Watchtower: Should You Believe in the Trinity?, 1989

8/20/2019 Watchtower: Should You Believe in the Trinity?, 1989

1/32

Is Jesu Christ the Almighty God?


2/32

People often say they believe in the Trinity, yet they dier in

their understanding of it.

What, exactly, is the Trinity?

D thibl

achit

Is Jesus Christ the mightyG

and pa of the Trity?

C

Left: Egyptian sculpture of the second millennium (B.C.E.)Triad of Amon-Ra, Ramses and Mut Right Fourteenthcentury (CE.) Trinity sculpture of Jesus Christ the Fatherand the holy spirit Note, three persons but only four legs

Shoud You Believe It?

5

1

16

0

30

How Is the Trinity Explained?Is It Clearly a Bible Teaching?How Did the Trinity Doctrine Develop?

What Does the Bible Say About God and Jesus?Is God Always Superior to Jesus?

The Holy Spirit-Gd's Active Force

What About Trinity "Proof Texts?

Worship God on His Terms

© 99WATCHOER

BILE AND RACT SIEOF PENNYLVANIAA ghts Rese

PublishersWATCHOER

BILE AND RACT SIEOF ANA

Grgtown. Onto Canada

Printinghis publication is provided pat of a worldwide Bibleeduational work supported

by voluntary donations.

Should You Believe in the Trinity? Engish (t-E)Made in Canada

Uness oherwise indicaed. Scrpure quoaions are from he mode-languNew Wo Tansaon of e Hoy Scrpures-W Refeences, 1984 Ed


3/32

Sho You Beeve I?

Do OU beeve n the Trnty? Most peope n Chrstendom do After a, t hasbeen the centra doctrne of the church-

es for centuresn vew of ths, you woud thnk that therecoud be no queston about t But there s, andatey even some of ts supporters have addedfue to the controversy

Why shoud a subject ke ths be of anymore than passng nterest? Because Jesushmsef sad: Eterna fe s ths: to know you,he ony true God, and Jesus Chrst whom youhave sent So our entre future hnges on ourknowng the true nature of God, and that

means gettng to the root of the Trnty contro-versy Therefore, why not examne t for your-sef?John 73 Cathoc Jerusalem Bible(JB).

arous Trntaran concepts exst But gen-eray the Trnty teachng s that n the God-head there are three persons, Father, Son, andHoy Ghost; yet, together they are but oneGod he doctrne says that the three are co-equa, amghty, and uncreated, havng exstedeternay n the Godhead

Others, however, say that the Trnty doctrne s fase, that Amghty God stands aoneas a separate, eterna, and apowerfu bengThey say that Jesus n hs pre human exstencewas, ke the anges, a separate sprt person

created by God, and for ths reason he musthave had a begnnng They teach that Jesushas never been Amghty Gods equa n any

sense; he has aways been subject to God andst s They aso beeve that the hoy ghost snot a person but Gods sprt, hs actve forceSupporters of the Trnty say that t s

founded not ony on regous tradton but asoon the Bbe Crtcs of the doctrne say that ts not a Bbe teachng, one hstory source evendecarng: The orgn of the [Trnty] s entre-y pagan Th Paganism in Our Christianity.

f the Trnty s true, t s degradng to Jesusto say that he was never equa to God as part

of a Godhead But f the Trnty s fase, t sdegradng to Amghty God to ca anyone hsequa, and even worse to ca Mary the Mother of God f the Trnty s fase, t dshonorsGod to say, as noted n the book Catholicism: Uness [peope] keep ths Fath whoe and un-deed, wthout doubt [they] sha persh ever-astngy And the Cathoc Fath s ths: weworshp one God n Trnty

There are good reasons, then, why youshoud want to know the truth about the Trn-

ty But before examnng ts orgn and tscam of truthfuness, t woud be hep todene ths doctrne more speccay What,exacty, s the Trnty? How do supporters of texpan t?

Ho Is heT Exl?

T

HE oman Cathoc Church states: The

Trnty s the term empoyed to sgnthe centra doctrne of the Chrstan re-gon Thus, n the words of the Athana-san Creed: the Father s God, the Son s God,and the Hoy Sprt s God, and yet there arenot three Gods but one God n ths Trnty the Persons are coeterna and coequa:a ake are uncreated and omnpotent TheCatholic Encyclopedia.

Neary a other churches n ChrstenSHOU YOU B ?

dom agree For exampe, the Greek Orthodox

Church aso cas the Trnty the fundamentadoctrne of Chrstanty, even sayng: Chrs-tans are those who accept Chrst as God nthe book Our Orthodox Christian Faith, thesame curch decares: God s trune TheFather s totay God The Son s totay GodThe Hoy Sprt s totay God

Thus, the Trnty s consdered to be oneGod n three Persons Each s sad to be wth-out begnnng, havng exted for eternty

3


4/32

Each i ai to b almighty with ach nithrgratr nor lr than th othr

I uch raoning har to follow? Many incr blivr hav foun it to b confuingcontrary to normal raon unlik anything inthir xprinc How, thy ak coul th a-

thr b Go Ju b Go an th holy piritb Go, yt thr b not thr Go but onlyon Go?"Beyond the Grasp of Human Reason"

HIS confion i wipra. The Encyclo

pedia Americana not that th octrinof th Trinity i conir to b byon thgrap of human raon.

Many who accpt th Trinity viw it thatam way. Monignor Eugn lark ay: Go

i on an Go i thrSinc thr i nothinglik thi in cration w cannot unrtan itbut only accpt it. arinal John Oonnortat: W know that it i a vry profounmytry, which w ont bgin to unr-tan An Pop John Paul II pak of thincrutabl mytry of Go th Trinity.

Thu, A Dictionary of Religious owledgeay Prcily what that octrin i or rathr prcily how it i to b xplain, Trinitarian ar not agr among thmlv

W can unrtan thn why thNew

Catholic Encyclopedia obrv: Thr arfw tachr of Trinitarian thology in Romanatholic minari who hav not bn ba-gr at on tim or anothr by th qution,But how o on prach th Trinity? An ifth qution i ymptomatic of confuion onth part of th tunt prhap it i no lymptomatic of imilar confuion on th partof thir profor.

Th truth of that obrvation can b vri

by going to a library an xamining bookthat upport th Trinity ountl pag havbn writtn attmpting to xplain it Yt aftr truggling through th labyrinth of confu

ing thological trm an xplanation invtigator till com away unati.

In thi rgar Juit Joph Brackn obrv in hi book What Are They SayingAbout the Trinity?: Prit who with conirabl ort larn th Trinity uring

thir minary yar naturally hitat toprnt it to thir popl from th plpit vnon Trinity Sunay . Why houl on borpopl with omthing that in th n thywoulnt proprly unrtan anyway? Halo ay: Th Trinity i a mattr of formablif but it ha littl or no [ct] in aytoay hritian lif an worhip. Yt it i thcntral octrin of th church

atholic thologian Han Kng obrvin hi book Christianity and the World Religions that th Trinity i on raon why thchurch hav bn unabl to mak any ignicant haway with nonhritian poplH tat: Evn wllinform Mulim imply cannot follow a th Jw thu far havlikwi fail to grap th ia of th Trinity Th distinctions ma by th octrinof th Trinity btwn on Go an thrhypota o not atify Mulim who arconfu rathr than nlightn by thological trm riv from Syriac Grk, anLatin. Mulim n it all a wor gam . Why houl anyon want to a anything toth notion of Go onn an uniqunthat can only ilut or nulli that onn anuniqun? Not a God of Confusion"

HOW coul uch a confuing octrin origi

nat? The Catholic Encyclopedia claim A ogma o mytriou pruppo a Divinrvlation atholic cholar Karl Rahnr anHrbrt Vorgrimlr tat in thir TheologicaDictionary:

Th Trinity i a mytry . inth trict n ... which coul not b knownwithout rvlation an vn aftr rvlationcannot bcom wholly intlligibl

The disciples of Jesus werethe humble common people,not the religious leaders


5/32

However, contening that ince the Trinity iuch a confuing mytery, it mut have comefrom ivine revelation create another maorproblem. Why? Becaue ivine revelation itelfoe not allow for uch a view of Go: Go inot a Go of confuion. orinthian 14:33,Revised Standard Version (RS)

In view of that tatement, woul Go be re-ponible for a octrine about himelf that io confuing that even Hebrew, Greek, anLatin cholar cannot really explain it?

urthermore, o people have to be theolo

gian to know the only true Go an Jeuhrit whom he ha ent? (John 1:3, JB) If thatwere the cae, why i o few of the eucate Jewih religiou leaer recognize Jeu athe Meiah? Hi faithful iciple were, in-tea, humble farmer, hermen, tax collec-

tor, houewiveThoe common people were ocertain of what Jeu taught about Go thatthey coul teach it to other an were evenwilling to ie for their beliefMatthew 15: 1 ;21:2332, 43; 23:1336; John :454; Act4:3

Is I Clearly a Ble Teacg?

I THE Trinity were true, it houl be clear-ly an conitently preente in the BibleWhy? Becaue, a the apotle arme, the

Bible i Go revelation of himelf to mankinAn ince we nee to know Go to worhip himacceptably, the Bible houl be clear in tellingu ut who he i

irtcentury believer accepte the Scrip-ture a the authentic revelation of Go. It wathe bai for their belief, the nal authorityor example, when the apotle Paul preache

to people in the city of Beroea, they receivethe wor with the greatet eagerne of min,carefully examining the Scripture aily ato whether thee thing were .Act 1:0, 1.

What i prominent men of Go at that timeue a their authority? Act 1:2, 3 tell u: Accoring to Paul cutom . he reaonewith them from the Scripture, explaining anproving by reference [from the Scripture].

Jeu himelf et the example in uing the

Scripture a the bai for hi teaching, repeately aying: It i written He interprete tothem thing pertaining to himelf in all theScriptureMatthew 4:4, ; Luke 24:2

Thu Jeu, Paul, an rtcentury believerue the Scripture a the founation for theirteaching. They knew that all Scripture i inpire of Go an benecial for teaching, forreproving, for etting thing traight, for ici-plining in righteoune, that the man of GoSHO YOU BEUEV ?

may be fully competent, completely equippefor every goo work2 Timothy 3:16, ; eealo 1 orinthian 4:6; 1 Thealonian 2:13;2 Peter 1:20, 21.

