over all, and besides whom there is no other." View Irenaeus quotes.	Irenaus was explicitly Trinitarian. He was a student of Polycarp, who in turn was a disciple of Apostle John. The Watchtower comment on Irenaeus is wasted ink because standard Trinitarian theology teaches that Jesus is separate from the Father and although equal as class of being God is inferior in rank. (Just like a wife is equal as class of being to her husband, but inferior in rank and authority) But since Irenaeus outright call Jesus eternally co-existent God the son with God the Father, and specifically NOT an angel, watchtower writers felt that this little "non-blurb" about Irenaeus was better than nothing! So the comment merely echoes what Trinitarians teach, while giving the false impression that the comment refutes trinity, which it does not! Clever like the Devil, but typical of Jehovah's Witnesses! View Irenaeus quotes.
Clement of Alexandria, who died about 215 C.E., called Jesus in his prehuman existence "a creature" but called God "the uncreated and imperishable and only true God." He said that the Son "is next to the only omnipotent Father" but not equal to him. View Clement of Alexandria quotes.	First and foremost, Clement never calls Jesus a creature... PERIOD! The Watchtower is lying! In fact Clement outright says that Jesus is eternally pre-existent ("unbeginning eternity") and "uncreated". The Alexandrian "school" was apparently founded by Apostle Mark and Apollos of Acts 18:24. It was here, that Clement Alexandria learned Trinitarian theology. JW's satanically project the exact opposite view of Clement of what he really taught! These two quotes say it all! "There was then, a Word importing an unbeginning eternity; as also the Word itself, that is, the Son of God, who being, by equality of substance, one with the Father, is eternal and uncreated." (Clement, Fragments, Part I, section III, 190 AD) "I understand nothing else than the Holy Trinity to be meant; for the third is the Holy Spirit, and the Son is the second, by whom all things were made according to the will of the Father." (Clement, Stromata, Book V, ch. 14) View Clement of Alexandria quotes.
Tertullian, who died about 230 C.E., taught the supremacy of God. He observed: "The Father is different from the Son (another), as he is greater; as he who begets is different from him who is begotten; he who sends, different from him who is sent." He also said: "There was a time when the Son was not. . . . Before all things, God was alone." View Terullian quotes.	Tertullian was explicitly Trinitarian and said, "Never did any angel descend for the purpose of being crucified" (Tertullian, On the Flesh of Christ, ch 6); "All the Scriptures give clear proof of the Trinity (Tertullian, Against Praxeas, ch 11); "The origins of both his [Christ's] substances display him as man and as God: from the one, born, and from the other, not born" (Tertullian, The Flesh of Christ, 5:6-7) Just as JW's attribute words to Clement (see above) that he never said, so too with Tertullian. We draw your attention to the fact that the quoted words, "There was a time when the Son was not" are not Tertullian's, but those of Bishop Kaye in his appendix section on Tertullian. (Bishop Kaye, Account of the Writings of Tertullian, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol 3, p 1181). Kaye, Tertullian, some Trinitarians and all Modalists teach that Jesus was eternally pre-existent as God, and that the title of "Son" was first applied to Jesus after his incarnation. Just as a man cannot be called a father, until after he has a son, so too Jesus cannot be called a Son until after he was physically born via incarnation. This is the gist of what Kaye is saying Tertullian taught. To support this, notice this comment by Tertullian, "For He could not have been the Father previous to the Son, nor a judge previous to sin" (Against Hermogones, Ch. 3). View Terullian quotes.

 

[The Learner]

