• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Watchtower: Jesus is not "a god"!

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
I didn't say I wouldn't listen to a Catholic bishop's arguments about the Catholic doctrines. What I was trying to say as an example was that it would be deceitful to use a Catholic bishop's quote in support of prayers to Mary without identifying that the quote was coming from a Catholic bishop. I found a Unitarian's quote, from a source being used as a scholar, who was not identified as a Unitarian.

I'm aware of some of the arguments that Catholics use in support of their traditions and beliefs but this thread is on the Watchtower's teachings that Jesus is a created god.
Obviously not all will agree, but from my study of the scriptures, comparing translations and looking into Greek and Hebrew terminology and history, I have concluded that Jehovah's Witnesses are on the right track. So yes, it is meaningful to recognize that many will pray to saints, believing they will carry their prayers to the trinity perhaps (?) and believe that a person goes to heaven or eternal torture in death based on what others have told them, even misusing and not peering into the scriptures, not putting them all together. And being misdirected throughout the centuries.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Tigger2,

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

In the Watchtower's booklet, "Should You Believe in the Trinity?" p. 5-6 in quotes,
  • A PROTESTANT publication states: “The word Trinity is not found in the Bible . . . It did not find a place formally in the theology of the church till the 4th century.” (The Illustrated Bible Dictionary)

The full quote from, The Illustrated Bible Dictionary, part 3, p. 1597 :
  • “The word Trinity is not found in the Bible, and though used by Tertullian in the last decade of the 2nd century, it did not find a place formally in the theology of the church till the 4th century. …Though it is not a biblical doctrine in the sense that any formulation of it can be found in the Bible, it can be seen to underlie the revelation of God, implicit in the OT and explicit in the NT.”

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



In the Watchtower's booklet, "Should You Believe in the Trinity?" p. 6 they misrepresent Fortman. They say, "Similarly, in his book The Triune God, Jesuit Edmund Fortman admits:
  • “The Old Testament . . . tells us nothing explicitly or by necessary implication of a Triune God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. . . . There is no evidence that any sacred writer even suspected the existence of a [Trinity] within the Godhead. . . . Even to see in [the “Old Testament”] suggestions or foreshadowings or ‘veiled signs’ of the trinity of persons, is to go beyond the words and intent of the sacred writers.”


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

  • “If we take the New Testament writers together they tell us there is only one God, the creator and lord of the universe.…They call Jesus the Son of God, Messiah, Lord, Savior, Word, Wisdom. They assign Him the divine functions of creation, salvation, judgment. Sometimes they call Him God explicitly.…They give us in their writings a triadic ground plan and triadic formulas….They give us no formal or formulated doctrine of the Trinity, no explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons. But they do give us an elemental trinitarianism, the data from which such a formal doctrine of the Triune God may be formulated."


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





In the WTS bible Col 1: 16-17 states,
  • "because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All other things have been created through him and for him. and by means of him all other things were made to exist,"

Why would the WT add the word "other" to their bible when it's not in the original?
What original? That's #1. #2 and very meaningful and important to this discussion is Luke 13:2. See what you get from that.
 

SLPCCC

Active Member
I have read many of your trinitarian teachers' ideas about these things, and see nothing in their comments other than conjecture and opinions to prove that Jesus was NOT a created person. . . .


This scripture comes to mind, Matt. 13: 14,15
  • Indeed, in their case the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled that says: “‘“You will indeed hear but never understand, and you will indeed see but never perceive.”For this people’s heart has grown dull, and with their ears they can barely hear, and their eyes they have closed, lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears and understand with their heart and turn, and I would heal them.’

I understand that's why I don't get frustrated. Cognitive dissonance. . . :cool:
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
This scripture comes to mind, Matt. 13: 14,15
  • Indeed, in their case the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled that says: “‘“You will indeed hear but never understand, and you will indeed see but never perceive.”For this people’s heart has grown dull, and with their ears they can barely hear, and their eyes they have closed, lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears and understand with their heart and turn, and I would heal them.’

I understand that's why I don't get frustrated. Cognitive dissonance. . . :cool:
So then think of all the prayers to the saints. And celibacy for priests and nuns, cognitive dissonance? Misdirection?
 

