Watchtower: Jesus is not "a god"!

[SLPCCC]

No one should expect a Trinitarian publication to have no Trinitarian statements in it. This, like so many other shots by detractors, is a serious unethical attack by itself.

The Trinity brochure has stated in the heading for this quote: "Trinity" in the Bible? To say that they are being dishonest for leaving out Tertullian's use of this word is dishonest itself. The ellipsis does not change the original meaning of the author. The statement means what it says for this author, and the fact that he added other information has no bearing on the topic of "Trinity" in the Bible?

When you read Rev. 18:14 to your bible student, and your bible student responds with, "...but my church means well. They give money to the poor and feed the hungry." What comes to mind? God sees it as guilty by association?

• “Get out of her, my people, if you do not want to share with her in her sins, and if you do not want to receive part of her plagues. For her sins have massed together clear up to heaven, and God has called her acts of injustice to mind.” Rev 18:14

This is one of the scriptures my Jehovah’s Witness share with me when preaching to me about the Trinity being a false teaching. Looking back and knowing that the WTS teaches their member at their bible studies using unscholarly methods, it brought to mind Weigall Arthur and his book, The Paganism in Our Christianity. On pages 3, 6, and 11 of the Watchtower’s brochure, it quotes Arthur Weigall’s book in support of their assertion that the concept of the Trinity is “entirely pagan.” I searched the WT library and found that they quoted Weigall many times in their publications.

Is it utterly deceptive, dishonest and unscholarly to quote Weigall as proof that the trinity is pagan, when the same book states that the JW's theology is also pagan? How can one trust what you and the WT say about the Trinity when you are learning and accepting the teaching from Weigall who says that the whole bible is pagan? And what is an organization doing using an unclean book? They couldn't find anything else to support their claim? He also states in this same book,

1. The Twelve Disciples Derived From Zodiac: p25
2. The 27 books of the New Testament Canon is invalid: p37
3. The name Mary is of pagan origin: p41
4. The virgin birth is of pagan origin: p44,47,60
5. The early life of Jesus is totally unknown: p49
6. Jesus born in a stable and wrapped in swaddling clothing is of pagan origin: p52
7. Miracles of Jesus are of pagan origin: p58
8. Jesus' 40 day temptation in wilderness is of pagan origin: p61
9. Earthquake at cross is false: p62

I can list another 20.


2 Cor. 6:17 says,

• “. . . get out from among them, and separate yourselves,’ says Jehovah, ‘and quit touching the unclean thing’”; “‘and I will take you in.’”

• “Get out of her, my people, if you do not want to share with her in her sins, and if you do not want to receive part of her plagues. For her sins have massed together clear up to heaven, and God has called her acts of injustice to mind.” Rev 1

Why use an unclean book to support an argument. Do you think Jehovah approves of this book?

 

[SLPCCC]

No, it did not misrepresent the source. The actual meaning was there, and again -- nowhere does the Bible teach a trinity.

You must be working as an undercover for the Watchtower. How much are they paying you?

 

[YoursTrue]

Nope - I already showed you in Revelation 22:12-13 where he said he was the Alpha and Omega. And also in Revelation 1:11-18 ( The Father had manifested himself in flesh, and after he finished the job raised his body up a glorified spiritual body.)

With your application of being the first and the last, explain what he meant in Revelation 22:12-18

The one who said he was the Alpha and Omega in verse 11, said he was the one that liveth, and was dead, and behold I am alive forever more, in verse 18. I know who that is - do you?

You mention Revelation 1:11 -- are you aware that many translations do not include that part about the Alpha and Omega? If you are aware of that, can you explain why these translators left that phrase out?

Here are some sources from Bibles for Revelation 1:11 -- Of the editions below, only the New King James has the phrase Alpha and Omega in it. Why do you think that is?

New International Version
which said: "Write on a scroll what you see and send it to the seven churches: to Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia and Laodicea."

