Behold
Well-Known Member
"Only Jesus Saves".....so i am that "oneness".
Also, read John 1:10.. It says that Jesus "made the world."
A Question for Jehovah's Witnesses
- Thread starter RR144
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
"Only Jesus Saves".....so i am that "oneness".
Also, read John 1:10.. It says that Jesus "made the world."
| [Large inset text in middle of page 7] "There is no evidence that any sacred writer even suspected the existence of a [Trinity] within the Godhead." -The Triune God | This is large inset text prominently displayed in the middle of page 7. We have already dealt in detail with the fuller quote in the booklet. But again, Fortman is misquoted. He actually said, literally saying that "There is no evidence that any OLD TESTAMENT sacred writer even suspected the existence of a [Trinity] within the Godhead" They leave the impression that Fortman's comment includes New Testament writers! |
| How Did the Trinity Doctrine Develop? At this point you might ask: 'If the Trinity is not a Biblical teaching, how did it become a doctrine of Christendom?' Many think that it was formulated at the Council of Nicaea in 325 C.E. That is not totally correct, however. The Council of Nicaea did assert that Christ was of the same substance as God, which laid the groundwork for later Trinitarian theology. But it did not establish the Trinity, for at that council there was no mention of the holy spirit as the third person of a triune Godhead. | The deception is how the Watchtower is using the word Trinity. They are defining "trinity" as the developed 4th century doctrines 1. "that Christ was of the same substance as God" and 2. "holy spirit as the third person of a triune Godhead" were neither in the Bible or in the Nicene creed. But even here the Watchtower is lying to you. For the Nicene creed says: "We believe in one God ... And in one lord, Jesus Christ, ... And in the Holy Spirit." This clearly depicts the Holy Spirit as a person, just as Mt 28:19 does. The Nicene creed also says that the Son was made of the same stuff as the father and condemned anyone who would teach otherwise: "Church anathematizes those who say: there was when he was not; and before being born he was not; or that he came to be from things that are not; or that the Son of God is from a different hypostasis or ousia or mutable or changeable." (Nicene creed 325 AD) |
| Constantine's Role at Nicaea Constantine was not a Christian. Supposedly, he converted later in life, but he was not baptized until he lay dying. | Jehovah's Witnesses falsely portray Constantine as a pagan sun worshipper who had no faith in Christ and was practically the sole author of the Nicene creed. They paint the Nicene council as being run by a pagan with "no understanding" of Christian doctrine and then imply that Constantine drafted the final Nicene text and used his power to banish only those who opposed. In fact, a true review of Constantine's life, will convince the honest seeker that he was as righteous and anti-pagan as any "good" Old Testament King of Judah in the Bible. Constantine delaying his baptism till his dead, is no different from JW's delaying their baptisms for a year, in light of the fact the New Testament Christians were always baptized immediately for the remission of sins. Acts 2:38; 16:33. But in fact, it was the custom of the day for civil leaders to delay their baptisms till the end of their lives. Yes it was wrong, but so is the current practice for JW's delaying their baptisms for a year! Yet notice what Henry Chadwick said in the same book as the Watchtower quotes next: "He was not baptized until he lay dying in 337, but this implies no doubt about his Christian belief. It was common at this time (and continued so until about A.D. 400) to postpone baptism to the end of one's life, especially if one's duty as an official included torture and execution of criminals. Part of the reason for postponement lay in the seriousness with which the responsibilities of baptism were taken." Britannica says, "Constantine had hoped to be baptized in the River Jordan, but perhaps because of the lack of opportunity to do so together no doubt with the reflection that his office necessarily involved responsibility for actions hardly compatible with the baptized state delayed the ceremony until the end of his life. (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1979, Constantine the Great, Vol. 5, p.71) This sheds a whole new light on why Constantine delayed his baptism! |
| Regarding him, Henry Chadwick says in The Early Church: "Constantine, like his father, worshipped the Unconquered Sun; . . . his conversion should not be interpreted as an inward experience of grace . . . It was a military matter. His comprehension of Christian doctrine was never very clear, but he was sure that victory in battle lay in the gift of the God of the Christians." | Satanic quote! The Watchtower deliberately misrepresents Chadwick. They make it appear that Constantine worshipped the sun in 325 AD during the Nicean council, when in fact he was converted at least 15 years earlier. The Watchtower deceives you by not telling you that 3 pages lapse between ellipses (...) and they leave out the fact that he worshipped the sun BEFORE his conversion. Notice what they left out at the ellipses: "When he [Constantius] died at York on 25 July 305 the soldiers proclaimed his son Constantine as emperor. Constantine, like his father, worshipped the Unconquered Sun" ... "The conversion of Constantine marks a turning-point in the history of the Church and of Europe." ... "But if his conversion should not be interpreted as an inward experience of grace, neither was it a cynical act of Machiavellian cunning. It was a military matter. His comprehension of Christian doctrine was never very clear, but he was sure that victory in battle lay in the gift of the God of the Christians" |
| What role did this unbaptized emperor play at the Council of Nicaea? The Encyclopædia Britannica relates: "Constantine himself presided, actively guiding the discussions, and personally proposed . . . the crucial formula expressing the relation of Christ to God in the creed issued by the council, 'of one substance with the Father' . . . Overawed by the emperor, the bishops, with two exceptions only, signed the creed, many of them much against their inclination." | Satanic quote! The Watchtower gives the impression that Constantine drafted the whole Nicene creed himself! Look what they left out at the ellipse! ". . ." "Constantine himself presided, actively guiding the discussions and personally proposed (no doubt on Ossius' prompting) the crucial formula expressing the relation of Christ to God in the creed issued by the council, "of one substance with the Father" |
