by JWdaughter 35 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • reniaa

    strawman justhuman

    You cannot say well these guys did the cannon so their other spurious teachings of trinity must be correct if that is your point?

    Early information shows the bible canon was well established before it was ever made 'official' by trinitarians.

    Thankfully the only scriptures they added to the bible to pretend trinity doctrine was there aka 1 john 5:7 additions and the 1 timothy 3:16 additions have been revealed for the frauds they are. they kept the early bible manuscripts because they weren't mad enough to mess with it to much but they did try and stop people reading it and seeing the truth for themselves.

    Someone mentions early bible scholar but many didn't believe in trinity despite them being cited as examples.

    Trinitarians suggestively imply the early Christian Justin Martyr had Trinitarian beliefs but refrain from disclosing that he declared Jesus was "another god" who was subject to "the most true God". Trinitarians suggestively imply the early Christian Irenaeus had Trinitarian beliefs but refrain from disclosing that he repeatedly insisted the Father alone was the only true God. Trinitarians suggestively imply the early Christian Tertullian had Trinitarian beliefs but refrain from disclosing that he declared the Son was inferior to the Father and also insisted there was a time when the Son was not.

    Why do Trinitarians misrepresent the facts of history by claiming the Trinity issue was settled at the Council of Nicea when Arians had almost won the day 40 years later? And why do they fail to mention the Arian controversy was really ended politically by a decree of Emperor Theodosius 55 years after Nicea?

    Here is a good site on trinity called 'trinity on trial'. The guy that has written it was a trinitarian apologist for 40 years then finally he realised that he had been defending a wrong doctrine and has put down all the evidence quite succintly for those that are intersted. I recommend it as a very informative read. He has no connections with witnesses or christeldelphians etc he came to this point through his own complete historical research.


  • Black Sheep
    Black Sheep

    "Within Islam however, such a concept of plurality within God is a denial of monotheism, and utterly foreign to the revelation found in Muslim scripture. The act of ascribing partners to God, whether they be sons, daughters, or other partners, is considered to be blasphemous in Islam."

    The Trinity is wrong because Islam says so.


    Someone agrees with Ren.

  • reniaa

    Hi Black sheep

    You have 3 of the earths major religions all drawn from the bible as a source of their beliefs and all originally monotheistic and 2 of them monotheistic still to this day! surely this has to hold some weight with what was originally the truth of what God wanted us to believe? Trinitarians would have us believe that later scholars while not inspired to write bible canon were able to have the trinity doctrine revealed to them despite, abraham, israelites, Jews, Paul and the appostles not being aware of it at all. That they all wrongly believed One God the father because God lied?


  • Black Sheep
    Black Sheep

    I agree with you that the Trinity is of Pagan origen, Ren.

    Where we part, is that I believe that paganism was incorporated into Christianity prior to the Bible canon being set by the early church, which is why Trinitarians can find support for their beliefs in the Bible.

    I agree with Arthur Weigall, who believed that Christianity was the last bastion of the old Pagan Gods.

    You should read his book. It is quoted by your Watchtower in support of their anti-trinity diatribe.

    Arthur was a Christian, despite his disagreement with some Christian doctrines, in much the same way as you portray your relationship with the Watchtower.



  • reniaa

    hi blacksheep

    the canon is the canon there wasn't a proplific amount of writings to choose from all evidence shows they people knew which writers were the inspired ones, the agnostic appocrypha clearly written in later times was never even consider seriously as part of the canon, If you actually look at the bible what trinity doctrine is there?

    two of the main proof texts 1 john 5:7 and 1 tim 3:16 were proven to be fakes. Now they only have grammatically challenging ones at best, as a doctrine it is read into the bible. the writer in trinity on trial puts it quite well.

    The reason the doctrine of the Trinity exists is not because the Bible teaches this doctrine. It doesn't. The reason the doctrine of the Trinity exists is not because a three person God is ever once mentioned anywhere in the entire Bible. It doesn't. Although God is the main character of the Bible and is mentioned thousands of times, the Bible never once mentions a three person God. The reason the doctrine of the Trinity exists is because there are a handful of verses which confuse Trinitarians if they don't believe in their triune God of three persons. They don't otherwise know what to do with these verses unless they believe in a Triune God. The doctrine of the Trinity is an old invention designed to meet the needs of people who want a type of 'closure' concerning these verses. It is a creation perceived to be a required justification for certain verses in the Bible. And so the overwhelming testimony of all of Scripture is denied in order to appease their needs concerning a few verses. And not only so, Trinitarian apologists have designed contrivances to explain away those other verses which explicitly identify the one God as the Father alone and/or those verses which deny the existence of a three person God.