Since the Bible can et thing traight, ithoul clearly reveal information about a mat-ter a namental a the Trinity i claimeto be. But o theologian an hitorian themelve ay that it i clearly a Bible teaching?Trinity" in the Bible?

APROTESTANT publication tate: Thewor Trinity i not foun in the Bible ..Iti not n a place forally in the theology of

the church till the 4th century. ( The lustratedBible Dictionary) An a atholic authority aythat the Trinity i not .. irectly an immei-ately [the] wor of Go Catholic Encyclopedia

The Catholic Encyclopedia alo comment: In Scripture there i a yet no ingle term bywhich the Three Divine Peron are enote

together The wor'pn [ tri as]

(of which theLatin trinitas i a tranlation i rt foun inTheophilu of Antioch about A. D. 80 . Shortly afterwar it appear in it Latin form oftrinitas in Tertullian.

However, thi i no proof in itelf that Tertullian taught the TrinityThe atholic work Trinitas-A Theological Encyclopedia of the HolyTrinity, for example, note that ome of Tertullian wor were later ue by other to


6/32

describe the TrinityThen it cautions "But hastyconcusions cannot be drawn from usage, for hedoes not appy the words to Trinitarian theoo-gy"Testimony of the Hebrew Scriptures

HILE the word "Trinity " is not found inthe Bibe, is at east the idea of the Trini-ty taught ceary in it? For instance, what do theHebrew Scriptures ("Od Testament") revea?

The Encyclopedia of Religion admits "Theo-ogians today are in agreement that the HebrewBibe does not contain a doctrine of the Trinity" And the New Catholic Encyclopedia aso says "The doctrine of the Hoy Trinity is not taughtin the O[d] Testament]."

Simiary, in his book The Triune God, Jesuit Edmund Fortman admits "The Od Testament. . tes us nothing expicity or by necessaryimpication of a Triune God who is Father, Sonand Hoy Spirit. . There is no evidence thatany sacred writer even suspected the existenceof a [ Trinity] within the Godhead.. Even tosee in [the "Od Testament"] suggestions or fore-shadowings or veied signs of the trinity ofpersons, is to go beyond the words and intent ofthe sacred writers"Itaics ours.

An examination of the Hebrew Scripturesthemseves wi bear out these commentsThus,

there is no cear teaching of a Trinity in the rst3 books of the Bibe that make up the truecanon of the inspired Hebrew Scriptures.Testimony of the Greek Scriptures

ELL, then, do the Christian Greek Scrip-tures ("New Testament") speak ceary of

a Trinity?The Encyclopedia of Religion says "Theoo-

gians agree that the New Testament aso doesnot contain an expicit doctrine of the Trinity"

Jesuit Fortman states "The New Testamentwriters . . give us no forma or formuateddoctrine of the Trinity, no expicit teaching thatin one God there are three coequa divine persons . . Nowhere do we nd any trinitariandoctrine of �hree distinct subjects of divine ifeand activity in the same Godhead."

The New Encyclopdia Britannica observes "Neither the word Trinity nor the expicit doc-trine appears in the New Testament"6

Bernhard Lohse says in A Short History oChristian Doctrine: "As far as the New Testament is concerned, one does not nd in it anactua doctrine of the Trinity"

The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology simiary states "The N[ew

T[ estament] does not contain the deveoped doctrine of the Trinity. The Bibe acks the expresdecaration that the Father, the Son, and the HoySpirit are of equa essence' [said Protestant theoogian Kar Barth]"

Yae University professor EWashburn Hopkins armed "To Jesus and Pau the doctrine othe trinity was apparenty unknown; . theysay nothing about -Origin and Evolution oReligion

Historian Athur Weiga notes "Jesus Chris

never mentioned such a phenomenon, and nowhere in the New Testament does the wordTrinity' appear The idea was ony adopted bthe Church three hundred years aftr the deathof our The Paganism in Our Christianity

Thus, neither the 3 books of the HebrewScriptures nor the canon of 2 inspired books othe Christian Greek Scriptures provide any ceateaching of the TrinityTaught by Early Christians?

ID the eary Christians teach the TrinityNote the foowing comments by histori

ans and theoogians "Pritive Christianity did not have an ex

picit doctrine of the Trinity such as was subsequenty eaborated in the creeds." NewInternational Dictionary of New TestamenTheology.

"The eary Christians, however, did not arst think of appying the [Trinity] idea to theiown faith They paid their devotions to God thFather and to Jesus Christ, the Son of God, anthey recognised the .. Hoy Spirit; but therwas no thought of these three being an actuaTrinity, coequa and united in One." Paganism in Our Christianity

"At rst the Christian faith was not Trntarian .It was not so in the apostoic ansubapostoic ages, as reected in the N[ ew

SHO YOU BE IN


7/32

T[estament] and othe eay histian wit-.-Encyopdia of Religion and Ethics.

"The omation one God in thee esons'was not soidy estabished, cetainy not yassimiated into histian ie and its poessiono aith, pio to the end o the 4th centy....

Among the Apostoic Fathes, thee had beennothing even emotey appoaching sch amentaity o pespective" Catholic Encyclopedia

What the Ante-Nicene Fathers Taught

HE anteNicene Fathes wee acknow-

edged to have been eading eigios teach-es in the eay centies ate hist's bithWhat they taght is o inteest.

Jstin Maty, who died abot 165 E, caed

the spemacy o God. He obseved: "The Fa-the is dieent om the Son (anothe, as he isgeate; as he who begets is dieent om himwho is begotten; he who sends, dieent omhim who is sent." He aso said: "Thee was atime when the Son was not..Beoe a things,

God was aone"Hippoyts, who died abot 235 .E., saidthat God is "the one God, the st and the onyOne, the Make and Lod o a," who "had noth-ing coeva [o eqa age] with him . Bt hewas One, aone by himse; who, wiing it,caed into being what had no being beoe,"sch as the ceated pehman Jess.

Oigen, who died abot 250 .E, said that "the Fathe and Son ae two sbstances ... twothings as to thei essence," and that "compaed

with the Fathe, [the Son] is athe pehman Jess a ceatedange who is "othe than theGod who made a things." Hesaid that Jess was ineio toGod and "neve did anything ex-cept what the eato . wiedhim to do and say."

"There is no evidence that vey sma ight"any sacred writer even sus

pected the existence of

Smming p the histoicaevidence, Avan Lamson saysin The Church of the Firsta [Trinity] within the

Godhead."-TheTune Go

Three Centuries "The modenpop doctine o the Tinity. deives no sppot om theIenaes, who died abot

200 .E., said that the pehman Jess had asepaate existence om God and was ineioto him. He showed that Jess is not eqa

to the "One te and ony God," who is "s-peme ove a, and besides whom thee is noothe."ement o Aexandia, who died abot

215 .E, caed God "the nceated and impe-ishabe and ony te God." He said that the Son "is next to the ony omnipotent Fathe " bt noteqa to him

Tetian, who died abot 230 .E, taght

angage o Jstin [Maty]: and this obsevation may be extended to a the anteNiceneFathes; that is, to a histian wites o thee

centies ae the bith o hist.It is te, theyspeak o the Fathe, Son, and . hoy Spiit, btnot as coeqa, not as one nmeica essence,not as Thee in One, in any sense now admittedby Tinitaians.The vey evese is the act"

Ths, the tesimony o the Bibe and o histoy makes cea that the Tinity was nknownthoghot Bibica times and o sevea cent-ies theeate

w Did the Tty te velp?

AT THIS point yo might ask: I theTinity is not a Bibica teaching, howdid it become a doctine o histen-

dom Many think that it was omated atthe onci o Nicaea in 325 .E.

That is not totay coect, howeve TheSHOU YOU BE IN TR?

onci o Nicaea did asset that hist waso the same sbstance as God, which aid thegondwok o ate Tinitaian theoog. Btit did not estabish the Tinity, o at thatconci thee was no mention o the hoy spiitas the thid peson o a tine Godhead

7


8/32

Cnstantine's Rle at Nicaea

FOR mny yers there h been much op-

poston on Bblcl grouns to the e-velopng e tht Jesus ws Go. To try to

solve the spute Romn emperor Constn-tne summone ll bshops to Nce About300 frcton of the totl ctully ttene.Constntne ws not Chrstn Suppose

ly he converte lter n lfe but he ws notbptze untl he ly yng. Regrng hmHenry Chwck sys n The arly Church Constntne lke hs fther worshppe theUnconquere Sun; ...hs converson shoulnot be nterprete s n nw experence ofgrce . t ws mltry mtter. Hs com-

prehenson of Chrstn octrne ws neververy cler but he ws sure tht vctory n bt-tle ly n the gft of the Go of the Chrstns.Wht role ths unbptze emperor ply

t the Councl of Nce? The ncyclopdiaBritannica reltes: Constntne hmself pre-

"Constantinehad asically nounderstandingwhatsoever ofthe questionsthat were eingasked in Greek

theolog."ASh Histf ChstianDctne

convcton. Constntne h bsclly no un-erstnng whtsoever of the questons thtwere beng ske n Greek theology sysA Short History of Christian Doctrine. Whhe unerstn ws tht relgous vsonws tret to hs empre n he wnte tosolfy hs omn

None of the bshops t Nce promote Trnty however. They ece only the nture of Jesus but not the role of the holy spr-t. f Trnty h been cler Bble truthshoul they not hve propose t t tht tme?Further Develpment

AFTER Nce ebtes on the subect con

tnue for eces. Those who belevetht Jesus ws not equl to Go even cmebck nto fvor for tme. But lter EmperorTheoosus ece gnst them He estblshe the cree of the Councl of Nce sthe stnr for hs relm n convene the

se ctvely gung thescussons n personllypropose . . . the crucl formul expressng the reltonof Chrst to Go n the cree

ssue by the councl of onesubstnce wth the Fther

'Fouh century Trntaransm was a devaton fromearly Chrstan teachng.1

The Encyclopediaericana

Councl of Constntnople n381 CE to clrfy the formul.

Tht councl gree toplce the holy sprt on the

sme level s Go n Chrst. . Overwe by the emperor the bshopswth two exceptons only sgne the creemny of them much gnst ther nclnton.