| [Large inset text in middle of page 8:] 'Fourth century Trinitarianism was a deviation from early Christian teaching.' -The Encyclopedia Americana | This quote from Encyclopedia Americana, 1956 Vol. XXVII, p. 294L., is deceptive because it projects the false impression that early Christian teaching" was not Trinitarian. The correct way to quote this source would be to say that some of the details of Trinitarian theology that 4th century Christians taught was not taught in the Bible. However both taught trinity, the uncreated deity of Christ and the personality of the Holy Spirit. The current theocratic organization of Jehovah's Witnesses as taught in the 20th century was not present in the Bible either, since there was no organization larger than local independent and autonomous churches. |
| Hence, Constantine's role was crucial. After two months of furious religious debate, this pagan politician intervened and decided in favor of those who said that Jesus was God. But why? Certainly not because of any Biblical conviction. "Constantine had basically no understanding whatsoever of the questions that were being asked in Greek theology," says A Short History of Christian Doctrine. | Need Quote: A Short History of Christian Doctrine," by Bernhard Lohse, 1966, p. 51. Doctrine. What utter deception! Constantine was not pagan at Nicea! Yes he was raised pagan, but converted 15 years before Nicea! Constantine's anti-Pagan stance as good as any "good" Old Testament King of Judah. He took major steps to rid his land of paganism. Click here for truth! "Apparently a fairly large percentage of the delegates were not theologically trained, but among those who were, three basic "parties" were discernible: Arius and the Lucianists, led by Eusebius of Nicomedia; the Origenists, led by Eusebius of Caesarea, already highly reputed; and Alexander of Alexandria, with his following." (God in Three Persons, Millard J. Erickson, p82-85) "Constantine's personal "theology" emerges with particular clarity from a remarkable series of letters, extending from 313 to the early 320s, concerning the Donatist schism in North Africa." (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1979, Constantine the Great, Vol. 5, p.71) |
| Further Development Yet, even after the Council of Constantinople, the Trinity did not become a widely accepted creed. Many opposed it and thus brought on themselves violent persecution. It was only in later centuries that the Trinity was formulated into set creeds. The Encyclopedia Americana notes: "The full development of Trinitarianism took place in the West, in the Scholasticism of the Middle Ages, when an explanation was undertaken in terms of philosophy and psychology." | Again the Watchtower fails to define its terms. Notice the Americana uses the term "full development of Trinitarianism" which is different from the elemental Trinity found in the Bible. Notice what they left out of the same article: "For the early Christian belief that Jesus was divine, the Son of God, and that as the risen, glorified Messiah or Lord, He was now at the right hand of God: required the use of theistic language." In other words, the Bible teaches the deity of Christ and trinity "developed" in an attempt to describe how Jesus was divine! |
| The Athanasian Creed | No one disputes that the Athanasian creed was composed in the 12th century and was merely "named after" Athanasius! The fact is that Christians don't follow human creeds any ways! |
| So it took centuries from the time of Christ for the Trinity to become widely accepted in Christendom. And in all of this, what guided the decisions? Was it the Word of God, or was it clerical and political considerations? | The utter satanic deception of the Watchtower, is that their doctrine that Jesus is a created angel, did not develop until the 4th century! "Arianism, a Christian heresy first proposed early in the 4th century by the Alexandrian presbyter Arius. It affirmed that Christ is not truly divine but a created being." (Encyclopedia Britannica) "Such was the teaching which Arius began to set forth in about 311." AD. (A Short History of the Early Church) |
amigo de christo
Well-Known Member
LERNER , FOLKS AINT GONNA BE READING ALL OF THAT MY FRIEND .
JUST KEEP IT SIMPLE PLEASE . OL LERNER CAN CUT AND COPY FASTER THAN FIRE ON DRY GRASS IN HIGH WINDS CAN BURN .
JUST KEEP IT SIMPLE PLEASE . OL LERNER CAN CUT AND COPY FASTER THAN FIRE ON DRY GRASS IN HIGH WINDS CAN BURN .
| In Origin and Evolution of Religion, E. W. Hopkins answers: "The final orthodox definition of the trinity was largely a matter of church politics." | Look at the sentence before the part they quoted: "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 Hopkins, while affirming John taught the trinity, also trashes the whole of Christianity, not just trinity and cannot be trusted: "Finally, the life, temptation, miracles, parables, and even the disciples of Jesus have been derived directly from Buddhism." Why must Jehovah's Witnesses always use "authorities" who are Bible haters? |
| Apostasy Foretold The Encyclopedia Americana comments: "Fourth century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching." | The correct way to quote this source would be to say that some of the details of Trinitarian theology that 4th century Christians taught, was not as refined as the Trinitarian theology taught in the Bible. However both taught trinity, the uncreated deity of Christ and the personality of the Holy Spirit. Americana actually says this in the same article, but JW's are too dishonest to tell you! |
| Where, then, did this deviation originate? "The Triad of the Great Gods" Many centuries before the time of Christ, there were triads, or trinities, of gods in ancient Babylonia and Assyria. The French "Larousse Encyclopedia of Mythology" notes one such triad in that Mesopotamian area: "The universe was divided into three regions each of which became the domain of a god. Anu's share was the sky. The earth was given to Enlil. Ea became the ruler of the waters. Together they constituted the triad of the Great Gods." | Satanic deception! The very same page that JW's use to say that the Christian Trinity was borrowed from the Babylonians also describes this triad almost exactly like JW's view Jehovah! Look what they left out! "He [Anu] was god in the highest sense, the supreme god. All the other deities honoured him as their 'father', that is to say, their chief." French "Larousse Encyclopedia of Mythology. Just as the lesser Babylonian gods called Anu as their "Father", so too JW's and Trinitarians, even all Christians believe that Jehovah is called "Father" by Jesus. But it gets worse for JW's! Just as the Babylonians view Anu the supreme God over lesser gods. JW's view Jehovah as the supreme God who over all other lesser Gods (elohim include angels, Jesus, Devil, men etc)" |
