There is no spiritual gift called "the gift of tongues".

[The Learner]

Examining A Publication of the
Watchtower Society

"Should You Believe in the Trinity"







Is Jesus Christ The Almighty God?​

In 1989, Jehovah's Witnesses received a publication designed to destroy the Christian belief in the Trinity, the belief that the One, True, Almighty God of the Bible has revealed Himself in three Persons, The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit. We were anxious to check out this publication with it's many quotes supposedly in support of the Watchtower position. This was made extremely difficult since the Watchtower deliberately left off page numbers, authors, publishers, and edition years etc. However, we have waded through every book quoted that we could find, and so we present our examination of this publication and its web of deceit concerning Almighty God and His true identity.

The False Claims And Deceitful Quotations Contained in: "Should You Believe in the Trinity?" Page 4:
The Encyclopedia Americana is quoted to attempt to convey the impression that "confusion is widespread" regarding the Trinity. Note also that the Watchtower ridicules the concept that fully knowing the nature of God could be 'beyond the grasp of human reason. "

​

THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER and the quotations put into their proper context.
Now let's finish the quote. It really doesn't end with a period but with a comma, and goes on to say,
"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."
So, although we may not completely comprehend the infinite God with our finite minds, we do need to accept His revelation of His nature to us through the pages of the Bible, that is, by Divine revelation. There is no confusion.​

 

[The Learner]

Examining A Publication of the
Watchtower Society

"Should You Believe in the Trinity"







Is Jesus Christ The Almighty God?​

In 1989, Jehovah's Witnesses received a publication designed to destroy the Christian belief in the Trinity, the belief that the One, True, Almighty God of the Bible has revealed Himself in three Persons, The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit. We were anxious to check out this publication with it's many quotes supposedly in support of the Watchtower position. This was made extremely difficult since the Watchtower deliberately left off page numbers, authors, publishers, and edition years etc. However, we have waded through every book quoted that we could find, and so we present our examination of this publication and its web of deceit concerning Almighty God and His true identity.

The False Claims And Deceitful Quotations Contained in: "Should You Believe in the Trinity?" Page 4:
The Encyclopedia Americana is quoted to attempt to convey the impression that "confusion is widespread" regarding the Trinity. Note also that the Watchtower ridicules the concept that fully knowing the nature of God could be 'beyond the grasp of human reason. "

​

THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER and the quotations put into their proper context.
Now let's finish the quote. It really doesn't end with a period but with a comma, and goes on to say,
"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."
So, although we may not completely comprehend the infinite God with our finite minds, we do need to accept His revelation of His nature to us through the pages of the Bible, that is, by Divine revelation. There is no confusion.

PAGE 4: Should You Believe in the Trinity?
This publication quotes "A Dictionary of Religious Knowledge", supposedly making Trinitarians appear confused. Of course, the Society left out the author of the quote, the page number, the date, the publisher, etc. so the quote could not be easily traced.
Although many diligently searched, this publication could not be found in major libraries etc. so we were doubly grateful when the Watchtower provided a photocopy to one of our readers, after an appeal through our Newsletter. Other wise we probably never would have found this obscure, out-of-print publication from 1875! Here is the Watchtower statement from page 4 of "Should You Believe in the Trinity" lifted out of this dictionary.

​

Aha, Lifted out of context yet again. Just prior to this quote, the article said,
"If is certain. however, that from the apostolic times they paid worship to Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, addressed to them their prayers, and included them in their doxologies."
The article goes on to say,
"The Bible represents God to us as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost it represents them as equally entitled to our highest reverence, affection, and allegiance."

​

 

[The Learner]

Once again, the Trinity was believed by the apostolic fathers and is believed by true Christians down to this day. Shame on the Watchtower Society for trying to mislead its readers by quoting an obscure publication from 1875, out of print and unavailable. Dishonest and misleading!
Why?

The False Claims And Deceitful Quotations:
PAGE 4: Should You Believe in the Trinity?
As usual, the Watchtower 'goes for the throat" of the Catholics and lifts fragments of quotes which appear to support their doctrine and discredit the Catholics, from whom they draw the majority of their followers.

​

THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER and the quotations put into their proper context.
Again, no page number, but we found it on page 304. The article started on page 295 and strongly supports the Trinity, giving its history.
This Catholic article exposed the Arian heresy for the lie that it is, and from which the J.W.'s draw their doctrine on Jesus Christ, namely that he's merely an extra god and the Archangel Michael. Space permits us only one brief quote from the lengthy article,
• Tertullian's grasp of the sense in which God is one and the sense in which God is three was impressively clear and systematic... " "thus came into being the doctrine of relative properties to explain in some measure the non contradictory plurality of Persons in the one unique Godhead" (p.297).
The struggle the Catholic Church had with the Trinity was to put the concept of the three Persons in the Godhead into easily-understood language for its students. Nothing derogatory to the Trinity itself was even hinted at.

