You Should Believe in The Trinity

Yes, You Should Believe in the Trinity!
4jehovah.org/store/books/yes-you-should-believe-trinity/
—A Page-by-Page Response To The Watchtower Society’s 1989 Brochure: “Should

You Believe in the Trinity?”
This book includes nearly 300 pages of photocopied documentation of the publications
misquoted and misrepresented in the Watchtower’s Should You Believe in the Trinity?
brochure. It provides a scholarly answer to Watchtower arguments concerning the origin and
history of the Trinity doctrine and a thorough analysis of Scriptural proof texts used for and
against the doctrine.
1/6
FOR COMPLETE PHOTOCOPIED DOCUMENTATION Purchase the New 2nd Edition of
the Trinity Book Here on Amazon.
English Paperback / English KDP

THE ORIGINAL 1989 VERSION OF THE WATCHTOWER’S TRINITY BROCHURE
This book provides a detailed Biblical and scholarly response to the Watchtower Society’s
arguments against the Trinity doctrine set forth in their 1989 brochure, Should You Believe in
the Trinity?
As the chapters of this book correspond to the major sections in the Society’s brochure, what
follows is a page-by-page analysis of the Society’s claims along with nearly 300 pages of
high quality photocopies PROVING the DECEPTION of the Society in their brochure.
A Christian who reads Yes, You Should Believe in the Trinity! will find this book most valuable
in defending the “faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.”—Jude 3
Likewise, one who is a former Jehovah’s Witness will not only appreciate the gentle,
objective manner in which information is presented, but will also find the substantiated
documentation helpful in reevaluating the claims of the Watchtower Society.
INTRODUCTION: WHY YOU SHOULD BELIEVE IN IT
CHAPTER 1: DEFINING THE TRINITY
WHAT IS THE TRINITY?

“BEYOND THE GRASP OF HUMAN REASON”
2/6
“IS IT CLEARLY A BIBLE TEACHING?”
TESTIMONY OF THE HEBREW AND GREEK SCRIPTURES
THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGION
NEW CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA
THE TRIUNE GOD, by Jesuit Edmund Fortman
THE NEW ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA
“PROTESTANT THEOLOGIAN KARL BARTH”
CHAPTER 2: HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
TAUGHT BY EARLY CHRISTIANS

“WHAT THE ANTE-NICENE FATHERS TAUGHT”
IGNATIUS (30-107 A.D.)
JUSTIN MARTYR (165 A.D.)
IRENAEUS (200 A.D.)
CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA (215 A.D.)
TERTULLIAN (230 A.D.)
HIPPOLYTUS (235 A.D.)
ORIGEN (250 A.D.)
ALVAN LAMSON – THE CHURCH OF THE FIRST THREE CENTURIES
LAMSON’S STATEMENTS ABOUT JUSTIN MARTYR
LAMSON’S STATEMENTS ABOUT CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA
LAMSON’S STATEMENTS ABOUT TERTULLIAN
THE COUNCIL OF NICAEA
THREE VIEWS OF CHRIST DISCUSSED AT THE COUNCIL
“CONSTANTINE’S ROLE AT NICAEA”
CHAPTER 3: PAGAN ROOTS OF THE TRINITY?
WHAT ABOUT EGYPTIAN, BABYLONIAN, AND HINDU TRIADS?

THE STORY OF CIVILIZATION: Part III, Caesar and Christ, by Will Durant
EGYPTIAN RELIGION, by Siegfried Morenz
THE PAGANISM IN OUR CHRISTIANITY, by Arthur Weigall
ENCYCLOPAEDIA OF RELIGION AND ETHICS, by James Hastings
THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGIOUS KNOWLEDGE
THE CHURCH OF THE FIRST THREE CENTURIES, by Alvan Lamson
OUTLINES OF THE HISTORY OF DOGMA, by Adolf Harnack
A STATEMENT OF REASONS, by Andrews Norton
IS THE STORY OF JESUS DERIVED FROM THE PAGAN LEGENDS OF OSIRIS,
HORUS, MITHRAS AND OTHER MYTHICAL GODS?
CHAPTER 4: TRINITY IN THE BIBLE
3/6
DOES MONOTHEISM (BELIEF IN ONE GOD) SUPPORT THE TRINITY?
ANSWERING WATCHTOWER PROOF TEXTS
COLOSSIANS 1:15-16
REVELATION 3:14
PROVERBS 8:12, 22-23
“HOW MUCH WAS THE RANSOM?”
JESUS THE “ONLY-BEGOTTEN SON”
CHAPTER 5: IS JESUS INFERIOR TO GOD?
WHAT ABOUT JESUS’ SUBMISSION TO THE FATHER’S WILL?

JOHN 20:17
REVELATION 3:12
1 CORINTHIANS 8:5-6
MARK 10:17-18
HABAKKUK 1:12
MARK 13:32
1 CORINTHIANS 11:3 AND 15:28
JOHN 14:28
BULLETIN OF THE JOHN RYLANDS LIBRARY
CHAPTER 6: THE HOLY SPIRIT—A PERSON OR FORCE?
PERSONAL ATTRIBUTES OF THE HOLY SPIRIT

THE HOLY SPIRIT IS TREATED AS A PERSON
MATTHEW 24:36 – THE HOLY SPIRIT DOES NOT KNOW?
THE HOLY SPIRIT INDWELLS BELIEVERS
PERSONIFICATION AND THE HOLY SPIRIT
THE HOLY SPIRIT – A NEUTER NOUN
THE TRIUNE GOD
CHAPTER 7: JESUS IS GOD!
WHAT ABOUT TRINITY “PROOF TEXTS”?

COMBATING THE HENOTHEISTIC BIAS OF JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES
JOHN 10:30: “I and the Father Are One”
JOHN 10:34: “…‘I said you are gods’?”
JOHN 5:18: “Making Himself Equal To God”
PHILIPPIANS 2:6: “Equal With God”
JOHN 8:58: “I Am”
JOHN 1:1 “The Word Was God”
ISAIAH 9:6: JESUS IS THE “EVERLASTING FATHER”
4/6
THE NEW TESTAMENT IN AN IMPROVED VERSION, Upon the Basis of
Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation: With a Corrected Text, 1808: “…and the
word was a god.”
THE EMPHATIC DIAGLOTT, interlinear reading, by Benjamin Wilson
THE JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE
A MANUAL GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT
JOSEPH HENRY THAYER
DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE, by John L. McKenzie
THE NEW TESTAMENT by Johannes Greber
4 REASONS THE SOCIETY’S TRANSLATION OF JOHN 1:1 IS UNTENABLE
THEOS = GOD OR “DIVINE QUALITY”?
ARE THERE TWO “MIGHTY GODS”?
CHAPTER 8: “WORSHIP GOD ON HIS TERMS”
SHOULD WE WORSHIP JESUS?

IS JESUS CHRIST THE ARCHANGEL MICHAEL?
TITLES AND ATTRIBUTES OF JEHOVAH APPLIED TO JESUS
CHAPTER 9: WHO SHOULD WE PRAY TO? – The Father or the Son?
IF JESUS TAUGHT US TO PRAY TO THE FATHER, WHY SHOULD WE PRAY TO

JESUS?
WHEN SHOULD WE PRAY TO THE FATHER?
WE CAN PRAY TO GOD THE FATHER AND THE SON INTERCHANGEABLY
CHAPTER 10: DID THE HEBREW WRITERS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CALL JESUS
YHWH (JEHOVAH)?
SHOULD GOD’S NAME BE TRANSLATED JEHOVAH, YAHWEH OR LORD?

WAS GOD’S NAME REMOVED FROM THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT?
DOES PAUL’S USE OF THE WORD “LORD” IN HIS QUOTE OF JOEL 2:32 IN
ROMANS 10:13 CONFUSE JESUS WITH JEHOVAH?
DO THE HEBREW J MANUSCRIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CALL JESUS
YHWY?
1 PETER 3:15: “sanctify YHWH, the Messiah”
PHILIPPIANS 2:11: “Yeshua the Messiah is YHWH”
CHAPTER 11: HOW TO DISCUSS THE DEITY OF JESUS CHRIST
CHAPTER 12: QUESTIONS EXPOSING TRINITY BROCHURE LIES
CHAPTER 13: SIMPLE QUESTIONS TO ASK ABOUT THE TRUE GOD
5/6
CHAPTER 14: QUICK ANSWERS TO FREQUENT OBJECTIONS TO THE TRINITY
DOCTRINE
APPENDIX
JOHN 14:14 – PRAYER TO JESUS – Did Jesus say “ask me anything” or did he say
“ask anything”?
EXODUS 3:14 AND JOHN 8:58 – THE GREAT “I AM” – Should Exodus 3:14 and John
8:58 be translated as “I Am” or “I will prove to be” and “I have been”?
IS JESUS THE ANGEL OF THE LORD?
ERRORS IN THE NEW WORLD TRANSLATION OF JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES
6/6
Introduction: Why You Should Believe in the Trinity
4jehovah.org/introduction-why-you-should-believe-in-the-trinity/
WHY YOU SHOULD BELIEVE IN IT
rinity is the belief that the three divine persons in Scripture,

who are called the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy
Spirit, comprise one being we call “God.” He refers to Himself
in both singular and plural forms, as we read in Genesis 1:26,
“Then God said, ‘Let Us make man in Our image, according to
Our likeness…’” Yet, we read in the following verse, “God
created man in His own image, in the image of God He
created him…”
Here we see that in one passage, God first refers to Himself in

the plural form, but later as a single being. It is noteworthy to
point out that the Hebrew term translated “God” in the text is also plural. “Elohim” literally
means “gods,” and it is used in place of the singular form “El” which would be rendered as
only one “God” being. Critics and scholars alike have speculated various hypothesis as to
why a single being would refer to Himself in the plural form. Some of those reasons will be
discussed in the forthcoming chapters, but as a trinitarian, I believe these examples reinforce
the trinitarian concept that “God” is three persons in one being.
Throughout this book, I reference “Jehovah” or “Yahweh” as God’s personal name. This
name comes from the account in Exodus 3:14-15 where God reveals Himself to Moses as
the “I AM,” in Hebrew characters being ‫( ְיֹהָוה‬YHWH) and often translated “LORD,”
“Jehovah,” or “Yahweh” in modern Bibles. Differences in translation stem from the fact that
the oldest Hebrew manuscripts we possess today have no vowels, so scholars render the
name differently based on which vowels they decide to insert into the Hebrew characters.
This book is an accumulation of multiple years of research into the doctrine of the Trinity as I
have spent significant time defending it against the heresy of the Jehovah’s Witnesses who
deny that Jesus is Almighty God. Although Jehovah’s Witnesses reject these fundamental
beliefs of Christianity, they understand the importance of determining the truth regarding the
nature of God, so they state the following text in the shaded box below from their publication
Should You Believe in the Trinity:
1/10
“Do YOU believe in the Trinity? Most people in Christendom do. After all, it has been
the central doctrine of the churches for centuries. …Why should a subject like this
be of any more than passing interest? Because Jesus himself said: ‘Eternal life is
this: to know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.’ So our
entire future hinges on our knowing the true nature of God, and that means getting
to the root of the Trinity controversy.” —Should You Believe in the Trinity?, 1989, p.
3
Because we believe that every theological heresy begins with a misconception of the nature
of God, we agree with the Watchtower statement that “our entire future hinges on our
knowing the true nature of God.” Thus, I will now present several reasons why belief in the
Trinity is essential to salvation.
1. God Has Revealed His Triune Nature in Creation.

The first reason we must believe in the Trinity is due to the fact that God has revealed His
divine nature and attributes in creation so that anyone who rejects the light given here is
without excuse. In Romans 1:18, the apostle Paul explains that apart from the regenerating
act of God through the gospel, every person suppresses the truth in unrighteousness, and
thus stands guilty before God. He goes on to state this in verses 19 through 20:
“Because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to
them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and
divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made so
that they are without excuse.”
Just as scripture explains, God has already made Himself known to every person. Since His
divine attributes “have been clearly seen,” we can see the shadows of the three-in-one
nature of the Trinity in the following three-in-one composite combinations found in our world
today:
Dimensions: Length, Width, Height

Time: Past, Present, Future
Matter: Solid, Liquid, Gas
Moisture: Wet, Damp, Dry
Precipitation: Rain, Hail, Snow
Personhood: Mind, Will, Emotions
Speed & Sound: Low, Medium, High
Universe Lights: Sun, Moon, Stars
2/10
Not only do we see composite unity reflected in creation, but men and women, being made
after the “image” of God (Genesis 1:26-27), are likewise comprised of a trichotomy made up
of three parts: body, soul and spirit as 1 Thessalonians 5:23 declares. If these three aspects
of humanity can co-exist in one unified human being, how much more possible is it for the
one eternal Triune Being we call “God” to exist in three Persons: Father, Son and Holy
Spirit? Since God has already revealed, through the light of creation and conscience,
everything we need to know about His Holy nature and divine attributes, we are all without
excuse if we reject this Triune God of creation. Paul goes on to explain in verses 21-23, 25
of Romans one:
“For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God… but they became futile
in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. …they became fools, and
exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible
man….For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature
rather than the Creator who is blessed forever. Amen.”
Clearly, those who reject the God of the Bible, do so, not out of ignorance, but out of a desire
to suppress the truth, reducing Him to human “speculation” so that they can justify their own
corrupting passions. In this passage, we can clearly see why it is of utmost importance that
we have a clear and accurate understanding of the nature of God and the identity of Jesus
Christ, because if we get God wrong in our theology, we get everything else wrong in living
out our faith.
At John 17:3, Jesus declares: “This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God,
and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.” Since eternal life is closely tied to our knowledge of
the “only true God” found win Jesus Christ, it is understandable why nearly every theological
heresy distorts the nature of Christ in some way or another. Just as we’ve seen in Romans
chapter one, the un-regenerated man seeks to worship a “god” made in his own image, like
unto “corruptible man.” We want a “god” we can understand, a “god” whose standards can
be manipulated to appease our own guilty consciences, and a “god” who is in some form,
just like us, a “creature,” so that we can judge his nature and His laws according to our own
standards. In so doing, the unregenerate man not only rejects the concept of an eternally
Triune God, but His concept of eternal punishment that will be allotted out to the wicked in
justice for offending the eternal holiness of this Almighty God. This denial of God’s eternal
justice is often the motivating reason behind many of the theological distortions found within
the cults; it is a desire to put the Biblical God in a box of human understanding so that the
uncomfortable aspects of His nature can be discounted to appeal to mortal sensibilities.
2. Confessing Jesus’ Identity as God the Son is Foundational to

Christianity.
3/10
The second reason we must believe in the Trinity is based on the fact that Jesus made
confession of His true identity a foundational tenant of His church. At Matthew 16:13-20,
Jesus asked His disciples: “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” In answer, His disciples
shared the prevailing views of the culture that included viewing Jesus as a good teacher like
John the Baptist or a prophet like Elijah. These views are not that uncommon from the views
of Jehovah’s Witnesses who likewise claim Jesus is a good religious teacher, but reject His
claim to be God.
After listening to the disciples responses to His question, Jesus took the question to a
personal level when He asked: “But who do you say that I am?” In so doing, He challenged
His disciples to personally consider His identity in light of everything they had witnessed.
When Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God,” Peter demonstrated
that he recognized Jesus as God the Son, being fully God in human form. Colossians 2:9
states: “For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form.” Just as a human son is just
as much human as his father is human, so Jesus as God’s Son is just as Divine as His
Father is Divine. This is why we read at John 5:18:
“For this reason therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not
only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself
equal with God.”
Did you catch that? When Jesus was “calling God His own Father,” the Jews understood
that title made Him “equal” with God. So when Peter responded to Jesus’ question with the
profound understanding that Jesus was indeed the very Son of the living God, Jesus
commended Him by declaring at Matthew 16:17:
“Blessed are you… because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is
in heaven.”
In other words, the only way that Peter could have understood that Jesus was in fact God in
the flesh was for the Father Himself to reveal this truth to Peter. This is an important concept
for us to grasp because all of the arguments we can provide to prove the identity of Jesus as
Almighty God to a Jehovah’s Witness will not necessarily open their eyes. The Holy Spirit
must reveal this truth to them for them to accept His full Deity. Likewise, 1 Corinthians 12:3
states: “Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God says,
‘Jesus is accursed’; and no one can say, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ except by the Holy Spirit.”
Now I want to draw your attention to one more insight about this passage. When Jesus
commended Peter for understanding that He is the very “Son of the living God,” Jesus then
pointed out that “…upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not
overpower it.” In other words, the very confession of Peter, that Jesus is the “Son of the
living God,” forms the foundational statement or “Rock” of Christ’s church; for if we get Jesus’
identity wrong, distorting it in our doctrine, we lose the very foundation of our faith. At 2
4/10
Corinthians 11:3-4, the apostle Paul warned the Corinthian church against being so inclusive
of other religious views that they allowed false teachers to come in bringing doctrines of
“another” Jesus. He said:
“But I am afraid that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds will be led
astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ. For if one comes and
preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or you receive a different spirit which
you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted, you bear this
beautifully.”
In stating that false teachers would come preaching “another Jesus,” he explained that
allowing false views of Christ into the church would pervert the gospel and lead to spiritual
destruction. This is why Paul said at 1 Corinthians 3:11, “no man can lay a foundation other
than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.”
3. God had to become Human to “Redeem” Mankind.

The next reason we must believe in the Trinity is because our salvation is closely tied to
Jesus’ claim to be both God and man. Here is why: In the Jewish culture, someone who
wanted to “redeem” what was lost by a deceased family member had to be a member of that
particular family. In other words, a man could not “redeem” another person if he was not a
relative of that family member who had died. In the same way, God literally could not
“redeem” the human race that is dead in sin without first partaking of the human race by
becoming a human Himself.
Here we can see this concept of a “Redeemer” being from the same family in the meaning of
the Hebrew word ‫( ָּגַאל‬ga’al), translated “Redeemer” (NASB) or “Repurchaser” (NWT) at
Isaiah 47:4 and 54:5. According to Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, page 25 of
the “Hebrew And Chaldee Dictionary,” #1350, ‫( ָּגַאל‬ga’al) means “to redeem (according to the
Oriental law of kinship), i.e. to be the next of kin.”[1] Thus, Hebrew 2:14 explains the
following:
“Therefore, since the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook
of the same, that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of
death, that is, the devil.”
This is why God “partook” of “flesh and blood” in order to redeem His lost “children” of
humankind. When Jesus as God became a man, He fulfilled the necessary requirement of
being the perfect human substitute to pay for the price of mankind’s offense against an
eternally, holy God. This is why when humanity offended the eternal holiness of our eternal
God, the punishment for that offense required an eternal payment to be made, one that could
only be paid by someone who is Himself eternal. By Jesus being both eternal God and
perfect man, He was able to pay the eternal price of humanity’s sin and fulfill the
5/10
requirements of being the kinsman “redeemer” of the same family as humankind. This is why
we must believe Jesus is both God and man; for we must recognize that offending an eternal
God requires that an eternal punishment to be paid, thus it took eternal God, in the Person of
Jesus Christ, to pay the eternal price for our redemption. Ultimately, this is why Isaiah
identifies Jehovah God as not only our “Redeemer” but also the “Holy One of Israel” who is
revealed to be Jesus Christ in the New Testament. See the chart below:
ISAIAH 43:15; 47:4; 54:5 JOHN 6:69
“I am the LORD, your Holy One, The Creator of Israel, your King. “And we have
…Our Redeemer, the LORD of hosts is His name, The Holy One believed and come
of Israel. …For your Husband is your Maker, Whose name is the to know that you
LORD of hosts; And your Redeemer is the Holy One of Israel, Who are the Holy One
is called the God of all the earth.”[2] of God.”
ACTS 2:27:
“Because You will

not abandon My
soul to Hades, Nor
allow Thy Holy
One to undergo
decay.”
4. God’s Love Required the Existence of an Eternally Triune

Relationship Prior to Creation.
The fourth reason we must believe in the Trinity is that the existence of an eternal
relationship between the Father and the Son provides the only method by which the love of
God could have been expressed prior to the creation of the world. If “God is Love,” as 1
John 4:16 states, there must have existed an eternal recipient of that love in order for the
expression of that love to have been eternal, existing prior to creation and not be dependent
upon a subsequent creative act.
Love is an eternal attribute of God. If we deny the Trinity or the eternal nature of the Son, we
have a God who could not have been loving prior to creating the world because He would
not have had any opportunity to express love prior to creation. We would have a God who
would not have learned how to share with or care for anyone beyond Himself prior to His
creation of other beings, and as such, we would have a God who would have become co-
dependent upon His creation for the fulfillment of this key aspect of His nature. As such, this
“loving” God could not be said to be a self-existent Being who is non-contingent upon His
creation, because for Him to be truly non-contingent upon anything, His love must have
existed in a Triune relationship within Himself prior to creation.
6/10
By recognizing the eternal nature of Jesus as God’s Son, we have a God who not only co-
existed in an eternally loving relationship with the Son and Holy Spirit, but One who is
eternally self-existent, non-contingent upon anything because His love was perfectly
expressed in relationship to the members of the Triune God, long before creation took place.
5. Our Sins Cannot be Forgiven if We Refuse to Pray to Jesus for

Salvation.
The fifth reason we must believe in the Trinity is that if we do not believe Jesus is God, we
will not “come” to Him to have Him wash away our sins. Jehovah’s Witnesses understand
the seriousness of rendering prayer, a form of worship, to a person who is not God. This is
why they make such a big deal about directing their prayers to “Jehovah” instead of using
generic terms, such as, “God” or “Lord,” in their prayers. They understand that prayer
belongs only to God. Thus, if Jesus directed His disciples to “call upon His name” (Acts
22:16) and to “come to” Him (John 5:40) for salvation, rejecting His Deity and refusing to
render the “same honor” that we render to the Father when relating to Him (John 5:23),
prevents Jehovah’s Witnesses from being able to receive salvation and the forgiveness of
sins.
At John 8:24, Jesus proclaims the seriousness of not believing He is who He claimed to be.
He said: you shall die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you shall die in
your sins.” The reason the word “He” is italicized in the statement “I am He” is due to the
fact that it is not found in the Greek text from which our English translations are derived.
Thus, Jesus is literally proclaiming that He is the “I AM” of Exodus 3:14: “And God said to
Moses, ‘I AM WHO I AM… Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, I AM has sent me to
you.’ ” This is significant when we consider the fact that Scripture also proclaims that we
must call on the name of Jesus in order to “wash away” our sins:
“And now why do you delay? ‘Arise, and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling
upon His name.…to those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, saints by calling, with
all who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours.”
—Acts 22:16; 1 Corinthians 1:2
What does it mean to “call upon the name of Jehovah” (Romans 10:13, NWT)? Every
Jehovah’s Witness would testify that when Scripture states that we are to call upon the name
of Jehovah, we are addressing our prayers directly to Jehovah God. In the same way, if
someone states that he is “calling upon the devil,” he is proclaiming that he is praying to
Satan. Thus, when Scripture states that we must “call upon the name of our Lord Jesus
Christ” in order to have our sins pardoned, it is literally compelling us to address our prayers
directly to Jesus, asking Him to be our Lord and Savior (Romans 10:9).
7/10
What brings one into a true relationship with Christ is not just “taking in knowledge” about the
Father and Jesus. John 17:3 states, “And this is eternal life, that they may know Thee, the
only true God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent.” Vine’s Complete Expository
Dictionary of Old And New Testament Words notes that the Greek word translated “know”
ginōskō (γινώσκω) in this passage “frequently indicates a relation between the person
‘knowing’ and the object known; in this respect, what is ‘known’ is of value or importance
to the one who knows, and hence the establishment of the relationship.…such
‘knowledge’ is obtained, not by mere intellectual activity, but by operation of the Holy Spirit
consequent upon acceptance of Christ.”[3] Thus we see that a relationship with Christ is
essential to salvation; just as the apostle Paul explained in
1 Corinthians 1:9:
“God is faithful, through whom you were called into fellowship with His Son, Jesus Christ
our Lord.”
What kind of a relationship can you have with Jesus if you do not have “fellowship” with Him
in prayer? How can you have “fellowship” someone if you do not talk to that person?
Indeed, we must recognize that Jesus is God, or we cannot come into a proper relationship
with Jesus through prayer. Furthermore, in order to have a relationship with Jesus, our trust
of Him must extend beyond the gaining of intellectual facts about that person. Indeed, it is
one thing to believe a number of facts about Jesus; it is quite another thing to trust yourself
to Him.
There are many who believe the basic facts about the Lord Jesus Christ: He is the eternal
Son of God, lived a perfect, sinless life, paid the price not only for Adam’s sin, but for all of
our own personal sins (1 Peter 2:24), resurrected and returned to Heaven. And even the
demons believe these facts about Jesus, but do they trust Jesus to save them? Of course,
not![4]
Many people believe that Jesus offers us the “free gift” of eternal life (Romans 6:23), and that
He offers us His perfection in exchange for our sins (Colossians 3:3), yet they have never
gone directly to Jesus asking Him to give them His righteousness (Acts 22:16) in exchange
for their sin. Many people believe Jesus can save them, but they do not come to Him to
receive salvation. To be saved, you must recognize you are a sinner and that nothing you do
can make up for the bad deeds you have done. Then you must “come to” Jesus in a prayer
of repentance and faith asking Him to forgive you of your sins and to clothe you in His
righteousness alone, so that when God sees you, He no longer sees you in the context of
your sin, but in the context of Christ’s righteous payment for your sin. The apostle Paul
explains at Philippians 3:8-9:
“More than that, I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing
Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but
rubbish so that I may gain Christ, and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness
8/10
of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness
which comes from God on the basis of faith.”
Joshua in the Old Testament likewise experienced this washing away of his sins when he
encountered the preincarnate Christ appearing as the “Angel of the LORD” in Zechariah 3:1-
4:
“Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the LORD, and
Satan standing at his right hand to accuse him. And the LORD said to Satan, ‘The LORD
rebuke you, Satan!’…Now Joshua was clothed with filthy garments and standing before
the angel. And he spoke and said to those who were standing before him saying, ‘Remove
the filthy garments from him.’ Again he said to him, ‘See, I have taken your iniquity
away from you and will clothe you with festal robes.’ ”
Belief in facts about the Father and Jesus and regular attendance at meetings and field
service[5] does not bring a person into a proper relationship with Jehovah God any more
than being in a garage makes a person an automobile. To come into a proper relationship
with Christ, one must first acknowledge that he is a sinner and that there is nothing he can
do to earn Jehovah God’s eternal life (Ephesians 2:8-9), for “all our righteous deeds are like
a filthy garment” in Jehovah’s sight (Isaiah 64:6). Then, he must transfer his trust to Christ in
much the same way that the passenger who crossed Niagara Falls with Blondin, the
tightrope walker in the 1860’s, had to climb on Blondin’s back and place his full trust on
Blondin’s ability to carry him safely across on the tightrope. If the passenger had insisted on
“doing his part” by walking behind Blondin instead of trusting Blondin to carry him across, he
surely would have fallen.
In the same way, we must trust Christ alone or we will “fall from grace” (Galatians 5:4), for we
“stumble in many ways” (James 3:2). “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”
(Romans 3:23). Only the people who have gone directly to Jesus, asking Him to impart to
them His righteousness in exchange for their sins (Hebrews 10:10, 14), are the ones who
have transferred their complete trust to Him and as a result have come into a personal
relationship with Christ. It is my prayer that as you read this book, you will not only grow in
your knowledge of God, but that your relationship with Christ will deepen as a result of a
greater understanding of “our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ” (Titus 2:13).
This book is written to provide a detailed biblical and scholarly response to the Watchtower
Society’s arguments against the Trinity set forth in their brochure, Should You Believe in the
Trinity? As the chapters of this book correspond with the major sections in the Society’s
brochure, what follows is a page-by-page analysis of the Watchtower Society’s claims along
with supporting documentation that demonstrate the Society’s deceptive misrepresentation
of many facts concerning the doctrine of the Trinity.
9/10
In the 20 years since I started researching the subject of the Trinity and presenting my
documentation to Jehovah’s Witnesses, I have had multiple opportunities to test my creative
approaches to this subject within the context of relaxed, non-confrontational dialogues with
them. The result is that I have greatly expanded this second edition of my book to include
multiple chapters teaching how to effectively present this information and address the most
common objections that arise. I trust you will find this second edition of my book to be an
incredibly useful tool for your evangelism library, even if you already possess the first edition
of this book.
[1] James Strong, Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, (Peabody, MA:
Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1986), 25 (See DP 1 or Documentation Page Reference
Number 1).
[2] The Preface to the New American Standard Bible being quoted here notes that whenever
a title for the name for God is placed in all capital letters, like “LORD,” it is referencing the
Hebrew Tetragrammaton or YHWH, the Divine Name, also known as “Jehovah” in the New
World Translation Bible of Jehovah’s Witnesses.
[3] W.E. Vine, Merrill F. Unger, William White, Jr., Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of
Old And New Testament Words, (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1985), 346 (DP
4).
[4] See James 2:19.
[5] “Field service” is the Watchtower term for preaching their message door-to-door.
NEXT CHAPTER
10/10
Defining The Trinity – Chapter 1 – Yes, You Should
Believe in the Trinity!
4jehovah.org/defining-the-trinity-chapter-1-yes-you-should-believe-in-the-trinity/