| What Influenced It Graphics of "triads" 1. Egypt Triad of Hurus, Osiris. Iris. 2nd millennium B.C.E. 2. Babylon. Triad of Ishtar, Sin, Shamash, 2nd millenium B.C.E. 3. Palmyra. Triad of moon god, Lord of Heavens, sun god, c. 1st century C E. 4. India. Triune Hindu godhead, c. 7th century C.E. 5. Kampuchea. Triune Buddhist godhead, c. 12th century C.E. 6. Norway. Trinity (Father, Son, holy spirit),c. 13th century C.E. 7. France. Trinity, c. 14th century C.E. 8. Italy. Trinity, c. 15th century C.E. 9. Germany. Trinity, c. l9th century C.E. 10. Germany. Trinity, 20th century C.E. | A series of 10 graphics is used by the Watchtower to prove trinity is of pagan origin. The graphics are really worthless because everything after #4. India, reflects the 7th century to present. This is much too late after the first century for paganism to have had any influence on Christian doctrine. #3 Palmyra, there is no connection at all with Christianity. The only two that could possibly have had any influence are #1 and #2: Egypt and Babylon. Problem is that the both cultures had many more than just three Gods. As seen above, when Jehovah's Witnesses try to make a trinity out of the Egyptian or Babylonian Gods, the result is closer to Watchtower theology then Trinitarian! Read it for yourself! |
| THROUGHOUT the ancient world, as far back as Babylonia, the worship of pagan gods grouped in threes, or triads, was common. That influence was also prevalent in Egypt, Greece, and Rome in the centuries before, during, and after Christ. And after the death of the apostles, such pagan beliefs began to invade Christianity. | Click here for proof that trinity did not originate with the pagans! But we want to draw your attention that the only sources the watchtower can find that say trinity is of pagan origin is ATHIESTS, MODERNISTS, CHRISTIANITY TRASHERS. |
| Historian Will Durant observed: "Christianity did not destroy paganism; it adopted it. . . . From Egypt came the ideas of a divine trinity." | Satanic use of Christianity trasher! Look what they left out the very next sentence! Durant actually accuses the apostles of borrowing their doctrine from Paganism! "Christianity did not destroy paganism; it adopted it ... From Egypt came the ideas of a divine trinity, the Last Judgment, and ... reward and punishment" It is bad enough they even quote this atheist, but the same sentence, using JW's logic, refutes them, because the source says that trinity, last judgement and eternal reward originated from paganism! |
| And in the book Egyptian Religion, Siegfried Morenz notes: "The trinity was a major preoccupation of Egyptian theologians . . . Three gods are combined and treated as a single being, addressed in the singular. In this way the spiritual force of Egyptian religion shows a direct link with Christian theology." | Morenz, is another Bible Trasher! Notice that he also says that the expressions, 'second death' in the Revelation [chapter 20:14] 'crown of life' [James 1:12], 'crown of righteousness' were borrowed from the pagans! Do JW's agree with this? Another example of dishonest selective quoting. But it gets worse for Jehovah's Witnesses, look at what the very next sentence says: "In this way the spiritual force of Egyptian religion shows a direct link with Christian theology. In order to avoid any gross misunderstanding, we must at once emphasize that the substance of the Christian Trinity is of course Biblical: Father, Son and Holy Ghost. The three are mentioned alongside one another in the New Testament, probably for liturgical reasons. In other words, although Morenz is a Bible trasher, he outright states in the next sentence that the Bible, in his view, clearly contains a teaching of the trinity, just like the Egyptian pagan trinity! Such utter satanic deception of the Watchtower! |
| Thus, in Alexandria, Egypt, churchmen of the late third and early fourth centuries, such as Athanasius, reflected this influence as they formulated ideas that led to the Trinity. Their own influence spread, so that Morenz considers "Alexandrian theology as the intermediary between the Egyptian religious heritage and Christianity." | Another quote from "Bible Trasher" Morenz, but look at the next sentence the Watchtower left out: "Alexandrian theology as the intermediary between the Egyptian religious heritage and Christianity. The Trinity is not the only subject- matter at issue here. Also Christology, which is closely linked to it - the doctrine concerning the nature of Christ and especially his pre-existence before the creation and time - revolves around questions which had been posed earlier by Egyptian theologians and which they solved in a strikingly similar way." Jehovah's Witnesses quote Morenz as proof that trinity is pagan and the very next sentence Morenz says that the pre-existence of Christ before creation was pagan as well. Yet this is exactly what the watchtower teaches! Such deception! |
| In the preface to Edward Gibbon's History of Christianity, we read: "If Paganism was conquered by Christianity, it is equally true that Christianity was corrupted by Paganism. The pure Deism of the first Christians . . . was changed, by the Church of Rome, into the incomprehensible dogma of the trinity. Many of the pagan tenets, invented by the Egyptians and idealized by Plato, were retained as being worthy of belief." | Look at the very next sentence the Watchtower didn't tell you about! "Many of the pagan tenets, invented by the Egyptians and idealized by Plato, were retained as being worthy of belief. The doctrine of the incarnation, and the mystery of transubstantiation, were both adopted, and are both as repugnant to reason, as was the ancient pagan rite of viewing the entrails of animals to forecast the fate of empires!" (Edward Gibbon, History of Christianity, p. xvi) Notice that Gibbon not only trashes Trinity, but also the doctrine of the incarnation which Jehovah's Witnesses believe! They teach that Jesus was an angel, who through incarnation became a man! But it even gets worse! Gibbon then describes the Jewish animal sacrificial system of burning an animals guts (entrails) as of pagan origin as well! Gibbon was a Christianity Trasher! This comment says it all! "Gibbon was an infidel, and his unbelief lurks in every page of his work where Christianity is nearly or remotely touched upon. His skepticism leads him into manifold displays of unfairness and even into inaccuracies." (Cyclopedia of Biblical, theological and ecclesiastical literature, John McClintock and James Strong, Vol 3, p847 "Gibbon") |
| A Dictionary of Religious Knowledge notes that many say that the Trinity "is a corruption borrowed from the heathen religions, and ingrafted on the Christian faith." | Bible trasher: It is Satanic for the Watchtower to say, Trinity "is a corruption borrowed from the heathen religions, and ingrafted on the Christian faith", but not tell you the author also trashes all church organization, baptism, the Lord's supper and the doctrine of blood atonement in the same book! |
| And The Paganism in Our Christianity declares: "The origin of the [Trinity] is entirely pagan." | Christianity trasher Weigall again! The Watchtower "STAR WITNESS" that trinity is pagan! This is the fourth time Watchtowers have quoted him. What they never tell you in utter satanic deception is that Weigall, in the same book TRASHES 27 other bible doctrines that Jehovah's Witnesses believe DID NOT come from paganism. |
Behold
Well-Known Member
amigo de christo
Well-Known Member
GOD SAVES , JESUS SAVES . EXACTLY MY FRIEND .