Hence Constntnes role ws crucl Aftertwo months of furous relgous ebte thspgn poltcn ntervene n ece n fvor of those who s tht Jesus ws Go. Butwhy? Certnly not becuse of ny Bblcl8

For the rst tme Chrstenoms Trnty begn to come nto focusYet even ter the Councl of Constntno

ple the Trnty not become wely ccepte cree. Mny oppose t n thubrought on themselves volent persecuton. ws only n lter centures tht the Trntyws formulte nto set crees. The ncyclopedia Americana notes The full evelopmen

SHO YOU BEV


9/32

of Trinitarianism took pace in the West, inthe Schoasticism of the Midde Ages, henan expanation as undertaken in terms ofphiosophy and psychoogyThe Athanasian Creed

HE Trinity as dened more fuy in the Athanasian Creed. Athanasius as a cer-

gyman ho supported Constantine at NicaeaThe creed that ears his name decares Weorship one God in Trinity ..The Father isGod, the Son is God, and the Hoy Ghost isGod; and yet they are not three gods, ut oneGod

Weinformed schoars agree, hoever, thatAthanasius did not compose this creed h NwEncyclopdia Britannica

comments he creedas unknon to the Eastern Church unti the2th century Since the 7th century, schoarshave generay agreed that the Athanasian Creedas not ritten y Athanasius died 373) ut asproay composed in southern France duringthe th century...he creeds inuence seemsto have een primariy in southern France andSpain in the 6th and 7th centuries. t as usedin the iturgy of the church in Germany in the9th century and somehat ater in ome

So it took centuries from the time of Christfor the rinity to ecome idey accepted inChristendom And in a of this, hat guidedthe decisions? Was it the Word of God, or asit cerica and poitica considerations? n Origin and Evolution of Rligion, E W. Hopkinsansers he na orthodox denition ofthe trinity as argey a matter of church poiticsApostasy Foretod

HS disreputae history of the rinity tsin ith hat Jesus and his apostes foretod oud foo their time They said that

there oud e an apostasy, a deviation, a faing aay from true orship unti Christs re-turn, hen true orship oud e restored efore Gods day of destruction of this system ofthings

egarding that day, the aposte Pau said t i not ome uness the apostasy comesSHO YOU BEV ?

"he riad of the Great Gods

Man centuries eore thetme o Chst, there ere tads,o tntes, o os n ancentBaona and Assa. The ench

Larousse nccopea o Mthoo"notes one such tra n thatMesopotamian aea: The unerseas de nto three ons eacho hch ecame the oman o a o.Anu's share as the k. The eath as en to n. a ecame the ruer othe aters. Toether the constutedthe trad o the Geat Gos.

first and the man of aessness gets reveaed 2 Thessaonians 23, 7) Later, heforetod When have gone erce oves iinvade you and i have no mercy on theock Even from your on ranks there ie men coming forard ith a travesty of thetruth on their ips to induce the discipes tofoo them Acts 2029, 30, JB) Other discipes of Jesus aso rote of this apostasy ithits aess cergy cassSee, for exampe,2 Peter 2; John 43; Jude 3, 4.

Pau aso rote The time is sure to comehen, far from eing content ith soundteaching, peope i e avid for the atestnovety and coect themseves a hoe seriesof teachers according to their on tastes; andthen, instead of istening to the truth, theyi turn to myths2 Timothy 43, 4, JB

Jesus himsef expained hat as ehindthis faing aay from true orship. He saidthat he had soed good seeds ut that the en-emy, Satan, oud overso the ed itheeds So aong ith the rst ades of heat,the eeds appeared aso hus, a deviationfrom pure Christianity as to e expected unti the harvest, hen Christ oud set mat-ters right. Matthe 32443) h Encyclopdia Amricana comments Fourth centuryrinitarianism did not reect accuratey ear-y Christian teaching regarding the nature ofGod; it as, on the contrary, a deviation fromthis teaching Where, then, did this deviationoriginate? Timothy 6

9


10/32

� 4. India.

1. Egypt.Triad of Horus,Osiris, Isis, 2ndmillennium B.C.E.

Triune Hindugodhead, c. 7thcentury C.E.

� 6 Norway.Trinity (Father,Son, holy spirit),c. 13th century C.E.

Italy.Trinity, c. 15thcentury C.E.

2. Babylon.Triad of IshtarSin, Shamash, 2ndmillennium B.C.E.

3. Palmyra.Triad of moon Lord of Heavensun god, c. 1stcentury C.E.

5. Kampuchea.

7. France.

Triune Buddhistgodhead, c. 12thcentury C.E.

Trinity, c. 14thcentury C.E.

10. Gerany.Trinity 20thcentury CE.


11/32

Wat Inuenced It

�

ROU HOUT the ancient word as far backas Babyonia the worship of pagan gods

grouped in threes or triads was common hatinuence was aso prevaent in Egypt Greeceand ome in the centuries before during andafter hrist And aer the death of the apostessuch pagan beiefs began to invade hristianity

Historian Wi Durant observed "hristianitydid not destroy paganism; it adopted it.. FromEgypt came the ideas of a divine trinity" Andin the book Egptian Religion, Siegfried Morenznotes "he trinity was a major preoccupation ofEgyptian theoogians hree gods are com-bined and treated as a singe being addressed inthe singuar. n this way the spiritua force ofEgyptian reigion shows a direct ink with hris-tian theoogy"hus in Aexandria Egypt churchmen of theate third and eary fourth centuries such asAthanasius reected this inuence as they for-muated ideas that ed to the rinity heir owninuence spread so that Morenz considers "Aex-andrian theoogy as the intermediary betweenthe Egyptian reigious heritage and hristianity"

n the preface to Edward Gibbons Histo ofChistianit, we read "f Paganism was conquered by hristianity it is equay true that

hristianity was corrupted by Paganism. hepure Deism of the rst hristians waschanged by the hurch of ome into the incom-prehensibe dogma of the trinity Many of thepagan tenets invented by the Egyptians andideaized by Pato were retained as being worthyof beief"

A Dictiona of Religious Knowledge notesthat many say that the rinity "is a corruptionborrowed from the heathen reigions and in-grafted on the hristian faith" And The Paganism in Ou Chistianit decares "he origin ofthe rinity] is entirey pagan"hat is why in the Encclopdia of Religionand Ethics, James Hastings wrote "n ndian re-igion eg, we meet with the trinitarian group ofBrahm Siva and iu and in Egyptian rei-gion with the trinitarian group of siris sis andHorus Nor is it ony in historica reigions thatwe nd God viewed as a rinity ne recas inparticuar the NeoPatonic view of the Supremeor timate eaity" which is "triadicay repreSHOW YOU BEE ?

sented" What does the Greek phiosopher Patohave to do with the rinity?Platonism

PA it is thought ived from 428 to 347before hrist Whie he did not teach the

rinity in its present form his phiosophies pavedthe way for it ater phiosophica movementsthat incuded triadic beiefs sprang up and thesewere inuenced by Patos ideas of God and nature

he French Nouveau Dictionnaie UniveselNew niversa Dictionary) says of Pato's inu-ence "he Patonic tinit, itsef merey a rearrangement of oder tinities dating back to ear-ier peopes appears to be the rationa phiosophictinit of attributes that gave birth to the three

hypostases or divine persons taught by the hristian churches ..his Greek phiosopher's con-ception of the divine tinitcan be found in athe ancient [pagan reigions"

The New SchaHezog Encclopedia of Religious Knowledge shows the inuence of thisGreek phiosophy "he doctrines of the ogosand the rinity received their shape from GreekFathers who .. were much inuenced directyor indirecty by the Patonic phiosophy haterrors and corruptions crept into the hurch from

this source can not be denied"The Chuch of the Fist Thee Centuies says "he doctrine of the rinity was of gradua andcomparativey ate formation; ...it had its originin a source entirey foreign from that of the Jew-ish and hristian Scriptures; . it grew up andwas ingrafted on hristianity through the handsof the Patonizing Fathers"

By the end of the third century E "hristianity" and the new Patonic phiosophies becameinseparaby united. As Adof Harnack states inOutlines of the Histo of Dogma, church doctrinebecame "rmy rooted in the soi of Heenismpagan Greek thought] hereby it became a mystery to the great majority of hristians"

he church caimed that its new doctrineswere based on the Bibe But Harnack says "nreaity it egitimized in its midst the Heenicspeation the superstitious views and cus-toms of pagan mysteyworship."

n the book A Statement of Reasons, Andrews Norton says of the rinity "We can

11


12/32

Hindu rinity

Te Te msm nu Gs an Ruas" sas egang a nu n a exseenues ee s: ·a s ne

e gs e Tne s sa e e g esun Te ew gs ae Bama, e g eanan Vsnu, e g manenaneT nae a ese ee essesae ne an e same e ee gs aemne n ne m"use A aasaa, Bma

trace th history of this doctrine, and discover

its source, not in the Christian reveation, butin the Patonic phiosophy The Trinity isnot a doctrine of Christ and his Apostes, but action of the schoo of the ater Patonists

Thus, in the fourth century CE, the apostasy foretod by Jesus and the apostes came intofu boom Deveopment of the Trinity was just one evidence of this The apostate churches aso bean embracin other paan ideas,such as here, immortaity of the sou, and

idoatry Spirituay speakin, Christendomhad entered its foretod dark aes, dominated by a rowin man of awessness cerycass2 Thessaonians 2:, W Did Gd's Ppets Nt Tea It?

WHY, for thousands of years, did none ofGods prophets teach his peope about

the Trinity? At the atest, woud Jesus not usehis abiity as the Great Teacher to make theTrinity cear to his foowers? Woud God in-spire hundreds of paes of Scripture and yetnot use any of this instruction to teach theTrinity if it were the centra doctrine offaith?

Are Christians to beieve that centuries after Christ and after havin inspired the writ

in of the Bibe, God woud back the formuation of a doctrine that was unknown to hisservants for thousands of years, one that isan inscrutabe mystery beyond the rasp ohuman reason, one that admittedy had a pa-an backround and was arey a matter ochurch poitics?

The testimony of history is cear: The Trinity teachin is a deviation fro the truth, anapostatizin from it

Wat s the BleSayut d Jesus?