TESTIMONY OF THE HEBREW AND GREEK
SCRIPTURES
THE TRIUNE GOD, by Jesuit Edmund
Fortman
The Trinity is the view that the 3 Persons mentioned in

the Bible: Father, Son (Jesus) and Holy Spirit are one God, equal in nature and eternal and
uncreated in substance. They co-exist, co-create and co-rule this present world and are
distinct in their personhoods, yet they share their eternal nature as the one and only True
God. Jehovah’s Witnesses deny the Trinity doctrine and argue against the Deity of Jesus
Christ based on a misconception of what the Trinity Doctrine is and what it stands for. Below
we will examine their arguments in-depth as we discuss their 1989 publication, Should You
Believe in the Trinity?
WATCHTOWER ARGUMENT:
“Here Jesus shows that he and the Father, that is, Almighty God, must be two distinct
entities, for how else could there truly be two witnesses? …Was God saying that he was
his own son, that he approved himself, that he sent himself? No.…To whom was he
praying? To a part of himself? No….To whom was Jesus crying out? To himself or to
part of himself? …If you appear in someone else’s presence, how can you be that
person? You cannot. You must be different and separate.…Someone who is ‘with’
another person cannot also be that other person.” —Should You Believe in the
Trinity?, pp. 17-19, 27
The Athanasian Creed which most clearly defines the historical view of the Trinity states:
1/10
“…we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the
Persons, nor dividing the Substance. For there is one Person of the Father,
another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father,
of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost is all one: the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.
Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father
uncreate, the Son uncreate, and the Holy Ghost uncreate. The Father
incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost incomprehensible.
The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Ghost eternal. And yet they are not
three Eternals, but one Eternal. As there are not three Uncreated nor three
Incomprehensibles, but one Uncreated and one Incomprehensible. So likewise the
Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Ghost almighty. And yet they are not
three Almighties, but one Almighty. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the
Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God….And in this
Trinity none is before or after other; none is greater or less than another; But the
whole three Persons are coeternal together, and coequal: so that in all things, as is
aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshiped. He,
therefore, that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity. Furthermore, it is necessary
to everlasting salvation that he also believe faithfully the incarnation of our Lord
Jesus Christ. For the right faith is, that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus
Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man. God of the Substance of the Father,
begotten before the worlds; and Man of the substance of His mother, born in the world;
Perfect God and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.
Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as
touching His manhood; Who, although He be God and Man, yet He is not two,
but one Christ: One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking the
manhood into God; One altogether; not by confusion of Substance, but by unity of
Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and Man is one
Christ; Who suffered for our salvation; descended into hell, rose again the third day
from the dead….”—The Creed of Athanasius, Written Against the Arians1.
3 DEFINING PRINCIPLES OF THE DOCTINE OF THE TRINITY:
1. THE TRINITY IS NOT MODALISM: THE VIEW THAT THE FATHER, SON, AND THE
HOLY SPIRIT ARE ONE PERSON.
“Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance….”

—Athanasian Creed
Since Trinitarians do not believe that the Father and the Son are the same person, the
Watchtower argument that the Trinity is unreasonable because Jesus wasn’t praying to “a
part of himself” has no basis in reality. This Watchtower argument serves to confuse the
issue by misstating what Trinitarians believe. Such is also the case with the Society’s
frequent statement of “not a part of a Trinity” in reference to the Holy Spirit.2. Trinitarians
2/10
maintain that while each person of the Trinity is “distinct” in His personhood, each person is
undiminished Deity, and thus each is considered individually in His person full God—not 1/3
God. Rather than being divided into three parts, God is revealed as a composite being who
is “one,”3. and who refers to Himself in singular terms such as “I” and “Myself.” Walter Martin
founder of the Christian Research Institute described the mathematics of the Trinity as not
being 1+1+1=3, but rather, 1X1X1=1.4.
2. THE TRINITY IS NOT TRITHEISM: THE VIEW THAT THE FATHER, SON, AND THE
HOLY SPIRIT ARE THREE “GODS.”
“So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are
not three Gods, but one God.”—Athanasian Creed
The phrase “persons of the Trinity” is not used to refer to separate existence as individuals—
as is the case when one refers to a father, son, and grandson. On the contrary, when
speaking of the Trinity, the term “person” is used to designate the relationship between the
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Each has a mind, will, and emotions and each are keenly aware
of the others, speak of the others, and honor the others. Hence, it is in this sense that the
Triune God is described as being three distinct “persons.”
3. IN THE TRINITY “NONE IS BEFORE OR AFTER OTHER; NONE IS GREATER OR

LESS THAN ANOTHER.”
“Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching
His manhood; Who, although He be God and Man, yet He is not two, but one Christ.…One
altogether; not by confusion of Substance, but by unity of Person.”
— Athanasian Creed
Prior to the incarnation, Jesus was one in person and one in nature. Although retaining His
full Deity as God, at the incarnation, Jesus took on an additional nature—the nature of man
—and henceforth became two in nature while yet remaining one in person.5. Even though
attributes of His Divine and human natures are attributed to His one person, His natures are
not mixed; neither is He half man and half God, but is “one altogether; not by confusion of
Substance, but by unity of Person.” In His Divine nature, Jesus is “equal” to the Father, but in
His humanity, He is “inferior to the Father” and is therefore in complete subjection to the will
of the Father. Operating under the limitations of His humanity, Jesus was able to experience
the trials and temptations common to man, live a perfect, sinless life, and offer His life as an
atoning sacrifice for sin.6. As the God-man, He offers His free gift of eternal life7. to all who
receive Him on the basis of faith alone.8.
3/10
“Many sincere believers have found it to be confusing, contrary to normal reason, unlike
anything in their experience. How, they ask, could the Father be God, Jesus be God, and
the holy spirit be God, yet there be not three Gods but only one God? …THIS confusion is
widespread. The Encyclopedia Americana notes that the doctrine of the Trinity is
considered to be ‘beyond the grasp of human reason.’ Many who accept the Trinity
view it that same way.…Jesuit Joseph Bracken…says: ‘The Trinity is a matter of formal
belief, but it has little or no [effect] in day-to-day Christian life and worship.’ …divine
revelation itself does not allow for such a view of God: ‘God is not a God of
confusion.’—1 Corinthians 14:33, Revised Standard Version (RS). In view of that
statement, would God be responsible for a doctrine about himself that is so
confusing…?”—Should You Believe in the Trinity?, pp. 4-5
The Watchtower Society argues that God cannot be the author of the doctrine of the Trinity
because it is confusing and 1 Corinthians 14:33 states that “God is not a God of confusion.”
Is this a valid argument? A look at the context of 1 Corinthians 14 reveals that this passage
is dealing with unity among the believers in the church at Corinth. The fact that finite
human beings cannot fully comprehend the infinite God and may experience confusion when
endeavoring to understand Him does not change the fact that “God is not a God of confusion
but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints.” While many Catholic and even some
Protestant Trinitarians admit that the doctrine of the Trinity can be confusing and hard to
comprehend, is this a valid reason for rejecting it? The Society’s book Reasoning from the
Scriptures states:
“Did God have a beginning? Ps. 90:2: ‘Before the mountains themselves were
born…even from time indefinite to time indefinite you are God.’ Is that reasonable?
Our minds cannot fully comprehend it. But that is not a sound reason for
rejecting it. Consider examples: (1) Time. …We do not reject the idea of time because
there are aspects of it that we do not fully comprehend.…The same principle applies
to the existence of God.…Should we really expect to understand everything
about a Person who is so great that he could bring into existence the universe, with all
its intricate design and stupendous size?”—Reasoning from the Scriptures, 1989, pp.
148-149
How can the finite fully comprehend the infinite? Just as the Watchtower Society admits,
there are aspects of God that we cannot fully comprehend. Therefore, one should not reject
a quality of God simply on the basis that the concept may be “beyond the grasp of human
reason.”
“For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but
then I shall know fully just as I also have been fully known.…as also in all his letters,
speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand….”—
I Corinthians 13:12; 2 Peter 3:16
4/10
Although the Trinity cannot be totally comprehended by the human mind, it can be
apprehended and seen illustrated in the world of nature. Take, for example, an illustration
involving three candles. Even after each candle is lit, the flames are separate and distinct.
However, when one combines each of the three flames together, they become one flame.
Since we know from Scripture that God is spirit (John 4:24), is it inconceivable to fathom the
three persons of the Trinity (who are of Divine essence) being united as one composite
Being who is Jehovah God? Just as three separate flames can unite into one flame, it is in
this way that one can apprehend how each member of the Trinity is separate and distinct—
yet one God. The Encyclopedia Americana made the following statement regarding this
principle:
“It is held that although the doctrine is beyond the grasp of human reason,** it is, like
many of the formulations of physical science, not contrary to reason, and may be
apprehended (though it may not be comprehended) by the human mind.”—The
Encyclopedia Americana, vol. 27, p. 116
Concerning the practical significance of the Trinity, Robert M. Bowman comments:
“One of the complaints expressed by the JW booklet, through quotations from the New
Catholic Encyclopedia and from Catholic theologian Joseph Bracken, is that the
doctrine of the Trinity seems impractical and irrelevant, even to many people who
believe in the Trinity (p. 4). It is true that in many churches today, appreciation for the
Trinity is very low, even where it is formally acknowledged as true. But generally these
same churches show little appreciation for the relevance of the Bible to their lives
despite their church’s official recognition of the Bible as God’s Word. This is especially
true in many Roman Catholic congregations (though not quite in all). Thus, their
failure to appreciate the Trinity is no more a disproof of the truth of that doctrine
than their failure to appreciate the Bible is a disproof of its truth as God’s Word.
The fact is that where the Trinity is not simply given lip service, but, as the Athanasian
Creed puts it, where the people ‘worship one God in Trinity,’ the doctrine has
tremendous significance and relevance. Trinitarians have the assurance that the one
who saved them, Jesus Christ, was no less than God himself. They also rejoice to
know that it is God himself, in the person of the Holy Spirit, who dwells in their
hearts.”—Why You Should Believe in the Trinity, 1989, pp. 18-19
The doctrine of the Trinity bears even more significance when one recognizes that Jesus
claimed that one must go directly to Him in order to obtain the free gift of eternal life.
5/10
“If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it. ‘…wash away your sins, calling on His
[Jesus’] name.’ …You search the Scriptures, because you think that in them you have
eternal life; and it is these that bear witness of Me; and you are unwilling to come to
Me, that you may have life.… Jesus said to them, ‘I am the bread of life; he who
comes to Me shall not hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst.…All that
the Father gives Me shall come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly
not cast out.…No one can come to Me, unless the Father who sent Me draws him;
and I will raise him up on the last day.…Everyone who has heard and learned from the
Father, comes to Me.”—John 14:14; Acts 22:16; John 5:39-40; 6:35, 37, 44-45
Since Jehovah is the only true God, He is the only one we should worship. Since prayer is a
form of worship, the only way prayer can rightfully be rendered to Christ is if He is indeed
Jehovah God.
“First-century believers accepted the Scriptures as the authentic revelation of God.

It was the basis for their beliefs, the final authority.…Since the Bible can ‘set things
straight,’ it should clearly reveal information about a matter as fundamental as the Trinity is
claimed to be. But do theologians and historians themselves say that it is clearly a
Bible teaching? …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) And a Catholic authority says that the Trinity ‘is
not…directly and immediately [the] word of God.’—New Catholic Encyclopedia.”—
Should You Believe in the Trinity?, p. 5
Endeavoring to appeal to the scholarly community for credibility, the Watchtower Society
quotes statements from Catholic, Protestant, and secular authorities throughout their
brochure. 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.
Furthermore, upon examination of the original sources of these quotes, it is evident that the
Society has misrepresented these scholars in an attempt to solicit scholarly support for their
position. Let’s take a moment and examine some of the Society’s quotes in context. Note
that throughout this book, the underlined sections of quoted text highlight the portions of text
that the Watchtower Society quoted out of context.
6/10
“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 Illustrated Bible Dictionary, part
3, p. 1597
“The 4th-century articulation of the triadic mystery is at least implicitly the word of
God, hence part of the Christian credo. On the other hand, it is not, as already seen,
directly and immediately word of God.”—The New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 14, p.
304
The key words in these quotations are “formulation,” “implicit,” and “explicit.” What these and
many other scholars are saying is that 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. Thus, “the triadic mystery is at least implicitly the word of God.”
TESTIMONY OF THE HEBREW AND GREEK SCRIPTURES
“WHILE the word, ‘Trinity’ is not found in the Bible, is at least the idea of the Trinity taught
clearly in it? For instance, what do the Hebrew Scriptures (‘Old Testament’) reveal?”—
While it is true that the word “Trinity” is not in the Bible, this does not mean that it is not a
Biblical concept. The word “omniscient” is not in the Bible; yet, one would not deny the fact
that God is omniscient (all-knowing) simply because the word is not in the Bible. Indeed, the
concept of God’s omniscience can be found throughout the Old and New Testaments, and
the same can be said about the doctrine of the Trinity.
At this point, the Society continues to misrepresent scholars endeavoring to make it appear
that the scholarly community supports their assertion that the doctrine of the Trinity is not
found in either the Old or New Testaments. We will now examine these quotes in their proper
contexts:
While The Encyclopedia of Religion states that “theologians today are in agreement
that the Hebrew Bible does not contain a doctrine of the Trinity” and “theologians agree
that the New Testament also does not contain an explicit doctrine of the Trinity,” it
goes on to discuss “binitarian texts” and the fact that many passages convey the
concept of the Trinity as “God takes on flesh in Christ” and that the doctrine of the
Trinity’s “origins may legitimately be sought in the Bible. …What the scriptures
narrate as the activity of God…is the wellspring of later trinitarian doctrine.”—The
Encyclopedia of Religion, vol. 15, p. 54
7/10
While the New Catholic Encyclopedia claims that “The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not
taught in the OT,” it goes on to state:
“In the NT the oldest evidence is in the Pauline epistles, especially 2 Cor 13.13,
and 1 Cor 12.4-6. In the Gospels evidence of the Trinity is found explicitly only in
the baptismal formula of Mt 28.19.…In many places of the OT, however, expressions
are used in which some of the Fathers of the Church saw references or
foreshadowings of the Trinity.…the minds of God’s people were being prepared for
the concepts that would be involved in the forthcoming revelation of the doctrine
of the Trinity.” —New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 14, p. 306
THE TRIUNE GOD, by Jesuit Edmund Fortman
Although Fortman states that “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 divine paternity and filiation within the
Godhead.…Even to see in them suggestions or foreshadowings or ‘veiled signs’ of the trinity
of persons, is to go beyond the words and intent of the sacred writers,”9. he qualifies his
statements with:
“Perhaps it can be said that some of these writings about word and wisdom and spirit
did provide a climate in which plurality within the Godhead was conceivable to
the Jews. However, these writers definitely do give us the words that the New
Testament uses to express the trinity of persons, Father, Son, Word, Wisdom,
Spirit.”
—The Triune God, 1972, p. 9
Concerning the New Testament, the Society quoted part of Jesuit Fortman’s statements, but
notice the following section which they left out of their quote:
“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.”—Triune God,
pp. xv-xvi
8/10
The New Encyclopaedia Britannica correctly admits that “Neither the word Trinity nor
the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament.…”, but it goes on to prove that
even though the “explicit doctrine” is not stated, it is implied in the pages f Scripture.
“Thus, the New Testament established the basis for the doctrine of the Trinity.”—
The New Encyclopaedia Britannica, vol. 11, p. 928
According to the New International Dictionary of the Christian Church, Karl Barth
(1886-1968) was a “Swiss theologian” who studied “under some of the great liberal
scholars of the day.”10. Since liberal theologians tend to deny fundamental doctrines
of Christianity, it is not unusual that one would find a liberal scholar making the
statement that: “The Bible lacks the express declaration that the Father, the Son, and
the Holy Spirit are of equal essence.”11. In spite of this, however, Barth still admitted,
“The basis of theology is thus the living Trinity Itself. The Word of God is not a thing
or an object, but God Himself speaking.”12. The point Barth made in his book is that
while the Bible lacks the “express declaration” of the Trinity, “the NT does contain the
fixed, three-part formula of 2 Cor. 13:13 (EVV 14) in which God, the Lord Jesus Christ
and the Spirit are mentioned together (cf. 1 Cor. 12:4 ff.). The Trinity of Father, Son
and Holy Spirit occurs only in the baptismal formula in Matt. 28:19.”13.
Is it any wonder that in the Watchtower Society’s brochure, they do not list any of the page
numbers from which their quotes are derived? As is readily seen, when one examines these
quotes in their original context, these scholars are not saying that the Trinity doctrine is
foreign to Scripture, but rather, that Scripture provides the “basis” from which the Trinity
doctrine is “formulated.” Although the doctrine of the Trinity is not explicitly stated, it is most
certainly implied within the pages of Scripture.
NEXT CHAPTER
============
1. The Encyclopedia of American Religions: Religious Creeds, First Edition, vol. 1, J. Gordon
Melton, Editor (Gale Research Company, 1988), pp. 2-3
2. See pages 16-20 of Should You Believe in the Trinity?
3. See Deuteronomy 6:4
4. “God is not triplex (1+1+1) —He is triune (1X1X1), and he has revealed Himself fully in the
Person of our Lord, Jesus Christ (Col. 2:9, John 14:9).” —CRI tract: Jehovah’s Witnesses
and the Trinity
5. See Philippians 2:6-7
6. Hebrews 4:15 c.f. James 1:13; Philippians 2:5-6; Romans 5:8; Colossians 2:13-15
7. Romans 6:23; 1 John 5:11-13; 1 John 1:9
8. Romans 3:28; 4:4-8; 11:6; Galatians 5:4; Philippians 3:9; Colossians 3:3
9/10
9. The Triune God, by Edmund J. Fortman, 1972, (Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI),
pp. xv, 8-9
10. New International Dictionary of the Christian Church, 1978 (J.D. Douglas, Zondervan
Publishing House, Grand Rapids, MI) p. 107
11. The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, 1976, vol. 2, (Zondervan
12. New International Dictionary of the Christian Church, 1978 (J.D. Douglas, Zondervan
13. The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, vol. 2, p. 84
** Note that throughout this book, the underlined sections of quoted text highlight the portions
of text that the Watchtower Society quoted out of context.
10/10
Historical Background of the Trinity – Chapter 2 – Yes,
You Should Believe in the Trinity!
4jehovah.org/historical-background-of-the-trinity-chapter-2-yes-you-should-believe-in-the-trinity/
CHAPTER 2: HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

“WHAT THE ANTE-NICENE FATHERS
TAUGHT”
IRENAEUS (200 A.D.)
ORIGEN (250 A.D.)
ALVAN LAMSON – THE CHURCH OF THE
FIRST THREE CENTURIES
LAMSON’S STATEMENTS ABOUT JUSTIN
MARTYR
“DID the early Christians teach the Trinity? Note the following comments by historians and
theologians:… ‘At first the Christian faith was not Trinitarian…It was not so in the apostolic
and sub-apostolic ages, as reflected in the N[ew] T[estament] and other early Christian
writings.’—Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics.”—Should You Believe in the Trinity?, pp.
6-7
The following is the complete quote from this encyclopedia in context:
1/15
“Economic and essential trinity.—(a) The transition from the Trinity of
experience to the Trinity of dogma is describable in other terms as the
transition from the economic or dispensational Trinity (tropoV apokaluyewV) to
the essential, immanent, or ontological Trinity (tropoV uparxewV). At first the
Christian faith was not Trinitarian in the strictly ontological reference. It was
not so in the apostolic and sub-apostolic ages, as reflected in the NT and other
early Christian writings….It should be observed that there is no real cleavage
or antithesis between the doctrines of the economic and the essential Trinity,
and naturally so. The Triunity represents the effort to think out the Trinity, and so
to afford it a reasonable basis.” —Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, vol. 12,
p. 461
What this scholar is basically saying is that while the early Christians had a rudimentary
understanding of the nature of the Triune God as they experienced Him (“economic or
dispensational Trinity”) through His dealings with mankind throughout the Old and New
Testaments, it wasn’t until subsequent centuries that they were more capable of articulating
ontologically their understanding of the Triune God through the formulation of the Christian
creeds (“ontological Trinity”). Indeed, as this encyclopedia states, “there is no real…
antithesis between the doctrines of the economic [“Trinity of experience”] and the essential
Trinity [“Trinity of dogma”]” as the “Triunity [“ontological” or “essential” Trinity] represents the
effort to think out the Trinity, and so to afford it a reasonable basis.”
“WHAT THE ANTE-NICENE FATHERS TAUGHT”
“THE ante-Nicene Fathers were acknowledged to have been leading religious teachers in
the early centuries after Christ’s birth. What they taught is of interest.”—Should You
Believe in the Trinity? p. 7
In order to establish a basis for their existence, every heretical group which claims to restore
“true Christianity” asserts that Christianity as we know it today has become so apostate and
full of paganism that unless one disassociates himself from his religion and joins their group,
he cannot be saved. Note the following statements found in various issues of The
Watchtower:
2/15
“And while now the witness yet includes the invitation to come to Jehovah’s
organization for salvation….”—The Watchtower, November 15, 1981, p. 21
“Unless we are in touch with this channel of communication that God is using, we
will not progress along the road to life, no matter how much Bible reading we do.”
—The Watchtower, December 1, 1981, p. 27
“Such thinking is an evidence of pride….If we get to thinking that we know better