GOD IS HIS WORD AND HIS WORD BE HE .
THERE IS NO OTHER NAME GIVEN UNDER HEAVEN WHEREBY ANY CAN BE SAVED .
No matter what the inclusive ones say , that be a fact . ONE MUST BELEIVE .
in fact if one believes not , they are NOT OF GOD . that too be a fact and tis gonna be a painful fact
unto all who believed otherwise on the day of the LORD .
| That is why, in the Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics, James Hastings wrote: "In Indian religion, e.g., we meet with the trinitarian group of Brahma, Siva, and Visnu; and in Egyptian religion with the trinitarian group of Osiris, Isis, and Horus . . . Nor is it only in historical religions that we find God viewed as a Trinity. One recalls in particular the Neo-Platonic view of the Supreme or Ultimate Reality," which is "triadically represented." What does the Greek philosopher Plato have to do with the Trinity? | Look at what they left out at the ellipse ". . ." "In Indian religion e.g., we meet with the trinitarian group of Brahma, siva, and Visnu; and in Egyptian religion with the trinitarian group of Osiris, Isis, and Horus, constituting a divine family, like the Father, Mother, and Son in medieval Christian pictures. Nor is it only in historical religions that we find God viewed as a Trinity." In utter deception, the leaves out the fact that the Egyptian trinity was a divine family complete with Father (Jehovah) and Son (Jesus). The parallel between Egyptian polytheism and the Jehovah's Witnesses view of God is quickly identified. In a prime example of selective quoting where they fail to tell you that there is a clear parallel between the Egyptian trinity and the Watchtower view of God in that both have a divine family of Father and Son. |
| Platonism | Click here to view how the Watchtower was influenced by Platonism. |
| PLATO, it is thought, lived from 428 to 347 before Christ. While he did not teach the Trinity in its present form, his philosophies paved the way for it. Later, philosophical movements that included triadic beliefs sprang up, and these were influenced by Plato's ideas of God and nature. | Amazing that Jehovah's Witnesses have never been taught what the same sources say about their own view that Jesus is a created angel (Known as Arianism)! Click here to view how the Watchtower was influenced by Platonism. Here are two quick quotes! "Arianism: ... Arius was willing to call the Logos God. But this was only a manner of speaking. The Logos was a creature. And God himself could not create the material world; indeed, Arius considered God so far removed from men that it was impossible to know him or to have fellowship with him. Arius was thoroughly Greek in his conception of God. Arius' view of Christ was much inferior to that of either Theodotus in the West or of Paul of Samosata in the East. ... They satisfied the deep-rooted Greek idea that God cannot be the creator of the material universe. (Harry R. Boer, p113) "Arianism is a union of adoptionism with the Origenistic-Neo-Platonic doctrine of the subordinate Logos which is the spiritual principle of the world, carried out by means of the resources of the Aristotelian dialectics" (Outlines of the History of Dogma, Adolf Harnack, p251) |
| The French Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel (New Universal Dictionary) says of Plato's influence: "The Platonic trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave birth to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian churches. . . . This Greek philosopher's conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all the ancient [pagan] religions." | Send us the original page the quote comes from and we will add it! This is actually a translation of a French language Dictionary. But notice the source does not say that the ideas that the Holy Spirit as a person and the deity of Christ are from pagan origin. |
| The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge shows the influence of this Greek philosophy: "The doctrines of the Logos and the Trinity received their shape from Greek Fathers, who . . . were much influenced, directly or indirectly, by the Platonic philosophy . . . That errors and corruptions crept into the Church from this source can not be denied." | JW's mislead the reader into thinking that there are similarities between Platonism and Christianity, but no similarities between Platonism and the Watchtower religion. For example, Schaff-Herzog say in the same article: "If we Christians (or JW's) say that all things were created and ordered by God, we seem to enounce a doctrine of Plato". According the Jw logic, the watchtower borrowed the doctrine from Plato! But it gets worse for JW's look at what the same book: "There is no reason to seek for sources or types of the doctrine of the Trinity outside of Christianity or of the Bible, though in the eighteenth century efforts were made to derive the Christian dogma from Plato, and later from Brahmanism and Parseeism, or, later still, from a Babylonian triad." (New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia, Trinity, Doctrine of the; p18) Such utter satanic deception Jehovah's Witnesses engage in! |
| The Church of the First Three Centuries says: "The doctrine of the Trinity was of gradual and comparatively late formation; . . . it had its origin in a source entirely foreign from that of the Jewish and Christian Scriptures; . . . it grew up, and was ingrafted on Christianity, through the hands of the Platonizing Fathers." | 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! Since they can't find any Trinitarians to say that Trinity was "ingrafted on Christianity, through the hands of the Platonizing Fathers" they must turn to Anti-Trinitarians or atheists who trash not only Trinity, but the whole of Christianity as of pagan origin! |
| By the end of the third century C.E., "Christianity" and the new Platonic philosophies became inseparably united. As Adolf Harnack states in Outlines of the History of Dogma, church doctrine became "firmly rooted in the soil of Hellenism [pagan Greek thought]. Thereby it became a mystery to the great majority of Christians." The church claimed that its new doctrines were based on the Bible. But Harnack says: "In reality it legitimized in its midst the Hellenic speculation, the superstitious views and customs of pagan mystery-worship." | Christianity Trasher: "Harnack started with anti-Christian and anti-supernaturalistic presuppositions . . . Harnack's methods and assumptions forced him to reject major doctrines of Christianity such as the Virgin birth, the deity and pre-existence of Jesus, the Resurrection of the body, the possibility of miracles, the existence of demons, exorcism and Jesus as the promised Messiah." Read more |
