The Trinity... is it a false teaching as the WTBTS claims?

by Honesty 146 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • gumby

    A few years ago, I believed in the Trinity but had to be sure. I figured if I could prove Jesus didn't have a beginning, then he was as god. I started a thread on it......but since most people won't click on the link I'd provide, I'm gonna waste some bandwidth and post an answer I recieved from AlanF on my question as to "did jesus have a beginning" Here's what he said,

    AlanFRe: Did Jesus have a BEGGINING?

    Post 1440 of 4400
    since 07-Mar-01

    gumby said:

    : In a thread called" Can any JW answer this" by Jerome, Alan F had stated that
    the term EVERLASTING TO EVERLASTING applied only to the God of Israel. He could
    find no scripture in which this term applied to Jesus.

    : I found some good info. on this:

    : Micah 5:2 says of Jesus; " who's origins are from old, from ancient times".
    What does this mean?

    : Charles c. Ryrie, a notable theologian states that the words, "FROM OF OLD"
    is the same translated word used of God and his eternity in Hab.1:12.

    Ryrie is right about the word being there, but if he's implying that there's
    a necessary connection between the usages in these passages, he's wrong.
    I looked up these and a number of other passages using various online
    resources and found a Strong's Lexicon here:
    Strong's gives the exact words used for "of old" and "everlasting, and in the
    passages below I put the numbered reference to the word in Strong's in square
    brackets, like this: everlasting [5760].

    In the NIV Micah 5:2 reads:

    "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah,
    out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins
    are from of old [6924], from ancient times [5769]."

    In the KJV Micah 5:2 reads:

    "But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, [though] thou be little among the thousands of
    Judah, [yet] out of thee shall he come forth unto me [that is] to be ruler in
    Israel; whose goings forth [have been] from of old [6924], from everlasting [5769].

    So the expression "from of old" is from Strong's reference 6924 in the Hebrew

    In the NIV and KJV Habakkuk 1:12 reads, respectively:

    "O Lord , are you not from everlasting [6924]?"

    "[Art] thou not from everlasting [6924], O LORD ...?"

    So these two translations render the same Hebrew word quedem (Strong's 6924)
    as "from of old" and "everlasting". Note also that the Hebrew word `owlam
    (Strong's 5769) is rendered as "ancient times" and "everlasting".

    The question now arises whether these words can be used in other ways than
    to mean "everlasting". Naturally, the answer is Yes. Consider the following
    passages from the KJV:

    Genesis 6:4:
    "There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the
    sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare [children] to them,
    the same [became] mighty men which [were] of old [5769], men of renown."

    Deuteronomy 32:7:
    "Remember the days of old [5769], consider the years of many generations."
    Micah 7:14:
    "Feed thy people with thy rod, the flock of thine heritage, which dwell
    solitarily [in] the wood in the midst of Carmel: let them feed [in] Bashan and
    Gilead, as in the days of old [5769]."

    So here we find that the Bible uses "of old" to mean "ancient times" as well
    as "everlasting". The same can be shown of quedem (Strong's 6924) as
    the passages below show.

    Genesis 49:26:

    NIV: "Your father's blessings are greater than the blessings of the ancient
    mountains, than the bounty of the age-old [5769] hills."

    KJV: "The blessings of thy father have prevailed above the blessings of my
    progenitors unto the utmost bound of the everlasting [5769] hills."

    Exodus 40:15:

    NIV: "Anoint them just as you anointed their father, so they may serve me
    as priests. Their anointing will be to a priesthood that will continue [5769]
    for all generations to come."

    KJV: "And thou shalt anoint them, as thou didst anoint their father that they
    may minister unto me in the priest's office: for their anointing shall surely
    be an everlasting [5769] priesthood throughout their generations."

    Leviticus 16 34:
    NIV: "This is to be a lasting ordinance for you: Atonement is to be made
    once a year for all the sins of the Israelites."

    KJV: "And this shall be an everlasting [5769] statute unto you, to make an
    atonement for the children of Israel for all their sins once a year."

    Habakkuk 3:6 is particularly interesting because it uses both of these words,
    as well as a third one to express similar concepts of great age:

    NIV: "He stood, and shook the earth; he looked, and made the nations tremble.
    The ancient [5703] mountains crumbled and the age-old [5769] hills
    collapsed. His ways are eternal [5769]."

    KJV: "He stood and measured the earth he beheld, and drove asunder the nations;
    and the everlasting [5703] mountains were scattered the perpetual [5769]
    hills did bow: his ways [are] everlasting [5769]."