Oeste

Well-Known Member
In the Watchtower's booklet, "Should You Believe in the Trinity?" p. 5-6 in quotes,
  • A PROTESTANT publication states: “The word Trinity is not found in the Bible . . . It did not find a place formally in the theology of the church till the 4th century.” (The Illustrated Bible Dictionary)

The full quote from, The Illustrated Bible Dictionary, part 3, p. 1597 :
  • “The word Trinity is not found in the Bible, and though used by Tertullian in the last decade of the 2nd century, it did not find a place formally in the theology of the church till the 4th century. …Though it is not a biblical doctrine in the sense that any formulation of it can be found in the Bible, it can be seen to underlie the revelation of God, implicit in the OT and explicit in the NT.”

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

This is a serious, unethical misquote by the Watchtower.

Had this simply been a misprint or mistake the Watchtower would have corrected future reprints of their "Should You Believe in the Trinity?" brochure and/or posted a correction on their website.
.
The Watchtower slurs itself when it engages in this type of irresponsible behavior. An ellipsis should never be used to change or alter the original meaning of the author.
 

Oeste

Well-Known Member
Obviously not all will agree, but from my study of the scriptures, comparing translations and looking into Greek and Hebrew terminology and history, I have concluded that Jehovah's Witnesses are on the right track

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

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

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

Brian2

Veteran Member
It wasn't?? Are you sure?

What you wrote, by leaving out the "in a strictly ontological reference", actually demonstrates the deception practised by the WT in their "Should You Believe in the Trinity" magazine. It gives a totally wrong idea of what I actually said.
The WT is good at this sort of deception and can do it in such a way as to make it seem OK to people who are members of the religion and as SLPCCC says, they have also done that in the Bible by additions to and changes of the text. The example I see with SLPCCC is Col 1 where "other" is added a number of times.
The scholars say that additions like this are OK if it does not change the meaning of the text and the WT says their additions of "other" do not change the meaning of the text because all it does is show that Jesus did not create Himself and is indicated as necessary to avoid confusion because Jesus is said to be part of the creation in verse 15.
The truth is that the second reason above shows that it does change the meaning of the text to suggest that Jesus was created. However IF Col 1:15 is a partitive genitive and shows Jesus to be part of the creation, that does not mean that Jesus was created as it can mean that the uncreated prehuman Jesus stepped into the creation when He became a man.
That it does mean that the prehuman Jesus was uncreated is told to us by the lack of "other" in the original text.
ALL THINGS were created through Jesus. No exceptions, as John 1:3 tells us.
Another deception that the WT uses is the redefinition of the word "firstborn" and ignoring the lexicon meanings of the word and it's use in the OT in texts about Israel being God's firstborn and about God appointing Jesus to be firstborn (Ps 89:27) (realising that if "firstborn" means only "first one born" it is something that someone cannot be "appointed" to) This sort of redefining of words is seen in other places also with the WT, as with soul, spirit, hades, sheol, resurrection etc. It is as if the WT thinks it has a right to change and add to the Bible and redefine words.
All of this sort of redefining is based on the idea that Christendom theologians and language people have been dishonest and/or deceived about the real meanings of words. So it is OK to say that Christendom is dishonest about things where no dishonesty is obvious but if that is suggested about obvious dishonesty by the WT it is not acceptable.
The WT then goes on to say that "through" indicates that Jesus was agent in God's creation.
But of course this flies in the face of the original text where "ALL THINGS" are said to have been created through Jesus. So the WT needs to add "other" between ALL and THINGS to change the real meaning of the original text.
In regards to the word "through" in such texts:
NIV Heb 2:10 In bringing many sons and daughters to glory, it was fitting that God, for whom and through whom everything exists, should make the pioneer of their salvation perfect through what he suffered.
NWT Heb 2:10 For it was fitting that the one for whom and through whom all things exist,
NIV Romans 11:36 For from him and through him and for him are all things.
To him be the glory forever! Amen.
NWT Romans 11:36 Because from him and by him and for him are all things. To him be the glory forever. Amen.
In the above quotes I guess it is commendable that the NWT does not alter the text of Heb 2:10 and change "through" to another word even though they do so in Romans 11:36.
However ignoring that, I wonder why God is not seen as an "agent" in creation if all things came into existence 'through" Him.