New Living Translation
It said, “Write in a book everything you see, and send it to the seven churches in the cities of Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea.”

English Standard Version
saying, “Write what you see in a book and send it to the seven churches, to Ephesus and to Smyrna and to Pergamum and to Thyatira and to Sardis and to Philadelphia and to Laodicea.”

Berean Study Bible
saying, “Write on a scroll what you see and send it to the seven churches: to Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea.”

Berean Literal Bible
saying, "What you see, write in a book and send to the seven churches: to Ephesus, and to Smyrna, and to Pergamum, and to Thyatira, and to Sardis, and to Philadelphia, and to Laodicea."

New American Standard Bible
saying, "Write in a book what you see, and send it to the seven churches: to Ephesus and to Smyrna and to Pergamum and to Thyatira and to Sardis and to Philadelphia and to Laodicea."

New King James Version
saying, “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last,” and, “What you see, write in a book and send it to the seven churches which are in Asia: to Ephesus, to Smyrna, to Pergamos, to Thyatira, to Sardis, to Philadelphia, and to Laodicea.”

 

[Oeste]

From my post to Tigger2:

I think the comments here expose some of the challenges faced when talking with Jehovah Witnesses and their supporters

I also believe @YoursTrue 's additional comments simply accent my point.

In any event it's been what, 260 posts? Are any of our Arian/Watchtower friends here ready to answer the OP?

 

[TiggerII]

Tigger2,

I’m not promoting trinitarian ideas. I was once led to believe that the Trinity was false by a JW and the Trinity booklet. I’m not making up accusations of misquoting and deception. I’m just pointing out what I have found in some of the WTS publications. I can back up what I said and let the reader decide if there is something with my intentions or with the quotes and representations:

In the Watchtower's booklet, "Should You Believe in the Trinity?" p. 5-6 in quotes,

• 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 from, The Illustrated Bible Dictionary, part 3, p. 1597 :

• “The word Trinity is not found in the Bible, and though used by Tertullian in the last decade of the 2nd century, it did not find a place formally in the theology of the church till the 4th century. …Though it is not a biblical doctrine in the sense that any formulation of it can be found in the Bible, it can be seen to underlie the revelation of God, implicit in the OT and explicit in the NT.”

The keywords are formulation, implicit, and explicit. While one cannot find a formula for the doctrine of the Trinity explicitly stated in the Bible, the concepts which provide the basis for the doctrine are clearly manifest. "...it can be seen to underlie the revelation of God, implicit in the OT and explicit in the NT.”

In the Watchtower's booklet, "Should You Believe in the Trinity?" p. 6 they misrepresent Fortman. They say, "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.”

The quote left out from, Jesuit Edmund Fortman's The Triune God, pp. xv-xvi

• “If we take the New Testament writers together they tell us there is only one God, the creator and lord of the universe.…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 give us in their writings a triadic ground plan and triadic formulas….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."

So while they frequently state the title of the books being quoted, one will search this brochure in vain to find the volumes and page numbers from which these quotes are derived. But when you go outside and do find the full quotes, you see a different representation.



In the WTS bible Col 1: 16-17 states,

• "because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All other things have been created through him and for him. and by means of him all other things were made to exist,"

Why would the WT add the word "other" to their bible when it's not in the original?

“The word Trinity is not found in the Bible, and though used by Tertullian in the last decade of the 2nd century, it did not find a place formally in the theology of the church till the 4th century."

Another false accusation by those who don't understand (or pretend not to understand) how honest quoting works. The subtitle for this section of 4 quotes is "Trinity" in the Bible? Any quote by an author which is off-subject ('in the Bible') may be properly ignored. However, in this same section, two of the quotes do mention that Tertullian used the term trinitas.

As for the Fortman quote in the Trinity brochure, it is found in a section of 3 quotes entitled "Testimony of the Hebrew Scriptures [OT]" Any quotes concerning the Greek Scriptures [NT] fall outside this category and the stubborn refusal to recognize this causes deception.