    For completeness, here are the definitions for the above three words given
    at the online Strong's:

    5769 `owlam o-lawm' or lolam {o-lawm'}; from 5956; properly, concealed, i.e.
    the vanishing point; generally, time out of mind (past or future), i.e.
    (practically) eternity; frequentatively, adverbial (especially with
    prepositional prefix) always:--alway(-s), ancient (time), any more, continuance,
    eternal, (for, (n-))ever(-lasting, -more, of old), lasting, long (time),
    (of) old (time), perpetual, at any time, (beginning of the) world (+ without end).
    Compare 5331, 5703.

    5703 `ad ad from 5710; properly, a (peremptory) terminus, i.e. (by implication)
    duration, in the sense of advance or perpetuity (substantially as a noun, either
    with or without a preposition):--eternity, ever(- lasting, -more), old,
    perpetually, + world without end.

    6924 qedem keh'-dem or qedmah {kayd'-maw}; from 6923; the front, of place
    (absolutely, the fore part, relatively the East) or time (antiquity); often
    used adverbially (before, anciently, eastward):--aforetime, ancient (time),
    before, east (end, part, side, -ward), eternal, X ever(-lasting), forward,
    old, past. Compare 6926.

    Here are similar definitions from the same website, but this time from
    the Brown-Driver-Briggs Lexicon:

    05769 `owlam {o-lawm'} or `olam {o-lawm'} from 05956; TWOT - 1631a;
    n m
    AV - ever 272, everlasting 63, old 22, perpetual 22, evermore 15,
    never 13, time 6, ancient 5, world 4, always 3, alway 2, long 2,
    more 2, never + 0408 2, misc 6; 439
    1) long duration, antiquity, futurity, for ever, ever, everlasting,
    evermore, perpetual, old, ancient, world
    1a) ancient time, long time (of past)
    1b) (of future)
    1b1) for ever, always
    1b2) continuous existence, perpetual
    1b3) everlasting, indefinite or unending future, eternity

    05703 `ad {ad} from 05710; TWOT - 1565a;
    n m
    AV - ever 41, everlasting 2, end 1, eternity 1, ever + 05769 1,
    evermore 1, old 1, perpetually 1; 49
    1) perpetuity, for ever, continuing future
    1a) ancient (of past time)
    1b) for ever (of future time)
    1b1) of continuous existence
    1c) for ever (of God's existence)

    06924 qedem {keh'-dem} or qedmah {kayd'-maw} from 06923; TWOT - 1988a;
    AV - east 32, old 17, eastward 11, ancient 6, east side 5, before 3,
    east part 2, ancient time 2, aforetime 1, eternal 1, misc 7; 87
    n m
    1) east, antiquity, front, that which is before, aforetime
    1a) front, from the front or east, in front, mount of the East
    1b) ancient time, aforetime, ancient, from of old, earliest time
    1c) anciently, of old (adverb)
    1d) beginning
    1e) east
    2) eastward, to or toward the East

    It pays to do some research before blithely accepting the word of even
    supposedly good scholars, because all of them have biases and agendas.

    : Also John 8:58 uses the word "I AM" of Jesus, and in EX:3:14, it is used of Jehovah.
    : When Jesus claimed to be "I AM", the Jews picked up stones to kill him for blasphemy.

    Nonsense. This is an ancient and very common claim, but it is easy to see
    why it is completely nonsensical. First note the exchange between Jesus and
    the Jews. He implied that he saw Abraham, which would make him older than
    Abraham. John 8:57 has the Jews exclaiming, "You are not yet fifty years old,
    and you have seen Abraham!" In effect they said, "You can't possibly be that old!"
    Jesus answered by telling them that he was indeed that old:

    From the New Living Translation:
    "Jesus answered, `The truth is, I existed before Abraham was even born!' "

    From the Worldwide English New Testament:
    "Jesus answered, `I tell you the truth. I already was before Abraham was born.' "

    There are a number of other decent Bible translations that render the passage
    similarly. Why do they render it this way, and not as the NIV, KJV and many
    others do? First note that the latter have adopted the spurious ancient claim
    that the simple statement "I am" refers back to an ancient formula given in
    Exodus 3:14. This claim is merely an assumption and cannot be proved; indeed,
    there is good evidence that there is no connection.

    First, Exodus 3:14 can be translated in ways other than "I am", and plenty of
    good translations do so. I don't have online access to enough translations to
    show this, so you can look them up for yourself. The general idea is that
    "I will be what I will be" is a perfectly reasonable rendering.