| In the book A Statement of Reasons, Andrews Norton says of the Trinity: "We can trace the history of this doctrine, and discover its source, not in the Christian revelation, but in the Platonic philosophy . . . The Trinity is not a doctrine of Christ and his Apostles, but a fiction of the school of the later Platonists." | Another quote from a fellow Unitarian theologian about as trustworthy as those writing the Watchtower magazine! But they don't tell you when the guy they are quoting is an anti-Trinitarian so you might think he believes in the trinity! They just can't find any Trinitarians who will say trinity is pagan! But Unitarians teach that the doctrine of the personality of the Devil IS OF PAGAN ORGIN! Why do JW's quote these guys as authorities? Because they are the best they can find who will say trinity is pagan! |
amigo de christo
Well-Known Member
my simple advice is , DO NOT FOLLOW THAT MAN . the chambers of death is all it do preach and all who enter therein
are led unto the second death . time we preach JESUS THE CHRIST and the aboslute and dire need
to BELEIVE ON HIM . cause , look real close at that photo , go on take a good long look .
MANY WITHIN THE PROSTESTANT REALM do its bidding of incluisvity . that is a fact my friend .
| Thus, in the fourth century C.E., the apostasy foretold by Jesus and the apostles came into full bloom. Development of the Trinity was just one evidence of this. The apostate churches also began embracing other pagan ideas, such as hellfire, immortality of the soul, and idolatry. | Of course, Arianism, that makes Jesus a created angel, is that apostasy! Conscious eternal Torment as well as Conscious life after death are clearly taught in the Bible! Click your choice if you dare to learn the truth! |
| Hindu Trinity The book "The Symbolism of Hindu Gods and Rituals" says regarding a Hindu trinity that existed centuries before Christ: "Siva is one of the gods of the Trinity. He is said to be the god of destruction. The other two gods are Brahma, the god of creation and Vishnu, the god of maintenance. . . . To indicate that these three processes are one and the same the three gods are combined in one form."-Published by A. Parthasarathy, Bombay. | Parthasarathy is a Hindu, not a Christian, who would review the Watchtower concept of God and label all JW's as Trinitarian! Remember, in the Trinity of the Bible, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all equal as a class of being. In the Hindu and Watcher view of God, both share a hierarchy of Gods of unequal classes of being. In other words, Hindus have more in common with Jehovah's Witnesses than Trinitarians! To Hindus, Trinitarians and JW's are very close. |
NEXT: Go to Part 2: "Trinity is not in the Bible" section
The purpose of the posts are to educate others who come later to read the thread.
Let us know what you think of this page! Email us!
"Should your 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 our document, they will leave the organization. |
Begin booklet text below | Begin our comments below |
| What Does the Bible Say About God and Jesus? If people were to read the Bible from cover to cover without any preconceived idea of a Trinity, would they arrive at such a concept on their own? Not at all. | This is false! A simple reading of these verses would convince anyone of Trinity! John 1:1 and John 20:28, where Thomas said to Jesus, "My Lord and My God" where Jesus is called God and Mt 28:18-19 where we are commanded to be baptized in the name of three different persons. Although these verses do not teach the developed 4th century trinity doctrine, they more than teach the deity of Christ and the personality of the Holy Spirit. |
| God Is One, Not Three THE Bible teaching that God is one is called monotheism. And L. L. Paine, professor of ecclesiastical history, indicates that monotheism in its purest form does not allow for a Trinity: "The Old Testament is strictly monotheistic. God is a single personal being. The idea that a trinity is to be found there . . . is utterly without foundation." Was there any change from monotheism after Jesus came to the earth? Paine answers: "On this point there is no break between the Old Testament and the New. The monotheistic tradition is continued. Jesus was a Jew, trained by Jewish parents in the Old Testament scriptures. His teaching was Jewish to the core; a new gospel indeed, but not a new theology. . . . And he accepted as his own belief the great text of Jewish monotheism: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one God.'" | Trinity doctrine is considered by scholars to be monotheistic. Paine was a Bible trasher who said of the Bible: "Its presuppositions of a divine miraculous origin and character, differentiating the Bible from all other religious literature, can no longer be admitted." (Paine, A Critical History Of The Evolution Of Trinitarianism, 1900, p269) Although Paine is a Bible trasher, much of what he says in irrelevant to the discussion, as Trinitarians agree that there was a progression of doctrine from the Old to the New Testaments. In the same way that final resurrection and judgement were not present in the Old Testament but expanded in the New, so too with the doctrine of God. After all Gen 1 says, "Let us make man in Our image". So the seeds of trinity are clearly present! |
| Not a Plural God JESUS called God "the only true God." (John 17:3) Never did he refer to God as a deity of plural persons. | Go here for truth about John 17:3. 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. learn more |
| That is why nowhere in the Bible is anyone but Jehovah called Almighty. Otherwise, it voids the meaning of the word "almighty." Neither Jesus nor the holy spirit is ever called that, for Jehovah alone is supreme. | Hippolytus certainly applies Rev 1:8 to Christ and calls Jesus "The Almighty" several times. But even if the Father is alone called the Almighty, this still doesn't prove Jesus is a created angel! |