IF PEOPLE were to read the Bibe from cov-er to cover without any preconceived ideaof a Trinity, woud they arrive at such a

concept on their own? Not at aWhat comes throuh very ceary to an im

partia reader is that God aone is the Amihty,the Creator, separate and distinct from anyoneese, and that Jesus, even in his prehuman existence, is aso separate and distinct, a createdbein, subordinate to GodGd Is One, Nt Tee

HE Bibe teachin that God is one is caed

monotheism And L L Paine, professor ofeccesiastica history, indicates that monothe12

ism in its purest form does not aow for aTrinity: The Od Testament is stricty monoteistic God is a sine persona bein Theidea that a trinity is to be found there iuttery without foundation

Was there any chane from monotheism after Jesus came to the earth? Paine answersOn this point there is no break between theOd Testament and the New The monotheistic tradition is continued Jesus was a Jewtrained by Jewish parents in the Od Testament scriptures His teachin was Jewish tothe core; a new ospe indeed, but not a newtheooy And he accepted as his ownbeief the reat text of Jewish monotheism

SHOl YOU BE


13/32


14/32

Obviosy, sing the titles elohim andeloheh for fase gods, and even hmans, didnot impy that each was a praity of gods;neither does applying elohim or eloheh toJehovah mean that he is more than one per-son, especiay when we consider the testimo-ny of the rest of the Bibe on this sbjectJesus a Separate Creation

WHILE on earth, Jess was a hman, a-

thogh a perfect one becase it was Godwho transferred the ifeforce of Jess to thewomb of Mary (Matthew :825 Bt that isnot how he began He himsef decared that hehad "descended from heaven." (John 313) oit was only natra that he wod later say tohis foowers "What if yo shod see the onof man [Jess] ascend to where he was be-fore?John 6:62 NJB.

Ths, Jess had an existence in heaven be-fore coming to the earth. Bt was it as oneof the persons in an amighty, eterna trine

made the earth, the contryside, and the rstelements of the world." (roverbs 8: 2 222526 NJB) Whie the term "Wisdom" is sedto personify the one whom God created, mostschoars agree that it is actaly a gre ofspeech for Jess as a spirit creatre prior to hishman existence. As "Wisdom " in his prehman existence,Jess goes on to say that he was "by his[God's] side, a master craftsman" (roverbs 8:30 JB) In harmony with this roe as mastercraftsman, Coossians :6 says of Jess that "throgh him God created everything in heaven and on earth"Today's English Version( TEV)

o it was by means of this master worker,his jnior partner, as it were, that AlmightyGod created a other things. The Bibe sm-marizes the matter this way "For s there isone God, the Father, from whom are al things. and one Lord, Jess Christ, through whomare a things" (Italics ors) Corinthians

8:6 RS, Cathoic editionGodhead? No, for the Bibepainy states that in his pre-hman existence, Jess was acreated spirit being, jst asanges were spirit beingscreated by God Neither the

Havng been created byGod, Jesus s n a secondary

poston n tme, power,and knowledge

It no dobt was to thismaster craftsman that Godsaid "Let s make man in orimage." (Genesis :26 omehave caimed that the "s"

anges nor Jess had existed before their creationJess, in his prehman existence, was "the

rstborn of a creation" (Coossians : 5NJB) He was "the beginning of God's creation "(eveation 3: 14 RS, Cathoic edition). "Begin-ning" Greek, arkhe cannot righty be inter-preted to mean that Jess was the beginnerof God's creation In his Bibe writings, Johnses varios forms of the Greek word arkhemore than 20 times, and these aways have

the common meaning of "beginning. " Yes, Je-ss was created by God as the beginning ofGods invisibe creationsNotice how cosey those references to the

origin of Jess correate with expressions t-tered by the grative "Wisdom" in the Bibebook of roverbs "Yahweh created me, rst-frits of his fashioning, before the odest of hisworks Before the montains were setted, be-fore the hils, I came to birth; before he had1

and "or" in this expression indicate a TrinityBt if yo were to say, Let s make somethingfor orseves,' no one wod normaly nderstand this to imply that severa persons arecombined as one inside of yo. Yo simpymean that two or more individas wi worktogether on something o, too, when God sed "s " and "or, " he was simply addressing another individa, his rst spirit creation, themaster craftsman, the prehman JessCould God Be Tempted?

AT MATTHEW 4 Jess is spoken of asbeing "tempted by the Devil" After show-

ing Jess "a the kingdoms of the word andtheir gory," atan said "Al these things I wigive yo if yo fal down and do an act ofworship to me" (Matthew 4:8 atan wastrying to case Jess to be disoya to God

Bt what test of oyaty wod that be if Jesswere God? Cod God rebe against himself? No

SHO YOU BE ?


15/32

but angs and humans could rb aganst Godand dd. Th tmptaton o sus would maksns ony h was not God but a sparatndvdua who had hs own r w on whocoud hav bn dsloya had h chosn to bsuch as an ang or a human.

On th othr hand t s unmagnab thatGod could sn and b dsoya to hmsl Prct s hs actvty ... A God o athunss. . rghtous and uprght s h Dutronomy 324 So sus had bn God h coud nothav bn tmptd.ams 13

Not bng God sus coud hav bn dsloyaBut h rmand athl sayng Go awaySatan For t s wrttn It s hovah your Godyou must worshp and t s to hm alon youmust rndr sacrd srvc.'Matthw 4 10How uch Was the Ransom?

ONE o th man rasons why sus cam

to arth aso has a drct barng on thTrnty. Th Bb stats Thr s on Godand on mdator btwn God and mn aman Chrst sus who gav hms a corrspondng ransom or al. Tmothy 25 6.

sus no mor and no ss than a prcthuman bcam a ransom that compnsatdxacty or what Adam lostth rght to prct human on arth. So sus could rghtly b cald th last Adam by th apostPau who sad n th sam contxt ust as n

Adam all ar dyng so also n th Chrst awll b mad av. (1 Cornthans 152245Th prct human l o sus was th corrspondng ransom rqurd by dvn justcno mor no ss. A basc prncp vn ohuman justc s that th prc pad shoud tth wrong commttd.

I sus howvr wr part o a Godhadth ransom prc would hav bn nntyhghr than what God's own Law rqurd.Exodus 212325; Lvtcus 2421 It wasony a prct human Adam who

Jesus said that he had a pehumaexistece, havig bee ceatedby God as the begiig ofGod's ivisible ceatios

Edn not God. So th ransom to b truly nln wth God's justc had to b strctly anquvanta prct human th ast Adam.Thus whn God snt sus to arh as th ransom h mad sus to b what would satsy justc not an ncarnaton not a godman buta prct man owr than angls. brws2; compar Psalm 85 6. ow Quld anypart o an almghty GodhadFathr Son orhoy sprtvr b lowr than angls?How the OnlyBegotten Son"?

E Bbl calls sus th onybgottn

Son o God. ohn 114; 3 16 18 1 ohn4 Trntarans say that snc God s trnalso th Son o God s trna. But how can aprson b a son and at th sam tm b as oldas hs athr?Trntarans clam that n th cas o sus onlybgottn s not th sam as th dctonary dnton o bgttng whch s toprocrat as th athr. ( Webster's Ninth NewCollegiate Dictionar) Thy say that n sus'cas t mans th sns o unorgnatd rlatonshp a sort o only son rlatonshp wthout th bgttng. ( Vine's Expositor Dictionar of Old and New Testament Words) osthat sound ogca to you? Can a man athr ason wthout bgttng hm?Furthrmorwhy dos th bl us th vrysam Grk word or onlybgottn as Vnadmts wthout any xpanaton to dscrb th


16/32

reationship of Isaac to Abraham? Hebrews 11:1 speaks of Isaac as Abraham's "onybegottenson" There can be no question that in Isaacscase, he was onybegotten in the norma sense,not equa in time or position to his father

The basic Greek word for "onybegotten"used for Jesus and Isaac is

mo·no·ge·nes,frommonos, meaning "ony," and gYnomai, a root

word meaning "to generate," "to become (comeinto being)," states Strongs Exhaustive o-cordance Hence, monogenes is dened as "Ony born, ony begotten, ie an ony chid"-A Greek and English Lexicon of the NewTestament, by E Robinson

The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, edited by Gerhard Kitte, says "[o-no·ge·nes means of soe descent, ie, without

brothers or sisters" This book aso states thatat John 1:18; 3:16, 18; and 1 John 4:, "thereation of Jesus is not just compared to that ofan ony chid to its father It is the reation ofthe onybegotten to the Father"

So Jesus, the onybegotten Son, had a beginning to his ife And Amighty God canrighty be caed his Begetter, or Father, in thesame sense that an earthy father, ike Abraham, begets a son (Hebrews 11: 1) Hence,when the Bibe speaks of God as the "Father"

of Jesus, it means what it saysthat they aretwo separate individuas God is the senior Je-sus is the juniorin time, position, power,and knowedge

When one considers that Jesus was not theony spirit son of God created in heaven, it be-comes evident why the term "onybegottenSon" was used in his case Countess othercreated spirit beings, anges, are aso caed "sons of God, " in the same sense that Adamwas, because their ifeforce originated with

Jehovah God, the Fountain, or Source, of ife(Job 38:; sam 36:; Luke 3:38) But thesewere a created through the "onybegottenSon," who was the ony one directy begottenby GodCoossians 1 151.Was Jesus Considered to Be God?

WHILE Jesus is oten caed the Son of God

in the Bibe, nobody in the rst centu-ry ever thought of him as being God the Son Even the demons, who "beieve there is oneGod," knew from their experience in the spiritream that Jesus was not God So, correcty,they addressed Jesus as the separate "Son ofGod" (James 2: 1; Matthew 8:2) And whenJesus died, the pagan Roman sodiers standingby knew enough to say that what they had

heard from his foowers must be right, notthat Jesus was God, but that "certainy thiswas Gods Son"Matthew 2:54Hence, the phrase "Son of God " refers to Je

sus as a separate created being, not as part of aTrinity As the Son of God, he coud not be Godhimsef, for John 1:18 says "No one has everseen God", Cathoic edition

The discipes viewed Jesus as the "one mediator between God and men," not as God him-sef (1 Timothy 2: 5) Since by denition a me-

diator is someone separate from those whoneed mediation, it woud be a contradiction forJesus to be one entity with either of the par-ties he is trying to reconcie That woud be apretending to be something he is not

The Bibe is cear and consistent about thereationship of God to Jesus Jehovah Godaone is Amighty He created the prehumanJesus directy Thus, Jesus had a beginningand coud never be coequa with God in poweror eternity

Is G Aways Sur t Jesus?

J ESUS never caimed to be God Everyhing

he said about himsef indicates that he didnot consider himsef equa to God in any

waynot in power, not in knowedge, not inage16

In every period of his existence, whether inheaven or on earth his speech and conduct reect subordination to God God is aways thesuperior, Jesus the esser one who was createdby God

SHO YOU BE IN ?