than the organization, we should ask ourselves: ‘Where did we learn Bible truth in the
first place? Would we know the way of the truth if it had not been for guidance
from the organization? Really, can we get along without the direction of God’s
organization?’ No, we cannot!” —The Watchtower, January 15, 1983, p. 27
While the Mormon church claims that their prophet Joseph Smith was called to “restore” true
Christianity to the earth as it was uniquely revealed to Joseph through revelations and
visions, the Watchtower Society teaches that although the majority of Christianity
apostatized, Jehovah God has always sustained a remnant of true followers on earth
throughout the centuries. Thus, the Watchtower Society maintains that their Governing Body
is comprised of members of this “remnant” class who serve as God’s mouthpiece and
“channel of communication” to His people on earth. Endeavoring to validate their teaching
that the majority of Christianity apostatized, the Watchtower Society seeks to find support for
their doctrines in the teachings of the Ante-Nicene Church Fathers.1. By claiming that these
Fathers taught Watchtower doctrine, the Society maintains that although historic Christianity
possessed pure doctrine at the time of the apostles, within four centuries, Christianity
adopted “pagan” doctrines such as the doctrine of the Trinity. They then conclude, “Thus, the
testimony of the Bible and of history makes clear that the Trinity was unknown throughout
Biblical times and for several centuries thereafter.”2. Are these claims credible? Note the
following Scriptural passages which clearly articulate God’s preservation of the Church
throughout history:
“…I write so that you may know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of
God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth.”—1
Timothy 3:15
“…upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not
overpower it.” —Matthew 16:18
“to Him be the glory in the church and in Christ Jesus to all generations forever and
ever. Amen.” —Ephesians 3:21
“…I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith
which was once for all delivered to the saints.” —Jude 3
3/15
With this assurance of protection, how could the Church have apostatized to the point of
becoming pagan and needing to be restored? How could the Church which is “the pillar and
support of truth” have crumbled, when Jesus promised that the gates of Hades would “not
overpower it”? If the church truly apostatized, how could it have given glory to God
throughout “all generations”? Due to the fact that it was in response to heresy that many
doctrines of Christianity were formulated into creeds, the doctrine of the Trinity was not
officially formulated until the fourth century. However, this does not in the least imply that this
doctrine was not understood or taught prior to this time. Contrary to the Watchtower Society’s
claims, the Ante-Nicene Fathers did uphold Trinitarian doctrine as is clearly revealed in their
writings.
Although the Society’s brochure on the Trinity does not reference Ignatius, he studied under
the Apostle John and was acquainted with other apostles who had seen Jesus. As a martyr
who was executed for his faith in Christ, Ignatius was a fervent follower of Jesus Christ and
wrote four epistles to the Ephesians just prior to his execution at Rome on December 20th,
A.D. 107. Therefore, Ignatius’ testimony on this issue is worth investigation:
“Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which is at Ephesus, in Asia…
predestinated before the beginning of time…and elected through the true passion by
the will of the Father, and Jesus Christ, our God….Being the followers of God, and
stirring up yourselves by the blood of God, ye have perfectly accomplished the work
which was beseeming to you….There is one Physician who is possessed both of
flesh and spirit; both made and not made; God existing in flesh; true life in death;
both of Mary and of God; first possible and then impossible, — even Jesus Christ our
Lord.” —The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, pp. 49, 52 3.
These statements by Ignatius provide ample evidence that the concept of the Deity of Christ
was well-known and accepted by the apostles and the early Church, and therefore cannot be
of pagan origin. We will now turn our attention to the other Ante-Nicene Fathers that the
Watchtower Society references in their brochure.
The Watchtower’s brochure states that Justin Martyr “called the prehuman Jesus a created
angel who is ‘other than the God who made all things.’ ”4. However, far from teaching that
Jesus is “a created angel,” Justin Martyr actually taught that Christ is “the Angel of God” who
conversed with Moses out of the burning bush and revealed Himself as the Jehovah God
saying, “I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of
Jacob.…I AM WHO I AM.”5. Justin Martyr also understood the Scriptural term “first-begotten”
of God to mean that Christ is of the same nature as God the Father. Note the following
excerpts taken from his writings:
4/15
“For at that juncture, when Moses was ordered to go down into Egypt…our Christ
conversed with him under the appearance of fire from a bush….‘And the Angel of God
spake to Moses, in a flame of fire out of the bush, and said, I am that I am, the God of
Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob, the God of thy fathers….’…the Father of
the universe has a Son; who also, being the first-begotten Word of God, is even
God. And of old He appeared in the shape of fire and in the likeness of an angel to
Moses and to the other prophets….in order to prove that Christ is called both God
and Lord of hosts….Moreover, in the diapsalm of the forty-sixth Psalm, reference is
thus made to Christ: ‘God went up with a shout….’ And Trypho said, ‘…For you utter
many blasphemies, in that you seek to persuade us that this crucified man was
with Moses and Aaron, and spoke to them in the pillar of the cloud…and ought
to be worshipped.’…And Trypho said, ‘We have heard what you think of these
matters.…For when you say that this Christ existed as God before the ages…this
[assertion] appears to me to be not merely paradoxical, but also foolish.’ ”—The Ante-
Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, pp. 184, 212, 213, 219
IRENAEUS (200 A.D.)
The Society claims that Irenaeus “said that the prehuman Jesus had a separate existence
from God and was inferior to him. He showed that Jesus is not equal to the ‘One true and
only God,’ who is ‘supreme over all, and besides whom there is no other.’ ”6. This assertion
on the part of the Watchtower Society is deceitful because Irenaeus did not contrast Christ
with the “One true and only God” but actually contrasted the true God with the lesser gods of
Gnosticism. In reality, Irenaeus taught the following concerning Christ:
“Very properly, then, did he say, ‘In the beginning was the Word,’ for He was in the
Son; ‘and the Word was with God,’ for He was the beginning; ‘and the Word was
God,’ of course, for that which is begotten of God is God.”—The Ante-Nicene
Fathers, vol. 1, p. 328
The Society’s booklet declares that Clement “called Jesus in his prehuman existence ‘a
creature’….He said that the Son ‘is next to the only omnipotent Father’ but not equal to
him.”7. This assertion is not only erroneous but is quite deceitful, for Clement actually taught
the opposite of what the Society insinuates. Note the following excerpts taken from
Clement’s writings which not only reveal the deception of the Society claims, but also the fact
that as far back as the second century, the early Church Fathers articulated and defended
the concept of the Trinity:
5/15
“…the Divine Word, He that is truly most manifest Deity, He that is made equal to
the Lord of the universe; because He was His Son, and the Word was in God….I
understand nothing else than the Holy Trinity to be meant; for the third is the Holy
Spirit, and the Son is the second, by whom all things were made according to the will
of the Father.…There was, then, a Word importing an unbeginning eternity; as also
the Word itself, that is, the Son of God, who being, by equality of substance, one
with the Father, is eternal and uncreate.”—The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 2, pp. 202,
468, 574
The Trinity brochure states that Tertullian “taught the supremacy of God. He observed: ‘The
Father is different from the Son (another), as he is greater; as he who begets is different from
him who is begotten; he who sends, different from him who is sent.’ He also said: ‘There was
a time when the Son was not….Before all things, God was alone.’ ”8. Concerning this last
statement, “there was a time when the Son was not,” Robert Bowman comments:
6/15
“Actually. the expression ‘there was a time when the Son was not’ was not used by
Tertullian himself. Rather, this was an expression used by a modern scholar to
summarize a statement made by Tertullian, who argued that God was always God, but
not always Father of the Son: ‘For He could not have been the Father previous to the
Son, nor a judge previous to sin.’ Since elsewhere Tertullian makes clear that he
regard the person of the Son as eternal, in this statement Tertullian is probably
asserting that the title of ‘Son’ did not apply to the second person of the Trinity until he
began to relate to the ‘Father’ as a ‘Son’ in the work of creation.”—Why You Should
Believe in the Trinity, 1989, p. 31
In his writings, Tertullian was very explicit in his articulation of the doctrine of the Trinity:
“He is the Son of God, and is called God from unity of substance with God….so,
too, that which has come forth out of God is at once God and the Son of God,
and the two are one. In this way also, as He is Spirit of Spirit and God of God, He is
made a second in manner of existence—in position, not in nature….and made flesh
in her womb, is in His birth God and man united.…Thus does He make Him equal to
Him.…I testify that the Father, and the Son, and the Spirit are inseparable from
each other….they contend for the identity of the Father and Son and Spirit, that it is
not by way of diversity that the Son differs from the Father, but by distribution: it is not
by division that He is different, but by distinction; because the Father is not the
same as the Son, since they differ one from the other in the mode of their
being….when all the Scriptures attest the clear existence of, and distinction in,
(the Persons of) the Trinity….In what sense, however, you ought to understand Him
to be another, I have already explained, on the ground of Personality, not of
Substance—in the way of distinction, not of division. But although I must
everywhere hold one only substance in three coherent and inseparable
(Persons)….”—The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 3, pp. 34-35, 601, 603, 606-607
The Society claims that Hippolytus “said that God is ‘the one God, the first and the only One,
the Maker and Lord of all,’ who ‘had nothing co-equal [of equal age] with him…But he was
One, alone by himself; who willing it, called into being what had no being before,’ such as the
created prehuman Jesus.”9. Here again, when one examines what Hippolytus actually
taught, one uncovers another example where the Society misrepresents the facts. Note the
following statements found in Hippolytus’ writings:
7/15
“God, subsisting alone, and having nothing contemporaneous with Himself, determined
to create the world….Beside Him there was nothing; but He, while existing alone, yet
existed in plurality….And thus there appeared another beside Himself. But when I
say another, I do not mean that there are two Gods….Thus, then, these too, though
they wish it not, fall in with the truth, and admit that one God made all things….For
Christ is the God above all…..He who is over all is God; for thus He speaks boldly,
‘All things are delivered unto me of my Father.’ He who is over all, God blessed, has
been born; and having been made man, He is (yet) God for ever….And well has he
named Christ the Almighty.”—The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 5, pp. 227, 153, 225
ORIGEN (250 A.D.)
The Society states that Origen taught “‘the Father and Son are two substances…two things
as to their essence,’ and that ‘compared with the Father, [the Son] is a very small light.’ ”10.
While it is true that Origen was not orthodox on all his teachings about the Trinity and was
eventually regarded by the Church as a heretic (although this was not on the basis of his
view of the Trinity), he did teach certain aspects of the Trinity.
“This is most clearly pointed out by the Apostle Paul, when demonstrating that the
power of the Trinity is one and the same….From which it most clearly follows that
there is no difference in the Trinity, but that which is called the gift of the Spirit is
made known through the Son, and operated by God the Father….Having made these
declarations regarding the Unity of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Spirit….And who else is able to save and conduct the soul of man to the God of all
things, save God the Word…inasmuch as He was the Word, and was with God, and
was God?”—The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 4, pp. 255, 604
Concerning Origen’s orthodox and unorthodox views of the Trinity, Robert Bowman
comments:
“…Origen was unorthodox in other aspects of his teaching on the Trinity. He tended to
view the three persons more or less as three Gods, though without ever putting it just
so, and (inconsistently) held that the Son and Spirit, though far superior beings to any
creatures, were inferior to the Father. He thus also denied that worship or prayer
should be addressed to the Son or the Spirit. In sum, Origen’s view of God had
similarities both to orthodox trinitarianism and to the JWs’ doctrine of God.
Unlike the Witnesses, Origen believed that the Son was eternal and uncreated, and he
definitely regarded the Spirit as a person. But, like the Witnesses, he regarded the Son
as a second, inferior God next to Almighty God.”—Why You Should Believe in the
Trinity, 1989, p. 34
ALVAN LAMSON – THE CHURCH OF THE FIRST THREE CENTURIES
8/15
“Summing up the historical evidence, Alvan Lamson says in The Church of the First Three
Centuries: ‘The modern popular doctrine of the Trinity… derives no support from the
language of Justin [Martyr]: and this observation may be extended to all of the ante-
Nicene Fathers; that is, to all Christian writers for three centuries after the birth of Christ.
It is true, they speak of the Father, Son, and …holy Spirit, but not as co-equal, not as one
numerical essence, not as Three in One, in any sense now admitted by Trinitarians. The
very reverse is the fact.’ Thus, the testimony of the Bible and of history makes clear that
the Trinity was unknown throughout Biblical times and for several centuries thereafter.”–
Should You Believe in the Trinity? p. 7
It is with these statements from Alvan Lamson that the Watchtower Society concludes their
section on “What the Ante-Nicene Fathers Taught.” Yet, as we have already seen by
comparing the Watchtower Society’s claims about the Ante-Nicene Fathers with the actual
writings of the Fathers, these Fathers not only affirmed the concepts found in the Trinity
doctrine, but they actually taught the very opposite of what the Society claims they taught.
This caused me to ponder, where did the Watchtower Society get their information about the
Ante-Nicene Fathers in the first place? It certainly could not have been from their actual
writings. A clue was given in the Watchtower reference above where they quoted Alvan
Lamson’s book, The Church of the First Three Centuries. By referencing the “Bibliography to
the Trinity brochure” that the Watchtower Society provided, it was confirmed that all of the
quotes given in their statements about the Ante-Nicene Fathers on page 7 of the Trinity
brochure, came from Alvan Lamson’s book, not the original writings of the Fathers.
Who was Alvan Lamson? Is he a credible source for this information? No. Alvan Lamson
was an anti-Trinitarian who may have been a Unitarian. While the specific edition of
Lamson’s book that the Society quotes was published in 1869 by Horace B. Fuller, Boston,
MA, a later edition was published in 1875 by the British and Foreign Unitarian Association of
London. Why is this significant? Unitarians are Anti-Trinitarians. Thus, while we cannot say
for sure that Alvan Lamson was a Unitarian, his book reflected the anti-Trinitarian ideas of
Unitarians to the point that the British and Foreign Unitarian Association chose to publish his
book.
Yet, even in the case of quoting Lamson who was biased toward the Watchtower Society
anti-Trinitarian position, the Society went beyond his statements to further distort the true
teachings of some of the Ante-Nicene Fathers. I noted the following misrepresentations and
omissions:
LAMSON’S STATEMENTS ABOUT JUSTIN MARTYR
Concerning Justin Martyr on page 7, the Watchtower Society claims that he “called the
prehuman Jesus a created angel who is ‘other than the God who made all things.’ ” Yet,
nowhere in Lamson’s statements did he claim that Justin Martyr taught that Jesus was a
“created angel”. Lamson merely said:
9/15
“There is another God and Lord under the Creator of the universe, who is also called
Angel, because he announces to men what the Creator of the universe— above
whom there is no other God—wishes to declare…. He who is said to have appeared
to Abraham, to Jacob, and to Moses, and is called God, is other than the God who
made all things. I say, in number, but not in will.”—The Church of the First Three
Centuries, 1869, p. 71
So while it is true that Lamson claimed that Justin Martyr taught that Jesus is “other than the
God who made all things,” Lamson prefaced his statements about Justin Martyr by qualifying
Martyr’s term of “angel” as a reference to being a messenger who “announces” God’s words
and appears to Abraham, Jacob, and Moses. As we have already seen in Justin Martyr’s
own statements, Martyr regarded Jesus to be the Angel of the Lord, the great I AM who
appeared to Moses in the burning bush as Jehovah God. This is a far cry from being a
“created Angel” who is not God. Thus, even the anti-Trinitarian Lamson, did not go as far as
the Watchtower Society did in distorting what Justin Martyr taught concerning Jesus’ identity
as the “Angel.”
From Clement’s own writings, we have already seen how he regarded Jesus to be “…the
Divine Word, He that is truly most manifest Deity, He that is made equal to the Lord of the
universe.” Yet, the Watchtower accurately portrayed Lamson’s view of Clement as teaching
that Jesus is inferior to the Father. The one place where the Watchtower skewed Lamson’s
statements about Clement is where the Society states on page 7 of their brochure:
“Clement of Alexandria, who died about 215 C.E., called Jesus in his prehuman existence ‘a
creature’ but called God ‘the uncreated and imperishable and only true God.’ ”10A.
Alvan Lamson did not claim that Clement himself taught that Jesus was “a creature.” He
actually attributed the phrase “creature” to the claims of Clement’s opponents. He said:
“None of the Platonizing Fathers before Origen have acknowledged the inferiority of the Son
in more explicit terms than Clement. Photius, writing in the ninth century, besides charging
him, as already said, with making the Son a ‘creature’ … Rufinus, too, accuses him of
calling the ‘Son of God a creature.’ …Clement believed God and the Son to be
numerically distinct; in other words, two beings, — the one supreme, the other subordinate,
the ‘first-created of God,’ first-born of all created intelligences…”—The Church of the First
Three Centuries, 1869, pp. 124-125
So while Lamson does not directly claim that Clement called Jesus a “creature,” he does
attribute the phrase “first-created of God” to Clement. Of course, without the context of this
phrase, it is indeed uncertain as to whether Clement actually taught that Jesus is a
“creature.”
10/15
When it comes to Tertullian, it seems that for the most part, the Watchtower’s quotes of
Lamson’s statements about him are accurately portrayed. However, there is a key phrase
from Lamson that the Watchtower Society left out. Lamson said:
“…Tertullian admits that the Son is entitled to be called God, on the principle, that
‘whatever is born of God is God,’ just as one born of human parents is human. He
speaks of him as possessing ‘unity of substance’ with God… ‘The Father is different
from the Son (another), as he is greater; as he who begets is different from him
who is begotten.’ …Tertullian, though he admits the preexistence of the Son,
expressly denies his eternity. ‘There was a time,’ he tells us, ‘when the Son was not.’
Again: ‘Before all things, God was alone, himself a world and place, and all things to
himself.’.”—The Church of the First Three Centuries, 1869, pp. 106-108
So while Lamson claims that Tertullian denies the eternality of the Son, the Watchtower
Society notably excludes a key statement about how Lamson viewed Tertullian’s comments
about the Son being begotten. The fact that Lamson claims that Tertullian taught, “whatever
is born of God is God,” indicates that Tertullian at least acknowledged the superiority of
Christ as being “God” by nature.
“AT THIS point you might ask: ‘If the Trinity is not a Biblical teaching, how did it become a
doctrine of Christendom?’ Many think that it was formulated at the Council of Nicaea in
325 C.E. That is not totally correct, however. The Council of Nicaea did assert that Christ
was of the same substance as God, which laid the groundwork for later Trinitarian
theology. But it did not establish the Trinity, for at that council there was no mention
of the holy spirit as the third person of a triune Godhead.”—Should You Believe in the
Trinity?, p. 7
Amid the fires of debate generated on account of the heresy of Arius spreading within
Constantine’s empire, on June 19, 325 A.D., the Council of Nicaea began with Eusebius of
Caesarea the “first church historian” recording the events. The issue of debate focused on
the person of Christ and His relationship to God the Father. Around 318 A.D., Arius began
teaching that Jesus is a created being who is of a different substance (Greek: heteroousios)
than the Father. Prior to this, as already noted in the discussion on the Ante-Nicene Fathers,
Christians held to the view that God is a Trinity who consists of three persons: the Father, the
Son, and the Holy Spirit. Arius’ heresy struck at the very heart of this doctrine; for by insisting
that Jesus had to be created, he was teaching that Jesus is not the one true God, but is
rather an inferior god who is in some sense only “divine.”
11/15
DOCTRINE LEADERS VIEW OF CHRIST
Arianism Arius Different substance as the Father

—heteroousios
Orthodox Alexander, bishop of Alexandria; Same susbance as the Father—

Hosius, bishop of Cordova; homoousios
Athanasius, who eventually became
bishop of Alexandria
Eusebian Eusebius of Caesarea Similar substance as the Father

—homoiousios
Fearing that the term homoousios could be misunderstood to advocate the heresy of
modalism (promoted in earlier centuries by Sabellius and others who taught that Jesus and
the Father are the same person), Eusebius and his proponents favored the term
homoiousios feeling that this would avoid the heresy of Sabellius and at the same time refute
Arianism. As the Council proceeded, each group shared its views, seeking to come to an
agreement on what Scripture teaches and how to best communicate this truth. As the
Orthodox group expressed their position that by using the term homoousios, they were not
compromising the teaching of the distinctions in the persons of the Trinity, but were rather
endeavoring to defend the Deity of the persons, the Council eventually came to an
agreement with all but Arius and two bishops signing the following creed:
“We believe…in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten from the Father,
only-begotten, that is, from the substance of the Father, God from God, light from light,
true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one substance (homoousios) with
the Father, through Whom all things were made.…”11.
The Watchtower Society argues that the doctrine of the Trinity was not totally formulated at
the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D., because there was no mention of the Holy Spirit at this
council. While it is true that the person of the Holy Spirit was not discussed at this time, the
council did affirm Trinitarian doctrine not only by the fact that it acknowledged that Christ is of
the same substance as the Father, but the Nicene Creed12. states: “I believe in one God, the
Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth…And in one Lord Jesus Christ.…And I
believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life.…”13. The reason the person of the
Holy Spirit was not discussed at the Nicene Council is due to the fact that the issue of
controversy concerned the Son—not the Holy Spirit.
12/15
“Constantine was not a Christian. Supposedly, he converted later in life, but he was not
baptized until he lay dying. Regarding him, Henry Chadwick says in The Early Church:
‘Constantine, like his father, worshipped the Unconquered Sun;…his conversion should
not be interpreted as an inward experience of grace…It was a military matter.’ ”—Should
You Believe in the Trinity?, p. 8
The Society’s Trinity brochure twists the quotes from Chadwick’s book The Early Church in
order to give the impression that he was teaching that Constantine was not a Christian. Note
the context from which these quotes are derived:
“Constantine, like his father, worshipped the Unconquered Sun; [page 122] …The
conversion of Constantine marks a turning-point in the history of the Church and of
Europe. [page 125] …But if his conversion should not be interpreted as an inward
experience of grace, neither was it a cynical act of Machiavellian cunning. It was a
military matter. His comprehension of Christian doctrine was never very clear, but he
was sure that victory in battle lay in the gift of the God of the Christians….He was not
baptized until he lay dying in 337, but this implies no doubt about his Christian
belief. It was common at this time (and continued so until about A.D. 400) to
postpone baptism to the end of one’s life, especially if one’s duty as an official
included torture and execution of criminals. Part of the reason for postponement lay in
the seriousness with which the responsibilities of baptism were taken. Constantine
favoured Christianity among the many religions of his subjects, but did not make it the
official or ‘established’ religion of the empire.”—The Early Church, pp. 122, 125, 127
It appears that Constantine “worshipped the Unconquered Sun” prior to his conversion.14.
Also, in context, it seems like Chadwick felt that Constantine’s conversion was genuine.
However, he admits that “if” Constantine’s conversion was not genuine, it should be
interpreted as “a military matter.” Nevertheless, the fact that Constantine was not baptized
until the end of his life “implies no doubt about his Christian belief. It was common…to
postpone baptism to the end of one’s life.” While it is true that Constantine was the one who
officially called the bishops together for the Nicene Council, he did not force his views upon
the Council. This can be seen by his willingness (in subsequent years) to abandon the
Nicene position in order to enhance his political position. He was not a theologian, but was
primarily interested in unity, for he recognized how disunity on these issues threatened his
empire.
Although the Council of Nicaea rejected Arianism, this was by no means the end of
controversy. For nearly five decades from 332-381, Arianism seemed to reign. Emperors
generally preferred Arianism (which taught that Jesus was a “divine” creature) as the more
attractive religious system due to the fact that it advocated that a creature could be a god,
and they felt it was easier to rule if their subjects thought of them as being somewhat
“divine.”
13/15
Constantine’s successor, his second son Constantius, ruled the East and allowed Arianism
to flourish under his rulership. Eusebius of Nicomedia, Arians and semi-Arians endeavored
to overturn Nicaea. Under Constantius, regional councils met at Ariminum, Seleucia, and
Sirmium, forcing many leaders to subscribe to Arian and semi-Arian creeds. Athanasius
who became bishop of Alexandria shortly after the Council of Nicaea was removed
from his position five times, and even Hosius who was now nearly 100 years old, was
threatened. Despite pressure to compromise, Athanasius continued to fight, and remained
firm in his conviction that Scripture should be regarded as the supreme authority; thus, giving
rise to the phrase, “Athanasius contra mundum—Athanasius against the world.” Although
Athanasius did not write the Athanasian creed, it was named after him due to his
perseverance and uncompromised stance on the issue of the Deity of Christ.
Finally at the Council of Constantinople in 381 A.D., the Trinity doctrine was reaffirmed and
Arianism eventually died out with internal fighting among its advocators. Yet, contrary to the
claims of the Watchtower’s Trinity brochure, from this point on in history, the Trinity doctrine
did gain wide acceptance as it was clarified in subsequent years and codified into the creeds
we posses today.15. Thus, The Encyclopedia Americana notes: “The full development of
Trinitarianism took place in the West, in the Scholasticism of the Middle Ages, when an
explanation was undertaken in terms of philosophy and psychology.…”16.
Apostasy Foretold
“THIS disreputable history of the Trinity fits in with what Jesus and his apostles foretold
would follow their time.…Accurate knowledge of God brings great relief. It frees us from
teachings that are in conflict with God’s Word and from organizations that have
apostatized….By honoring God as supreme and worshiping him on his terms, we can
avoid the judgment that he will soon bring on apostate Christendom.”—Should You
Believe in the Trinity?, pp. 9, 31
As foretold in the Scriptures, throughout history as well as in our day, there are groups of
people who were at one time considered to be within the perimeters of Biblical Christianity
but have subsequently turned away from the truths found in God’s Word and have followed
after heretical teachers who teach what these people want to hear.17. Nevertheless, simply
because some of the people of Christianity have turned away into heresy, this does not
imply that Christianity as a whole has become apostate. As was noted previously, Jesus and
his apostles foretold that the Church would endure and give glory to God “throughout all
ages.” Thus, one must conclude that Christianity could not have become apostate to the
extent that the Watchtower booklet asserts. Notice that at 1 Timothy 4:1 where Paul speaks
of an apostasy that is to come in the last days, he states that “some,” not all, will fall away.
NEXT CHAPTER
============
14/15
1. i.e., the Church Fathers who lived prior to the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D.
2. Should You Believe in the Trinity?, p. 7
3. The Ante-Nicene Fathers —Translation of The Writings of the Fathers Down to A.D. 325,
edited by Rev. Alexander Roberts, D.D., and James Donaldson, LL.D. (WM. B. Eerdmans
Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, MI)
5. Exodus 3:6, 14
7. Ibid.
8. Ibid.
9. Ibid.
10. Ibid.
10A. Later editions of the Should You Believe in the Trinity? brochure, bearing the same
publication date of 1989 and the same notation of “First printing in English,” have completely
removed the sentence “called Jesus in his prehuman existence ‘a creature’ ” from the citation
about Clement of Alexandria above.
11. Quoted from “What Really Happened At Nicea?” by James R. White, Christian Research
Journal, July-August 1997, pp. 28-34
12. Although the Nicene Creed was formulated at the Council of Constantinople in 381 A.D.,
it was named after the Council of Nicaea due to the groundwork laid at this council for the
formulation of this creed.
13. Quoted from Christianity In Crisis, by Hank Hanegraaf, 1993, (Harvest House Publishers,
Eugene, OR), p. 375
14. Note page 122 in Chadwick’s book appears before his conversion on page 125.
15. For more information on the Council of Nicaea, see the July-August 1997 issue of the
Christian Research Journal article entitled “What Really Happened At Nicea?” by James R.
White. A transcript of this article may be obtained by contacting the Christian Research
Institute at www.equip.org.
16. The Encyclopedia Americana, vol. 27, p. 117
17. See 2 Timothy 4:3-4
15/15
Pagan Roots Of The Trinity – Chapter 3 – Yes, You Should
4jehovah.org/pagan-roots-of-the-trinity-chapter-3-yes-you-should-believe-in-the-trinity/
CHAPTER 3: PAGAN ROOTS OF THE TRINITY?
WHAT ABOUT EGYPTIAN, BABYLONIAN,