PAGE 4: Should You Believe in the Trinity?
Trying to find a quote calling the Trinity "confusing" and failing, the Watchtower takes a legitimate quote but lifts it out of its context and introduces it with their own slanted words, making the quote appear to agree with them. The example below is repeated over and over in this publication.

​

The actual sentence quoted is correct. Another way to word it might be: "It is obvious that a doctrine (or belief) so mysterious requires a Divine revelation." If we read on in the same article we find under "Proof of Doctrine from Scripture",
The phrase "in the name" (Greek inserted here) affirms the Godhead of the Persons and their unity of nature. "
"It is incredible that the phrase "in the name' should be here employed were not all the Persons mentioned equally Divine. Moreover the use of the singular, "name"', and not foe plural, shows that these Three Persons are that One Omnipotent God in whom the Apostles believed."
"Besides these passages there are many others in the Gospels which refer to one or other of the Three Persons in particular, and clearly express the separate personality and Divinity of each."

The False Claims And Deceitful Quotations:
PAGE 4: "SHOULD YOU BELIEVE IN THE TRINlTY?"
The quote below is an example of the use of "............", by the Watchtower, to omit those phrases which make the quote complete and understandable, and at the same time mislead the reader into thinking that the person quoted agrees with the Watchtower. This quote continues on right after the ones shown above, without so much as a paragraph separating it, and as usual, this quote is not finished,

​

 

[The Learner]

THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER and the quotations put into their proper context.
Let's just clear this one up by finishing the quote.
"Its import is as follows. (1) The one God exists in three "Persons" (Subsistence) which are the one divine Nature (the one divine essence, of divine substance) and therefore are equally eternal and almighty."
The article by Rahner and Vorgrimler states the doctrine of the Trinity, and does not speak of it as error as the Watchtower publication would like to imply. A good encyclopedia or dictionary should state the facts as they are, and not voice an opinion. We also must be careful not to reject something just because we don't understand our infinite God with our finite minds. We must accept the revelation of God's nature as the Bible presents it, and not necessarily as our logical minds would like to conveniently classify the eternal God so we can "know it all."

PAGE 5: Should You Believe in the Trinity?
Jehovah's Witnesses love to point out the word, "Trinity" is not found in the Bible, and we agree, it is not.

​

We would also point out to the Jehovah's Witnesses that the word "Theocracy" is not found in the Bible, but is constantly found in their publications and in their speech. "But" they protest" it is merely good word describing the Bible concept of government by God." To which we reply, "Exactly " And the word "Trinity" is a good word describing the Bible concept of the Only True God manifesting Himself in three Persons, and therefore the three are the One, True Almighty God. It is certainly permissible to use words not in the Bible to describe Bible concepts.

PAGE 5 - Should You Believe in the Trinity?
The Watchtower constantly mocks Christianity for their statement which calls the triune God concept a "mystery" Here is a typical attack.

​

Again, the Watchtower chooses fragments of scriptures and ignores parts of the Bible that correct them. From their own, "Kingdom Interlinear Translation" we photocopy Colossians 2:2 Note the word 'mystery" in connection with God's nature.

​

 

[The Learner]

The False Claims And Deceitful Quotations Contained in:
PAGE 6: Should You Believe in the Trinity?
The Watchtower carefully picks among all ideas in reference books, rejecting the ones they don't agree with, even radical ones, to find some small phrase that does agree with them. An example:

​

THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER and the quotations put into their proper context.
The very liberal and controversial, "Encyclopedia of Religion" in this same article suggested,
"The fatherhood of God should be rethought in light of the critique of feminist theologies."
The Watchtower sure didn't like that one!
How about this one?
"Trinitarian doctrine cannot be christomonistic, excluding persons of other faiths from salvation, nor can it surrender its conviction that God is fully present in Christ."
J,W.'s hated that one! So why choose among them for one radical one that did agree?

PAGE 6. Should You Believe in the Trinity?
Continuing right on in the above paragraph, the Watchtower again stops abruptly to suit their own purposes.