  • JustHuman14

    Renia what Muslims(a compete herecy)has to do with Christianity? Any how, just have a look at few scriptures regarding Trinity. From the old testament:

    Zacharias 2/II 5-11: For I,saysthe Lord Yahve, ‘will be as a wall of fire all around her, and I will be the glory in her midst.’ “Up, up! Flee from the land of the north,” says the Lord Yahve; “for I have spread you abroad like the four winds of heaven,” says the Lord Yahve. “Up, Zion! Escape, you who dwell with the daughter of Babylon.” For thus says the Lord Yahve of hosts: “He sent Meto the nations which plundered you; for he who touches you touches the apple of His eye. For surely I will shake My hand against them, and they shall become spoil for their servants. Then you will know that the Lord Yahve of hostshas sent Me. “Sing and rejoice, O daughter of Zion! For behold, I am coming and I will dwell in your midst,” says the Lord Yahve. “Many nations shall be joined to the Lord Yahve in that day, and they shall become My people. And I will dwell in your midst. Then you will know that the Lord Yahve of hosts has sent Me to you.

    The first Yahve, Who says “I will be as a wall of fire around her”, is the Holy Spirit . This refers to a second Yahve, Who says of Himself that “He was sent to shake His hand against the nations, and dwell in Zion and join the nations with His people”. And of course this second Yahve is Jesus Christ , Who was sent by His Father to dwell in Zion and call the nations to His Church. Finally, this second Yahve speaks of a third Yahve , who “has sent Him” and “whoever touches His people, touches the apple of His eye”. Thus, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are all Yahve.

    The first Yahve, Who says “I will be as a wall of fire around her”, is the Holy Spirit . This refers to a second Yahve, Who says of Himself that “He was sent to shake His hand against the nations, and dwell in Zion and join the nations with His people”. And of course this second Yahve is Jesus Christ , Who was sent by His Father to dwell in Zion and call the nations to His Church. Finally, this second Yahve speaks of a third Yahve , who “has sent Him” and “whoever touches His people, touches the apple of His eye”. Thus, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are all Yahve.

    It should not be seen as something strange by the reader, that the three of them have the same name. Nowadays, in every family, the entire family bears a common surname. “Yahve” therefore is not the name of a persona, as the Watchtower organization prefers to teach. “Yahve” is the name of God’s essence, We proved there, that ??Yahve?? signifies: ??the One Who Is”, i.e., that which states the essence of God, and not the particularity of His persona. And just as the members of a family have the same essence and the same name, so it is with the personae of Godhood (the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit), who, as we just read in the Holy Bible, all have the same name: “Yahve” ? . This is the common name (let’s say, something like a surname) for the three personae, who are by nature beyond space and time , (under construct) and consequently are of the same essence.

  • BurnTheShips

    Here is a shameless cut and paste showing what early Christians believed regarding the nature of Jesus as God.

    The doctrine of the Trinity is encapsulated in Matthew 28:19, where Jesus instructs the apostles: "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."

    The parallelism of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit is not unique to Matthew’s Gospel, but appears elsewhere in the New Testament (e.g., 2 Cor. 13:14, Heb. 9:14), as well as in the writings of the earliest Christians, who clearly understood them in the sense that we do today—that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are three divine persons who are one divine being (God).

    The Didache

    "After the foregoing instructions, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [running] water. . . . If you have neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" (Didache 7:1 [A.D. 70]).

    Ignatius of Antioch

    "[T]o the Church at Ephesus in Asia . . . chosen through true suffering by the will of the Father in Jesus Christ our God" (Letter to the Ephesians 1 [A.D. 110]).

    "For our God, Jesus Christ, was conceived by Mary in accord with God’s plan: of the seed of David, it is true, but also of the Holy Spirit" (ibid., 18:2).

    Justin Martyr

    "We will prove that we worship him reasonably; for we have learned that he is the Son of the true God himself, that he holds a second place, and the Spirit of prophecy a third. For this they accuse us of madness, saying that we attribute to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all things; but they are ignorant of the mystery which lies therein" (First Apology 13:5–6 [A.D. 151]).

    Theophilus of Antioch

    "It is the attribute of God, of the most high and almighty and of the living God, not only to be everywhere, but also to see and hear all; for he can in no way be contained in a place. . . . The three days before the luminaries were created are types of the Trinity: God, his Word, and his Wisdom" (To Autolycus 2:15 [A.D. 181]).


    "For the Church, although dispersed throughout the whole world even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and from their disciples the faith in one God, the Father Almighty . . . and in one Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became flesh for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit" (Against Heresies 1:10:1 [A.D. 189]).