AND HINDU TRIADS?
THE STORY OF CIVILIZATION: Part III, Caesar
and Christ, by Will Durant
THE PAGANISM IN OUR CHRISTIANITY, by
Arthur Weigall
ENCYCLOPAEDIA OF RELIGION AND
ETHICS, by James Hastings
THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG
ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGIOUS
KNOWLEDGE
THE CHURCH OF THE FIRST THREE
CENTURIES, by Alvan Lamson
IS THE STORY OF JESUS DERIVED FROM THE PAGAN LEGENDS OF OSIRIS,
HORUS, MITHRAS AND OTHER MYTHICAL GODS?
WHAT ABOUT EGYPTIAN, BABYLONIAN, AND HINDU TRIADS?
At this point, the Watchtower booklet endeavors to validate their claims against the Trinity
by trying to establish a link between the doctrine of the Trinity found in Christianity and the
pagan “gods” of ancient religions. On page 10 of the Trinity brochure, endeavoring to
convey the idea that the doctrine of the Trinity is of pagan origin, the Society pictures
sculptures of Egyptian, Babylonian, and Hindu false gods of past centuries along with
pictures of Trinitarian figures in more recent centuries. However, the Society totally
overlooks one of the major difference between pagan false gods and Trinitarian doctrine.
Far from the teachings of Christian monotheists who hold to the concept that the Triune God
is three persons yet one God, pagans were polytheists who believed in many gods. One
prime example of this can be found in the Watchtower’s picture of the Egyptian “Triad of
Horus, Osiris, Isis.” Richard H. Wilkinson, author of the book, The Complete Gods and
Goddesses of Ancient Egypt, notes:
1/25
“Groups of three deities are often aligned as members of a divine family of father (god),
mother (goddess) and child (almost invariably a young male deity), with the triad of Orisis,
Isis and Horus being the most prominent example.” –Richard H. Wilkinson, The Complete
Gods and Goddesses of Ancient Egypt, (New York, NY: Thames & Hudson Inc., 2003), page
75
The Society fails to mention, however, that this so-called “triad” was actually comprised of a
family of several gods (not just three), led by a head god named “Amon Ra” or “Atum Re,”
depending on spelling differences. This god family consisted of Shu and Tefnut
(grandparents), Geb (father) and Nut (mother) whose sons were Osiris and Seth, and
daughters were Isis and Nephthys. “Frequently, the god Horus, son and heir of Osiris and the
deity most closely associated with kingship, was added to this group….”1. Concerning this
family of gods, Barbara Watterson, author of the book, Gods of Ancient Egypt, had this to
say:
“In due course, Osiris married Isis and Seth married Nephthys. They, together with their
parents, Geb and Nut, their grandparents, Shu and Tefnut, and their brother, Haroeris,
formed the group of gods which, with Atum at its head, was the Great Ennead of Iunu.” –
Barbara Watterson, Gods of Ancient Egypt, (New York, NY: Sutton Publishing, 1996), page
30
Therefore, simply because one may find pagan sculptures which represent three of their
many false gods together in one statue, does not imply that they believed in some sort of a
Trinity. To the contrary, Barbara Watterson notes:
“As a uniform way of life developed in Egypt, this process of merging deities, called
syncretism, should logically have led to the blending of all the gods and goddesses of Egypt
into one god with a very long name made up of the syllables of the names of all the other
gods. However, the Egyptians were not the most logical of people, and this ‘happy’ state was
never attained! Thus, throughout their history, there were great numbers of deities. How
many is impossible to establish …The number is enlarged, some estimate to over two
thousand…” –Barbara Watterson, Gods of Ancient Egypt, (New York, NY: Sutton Publishing,
1996), page 14
Indeed, the Christian monotheistic concept of the one and only Triune God is diametrically
opposed to the pagan legends involving groups of gods who ruled over many other gods.
Concerning these pagan sculptures depicted in the Society’s brochure, Robert Bowman
observes:
2/25
“Egyptian, Babylonian, Assyrian, Hindu, and Buddhist triads, as well as Platonism, are
all claimed as influencing the development of the Trinity. But it is absurd to claim that
all of these significantly influenced the trinitarians. Third, most of these alleged
‘influences’ were either far too early or far too late, or far too removed
geographically, to have any significant influence. Artwork picturing Egyptian and
Babylonian triads are reproduced, despite the fact that the art dated from about two
thousand years before the Witnesses claim the Trinity originated! Other artwork
depicting Hindu and Buddhist triads from the seventh and twelfth centuries are shown,
despite the fact that these were done centuries after the Trinity had become the official
religion of the Roman Empire! Fourth, the JW booklet points out that Athanasius was a
bishop in Alexandria, Egypt, and from this fact argues that his trinitarianism reflected
the influence of Egyptian triads (p.11). But this geographical coincidence is no more
significant than the fact that Athanasius’s archrival, Arius, was also from
Alexandria!”—Why You Should Believe in the Trinity, 1989, p. 43
Another difference between the Biblical doctrine of the Trinity and the triadic sculptures
represented in the Watchtower brochure is the fact that the person of Christ is the only
person in the Trinity to possess a physical body. As discussed earlier, when the term
“person” is used in reference to the Trinity, it designates the relationship between the
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—not as separate Gods or as separate people as the term
“person” might be misunderstood to imply—but rather, that each “person” of the Triune God
has the attributes of personality (i.e., mind, will, and emotions). These illustrations of triadic
“gods” pictured in the Watchtower’s booklet misrepresent the doctrine of the Trinity, for they
fail to take into account that while the three persons are each distinct from one another in
their personalities, they are not identical to each other, nor do they possess physical,
humanlike bodies. Since the Father and the Holy Spirit are spirit-persons without physical,
human bodies (John 4:24), these two persons of the Trinity should never be pictured in
human form. It is only the second person of the Trinity, Jesus Christ the Son, who possesses
a human body because He took upon Himself the physical nature of humanity, becoming the
true God-man. As “the image of the invisible God” (Colossians 1:15), I believe that He is the
only humanlike person of the Triune God that has been physically seen by believers
throughout the centuries. (For more information on this subject, see the chapter entitled, “Is
Jesus Christ the Angel of the LORD?” in the Appendix of this book.)
Yet, seeking scholarly support for their claims, the Society once again quotes a number of
sources that show the similarities between Christian doctrine and pagan religions. The
following is an examination of these sources:
THE STORY OF CIVILIZATION: Part III, Caesar and Christ, by Will Durant
3/25
The Society quotes Will Durant on page 11 as stating that “Christianity did not destroy
paganism; it adopted it.” However, Durant is not a reputable source to consult, for he
makes several assertions regarding Christianity which neither the Society nor Biblical
Christians would accept. Note the following:
“It seems incredible that the Apocalypse and the Fourth Gospel should have
come from the same hand. The Apocalypse is Jewish poetry, the Fourth Gospel
is Greek philosophy….Just as Philo, learned in Greek speculation, had felt a
need to rephrase Judaism in forms acceptable to the logic-loving Greeks, so
John…sought to give a Greek philosophical tinge to the mystic Jewish
doctrine that the Wisdom of God was a living being, and to the Christian doctrine
that Jesus was the Messiah. Consciously or not, he continued Paul’s work of
detaching Christianity from Judaism.…Now the pagan world—even the anti-
Semitic world—could accept him as its own. Christianity did not destroy
paganism; it adopted it.”—The Story of Civilization: Part III, Caesar and Christ,
1944, pp. 594-595
4/25
Siegfried Morenz is another author who the Watchtower Society quotes on page 11 as
saying “The trinity was a major preoccupation of Egyptian theologians… Three gods
are combined and treated as a single being, addressed in the singular. In this way the
spiritual force of Egyptian religion shows a direct link with Christian theology.” However,
neither the Society nor Biblical Christians would agree with many of the following
claims Morenz makes concerning Christianity:
“Creation through God’s word A third mode of creation, again completely

different from the foregoing ones, is through the word of the creator. This, too,
was turned into a classical doctrine in Egypt, which centred not on Atum of
Heliopolis, as the previously mentioned one did, but on Ptah of
Memphis….Keeping to such rigorous interpretation of the evidence, we may go
on to recall the doctrine of creation through the word, which as we know
(see pp. 163-6) was one of the principal elements in the Egyptian
cosmogony….Less important, but more readily comprehensible, is the
influence of the Egyptian court chronicle upon the literary form of the
Israelites’ chronicle account of David and Solomon….It is also found in the
familiar parallels between Egyptian and Israelite wisdom literature, which in
general may be regarded as a gift of Egypt.…Other passages can, however, be
claimed as Egyptian in inspiration: for instance, the Egyptian (and
Mesopotamian) lists of knowledge, which were the basis of the proverbs
which King Solomon spoke.…In one of the few cases where a concept that
figures in the New Testament has been taken to be ultimately of Egyptian
origin, Jesus’s parable of Dives and Lazarus.…and how large a part was
played by Greek elements (Stoic diatribes), emerged some years ago from an
analysis of the association between ship and tongue in the Epistle of St
James, which was originally Egyptian.…two passages in the Epistle to the
Romans: the proverbial ‘coals of fire’…derived from a Late Egyptian
penitential rite – and, much more significantly, the Apostle’s words on the
absolute power of the Creator to confer honour and dishonour….It is also present
in the notion of a ‘crown of life’, or in those of righteousness and glory; in
elucidating these concepts one must draw not only upon Greek material but
also upon the ‘crown of righteousness’ to which there were so many
references during the last centuries of Egyptian paganism.”—Egyptian
Religion, pp. 163, 251-252, 254-255
In spite of the fact that Morenz draws these parallels between pagan philosophy and
Christian doctrine, he nevertheless concludes that these doctrines are taught in the
Bible. Notice his specific claims about the Trinity doctrine being Biblical:
5/25
“In order to avoid any gross misunderstanding, we must at once emphasize
that the substance of the Christian Trinity is of course Biblical: Father, Son
and Holy Ghost.…All this entitles us to the opinion that Egypt played its part in
the efforts of Christians to achieve an understanding of God and his works, which
are eternal.”—Egyptian Religion, pp. 255, 257
THE PAGANISM IN OUR CHRISTIANITY, by Arthur Weigall
On pages 3, 6, and 11 of the Society’s brochure, they quote from Arthur Weigall’s book
The Paganism in Our Christianity in support of their assertion that the concept of the
Trinity is “entirely pagan.” Is Weigall a credible source? Note the following statements
Weigall makes concerning the accuracy of the New Testament, the virgin birth, and the
death and resurrection of Christ:
“No Biblical scholar of any standing to-day, whether he be a clergyman, a

minister, or a layman, accepts the entire New Testament as authentic; and all
admit that many errors, misunderstandings, and absurdities have crept into the
story of Christ’s life and other matters.…In regard to the Virgin Birth….It seems
clear, therefore, that the story was not known, or at any rate was not accepted,
before A.D. 100, that is to say, a whole century after the date of the event it
records.…if Joseph was not then thought to be the father of Jesus it is
difficult to understand why the pedigree was given at all.…The growth of
such a story may well be understood, for tales of the births of pagan gods….He
had not been much hurt by being crucified.…no faith would be worth
consideration which based itself merely on the apparent coming to life of a
dead body.…in the end His mortal body must have died and returned to dust.”—
The Paganism in Our Christianity, 1928, pp. 30-31, 42-43, 44, 94-95
As a liberal scholar who denies so many doctrines of Biblical Christianity, it is clearly

evident that Weigall is not a scholar one should consult in matters pertaining to
essential doctrines of the historic Christian faith.
ENCYCLOPAEDIA OF RELIGION AND ETHICS, by James Hastings
While it is true that James Hastings does state that the concept of the Trinity can
be found in pagan religions, he nevertheless goes on to remark that: “Truly, if the
doctrine of the Trinity appeared somewhat late in theology, it must have lived
very early in devotion.”—Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, vol. 12, pp.
458-459
THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGIOUS KNOWLEDGE
6/25
Although this encyclopedia also endeavors to draw a parallel between the pagan
doctrines of Plato and the teachings of Christianity, it goes on to declare that the
early church fathers prior to Nicaea such as “Justin Martyr, Athenagoras,
Theophilus, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen.…”3. were also
influenced by Platonic philosophy.
THE CHURCH OF THE FIRST THREE CENTURIES, by Alvan Lamson
7/25
Throughout their brochure, the Society quotes Lamson’s book endeavoring to provide
support for their assertion that the doctrine of the Trinity “had its origin in a source
entirely foreign from that of the Jewish and Christian Scriptures;…it grew up, and was
ingrafted on Christianity, through the hands of the Platonizing Fathers.”4. A look at the
title page of this book reveals that its publisher is the “British and Foreign Unitarian
Association.” Concerning Unitarianism, various encyclopedias have this to say:
“Unitarianism is a religious view that was organized in institutional form in

Poland, Transylvania, England, and the United States.…The separate
movements had common characteristics” among these being their “rejections of
the doctrines of the Trinity, the divinity of Jesus, and human corruption or
total depravity.…The British and Foreign Unitarian Association, founded in
1825, was aided by the repeal of laws against nonconformity.…”5. William Ellery
Channing (1780-1842), who was the “most prominent supporter of the Unitarians
during this period” and whose “sermon ‘Unitarian Christianity’ (1819) was widely
accepted as a good statement of their position”6. “replied that…most of the
liberal ministers were Arians….”7.
“Unitarianism…denies the divinity of Christ and the doctrine of the Trinity.…

Theological foundations…are found in 2nd- and 3rd-century monarchianism and
in the teachings of Arius….The modern roots of Unitarianism are traced to the
16th-century Protestant Reformation, when certain liberal, radical, and
rationalist reformers revived the Platonic emphasis on reason and the unity
of God.”—The New Encyclopaedia Britannica 1768, 1998 (15th ed.), vol. 12, p.
137
“Unitarian Universalists believe an individual should be free to form his own

religious beliefs. They hold an optimistic view of the nature of man….8.
“Unitarian ministers soon began to argue that religious truth should be based
on universal religious experiences, rather than on the record of historical
events. In addition, these ministers believed that religious truth and inspiration
could be found in traditions other than Christianity.” (The World Book
Encyclopedia, Vol. 20, (Chicago, IL: World Book, Inc., 1994), 42-43)
In view of the liberal, biased nature of Unitarianism against the doctrine of the Trinity, is
it any wonder that such an organization would be behind a book which promotes an
alleged “late origin and gradual formation” of the doctrine of the Trinity?
8/25
The Society cites Adolf Harnack as another authority in support of their claims.
However, the Society fails to mention that Harnack was a strong liberal whose
appointment as professor at Berlin from 1889-1921 “was challenged by the church
because of Harnack’s doubts about the authorship of the fourth gospel and
other NT books, his unorthodox interpretations of biblical miracles including the
Resurrection and his denial of Christ’s institution of baptism (see his History of Dogma,
7 vols., 1894-99).”—New International Dictionary of the Christian Church, 1978, p. 452
Another disreputable source the Society references is this book by Andrews Norton.
The full title of his book is as follows: “A Statement of Reasons for Not Believing The
Doctrine of Trinitarians Concerning the Nature of God and the Person of Christ,”
published by the “Boston American Unitarian Association, 1880.” Andrews Norton
was a Unitarian! Is it any wonder he wrote a book against Trinity doctrine?
Not only do the sources referenced in the Society’s brochure draw parallels between pagan
doctrine and Christian doctrine, many of these sources are attacking the Bible as being the
cause of the alleged paganism in Christianity! Since many of these liberal authors claim the
Bible is pagan in origin, one wonders how credible the Society’s claim of the alleged pagan
infiltration into Christian doctrine truly is. As every honest Jehovah’s Witness would admit, it
is one thing to assert that Christianity adopted paganism; it is quite another thing to say
the Bible adopted paganism.
Simply because similarities between pagan gods and the Christian concept of the Trinity may
be found, this is not a valid reason to conclude that the concept of the Trinity is of pagan
origin. Let me draw your attention to the fact that Jehovah’s Witnesses do not reject other
key doctrines of Christianity that skeptics criticize are pagan in origin. For example, the
Egyptians believed that one of their gods, named “Osiris,” was “an earthly ruler who was
resurrected after his death,” (See Richard H. Wilkinson, The Complete Gods and Goddesses
of Ancient Egypt, page 119) and in the Babylonian and Syrian legends, their “god,” named
“Tammuz,” died and resurrected annually in the vegetation life cycle (See Barbara
Watterson, Gods of Ancient Egypt, (New York, NY: Sutton Publishing, 1996), 57). Likewise,
many pagan legends hold to the view that a worldwide flood occurred sometime in the
history of mankind (See The World Book Encyclopedia, Vol. 5,(Chicago, IL: World Book, Inc.,
2012), 118, 171). So, you can ask a Jehovah’s Witness this question:
“If the Trinity doctrine is pagan in origin because similar views were taught in ancient non-
Christian religions, would it be legitimate to argue that the Biblical teachings concerning
Jesus Christ’s resurrection and Noah’s flood are of pagan origin as well because pagans
taught similar accounts long ago?”
9/25
Of course, no Jehovah’s Witness would want to claim that these Biblical beliefs are pagan
simply because similar beliefs were taught in ancient religions. Rather, on the contrary (as
the following illustration will demonstrate), the very fact that pagan legends hold to these
concepts actually lends credence to the validity of these doctrines.
Take, for example, the existence of counterfeit money. Since no real U.S. three dollar bill
exists, one will search in vain to find a counterfeit three dollar bill, for it would easily be
recognized. Because the purpose of the counterfeit is to deceive people into accepting the
counterfeit in place of the real thing, counterfeit bills are only designed to resemble real dollar
bills. Just as this occurs in the physical realm, Satan employs this deception in the spiritual
realm in order to deceive people into accepting counterfeit doctrine. Thus, the very fact that
similarities between the Biblical doctrine of Noah’s flood, the Resurrection, and the
Trinity may be found in pagan cultures, actually aids in substantiating these doctrines
as true.
IS THE STORY OF JESUS DERIVED FROM THE PAGAN LEGENDS OF OSIRIS, HORUS,
MITHRAS AND OTHER MYTHICAL GODS?
As we have seen in the sources quoted by the Watchtower Society, critics of Biblical
Christianity often point to similarities in ancient pagan religions to try to discredit the
foundational beliefs of Biblical Christianity. Today, skeptics 9. continue their attempt to
discredit Christianity by attacking the key facts that set Jesus apart from any other religion or
“god” in the pagan world. What follows is a brief examination of these facts and a response
to the claims of skeptics and critics who assert that Christianity borrowed these beliefs from
ancient mystery religions:
FACT #1: THE VIRGIN BIRTH OF JESUS IS UNIQUE:

No other religion was founded by a virgin-born God as verified by eye-witness accounts that
lived contemporaneously with the individual of whom the claim is made. Although spurious
claims of miraculous births abound in ancient mythology, none of them have been verified by
historical record, nor have any been substantiate by the fulfillment of historical prophecy
written prior to the event. Thus, the story of Jesus stands unique in that the book of Isaiah,
written between 701 and 681 B.C., prophesied concerning the birth of the Messiah, Jesus
Christ, stating: “Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall
conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” Then, at Matthew 1:20-25, we
read the fulfillment of the prophecy:
“But when he had considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream,
saying, ‘Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for the Child who
has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. She will bear a Son; and you shall call His
name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.’ Now all this took place to fulfill what
was spoken by the Lord through the prophet: ‘BEHOLD, THE VIRGIN SHALL BE WITH
10/25
CHILD AND SHALL BEAR A SON, AND THEY SHALL CALL HIS NAME IMMANUEL,’ which
translated means, ‘GOD WITH US.’ And Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel
of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife, but kept her a virgin until she gave
birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.”
MITHRA: Mithra or Mithras was a sun god that grew out of the religion of Hinduism and the
Zoroastrian religion of the 6th century B.C. It wasn’t until the Persians and Romans spread
the religion of Mithraism throughout Asia Minor into Europe around 100 A.D. that it “ranked
as a principal competing religion of Christianity until the 300’s.”10. Although critics of
Christianity (especially on the Internet today), claim that Christianity adopted the idea of the
virgin birth from the religion of Mithraism, such claims are completely unsubstantiated,
especially in light of the fact that Isaiah’s prophecy of the virgin birth predated the formation
of Mithraism by a century.
Here are the facts concerning the birth of Mithras: “Mithra was supposedly born when he
emerged from a rock.” 11. As we read in Mithraic Studies, “…the birth of Mithra…wearing his
Phrygian cap, issues forth from the rocky mass. As yet only his bare torso is visible. …At the
moment Mithra came into the world light immediately appeared, as at the birth of Orphic
Phanes, to whom in terms of this motif he was closely assimilated.” 12. Thus, he is not virgin
born.
HORUS: Some popular critics of Christianity claim that the Egyptian god Horus was born of
a virgin, but this claim is completely false. Two views concerning the birth of Horus exist and
neither of them contained a virgin birth.
The most popular view is that Horus was fathered posthumously by Isis, the widowed wife of
Osiris. In her book, Gods of Ancient Egypt, Barbara Watterson states: “…Isis brought the
body of her husband home to Egypt. She grieved that she had no son to inherit the throne of
his father which would now fall to the murderer, Seth; and she determined that her husband,
Osiris, should have a son to avenge him and claim his rightful inheritance. …she made
Osiris’ … rise up from his inert body. She drew from him his essence and with this
she made for him a son and heir whom she carried within her body. …Isis went on with her
journey and eventually came to Khemmis in the Delta. There she gave birth to her son,
Horus, whom she named Horus-Avenger-of-his-Father.”13. Thus, Horus was not virgin born,
but rather conceived by the body fluids of the semi-resurrected Osiris.
The second and less popular view was that Horus, also called Haroeris, was the second son
born to Geb and Nut who were the parents of Osiris and Isis.14. Since this second view
claims that he was the second born son of Geb and Nut, there is no way to claim that this
“god” was born of a virgin.
11/25
OTHER GODS: Still, critics of Christianity continue their attack on the virgin birth of Christ by
attributing this claim to Buddha (Gautama) who lived between 563 – 483 B.C., Zoroaster
(Zarathushtra), an Iranian prophet and founder of Zoroastrianism from 660 – 583 B.C.,
Krishna who lived between 3227 – 3102 B.C., Attis cult in Asia Minor from 1250 BC, and
Dionysus from 1500–1100 BC. Although both believers and skeptics declare miraculous
conceptions for the births of these “gods” of antiquity, conflicting accounts exist which
discredit their claims as follows:
Buddha (Gautama): He was born to Maya, the twenty year wife of Suddhodana by “falling
from the host of beings in the Tushita heaven… and suddenly entered at a thought into her
womb.”15. The fact that Buddha lived and taught mostly in eastern India sometime between
the sixth and fourth centuries B.C., and the fact that he lived nearly 200 years after the
prophecy of Isaiah, discredits the claim that Christianity, founded in the Jewish religion of
Israel, borrowed the virgin birth concept from the religion of Buddha in India.
Zoroaster (Zarathustra): The texts of the Zorastrian religion claim that he was born to the
married parents of Dukdaub (or Dughdova) and Pourushasp.16. Although later accounts
claim that he was: “said to have had a miraculous birth: his mother, Dughdova, was a virgin
who conceived him after being visited by a shaft of light,”17. this seems to be an
embellishment of the story by his followers since there are no religious texts from the
generation of Zoroaster’s lifetime that assert this claim.18.
Krishna: According to the Hindu text of The Mahabharata, Book 12, Section XLVIII, he was
born as the eighth son of Princess Devaki and her husband Vasudeva and not the virgin,
Maia. It reads:
“Thou art the creator of everything in the universe. Like a couple of sticks generating a
blazing fire, thou hast been born of the divine Devaki and Vasudeva for the protection of
Brahma on earth.”
Attis: Allegations linking the virgin birth of Jesus to the mythical stories of Attis are greatly
exaggerated as the following accounts indicate. Both legends are recorded by the 2nd
Century A.D. writer, Pausanias, in his book Description of Greece, Book 7 Achaea,
translated by Johns, W. H. S. and Omerod, H. A. Loeb:
“[7.17.9] The people of Dyme have a temple of Athena with an extremely ancient image; they
have as well a sanctuary built for the Dindymenian mother and Attis. As to Attis, I could
learn no secret about him, but Hermesianax, the elegiac poet, says in a poem that he was
the son of Galaus the Phrygian, and that he was a eunuch from birth. The account of
Hermesianax goes on to say that, on growing up, Attis migrated to Lydia and celebrated for
the Lydians the orgies of the Mother; that he rose to such honor with her that Zeus, being
wroth at it, sent a boar to destroy the tillage of the Lydians.”
12/25
As you can see, there was no virgin birth in the above account, but next Pausanias goes on
to describe another account of the birth of Attis that is very bizarre and also bears no
resemblance to the Biblical account of the virgin birth of Christ:
“[7.17.10] But the current view about Attis is different, the local legend about him being
this. Zeus, it is said, let fall in his sleep seed upon the ground, which in course of time
sent up a demon, with two … organs, male and female. They call the demon Agdistis. But
the gods, fearing Agdistis, cut off the male organ.
“[7.17.11] There grew up from it an almond-tree with its fruit ripe, and a daughter of the
river Sangarius, they say, took of the fruit and laid it in her bosom, when it at once
disappeared, but she was with child. A boy was born, and exposed, but was tended by a
he-goat. As he grew up his beauty was more than human, and Agdistis fell in love with him.
When he had grown up, Attis was sent by his relatives to Pessinus, that he might wed the
king’s daughter.” –Pausanias, Description of Greece, Classical Library Book 7, Translated by
Jones, W. H. S. and Omerod, H. A. Loeb, (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press;
London, William Heinemann Ltd. 1918), (http://www.theoi.com/Text/Pausanias7B.html).
How skeptics can link this 2nd Century myth surrounding Attis to the virgin birth of Jesus
Christ that occurred a century prior to this myth being circulated is truly absurd.
Dionysus (Orpheus or Bacchus): The most popular legend concerning the birth of
Dionysus is that his mother Semele was impregnated by a lightening bolt from the Greek god
Zeus. When the jealous Hera convinces Semele to ask Zeus to reveal his glory to her, she
was instantly burned to death, leaving the prenatal Dionysus behind to be sewed into the
thigh of Zeus until he was born.19. Another account has Dionysus being born of Zeus and
Persephone.20. Yet, even this other account of Zeus bears no resemblance to the Biblical
account as Zeus and other pagan gods lusted after women,21. a trait foreign to the Biblical
God who is not a man (Hosea 11:9).
VIRGIN BIRTH CONCLUSION: As can be seen above, none of the miraculous conception
accounts for these pagan deities completely resemble the virgin birth of Jesus Christ, and
many are so bizarre that skeptics have to distort the facts or discount other contradicting
accounts to try to draw a parallel between the conception of Jesus Christ and the conception
of the pagan deities. Likewise, most these accounts were written several centuries after the
lifetime of the individuals themselves, leaving room for embellishment by later followers
without the eyewitness criticism of those who would have been able to correct these far-
fetched claims. Such is not the case with the birth of Christ that was recorded by both Luke
and Matthew who were direct eyewitnesses of Jesus’ life and ministry. Thus, Luke was able
to state in his letter to the ruler Theophilus that he: “…investigated everything carefully from
the beginning…”22. Also, unlike the Biblical account in which Jesus existed as God
13/25
beforeHis virgin birth as a human, none of the pagan legends asserted the pre-existence of
their “gods.” Therefore, the virgin birth of Jesus Christ stands out as unique against the
legends of miraculous births affirmed in mythical literature.
FACT #2: THE DEATH AND RESURRECTION OF JESUS IS UNIQUE:

Just as in the case of the virgin birth, skeptics continue their attacks against Christianity by
nonsensically trying to assert that the death and resurrection accounts of Jesus were derived
from pagan legends of dying and rising gods. Nevertheless, when examined, these mythical
accounts bear no resemblance to the Biblical narrative of Christ. To start with, in none of the
pagan legends is the mythical deity said to have died in accordance with his own will in
sacrificial love to atone for the sins of mankind, nor does the mythical deity resurrect to
human life as attested by historical record.23. Rather, in most of the incidents, the pagan
deity’s resurrection resembles more of a reincarnation than it does a resurrection as their
resurrections were tied to the vegetation cycle. Regarding the most popular dying and rising
god legends of antiquity: Tammuz, Adonis, Cybele, Attis and Osiris, Edwin M. Yamauchi,
Ph.D. 24. quoted in Lee Strobel’s book, The Case for the Real Jesus, stated:
“All of these myths are repetitive, symbolic representations of the death and rebirth of
vegetation. These are not historical figures, and none of their deaths were intended to
provide salvation.” —The Case for the Real Jesus, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2007),
178
In addition to these facts, Jesus not only fulfilled numerous Old Testament prophecies
concerning His death and resurrection, but also prior to the event itself, He foretold of His
own death and resurrection after three days. Thus, the story of Jesus’ death and resurrection
stands out as unique against the alleged resurrection claims of mythical deities who never
foretold their own deaths, much less fulfilled any type of prophecy written prior to the event.
“The Jews then said to Him, ‘What sign do You show us as your authority for doing these
things?’ Jesus answered them, ‘Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.’
The Jews then said, ‘It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in
three days?’ But He was speaking of the temple of His body. So when He was raised
from the dead, His disciples remembered that He said this; and they believed the
Scripture and the word which Jesus had spoken.” –John 2:18-22
“But He answered and said to them, ‘An evil and adulterous generation craves for a sign;
and yet no sign will be given to it but the sign of Jonah the prophet; for just as JONAH
WAS THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS IN THE BELLY OF THE SEA MONSTER, so will
the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.’ ”–Matthew
12:39-40
PROPHECY FULFILLED IN CHRIST’S DEATH AND RESURRECTION
14/25
Event Old Testament New Testament
Prophecy Prophecy
Sold for 30 Shekels Zechariah 11:12 -13 Matthew 26:15
Hands and feet are pierced, bones are Psalm 22:14, 16 -17 John 20:25 ; 19:33-36
not broken
Crucified among thieves Isaiah 53: 12 Matthew 27:38
Gambling for his clothes Psalm 22:18 John 19:24 , Matthew

27:35
Thirsty and Vinegar offered Psalm 22:15; 69:21 John 19:28-30; Matt.
27:34
Buried in rich man’s tomb Isaiah 53:9 Matthew 27:57 -60
Resurrection Psalm 16:10 Matthew 28:6
Ascension Psalm 68:18 Luke 24: 51
MITHRAISM AND OTHER ANCIENT MYSTERY RELIGIONS:
Although skeptics claim that Christianity adopted many of its rituals from mystery religions
like Mithraism which predated the Christian era, Bruce M. Metzger25. noted in a footnote on
page 8 of his book, Historical and Literary Studies: Pagan, Jewish, and Christian:
“According to the map prepared by Nicola Turchi (in his Le religioni misteriosofiche del
mondo antico [Rome, 1923]), showing the diffusion of the Mysteries of Cybele, dea Syria,
Isis, Mithra, Orpheus-Dionysius , and Samothrace in the Roman Empire, the only cult
which penetrated Palestine proper was the Isiac cult. Evidence…for this cult was found at
Aelia Capitolina, i.e., subsequent to Hadrian’s rebuilding of Jerusalem c. A.D.135. By this
time the fundamental doctrines and sacraments of the Church had been fixed. Similar
maps for the cults of Isis, Mithra, and Cybele, which Herbert Preisker includes in his
Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte (Berlin, 1937), likewise indicate no archaeological
remains of these cults within Palestine during the first century.”
The fact that there is no archeological evidence for these mystery religions being in Palestine
prior to the formation of the New Testament Scripture reinforces our argument that
Christianity was derived from Biblical, Jewish history and was not influenced by these pagan
religions. Likewise, Edwin M. Yamauchi, Ph.D., quoted in Lee Strobel’s book, The Case for
the Real Jesus, asserts:
15/25
“The earliest mithraea are dated to the early second century. There are a handful of
inscriptions that date to the early second century, but the vast majority of texts are dated
after AD 140. Most of what we have as evidence of Mithraism comes in the second,
third, and fourth centuries AD. That’s basically what’s wrong with the theories about
Mithraism influencing the beginnings of Christianity.” —The Case for the Real Jesus, (Grand
Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2007), page 169.
Not only does the evidence indicate that Christianity did not borrow from pagan mystery
religions such as Mithraism, the evidence points in the opposite direction. Regarding this, the
Ante-Nicene Church Father, Justin Martyr, claimed that Mithraism copied the Christian rite of
Communion (the Eucharist) in its rituals. In The First Apology of Justin, Chapter LXVI. – Of
the Eucharist, he stated:
“For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus
delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had
given thanks, said, ‘This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;’ and that, after the
same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, ‘This is My blood;’ and gave
it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras,
commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed
with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or
can learn.” –Rev. Alexander Roberts, D.D., ed.; James Donaldson, LL.D., ed., The Ante-
Nicene Fathers—Translation of The Writings of the Fathers Down to A.D. 325, Vol. 1,
(Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994), page 185
Thus, it seems that Mithraism was syncretistic as it borrowed from Christianity as well as
other religions and was not an exclusive religion as its initiates could also be found practicing
other religions as well.26. However, some skeptics claim that Christ’s death and resurrection
was derived from Mithras who they say died and resurrected as well. These assertions,
however, are blatantly false because according to Mithraic literature, Mithras never died.27.
Instead he ascended into heaven in a chariot.28.
So, how do most skeptics attempt to prove the Biblical account of Christ was derived from
Mithraism? They point to the Tauroctony icon of Mithras slaying a bull and draw parallels to
crucifix displays and Christian teachings of salvation being found in the blood of Christ. For
example, in his book entitled, Mithras: Mysteries and Initiation Rediscovered, author D.
Jason Cooper claims: “A graffito from the Santa Prisca Mithraeum tells us that, by
shedding the blood of the bull, Mithras saved us: ‘And us have you saved by shedding
the eternity-giving blood.’ ”29. But quoting texts like these is quite deceiving because what
authors like Cooper fail to mention is that this “Mithraeum of Santa Prisca” is dated to about
202 A.D. which is long after the development of first-century Christian beliefs and practices.
(See See CIMRM 476 – Mithraeum. Santa Prisca, Rome, Italy. –
http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/mithras/display.php?page=cimrm476) So we see that Edwin
M. Yamauchi, Ph.D. was correct when he noted: “The earliest mithraea are dated to the early
16/25
second century,” –Lee Strobel, The Case for the Real Jesus, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan,
2007), page 169. Thus, Mithraic texts, such as this one, could not have had any bearing on
Christianity.
Likewise, when we examine the Mithraic icon of the Tauroctony, we discover it falls
significantly short of representing the Christian belief in the blood of Christ. Although, “The
bull-slaying scene is the center of the religion of Mithras”, writes D. Jason Cooper, “There is
no writing as to what the symbol meant or even what the Mithrasians themselves called it.
Modern scholars have simply called it the Tauroctony –which is Greek for ‘bull-slaying
scene.’ ”30. Regardless of this, Cooper claims:
“The main thrust of the icon and its meaning and development, however, remain clear.
Mithras slays the bull so that we can be saved, as evidenced by the Milky Way and its
‘path of blood,’ the constellations that appear in the icon, and the correspondences
between the signs of the zodiac and the celestial equator. These points in the sky showed a
path by which the individual might join his god in the permanent communion of the Sacred
Meal.” –D. Jason Cooper, Mithras: Mysteries and Initiation Rediscovered, (York Beach, ME:
Samuel Weiser, Inc, 1996), page 76.
Then, at this point in his book, D. Jason Cooper attempts to draw a parallel between the
Christian view of salvation by faith in the blood of Jesus and Mithraic belief in the blood of the
bull. Yet, Cooper fails to mention a key difference between the Mithraic view of salvation and
the Biblical view. Unlike Christianity that focuses on the blood of Jesus to cover mankind’s
“sins,” nowhere in Mithraic literature are men said to be saved from their “sins” by believing
in the blood of the bull. Rather, Mithraics believed in some type of a universal salvation that
pointed the way to eternity and brought life and vegetation to the earth. Author Payam
Nabarz, who is also no friend of Christianity, still admits that Mithraism teaches the salvation
of the physical earth when he says:
“Mithras presides over the changing of the seasons and the movement of the heavens.
Hence the tauroctony is said to demonstrate that Love literally moves the universe. … As
Mithras kills the bull, from his blood come wine and all the plants that cover the earth.
The tail becomes wheat, which gives us our bread. the seed and the genitals of the bull are
taken to the Moon Goddess and purified, giving rise to all the animals. Hence by this
slaying of the bull, life comes onto the earth.” –Payam Nabarz, The Mysteries of Mithras:
The Pagan Belief that Shaped the Christian World, (Rogester, VT: Inner Traditions, 2005),
pages 24-25.
Thus, claims that Christianity borrowed its concept of the blood atonement of Christ from the
slaying of a bull in Mithraism are blatantly false or greatly exaggerated at best.
“For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.” –Hebrews 10:4
HORUS / OSIRIS:
17/25
Puzzling are the claims of some skeptics who assert that Horus in Egyptian mythology died
by crucifixion and was resurrected three days later. There is no account of Horus ever being
crucified, let alone resurrecting three days later.31. The only account I could find of anything
that somewhat resembled a death and resurrection for Horus is the story of a scorpion
striking Horus when he was a baby. According to the legend, when Isis (his mother) found
him, he had fallen into a coma. Barbara Watterson describes the incident:
“Isis did not know where to turn for help. …she appealed to the marsh-dwellers….None of
them knew how to cure Horus, who lay rigid on the ground showing no signs of life. …Isis
laid her nose to her child’s mouth and sniffed ‘to find out whether there was any smell in his
skull’. There was and it told her that Horus had been poisoned by a scorpion. …the
cries of anguish that she uttered when she found herself unable to heal her child brought
Nephthys and Selkis to her side. Their combined voices reached Re in his Barque of Millions
of Years and caused the boat to come to a standstill, whereat darkness descended on the
earth. Thoth alighted from the boat and recited the spell by which Horus would be restored
to health: ‘Come back, Oh Poison. You are exorcised by the spell of Re himself …darkness
will cover everything…wells will be dry, crops will wither…until Horus recovers – to his
mother’s delight.’ At last, the poison was overcome. Thoth…returned to the Barque of Re
to report to the Sun God that Horus was alive and well….” —Gods of Ancient Egypt, (New
York, NY: Sutton Publishing, 1996), pages 77-78
As can be seen even in this account, Horus never died, but was merely sick from the poison
of the scorpion’s sting as revealed by the “smell in his skull.” Moreover, when he recovered, it
is claimed that he was “restored to heath” when the “poison was overcome.” A resuscitation
is a far cry from a resurrection! Thus, Horus never resurrected from the dead. Rather, it was
Osiris, the father of Horus, that historically has been regarded as the “resurrected god”32. of
pagan Egyptian religion. Yet, even this alleged “resurrection” resembled nothing of the true
Biblical account. Robert Schroёder explains:
“According to the mythical traditions of ancient Egypt, the corn god, Osiris – who was both
consort and brother to Isis – became the subject of a murderous assassination plot by his
jealous brother, Set. Having failed to dispose of Osiris by incarcerating him alive in a coffin
and sending him off to a watery grave in the Nile, Set found Osiris’s corpse and hacked the
body into 14 pieces. Prior to his dismemberment, however, and through the magical
arts of Isis, Osiris became the posthumous father of the Sun god Horus, who
subsequently avenged his father’s death in a ferocious battle with Set. When Horus had won
the day, the divine judges proclaimed him to be – in life – king of the two kingdoms of Egypt.
His father, Osiris, took the new role of ruler and judge of dead souls in the
Underworld, through which every Egyptian aspired to pass en route to the paradise land of
Duat when his mortal span was at an end. Thus arose the curious Cult of the Dead,
practised at many places in Egypt…. The rituals also involved burying an effigy of Osiris –
made from cloth stuffed with corn – in a mulberry-wood coffin after first exhuming his
18/25
effigy of the previous year, which by this time had sprouted shoots, symbolizing the
god’s resurrection.” —Cults: Secret Sects and Radical Religions, (London, England:
Carlton, 2007), pages 14-15.
Indeed, nothing in the Egyptian account of Osiris’ resurrection indicated a bodily resurrection.
Rather, to the contrary, the body of Osiris still lies mummified in a grave, as Barbara
Watterson explains:
“Isis changed herself into a kite and used her wings to fan the breath of life into Osiris. He
was partially revived, but not enough to be able to take his place upon the throne of
Egypt ever again. Instead, he was conveyed to the Underworld, a dark and menacing place.
…Thus, reluctantly, did Osiris become King of the Underworld. …Through his resurrection,
Osiris held out the hope of eternal life… for the Egyptians believed that if their friends acted
towards them as the gods had acted towards Osiris, they, too, would achieve eternal life.
Thus, when an Egyptian died, his body was mummified and wrapped in bandages in
imitation of the body of the dead Osiris.” —Gods of Ancient Egypt, (New York, NY: Sutton
Publishing, 1996), pages 63-64
“Whether this can be rightly called a resurrection is questionable,” asserts Bruce M. Metzger,
“especially since, according to Plutarch, it was the pious desire of devotees to be buried in
the same ground where, according to local tradition, the body of Osiris was still lying.”33.
OTHER GODS:
We will now examine the alleged death and resurrection accounts of other pagan deities:
Dionysus, Tammuz, Attis, Adonis, and Krishna.
Dionysus (Orpheus or Bacchus): Known as the Greek “god” of wine, some skeptics have
attempted to draw a parallel between this mythical deity and Jesus who turned water into
wine at John 2:1-11. Yet, history proves that the followers of Dionysus (also called Bacchus)
copied this idea from the story of Jesus as noted by 2nd century Church Father, Justin
Martyr, who wrote in his First Apology, Chapter LIV – Origin of Heathen Mythology:
“The prophet Moses…thus predicted: ‘There shall not fail a prince from Judah…He shall be
the desire of the Gentiles, binding His foal to the vine, washing His robe in the blood of the
grape.’ The devils, accordingly, when they heard these prophetic words, said that
Bacchus was the son of Jupiter, and gave out that he was the discoverer of the vine,
and they numbered wine … among his mysteries; and they taught that, having been torn
in pieces, he ascended into heaven.” –Rev. Alexander Roberts, D.D., ed.; James
Donaldson, LL.D., ed., The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translation of The Writings of the Fathers
Down to A.D. 325, Vol. 1, (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994), page 181
19/25
Thus, it is evident that the followers of Dionysus (Bacchus) patterned their beliefs after
Christianity, not the other way around. This too becomes even more clear when skeptics
point to a third or fourth century icon featuring Dionysus in a crucified state to try to prove he
was crucified. Yet, even Justin Martyr argued that Dionysus (also called a son of Jupiter) was
not crucified when he went on to explain in his First Apology, Chapter LV – Symbols of the
Cross:
“But in no instance, not even in any of those called sons of Jupiter, did they imitate
the being crucified; for it was not understood by them, all the things said of it having been
put symbolically.” — The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translation of The Writings of the Fathers
Down to A.D. 325, Vol. 1, (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994), page 181
So, it wasn’t until the third or fourth century that we see the followers of Dionysus trying to
replicate this aspect of the Christian story of Christ. This also explains why according to
Edwin M. Yamauchi, Ph.D. “there’s no resurrection of Marduk or Dionysus.” (Edwin M.
Yamauchi, Ph.D. quoted in Lee Strobel, The Case for the Real Jesus, page 176) So again,
Bruce M. Metzger is proved correct when he said that there is no archeological evidence for
the mystery of Dionysus being in Palestine prior to the formation of Christianity (Historical
and Literary Studies: Pagan, Jewish, and Christian, page 8). Therefore Christianity did not
adopt pagan ideas from the religion of Dionysus, but rather, it was the pagan religion of
Dionysus that adopted its ideas from Christianity.
Tammuz: His alleged resurrection is questionable, Edwin M. Yamauchi, Ph.D. clarifies:
“There is a resurrection that had been alleged for Tammuz, a fertility god of Mesopotamia,
known in Sumerian as Dumuzi, but it turns out there was no real resurrection. …His
resurrection by the goddess Inanna-Ishtar had been assumed even though the end of the
texts about the myth were missing. Then in 1960, S.N. Kramer published a newly discovered
poem that proves that Inanna didn’t rescue Damuzi from the underworld but sent him
there as her substitute. There’s also an obscure and fragmentary text indicating Dumuzi
might have had his sister take his place in the underworld for six months of the year.
Again, this is tied to the seasons and the vegetation cycles. It’s not a resurrection.” –
Lee Strobel, The Case for the Real Jesus, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2007), page 176.
Attis: The husband of Cybele in Phrygian and Greek mythology, “was unfaithful,” explains
Yamauchi, “so Cybele drove him mad; he castrated himself and died. That’s why the priests
of Cybele were eunuchs.”34. Regarding his resurrection, Bruce M. Metzger declares:
“The devotees of Attis commemorated his death on March 22, the Day of Blood, and his
coming to life four days later, March 25, the Feast of Joy or Hilaria. …In the case of Attis,
the evidence for the commemoration of the Hilaria dates from the latter part of the
second Christian century. There are, in fact, no literary or epigraphical texts prior to the
time of Antonius Pius (A.D. 138-161) which refer to Attis as the divine consort of Cybele,
20/25
much less any that speak of his resurrection. With good grounds, therefore, it has been
argued that the festival of the Hilaria was not introduced into the cultus of Cybele until the
latter part of the second Christian century or even later.” —Historical and Literary Studies:
Pagan, Jewish, and Christian, (Grand Rapids, MI: WM. B. Eerdmans, 1968), pages 19-20.
So, again, Christianity could not have borrowed the idea of Christ’s resurrection from Attis
and the celebration of Hilaria because the Church’s rituals and celebrations were well-
established by this point in history.
Adonis: Again, this is another case of no evidence of an alleged resurrection prior to the
formation of Christianity. Bruce M. Metzger explains:
“In the case of Adonis, there is no trace of a resurrection in pictorial representations

or in any texts prior to the beginning of the Christian era. In fact, the only four witnesses
that refer to the resurrection of Adonis date from the second to the fourth century (Lucian,
Origen, Jerome (who depends upon Origen), and Cyril of Alexandria) and none of these
mentions the triduum.” —Historical and Literary Studies: Pagan, Jewish, and Christian,
(Grand Rapids, MI: WM. B. Eerdmans, 1968), page 21.
Krishna: Aside from the fact that Krishna lived, taught and died in India which is
geographically too far from Palestine to have any influence upon first century Christianity,
skeptics continue to draw parallels between this Hindu god and Jesus Christ. From the story
of his death through a hunter’s arrow that impaled his heel, come claims that he was
crucified, but such assertions are simply ridiculous. As you can see in the following account
given in the Hindu text, no such resemblance exists between Krishna’s death and immediate
ascension to heaven and Christ’s death and resurrection three days later:
“A fierce hunter of the name of Jara then came there, desirous of deer. The hunter,
mistaking Keshava [Krishna], who was stretched on the earth in high Yoga, for a deer,
pierced him at the heel with a shaft and quickly came to that spot for capturing his prey.
Coming up, Jara beheld a man dressed in yellow robes, rapt in Yoga and endued with many
arms. Regarding himself an offender, and filled with fear, he touched the feet of Keshava.
The high-souled one comforted him and then ascended upwards, filling the entire welkin
with splendour. When he reached Heaven, …many foremost ones …advanced to receive
him. Then, O king, the illustrious Narayana of fierce energy, the Creator and Destroyer of all,
that preceptor of Yoga, filling Heaven with his splendour, reached his own inconceivable
region.” —Mahabharata, Book 16, Section 4
CONCLUSION:
As we have seen in the accounts above, there are many factors to consider that prove that
the unique teachings of the New Testament concerning Christ (that of His virgin birth, His
death by crucifixion for the sins of mankind, and His resurrection three days later) are
derived from a historical, Jewish, and Biblical context and did not originate in the tales of
21/25
mythical deities found in pagan religion. Thus, even where parallels can be made between
the events described in the life of Jesus and mythical stories, such as Dionysus miraculously
filling empty vessels with wine and Jesus turning water-filled vessels into wine at a marriage
feast, these types of parallels are shown to be mere coincidences and do not support the
claims of skeptics who assert that Christianity borrowed its concepts from paganism.
In summary, the following facts prove that pagan religions had no bearing on the
development of the New Testament Scripture and early Christian beliefs because:
1. Geographical and Archeological discoveries have proved that most of these pagan
myths did not exist in Palestine during the first century development of Christianity.
2. Many of the artifacts from these mythical religions that skeptics use to draw parallels to
the virgin birth, death and resurrection story of Christ are from the second century A.D.
and following, supporting speculations that these myths copied from Christianity and
not the other way around.
3. Most of the accounts of pagan deities were written several hundred years after the
lifetime of the individual, allowing further embellishment by subsequent followers, as
indicated by numerous contradictory accounts found in mythical literature. Such is not
the case with the New Testament in which most, if not all, of the records were
completed within one generation of the lifetime of Christ, allowing eyewitness
verification.
Indeed, as the evidence indicates, there were no pagan stories circulating during the
formation of New Testament Christianity that truly resembled the Biblical account of Jesus.
Thus, we can understand why the Greeks of Athens, who prided themselves in the
knowledge of the pagan religions of their day (Acts 17:21), reacted with astonishment to the
teachings of the Apostle Paul by exclaiming:
“ ‘What would this idle babbler wish to say?’ Others, ‘He seems to be a proclaimer of
strange deities,’—because he was preaching Jesus and the resurrection. And they took
him and brought him to the Areopagus, saying, ‘May we know what this new teaching is
which you are proclaiming? For you are bringing some strange things to our ears; so we
want to know what these things mean.’ ” –Acts 17:18-20
If Paul was simply rehashing the stories of ancient, pagan legends, they clearly would have
seen the resemblance and dismissed his message altogether by saying that he was simply
espousing the stories of Attis, Dyonases, Mithras, or Osiris, but such was clearly not the
case.
NEXT CHAPTER
22/25
============
1. Richard H. Wilkinson, The Complete Gods and Goddesses of Ancient Egypt, (New York,
NY: Thames & Hudson Inc., 2003), 18
2. See John 2:18-22; Luke 24:37-39; Romans 8:11; Colossians 2:9; 1 Timothy 2:5; Matthew
26:64; Acts 17:31
3. The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, vol. 9, p. 91
5. The Encyclopedia of Religion, 1987, vol. 15, pp. 143-144
6. The World Book Encyclopedia, 1994, vol. 20, p. 42
7. The Encyclopedia of Religion, 1987, vol. 15, p. 144
8. The World Book Encyclopedia, 1968, vol. 19, p. 20
9. Many skeptics from a century ago promulgated these views as mentioned in Bruce M.
Metzger’s Historical and Literary Studies: Pagan, Jewish, and Christian, (Grand Rapids, MI:
WM. B. Eerdmans, 1968), 2-4. Some popular critics today are Payam Nabarz, author of the
book, The Mysteries of Mithras, Peter Joseph, director of the 2007 film entitled, Zeitgeist who
got his information from The Christ Conspiracy book by Acharya S (also called, D.M.
Murdoch). Some of the sources that Acharya S used for her book are Gerald Massey, a
writer for Lucifer magazine, and Madame H.P. Blavatsky, founder of the Theosophical
Society which is part of the New Age Movement and whose writings greatly influenced Adolf
Hitler’s views on the Swastika and the alleged superiority of the Aryan race. (See the article:
“Was Jesus a Copy of Horus, Mithras, Krishna, Dionysus and Other Pagan Gods?” from
http://beginningandend.com/jesus-copy-horus-mithras-dionysis-pagan-gods/). Payam
“Nabarz is a practicing Dervish and Druid who’s a member of the Golden Dawn Occult
Society,” notes Edwin M. Yamauchi, Ph.D., quoted on page 176 of Lee Strobel’s book, The
Case for the Real Jesus. So, it is obvious that these authors are not credible sources to
consult as they have an agenda of detaching Christianity from its Biblical roots by twisting
information toward that goal.
10. The World Book Encyclopedia, 1994, vol. 20, pp. 42-43
Robert William Smith, The World Book Encyclopedia, Vol. 13, (Chicago, IL: World Book Inc.,
2012), 678.
11. Ronald Nash, Christianity and the Helenistic World, 144 quoted in Norman L. Geisler,
Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House Co,
1999), 492.
23/25
12. Franz Cumont, “The Dura Mithraeum” quoted in John R. Hinnells (ed.), Mithraic Studies:
Proceedings of the First International Congress of Mithraic Studies, Vol. 1, (Manchester
University Press, 1975), 173.
13. Barbara Watterson, Gods of Ancient Egypt, (New York, NY: Sutton Publishing, 1996), 76-
77.
14. See Barbara Watterson, Gods of Ancient Egypt, (New York, NY: Sutton Publishing,
1996), 30.
15. The Buddha-Karita of Asvaghosha, Book 1:18.
16. See Denkard, Book 5: Chapter 2:1-2.
17. Payam Nabarz, The Mysteries of Mithras: The Pagan Belief that Shaped the Christian
World, (Rochester: VT: Inner Traditions, 2005), 2.
18. See the website article, “The Divine Evidence: Alleged Similarities Between Jesus &
Pagan Deities” from: http://thedevineevidence.com.
19. See Alain Danielou, Gods of Love and Ecstasy: The Traditions of Shiva and Dionysus,
(Inner Traditions, 1992), 65 and Jane Harrison, Prolegomena to the Study of Greek Religion,
(Cambridge U. Press, 1922), 436.
20. See Alain Danielou, Gods of Love and Ecstasy: The Traditions of Shiva and Dionysus,
(Inner Traditions, 1992), 93 and Arthur Evans, The God of Ecstasy: Sex-Roles and the
Madness of Dionysos,(New York: St. Martins’ Press, 1988), 153.
21. See Lee Strobel, The Case for the Real Jesus, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2007),
179
22. Luke 1:3
23. See Bruce M. Metzger, Historical and Literary Studies: Pagan, Jewish, and Christian,
(Grand Rapids, MI: WM. B. Eerdmans, 1968), 18
24. Edwin M. Yamauchi has a doctorate in Mediterranean studies from Brandeis University.
25. Metzger who died in 2007 was a well-respected Greek Professor at Princeton
Theological Seminary and also a board member of the United Bible Societies and the
American Bible Society.
26. See Walter Burkert, Ancient Mystery Cults, (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,
1987), 49.
24/25
27. See Edwin M. Yamauchi, quoted in Lee Strobel, The Case for the Real Jesus, (Grand
Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2007), 172.
28. See Payam Nabarz, The Mysteries of Mithras: The Pagan Belief that Shaped the
Christian World, (Rogester, VT: Inner Traditions, 2005), 27.
29. D. Jason Cooper, Mithras: Mysteries and Initiation Rediscovered, (York Beach, ME:
Samuel Weiser, Inc, 1996), 71
30. D. Jason Cooper, Mithras: Mysteries and Initiation Rediscovered, (York Beach, ME:
Samuel Weiser, Inc, 1996), 59
31. See S. Michael Houdmann, Got Questions? – Bible Questions Answered – Answers to
the Questions People Are Really Asking, (Enumclaw, WA : Pleasant Word, 2009), 48
32. Richard H. Wilkinson, The Complete Gods and Goddesses of Ancient Egypt, (New York,
NY: Thames & Hudson Inc, 2003), 119.
33. Bruce M. Metzger, Historical and Literary Studies: Pagan, Jewish, and Christian, (Grand
Rapids, MI: WM. B. Eerdmans, 1968), 21.
34. Lee Strobel, The Case for the Real Jesus, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2007), 177.
25/25
Trinity in the Bible – Chapter 4 – Yes, You Should Believe
in the Trinity!
4jehovah.org/trinity-in-the-bible-chapter-4-yes-you-should-believe-in-the-trinity/
DOES MONOTHEISM (BELIEF IN ONE GOD)

SUPPORT THE TRINITY?
COLOSSIANS 1:15-16
REVELATION 3:14
DOES MONOTHEISM (BELIEF IN ONE GOD)

SUPPORT THE TRINITY?
“THE Bible teaching that God is one is called

monotheism. And L.L. Paine, professor of
ecclesiastical history, indicates that monotheism in
its purest form does not allow for a Trinity….‘Here,
O Israel, the Lord our God is one God.’ Those
words are found at Deuteronomy 6:4.…In the
grammar of that verse, the word ‘one’ has no plural
modifiers to suggest that it means anything but one
individual.…Thousands of times throughout the
Bible, God is spoken of as one person. When he
speaks, it is as one undivided individual. The
Bible could not be any clearer on this….Surely, if
God were composed of three persons, he would
have had his Bible writers make it abundantly
clear so that there could be no doubt about it.”—
Should You Believe in the Trinity?, pp. 12-13
The Watchtower quotes Levi Leonard Paine in support of their claims that monotheism rules
out trinitarianism, but just like other authors the Society has quoted, Paine is a liberal scholar
who does not believe the Bible is “of a divine miraculous origin and character, differentiating
the Bible from all other religious literature.”1. Therefore, one must conclude that he is not a
reputable source that one should consult for information on the Bible. After quoting Paine,
the Society quotes Deuteronomy 6:4, stating that the word “one” should not be interpreted to
mean “anything but one individual.” While Deuteronomy 6:4, known as the Hebrew Shema,
1/17
is a clear declaration from God stating that He alone is God, the Hebrew word echod
translated “one” in this passage can refer to plurality within unity. Notice how echod is used
in the following passages:
· GENESIS 2:24: “…and they shall become one flesh.”