This was certainly a big and unexpected return post to your small post.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
This scripture comes to mind, Matt. 13: 14,15
  • Indeed, in their case the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled that says: “‘“You will indeed hear but never understand, and you will indeed see but never perceive.”For this people’s heart has grown dull, and with their ears they can barely hear, and their eyes they have closed, lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears and understand with their heart and turn, and I would heal them.’

I understand that's why I don't get frustrated. Cognitive dissonance. . . :cool:
Here's something for you: (I was just reading about Jesus when he was a babe.) Thinking about this and the trinity, and "a God," (1) - do you believe that there always were three godpersons in heaven? (2) If so, was Jesus "in heaven" as one of the three "godpersons"?
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
This is a serious, unethical misquote by the Watchtower.

Had this simply been a misprint or mistake the Watchtower would have corrected future reprints of their "Should You Believe in the Trinity?" brochure and/or posted a correction on their website.
.
The Watchtower slurs itself when it engages in this type of irresponsible behavior. An ellipsis should never be used to change or alter the original meaning of the author.
It was an accurate quote. Never does the Bible use the word trinity. Never does it say that all three godpersons are equal. Never - ever. In fact the entire quote puts more of a lid on the contrived trinity doctrine. NOT in the Bible.
 

tigger2

Active Member
This is a serious, unethical misquote by the Watchtower.

Had this simply been a misprint or mistake the Watchtower would have corrected future reprints of their "Should You Believe in the Trinity?" brochure and/or posted a correction on their website.
.
The Watchtower slurs itself when it engages in this type of irresponsible behavior. An ellipsis should never be used to change or alter the original meaning of the author.

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

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

Oeste

Well-Known Member
It was an accurate quote. Never does the Bible use the word trinity. Never does it say that all three godpersons are equal. Never - ever. In fact the entire quote puts more of a lid on the contrived trinity doctrine. NOT in the Bible.


No, it was not an accurate quote as it misrepresented the quoted source. It's an unethical use of an ellipsis. Whether or not something is found or not in the bible is immaterial in this instance as we are not discussing a quote from the bible, but a "quote" from the Illustrated Bible Dictionary.
 

Oeste

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

If someone here were actually attacking a Trinitarian publication for not having Trinitarian statements I would agree. But I don't see anyone attacking Trinitarian publications for this. I'm not following your line of reasoning here.


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

Hi Tigger,

The quoted source's whole point was that the revelation of God ("Trinity") is implicit in the OT and explicit in the New. Whether or not Witnesses agree with this point is immaterial. What is material is that when you quote a source the author's intent and conclusion remain intact. That is not something you don't find in the WT's Trinity brochure.

In other words, when you're quoting a source, you're sparing the reader from looking up and reading the source material itself. This is why it becomes incumbent upon the quoting party to be responsible in their use of the ellipsis, quotes or whatever literary device they are using to preserve the intent of the author. The Trinity brochure does none of that.

Headings, like 'Trinity in the Bible?' do not affect the WT's responsibility to quote and cite sources accurately. When we read the Trinity brochure we get one meaning from a quoted source and when we read the source material (that is, if you can find it, given the poor citations) we get something completely different and at odds with the alleged quotation!

When we read a quoted source, we should be able to draw the same inferences from the quote as if we had read the actual source. Anything less is a misrepresentation of the source, or a subreption:


Definition of subreption

: a deliberate misrepresentation also
: an inference drawn from it

I think the comments here expose some of the challenges faced when talking with Jehovah Witnesses and their supporters. The idea this type of quoting was okay because it had no bearing on the the WT heading they were under ('Trinity in the Bible?') was certainly a new one to me.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
No, it was not an accurate quote as it misrepresented the quoted source. It's an unethical use of an ellipsis. Whether or not something is found or not in the bible is immaterial in this instance as we are not discussing a quote from the bible, but a "quote" from the Illustrated Bible Dictionary.
It certainly was not. If I were not a believer in God (I was not always a believer) and I read the FULL QUOTE, I'd have thought it was a bunch of hooey. Now I see
the full quote for what it is-- Dishonest.
it is is absurd. What truly is dishonest is the idea that the "trinity" is a Bible based idea. It is not.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
If someone here were actually attacking a Trinitarian publication for not having Trinitarian statements I would agree. But I don't see anyone attacking Trinitarian publications for this. I'm not following your line of reasoning here.