    "We do indeed believe that there is only one God, but we believe that under this dispensation, or, as we say, oikonomia, there is also a Son of this one only God, his Word, who proceeded from him and through whom all things were made and without whom nothing was made. . . . We believe he was sent down by the Father, in accord with his own promise, the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, the sanctifier of the faith of those who believe in the Father and the Son, and in the Holy Spirit. . . . This rule of faith has been present since the beginning of the gospel, before even the earlier heretics" (Against Praxeas 2 [A.D. 216]).

    "And at the same time the mystery of the oikonomia is safeguarded, for the unity is distributed in a Trinity. Placed in order, the three are the Father, Son, and Spirit. They are three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in being, but in form; not in power, but in kind; of one being, however, and one condition and one power, because he is one God of whom degrees and forms and kinds are taken into account in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" (ibid.).

    "Keep always in mind the rule of faith which I profess and by which I bear witness that the Father and the Son and the Spirit are inseparable from each other, and then you will understand what is meant by it. Observe now that I say the Father is other [distinct], the Son is other, and the Spirit is other. This statement is wrongly understood by every uneducated or perversely disposed individual, as if it meant diversity and implied by that diversity a separation of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" (ibid., 9).

    "Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent persons, who are yet distinct one from another. These three are, one essence, not one person, as it is said, ‘I and my Father are one’ [John 10:30], in respect of unity of being not singularity of number" (ibid., 25).


    "For we do not hold that which the heretics imagine: that some part of the being of God was converted into the Son, or that the Son was procreated by the Father from non-existent substances, that is, from a being outside himself, so that there was a time when he [the Son] did not exist" (The Fundamental Doctrines 4:4:1 [A.D. 225]).

    "No, rejecting every suggestion of corporeality, we hold that the Word and the Wisdom was begotten out of the invisible and incorporeal God, without anything corporal being acted upon . . . the expression which we employ, however that there was never a time when he did not exist is to be taken with a certain allowance. For these very words ‘when’ and ‘never’ are terms of temporal significance, while whatever is said of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, is to be understood as transcending all time, all ages" (ibid.).

    "For it is the Trinity alone which exceeds every sense in which not only temporal but even eternal may be understood. It is all other things, indeed, which are outside the Trinity, which are to be measured by time and ages" (ibid.).


    "The Word alone of this God is from God himself, wherefore also the Word is God, being the being of God. Now the world was made from nothing, wherefore it is not God" (Refutation of All Heresies 10:29 [A.D. 228]).


    "For Scripture as much announces Christ as also God, as it announces God himself as man. It has as much described Jesus Christ to be man, as moreover it has also described Christ the Lord to be God. Because it does not set forth him to be the Son of God only, but also the son of man; nor does it only say, the son of man, but it has also been accustomed to speak of him as the Son of God. So that being of both, he is both, lest if he should be one only, he could not be the other. For as nature itself has prescribed that he must be believed to be a man who is of man, so the same nature prescribes also that he must be believed to be God who is of God. . . . Let them, therefore, who read that Jesus Christ the son of man is man, read also that this same Jesus is called also God and the Son of God" (Treatise on the Trinity 11 [A.D. 235]).

    Pope Dionysius

    "Next, then, I may properly turn to those who divide and cut apart and destroy the most sacred proclamation of the Church of God, making of it [the Trinity], as it were, three powers, distinct substances, and three godheads. . . . [Some heretics] proclaim that there are in some way three gods, when they divide the sacred unity into three substances foreign to each other and completely separate" (Letter to Dionysius of Alexandria 1 [A.D. 262]).

    "Therefore, the divine Trinity must be gathered up and brought together in one, a summit, as it were, I mean the omnipotent God of the universe. . . . It is b.asphemy, then, and not a common one but the worst, to say that the Son is in any way a handiwork [creature]. . . . But if the Son came into being [was created], there was a time when these attributes did not exist; and, consequently, there was a time when God was without them, which is utterly absurd" (ibid., 1–2).

    "Neither, then, may we divide into three godheads the wonderful and divine unity. . . . Rather, we must believe in God, the Father Almighty; and in Christ Jesus, his Son; and in the Holy Spirit; and that the Word is united to the God of the universe. ‘For,’ he says, ‘The Father and I are one,’ and ‘I am in the Father, and the Father in me’" (ibid., 3).

    Gregory the Wonderworker

    "There is one God. . . . There is a perfect Trinity, in glory and eternity and sovereignty, neither divided nor estranged. Wherefore there is nothing either created or in servitude in the Trinity; nor anything superinduced, as if at some former period it was non-existent, and at some later period it was introduced. And thus neither was the Son ever wanting to the Father, nor the Spirit to the Son; but without variation and without change, the same Trinity abides ever" (Declaration of Faith [A.D. 265]).