· GENESIS 29:20: “…served seven years…they seemed to him but a few days….”
· 1 CHRONICLES 12:38: “…all the rest also of Israel were of one mind.…”2.
The Society argues that since God is often spoken of in singular terms, such as “He,” “Him,”
“I,” and “Myself,” He cannot be a Trinity. While Trinitarians agree that God speaks of Himself
in singular terms, this does not contradict the fact that He is a composite being of three
persons. Even in the Old Testament, shadows of the Trinity can be seen when God speaks
of Himself in the plural form as is demonstrated by the following verses:
· GENESIS 1:26-27: “…‘Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness;’…And
God created man in His own image.…”3.
· ISAIAH 48:16b: “And now the Lord God has sent Me, and His Spirit.”4.
· 2 SAMUEL 23:2-3: “The Spirit of the LORD spoke.…The God of Israel said…The Rock
of Israel spoke.…”5.
· ZECHARIAH 2:8-11: “For thus says the LORD of hosts, ‘…Then you will know that the
LORD of hosts has sent Me.…behold I am coming and I will dwell in your midst,’
declares the LORD. ‘…and will become My people. Then I will dwell in your midst, and
you will know that the LORD of hosts has sent Me to you.’ ”
· ZECHARIAH 12:10: “…they will look on Me whom they have pierced; and they will mourn
for Him.…”
The Society makes the claim that “…if God were composed of three persons, he would
have had his Bible writers make it abundantly clear so that there could be no doubt
about it.” Let’s now take a moment and observe how “abundantly clear” God has revealed
Himself in the Scriptures. The doctrine of the Trinity is based on three premises which are
distinctly revealed in the Scriptures.
1. THE THREE PERSONS OF THE TRINITY ARE SHOWN TO BE DISTINCT: As noted

earlier, by using the term “person” to represent the uniqueness of the individuals of the
Trinity, one must not perceive that we are implying that these persons each have bodies of
flesh an bones.6. The term “person” is used to designate the qualities and attributes of
personhood that they manifest as they relate to each other. For example, note how the Son
prays to the Father (John 17), the Father sends the Son (John 3:16-17; Matthew 3:16-17),
and the Father “knows” the “mind” of the Holy Spirit (Romans 8:27), while the Holy Spirit
“searches” the depths of God and “knows” the thoughts of God (1 Cor. 2:10-11).
2/17
2. WHILE EACH OF THE THREE PERSONS POSSESS THE ATTRIBUTES OF DEITY,
THEY ARE EACH ADDRESSED AS “GOD”: The following charts illustrate some of the
passages from which the doctrine of the Trinity is derived. Take note of how each member of
the Trinity has the attributes of Deity and each performs tasks that only God can do.7.
DIVINE QUALITY THE FATHER THE SON THE HOLY

SPIRIT
OMNIPRESENCE Jeremiah 23:24; Matthew 28:20; Psalm 139:7

1 Kings 8:27 18:20;
John 1:48
OMNISCIENCE Psalm 147:5; John 16:30; 2:24-25 1 Corinthians

1 John 3:20; 2:10-11
1 Kings 8:39
OMNIPOTENCE Jeremiah 32:17,27; Matthew 28:18; Romans 15:19

Matthew 19:26; John 16:15;
Luke 1:37; Hebrews 1:3
Psalm 135:6
HOLINESS Revelation 15:4 Acts 3:14 Romans 1:4
ETERNITY Psalm 90:2; Hebrews 7:3; Hebrews 9:14

Romans 16:26 Isaiah 9:6;
John 8:58
Each described as John 7:28 John 8:32,36; 14:6; John 16:13;

TRUTH Revelation 3:7 1 John 5:6-7
LORD Luke 1:32; 10:21 Romans 10:9; 2 Corinthians

Philippians 2:11 3:17
GOD 1 Peter 1:2; 2 Peter 1:1; Acts 5:3-4;

Philippians 2:11 Titus 2:13; 1 Corinthians
John 1:1; 20:28; 3:16-17
Hebrews 1:8
ALMIGHTY Genesis 17:1 Revelation 1:8; Zechariah 4:6

22:12-13, 20
DIVINE WORK THE FATHER THE SON THE HOLY

SPIRIT
CREATION Genesis 2:7; John 1:3; Genesis 1:2;

Psalm 102:25; Col. 1:16; Job 33:4;
Isaiah 44:24 Hebrews 1:2 Psalm 104:30
3/17
INCARNATION Hebrews 10:5 Hebrews 2:14; Luke 1:35;
Philippians 2:7 Matthew 1:18
CHRIST’S 1 Thessalonians John 10:17-18; Romans 1:4;

RESURRECTION 1:10; John 2:18-22 8:11
Romans 6:4;
Ephesians 1:20
THEY SANCIFY Exodus 31:13; Hebrews 2:11; 1 Peter 1:2

Jude 1 10:10
THEY ARE LIFE Deuteronomy 30:20 Colossians 3:4; Romans 8:10

John 14:6
GIVE ETERNAL LIFE Romans 6:23 John 10:28 Galatians 6:8
RAISE THE DEAD John 5:21a; John 5:21b Romans 8:11

Deuteronomy 32:39
INSPIRE PROPHETS Hebrews 1:1 2 Corinthians13:3 Mark 13:11;

Acts 28:25-27
3. THERE IS ONLY ONE GOD: While it is clear that only God can possess the attributes of
Deity, the Bible is very explicit in its revelation that there is only one God (Isaiah 43:10-11;
44:6, 8, 24; 45:21-22; 46:9; 1 Timothy 1:17), and all other so-called “Gods” are in reality false
gods (1 Corinthians 8:5-6; John 17:3; Galatians 4:8). Throughout this publication as we
continue to respond to the Society’s claims, it will become more and more evident that the
doctrine of the Trinity is definitely revealed “abundantly clear so that there could be no doubt
about it” being a Biblical teaching.
“JESUS called God ‘the only true God.’ (John 17:3) Never did he refer to God as a deity of
plural persons. That is why nowhere in the Bible is anyone but Jehovah called
Almighty. Otherwise, it voids the meaning of the word ‘almighty.’ Neither Jesus nor
the holy spirit is ever called that, for Jehovah alone is supreme.…In the Hebrew
Scriptures, the word ’elol’ah (god) has two plural forms.…These plural forms generally
refer to Jehovah, in which case they are translated in the singular as ‘God.’ Do these
plural forms indicate a Trinity? No, they do not…. ‘It is either what grammarians call the
plural of majesty, or it denotes the fullness of divine strength, the sum of the powers
displayed by God.’ ” —Should You Believe in the Trinity?, p. 13
The phrase “only true God” in John 17:3 is not intended to contrast the Father and the Son,
but rather, to contrast the one true God with that of false gods (Jeremiah 10:10-11; 1 John
5:20). The Society has a valid point when they claim that Jehovah is the only one who is
called “Almighty.” This is one reason why Trinitarians believe that Jesus is Jehovah. At
Revelation 1:8, the “Alpha and the Omega” is called “Almighty,” and when we compare this
4/17
with Revelation 22:12-13, 20, we find that this “Alpha and Omega” is Jesus Christ. Since we
know that Jehovah is Almighty and that there can only be one Almighty, it is obvious that
Jesus is Jehovah God!
Concerning the Hebrew plural term ’elo-him’ which is translated “God” in the Old Testament,
it is true that various scholars feel that this term is used only to express God’s “fullness” of
power rather than the persons of the Trinity. While this debate exists among recognized
scholars, one should not accept or deny the Trinity solely on his personal interpretation of
this term, because support for the doctrine of the Trinity is far more extensive than this.
In the section found on page 14 of the Watchtower brochure, the Society discusses three
“proof-texts” they twist to deny the Deity of Christ (Colossians 1:15-16; Revelation 3:14;
Proverbs 8:12, 22-23). We will now examine each of these:
COLOSSIANS 1:15-16
“And He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation.
For by Him all things were created.…”
The Society argues that the fact that the Bible calls Jesus “first-born” proves that Jesus
had to be created. They then assert that because Scripture teaches that God created the
universe “through” Jesus, he cannot be God, but merely the instrument that God used in
creation.
3 REASONS WHY THE SOCIETY’S ARGUMENTS BASED

ON THIS VERSE ARE UNSOUND:
1. “FIRST-BORN” MEANS SUPREMACY OF POSITION:
5/17
· PSALM 89:27: David, who was the last born son of Jesse,8. is called “first-born.”
· JEREMIAH 31:9: Ephraim, who was born after Manasseh,9. is called “first-born.”
· EXODUS 4:22: Israel is called God’s “first-born” son.
· JOB 18:13: An illness is called “the first-born of death.”
It was the Hebrew custom that the position of the “first-born” son held special privileges
within the family. “He received the special family blessing, which meant spiritual and
social leadership and a double portion of the father’s possessions—or twice what all
the other sons received (Deut. 21:17). He could lose this blessing through misdeeds
(Gen. 35:22) or by selling it (Gen. 25:29-34).”10. Context determines whether the term
“first-born” in a particular passage should be interpreted as referring to supremacy of
position as the preeminent one or the first one physically born. Since the whole context
of Colossians chapter one is speaking about the supremacy of Christ as being the
Creator rather than being of the creation,11. it is in this sense that Christ is called the
“firstborn” or preeminent one over creation. Vines Complete Expository Dictionary of
Old and New Testament Words explains:
“FIRST-BEGOTTEN, FIRSTBORN prōtotokos (πρωτότοκος, 4416), ‘firstborn’ (from

prōtos, ‘first,’ and tiktō, to ‘beget’) is used of Christ as born of the virgin Mary, Luke 2:7;
further, in His relationship to the Father, expressing His priority to, and
preeminence over, creation, not in the sense of being the ‘first’to be born. …The
five passages in the NT relating to Christ may be set forth chronologically thus: (a) Col.
1:15, where His eternal relationship with the Father is in view, and the clause means
both that He was the ‘Firstborn’ before all creation and that He Himself produced
creation….”—Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament
Words, 1985, (Thomas Nelson Publishers), pp. 240-241
Indeed, “…He is the beginning, the first-born from the dead; so that He Himself might
come to have first place in everything. For it was the Father’s good pleasure for all
the fulness to dwell in Him.…” —Colossians 1:18-19
2. PAUL USED THE GREEK TERM PRŌTOTOKOS RATHER THAN PRŌTOKTISTOS:
6/17
If the Apostle Paul had intended to convey the concept that Jesus was the first
creature created by Jehovah, he would have used the term prōtoktistos (πρωτόκτίστος)
which means “first-created” rather than the term prōtotokos (πρωτότοκος) which
means “firstborn” or “preeminent one.” Regarding this term used at Colossians 1:15,
Spiros Zodhiates, Th.D. editor of The Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible states:
“The other word to which we must turn our attention and which is used twice in this
context is the word prōtotokos (4416), translated as ‘first born’ or as ‘first begotten.’ It
is used twice in Col. 1:15, 18. …What it means here is that Christ holds the same
relation to all creation as God the Father and that He is above all creation. It does not
mean that He is part of the creation made by God, but that the relation of the whole
creation to Him was determined by the fact that He is the cause of the creation of all
things (Jn 1:1; Rev. 3:14) and that without Him there could be no creation (Jn. 1:3,4;
Col. 1:16). It is not said of Christ that He was ktstheis, ‘created,’ from ktizō (2936) ‘to
create,’ a verb used of the creation of the world by Him in Col. 1:16. We never find this
verb ktizō as referring to Jesus Christ as having been created.” —The Hebrew-Greek
Key Study Bible, 1990, New American Standard Bible (AMG Publishers, Chattanooga,
TN 37422 USA), p. 1579
Also, according to Hebrews 7:3, Melchizedek, who was a picture of Christ, had
“neither beginning of days nor end of life…like the Son of God.”12. Indeed, our
eternal High/Priest Mediator, Jesus Christ, has no “beginning of days,” for nothing that
was created came into being “apart from Him.” (John 1:3)
3. “ALL THINGS” WERE CREATED “THROUGH” BOTH THE FATHER AND THE SON:
Because the universe is said to have been created “through” Christ, the Society
endeavors to argue that Jesus is not the Supreme Creator but only the instrument that
Jehovah used to accomplish His act of Creation. While the Society makes an issue of
the universe being created “through” (dia—dia) Jesus, they neglect the fact that at
Romans 11:36 and Hebrews 2:10 all things are said to be created “through” the
Father. Since it is untenable to argue that the Father is not the Supreme Creator
because all things were created “through” Him, it is untenable to argue that Jesus is
not the Supreme Creator simply because all things were created “through” Him.
ISAIAH 44:24B JOHN 1:3
“I, the LORD, am the maker of all things, “All things came into being by Him, and
stretching out the heavens by Myself, and apart from Him nothing came into
spreading out the earth all alone.…”13. being that has come into being.”
REVELATION 3:14
“…the Beginning of the creation of God.”
7/17
The Society argues that the word “‘Beginning’ [Greek, ar-khe’] cannot rightly be
interpreted to mean that Jesus was the ‘beginner’ of God’s creation. In his Bible
writings, John uses various forms of the Greek word ar-khe’ more than 20 times, and
these always have the common meaning of ‘beginning.’ Yes, Jesus was created by God
as the beginning of God’s invisible creations.” —Should You Believe in the Trinity?, p. 14
At Revelation 21:6 and 22:13, John quotes God Almighty as stating that He is “the
beginning and the end.”14. Why is Jehovah God called the “beginning”? Is this passage
teaching that Jehovah God had a “beginning”? Obviously, Not! So, what is He the
“beginning” of? It is obvious that He is the “beginning” of the created universe. Thus, if
Jehovah God is called the “beginning” of the created universe and He is not regarded as
being part of what He began, why can’t Jesus be called the “beginning” of creation and He
not be regarded as being part of the creation that He began?
If the Greek word “arche” is used in Scripture to indicate Almighty God’s power and authority
as the originator and “beginner” of creation, is it reasonable to argue that arche cannot be
applied to Christ to indicate His power and authority as the “beginner” of creation? Obviously,
Not! Contrary to the Society’s claims, the Greek word arche (arch) is used to denote not only
someone who is an originator, but also someone who is a ruler or magistrate. In fact, it is
from this Greek word that our English words “architect” and “archbishop” are derived.15.
Notice how arche is translated in the following passages found in the King James Version of
the Bible:
· LUKE 12:11: “And when they bring you…unto magistrates, and powers….”
· LUKE 20:20: “…deliver him unto the power and authority of the governor.”
· 1 CORINTHIANS 15:24: “…put down all rule and all authority and power.”
· COLOSSIANS 2:10: “…the head of all principality and power.…”
As far as arche being used to signify the originator of something, notice how archegos
(archgoV), a derivative of arche, is translated in the following passages found in the New
American Standard Bible:
· ACTS 3:15: “but put to death the Prince of life.…”

· HEBREWS 2:10: “…to perfect the author of their salvation through sufferings.”
· HEBREWS 12:2: “fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith….”
As is evident by the way arche is translated in these passages, the Watchtower Society’s
assertion that arche cannot be applied to Christ as the “‘beginner’ of God’s creation” is
entirely without merit. At Revelation 3:14, Scripture is actually teaching that Jesus Christ is
the Architect and Ruler of creation, for all creation began with Christ.
8/17
“I, wisdom, dwell with prudence….The LORD possessed me at the beginning of
His way….From everlasting I was established….”
The Society’s New World Translation translates Proverbs 8:22 as “Jehovah himself
produced me as the beginning of his way.…” They use these verses in Proverbs 8
attempting to prove that Jesus was created and thus has not always existed. Although the
Society admits that these verses in context are speaking of wisdom personified, they claim
that this passage is “actually a figure of speech for Jesus as a spirit creature prior to his
human existence.”—Should You Believe in the Trinity?, p. 14
If the “wisdom” in Proverbs 8 is actually referring to Jesus, who is the “prudence”16. that
Jesus (as wisdom) dwells with? If wisdom had to be created (was “produced”), are we to
conclude that God had no wisdom until a certain time when He created it? It is obvious
that God wouldn’t be God if there was a time when He was without wisdom. Therefore, we
must recognize that wisdom is just as eternal as God is. In fact, the same Hebrew word
translated “everlasting” or “time indefinite” (owlam) which is used to express God’s eternal
nature at Psalm 90:2 is used to express the eternal nature of wisdom at Proverbs 8:23. The
New American Translation better translates these passages as it states that God
“possessed” wisdom, rather than “produced” wisdom. These passages reveal how God
brought forth wisdom to take part in His creation.
PROVERBS 8:22-23 PSALM 90:2
“The LORD possessed me at the beginning of His way, Before “…Even from
His works of old. From everlasting [owlam] I was established, everlasting [owlam]
From the beginning, from the earliest times of the earth.” to everlasting, Thou
art God.”
At Proverbs 1:20-21, wisdom is personified as a woman who cries in the streets. As is seen
by examining the context, there is no indication in this passage that the wisdom which is
being discussed in Proverbs 1-9 is to be associated with Christ. Nevertheless, even if one
takes the position that the Watchtower Society maintains (that this wisdom is referring to
Christ), one would have to come to the conclusion that Jesus is just as eternal as God is,
since it is obvious that wisdom could not have been created. Proverbs 8:22-23 cannot be
used to prove that Jesus is a created being. In fact, quite the opposite is true, for by utilizing
the Society’s position, one can argue for the eternal nature of Christ from these passages!
9/17
“AT MATTHEW 4:1, Jesus is spoken of as being ‘tempted by the Devil.’…But what test of
loyalty would that be if Jesus were God? Could God rebel against himself? No,.…So if
Jesus had been God, he could not have been tempted.— James 1:13.…Jesus, no
more and no less than a perfect human, became a ransom that compensated
exactly for what Adam lost— the right to perfect human life on earth.…The perfect human
life of Jesus was the ‘corresponding ransom’ required by divine justice—no more, no
less.…If Jesus, however, were part of a Godhead, the ransom price would have been
infinitely higher than what God’s own Law required.…How could any part of an almighty
Godhead— Father, Son, or holy spirit— ever be lower than angels?”—Should You Believe
in the Trinity?, pp. 14-15
The Society is correct when they state that God cannot be tempted (James 1:13). This is
why Jesus Christ, who has the nature of God, took on an additional nature—that of a human
who yet retained His full Deity as God (Colossians 2:9). Although Jesus took on the nature of
a man, His two natures did not merge into one nature so that he would become some sort
of a half-man/half-God being; but rather, He retained His full Divine nature as God while
laying aside some of His Divine qualities in order to experience all of the temptations of a
human. The books of Philippians and Hebrews explain:
“Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He
existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,
but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the
likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by
becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross….Since then the
children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same,
that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death,
that is, the devil;…For assuredly He does not give help to angels, but He gives help to
the descendant of Abraham. Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all
things, that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to
God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. For since He Himself was
tempted in that which He has suffered, He is able to come to the aid of those who are
tempted.…For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our
weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without
sin.”—Philippians 2:5-8; Hebrews 2:14, 16-18; 4:15
This is the beauty of Trinitarian theology. Our God not only cares deeply for each one of us
and graciously supplies all our needs; but our God is able to “sympathize with our
weaknesses” as He took on our nature, He lived the perfect life in our place, endured all the
trials we endure, paid the ultimate price for our sins through a torturous death, and He now
offers us His perfection in exchange for our sin. As the God-man, his death has infinite value
and eternally covers not only the sin of Adam but each one of our sins if we personally
accept His “free gift” of redemption.
10/17
“For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus
our Lord.” —Romans 6:23
“…the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin.…If we confess our sins, He is
faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all
unrighteousness.”—1 John 1:7, 9
“And the witness is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son.
He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not
have the life. These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of
God, in order that you may know that you have eternal life.”—1 John 5:11-13
A “CORRESPONDING RANSOM”?
The Watchtower Society claims that Jesus cannot be “part of a Godhead” because if He
were God, the ransom value of Christ would be too great to correspond to the value of what
was lost when the perfect man, Adam, sinned. Thus, the Watchtower Society claims that all
that was necessary for the ransom sacrifice to “correspond” to Adam’s loss of perfect life was
the death of another perfect human, Jesus Christ. This is why they argue:
“The perfect human life of Jesus was the ‘corresponding ransom’ required by divine justice
—no more, no less. …If Jesus, however, were part of a Godhead, the ransom price would
have been infinitely higher than what God’s own Law required.”—Should You Believe in the
Trinity?, p. 15
If a “perfect human” was all that God required for the ransom, why didn’t God create one
human from scratch instead of sending His own Son? Psalm 49:7 states, “No man can by
any means redeem his brother, Or give to God a ransom for him…” Thus, we see that a
mere human would not have been sufficient. Romans 5:15-17 describes how Jesus’
sacrifice was far greater than Adam’s transgression because His sacrifice covered not just
the one sin of Adam, but the sin of “many” people. Romans 5:16 emphasizes:
“The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the
judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the
free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification.”
Did you catch that? The gift is “not like” what was lost in Adam’s sin. In the death of God’s
Son, there is nothing “corresponding” to the loss of Adam’s perfect life. Rather, Jesus’ value
as God’s Son is “infinitely higher” than the value of one perfectly created human because as
Romans 5:16 explains, the ransom had to cover “many transgressions” to bring about the
“justification” of all who put their trust in Christ for salvation.
11/17
Furthermore, Galatians 1:1 states that Paul was an apostle “…not sent from men, nor
through the agency of man, but through Jesus Christ, and God the Father.…” At this
passage, Paul plainly communicates the fact that Christ is more than just a human, and he
ranks Jesus on the same level with God the Father in position and authority. Note the
exclamation of the disciples at Matthew 8:27: “What kind of a man is this, that even the winds
and the sea obey Him?” Jesus is more than just a mere human, for He desires that all
mankind render to Him the same honor and worship that they render to the Father.17.
Contrary to the claims of the Society, the Greek word for ransom “antilutron” (antilutron)
merely involves the idea of “substitution”—not necessarily a strict “no more, no less” type of
correspondence. Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words
states:
“In these passages the preposition is anti, which has a vicarious significance, indicating
that the ‘ransom’ holds good for those who, accepting it as such, no longer remain in
death since Christ suffered death in their stead. The change of preposition in 1 Tim.
2:6, where the word antilutron, a substitutionary ‘ransom,’ is used, is significant.
There the preposition is huper, ‘on behalf of,’ and the statement is made that He
‘gave Himself a ransom for all,’…”—Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and
New Testament Words, pp. 506-507
Mark 10:45 in the Society’s New World Translation states, “For even the Son of man came,
not to be ministered to, but to minister and to give his soul a ransom [lutron] in exchange
[anti] for many.”
“THE Bible calls Jesus the ‘only-begotten Son’ of God. (John 1:14; 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9)
Trinitarians say that since God is eternal, so the Son for God is eternal. But how can a
person be a son and at the same time be as old as his father?…Does that sound logical to
you? Can a man father a son without begetting him?…Hebrews 11:17 speaks of Isaac
as Abraham’s ‘only-begotten son.’…The basic Greek word for ‘only-begotten’ used for
Jesus and Isaac is mo-no-ge-nes’, from mo’nos, meaning ‘only,’ and gi’no-mai, a root
word meaning ‘to generate,’ ‘to become (come into being),’ states Strong’s Exhaustive
Concordance.…So Jesus, the only-begotten Son, had a beginning to his life. And
Almighty God can rightly be called his Begetter, or Father, in the same sense that
an earthly father, like Abraham, begets a son. (Hebrew 11:17)….Hence, the phrase
‘Son of God’ refers to Jesus as a separate created being, not as part of a Trinity. As the
Son of God, he could not be God himself, for John 1:18 says: ‘No one has ever seen
God.’—RS, Catholic edition. The disciples viewed Jesus as the ‘one mediator between
God and men,’ not as God himself. (1 Timothy 2:5) Since by definition a mediator is
someone separate from those who need mediation, it would be a contradiction for
Jesus to be one entity with either of the parties he is trying to reconcile.”—Should
You Believe in the Trinity?, pp. 15-16
12/17
Concerning Jesus’ claim to be “Son of God,” the Watchtower Society argues, “Can a man
father a son without begetting him?…Almighty God can rightly be called his Begetter, or
Father, in the same sense that an earthly father, like Abraham, begets a son.” What is the
Society implying? Are they implying that Jehovah literally begot Jesus in the “same” way
humans beget their children? If so, who is Jehovah’s wife? Are they saying that Mary was
literally the wife of God, and therefore, could not be a virgin? Although every Jehovah’s
Witness would cringe at the implications of these assertions, these are the logical
conclusions one can draw if he reasons the way the Society does here. Bowman comments:
“The JWs are employing an argument having the following logical form: (a) All sons are
begotten; (b) the prehuman Jesus was a son; therefore (c) Jesus was begotten; but (d)
all who are begotten also begin to exist at some point in time, and are thus creatures;
therefore (e) Jesus, having been begotten, must also be a creature. This sounds good,
and it is logically valid, meaning that if the premises, or assertions of fact on which the
argument is based, are true, then the conclusion would also have to be true. But
consider the following parallel argument: (a) All sons had mothers; (b) the prehuman
Jesus was a son; therefore (c) the prehuman Jesus had a mother. The argument may
also be put this way: (d) All who are begotten have a mother; therefore (e) Jesus,
having been begotten, also had a mother. There are only two ways to escape this
argument. The first is to point out that the Bible does not say that Jesus had a
heavenly Mother. This does not actually refute the argument, but it shows that biblically
there may be something wrong with it. The second is to argue that what is true of
earthly fathers and sons need not be true of the divine Father and his divine Son.
What this does is to show that the statements ‘all sons had mothers’ and ‘all who are
begotten had mothers’ are hasty generalizations—they are only true of earthly
beings.…Moreover, what is true of earthly fathers and sons (that the sons are
always younger than the fathers and are born in time) is not necessarily true of
the eternal Father and his Son.”—Why You Should Believe in the Trinity, pp. 82-83
Contrary to the Society’s arguments, the Jewish people in Jesus’ day understood the term
“son of…” to mean “of the order or nature of…” Therefore, when Jesus claimed to be the
“Son of God,” the Jews understood Him to be claiming to be “of the order and nature of
God.” Note the following passages:
· 1 KINGS 20:35: “Sons of the prophets” means “of the nature of the prophets.”
· NEHEMIAH 12:28: “Sons of the singers” means “of the order of the singers.”
· EPHESIANS 2:2: “Sons of disobedience” means “having a disobedient nature.”
· JOHN 6:62: “Son of Man” means “of the order and nature of Man.”18.
· JOHN 5:18: “Son of God” means “of the order and nature of God.”
13/17
“For this cause therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He
not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father,
making Himself equal with God.”—John 5:18
“The Jews answered him, ‘We have a law, and by that law He ought to die because
He made Himself out to be the Son of God.’ ”—John 19:719.
Scripture refers to Jesus as the “only-begotten” Son of God. While it is true that Strong’s
Exhaustive Concordance does render the Greek word monogenes as “only-born, i.e. sole:—
only (begotten, child)”20. , under the section “Plan of the Book” found on page 5, Strong’s
Concordance notes that these definitions are merely “the different renderings of the word in
the Authorized English Version.” Therefore, these renderings found in Strong’s Concordance
do not necessarily convey the complete definitions of the Biblical words. Concerning the term
monogenese, James White observes:
“The translation ‘only-begotten’ is inferior to ‘unique.’ It was thought that the term came
from monoV (monos), meaning ‘only’ and gennaw (gennao), meaning ‘begotten.’
However, further research has determined that the term is derived not from
gennaw but fromgenos), meaning ‘kind’ or ‘type.’ Hence the better translation,
‘unique’ or ‘one of a kind.’ See Louw and Nida, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New
Testament Based on Semantic Domains (1988) p. 591; Newman and Nida, A
Translator’s Handbook on the Gospel of John, 1980, p. 24; and Moulton and Milligan,
The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, 1930, pp. 416-417.” 21.
Likewise, The New Englishman’s Greek Concordance and Lexicon provides the following
meaning for monogenese:
“…only-begotten, unique, one of its special kind.” 22.
At Hebrews 11:17, Isaac is called Abraham’s “only-begotten son.” Since Isaac was not the
only son born to Abraham23. , it is clear from the context of Hebrews 11 that Isaac is called
Abraham’s “only-begotten” in the sense of his uniqueness as God’s covenant purposes
were to be carried out through Isaac and his descendants. In the same way, Jesus is called
the “only-begotten” Son of God in the sense of His uniqueness as the second person of the
Triune God.
Endeavoring to argue that by virtue of the fact that people have visibly “seen” Jesus, this
proves that He cannot be God, the Society quotes John 1:18 which states that “No man has
seen God at any time.…” Is this a valid argument? Didn’t Isaiah see Jehovah in His temple
(Isaiah 6:1-5)? By cross-referencing John 12:41 with Isaiah 6,24. it becomes evident that the
Jehovah that Isaiah saw is Jesus!
ISAIAH 6:1, 3-5 JOHN 12:36-37, 41-42
14/17
“In the year King Uzziah’s death, I saw the Lord sitting “These things Jesus spoke.…
on a throne, lofty and exalted….And one called out to yet they were not believing in
another and said, ‘Holy, Holy, Holy, is the LORD of Him; that the word of Isaiah the
hosts, The whole earth is full of His glory.’ And the prophet might be
foundations of the thresholds trembled at the voice of fulfilled….These things Isaiah
him who called out, while the temple was filling with said, because he saw His
smoke. Then I said, ‘Woe is me, for I am ruined!…For glory, and he spoke of Him.
my eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts.’ ” Nevertheless many even of the
rulers believed in Him….”
Since no one has seen God the Father, He has revealed Himself in the unique, one and only
God—Jesus Christ. “No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the
Father’s side, has made him known.”—John 1:18, New International Version
“ ‘Not that any man has seen the Father, except the One who is from God; He has
seen the Father.’…Jesus said to him, ‘Have I been so long with you, and yet you have
not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how do
you say, “Show us the Father”?’ ”—John 6:46; 14:9
At 1 Timothy 2:5, Jesus is said to be the mediator between God and men. The Society
argues that Jesus cannot be God because He is the mediator “between” God and man and
“a mediator is someone separate from those who need mediation.” Is this a tenable
argument? If we take the Society’s statement to its logical conclusion, we would also have to
draw the connection that Jesus, by virtue of His “mediator” role between God and man,
cannot be a man. When we consider this fact, it is evident that the Society’s reasoning falls
apart on account of the latter part of the verse which demonstrates that although Jesus is the
mediator between God and man, He is sill a man: “For there is one God, and one mediator
also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.”
NEXT CHAPTER
============
1. See page 269 of Levi Leonard Paine’s book, A Critical History of The Evolution of
Trinitarianism, 1900, (Houghton, Mifflin, and Company, Boston and New York; The Riverside
Press, Cambridge)
2. Note in the King James Version and the Watchtower’s New World Translation “one mind”
is rendered as “one heart.”
3. Here we see that the “our image” was the image of God Himself! (Genesis 5:1) Other Old
Testament passages that could be cited as cases where God speaks in the plural form are
Genesis 3:22; 11:7; Isaiah 6:8.
4. The context of Isaiah 48:12-16 reveals that Jehovah God is the one who is speaking about
sending Himself in the person of Christ.
5. Jesus is called the spiritual “rock” of Israel at 1 Corinthians 10:4.
15/17
6. God is spirit John 4:24.
7. Regarding the Deity of Christ, take note of Mark 2:7,10 and Luke 24:47
8. 1 Samuel 16:11
9. Genesis 41:51-52
10. Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, 1985, (Thomas
Nelson Publishers), p. 83 (Hebrew portion of this one-volume edition)
11. In order to make this passage compatible with their doctrine of Christ having been
created, the Society inserts the word “other” four times into their translation of Colossians
1:16-17 found in their New World Translation, thus reading that “all [other] things” were
created through Christ.” Nevertheless, at John 1:3 we read that Christ created “all things” —
not all other things .
12. Melchizedek king of Salem was a high priest of God to whom Abraham bestowed his
tithe (Genesis 14:18-20). Melchizedek’s name means “Righteous King” Priest of Salem
(Peace). Thus, he is one of the people in the Old Testament that God used to be a picture of
Christ to the Israelites. Just like Jesus Christ as God has always existed, so Melchizedek
was “without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days, nor
end of life” in the sense that this information was not recorded in Scripture so that
Melchizedek would better represent the eternal nature of Jesus Christ our High
Priest/Mediator.
13. At this verse, the Society’s New World Translation states: “I, Jehovah, am doing
everything, stretching out the heavens by myself, laying out the earth. Who was with me?”
14. At Revelation 1:8, Almighty God is revealed to be the “Alpha and the Omega.” At
Revelation 21:6, the “Alpha and the Omega” states that He is the “beginning and the end.”
Thus, it is Almighty God who is speaking here at Revelation 21:6 and 22:13.
15. See Ron Rhodes’ book Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovah’s Witnesses,
1993, (Harvest House Publishers, Eugene, OR) pp. 123-125
16. In the Society’s New World Translation the word is “shrewdness.”
17. See John 5:23 and compare Revelation 4:10-11 with Revelation 5:11-14
18. Jesus was not begotten by a man. God is not a Man (Hosea 11:9), and Mary was a
“virgin” (Matt 1:23-25). Therefore we conclude that Jesus is called the “Son of Man” in the
sense that He has the nature of Man.
19. Compare with Leviticus 24:16 where Jewish law required stoning for those who claimed
to be God.
20. The Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, by James Strong, (Hendrickson Publishers,
Peabody, MA) p. 49
21. The King James Only Controversy, by James White, 1995, (Bethany House Publishers,
Minneapolis, MN), p. 259
22. The New Englishman’s Greek Concordance and Lexicon, by Jay P Green, 1982
(Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody, MA ), p. 579
23. Genesis 16 recounts the story of how Ishmael was born to Abraham through Sarai’s
16/17
handmaid Hagar.
24.The Society’s New World Translation also cross-references this passage here at John
12:41 to Isaiah 6:1
17/17
Is Jesus Inferior To God? – Chapter 5 – Yes, You Should
4jehovah.org/is-jesus-inferior-to-god-chapter-5-yes-you-should-believe-in-the-trinity/
WHAT ABOUT JESUS’ SUBMISSION TO THE