| At Genesis 17:1 he declares: "I am God Almighty." And Exodus 18:11 says: "Jehovah is greater than all the other gods." | We draw your attention to the fact that Jehovah's Witnesses are actually polytheists! They hide this from you now, but they will teach you their polytheism in time! While Christians interpret the "other god's" of Ex 18:11 to be false idol God's, JW's believe this expression refers to a host of lessor god's Jehovah created including Jesus, the devil and man! To prove our point, merely ask any JW if Jesus and the devil are gods? |
| In the Hebrew Scriptures, the word ´eloh'ah (god) has two plural forms, namely, ´elo·him' (gods) and ´elo·heh' (gods of). These plural forms generally refer to Jehovah, in which case they are translated in the singular as "God." Do these plural forms indicate a Trinity? No, they do not. In A Dictionary of the Bible, William Smith says: "The fanciful idea that [´elo·him'] referred to the trinity of persons in the Godhead hardly finds now a supporter among scholars. It is either what grammarians call the plural of majesty, or it denotes the fullness of divine strength, the sum of the powers displayed by God." | Plural of Majesty did not exist until after the entire Old Testament was completed meaning it is impossible for a poetic device to be used, when it did not exist! The first use of "plural of majesty" by the Jews was about 200 AD. Click for more on the "plural of majesty" argument. Look what Smith's dictionary said in the same article! "The name (Jehovah) is never applied to a false god, nor to any other being except one, the ANGEL-JEHOVAH who is thereby marked as one with God and who appears again in the New Covenant as 'God manifested in the flesh.'" (William Smith: A Dictionary Of The Bible, p220) |
| The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures says of ´elo·him': "It is almost invariably construed with a singular verbal predicate, and takes a singular adjectival attribute." To illustrate this, the title ´elo·him' appears 35 times by itself in the account of creation, and every time the verb describing what God said and did is singular. (Genesis 1:1-2:4) Thus, that publication concludes: "[´Elo·him'] must rather be explained as an intensive plural, denoting greatness and majesty." | Plural of Majesty did not exist until after the entire Old Testament was completed meaning it is impossible for a poetic device to be used, when it did not exist! The first use of "plural of majesty" by the Jews was about 200 AD. Click for more on the "plural of majesty" argument. While we agree that some uniformed Trinitarians do indeed interpret elohim a "plural of majesty", it certainly is not the majority view. Remember, not only is the word elohim plural, but Genesis 1 says, "Let us make man in our image". but also, corresponding verbs are also plural in many places in reference to God. |
| The Bible also uses the words ´elo·him' and ´elo·heh' when referring to a number of false idol gods. (Exodus 12:12; 20:23) But at other times it may refer to just a single false god, as when the Philistines referred to "Dagon their god [´elo·heh']." (Judges 16:23, 24) Baal is called "a god [´elo·him']." (1 Kings 18:27) In addition, the term is used for humans. (Psalm 82:1, 6) Moses was told that he was to serve as "God" [´elo·him'] to Aaron and to Pharaoh.-Exodus 4:16; 7:1. | We told you that Jw's were polytheists. They believe that Dagon is a false idol god, that doesn't really exist, but that men are real gods, along with the devil who is the real god of this world! Moses was functioning LIKE God to Pharaoh, not that Moses was actually a god. So JW's believe in a whole range of created gods, including Jesus, Moses and the Devil! |
| Jesus a Separate Creation Thus, Jesus had an existence in heaven before coming to the earth. But was it as one of the persons in an almighty, eternal triune Godhead? No, for the Bible plainly states that in his prehuman existence, Jesus was a created spirit being, just as angels were spirit beings created by God. Neither the angels nor Jesus had existed before their creation. | This is the most critical issue. JW's teach that Jesus is a created angel. Yet no where in the Bible does it say Jesus is an angel, or created. Further, the Bible flat out rejects that Jesus was an angel in Heb 1:5 "For to which of the angels did He ever say, "Thou art My Son"." The answer, of course is, "God never called any angel His Son." Heb 1:5 categorically proves Jesus is not the angel Michael, as JW falsely teach He is. |
| Jesus, in his prehuman existence, was "the first-born of all creation." (Colossians 1:15, NJB) | Even the simplest word study on "first-born" will show that it never refers to the creation of Jesus, rather, it means Jesus is pre-eminent over creation, being the creator! Read Col 1:14-18 again and remember the Watchtower added the word [other] in square brackets even though it is not in the original Bible. They do this because without the word [other] the passage clearly refutes their false doctrine about Jesus. |
| He was "the beginning of God's creation." (Revelation 3:14, RS, Catholic edition). "Beginning" [Greek, ar·khe'] cannot rightly be interpreted to mean that Jesus was the 'beginner' of God's creation. In his Bible writings, John uses various forms of the Greek word ar·khe' more than 20 times, and these always have the common meaning of "beginning." Yes, Jesus was created by God as the beginning of God's invisible creations. | Rev 21:6 and 22:13 say: "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning [Greek, ar·khe'] and the end." So if beginning is applied to God in Rev 21:6 and to Jesus in 22:13, it obviously denotes "the creator" "the one who starts and stops time" "the originator". So this proves beyond question that Rev 3:!4 means that Jesus is the "originator of creation: the creator" not the first of God's creation. Only a JW could twist something so simple as this! If beginning in Rev 3:14 proves Jesus is a creature then Rev 21:6 proves God is a creature! |