​

Again, let's just finish the quote to get at the truth:
"In the NT the oldest evidence is in the Pauline epistles, especially 2 Cor. 13: 13, and l Cor. 12: 4-6. In the Gospels, evidence of the Trinity is found explicitly only in the baptismal formula of Mt. 28, 19. The article continues, In many places of the OT however expressions are used in which some of the Fathers of the Church saw references or foreshadowings of the Trinity"

The False Claims And Deceitful Quotations Contained In:
PAGE 6: Should You Believe in the Trinity?
This paragraph continues with disjointed quotes from Jesuit Edmond Fortman, making it appear that he supports the Watchtower view, when he does not.

​

THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER and the quotations put into their proper context.
The sentence quoted actually ends after the word "persons' (note the.......) The very next sentence in the introduction of Fortman's book reads:
"The doctrine of the Triune God he's had an amazing history, Convinced that this doctrine is a Christian doctrine that did and could originate only from divine revelation, I start the study from the authentic record of divine revelation that is found in the sacred writings of the Old and New Testaments :".
Now I ask you, does this sound like someone who is attempting to show that the Trinity is not a correct Christian doctrine as the Watchtower implies?
The Jehovah's Witnesses are the modern day Arians, or heretics of this century. They need to be corrected as was Arius, in 325. Jesuit Edmund Fortman does a credible job of describing these events in the article the J.W.'s quoted above, so we quote a scholar of their choice to correct their false doctrine that Jesus Christ is a lesser, inferior god to Jehovah, and the Archangel Michael to boot !
The Watchtower also attempts to show the pagan nature of the Trinity by showing pictures of pagan trinities. They have it backwards! For every truth of God, Satan has a counterfeit, For the true Triune God, Satan has counterfeited false triune pagan deities. This merely proves that there is a genuine article if there is a pagan copy.
The entire Watchtower theology is a counterfeit of true Christianity. Counterfeit salvation, counterfeit Jesus Christ, a counterfeit organization replacing the true body of Christ etc. Not to mention this counterfeit booklet we are discussing! It is as false as its quotes!
Several pages later, sixteen in fact, we find the remainder of this quote joined by four dots to the original--talk about sneaky!
"Thus two currents of thought and belief began to stand out. One read the Biblical witness to God as affirming that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three who are equally God and somehow one God.
The other read the Biblical witness differently and concluded that Christ although divine to some extent, was not equal to the Father in divinity but somehow an "inferior god"... (therefore) ..." the Council of Nicea in 325, the first ecumenical council rejected Arius' doctrine that the Son is not true God but is a creature, and declared solemnly. "We believe.. that Jesus Christ is the Son of God born of the Father. i.e. of the substance of the Father, true God from true God begotten not created, co-substantial with the Father; through him all things were made".

The False Claims And Deceitful Quotations Contained in:
PAGE 6: Should You Believe in the Trinity?
Here is a quote the JW's use as a "conclusion:

​

THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER and the quotations put into their proper context.
Aha! Another period where there is actually a comma in the original. The article here goes on at some length to support the Trinity, and actually concludes with these words:
'Thus, the New Testament established the basis for the doctrine of the Trinity".

PAGE 6:
Here is another snappy quote:

​

However, the article continues (p.39),
"In other passages of the New Testament the predicate "God" is without a doubt applied to Christ. With these affirmations, which for Jewish monotheism were utterly offensive, Christians expressed their faith that it was not merely some heavenly being which encountered them in Jesus Christ, but God himself and that because of this, his coming, especially his cross and resurrection, had meaning for entire world."

PAGES 6 & 7 : Should You Believe in the Trinity?

​

Now let's read the whole quote:
"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 words inserted) to the essential, immanent, orontological Trinity (more Greek words). At first the Christian faith was not Trinitarian in the strictly on theological reference."
While this full quote is difficult for one not a scholar, the true intent of the author is shown to be at odds with the Watchtower's partial quote.

False Claims And Deceitful Quotations Contained in:
PAGE 7: Should You Believe in the Trinity?
Look! Dots again. What could they be hiding this time?

​

THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER and the quotations put into their proper context.
Often, Watchtower dots hide words like "but," "however," "therefore," and a completely different point follows. Here is what the dots are hiding. Let's finish the sentence,
"But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma".
Now proceed to the balance of the Watchtower quote which actually ends not with a period but a semi-colon and continue reading.
"among the 2nd- century Apologists, little more than a focusing of the problem as that of plurality within the unique Godhead."
No denial of the Trinity here!

