by JWdaughter 35 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • JWdaughter

    Has anyone studied the heresy that led to the teaching of Arianism? It was an opposite heresy called Sabellianism. It is EXACTLY what the WT has been saying is "the trinity", but which was thoroughly discounted and rejected by early Christians. Arianism was a reaction to the heresy of Sabellianism/Modalism. The way that the WT is defined by the WT is the same heresy that was rejected by the orthodox Christian church.

    Geez, they lie about everything. They even misrepresent the actual trinity.

    You know what is really sad? Most people who consider themselves Christian are clueless as to the distinctive differences between Sabelliansim and the Trinty teaching. They really aren't that subtle, but the WT can go around telling them why they are believing in a false doctrine and they are clueless to the fact that the doctrine as described has nothing to do with the actual teaching.

    I was in a class today teaching about the heresies leading up to the Nicene council, and I recognized the heresy of sabelliansim to be the same 'trinity' as described by the WT for all these many decades. NOT the trinity. Oy.

  • reniaa

    What you cannot change Jw daughter is the trinity doctrine as a teaching wasn't taught by the first century christians. It's clear from bible that they never knew of it as a teaching, not in one single scripture do they refer to a triune type God as trinitarians do, they never say 'God the son', Jesus always refers to Jehovah both before and after resurrection as 'My God' it's never reciprocated God only refers to Jesus as 'My son', Paul who writes 25 of the letters in the greek scriptures always keep God the father and Jesus as totally separate before and after resurrection , phrases like 'blessed be' used solely for the father is never used for Jesus and so on an so forth.

    what is clear is that some of the first century christians did want to idolise people because of the gifts and Jesus became a target for this, trinitarianism was born later so they could call Jesus God and worship him, it is still the main reason. holy spirit was tagged on at a lot later date. did you know that the first expression of trinitarianism had 'wisdom' as the third part of it? (see proverbs 8 which they used as a proof text)

    The Jews Gods own People never believed in a triune God. the muslims an offshoot from abraham have never believed a triune God. why would God teach different Gods to his people?

    Believing in One Almighty God Jehovah/YHWH is a biblical certainty established as fact in scripture!

    this is something you cannot argue or change.


  • TheOldHippie

    Maybe it's me, maybe it's just too early, but I just don't understand these sentences."It is EXACTLY what the WT has been saying is "the trinity", but which was thoroughly discounted and rejected by early Christians." ........."The way that the WT is defined by the WT is the same heresy that was rejected by the orthodox Christian church."

    Is it just me?

  • cameo-d

    It makes no sense that Jesus would have implied that he was to be worshipped or to give himself place as the "son of god" knowing that the very first commandment was "thou shalt have no other gods". I think he would have been stoned real quick if he had made such statements. I think those labels were put on him by man at a later date.

    I don't get the sense that Jesus had a mission to start a new religion. I think his idea of "freeing" people was to expose the corruption and manipulation that was being exercised in the name of religion.

    Renai: "The Jews Gods own People never believed in a triune God. the muslims an offshoot from abraham have never believed a triune God. why would God teach different Gods to his people?

    Believing in One Almighty God Jehovah/YHWH is a biblical certainty established as fact in scripture!"

    When you dig a little deeper you will find that somewhere along the line, all those various gods got rolled into one and they all assumed the identity of Jehovah. This is due to a lot of mistranslations---some deliberate.

    God did not even get a name until Moses decided it.

    And the earliest civilizations gave us Zeus.

    Interesting if you check the spellings of the deities in the Septuagint.

  • Sad emo
    Sad emo


    Is it just me?

    Yep its just you lol! Apart from the second sentence which has a typo? and probably should have read "The way that the trinity is defined by the WT..."

    JWDaughter, you're very right about mainstream Christians confusing the trinity and Sabellianism - I've even heard it fom the pulpit! now if the leadership can't make a clear definition between the two, what hope is there for the sheeple?!

    And yes, that's why JWs can run circles round most of us.

  • wobble

    Who wrote that reply Reniaa ? it sure wasn't you. you must put in the usual mistakes in spelling and grammer,not cut and paste the reply someone has given you,if you want it to look like yours.

    I could take issue with it, but don't have time at present, but just to say that JWDaughter makes a great point, the WT position on the divinity of Christ etc. was REJECTED b the early Christians. For this reason the WT puts forward the fiction that a great Apostasy occured straight after the death of John, or whoever the last Apostle to die was.

    The reality is that the early christians were trying to make sense of their faith, and began to use their God given brains so to do, but any major divergence from the teachings of the Apostles was stamped on, even minor Heresy, like that espoused by the Donatists was dealt with, so why was Sabellianism rejected ? was it because a fully formed Trinitarian doctrine (as we know it today) existed in the church, or was it because it contradicted the teachings found in Scripture ?