| Notice how closely those references to the origin of Jesus correlate with expressions uttered by the figurative "Wisdom" in the Bible book of Proverbs: "Yahweh created me, first-fruits of his fashioning, before the oldest of his works. Before the mountains were settled, before the hills, I came to birth; before he had made the earth, the countryside, and the first elements of the world." (Proverbs 8:12, 22, 25, 26, NJB) | There is nothing in the Bible that connects Jesus with the "created wisdom" of Prov 8. The simplest way to prove JW's wrong in Prov 8 is to note that in Proverbs chapters 1-9, "Wisdom" is being personified as a WOMAN! If Jesus Christ, the Son of God, was what God was referring to in this passage, wisdom would be personified as a man! Nothing more ever needs to be said about this silly interpretation. Of course the JW interpretation of Prov 8 also proves that God had no wisdom before he created Christ. Only a JW would think this is logical. But it gets even worse for JW's. The very word "created" [Hebrew: qanah] in Prov 8:12 is an obscure translation. The actual hebrew word is derived from "to get" not "create" or "origin". For example of the 82 times this word is used, the NASB never translates the word created. 90% of the translated words are "bought, possessed" etc. For JW's to have any argument at all, the verse must have used the normal words for created "bara" or "asha" as in Gen 1:1, but these words are not in Prov 8. |
| While the term "Wisdom" is used to personify the one whom God created, most scholars agree that it is actually a figure of speech for Jesus as a spirit creature prior to his human existence. | This is an outright lie. Most scholars see absolutely no connection with Jesus in Prov 8. The only scholars who do see a connection are Bible haters, who not only trash the deity of Christ, but the virgin birth as well! Notice they dare not actually name any "scholars" who agree with them! |
| It no doubt was to this master craftsman that God said: "Let us make man in our image." (Genesis 1:26) Some have claimed that the "us" and "our" in this expression indicate a Trinity. ... when God used "us" and "our," he was simply addressing another individual, his first spirit creation, the master craftsman, the prehuman Jesus. | We find it incredible that JW's believe they were created by a creature! Oh they will say, "God created THROUGH Jesus." But the Bible clearly states that Jesus had a direct hand in creating all things. (Jn 1:3; Col 1:16) Even Jehovah says to Jesus, "the heavens are the works of your (Jesus') hands." Heb 1:10 Only God creates! Angels are NEVER said to create anything. Yet remember, JW believe that the angel Michael, is our creator. Heb 1:5 proves Jesus cannot be an angel. |
| Could God Be Tempted? AT MATTHEW 4:1, Jesus is spoken of as being "tempted by the Devil." So if Jesus had been God, he could not have been tempted.-James 1:13. | The JW logic is this: 1. Jesus was tempted. 2. God cannot be tempted. 3. Jesus cannot be God. We call these false dilemmas where you sew three unrelated Bible verses together to prove something. Here is some of the same kind of logic for JW's: 1. An angel is not a man. 2. Jesus was a man. 3. Jesus was never an angel. Of course, as part of the incarnation and the plan of God becoming man, as seen in Phil 2:6-8, Jesus became a man in order to prove that God could be tempted and not sin. Such a simple and beautiful gospel principle JW's will never comprehend. |
| But what test of loyalty would that be if Jesus were God? Could God rebel against himself? No, but angels and humans could rebel against God and did. The temptation of Jesus would make sense only if he was, not God, but a separate individual who had his own free will, one who could have been disloyal had he chosen to be, such as an angel or a human. | Once again, JW's confuse trinity doctrine with modalism. How the Watchtower loves deceiving and confusing their own people! Jesus and the Father are both GOD. Joe and Frank are both MEN. But Jesus can rebel against the Father just as Joe can rebel against Frank. Is that so complicated? |
| How Much Was the Ransom? If Jesus, however, were part of a Godhead, the ransom price would have been infinitely higher than what God's own Law required. (Exodus 21:23-25; Leviticus 24:19-21) It was only a perfect human, Adam, who sinned in Eden, not God. So the ransom, to be truly in line with God's justice, had to be strictly an equivalent-a perfect human, "the last Adam." | Here JW's judge the Judge! For example, JW's will reason that eternal conscious torment is false doctrine because "a loving God wouldn't do it to men". Yet JW do believe God will do it to the devil and his evil angels for eternity in conscious pain! So here they judge God by saying, "God you cannot save man yourself... you must program this created robot with free will that will never sin like Adam and save the world!" Sorry, but I love the idea that no created thing was capable of saving man, only God himself, who came to earth to save man. Rev 5:2-5 teaches just this: "Who is worthy to open the book and to break its seals?" And no one in heaven, or on the earth, or under the earth, was able to open the book, or to look into it." But Jesus was found worthy and all creation worshipped him for it in Rev 5:11-14. |
| How could any part of an almighty Godhead-Father, Son, or holy spirit-ever be lower than angels? | JW's say Jesus was created an angel. We ask: "How could an angel be made lower than an angel?" Obviously then, Jesus who was uncreated God, could become man through the incarnation. The fact that JW's cannot understand this merely confirms what 1 Tim 3 says: "Great is the mystery of godliness: God who was revealed in the flesh". There are many things in scripture we cannot understand! |
| How the "Only-Begotten Son"? THE Bible calls Jesus the "only-begotten Son" of God. (John 1:14; 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9) Trinitarians say that since God is eternal, so the Son of God is eternal. But how can a person be a son and at the same time be as old as his father? ... Can a man father a son without begetting him? | Jesus fulfilled the prophecy where God proclaimed, "You are my Son, Today I have begotten thee." Ps 2:7. Yet the three times (Acts 13:33; Heb 1:5; 5:5) this passages is quoted and applied to Jesus in the New Testament, it NEVER refers to a "creation point of beginning" as JW's deceptively imply. In fact, Acts 13:33 clearly indicates that Jesus was begotten AT THE RESURRECTION! It says: "God has fulfilled this promise to our children in that He raised up Jesus, as it is also written in the second Psalm, 'Thou art My Son; today I have begotten Thee.'" Acts 13:33 The expression "Only begotten", regardless of how it is defined, never refers to Jesus supposed creation point! |