17/32


18/32

equa They prayed to God about thy hoy ser-vant Jesus, whom thou didst anoint, . . andsigns and wonders are performed through thename of thy hoy servant Jesus.Acts 4232 30RS, Cathoic edition.God Superior at All Times

AT THE very outset of Jesus' ministry, whenhe came up out of the baptisma water,

God's voice from heaven said: This is my Son,the beoved, whom I have approved Matthew3161 Was God saying that he was his ownson, that he approved himsef, that he sent himsef? No, God the Creator was saying that he, asthe superior, was approving a esser one, his SonJesus, for the work ahead.

Jesus indicated his ather's superiority when

he said: Jehovah's spirit is upon me, because heanointed me to decare good news to the poorLuke 418 Anointing is the giving of authorityor a commission by a superior to someone whodoes not aready have authority Here God ispainy the superior, for he anointed Jesus, giving him authority that he did not prevousyhave.

Jesus made his ather's superiority cearwhen the mother of two discipes asked thather sons sit one at the right and one at the eft

of Jesus when he cameinto his Kingdom. Jesus an-swered: As for seats at myright hand and my eft, theseare not mine to grant; theybeong to those to whomthey have been aotted bymy ather, that is, GodMatthew 2023 JB) Had Je-sus been Amighty God,those positions woud havebeen his to give. But Jesuscoud not give them, for theywere God's to give, and Jesuswas not God.

Jesus' own prayers are apowerfu exampe of his inferior position. When Jesuswas about to die, e showedwho his superior was bypraying: ather, if youwish, remove this cup from18

me. Nevertheess, et, not my wi, but yourstake pace. Luke 2242 To whom was hepraying? To a part of himsef? No, he waspraying to someone entirey separate, his ather, God, whose wi was superior and coudbe dierent from his own, the ony One abe to

remove this cupThen, as he neared death, Jesus cried out:My God, my God, why have you desertedme? Mark 1534 JB) To whom was Jesuscrying out? To himsef or to part of himsef?Surey, that cry, My God, was not from some-one who considered himsef to be God And ifJesus were God, then by whom was he deserted? Himsef? That woud not make sense Je-sus aso said: ather, into your hands I entrustmy spirit Luke 2346 If Jesus were God, for

what reason shoud he entrust his spirit to theather? After Jesus died, he was in the tomb forparts of three days If he were God, then Ha-bakkuk 1 12 is wrong when it says: my God,my Hoy One, you do not die But the Bibesays that Jesus did die and was unconscious inthe tomb. And who resurrected Jesus from thedead? If he was truy dead, he coud not haveresurrected himsef On the other hand, if hewas not reay dead, his pretended death woud

not have paid the ransomprice for Adam's sin But hedid pay that price in byhis genuine death. So it wasGod [who] resurrected [Jesus] by oosing the pangs ofdeath Acts 224 The su-perior, God Amighty, raisedthe esser, his servant Jesus,from the dead.

Does Jesus' abiity to per-form miraces, such as resurrecting peope, indicate thathe was God? We, the apos-tes and the prophets Eijah

When Jesus cried out:"My God, my God, whyhave you deseed me?"he surely did not believethat he himself was God


19/32


20/32

In the everasting future in heaven, Jesuswi continue to be a searate, subordinate ser-vant of God The Bible exresses it this way "After that wi come the end, when he [Jesusin heaven] will hand over the kingdom to Godthe Father Then the Son himself wi besubjected to the One who has subjected every-thing to him, so that God may be all in a" Corinthians 24, 28, NJB.esus Never Claimed to Be God

HE Bibe's osition is clear Not only is A

mighty God, Jehovah, a esonality searate from Jesus but He is at al times his suerior Jesus is aways resented as searate andesser, a humble servant of God That is whythe Bible lainly says that "the head of theChrist is God" in the same way that "the headof every man is the Christ " ( Corinthians13 And this is why Jesus himsef said "The

Father is greater than I"John 1428, RSCatholic edition

The fact is that Jesus is not God and neverclaimed to be This is being recognized by anincreasing number of scholars As the yandsBuetin states "The fact has to be faced thatNew Testament research over, say, the lastthirty or forty years has been leading an in-creasing number of reutable New Testamentschoars to the conclusion that Jesus cer-tainly never beieved himsef to be God"

The Buetin also says of rstcentury Chris-tians "When, therefore, they assigned [Jesussuch honoric titles as Christ, Son of man, Sonof God and Lord, these were ways of saying notthat he was God, but that he did God's work"

Thus, even some religious scholars admit thatthe idea of Jesus' being God ooses the entiretestimony of the Bible There, God is always thesuerior, and Jesus is the subordinate servant

eHoly S

p

it-G s

Active Force

ACCODING to the Trinity doctrine, thehoy sirit is the third erson of a God

head, equa to the Father and to theSon As the book Our Orthodox Christian Faithsays "The Holy Sirit is totaly God"In the Hebrew Scritures, the word most

frequently used for "sirit" is ru"ach, meaning "breath wind sirit" In the Greek Scritures,the word is pneu "a having a simiar meaning Do these words indicate that the holysirit is art of a Trinity?An Active Force

HE Bible's use of "hoy sirit" indicates

that it is a controlled force that JehovahGod uses to accomish a variety of his uroses To a certain extent, it can be likened toelectricity, a force that can be adated to er-form a great variety of oerations

At Genesis 2 the Bible states that "God'sactive force ["sirit" (Hebrew, r"ach)] wasmoving to and fro over the surface of the waters" Here, God's sirit was his active forceworking to shae the earth2

God uses his sirit to enighten those whoserve him David rayed "Teach me to do your

will, for you are my God Your sirit[ru"ach]

isgood may it lead me in the land of uright-ness" (Psalm 143 10 When 70 caable menwere aointed to hel Moses, God said tohim "I shal have to take away some of thesirit [ru"ach] that is uon you and lace ituon them"Numbers 17

Bibe rohecy was recorded when men ofGod were "borne along by holy sirit [Greek,from pneu"a] (2 Peter 20, 2 In this waythe Bibe was "insired of God," the Greekword for which is The·o"pneustos meaning "Godbreathed" (2 Timothy 36 And holysirit guided certain eole to see visions or tohave rohetic dreams2 Samue 232 Joel228, 29 Luke 167 Acts 6 232, 33

The hoy sirit imeled Jesus to go into thewilderness after his batism (Mark 1 12 Thesirit was like a re within God's servants,causing them to be energized by that force And it enabed them to seak out body andcourageousyMicah 38 Acts 760

SHO YOU BEV ?


21/32

On one occasion theholy spirit appearedas a dove On anotheroccasion it appeared astones of re-neveras a person

18:2; Rmas 12:11; 1 Thessalias : 19

By his spirit, Gd carries uthis judgmets me ad a-tis Isaiah 3:27, 28; 9:18, 19) Ad Gd's spirit careach everywhere, actig frpepe r agaist themPsam139:712

Power Beyond Norma

GOD'S spirit ca als supply

p wer bey d wha t isrma t thse wh servehim 2 Crithias 4:7) Thiseabes them t edure triasf faith r t d thigs theyculd t therwise d

Fr exampe, regardig Sams, Judges14:6 relates: The spirit f Yahweh seized

him, ad thugh he had weap i hishad he tre the i i pieces (JB) Did adivie pers actually eter r seize Sams,maipulatig his bdy t d what he did? N,it was realy the pwer f the L [that]made Sams strg"TEV

The Bibe says that whe Jesus was bap-tized, hy spirit came dw up him appearig like a dve, t ike a huma frm Mark11) This active frce f Gd eabed Jesus thea the sick ad raise the dead. As Luke : 17says: The Pwer f the Lrd [Gd] was behidhis [Jesus'] wrks f healigGd's spirit als empwered the dscipes fJesus t d miraculus thigs Acts 2: 14 re-ates that the discipes were assembled tgeth-er at Petecst whe suddely there ccurredfrm heave a ise just like that f a rshigsti breeze, ad they al became led withhly spirit ad started t speak with dierettgues, ust as the spirit was gratig themt make utteraceSHO YOU BE T ?

S the hly spirit gave Jesus ad ther ser-vats f Gd the pwer t d what hmas

rdiarily cud t d Not a Person

ARE there t, hwever, Bible verses thatspeak f the hly spirit i persal terms?

Yes, but te what Cathlic thelgia EdmudFrtma says abut this i The Triune God: A-thugh this spirit is e described i persalterms, it seems quite clear that the sacred writers [f the Hebrew Scriptures] ever cceivedr preseted this spirit as a distict pers

I the Scriptres it is t usual fr sme-thig t be persied Wisdm is said t havechildre Luke 7:3) Si ad death are caledkigs Rmas :14, 21) At Geesis 4:7 TheNew English Bible (NE) says: Si is a demcruchig at the dr, persiyig si as awicked spirit cruchig at Cai's dr But, fcurse, si is t a spirit pers; r des persiig the hly spirit make it a spirit pers

21


22/32

Similarly a Jon 5:8 (NE) no only espiri bu also "e waer and e blood" aresaid o be "winesses " u waer and blood areobviously no persons and neier is e olyspiri a person

In armony wi is is e ible's generalusage of "oly spiri" in an impersonal waysuc as paralleling i wi waer and re

masculine gender So wen Jesus referred owa e elper would do e used masculinepersonal pronouns (Jon :78) On e oerand wen e neuer Greek word for spiri(pneu"ma) is used e neuer pronoun "i" isproperly employed

Mos Triniarian ranslaors ide is facas e Caolic New American Bible admis re-(Maew 3:; Mark :8)People are urged o becomelled wi oly spiri insead of wi wine (Epe-sians 5: 8) Tey are spo-ken of as being lled wioly spiri in e same way

"On the whole, the NewTestament, like the Old, speaks

of the spirit as a divineener or power."-A

aoc Dcona

garding Jon 4: 7: "TeGreek word for Spiri' isneuer and wile we usepersonal pronouns in Englis (e' is' im')mos Greek MSS [manuscrips employ i'

ey are lled wi suc qualiies as wisdomfai and joy (Acs :3; :24; 3:52) Anda 2 Corinians : oly spiri is includedamong a number of qualiies Suc expressionswould no be so common if e oly spiriwere acually a person