Hi Tigger,

The quoted source's whole point was that the revelation of God ("Trinity") is implicit in the OT and explicit in the New. Whether or not Witnesses agree with this point is immaterial. What is material is that when you quote a source the author's intent and conclusion remain intact. That is not something you don't find in the WT's Trinity brochure.

In other words, when you're quoting a source, you're sparing the reader from looking up and reading the source material itself. This is why it becomes incumbent upon the quoting party to be responsible in their use of the ellipsis, quotes or whatever literary device they are using to preserve the intent of the author. The Trinity brochure does none of that.

Headings, like 'Trinity in the Bible?' do not affect the WT's responsibility to quote and cite sources accurately. When we read the Trinity brochure we get one meaning from a quoted source and when we read the source material (that is, if you can find it, given the poor citations) we get something completely different and at odds with the alleged quotation!

When we read a quoted source, we should be able to draw the same inferences from the quote as if we had read the actual source. Anything less is a misrepresentation of the source, or a subreption:


Definition of subreption

: a deliberate misrepresentation also
: an inference drawn from it

I think the comments here expose some of the challenges faced when talking with Jehovah Witnesses and their supporters. The idea this type of quoting was okay because it had no bearing on the the WT heading they were under ('Trinity in the Bible?') was certainly a new one to me.
No. The trinity of 3 equal godpersons is in no way implicit in the Bible.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
What you wrote, by leaving out the "in a strictly ontological reference", actually demonstrates the deception practised by the WT in their "Should You Believe in the Trinity" magazine. It gives a totally wrong idea of what I actually said.
The WT is good at this sort of deception and can do it in such a way as to make it seem OK to people who are members of the religion and as SLPCCC says, they have also done that in the Bible by additions to and changes of the text. The example I see with SLPCCC is Col 1 where "other" is added a number of times.
The scholars say that additions like this are OK if it does not change the meaning of the text and the WT says their additions of "other" do not change the meaning of the text because all it does is show that Jesus did not create Himself and is indicated as necessary to avoid confusion because Jesus is said to be part of the creation in verse 15.
The truth is that the second reason above shows that it does change the meaning of the text to suggest that Jesus was created. However IF Col 1:15 is a partitive genitive and shows Jesus to be part of the creation, that does not mean that Jesus was created as it can mean that the uncreated prehuman Jesus stepped into the creation when He became a man.
That it does mean that the prehuman Jesus was uncreated is told to us by the lack of "other" in the original text.
ALL THINGS were created through Jesus. No exceptions, as John 1:3 tells us.
Another deception that the WT uses is the redefinition of the word "firstborn" and ignoring the lexicon meanings of the word and it's use in the OT in texts about Israel being God's firstborn and about God appointing Jesus to be firstborn (Ps 89:27) (realising that if "firstborn" means only "first one born" it is something that someone cannot be "appointed" to) This sort of redefining of words is seen in other places also with the WT, as with soul, spirit, hades, sheol, resurrection etc. It is as if the WT thinks it has a right to change and add to the Bible and redefine words.
All of this sort of redefining is based on the idea that Christendom theologians and language people have been dishonest and/or deceived about the real meanings of words. So it is OK to say that Christendom is dishonest about things where no dishonesty is obvious but if that is suggested about obvious dishonesty by the WT it is not acceptable.
The WT then goes on to say that "through" indicates that Jesus was agent in God's creation.
But of course this flies in the face of the original text where "ALL THINGS" are said to have been created through Jesus. So the WT needs to add "other" between ALL and THINGS to change the real meaning of the original text.
In regards to the word "through" in such texts:
NIV Heb 2:10 In bringing many sons and daughters to glory, it was fitting that God, for whom and through whom everything exists, should make the pioneer of their salvation perfect through what he suffered.
NWT Heb 2:10 For it was fitting that the one for whom and through whom all things exist,
NIV Romans 11:36 For from him and through him and for him are all things.
To him be the glory forever! Amen.
NWT Romans 11:36 Because from him and by him and for him are all things. To him be the glory forever. Amen.
In the above quotes I guess it is commendable that the NWT does not alter the text of Heb 2:10 and change "through" to another word even though they do so in Romans 11:36.
However ignoring that, I wonder why God is not seen as an "agent" in creation if all things came into existence 'through" Him.