    Sechnall of Ireland

    "Hymns, with Revelation and the Psalms of God [Patrick] sings, and does expound the same for the edifying of God’s people. This law he holds in the Trinity of the sacred Name and teaches one being in three persons" (Hymn in Praise of St. Patrick 22 [A.D. 444]).

    Patrick of Ireland

    "I bind to myself today the strong power of an invocation of the Trinity—the faith of the Trinity in unity, the Creator of the universe" (The Breastplate of St. Patrick 1 [A.D. 447]).

    "[T]here is no other God, nor has there been heretofore, nor will there be hereafter, except God the Father unbegotten, without beginning, from whom is all beginning, upholding all things, as we say, and his Son Jesus Christ, whom we likewise to confess to have always been with the Father—before the world’s beginning. . . . Jesus Christ is the Lord and God in whom we believe . . . and who has poured out on us abundantly the Holy Spirit . . . whom we confess and adore as one God in the Trinity of the sacred Name" (Confession of St. Patrick 4 [A.D. 452]).



  • glenster

    JWsdaughter is historically correct. What I have on that is on pp.4 and
    7 to 10 of "Glenster's Guide to GTJ Brooklyn."

    Despite the JWs leaders' protests to the contrary, the first cent. Jewish
    people could imagine God's own Wisdom or Logos personified and coming from God
    to visit people. They indicated belief in God with prayer and worship, and the
    reason Paul at first attacked Christians was that they prayed to and worshipped
    Jesus, etc. They referred to the holy spirit as personal, etc. Only the word
    "Trinity" and the fuss over agreeing to a short phrase for it, and ways to speak
    of it, came later.

    There are a lot of quotes of JWs leaders, whose view is basically comparable
    to Arianism (another word that came up a good while after Christianity started),
    misrepresenting that mainstream Christian view of Father and Son as two gods,
    etc. That's really only the old Arian argument against Sabellianism, both of
    which came up a long time after Christian belief got underway.

    The JWs leaders' specifics--basically an Arian-type view except with Michael
    as Jesus (which JWs leaders required worship for till the 1950's) and an
    impersonal spirit--show up even later.

    If you add the other specifics they require and give it a name like "Jehovah's
    Witnesses," with tracts of revisionist history and explanations that
    misrepresent the mainstream view instead of a phrase for followers to agree to,
    it's the most recent of the bunch.

    Another irony is that the JWs leaders misrepresent the mainstream view as born
    of philosophy centuries after the mainstream view started, whereas philosophy
    seems to have been a motive for Arianism centuries after the mainstream view

  • reniaa

    yes and if you read these quote?

    didache is not making a statement of trinity he is just quoting the baptism sccripture.

    all ignatious is doing is saying Jesus is God - I accept it was through people like him wanting to make Jesus God from whom the trinity was born

    justin martyr is clearly saying Jesus has second place the context shows he considers this a lesser postion and not equal to God. so no trinity all are equal there.

    Theophilus yes hes a trinitatarian but a later one.

    Iraneous quite clearly keeping God and Jesus separate, this is not trinity.

    tertulian later but clearly a person who find God the father superior to jesus and distinct.

    origen later and clearly trinitarian.

    novatian from the quote you put sounds modalist not trinitarian.

    Pope dio raving trinitarian and here we are getting the rhetoric started that they rely so much on now full of it's oxymorons.

    hypolytus - very greek philosophical which the 150-300 seem to have in common talking of essences and natures which is not typical of the bible but very greek plato in origin.

    the later we get with the quotes the more obviously trinitarian they are.

    These quotes are actually good for people to see how trinity evolved and how clearly it is a concept of men and not God put on the bible born of wishful thinking and trying to get closure on certain scriptures looking at fantasy explanations rather than bible ones.


  • BurnTheShips
    all ignatious is doing is saying Jesus is God - I accept it was through people like him wanting to make Jesus God from whom the trinity was born

    Ignatius did not "want" anything. He was passing on what he was taught and had received by and from the Apostles. He received the congregation at Antioch after the passing of the Apostle John, he was taught by John, and he may have been the little boy that Jesus used as an example to teach humility. Ignatius wrote letters to several congregations on his way to his death in Rome. I suggest you read them.

    Christians always believed the Trinity, the teaching was not explicitly defined until later, and then only because of the division that had started to exist.

    I recommend you read the writings of early Christians and familiarize yourself with the history of Christianity.

    The book you use to try to disprove the Trinity is the book that was written and assembled by that very group. The final from of the Biblical Canon you have today in your hands was decided by Trinitarians.


Share this