Ten oo wile some ible exs say ae spiri speaks oer exs sow a iswas acually done roug umans or angels(Maew 0:9 20; Acs 4:24 25; 28:25;Hebrews 2:2) Te acion of e spiri in sucinsances is like a of radio waves ransmiing messages from one person o anoer faraway A Maew 28: 9 reference is made o "e name of e oly spiri" u eword "name" does no always mean a personalname eier in Greek or in Englis Wen wesay "in e name of e law" we are no refer-ring o a person We mean a wic e lawsands for is auoriy oberson's Word ictures in the New Testament says "Te use ofname (onoma) ere is a common one in eSepuagin and e papyri for power or auoriy" So bapism in e name of e olyspiri' recognies e auoriy of e spiria i is from God and funcions by divinewillThe "Helper

J ESUS spoke of e oly spiri as a "elper"

and e said i would eac guide andspeak (Jon 4: 2; :3) Te Greekword e used for elper (pa·ra "kletos) is in e22

So wen e ible uses masculine personalpronouns in connecion wi pa·ra "kletos aJon : 7 8 i is conforming o rules of gram-mar no expressing a docrine No Part of a Trinity

V AIOUS sources acknowledge a e i-

ble does no suppor e idea a eoly spiri is e ird person of a Triniy Forexample

The Catholic Encyclopedia "Nowere in eOld Tesamen do we nd any clear indicaion

of a Tird Person"Caolic eologian Forman "Te Jewsnever regarded e spiri as a person; nor isere any solid evidence a any Old Tesa-men wrier eld is view Te Holy Spiriis usually presened in e Synopics [Gospelsand in Acs as a divine force or power"

Te New Catholic Encyclopedia "Te O[ldT[esamen clearly does no envisage God'sspiri as a person God's spiri is simplyGod's power If i is someimes represened

as being disinc from God i is because ebrea of Yawe acs exeriorly" I also says "Te maoriy of N[ew T[esamen exs re-veal God's spiri as something, no someone;is is especially seen in e parallelism be-ween e spiri and e power of God"Ial-ics ours

A Catholic Dictionary "On e wole eNew Tesamen like e Old speaks of espiri as a divine energy or power"

SHO YOU IN m ?


23/32

ene neithe the Jews no the ealy Chis-tians viewed the holy spiit as pat of a Trini-ty That teahin ame entuies late sA Catholic Dictionar notes The thid Pesonwas asseted at a Couni of exandria in362 and nally by the Couni of Constan

tinople of 381some thee and a haf en

tuies ae hoy spiit ed the disiples atPenteost

o the holy spiit is not a peson and it isnot pat of a Tinity The hoy spiit is Godsative foe that he uses to aomplish his willIt is not eual to God but is aways at his dis

position and subodinate to him

Wat ut T Hf Tex"?

IT IS said that some Bibe texts oe poofin suppot of the Tinity oweve wheneadin suh texts we should eep in

mind that the Biblial and histoia evidenedoes not support the Trinity

ny Bibe referene oeed as poof mustbe understood in the ontext of the onsistentteahin of the entie Bibe Vey often thetue meanin of suh a text is aried by theontext of suoundin versesThree n One

E New Catholic Encclopedia oes thee

suh poof texts but also admits Thedotine of the oy Tinity is not tauht in

the O[d] T[estament] In the [ew] T[esta-ment] the oldest evidene is in the Paulineepistles espeialy 2 Co 1313 [vese 14 insome Bibes] and 1 Co 1246 In the Gospesevidene of the Trinity is found expiity onyin the baptisma fomua of Mt 2819

In those verses the thee pesons ae listedas follows in The New ersalem Bible SeondCointhians 13 13 (14) puts the thee toethein this way The ae of the Lod Jesus Christthe ove of God and the feowship of the olySpiit be with you all First Corinthians 1246says Thee ae many dieent ifs but it isaways the same Spirit; there ae many dierent ways of servin but it is aways the sameLord Thee are many dierent forms of ativ-ity but in eveybody it is the same God whois at wo in them al nd Matthew 28 19reads Go theefore mae disiples of a na-tions; baptise them in the name of the Fatheand of the Son and of the oly SpiritSHO YOU BEUEV IN T ?

Do those verses say that God Chist and thehoy spiit onstitute a Trinitaian Godheadthat the thee ae eual in substane poweand etenity? o they do not no moe thanistin three people suh as Tom Di anday means that they ae thee in oneThis type of efeene admits MCintoand Strons Cclopedia of Biblical Theoloical and Ecclesiastical Literatre poves onlythat thee ae the thee subets named but it does not pove by itself that al thethree belon neessaily to the divine natueand possess eua divine hono

thouh a suppote of the Trinity thatsoue says of 2 Cointhians 13 13 (14) eould not usty infe that they possessed eqalathorit

o the same natue nd of Matthew 28 1820 it says This text howevetaen by itself would not pove deisivelyeithe the personalit of the thee subetsmentioned or thei eqalit o divinit

hen Jesus was baptized God Jesus andthe hoy spiit wee also mentioned in thesame ontext Jesus saw desendin lie adove Gods spiit omin upon him (Matthew3 16) This howeve does not say that thethee ae one baham Isaa and Jaob aementioned toethe numeous times but thatdoes not mae them one Pete James andJohn ae named toethe but that does notmae them one eithe Futhemoe Godsspiit desended upon Jesus at his baptismshowin that Jesus was not anointed by spiituntil that time This bein so how oud he bepat of a Tinity whee he had always beenone with the holy spiit?

nothe efeene that speas of the thee3


24/32

together is found in some older Bible translations at 1 ohn 5: cholars acknowledgehoweer that these words were not originallyin the Bible but were added much laterMostmodern translations rightly omit this spuriouserse

Other proof texts deal only with the relationship between twothe Father and esusLet us consider some of themI and the Father Are One

THAT text at ohn 10:30 is often cited to

support the Trinity een though no thirdperson is mentioned there But esus himselfshowed what he meant by his being onewith the Father At ohn 72 22 he prayedto God that his disciples may ll be one justas you Father are in union with me and amin union with you that they also may be inunion with us that they may be one just aswe are one Was esus praying that all hisdisciples would become a single entity? Noobiously esus was praying that they wouldbe united in thought and purpose as he andGod wereee also 1 Corinthians 1:10.

At 1 Corinthians 3:6 8 aul says " planted Apollos watered He that plants and hethat waters are one aul did not mean thathe and Apollos were two persons in one; hemeant that they were unied in purposeTheGreek word that aul used here for one (en)is neuter literally one (thing) indicatingoneness in cooperation t is the same wordthat esus used at ohn 10:30 to describe his

about the agreement which he has with the

Fatheright in the context of the erses after ohn10:30 esus forcefully argued that his wordswere not a claim to be GodHe asked the ewswho wrongly drew that conclusion and want-ed to stone him Why do you charge me withblasphemy because consecrated and sentinto the world by the Father said am Godsson? (ohn 10:3136 NE) No esus claimedthat he was not God the on but the on ofGod

aking Himself Equal to God?

ANOTHE scripture oered as support for

the Trinity is ohn 5: 8t says that theews (as at ohn 10:3136 wanted to kill e-sus because he was also calling God his own

relationship with his Fa-ther t is also the sameword that esus used atohn 72 22 o whenhe used the word one(en)

in these cases hewas talking about unityof thought and purpose

"The ancients made a wrong use of[John 10:30] to prove that Christ

is of the same essence withthe Father"Commenta

Father making himselfequal to God

But who said that e-sus was making himselfequal to God? Not esus

He defended himselfagainst this false chargein the ery next erseon the Gospel Accoing

to John, b JohnCalvin

egarding ohn 1030ohn Calin (who was a Trinitarian) said inthe book Commentary on te Gospel According to Jon: The ancients made a wrong useof this passage to proe that Christ is of thesame essence with the FatherFor Christ doesnot argue about the unity of substance but24

(1: To this accusationesus replied the on can do nothing byhimself; he can do only what he sees the Fatherdong

By this esus showed the ews that he wasnot equal to God and therefore could not act onhis own initiatie Can we imagine someone

SO YOU BEV IN T ?


25/32

Jesus prayed to God tat isdiscipes migt a be one"just as e and is Fater "are one"

equa to Almighty God saying that he could do nothing by himse? (Compare Danie 434, 3) Interestingy, the context of both John:8 and 10:0 shows that Jesus defendedhimsef against false charges from Jews who,ike the Trinitarians, were drawing wrong concusions!Equal With Gd"?

AT PHILIPPIANS :6 the Catholic DouayVersion (Dy) of 609 says of Jesus Who

being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equa with God. The King JamesVersion (KJ) of 6 reads much the same Anumber of such versions are sti used by someto support the idea that Jesus was equa toGod But note how other translations renderthis verse

869: who, being in the form of God, didnot regard it as a thing to be grasped at to beon an equaity with God The New Testament,by G R Noyes

96: Hetruy of divine nature!neversefcondenty made himself equa to GodDas Neue Testament, revised edition, by Fried-rich Pfin.

968: who, although being in the form ofGod, did not consider being equal to God athing to greediy make his own La BibbiaConcordata

976: He aways had the nature of God,but he did not think that by force he shouldtry to become equal with God. Today's English Version

984: who, although he was existing inGods form, gave no consideration to a seizure,namely, that he shoud be equa to God NewWorld Translation of the Holy Scriptures

198: Who, being in the form of God, didnot count equality with God something to begrasped The New Jerusalem BibleSHOUL YOU BElEV IN ?

Some caim, however that even these more

accurate renderings impy that (1) Jesus aready had equality but did not want to hod onto it or that () he did not need to grasp atequality because he already had it.

In this regard, Ralph Martin, in The Epistleof Paul to the Philippians, says of the originaGreek It is questionable, however, whetherthe sense of the verb can glide from its reameaning of to seize, to snatch vioenty tothat of to hod fast The Expositor's GreekTestament also sas We cannot nd any pas

sage whereapJ�w [harpazo]

or any of its derivatives has the sense of holding in posses-sion, retaining. It seems invariably to meanseize, snatch violently Thus it is not permis-sible to gide from the true sense grasp at intoone which is totaly dierent, hold fast

From the foregoing it is apparent that thetranslators of versions such as the andthe ng James are bending the rules to sup-port Trinitaran ends Far from saying that Jesus thought it was appropriate to be equal toGod, the Greek of Phiippians :6 when readobectivey, shows just the opposite, that Jesusdid not think it was appropriate.