WHAT ARE WE TO CONCLUDE REGARDING THE "SHOULD YOU BELIEVE IN THE TRINITY" BOOKLET?
We can only conclude that if you read the entire quotes from the articles used by the Watchtower Society, and ignore their very slanted opinions and scholastic dishonesty, you too, will come to believe in the Trinity as did the apostles, early church fathers and early Christian Church.
If you are beginning to wonder if Jesus Christ really is Almighty God manifest in the flesh, why don't you write to us for our booklets, "Is the Trinity True?" and "Could Jesus be "a god?". These booklets will refer you to scriptures only so you can make your own decision straight from God's word. You will be referred to scriptures the Watchtower prefers to ignore, but they are in the Bible.
How important is it that you have the right Jesus Christ? Jesus Himself said it best,
"Unless you believe that I AM you will die in your sins."(John 8:24).
Acts 20:28 says that God purchased the church with His own blood. Won't you check these things out? Your eternal life will depend on it. If you have the right Jesus Christ, you are right for all eternity. If you have the wrong Jesus Christ, you are wrong for all eternity.​

 

[The Learner]

Examining - "Should You Believe In The Trinity" a JW Booklet

Source	Trinity Brochure	Full Quote
Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethic, James Hastings, Trinity, p.461	"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. (ti pp. 6-7)	"At first the Christian faith was not Trinitarian in the strictly ontological reference."
The Triune God, Edward Fortman	"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."" (ti p.6)	"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."
The Encyclopedia Americana	"The Encyclopedia Americana notes that the doctrine of the Trinity is considered to be 'beyond the grasp of human reason." (ti p.4)	"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".
The Catholic Encyclopedia (newadvent.org /cathen/ 15047a.htm 21/12/2006)	"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."" (ti p.5)	"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."
Encyclopedia of the Holy Trinity	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." (ti pp.5-6)	"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"
New Catholic Encyclopedia - p.306	"And the New Catholic Encyclopedia also says: "And the doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not taught in the O[ld] T[estament]."" (ti p.6)	"The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not taught in the OT. In many places of the OT however, expressions are used in which some of the Fathers of the Church saw references or foreshadowings of the Trinity."
Origin and Evolution of Religion	"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." (ti p.6)	"The beginning of the doctrine of the Trinity appears already in John (c.100 AD.") To Jesus and Paul the doctrine of the trinity was apparently unknown; at any rate they say nothing about it."

A favourite quote in regular use in Watchtower publications is:

""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 fourth century. . . . Among the apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective." -New Catholic Encyclopedia." Should You Believe in the Trinity? p.7

This quote is from New Catholic Encyclopedia p.299 (1967, Volume XIV). The inaccuracy of the context can be seen when continuing to read on page 300:

"If it is clear on the one side that the dogma of the Trinity in the stricter sense of the word was a late arrival, product of three 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"

History of the Trinity​

The Watchtower misconstrue development of the Trinity when giving the impression it was not believed by early Christians, but introduced centuries later by Constantine.

"Another fabrication, concocted centuries later, is the doctrine of the so-called holy Trinity." Watchtower 2006 Dec 1 p.6

"Also, whereas several Eastern churches were inclined to follow Arius, who denied the Trinity doctrine, Rome quickly adopted this pagan idea of a triune god. On both of these matters, Emperor Constantine came out in favor of Rome. This he did by making a Sunday observance law in 321 C.E. and by imposing the Trinity at the Council of Nicaea in 325 C.E. He fused apostate Christianity with the pagan Roman cult and made this "universal" or "catholic" form of worship the state religion." Watchtower 1983 Sep 15 pp.7-8

The Trinity brochure inaccurately presents the ante-Nicene Fathers as somehow in agreement with the Watchtower belief on the deity of Christ.

"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.
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."
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."
Clement of Alexandria, who died about 215 C.E., 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.
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."
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.
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."
Thus, the testimony of the Bible and of history makes clear that the Trinity was unknown throughout Biblical times and for several centuries thereafter." Should You Believe in the Trinity? p.7

This passage is strongly misleading. After reading the following quotes from the Ante-Nicene Fathers, it is quite clear early Christians taught Jesus was everlasting and God. The word Trinity and its formulation was in development at least from the 2nd century, not the 4th century under Constantine.