Hippolytus, who died about 235 C.E., said that God is "the one God, the first and the only One, the Maker and Lord of all," who "had nothing co-eval [of equal age] with him . . . But he was One, alone by himself; who, willing it, called into being what had no being before," such as the created prehuman Jesus. View Hippolytus quotes.	Hippolytus was explicitly Trinitarian as he even applies Rev 1:8 to Christ and calls Jesus "The Almighty" several times. He also said, "As far as regards the power, therefore, God is one. But as far as regards the economy there is a threefold manifestation" (Hippolytus, Against The Heresy Of One Noetus) "the fact that Christ, the Maker of all ... was baptized in the Jordan." (Hippolytus, Discourse On The Holy Theophany) But notice what else Hippolytus said, "Beside Him there was nothing; but He [God], while existing alone, yet existed in plurality." (Hippolytus, Against Noetus, Part 10) The watchtower falsely attributes to Hippolytus the phrase, "created prehuman Jesus", as he nowhere says anything like this... just more watchtower lies and deception. So Hippolytus actually taught that the Trinity (Father, Son and HS) was one God "had nothing co-eval [of equal age] with him . . . But he was One, alone by himself; who, willing it, called into being what had no being before." So Hippolytus actually applied these words to Christ as well as the Father and the Holy Spirit! View Hippolytus quotes.
Origen, who died about 250 C.E., said that "the Father and Son are two substances . . . two things as to their essence," and that "compared with the Father, [the Son] is a very small light." View Origen quotes.	Origen was always Trinitarian in his views, although he moved away from orthodox trinity towards heresy later in life. His initial influence was Clement of Alexandria, but was later influenced by Lucian. Origen is also very late, and at 225AD it must be most unsettling to Jehovah's Witnesses that Origen started out a Trinitarian and moved away from this, not the reverse, as the Watchtower incorrectly teaches is the general trend of history. At no time in Origen's life did he ever teach Jesus was either created, or an angel! Therefore, even at 250 AD, the Watchtower simply can't find anyone yet who actually taught their false doctrine until about the time of Arius! The fact that Origen taught that the Father and Son are distinct beings, where the Father ranks over the subordinate Son, is standard Trinitarian theology. What is worse for Jehovah's Witnesses, is that Origen calls their "Jesus is a creature" theology HERETICAL! (But of course the Watchtower isn't honest enough to inform the reader of this!) "For we do not hold that which the heretics imagine: that the Son was procreated by the Father from non-existent substances, that is, from a substance outside Himself, so that there was a time when He did not exist." (Origen, De Principis, Book V, Summary, section 28) "since the Father is called omnipotent, no one ought to be offended that the Son of God is also cared omnipotent." (Origen, De Principis, On Christ, Bk 1, Ch 2)"Nothing in the Trinity can be called greater or less, since the fountain of divinity alone contains all things" (Origen, De Principis, Book I, ch. 3, section 7) "We worship one God, the Father and the Son." (Origen, Against Celsus, Book VIII, section 12) View Origen quotes.
Summing up the historical evidence, Alvan Lamson says in The Church of the First Three Centuries: "The modern popular doctrine of the Trinity . . . derives no support from the language of Justin [Martyr]: and this observation may be extended to all the ante-Nicene Fathers; that is, to all Christian writers for three centuries after the birth of Christ. It is true, they speak of the Father, Son, and . . . holy Spirit, but not as co-equal, not as one numerical essence, not as Three in One, in any sense now admitted by Trinitarians. The very reverse is the fact."	No need to misrepresent the opinions of one of their own! Notice the Watchtower will misquote a source and tell you it is from a Trinitarian but when they accurately quote from a fellow Arian, they leave you wondering if it is another Trinitarian! To quote a Unitarian theologian, as an authority to prove the pagan origin of Trinity, is about as trustworthy and believable as quoting the a Catholic Bishop to prove that Peter was the first Pope! If you read Lamson's book, you will learn he was no more honest about the facts of history then the Watchtower! But the watchtower gives the false impression that Lamson is saying that the Ante-Nicene Fathers didn't teach trinity AT ALL! The key phrase at the beginning of the quote is "The modern popular doctrine of the Trinity ... derives no support ... from Justin..." Well Trinitarians actually agree! The "modern popular doctrine" of the 12th century "Athanasius creed" version of trinity doctrine is not found in scripture, but that is not the issue. What is important is that Justin and all most of the Ante-Nicene Fathers clearly taught that Jesus was uncreated God and the Holy Spirit was a person, being the third person in the trinity. This is taught both in scripture and the Ante-Nicene Fathers!
Thus, the testimony of the Bible and of history makes clear that the Trinity was unknown throughout Biblical times and for several centuries thereafter.	As you have seen, this conclusion is absolutely FALSE! Look for yourself!