The context of the surrounding verses (3,7 8 Dy) makes it clear how verse 6 is to beunderstood The Philippians were urged Inhumiity, et each esteem others better thanthemseves Then Pau uses Christ as the out-standing exampe of this attitude: Let thismind be in you, which was aso in Christ

25


26/32

esus What mind? To think it not obbeyto be equa with God'? No, that would be justthe opposite of the point being made! athe,esus, who esteemed God as bette than him-sef,' woud neve gasp fo equaity withGod,' but instead he humbed himsef, becoming obedient unto death Suey, that cannot be taking about anypat of Almighty God It was talking about e-sus Chist, who pefecty iustated Pau'spoint heenamely the impotance of humiity and obedience to one's Supeio and Ce-ato, ehovah God

AT OHN 858 a numbe of tansations, fo

instanceThe Jerusaem Bbe,

have e-sus saying Befoe Abaham eve was, I Am Was esus thee teaching, as Tinitaians as-set, that he was known by the title I Am? And, as they caim, does this mean that he wasehovah of the Hebew Sciptues, since theKng James Verson at Exodus 3 14 states God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM ?

At Exodus 3 14 ( the phase I AM isused as a title fo God to indicate that he eallyexisted and woud do what he pomisedThe Pentateuch and Hatorahs,

edited byD H Hetz, says of the phase To theIsaeites in bondage, the meaning woud be,Although He has not yet dispayed His powetowads you, He wil do so; He is etena andwill cetainly edeem you' Most modens fo-low ashi [a Fench Bibe and Tamud commentato in endeing [Exodus 3 14] 'I w bewhat I w be'

The expession at ohn 858 is quite die

ent fom the one used at Exodus 3 14 esusdid not use it as a name o a tite but as ameans of explaining his pehuman existenceHence, note how some othe Bibe vesionsende ohn 858

1869 Fom befoe Abaham was, I havebeen

The New Testament,by G Noyes1935 " existed befoe Abaham was bon

The Bbe-An Amercan Transaton, by M P Smith and E Goodspeed

1965 Befoe Abaham was bon, I was aeady the one that I am Das Neue Testament,by g Zink

1 9 8 1 " was aive befoe Abaham wasbon! The Smpe Engsh Bbe

1984 Befoe Abaham came into existence,

I have been New Word Transaton o the

Hoy ScrpturesThus, the eal thought of the Geek usedhee is that God's ceated stbon, esus,had existed long befoe Abaham was bonCoossians 1 1 5 Povebs 8 22 23 30 ev-eation 3 14

Again, the context shows this t o be the co-ect undestanding This time the ews want-ed to stone esus fo caiming to have seen Abaham athough, as they said, he was not

yet50

yeas old Vese57

esus' natual esponse was to tel the tuth about his age Sohe natuay tod them that he was alive befoe Abaham was bon!-The Smpe Engsh Bbe

Word Was God"

AT OHN 1 1 the Kng James Verson

eads In the beginning was the Wod,and the Wod was with God, and the Wod

Jesus showed the Jewsthat he was not eal toGod, saying that he coulddo nothing by himselfbut only what he sawth Father doing'


27/32

was God " Trinitarians claim that this meansthat "the Word " (Greek, ho lo"gos) who cameto earth as Jesus Christ was Almighty Godhimself

Note, however, that here again the contextlays the groundwork for accurate understanding Even the ng James Version says, "TheWord was with God" (Italics ours) Someonewho is "with " another person cannot be thesame as that other person In agreement withthis, the Journal of Biblical Literature, editedby Jesuit Joseph A Fitzmyer, notes that if thelatter part of John 1 1 were interpreted tomean "the" God, this "would then contradictthe preceding clause, " which

God [a form of theosl ). Tis rst theos" ispreceded by the word ton (the), a form of theGreek denite article that points to a distinctidentity, in this case Almighty God ( "and theWord was with [the] God ")

On the other hand, there is no article before the second the·os" at John 1 1 So a literal translation would read, "and god was theWord." Yet we have seen that any translations render this second theos" (a predicatenoun) as "divine, " "godlike, " or "a god " Onwhat authority do they do this?

The Koine Greek language had a denite ar-ticle ( "the "), but it did not have an indenite

says that the Word was with Someone who is with"God another person cannot

article ( "a " or "an") So when apredicate noun is not precededby the denite article, it mayb� indenite, depending on thecontext

Notice, too, how other trans-lations render this part of the

also be that otherperson

verse:1808 "and the word was a god " The New

Testament in an Improved Version, Upon theBasis of Archbishop Newcome's New Translation: With a Corrected

Text

1864 "and a god was the word" The Emphatic Diaglott, interlinear reading, by Benja-min Wilson

1928 "and the Word was a divine being "La Bible du Centenaire, L'Evangile selon Jean,by Maurice Goguel.

1935 "and the Word was divine " The Bible-An American Translation, by J. M. PSmithand E J Goodspeed

1946 "and of a divine kind was the Word"Das Neue Testament, by Ludwig Thimme

1950 "and the Word was a god " New WorldTranslation of the Christian Greek Scriptures.

1958 "and the Word was a God" The NewTestament, by James L Tomanek

1975 "and a god (or, of a divine kind) wasthe Word " Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by

Siegfried Schulz1978 "and godlike kind was the Logos."

Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by JohannesSchneider

At on 1 1 tere are two occurrences ofthe Greek noun theos" (god) The rst occurrence refers to Almighty God, with whom theWord was ( "and the Word [lo"gos] was wih

SHOW YOU B IN T T?

he Journal of Biblical Literature says that expressions "with an anarthrous[no article] predicate preceding the verb, areprimarily qualitative in meaning" As theJournal notes, this indicates that the lo "gos canbe likened to a god It also says of John 1 1 "The qualitative force of the predicate is soproinent that the noun , [theos1 cannot be re-garded as denite "

So John 1 1 highlights the quality of theWord, that he was "divine, " "godlike, " "a god, "but not Almighty God This harmonizes withthe rest of the Bible, which shows that Jesus,here called "the Word" in his role as God'sSpokesman, was an obedient subordinate sentto earth by his Superior, Almighty God

There are many other Bible verses in whichalmost all translators in other languages con-sistently insert the article "a " when translatingGreek sentences with he same structure For

example, at Mark649

when the disciples sawJesus walking on water, te King James Version says: "They supposed it had been a spir-it " In the Koine Greek, there is no "a " before "spirit" But almost all translations in otherlanguages add an "a " in order to make the rendering t the context In the same way, sinceJohn 1 1 shows that the Word was with God,he could not be God but was "a god, " or "di-vine"

27


28/32

Joph ny Thay a hologian andchola who wokd on h Amrican SandardVrsion, ad imply "Th ogo wa divinno h divin Bing himlf" And Jui John Mcnzi wo in hi Dicionary of h Bibl n 1 1 hould igoouly b anlad

h wod wa a divin bing'iolating a Rule?

SOME claim howv ha uch nding

viola a ul of oin Gk gammapublihd by Gk chola E C Colwll backin 1933 ad ha in Gk a pdicanoun "ha h [dni aicl whn i followh vb; i do no hav h [dni aiclwhn i pcd h vb" By hi h manha a pdica noun pcding h vb

hould b undood a hough i did hav hdni aicl "h") in fon of i A John1 1 h cond noun ( hos) h pdicapcd h vb"and hos/] wa hWod" So Colwll claimd John 1 1 houldad "and [h God wa h Wod"

Bu conid ju wo xampl found aJohn 844. Th Ju ay of h Dvil "Thaon wa a manlay" and "h i a lia" Ju aa John 1 1 h pdica noun "manlay"and "lia") pcd h vb "wa" and "i")

in h Gk Th i no indni aicl infon of ih noun bcau h wa no in-dni aicl in oin Gk Bu mo anlaion in h wod "a" bcau Gkgamma and h conx qui iS aloMak 1 1 3 2 John 4 1 9 6 7 0 9 1 7 1 0 1 12 6 .

Colwll had o acknowldg hi gadingh pdica noun fo h aid "I i indni

uch ca And i i appan fom h manyanlaion ha in h indni aicl "a " a John 1 1 and in oh plac ha manychola diag wih uch an aicial uland o do God' Wod No Conict

DOES aying ha Ju Chi i "a god" conic wih h Bibl' aching ha h i

only on God? No fo a im h Bibl mploy ha m o f o mighy cauPalm 8 5 ad "You alo pocdd o makhim [man a lil l han godlik on [-bw lohim ha i angl In Ju' d-fn again h chag of h Jw ha hclaimd o b God h nod ha "h aw uh wod god of ho o whom h wod of God

wa addd" ha i human judg John1034 35 JB; Palm 82 16 Evn Saan icalld "h god of hi ym of hing " a 2 Coinhian 4 4.

Ju ha a poiion fa high han anglimpfc mn o Saan Sinc h a -fd o a "god" mighy on uly Jucan b and i "a god" Bcau of hi uniqupoiion in laion o Jhovah Ju i a "Mighy God"John 1 1 Iaiah 96.

Bu do no "Mighy God" wih i capial

l indica ha Ju i in om way qualo Jhovah God? No a all Iaiah mlypophid hi o b on of fou nam haJu would b calld and in h Englih lan-guag uch nam a capializd Sill vnhough Ju wa calld "Mighy h can bonly on who i "Almighy" To call JhovahGod "Almighy" would hav lil ignicancunl h xid oh who w alo calld

["a" o "an" in hi poiiononly whn h conx dmand i" So vn h admiha whn h conx -qui i anlao may in- an indni aicl in

The Logos was divine, notthe divine Being himself.

-Joseph Henry Thayer,Bible scholar

god bu who occupid a l o infio poiion

Th Bullin of h JohnRylands Library in Englandno ha accoding o Cah-olic hologian al ahn

fon of h noun in hi yp of nncucu

Do h conx qui an indni aicl a John 1 ? Y fo h imony of hni Bibl i ha Ju i no Almighy GodThu no Colwll quionabl ul of gamma bu conx hould guid h anlao in28

whil hos/ i ud in cipu uch a John1 1 in fnc o Chi "in non of h inanc i ho ud in uch a mann a oidnify Ju wih him who lwh in hNw Tamn gu a ho Tho ha ih Supm God" And h Bullin add "Ifh Nw Tamn wi blivd i vial ha

SHO YOU BE T ?


29/32

Since the Bible callshumans, angels, even Satan,

"gods," or powerful ones, thesuperior Jesus in heaven canproperly be called "a god"

the fathl should confess Jesus as God, is thealmost complete absence of just this form ofconfession in the New Testament explicable?