FATHER’S WILL?
JOHN 20:17
REVELATION 3:12
1 CORINTHIANS 8:5-6
MARK 10:17-18
HABAKKUK 1:12
MARK 13:32
JOHN 14:28
BULLETIN OF THE JOHN RYLANDS
LIBRARY
WHAT ABOUT JESUS’ SUBMISSION TO THE

FATHER’S WILL?
The Watchtower Society argues that because Jesus is “distinguished from God” as a
distinct person from the Father, He is considered “subordinate” to God, in a “secondary
position” to that of the Father, is “submissive” to God’s will, and had “limited knowledge,”
He cannot be God. After all, the Society declares, “Jesus never claimed to be God.” (See
Should You Believe in the Trinity?, pp. 16-20)
Many of these arguments against the Trinity are groundless when viewed in light of the
incarnation. As already discussed, when Jesus became a man, He laid aside His privileges
as God in order to experience all the struggles of humanity.1. In His Deity, Christ is “equal” to
God the Father, but in His humanity, He is in a lesser position than that of the Father (John
14:28). Let’s discuss some of the passages addressed in the Trinity brochure:
JOHN 20:17
“…I ascend to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God.”
The Society argues that “Since Jesus had a God, his Father, he could not at the same
time be that God.” —Should You Believe in the Trinity?, p. 17
1/8
One fact about this passage that the Society fails to note is that Jesus was always very
careful to distinguish His relationship with the Father from the relationship His disciples had
with the Father. He never addressed God as “our Father” in reference to Himself and the
disciples, but rather addressed Him as “My Father” and “your Father.”2. This is significant to
note because Jesus is God’s Son by nature; whereas, His disciples are God’s sons by
adoption (John 1:12). As the “Son of God,” Jesus has the same nature as God (John 5:18,
19:7), but in the incarnation, Jesus took on the nature of man and thus became the “Son of
Man.”3. While in His Divine nature, Jesus still possessed all the power and authority of God,
in His human nature he chose to limit that authority. By calling the Father His “God,”
He demonstrated perfect submission to the Father both on earth and in Heaven.
“And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and
upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He
sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.…”—Hebrews 1:3
In human affairs, the “right hand” is the symbol of strength and power. Someone who is said
to be the president’s “right hand man” is someone who is in a high position of honor. Thus,
Scripture often employs the phrase “sitting at the right hand of the Father” to denote Christ’s
preeminence as the one in the highest position of authority.
PSALM 98:9 JOHN 5:22-23
“Before the LORD; for He is “For not even the Father judges anyone, but He has
coming to judge the earth; given all judgment to the Son, in order that all may
He will judge the world with honor the Son, even as they honor the Father. He
righteousness, and the who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father
peoples with equity.” who sent him.”
For more on this topic of Jesus calling the Father His God, see also
Revelation 3:12 – Why Does Jesus Call the Father “My God”?
1 CORINTHIANS 8:5-6
“For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are
many gods and many lords, yet for us there is but one God, the Father…and one Lord,
Jesus Christ….”
The context of 1 Corinthians 8:6 is not contrasting the relationship between the Father and
the Son, but rather the relationship between them and false idols that pagans worship as
“gods.” Yet, the Watchtower Society ignores the context of this passage and claims that
this verse is contrasting the relationship between the Father and the Son. Then the
Society points out that the Father is called “God” while Jesus is distinguished as the “Lord”
and claims that Jesus cannot be God because the Father is called God. (See Should You
Believe in the Trinity?, p. 17)
2/8
When one considers the fact that no Jehovah’s Witness would argue that the Father is not
“Lord” simply because Jesus is “Lord,” it is evident that this argument is groundless.
Furthermore, the Father is called the “Lord of Lords” at Deuteronomy 10:17 while Jesus is
called the “Lord of Lords” at Revelation 17:14 and 19:16. Yet, Jude 4 points out that there is
only one “Lord.” Thus, in the same way that both Jesus and the Father are both called “the
Lord,” Jesus is just as much God as the Father is God as He is addressed as God on several
occasions. 4. Yet, 1 Timothy 1:17 reveals that there is only one God. So here we have yet
another example of Scripture that supports the Trinitarian position that Jesus is the same
“God” as the Father.
JEHOVAH IS LORD OF ALL JESUS IS LORD OF ALL
MATTHEW 11:25: “At that time ACTS 10:36: “The word which he sent to the sons of
Jesus answered and said, ‘I Israel, preaching peace through Jesus Christ (He is
praise Thee, O Father, Lord of Lord of all)….”5.
heaven and earth….’ ”
DEUTERONOMY 10:17: “For the REVELATION 17:14; 19:16: “…and the Lamb will
LORD your God is the God of overcome them, because He is Lord of lords and
gods and the Lord of lords, the King of kings….And on His robe and on His thigh He
great, the mighty, and the has a name written, ‘KING OF KINGS, AND LORD
awesome God….” OF LORDS.’”
“…ungodly persons who…deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.”—Jude 4
MARK 10:17-18
“And as He was setting out on a journey, a man ran up to Him and knelt before Him, and
began asking Him, ‘Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?’ And Jesus said to
him, ‘Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone.’ ”
The Society argues that “…Jesus was saying that no one is as good as God is, not even
Jesus himself.” —Should You Believe in the Trinity?, p. 17
Nowhere in this passage does Jesus imply that He is not good. On the contrary, according to
the context, Jesus was helping the rich ruler recognize that the attribute of “goodness” which
the ruler had applied to Him was a quality that only God possesses. Thus, Jesus was forcing
the ruler to recognize that either He is “good” and is therefore God, or He is bad and is
therefore only a man.
HABAKKUK 1:12
“…Are you not from long ago, O Jehovah? O my God, my Holy One, you do not die.”
—New World Translation
3/8
The Society argues that Jesus can’t be God because God doesn’t die, and the Bible
clearly reveals that Jesus died. (See Should You Believe in the Trinity?, p. 18)
One of the attributes of our immutable God is that He does not die; and in this passage,
Jehovah God is called “the Holy One” who does not die. Yet, at Acts 2:27, 3:14, and John
6:69 we read that this “Holy One” is Jesus who, as foretold by David at Psalm 16:10, was to
die but whose body would not “undergo decay.” How can this be? If the Holy One does not
die, how can Jesus as the “Holy One” die? We can reconcile this by recognizing that
according to Psalm 49:7, more was required than just a mere man to atone for the sins of
mankind. 6. Thus, it was necessary for Jehovah God to become man in the person of Christ
in order to die and atone for the sins of the world. Although Jesus (in His human nature) had
completely died, He (in His Divine nature) still possessed the power to raise Himself.
“…I lay down My life that I may take it again. No one has taken it away from Me, but I
lay it down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority
to take it up again.…Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”—John
10:17-18; 2:19
ISAIAH 43:15; 47:4; 54:5 JOHN 6:69
“I am Jehovah your Holy One, the Creator of Israel, your “And we have believed
King.…There is One repurchasing us. Jehovah of armies is and come to know that
his name, the Holy One of Israel.… Jehovah of armies being you are the Holy One
his name; and the Holy One of Israel is your Repurchaser. of God.”—New World
The God of the whole earth he will be called.”—New World Translation
Translation
ACTS 2:27:
“Because Thou wilt not
abandon my soul to
Hades, Nor allow Thy
Holy One to undergo
decay.”—New American
Standard Bible
MARK 13:32
“But of that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven,
nor the Son, but the Father alone.”
“Had Jesus been the equal Son part of a Godhead, he would have known what the Father
knows. But Jesus did not know, for he was not equal to God.”—Should You Believe in the
Trinity?, p. 19
4/8
Prior to the incarnation, Jesus was one in person and one in nature, being totally Divine. At
the incarnation, Jesus took on a human nature and henceforth became two in nature while
yet remaining one in person. As a result, attributes from His Divine and human natures
both became credited to His one person. In this passage, Jesus was speaking from the
standpoint of His human nature; thus, demonstrating the limitations of His human nature by
not being able to foretell the future. Nevertheless, there were many other occasions where
Jesus, speaking from the perspective of His divinity, demonstrated the Divine quality of
omniscience. Note the following passages:
1 KINGS 8:39 JOHN 2:24-25
“Then hear Thou in heaven Thy dwelling “But Jesus, on His part, was not
place, and forgive and act and render to entrusting Himself to them, for He knew
each according to all his ways, whose all men, and because He did not need
heart thou knowest, for Thou alone dost anyone to bear witness concerning man
know the hearts of all the sons of men;” for He Himself knew what was in man.”
· JOHN 16:30: “Now we know that You know all things….”

· JOHN 18:4: “Jesus therefore, knowing all the things that were coming upon Him, went
forth….”
· MATTHEW 9:4: “And Jesus knowing their thoughts said….”
· JOHN 21:17: “…And he said to Him, ‘Lord, You know all things; You know that I love
you….’ ”
JEREMIAH 17:9-10 REVELATION 2:18, 23
“The heart is more deceitful than all “The Son of God, who has eyes like a flame
else And is desperately sick; Who can of fire, and His feet are like burnished bronze,
understand it? I, the LORD, search the says this: ‘….and all the churches will know
heart, I test the mind, even to give to that I am He who searches the minds and
each man according to his ways, hearts; and I will give to each one of you
according to the results of his deeds.” according to your deeds.’ ”
At 1 Kings 8:39, we read that God is the only one who knows the hearts of all men; yet as
seen in these and many other passages, Jesus knew the hearts of all men. How can Jesus
have the very omniscience of Jehovah and not be Jehovah Himself?
“But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head
of a woman, and God is the head of Christ. …When all things are subjected to Him, then
the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, so that
God may be all in all.”
5/8
The Society uses this passage as well as 1 Corinthians 15:28 to try to prove that since
Jesus is “subordinate” to the Father, He cannot be God. (See Should You Believe in the
Trinity?, p. 20)
1 Corinthians 11:3 states that “the man is the head of a woman.” Are women inferior or less
human than men simply because husbands are to be in authority over their wives? No! Just
as a woman is fully human even though she submits to her husband, so Jesus is fully God
even though He submits to the will of His Father God. Another example of this can be seen
at Luke 2:51 where we read that Christ was in “subjection” to Mary and Joseph. Was Christ
inferior to them because He was in “subjection” to them? Of course not! In all of these
cases, we see a type of functional subordination that is necessary to maintain order, but this
subordination does not in anyway denote an inferior nature.
While it is true that a functional subordination or functional hierarchy exists among the
Persons of the Triune God, they are still equal in their Divine nature. So Jesus is equal to
God the Father in His Divine Being (John 10:30). Yet, once everything is subdued under Him
at 1 Corinthians 15:28, He continues His submission to the Father as a picture of the unity
of the Godhead..
In the same way that a wife is not considered “inferior” to her husband because she is in
subjection to his authority, the functional subordination that exists among the persons of the
Trinity does not in any way imply that Jesus is inferior to the Father or any less God than the
Father is God. What 1 Corinthians 15:28 is really teaching concerning the subjection of
Christ is that once Jesus’ mediator role is completed and all things are in subjection to Him,
He will surrender His kingdom to the Triune Jehovah God who will rule forever.
“ ‘Thou hast put all things in subjection under His feet.’ For in subjecting all things to
him, He left nothing that is not subject to him. But now we do not yet see all things
subjected to him.”—Hebrews 2:8
DEUTERONOMY 32:39 JOHN 5:21; 10:28; ACTS 9:34
“See now that I, I am He, and “For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them
there is no god besides Me; It life, even so the Son also gives life to whom He
is I who put to death and give wishes….and I give eternal life to them, and they shall
life. I have wounded, and it is never perish; and no one shall snatch them out of My
I who heal; and there is no hand….And Peter said to him, ‘Aeneas, Jesus Christ
one who can deliver from heals you; arise, and make your bed.’ And immediately
My hand.” he arose.”
JOHN 14:28
“…I go to the Father; for the Father is greater [meizon —meizon] than I.”
6/8
“The Bible’s position is clear. Not only is Almighty God, Jehovah, a personality separate
from Jesus but He is at all times his superior….And this is why Jesus himself said: ‘The
Father is greater than I.’—John 14:28”—Should You Believe in the Trinity?, p. 20
There is a significant reason why Jesus (in indicating His relationship to the Father) chose to
use the term meizon (meizwn) translated “greater” rather than the term kreitton (kreittwn)
which means “better”. Meizon denotes a greater position, whereas kreitton denotes a
better nature. The difference between these two words can be seen at John 14:12, where
we read that believers will do “greater” (meizon) works than Jesus. Since we know that this
verse is not implying that we will do “better” works than Jesus, it is clear from the context that
Jesus used this same word to demonstrate the greatness of the Father’s position (being in
heaven) as opposed to Jesus’ position (being here on earth).
A modern illustration of this type of relationship can be seen when we analyze the
Watchtower’s own authority structure: A Presiding Overseer can be said to be “greater” than
an elder. Yet, by saying this, one is not implying that the elder is of an inferior nature than the
Overseer, but rather, that the Overseer’s jurisdiction is “greater” than the elder’s jurisdiction.
In the same way, it is only in Jesus’ human nature that the Father can be said to be
“greater” than He. However, this illustration cannot be used to refer to Jesus’ relationship to
angels because at Hebrews 1:4 the other term (kreitton), translated “better,” is employed to
demonstrate that Jesus is “better” than the angels in His very nature.
BULLETIN OF THE JOHN RYLANDS LIBRARY
On pages 19-20 and 28 of the Society’s brochure, they reference the Bulletin of the John
Rylands Library in England endeavoring to support their assertion that Jesus is not God and
never claimed to be. They quote the Bulletin as stating: “The fact has to be faced that New
Testament research over, say, the last thirty or forty years has been leading an increasing
number of reputable New Testament scholars to the conclusion that Jesus…certainly never
believed himself to be God.” However, the Society left out a very important statement in their
quotation. The part they left out is as follows:
“…New Testament scholars to the conclusion that Jesus himself may not have
claimed any of the christological titles which the Gospels ascribe to him, not
even the functional designation ‘Christ’, and certainly never believed himself to be
God.” —Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, vol. 50, p. 251
The idea that Jesus never claimed to be the “Christ” is unquestionably against the plain
teaching of Scripture. For Matthew 16:20 specifically says: “Then He warned the disciples
that they should tell no one that He was the Christ.” Even the Watchtower Society would
agree that the idea that Jesus never “claimed” the title of “Christ” is erroneous. Thus, in order
to conceal the fact that this source is not credible, they placed an ellipsis in the quotation and
concealed this inaccurate statement from their readers.
7/8
On page 28, in reference to the Greek word for God (theos) being used for Christ, the
Society goes on to cite the Bulletin as stating that Catholic theologian Karl Rahner taught
that “in none of these instances is ‘theos’ used in such a manner as to identify Jesus with
him who elsewhere in the New Testament figures as ‘ho Theos,’ that is, the Supreme God.”
However, it is difficult to justify Rahner’s position on this subject in light of the fact that the
Bulletin mentioned that Rahner “considers that there are reliable applications of ‘theos’ to
Christ in six texts (Romans ix. 5f.; John i. I, 18. xx. 28: I John v. 20: and Titus ii. 13).”—
Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, vol. 50, p. 253.
NEXT CHAPTER
============
1. That is, He had limited knowledge and “learned obedience” (Hebrews 5:8) through
suffering, experiencing hunger, sleep, pain, death, etc.
2. In the Lord’s prayer of Matthew 6:9 where Jesus address the Father as “Our Father,”
Jesus is teaching His disciples how to pray rather than including Himself in that prayer.
3. See John 6:62 c.f. Daniel 7:13. The term “Son of Man” is a Messianic title which points to
Jesus’ humanity as His second coming will be in the flesh.
4. See Matthew 1:23; John 1:1,18; John 20:28; Hebrews 1:8; Titus 2:13; 2 Peter 1:1
5. The Watchtower’s New World Translation mistranslates this verse by adding the word
“[other]” to the text of Acts 10:36: “…through Jesus Christ: this One is Lord of all [others].”—
New World Translation
6. Psalm 49:7: “No man can by any means redeem his brother, Or give to God a ransom for
him.”
8/8
The Holy Spirit — a Person or Force? – Chapter 6 – Yes,
You Should Believe in the Trinity!
4jehovah.org/the-holy-spirit-a-person-or-force-chapter-6-yes-you-should-believe-in-the-trinity/
CHAPTER 6: THE HOLY SPIRIT—A PERSON OR

FORCE?
PERSONAL ATTRIBUTES OF THE HOLY

SPIRIT
THE HOLY SPIRIT IS TREATED AS A
PERSON
MATTHEW 24:36 – THE HOLY SPIRIT DOES
NOT KNOW…?
THE TRIUNE GOD
PERSONAL ATTRIBUTES OF THE HOLY SPIRIT
“THE Bible’s use of ‘holy spirit’ indicates that it is a

controlled force…it can be likened to electricity, a
force that can be adapted to perform a great variety
of operations.…On one occasion the holy spirit
appeared as a dove. On another occasion it
appeared as tongues of fire—never as a person.…
some Bible texts say that the spirit speaks.…The
action of the spirit in such instances is like that of
radio waves….”—Should You Believe in the
Trinity?, pp. 20-22
We have already discussed how a personal being does not need to possess a physical body
in order to qualify as a “person.” For example, Satan has never appeared in a physical body,
yet even Jehovah’s Witnesses agree that this fact does not imply that he is not a personal
being. Yet, the Watchtower Society asserts that the Holy Spirit “never” appears as a person
in the Biblical text and discounts all of the personhood texts about the Holy Spirit by
attributing the actions of the Holy Spirit seen in the text to being a mere force like “electricity”
or “radio waves” and pointing to examples where the Spirit is described in non-personal ways
such as the “tongues of fire” of Acts chapter two. Yet, simply because the Holy Spirit has
appeared in forms other than that of a physical being, does not indicate that He is not a
person. In fact, the opposite is true as we will see in the following Scripture texts where the
Holy Spirit is described as possessing all of the qualifying attributes of personhood:
1/8
THE HOLY SPIRIT HAS A MIND:
ROMANS 8:27: “and He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is,
because He intercedes for the saints according to the will of God.”
1 CORINTHIANS 2:10-11: “For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit
searches all things, even the depths of God….Even so the thoughts of God no one knows
except the Spirit of God.”
THE HOLY SPIRIT HAS EMOTIONS:
EPHESIANS 4:30: “And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God….”