    Second, the Jews in essence asked Jesus how old he was, and he answered
    in kind: "I'm really, really old." Why would he answer such a question with
    a recitation of an ancient formula? Look at the following sequence and tell
    me which makes more sense:

    Jews: How old are you?
    Jesus: Before Abraham was born I am.


    Jews: How old are you?
    Jesus: Before Abraham was born I was.


    Jews: How old are you?
    Jesus: Before Abraham was born I existed.

    It is obvious which of these is nonsensical, when context is taken
    into account.

    The Greek phrase for "I am" is ego eimi. Here eimi is in the
    present tense. However, in Greek, as in many languages such as French, a
    present tense is often used as a past tense. For example, a French speaker
    might want to say:

    "I went there ten years ago."

    He would say:

    "Je suis alle la il y a dix ans."


    "I am gone there it there has ten years."

    The word for "am" is "suis" and is in the present tense. But by standard
    usage, the past tense is almost always rendered by two constructions that
    are something like "I am gone" or "I have gone" in English.

    Because the Greek word for "to be" and "to exist" is eimi, and the
    past tense is sometimes rendered by a present tense, the phrase ego eimi
    can properly be rendered as "I am" or "I was" or "I exist" or "I existed".
    Context tells the reader which is meant.

    In the NT there are many examples where an apparently present tense really is
    the past tense by this usage, including phrases like "ego eimi", if I remember
    right. So claims that the present tense is required for ego eimi
    in John 8:58 are spurious. At best the argument remains unresolved.

    : Here are other notable statements from A bible dictionary about Jesus:

    All of the passages you cite have been disputed by scholars. They remain
    ambiguous and what appears in a given translation is the opinion of
    the translators.


  • Apostate Kate
    Apostate Kate
    You see this is the exact promblem with the trinity doctrine. To prove it you have to play the connect the dots game. If the trinity doctrine was true, why isn't there simply one verse in the bible that says Jehovah, Jesus, and and the holy spirit are God

    1 John 5:6-12 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not with the water only, but with the water and with the blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is the truth. For there are three who bear witness, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and the three agree in one. If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for the witness of God is this, that he hath borne witness concerning his Son. He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in him: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he hath not believed in the witness that God hath borne concerning his Son. And the witness is this, that God gave unto us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son hath the life; he that hath not the Son of God hath not the life.

    1 John 5:1 Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.

    Mary=human, God=God, Human+God=?

  • just2sheep

    just2questions. if jesus is god, who said "this is my son..." on more than one occassion? perhaps jesus was a ventriloquist, but i can't find scripture for this. if the holy spirit is god why does it have a description instead of a name? " jehova" is a name, " jesus" is a name, " the holy spirit" is not a name.

  • stillajwexelder
  • Apostate Kate
    Apostate Kate
    just2questions. if jesus is god, who said "this is my son..." on more than one occassion? perhaps jesus was a ventriloquist, but i can't find scripture for this. if the holy spirit is god why does it have a description instead of a name? " jehova" is a name, " jesus" is a name, " the holy spirit" is not a name.

    Jesus is not God the Father, He is God the Son. Isaiah 9:6-7 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this. John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. The Holy Ghost is not an active force. That's another LIE!

  • moggy lover
    moggy lover

    It is true that many have been confused by the absence of a distinctive name ascribed to The Holy Spirit.In fact as far back as the 15th of July WT of 1957, the anonymous writers bring up that very point. On pg 432 they say:"That the holy dspirit is without any personality is also indicated by the fact that it has no distinctive name" By this I assume they mean something like "Trevor" or "Denzil"

    They fail to see that the Father of the NT also is never portrayed as having a distinctive name. It is a baseless assumption, fueled by a corrosive self-serving interpretation of the Bible, to conclude that the Father's name is "Jehovah" since the NT as inspired by the Holy Spirit Himself does not state this. It is the position of the WTS that printed translations of the NT made in Heb and dating from at least the 16th century hold more weight than the original manuscripts that have come down to us .

    The ironic part, and something that to the best of my knowledge, has never been admitted to by the WTS, is that these Heb Translations, dating from the 16th cent onwards [called the "J" documents in WT mythology] were translated from a Greek text called the TR of the KJV - which means that they accept the inclusion of 1Jo 5:8, something the WTS argues is a Trinitarian interpolation. Somehow, in the illogical "logic" of the WTS, These Heb translations, made from a faulty text, have preserved a truth that surpasses even the divinely inspired originals!!