    Interesting to read Tertullion on this, he shows some logical fallacies in the teaching, I am not convinced that the WT position is exactly the same as sabellianism, but many Divines over the centuries up to and including now, reject the WT view. That alone makes the WT view worth examining.



  • jwfacts

    I have done an article about the Watchtower dishonesty on the topic at I considered myself and expert about the Trininty when a JW, yet never even knew that there were different teachings. The Watchtower wraps them all under one banner.

    Modalistic Monarchianism or Sabellian is the notion that there is one unique God that manifests Himself in three different modes or stages. God appeared initially as the Father in the Old Testament and the Son in the four Gospels. Whilst appearing as the Son he ceased to exist as the Father. At Pentecost God began to move as the Spirit, and is therefore no longer either the Father or the Son.

  • Chalam


    Just because one heresy comes to oppose another does not mean that it is not just another heresy!

    Sabellianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Arianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    An interesting point from the Arianism link is this

    The conflict between Arianism and Trinitarian beliefs was the first major doctrinal confrontation in the Church after the legalization of Christianity by the Roman Emperor Constantine I.

    Anyhow, there are others, Paul and the Apostles were opposing those with "other gospels" shortly after the church was born.

    Well forget everyone's teaching, let the Holy Spirit do His work.

    John 14:26 (New International Version)

    26 But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

    Ask Him what He has to say regarding these two verses

    Romans 8:9-10 (New International Version)

    9 You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ. 10 But if Christ is in you, your body is dead because of sin, yet your spirit is alive because of righteousness.

    All the best,


  • JustHuman14

    Trinity is my favor subject. Unfortunately most of those belong to the Protestand groups are unware of the Early Christian history and they use reasoning like WT does. We might not have the word Trinity in the Bible but we have PROOF from many verses of a Triunion God. Plus we have early writtings of the successors of the Apostoles confirming the Trinity dogma, like Bishop Ignatius 120 A.D, Justin Martyr, 100-165 A.D, Athingoras 177 AD, Irinaios 180 A.D. Just to mention a few Bishops of the Apostolic Church.

    The Apostolic Chruch did not came to clarify the dogma only when Heretics like Arius started to question the Nature of Christ. That is why an Apostolic Synodos in Nicaia had to clarify this matter and guard the Holy Apostolic Church from herecy.

    The most amazing for those who claim that the Bible or the early Christians did not believed Trinity is they accept a Bible that was given to them by the Holy Orthodox Apostolic Church and the definition of the Biblical Canon by Saint Athanasius at Laodicea Synodos 367 A.D...

    My question is clear: Why do you accept a Bible that supposed was canonized by apostates?

  • JustHuman14

    renaia, please read some Early Church history before you make statements like this....and answer me to the following statements:

    One , hugecontradiction

    If however, the Ancient Church did not remain within the truth – as various protestant groups and heresies maintain – then they have a serious problem. They place themselves in the predicament of acknowledging the authority of an apostate Church that ruled on the Canon of the New Testament! How can they trust the Canon of the 27 books of the New Testament, if it was composed by alleged apostates of the truth? How can they be certain that those involved had made the correct choice as to which books are divinely inspired or not, if they had apostatized from the divine truth? If the Church had apostatized, how can they be sure that those people hadn’t chosen the books that were considered expedient and rejected those that weren’t to their advantage? If, on the other hand, they trust the Canon of the New Testament, then they –unwittingly- also trust the Church that created that Canon!

    The oldest, complete catalogue of the 27 books of the New Testament did not exist until 367 A.D., when Athanasios the Great wrote his 39 th commemorative epistle !! The Canon that we have, was finalized in 397 A.D., in the Council (Synod) of Carthage. At least that Church – which gave us the Canon for the New Testament – was surely “a pillar and foundation of the truth” (Timothy I, 3:15). If the Church had indeed preserved apostolic tradition, then it certainly was capable of deciding on the Canon of valid books for the New Testament; if, however, it had become corrupt and apostate, it would obviously not have preserved apostolic tradition and subsequently any decision that it may have reached for this Canon would have been erroneous! To quote the Holy Bible: “Who can extract the clean from the unclean? No-one” (Job, 14:4 – Vamvas Translation). But, if we accept that apostolic tradition was properly preserved by that Church, qualifying it to decide on the Canon, then it could not have been in apostasy!

    Consequently, those who maintain that the Church had apostatized, have only two choices:

    1. Either to reject the Canon on the 27 books of the New Testament ruled by that “apostate” Church and commence their own councils (synods) and discussions in order to instate a new Canon for the New Testament, or:
    2. Admit that they have made a mistake and that the Canon on the New Testament that they acknowledge could not have been created by an “apostate” Church.

Share this