 

[Oeste]

The word Trinity is not found in the Bible, and though used by Tertullian in the last decade of the 2nd century, it did not find a place formally in the theology of the church till the 4th century."

Another false accusation by those who don't understand (or pretend not to understand) how honest quoting works. The subtitle for this section of 4 quotes is "Trinity" in the Bible? Any quote by an author which is off-subject ('in the Bible') may be properly ignored. However, in this same section, two of the quotes do mention that Tertullian used the term trinitas.

Sigh!

As soon as you misrepresent a quoted source, you have misquoted that source @tigger2.

“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 and though used by Tertullian in the last decade of the 2nd century, 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 Illustrated Bible Dictionary, Hodder and Stoughton, 1980, Part 3, p. 1597)

The Illustrated Bible specifically tells us that all the elements of the Trinity are found in scripture. The WT quote does not. In fact, anyone reading the abridged WT quote would have no idea of the quoted source's actual interpretation or conclusion.

As such it's a misquote, plain and simple.

 

[Iymus]

Dilemma #1: Blasphemy

As soon as Jesus said “The Father and I are one” the Jews picked up stones. When Jesus asked why, the Jews explained it was for making himself “a god” according to the Watchtower’s translation.

This presents us with our first dilemma. According to the NWT, the blasphemy was for abusing Jehovah’s name, not some “gods’” name:

No dilemma #1, if the Jews interpretation was correct in regards to Christ's words then he deserved to be stone according to the law.

What was the Jews interpretation?

Christ said I and my Father are one; in the same.

Did Christ specifically say I am my Father are one in the same? We should know the answer by reading his own words in that verse, and the surrounding verses in that chapter of which he speaks.

Dilemma #2: Biblical/Historical record

Jehovah Witnesses and other Arians are quick to tell us that judges, magistrates, and other powerful people were routinely considered or called “gods”. The problem here is that the NWT tells us the Jews were about to stone Jesus for calling himself “a god”. It doesn’t matter if the Jews were wrong or correct in their interpretation, what matters is their explanation that Jesus should be stoned simply for calling himself “a god”.

No dilemma #2, Explained by No dilemma #1 above

Dilemma #3: Watchtower claims Jesus is “a god” (John 1:1) but not “a god” (John 10:33)

Unfortunately that still leaves us with a huge problem. Let’s not forget that Jehovah Witnesses tell us Jesus is “a god” at John 1:1 so it’s really disconcerting to see them claiming Jesus denies ever being “a god” by the time John 10:33 rolls around. But as the quote and link above shows, this is “current truth” even to this day.

Your dilemma #3 seems to consist of lies and half truths if not plain lies; if you are truly sincere you should listen more to what they say instead of interpreting from an opposing belief of what they say because it will sound contradictory and only lead to more confusion.

 

[Brian2]

Again -- the trinity as explained by classical trinitarians is nowhere in the Bible. Nowhere, absolutely not.

Well that is true and that is what the misrepresented quote was saying.
But the trinity is implied in the Bible and that is also what the quote in full was saying.
I know you have to believe that the idea came from pagan religions etc but it really is there in the Bible.

 

[Brian2]

Ontologically speaking, the trinity is still not true. Now if you or anyone wants to believe that it is promoted "ontologically" in the Bible, you go right ahead. As for me, however, I have seen the Bible does not speak of a trinity of 3 godpersons, all equal to the other, always existing, three of them, without beginning. Three. Not one or two, but THREE persons. Nope, sorry, ontologically or actually in the Bible, it just isn't so.

It is not defined in the Bible, true. The defining is what was forced on the church by attacks on the deity of Jesus for a start. Then why not go the whole way. The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Liberty which the NWT tells us is Jehovah. (2 Cor 3:17)
Not wanting the Holy Spirit to be called the Lord and thus to be seen as Jesus, the WT had to shoot itself in the foot by calling the Holy Spirit Jehovah.