    In fact even this has been done selectively.I know of at least one J Heb translation that says:" No one can say Jesus is YHVH except by Holy Spirit" at 1Cor 12:3 [J 18] Almost every other one uses the term "Adonai" a term exclusive to the God of the OT, Yahweh, in this place

    A simple, yet relevant fact seems to have bypassed the WTS, and this is that when a "title" is unique it in fact IS a name. For example: If I were to say that the "Prince of Wales" were coming to town tomorrow, would any member of the writing staff of the WT choose to be confused? Why not? Would some idiot of a WT writer turn around and say: " I'm confused I don"t know who you mean, you are using a title. I need a name." No. The idea is absurd. And the WTS knows it. Why? because the "Title" "POW" is unique. No one living anywhere in the entire stretch of the universe can lay claim to this "Title". Not even the "god" of the WTS can call himself a "POW" Only One poerson living at any one time can possess this title. When the "POW" becomes king then the title will pass on to his eldest son, because he inherits it, thus again, leaving only one living person to have this "Title" I dare say if one does use the distinctive name for the POW, [Charles Windsor] one would in fact be insulting him and demeaning the office for which he is entitled.

    In all the realm of space and time, in all of eternities past and future, in everything that ever was, is, or is to be, throughout the infinite stretch of all reality, there is NO ONE who can lay claim to the "Title" of : THE HOLY SPIRIT. You can't get any more unique than that. All we need to know is that the form of adress used for The Holy Spirit, is.........The Holy Spirit. This name makes Him no less Personal than any person who is unique. Demanding to adress Him by some other form of adress, evidently satisfying some sort of "need" to have a distinctive name, is crass stupidity, and comes dangerously close to insulting Him.

    The very same pertains to the Person of the Father. This "Title" again is the unique possession of one single Being. No one can be adressed by the name "The Father"- except in the breasts of the blasphemous - than the One to whom it is a Divine Right. This mitigates the need for some mongrelized form of adress such as: "jehovah" [ I was amused one day to come across a web site run by someone who represents the "sacred name movement" and who went to great lengths to "prove" that the word "jehovah" is of pagan origin and should therefore not be used. Evidently he advocated the use of Yahweh. Poor Fred Franz must be turning in his grave]


  • gumby
    A simple, yet relevant fact seems to have bypassed the WTS, and this is that when a "title" is unique it in fact IS a name. For example: If I were to say that the "Prince of Wales" were coming to town tomorrow, would any member of the writing staff of the WT choose to be confused? Why not? Would some idiot of a WT writer turn around and say: " I'm confused I don"t know who you mean, you are using a title. I need a name.

    This is ANOTHER area in which the society uses stupid reasoning.

    The society tells the publishers christendom has an unknown god since he's nameless to if saying christendom doesn't worship the god of the bible.

    I remember reasoning when I was a witness that this idea was stupid. I always knew that when christendom bowed it's head in prayer.....they were talking to the same god I was.


  • Star Moore
    Star Moore


    1 John 5:1 Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.

    I was reading this, Jesus is born of God...So are you saying that, that makes him God? hmm..

    I John 5:4 NIV "for everyone born of God overcomes the world."

    So, I guess, we are ALL God!!!!!!!! Whew, who knew?

  • just2sheep

    apostate kate,

    what version of the bible did you find the scripture from isaiah? i am looking at isaiah 9:6-7 in the new king james version and it reads in verse 6-"...and his name will be called wonderful, counseler, mighty god, everlasting father, prince of peace." the the isn't there.

    moggy lover,

    no matter how you twist it a title is not a name...charles windsor's "name" is charles windsor, and his "title" is prince of wales. do you think his family calls him prince at home? i would think they call him charles, or charlie, or maybe even chuck(although that may be american rather than english). it is true that many people are called by their title---mayor, sheriff, principal, etc. but that does not make the title they hold their name...this includes the prince of wales and the holy spirit.

    and are you saying that the god of the new testament is not the same person, enity, being as the god of the old testament? and if that is what you are saying, what do you base this on?


    After looking at all these posts with all with informatiion to prove or disprove the trinity, I'm so thankful to be past all this childish B.S.. So great the con of man. You reason with each other in childish circles trying to prove the unproveable and know the unknowable based on the Bible, a political book of errors compiled on the orders of deceptive men like Constantine to control the masses. A deified god-man posed no threat to the throne because he left no human heirs as Constantine knew only so well. A triune God worked well with the politics of that day. After all, promoting a myth about a myth for control of the world was ingenious in its own right. Remember, only a myth would let people murder, rape, steal, and pillage others in his glorious, omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibullshit name.

Share this