| The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, edited by Gerhard Kittel, says: "[Mo·no·ge·nes'] means 'of sole descent,' i.e., without brothers or sisters." | Look what important section they left out: Hence Mono-genes, means "of sole descent," i.e., without brothers or sisters. This gives us the sense of only-begotten. The ref. is to the only child of one's parents, primarily in relation to them. Mono-genes is stronger than [Greek], for it denotes that they have never had more than this child. But the word can also be used more generally without reference to derivation; in the sense of "unique," "unparalleled," "incomparable," (Kittel, Mono-genes) So Kittle admits what we know to be true, namely that "only begotten" also means unique without reference to a beginning point. |
| This book also states that at John 1:18; 3:16, 18; and 1 John 4:9, "the relation of Jesus is not just compared to that of an only child to its father. It is the relation of the only-begotten to the Father." | Look what important section they left out. The very conclusion the Watchtower suggests in their satanic little booklet, is the one Kittel says he is "very emphatically against taking". "In 3:16, 18; 1 Jn. 4:9; 1:18 the relation of Jesus is not just compared to that of an only child to its father. It is the relation of the only-begotten to the Father. Similarly in Jn. 1:14: [Greek], His glory is not just compared with that of an only child; it is described as that of the only-begotten Son. Grammatically both interpretations are justifiable. But the total usage of Mono-genes is very emphatically against taking [Greek] Mono-genes as a mere comparison. (Kittel, Mono-genes) more Watchtower satanic quoting practices! |
| Was Jesus Considered to Be God? WHILE Jesus is often called the Son of God in the Bible, nobody in the first century ever thought of him as being God the Son. | More lies! Read our history section and learn what first century Christians believed! John 1:1 Jesus is called God. John 20:28 Thomas calls Jesus, "My Lord and My God." John 5:18 Jesus taught He was equal with God and was almost stoned for it! |
| Is God Always Superior to Jesus? Jesus Distinguished From God In prayer to God, that is, the Father, Jesus said, "You, the only true God." (John 17:3) At John 20:17 he said to Mary Magdalene: "I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God." (RS, Catholic edition) At 2 Corinthians 1:3 the apostle Paul confirms this relationship: "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." Since Jesus had a God, his Father, he could not at the same time be that God. | More evil deception from the Watchtower. All Trinitarians teach that Jesus is distinct from God, the Father. Only Modalists, who are themselves Anti-Trinitarians, do not believe that Jesus is not distinguished from God, the Father. |
| The apostle Paul had no reservations about speaking of Jesus and God as distinctly separate: "For us there is one God, the Father, . . . and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ." (1 Corinthians 8:6, JB) The apostle shows the distinction when he mentions "the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and of the elect angels." (1 Timothy 5:21, RS Common Bible) Just as Paul speaks of Jesus and the angels as being distinct from one another in heaven, so too are Jesus and God. | All Trinitarians totally agree! Jesus and the Father are separate persons! |
| Jesus' words at John 8:17, 18 are also significant. He states: "In your own Law it is written, 'The witness of two men is true.' I am one that bears witness about myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness about me." Here Jesus shows that he and the Father, that is, Almighty God, must be two distinct entities, for how else could there truly be two witnesses? | All Trinitarians totally agree! Jesus and the Father are separate persons! |
| Jesus further showed that he was a separate being from God by saying: "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone." (Mark 10:18, JB) So Jesus was saying that no one is as good as God is, not even Jesus himself. God is good in a way that separates him from Jesus. | The Watchtower deception is that the last four paragraphs in their booklet disprove trinity! How can it disprove trinity, when all Trinitarians agree that Jesus and the Father are separate persons? |
| God's Submissive Servant TIME and again, Jesus made statements such as: "The Son cannot do anything at his own pleasure, he can only do what he sees his Father doing." (John 5:19, The Holy Bible, by Monsignor R. A. Knox) "I have come down from heaven to do, not my will, but the will of him that sent me." (John 6:38) "What I teach is not mine, but belongs to him that sent me." (John 7:16) Is not the sender superior to the one sent? | Trinitarians also agree that Jesus is submissive to the Father. Phil 2:6-8 plainly teaches that Jesus gave up equality with God at the incarnation and became a servant in order to save us. Click here for more details about the Submission of Christ to the Father. Just as a wife is to submit to her husband, Christ chose to submit to God. Just because a wife submits to her husband, she is not a lower form of creature. So too, Christ is equal to the Father as a class of being, but a lower rank in authority. |
| Jesus Had Limited Knowledge WHEN Jesus gave his prophecy about the end of this system of things, he stated: "But of that day or that hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." (Mark 13:32, RS, Catholic edition) Had Jesus been the equal Son part of a Godhead, he would have known what the Father knows. But Jesus did not know, for he was not equal to God. | Phil 2:6 clearly says that Jesus gave up equality with God at the incarnation and became a servant in order to save us. In the process of becoming fully human, Jesus emptied himself. Luke 2:52 says that as the child grew, Jesus "increased in wisdom". The fact that he emptied himself of knowledge, does not mean he never was all knowing, or that he any less God because of such? Jehovah's Witnesses argue that Jesus was a powerful and knowledgeable angel who co-created the heaven and earth, yet gave up that power and knowledge when he became a man. If Jesus having limited knowledge proves Jesus never was God, then it also proves Jesus was never an angel! See how silly JW reasoning is? |
Similar threads