This was certainly a big and unexpected return post to your small post.
Again -- the trinity as explained by classical trinitarians is nowhere in the Bible. Nowhere, absolutely not.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
No, it was not an accurate quote as it misrepresented the quoted source. It's an unethical use of an ellipsis. Whether or not something is found or not in the bible is immaterial in this instance as we are not discussing a quote from the bible, but a "quote" from the Illustrated Bible Dictionary.

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

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
What you wrote, by leaving out the "in a strictly ontological reference", actually demonstrates the deception practised by the WT in their "Should You Believe in the Trinity" magazine. It gives a totally wrong idea of what I actually said.
The WT is good at this sort of deception and can do it in such a way as to make it seem OK to people who are members of the religion and as SLPCCC says, they have also done that in the Bible by additions to and changes of the text. The example I see with SLPCCC is Col 1 where "other" is added a number of times.
The scholars say that additions like this are OK if it does not change the meaning of the text and the WT says their additions of "other" do not change the meaning of the text because all it does is show that Jesus did not create Himself and is indicated as necessary to avoid confusion because Jesus is said to be part of the creation in verse 15.
The truth is that the second reason above shows that it does change the meaning of the text to suggest that Jesus was created. However IF Col 1:15 is a partitive genitive and shows Jesus to be part of the creation, that does not mean that Jesus was created as it can mean that the uncreated prehuman Jesus stepped into the creation when He became a man.
That it does mean that the prehuman Jesus was uncreated is told to us by the lack of "other" in the original text.
ALL THINGS were created through Jesus. No exceptions, as John 1:3 tells us.
Another deception that the WT uses is the redefinition of the word "firstborn" and ignoring the lexicon meanings of the word and it's use in the OT in texts about Israel being God's firstborn and about God appointing Jesus to be firstborn (Ps 89:27) (realising that if "firstborn" means only "first one born" it is something that someone cannot be "appointed" to) This sort of redefining of words is seen in other places also with the WT, as with soul, spirit, hades, sheol, resurrection etc. It is as if the WT thinks it has a right to change and add to the Bible and redefine words.
All of this sort of redefining is based on the idea that Christendom theologians and language people have been dishonest and/or deceived about the real meanings of words. So it is OK to say that Christendom is dishonest about things where no dishonesty is obvious but if that is suggested about obvious dishonesty by the WT it is not acceptable.
The WT then goes on to say that "through" indicates that Jesus was agent in God's creation.
But of course this flies in the face of the original text where "ALL THINGS" are said to have been created through Jesus. So the WT needs to add "other" between ALL and THINGS to change the real meaning of the original text.
In regards to the word "through" in such texts:
NIV Heb 2:10 In bringing many sons and daughters to glory, it was fitting that God, for whom and through whom everything exists, should make the pioneer of their salvation perfect through what he suffered.
NWT Heb 2:10 For it was fitting that the one for whom and through whom all things exist,
NIV Romans 11:36 For from him and through him and for him are all things.
To him be the glory forever! Amen.
NWT Romans 11:36 Because from him and by him and for him are all things. To him be the glory forever. Amen.
In the above quotes I guess it is commendable that the NWT does not alter the text of Heb 2:10 and change "through" to another word even though they do so in Romans 11:36.
However ignoring that, I wonder why God is not seen as an "agent" in creation if all things came into existence 'through" Him.

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

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Yes I'm afraid so.
True Believer asked you, "You seem to be able to see that the scriptures prove he was YHWH manifest in the flesh. Yet you still believe in the Trinity don't you?"
Since you said you believe in the trinity kind of no matter what, can you say if, in any way (ontologically or not), you believe there were three godpersons always without beginning of the three yet the three god"persons" said to compose one "being." Thank you.
 
Top