	Quotes from the Ante Nicene Fathers 1
Mathetes - 130 AD	"the holy and incomprehensible Word the very Creator and Fashioner of all things. As a king sends his son, who is also a king, so sent He Him; as God He sent Him; as to men He sent Him; as a Savior He sent Him the immortal One for them that are mortal" Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus, ANTE Vol.1 pp.63,65
Polycarp of Smyrna, a student of the Apostle John - 150 AD	"Wherefore also I praise Thee [the ever-truthful God] for all things, I bless Thee, I glorify Thee, along with the everlasting and heavenly Jesus Christ, Thy beloved Son, with whom, to Thee, and the Holy Ghost, be glory both now and to all coming ages. Amen" - Epistle of the church at Smyrna Ch.14 ANTE Vol 1 p.92

 

[The Learner]

Justin Martyr - 150 AD	"we reasonably worship Him, having learned that He is the Son of the true God Himself, and holding Him in the second place, and the prophetic Spirit in the third, we will prove. For they proclaim our madness to consist in this, that we give to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all; for they do not discern the mystery that is herein, to which, as we make it plain to you, we pray you to give heed." First Apology Ch. 13 ANTE Vol 1 p.309 "nor to know that the Father of the universe has a Son, who also, being the first-begotten Word of God, is even God. And of old He appeared in the shape of fire and in the likeness of an angel to Moses and to the other prophets; but now in the times of your reign, having, as we before said, become Man by a virgin, according to the counsel of the Father, for the salvation of those who believe on Him, He endured both to be set at nought and to suffer, that by dying and rising again He might conquer death. And that which was said out of the bush to Moses, "I am that I am, the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, and the God of your fathers," this signified that they, even though dead, are let in existence, and are men belonging to Christ Himself." - First Apology ch. 63 ANTE Vol 1 p.352
Tatian the Syrian - 170 AD	"We do not act as fools, O Greeks, nor utter idle tales, when we announce that God was born in the form of a man." - Address to the Greeks, ch. 21 ANTE Vol 2 p.149
Melito of Sardis - 160 - 177 AD	"The activities of Christ after his baptism, and especially his miracles, gave indication and assurance to the world of the deity hidden in his flesh. Being God and likewise perfect man, he gave positive indications of his two natures: of his deity, by the miracles during the three years following after his baptism, of his humanity, in the thirty years which came before his baptism, during which, by reason of his condition according to the flesh, he concealed the signs of his deity, although he was the true God existing before the ages." Anastasius of Sinai's The Guide 13
Irenaeus, student of Polycarp - 180 AD	"For the one and the same Spirit of God, who proclaimed by the prophets what and of what sort the advent of the Lord should be, did by these elders give a just interpretation of what had been truly prophesied; and He did Himself, by the apostles, announce that the fullness of the times of the adoption had arrived, that the kingdom of heaven had drawn nigh, and that He was dwelling within those that believe on Him who was born Emmanuel of the Virgin." Against Heresies ch.21 ANTE Vol.1 p.933
Clement of Alexandria - 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." - Stromata, Book V ch. 14 ANTE Vol.2 p.970
Tertullian - c. 205 AD	"The connection of Father and Son, of Son and the Paraclete [Holy Spirit] makes three who cohere in a dependent series. And these three are one thing; not one person." - Against Praxeas ch.25 "... the Son the Son of the Almighty is no less almighty than the Son of God is God." Against Praxeas ch.26

Around 205 A.D. in TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS Tertullian wrote that people "maintain that Father and Son and Spirit are identical, favouring the monarchy at the expense of the economy ...." This shows the Trinity was well formulated by that time, though Tertullian goes on to explain that the three are not identical, as they differ in monarchy, though not in economy.

The following contradictory quotes give a good indication of the quality of Watchtower information on this subject.

"However, this is no proof in itself that Tertullian taught the Trinity." Should You Believe in the Trinity? p.5

"As Tertullian erroneously sought to prove the divinity of Jesus by means of another theory, he coined the formula "one substance in three persons." Using this concept, he attempted to show that God, his Son, and the holy spirit were three distinct persons existing in one divine substance. Tertullian thus became the first to apply the Latin form of the word "trinity" to the Father, the Son, and the holy spirit." Watchtower 2002 May 15 p.31

Watchtower misquotes regarding the Trinity

The Watchtower misrepresents the Trininty and dishonestly misquotes sources, in an effort to undermine the Trinity teaching. After reading the article you will be left wondering 'why the dishonesty?'

www.jwfacts.com

 

[The Learner]

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!
What, exactly, is the Trinity? How do supporters of it explain it? How Is the Trinity Explained?

 

[The Learner]

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.
"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!

 

[The Learner]

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
"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!

 

[The Learner]

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.
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"

 

[The Learner]

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
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

 

[The Learner]

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
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!

 

[The Learner]

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."
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.

 

[The Learner]

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.
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.

 

[The Learner]

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!
[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)

 

[The Learner]

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 Learner]

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)
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!

 

[The Learner]

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")