But what about the apostle Thomas saying,My Lord and my God! to Jesus at John 2028?To Thomas, Jesus was lke a god, especiallyn the mraculous circumstances that prompted his exclamation Some scholars suggest thatThomas may smply have made an emotonalexclamation of astonshment, spoken to Jesusbut drected to God n either case, Thomas didnot thnk that Jesus was Almighty God, for heand all the other apostles knew that Jesus neverclaimed to be God but taught that Jehovah aloneis the only true GodJohn 13

Again, the context helps us to understandthis A few days earler the resurrected Jesushad told Mary Magdalene to tell the disciples am ascending to my Father and your Father andto my God and you God John 20 1) Eventhough Jesus was already resurrected as amghty sprt, Jehovah was still hs God AndJesus continued to refer to Hm as such even inthe last book of the Bible, after he was gloriedevelation 1 , 6 32, 12

Just three verses aer Thomas exclamaton,at John 2031, the Bible further clares theSHOU YOU B ?

matter by statng These have been wrttendown that you may beleve that Jesus is theChrst the Son of God, not that he was Al-mghty God And it meant Son n a lteral way,as wth a natural father and son, not as somemysterous part of a Trinty GodheadMust Harmonize With the Bible

IT S clamed that several other scrptures

support the Trinity But these are smlar tothose dscussed above n that, when carefullyexamned, they oer no actual support Suchtexts only illustrate that when consdering anyclamed support for the Trinty, one must askDoes the nterpretaton harmonze wth theconsistent teachng of the entre BblethatJehovah God alone is Supreme? f not, thenthe nterpretaton must be in errorWe also need to keep n mind that not evenso much as one proof text says that God, Je-sus, and the holy spirit are one n some myste-rous Godhead Not one scrpture anywhere inthe Bible says that all three are the same nsubstance, power, and eternty The Bible sconsistent n revealing Almighty God, Jeho-vah, as alone Supreme, Jesus as his createdSon, and the holy sprit as Gods active force

29


30/32

Woh

p

G on s Tes

J ESUS aid in prayer t Gd: "Thi meaneverlating life their taking in knwl-edge f yu the nly true Gd and f the

ne whm yu ent frth Jeu Chrit." Jhn17:3) What kind f knwledge? "[Gd will ithat all rt f men huld be aved and cmet an accurate knwledge f truth." 1 Tim-thy 2:4) The Amplied Bible render the latterphrae thi way: "nw preciely and crrectly the [divine] Truth."

S Gd want u t knw him and hi pur-pe accurately in cnfrmity with divinetruth. And Gd Wrd the Hly Bible i the

urce f that truthJhn 17: 17; 2 Timthy3: 16 17) When peple learn accurately whatthe Bible ay abut Gd then they will avidbeing like the mentined at Rman 10:2 3wh had "a zeal fr Gd; but nt accrding taccurate knwledge" Or like the Samaritant whm Jeu aid: "Yu wrhip what yu dnt knw"Jhn 4:22

Therefre if we want Gd' apprval weneed t ak urelve: What de God ay abuthimelf? Hw de he want t be wrhiped?

What arehis

purpe and hw huld we tin with them? An accurate knwledge f thetruth give u the right anwer t uch que-tin. Then we can wrhip Gd n hi termDishonoring God

T

HOSE hnring me hall hnr" ayGd1 Samuel 2:30) De it hnr Gd

t call anyne hi equal? De it hnr him tcall Mary "the mther f Gd" and the "Media-trix . between the Creatr and Hi crea-

ture" a de theNew Catholic ncyclope

dia? N the idea inult Gd N ne i hiequal; nr did he have a ehly mther inceJeu wa nt Gd. And there i n "Media-trix" fr Gd ha appinted nly "ne media-tr between Gd and men" Jeu.1 Timthy2: ; 1 Jhn 2: 1 2.

Beynd a dubt the Trinity dctrine hacnfued and diluted peple undertandingf Gd true pitin. It prevent peple frm3

accurately knwing the Univeral SvereignJehvah Gd and frm wrhiping him n hiterm. A thelgian Han ng aid: "Whyhuld anyne want t add anhing t the n-tin f Gd nene and uniquene that cannly dilute r nullify that nene and unique-ne?" But that i what belief in the Trinityha dne

The wh believe in the Trinity are nt "hlding Gd in accurate knwledge " Rman1:28) That vere al ay: "Gd gave them upt a diapprved mental tate t d the thingnt tting" ere 29 t 31 lit me f theuntting thing uch a murder trife being fale t agreement having n natural affectin mercile. The very thing havebeen practiced by religin that accept theTrinity

Fr intance Trinitarian have ften perecuted and even killed the wh rejected therinity dctrine. And they have gne evenrther They have killed their fellw Trinitar-ian in wartime What culd be mre unt-ting than Cathlic killing Cathlic Orthdxkilling Orthdx Prtetant killing Prtetantall in the name f the ame rinitarianGd?

Yet Jeu plainly aid: "By thi all willknw that yu are my diciple if you haeloe among yourseles Jhn 13:3) GdWrd expand n thi ayng: "he childre fGd and the children f the Devil are evidentby thi fact: Everyne wh de nt carry nrighteune de nt riginate with Gdneither does he who does not loe his brother It liken the wh kill their piritualbrther t "Cain wh riginated with thewicked ne [Satan and laughtered hi brther " Jhn 3:1012

Thu the teaching f cnfing dctrineabut Gd ha led t actin that vilate hlaw need what ha happened thrughutChritendm i what Danih thelgian Srenierkegaard decribed "Chitendm ha dneaway with Chritianity withut being quiteaware f it"

SHO YOU BE N ?


31/32

This centuriesoldsculpture in Francedepicts the coronationof the "virgin" May the Trinity Beliefin the Trinity led to

veneration of Ma asthe "Mother of God"

Christndms siritual cnditinfits what th astl Paul wrt: "Thy u bl icly dcla r thy knwGd, but thy diswn him by thirwrks, bcaus thy ar dtstabland disbdint and nt ard frgd wrk f any srt"Titus 1 1 6

Sn, whn Gd brings this rsntwickd systm f things t its nd,Trinitarian Christndm will b calldt accunt And sh will b judgd ad-rsly fr hr Gddishnring actins and dctrinsMatthw 2414 34 253134 41 46 Rlatin1 7 1 6 1 6 1 8 1 8 20 24 19 1 7 2 1

Reject the Trinity

THERE can b n cmrmis with Gds

truths Hnc, t wrshi Gd n histrms mans t rjct th Trinity dctrin tcntradicts what th rhts, Jsus, th astls, and th arly Christians blid andtaught t cntradicts what Gd says abuthimslf in his wn insird Wrd Thus, hcunsls: "Acknwldg that aln am Gdand that thr is n n ls lik m"saiah469 TEV

Gds intrsts ar nt srd by makinghim cnfusing and mystrius nstad, th

mr that l bcm cnusd abut Gdand his urss, th bttr it suits GdsAdrsary, Satan th Dil, th gd f thiswrld t is h wh rmts such fals dc-trins t blind th minds f unblirs

Picture Credits

s by ln d nuhch o ago, Face, p 10 (7)ollegate o Motal, oe, Face, p 31Mse des Beax-ts de oyes, p Mse d ove, Pas, p 10 (1)

( 2 Crinthians 44) And th Trinity dctrinals srs th intrsts f clrgymn whwant t maintain thir hld n l, fr thy

mak it aar as thugh nly thlgians canundrstand itS Jhn 844 Accurat knwldg f Gd brings grat r-

lif t frs us frm tachings that ar in cn-ict with Gds Wrd and frm rganizatinsthat ha astatizd As Jsus said: "Yu willknw th truth, and th truth will st yufr"Jhn 832

By hnring Gd as surm and wrshiing him n his trms, w can aid th judg-mnt that h will sn bring n astat

Christndm nstad, w can lk frwardt Gds far whn this systm nds: "Thwrld is assing away and s is its dsir, buth that ds th will f Gd rmains frr"- 1 Jhn 2 1 7

Mse Gmet, Pas, p 10 (5)Mses atoax, Face, p 10 ()Mseo Bad, Floece, p 10 8Mseo gzo, , p 2 fScala ew ok/Floece, p 8


32/32

Live Forever in Paradise on EahGod promises eternal ife to those who honor him. The righteous themselves wil possess

the earth, and they wil reside forever upon it," his Word assures us-Psam 37:29 .Yet, to be counted among the righteous," you need to do more than becoe informed

about the Trinity teaching You need to progress in knowedge about God Jehovah'sWitnesses will be happy to hep you, if you are not already receiving that help Justwrite to Jehovah's Witnesses at the appropriate address listed below, requesting urther

inforation or that one of Jehovah's Witnesses coe to your hoe and regularly study theBible with you free of charge

ANTIGUA: Box 1 1 9, St. John's. AUSTRALIA: Box 280, I gleburn, N SW 1 890. BAHAMAS: BoxN1 247 Nassau, NP BARBADOS, WI: Crusher Site Road, Prospect, BB 2401 2 St. James.BRITAN The R idgeway, London NW7 1 RN CANADA PO Box 41 00, Georgetown, ONL7G 4Y4 CURAAO NTHRLANDS ANTLLS PO Box 4708 Wilemstad. GRMANYAm Steinfels 656 1 8 Selters GHANA PO Box GP 760, Accra GUAM: 1 43 Jehovah StBarrigada GU 9691 3 GUYANA 352-360 Tyrel St Republic Park Phase 2 EBD . HAWAI:2055 Kamehameha IV Road, Honoulu H 9681 9 HONG KONG 4 Ket Road, KowoonTog, Kowloon. NDA: Post Box No. 6441 Yeahanka BangaloreKAR 560 064. RLAND:Newcaste Greystones, Co Wicklow JAMAICA: PO Box 1 03, Old Harbour. JAPAN: 471Nakashiden Ebina City KanagawaPre 2430496 KNYA PO Box 21 290 00505 NairobiLBRA: PO Box 1 00380, 1 000 Monrovia 1 0. MALAYSIA Peti Surat No. 580 75760 MelakaNW ZALAND: PO Box 751 42, Manurewa Manukau 2243 NGRA P.M.B . 1 090, Benn Cty300001 Edo State PANAMA Apdo 081 9 07567 Panama PHILIPPNS: PO Box 2044 1 060

Watchtower: Should You Believe in the Trinity?, 1989

Documents

Transcript of Watchtower: Should You Believe in the Trinity?, 1989