 

[Brian2]

True Believer asked you, "You seem to be able to see that the scriptures prove he was YHWH manifest in the flesh. Yet you still believe in the Trinity don't you?"
Since you said you believe in the trinity kind of no matter what, can you say if, in any way (ontologically or not), you believe there were three godpersons always without beginning of the three yet the three god"persons" said to compose one "being." Thank you.

If I understand you correctly, I do believe that God has been a trinity from eternity.

 

[Brian2]

Here's something for you: (I was just reading about Jesus when he was a babe.) Thinking about this and the trinity, and "a God," (1) - do you believe that there always were three godpersons in heaven? (2) If so, was Jesus "in heaven" as one of the three "godpersons"?

I presume you mean if Jesus was in heaven when He was a baby on earth.
Interesting question. I do know that this quote from the KJV is seen as wrong these days.
John 3:13 And no man has ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man who is in heaven.
I also know that it is not necessary to understand all hard questions like this, and the nature of God etc to believe them.
But that does not answer the question.
I would say that as a human Jesus' consciousness was in His human body. He did become a human after all even though He stayed by nature God, because He is the Son of God.
This however does not mean that He was not in His Father or that His Father was not in Him, because God is everywhere. ( a plain teaching of scripture which the WT denies,,,,,,,,,,,,no doubt with bigger theological fish in mind, like the denial that the Holy Spirit is God or something)
Also the scriptures tell us that Jesus ascended to fill all things. (Eph 4:10)

 

[Oeste]

, if the Jews interpretation was correct in regards to Christ's words then he deserved to be stone according to the law.

No @lymus.

You do not get stoned under Jewish law for making yourself "a god". Nor is a Jew guilty if he blasphemes "a god". He is only considered guilty if he blasphemes the Sacred Name.

What was the Jews interpretation?

Christ said I and my Father are one; in the same.

You're confused. That was NOT the Jews interpretation.

The Jews interpretation was that he had blasphemed the Divine Name. You're confusing the words of Christ with the words of the Jews and Jesus' interpretation with that of the Temple Jews.

No dilemma #2, Explained by No dilemma #1 above

Ummm...the dilemma is still there and unaddressed!

Your dilemma #3 seems to consist of lies and half truths if not plain lies; if you are truly sincere you should listen more to what they say instead of interpreting from an opposing belief of what they say because it will sound contradictory and only lead to more confusion.

I suggest you read up on Talmudic blasphemy laws and not confuse Jesus' statements with those of the Temple Jews. Also, I would appreciate it if next time you could specifically address dilemma #3 rather than simply cast negative dispersions...preferably after you address dilemma #1 and #2.

As a certain poster recently stated:

if you are truly sincere you should listen more to what they say instead of interpreting from an opposing belief of what they say because it will sound contradictory and only lead to more confusion.

Thanks for trying though! I can't speak for the JW's but I'm sure they appreciated the effort.

Anyone else?

 

[YoursTrue]

Well that is true and that is what the misrepresented quote was saying.
But the trinity is implied in the Bible and that is also what the quote in full was saying.
I know you have to believe that the idea came from pagan religions etc but it really is there in the Bible.

No, nothing in Biblical explanation as if the "Bible says so type idea," that there are three persons called God, each equal to the other, all three without beginning.

 

[SLPCCC]

No, nothing in Biblical explanation as if the "Bible says so type idea," that there are three persons called God, each equal to the other, all three without beginning.

Existing in the form of God

• "Who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in human likeness."Philippians 2:6-7

Paul says that Jesus existed in the form of God. It does not point to a time when he entered into this state but in agreement with John 1:1 (the word was God) he says that he existed in God's nature. This would not merely be referring to an existence as a spirit or an angel but to a divine existence. Jesus always existed in this state, as God


They both are said to have created all things

• Col 1:16, 17 - For by him [Jesus] all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

• Isaiah, 44:24, "Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb, 'I, the LORD, am the maker of all things, stretching out the heavens by Myself, and spreading out the earth all alone.'"

The singular "name" is used instead of the plural "names" indicating one.

• Matt 28: 19, 20 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age."

Notice: Name (one being) = Father + Son + Holy Spirit = God​

What do you think these scriptures are suggesting? You have to do mental gymnastics to avoid these scriptures for what they say.

 

[YoursTrue]

Well there you go Witnesses....someone believes you "...are on the right track."

That's exactly how we started this thread...with the assumption the WT and the NWT "...are on the right track". But then we got derailed simply because of a few questions.

If Jesus's hand picked disciple is claiming Jesus is "a god" at John 1:1 why is Jesus no longer claiming to be "a god" by the time John 10:33 roles around? Bonus points if you can tell us why "there is evidence for 'a god'" at John 10:33 when the WT plainly tells us there is none (see the OP), and also why the Jews considered anyone making themselves "a god" to be a blasphemy of the Divine Name, punishable by immediate stoning?

First of all, John 10:33 is speaking of gods that are existing. Jesus told them that.

 

[YoursTrue]

No dilemma #1, if the Jews interpretation was correct in regards to Christ's words then he deserved to be stone according to the law.

What was the Jews interpretation?

Christ said I and my Father are one; in the same.

So then a husband and wife are one, according to the scriptures, are they the same? I'd love to hear your answer.

 

[Iymus]

No dilemma #1, if the Jews interpretation was correct in regards to Christ's words then he deserved to be stone according to the law.

What was the Jews interpretation?

Christ said I and my Father are one; in the same.

Did Christ specifically say I am my Father are one in the same? We should know the answer by reading his own words in that verse, and the surrounding verses in that chapter of which he speaks.

No @lymus.

You do not get stoned under Jewish law for making yourself "a god".

No one said or meant this.

Nor is a Jew guilty if he blasphemes "a god".

No one said or meant a jew is guilty if he blasphemes any generic and/or lesser "god/existence"

He is only considered guilty if he blasphemes the Sacred Name.

Name encompasses Identity and one is blasphemous if they misrepresent the Most High's identity.

You're confused. That was NOT the Jews interpretation.

The Jews interpretation was that he had blasphemed the Divine Name.

Where in John Chapter 10 did Christ call himself any Divine Name?
-------------------------------------

Thanks for trying though! I can't speak for the JW's but I'm sure they appreciated the effort.

Anyone else?

You practically ridicule, misinterpret , and mock their own doctrine but say they appreciate the effort?

Seemingly proved your own disingenuousness.

 

[Iymus]

So then a husband and wife are one, according to the scriptures, are they the same? I'd love to hear your answer.

Depending on context.

One Flesh/ Family Unit : Gen 2:24

 

[Oeste]

First of all, John 10:33 is speaking of gods that are existing. Jesus told them that.

No, John 10:33 is not "speaking of gods that are existing".

The question at John 10:33 is which of the following translations is most likely correct:

“The Jews answered him, saying, `For a good work we do not stone thee, but for evil speaking, and because thou, being a man, dost make thyself God.'ng you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.” YLT

or:

The Jews answered him: “We are stoning you, not for a fine work, but for blasphemy;+ for you, although being a man, make yourself a god.” NWT​

 

[Oeste]

No one said or meant this.

That's what you posted lymus. Here it is again:

No dilemma #1, if the Jews interpretation was correct in regards to Christ's words then he deserved to be stone according to the law.

What was the Jews interpretation?

Christ said I and my Father are one; in the same.

You stated the Jews interpretation was "Christ said I and my Father are one; in the same" when in fact it was actually Christ. You also stated "...if the Jews interpretation was correct in regards to Christ's words..." (which in fact are "I and the Father are one" John 10:30) "...then he deserved to be stoned according to the law."

If that's an error or a mistype on your part just let us know and we can move on.