ISAIAH 63:10: “But they…rebelled and made his holy spirit feel hurt.”—New World
Translation
MICAH 2:7: “…Is the Spirit of the LORD impatient? Are these His doings?”
HEBREWS 10:29: “…and has insulted the Spirit of grace?”
THE HOLY SPIRIT HAS A WILL AND ISSUES COMMANDS:
1 CORINTHIANS 12:11: “But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to
each one individually just as He wills.”
ACTS 8:29; 13:2,4; 16:6: “And the Spirit said to Philip, ‘Go up and join this chariot.’ …The
Holy Spirit said, ‘Set apart for Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called
them.’…So, being sent out by the Holy Spirit….having been forbidden by the Holy Spirit to
speak the word in Asia.”
2 SAMUEL 23:2: “The Spirit of the LORD spoke by me, And His word was on my tongue.”
THE HOLY SPIRIT IS TREATED AS A PERSON:
JOHN 14:16; 15:26: “And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper….When
the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth, who
proceeds from the Father, He will bear witness of Me.…”
Concerning the Holy Spirit being our Helper, Ron Rhodes notes:
“Now there are two words in the Greek language for the English word ‘another’: The
first one (heteros) means ‘another of a different kind.’ The other Greek word (allos)
means ‘another of the same kind.’ It is this second word, allos, that is used in
John 14:16. So Jesus is saying that He will ask the Father to send another Helper of
the same kind as Himself—that is, personal!”—Reasoning from the Scriptures with
Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1993, p. 212
ROMANS 8:26: “And in the same way the Spirit also helps our weakness; for we do not
know how to pray as we should, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groanings too
deep for words.”
JOHN 14:26: “But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will
2/8
teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.”
1 TIMOTHY 4:1: “But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away.…”
ACTS 5:3-4: “But Peter said, ‘Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy
Spirit.…You have not lied to men, but to God.’ ”
Now let’s take some of these same verses and substitute the word “electricity” or “radio
waves” for the Holy Spirit and see how they would read.
“…but the radio waves Himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for
words; and He who searches the hearts [God] knows what the mind of the radio
waves is….for the electricity searches all things, even the depths of God….Even so
the thoughts of God no one knows except the electricity of God.…But they themselves
rebelled and made his electricity feel hurt.…And do not grieve the radio waves of
God…How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who…has insulted
the radio waves of grace?….Is the electricity of the LORD impatient?…But Peter said,
‘Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the electricity….’ ”
How can an impersonal force express personality? I can’t make the electricity in my room
express my personality any more than I can cause radio waves to “feel” hurt. As one
considers these passages, the irrationality of interpreting the Holy Spirit as a mere force is
plainly manifest.
MATTHEW 24:36 – THE HOLY SPIRIT DOES NOT KNOW…?
An argument that is not mentioned in this Watchtower brochure on the Trinity but is used in
other literature of Jehovah’s Witnesses to try to disprove the Personhood and Deity of the
Holy Spirit is a reference to Matthew 24:36. In the 2006 Watchtower publication, What Does
the Bible Really Teach?, the Society states:
“Consider what was written by Matthew, …he quotes Jesus as saying: ‘Concerning that day
and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father.’
(Matthew 24:36) … Jesus says that the Father knows more than the Son does. …Yet, some
will say: ‘Jesus had two natures. Here he speaks as a man.’ But even if that were so, what
about the holy spirit? If it is part of the same God as the Father, why does Jesus not
say that it knows what the Father knows?” —What Does The Bible Really Teach?, pp.
203-204
Nowhere in this verse does Jesus mention the Holy Spirit or say that He does not know what
the Father knows concerning Christ’s return. In fact, Scripture specifically teaches that the
Holy Spirit knows everything that the Father knows when it states at 1 Corinthians 2:11 in the
New World Translation, “…no one has come to know the things of God, except the spirit
of God.” If the Holy Spirit is the only One who ‘knows the things of God,’ how can He not
know the Father’s plan concerning the specific day and hour Christ will return?
3/8
Several passages of Scripture describe people being “filled” with the Holy Spirit. The
Watchtower Society points to these passages in an attempt to claim that the Holy Spirit must
be an impersonal force because he indwells other beings. Note the following argument from
the Watchtower:
“…regarding Samson, Judges 14:6 relates: ‘The spirit of Yahweh seized on him….’ …Did
a divine person actually enter or seize Samson, manipulating his body to do what he
did? No….Acts 2:1-4 relates that the disciples were assembled together at Pentecost
when….‘they all became filled with holy spirit.…’ …People are urged to become filled
with holy spirit instead of with wine. (Ephesians 5:18)…Such expressions would not be so
common if the holy spirit were actually a person.”—Should You Believe in the Trinity?, pp.
21-22
Is this a viable argument? Is it impossible for a spirit-person to “fill” another physical person?
Let’s consider the following passage:
“And when He had come out onto the land, He was met by a certain man from the city
who was possessed with demons.…And seeing Jesus, he cried out and fell before
Him.…For He had been commanding the unclean spirit to come out of the man. For it
had seized him many times.…And Jesus asked him. ‘What is your name?’ And he
said, ‘Legion’; for many demons had entered him.”—Luke 8:27-30
Obviously no Jehovah’s Witness would claim demonic spirits are not persons simply
because they are able to enter and “seize” humans. Yet, Jehovah’s Witnesses accept this
Watchtower argument against the personhood of the Holy Spirit. Now, let’s consider another
passage of Scripture. At 2 Timothy 4:6, the Apostle Paul claims: “I am already being poured
out as a drink offering….”1. Is Paul a non-personal force or a type of drink? Of course, the
context makes it clear that Paul is using a non-personal expression to provide a picture of
the exhaustion he faces in personal ministry. Likewise, when we see non-personal
expressions or metaphors used for the Holy Spirit, this does not imply that the Holy Spirit is a
non-personal force or object. Likewise, in the following Scriptures we read that both the
Father and Jesus “fill” people to empower them for ministry:
“…that you may be filled up to all the fulness of God.…one God and Father of all who
is over all and through all and in all.”—Ephesians 3:19; 4:6
“…which He brought about in Christ, when He raised Him from the dead.…and gave
Him as head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fulness of Him who
fills all in all.…so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith.…Or do you not
recognize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you—unless indeed you fail
the test.”—Ephesians 1:20, 22-23; 3:17; 2 Corinthians 13:5
4/8
Are we to argue that the two other Persons of the Triune God are not personal beings
because they “fill” Christians in much the same way that the Person of the Holy Spirit is said
to “fills” Christians? Of course not! Since it is clear that both the Father, Jesus, and demons
are not any less personal beings simply because they “fill” people, we must therefore
conclude that this Watchtower argument is untenable, for the Holy Spirit is not any less a
person than the Father and the Son.
“In the Scriptures it is not unusual for something to be personified. Wisdom is said to have
children. (Luke 7:35) Sin and death are called kings. (Romans 5:14, 21)…But, of course,
sin is not a spirit person; nor does personifying the holy spirit make it a spirit person.
Similarly, at 1 John 5:6-8 (NE) not only the spirit but also ‘the water, and the blood’ are
said to be ‘witnesses.’ But water and blood are obviously not persons, and neither is
the holy spirit a person.…At Matthew 28:19 reference is made to ‘the name…of the holy
spirit.’ But the word ‘name’ does not always mean a personal name.…Robertson’s Word
Pictures in the New Testament says: ‘The use of name (onoma) here is a common one in
the Septuagint and the papyri for power or authority.’ ” —Should You Believe in the
Trinity?, pp. 21-22
Concerning the Scripture’s personification of wisdom and death, Peter Barnes2. notes:
“It is vitally important to understand that the purely abstract attribute of wisdom is
personified only once in the entire New Testament. Also, sin is personified just five
times, and death six times, on the other hand, the Holy Spirit is personified in
excess of one hundred times. There is positively no valid parallel between the
way in which the New Testament writers spoke of the Holy Spirit and their
sporadic personification of utterly abstract things.” —The Truth About Jesus And
The Trinity, 1994, p. 48
The assertion that the Holy Spirit is not a person because he is associated with impersonal
objects is another argument that is not reasonable for Scripture also associates Jesus with
impersonal objects such as the following:
DOOR (John 10:9) VINE (John 15:1) ROCK (1 Cor. 10:4) STONE (1 Peter 2:6-8)
BREAD (John 6:41) TRUTH (John 14:6) LIGHT (John 8:12) WORD (John 1:1)
In regard to the Watchtower argument that the word “name” used in reference to the Holy
Spirit only refers to power and authority, Robert Bowman comments:
5/8
“The booklet offers two points in rebuttal to this argument. First, they state that ‘the
word “name” does not always mean a personal name, either in Greek or in English,’
and give as an example the expression ‘in the name of the law’ (p. 22). No examples
from biblical Greek, however, are given. In fact, the Greek word for ‘name’ (onoma) is
used some 228 times in the New Testament, and except for four places-names
(Mark 14:32; Luke 1:26; 24:13; Acts 28:7; see also Rev. 3:12) always refers to
persons. Reading the modern idiom ‘in the name of the law’ back into Matthew 28:19
is simply anachronistic. Second, the booklet quotes A.T. Robertson’s Word Pictures in
the New Testament as saying that the word name is used ‘for power and authority.’
That is true, of course, but it stands for the power or authority of someone, never
some impersonal force. An impersonal force cannot have authority; only a person
can.”—Why You Should Believe in the Trinity, pp. 114-115
“JESUS spoke of the holy spirit as a ‘helper,’ and he said it would teach, guide, and
speak. (John 14:16, 26; 16:13)…On the other hand, when the neuter Greek word for
spirit (pneu’ma) is used, the neuter pronoun ‘it’ is properly employed.”—Should You
Believe in the Trinity?, p. 22
While it is true that Greek grammar rules require that neuter personal pronouns be used in
conjunction with neuter nouns, Ron Rhodes comments:
“The primary reason the Jehovah’s Witnesses say the Holy Spirit is an ‘active force’ is that
the Greek word for ‘Spirit’ (pneuma) is neuter. However, as noted above, this is faulty
reasoning, since the gender of the word has to do with the grammatical form of the
word and not actual physical gender. For example, one will find that in Scripture,
neuter terms are used in reference to infants (Luke 1:41,44; 2:16; 18:15), children
(Mark 5:39-41), girls (Matthew 9:24,25; Mark 5:41,42), unclean spirits (Matthew
12:24,27,28; Mark 7:26,29,30), and angels (Hebrews 1:14). Obviously, each of these
beings have personality, even though a neuter term is used in reference to them. We can
safely conclude, then, that the use of a neuter term does not indicate a lack of personality.”—
Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1993, pp. 213-214
Peter Barnes is also quick to observe that “in the very chapter to which the Watchtower
article makes reference, namely John 16:13-14, there are three strikingly clear instances
where the masculine personal pronoun is used in connection with the neuter word ‘Spirit.’”3.
In other words, the apostle John broke Greek grammar rules when he wrote John 16:13-14,
because he used the personal pronoun “he” in reference to the neuter gender noun “Spirit.”
How is that for indicating personality? To see just how clearly the Apostle John promoted the
personhood of the Holy Spirit in his writings, we will look at John 16:13-14 from the New
World Translation Bible of the Jehovah’s Witnesses:
6/8
“However, when that one arrives, the spirit of the truth, he will guide YOU into all the truth,
for he will not speak of his own impulse, but what things he hears he will speak, and he will
declare to YOU the things coming. That one will glorify me, because he will receive from
what is mine and will declare it to YOU.”
Not only is it interesting to note all of the personal pronouns “he” translated in reference to
the Holy Spirit in this Bible used by Jehovah’s Witnesses, but the phrase translated “that
one” for the Greek word ekeinos (ἐκεῖνος) in both verses is significant when viewed in the
Greek text because it is clearly masculine, not neuter. On page 102 of the Basics of Biblical
Greek Grammar, William D. Mounce explains:
“The demonstratives in Greek are οὗτος (this/these) and ἐκεῖνος (that/those). They function
the same way as they do in English, but as pronouns and as adjectives. The difference
between the English and Greek demonstratives is that the Greek demonstratives also have
case and gender.”—Basics of Biblical Greek Grammar, 1993, p. 102
Mounce’s Grammar goes on to explain on page 103 that the form of this word rendered
ἐκεῖνος is masculine while ἐκεῖνο is in the neuter form. If the Apostle John were to be
consistent with Greek grammer rules, he would have had to use the form ἐκεῖνο when
speaking of the neuter word “spirit,” but instead he chose the masculine pronoun ἐκεῖνος that
can be clearly seen in the Greek/English Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek
Scriptures published by the Watchtower Society.
THE TRIUNE GOD
On page 21 of the Trinity brochure, the Society quotes Edmund Fortman as stating:
“Although this spirit is often described in personal terms, it seems quite clear that the sacred
writers [of the Hebrew Scriptures] never conceived or presented this spirit as a distinct
person.” However, they fail to note that Fortman goes on to say:
“Perhaps it can be said that some of these writing about word and wisdom and spirit
did provide a climate in which plurality within the Godhead was conceivable to
Jews. However, these writers definitely do give us the words that the New
Testament uses to express the trinity of persons, Father, Son, Word, Wisdom, Spirit.”—
The Triune God, p. 9
On page 22, the Society goes on to quote Fortman as stating: “The Jews never regarded the
spirit as a person; nor is there any solid evidence that any Old Testament writer held this
view.…The Holy Spirit is usually presented in the Synoptics [Gospels] and in Acts as a divine
force or power.” Notice how the first statement is separated from the second statement by an
ellipsis. The Society pulled these statements from two different pages of Fortman’s book and
took them out of context. Note the contexts from which these two quotes are taken:
7/8
“The spirit of Yahweh was often described in personal terms. The spirit was
grieved, guided men, instructed them, caused them to rest (Ps 143.10; Neh 9.20; Is
63.10,14). But it seems quite clear that the Jews never regarded the spirit as a person;
nor is there any solid evidence that any Old Testament writer held this view. A few
scholars today maintain, however, that even though the spirit is usually presented as
an impersonal divine force, there is an underlying assumption that the spirit was a
conscious agent, which ‘provided a climate in which plurality within the
Godhead was conceivable.’ ” —The Triune God, p. 6
“The Holy Spirit is usually presented in the Synoptics and in Acts as a divine force or
power. But in a few passages the sacred writers leave a vivid impression that for
them He was someone distinct from both Father and Son with a distinct personal
existence.”—The Triune God, p. 15
Scripture not only reveals that the Holy Spirit is a person, but He is also God:
· ACTS 5:3-4: “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit….You
have not lied to men, but to God.”
· 2 CORINTHIANS 3:17: “Now Jehovah is the Spirit; and where the spirit of Jehovah is,
there is freedom.”—New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures
JEHOVAH SPOKE THE HOLY SPIRIT SPOKE
ISAIAH 6:8-10: “Then I heard the voice ACTS 28:25-27: “…The Holy Spirit rightly
of the Lord, saying, ‘Whom shall I send, spoke through Isaiah the prophet to your
and who will go for Us?’…And He said, fathers, saying, ‘Go to this people and say,
‘Go, and tell this people: “Keep on “You will keep on hearing, but will not
listening, but do not perceive.…Lest they understand.…Lest they should see with their
see with their eyes…and return and be eyes…and return, and I should heal them.” ’
healed.” ’ ” ”
NEXT CHAPTER
============
1. See also Philippians 2:17

2. Peter Barnes, who was a Jehovah’s Witness for 30 years, served as a Circuit Overseer
over 16 Kingdom Halls before he encountered Christ. He currently directs the “Out of
Darkness Into Light” ministry based in San Diego, CA.
3. The Truth About Jesus And The Trinity, by Peter Barnes, 1989, 1994, p. 49
8/8
Jesus is God! – Chapter 7 – Yes, You Should Believe in
the Trinity!
4jehovah.org/jesus-is-god-chapter-7-yes-you-should-believe-in-the-trinity/
CHAPTER 7: JESUS IS GOD!

COMBATING THE HENOTHEISTIC BIAS OF
JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES
JOHN 1:1: “The Word Was God”
ISAIAH 9:6: Jesus is the “Everlasting Father”
THE NEW TESTAMENT IN AN IMPROVED
VERSION, Upon the Basis of Archbishop
Newcome’s New Translation: With a
Corrected Text, 1808: “…and the word was a
god.”
THE EMPHATIC DIAGLOTT, interlinear reading, by Benjamin Wilson
JOSEPH HENRY THAYER
THE NEW TESTAMENT by Johannes Greber translated with Spirit-Mediums
“Any Bible reference offered as proof must be understood in the context of the
consistent teaching of the entire Bible.”—Should You Believe in the Trinity?, p. 23
The Watchtower Society is correct to state that any Bible reference given as proof for a
particular doctrine should be taken in the context in which it is found as well the rest of
Scripture. While Christians agree that the Bible is the best interpreter of itself, we disagree
1/35
with the underlining presuppositions and biases against the Deity of Christ that Jehovah’s
Witnesses bring to their own interpretation of Biblical Scripture. It is precisely their bias
against belief in the Trinity that causes them to twist and completely distort the Biblical
Scriptures that Christians use to support this doctrine. In this chapter, as we contrast the
Christian view of these Scriptures with the Watchtower reinterpretation of these verses, it is
critical to understand that the Jehovah’s Witnesses view of God is henotheism, not
monotheism and learn how to effectively counter this false presupposition.
What is henotheism? It is the belief and worship of only one God without denying the
existence of other “gods.” The main difference between monotheism and henotheism is
that monotheism does not allow for the existence and worship of more than one God. Thus,
a Jehovah’s Witness with a henotheistic bias would interpret every Scripture calling Jesus
“God” as a reference to Him being a secondary divine Being or lesser “god,” rather than
accept the historic, monotheistic viewpoint of Biblical Christianity that regards Jesus as the
same “God” as the Father.
So, how do Christians challenge this false henotheistic presupposition held by nearly all
Jehovah’s Witnesses? It is by demonstrating the irreconcilable differences between the
henotheistic view of Jehovah’s Witnesses and the monotheistic teachings of the Bible. The
following is a brief overview of the most powerful Scriptural evidence against henotheism:
WHY JESUS CANNOT BE A SECONDARY OR LESSER GOD FROM THE FATHER:
1. There can only exist one Almighty God at a time. As the Watchtower Society admits
on page 28 of their Trinity brochure, if two equal “Gods” exist at the same time, one cannot
be called “Almighty” because His power would be shared. Yet, even though the Watchtower
Society does not acknowledge that Jesus is “Almighty,” the context of Revelation 1:7-8
makes it clear that Jesus is the “Almighty” God. Thus, He cannot exist as a lesser divine
being but must possess all power and authority of Jehovah God (Matthew 28:19).
2. According to John 17:3, there exists only one true God. Thus, any additional beings
“called” “gods” (1 Corinthians 8:5-6) must be regarded as false “gods” (Galatians 4:8). Since
1 John 5:20 calls Jesus “the true God” along with the Father, Jesus must be regarded as the
same true “God” as the Father is regarded, not a secondary or lesser “godlike” creature.
3. 1 Corinthians 12:4-6 states that the “same God,” the “same Spirit,” and the “same
Lord” does all the spiritual work that happens in the lives of believers. Since Romans 8:9
states that the “Spirit of Christ” is“God’s Spirit,” Jesus cannot be a lesser divine being or a
separate “God” from the Father because the “same Spirit” is the “same God” (1 Corinthians
12:4-6) who performs all things.
2/35
4. Jesus claims all the exclusive titles and attributes that Jehovah God claims for
Himself alone. For example:
Jehovah is called the “first and last” (Isaiah 44:6; 48:12). Jesus is called the “first and
last” (Revelation 1:17-18; 22:12-13, 20). There is only one first and last God
because God says that no God was formed before Him or after Him (Isaiah
43:10).
Jehovah God is the only one who can forgive sins (Mark 2:7; Daniel 9:9). Jesus
forgives sins (Mark 2:10-11; Luke 24:46-47). Jehovah is called the “Savior” (Isaiah
45:21-22). Jesus is the “Savior” (Titus 2:13; 2 Peter 1:1). There is only one Savior
(Isaiah 43:11).
Jehovah is “Lord of Lords” (Deut. 10:17). Jesus is “Lord of Lords” (Revelation 17:14;
19:16). The Father is “Lord of all” (Matthew 11:25; Acts 17:24). Jesus is “Lord of all”
(Acts 10:36). There is only one Lord (Jude 4).
Jehovah’s glory is not to be given to another (Isaiah 42:8). Jesus shares Jehovah’s
glory (John 17:5). The Jehovah that Isaiah saw (Isaiah 6:1-5) was Jesus (John
12:41).
These are just some of the many exclusive attributes of Jehovah God that are attributed to
Jesus Christ. This is precisely why true Christians do not believe in henotheism, but regard
Jesus as the same one and only true “God” that the Father is called in the Bible.
For a more comprehensive list, see the TITLES AND ATTRIBUTES OF JEHOVAH
APPLIED TO JESUS section of chapter 8 in this book.
EXODUS 7:1: “I make you as God to Pharaoh.”
At Exodus 7:1, when God called Moses to confront Pharaoh, king of Egypt, to deliver the
Israelite people out of Egyptian slavery, “The LORD said to Moses, ‘See, I make you as God
to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron shall be your prophet.’ ” Jehovah’s Witnesses often
point to verses like these where a servant of God is called a “god” when representing the
true God and they assert that examples like these show that it is possible for Jesus to have
been called “God” as a mere representative of Jehovah God without it being considered an
exclamation of Him being the same “God” as Jehovah. Here again, context is important to
understand when we look at this passage where a mere human is called “a god” when
representing Jehovah.
The Egyptian culture was very polytheistic in that they believed in multiple “gods” that were
represented by various physical creatures on earth. While each Egyptian “god” had a
correlation to a physical created being, such as a bull, a bird or a frog, in the case of
Pharaoh, his people thought of him as representing the Egyptian “god” Ra, the most powerful
3/35
“god” in the Egyptian religion. Thus, everything that the Pharaoh dictated and commanded
was regarded as the dictates of their pagan god “Ra.” So, when God says he made Moses
to be “god” to Pharaoh, in the Egyptian culture, it was saying that Pharaoh saw Moses as
pronouncing the dictates of Jehovah God (the God of the Israelites), just as he thought he
was pronouncing the dictates of his pagan Egyptian god “Ra.” So, to put everything in
perspective, when we look at the context of Exodus 7, we can clearly see that Scripture is
not saying that Moses was “a god” Himself, but that he was merely representing Him in a
way that the Egyptian Pharaoh would understand the authority by which Moses spoke.
So here we see that however logical the arguments of Jehovah’s Witnesses may seem, we
must not lose sight of the fact that we cannot justify the existence of two “mighty” true
“Gods,” because the Bible explicitly states that there is only “one” true God (Acts 17:3).
Therefore, any being that is called “god” must either be a representation of the one and only
true “God” Jehovah or he is a false “god,” like Satan. Such is the case when Scripture calls
Satan the “god of this world” (2 Corinthians 4:4). Although Satan has the position of being
the present ruler of the God-rejecting world of unregenerate human beings, he does not
possess the attributes of the “true God,” such as omniscience, omnipotence, or
omnipresence. Rather, Satan is called “god” of this world, not because he is one, but
because he acts in authority over wicked humanity and fallen angels. Likewise, when Moses
represented God to Pharaoh, Scripture was merely communicating the authority by which
Moses acted in relationship to Pharaoh and God’s people Israel when it called him “a god,”
but in none of the cases where Moses spoke for God was he himself ascribed the attributes
of deity like Jesus is ascribed.
In the case of Jesus Christ, not only do we see Him called “God,” but we see Him frequently
being attributed with omniscience in knowing the hearts of all men (John 2:24-25),
omnipotence in performing acts of healing, resurrection, and granting forgiveness of sins that
only God can perform (John 11; Mark 2:5-12) and receiving worship and prayer (John 5:23;
Matthew 28:17-18;
Hebrews 1:6; Revelation 5:11-14; John 14:14 and Acts 7:59). We must therefore ask the
question, should Jesus be regarded as merely a “divine” representative of God or Jehovah
the “true God” Himself? Colossians 1:19; 2:9 answers this question when it states:
“For it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fulness to dwell in Him …For in Him all the
fulness of Deity dwells in bodily form.”
REVELATION 1:7-8: “He is coming …those who pierced him …the One …who is
coming, the Almighty.”
At Revelation 1:7-8 we read an interesting passage where the “one …who is coming, the
Almighty” God (verse 8) is identified with the one who was “pierced” (verse 7). Yet,
Jehovah’s Witnesses do not believe Jesus is Almighty God, so they claim that the one who is
coming in verse 8 is a different being from the one who is coming in verse 7.
4/35
Here again the henotheistic bias of Jehovah’s Witnesses, requires them to reinterpret the
simple reading of the text to fit with their preconceived false view of Christ that denies the
supremacy of Christ’s Deity as Almighty God. By reading further on in the passage, we see
that this same speaker in verse 8, identifies himself as the “first and the last” who “was dead”
but now is “alive.” Since Jehovah God is called the “first and the last” in Isaiah 44:6 and
48:12, it is clear that this same Jehovah God “first and last” being in verse 17 who raised
from the “dead” in verse 18, must be the same person who calls Himself the “Al’pha and the
O×me’ga… One …who was and who is coming, the Almighty” of verse 8. Concluding the
book Revelation, we read this same speaker apply all of these titles to Himself again to
which the writer exclaims, “Amen! Come, Lord Jesus.” Remarkably, the translation of these
verses has not been corrupted in the Jehovah’s Witness New World Translation, and reading
all of these verses together, the identity of Jesus Christ as Almighty Jehovah God can be
clearly seen in their own Bible as quoted below:
Revelation 1:7-8: “Look! He is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, and
those who pierced him; and all the tribes of the earth will beat themselves in grief because
of him. Yes, Amen. ‘I am the Al’pha and the O×me’ga,’ says Jehovah God, ‘the One who
is and who was and who is coming, the Almighty.’ ” —New World Translation
Revelation 22:12-13; 20: “ ‘Look! I am coming quickly, and the reward I give is with me, to
render to each one as his work is. I am the Al’pha and the O×me’ga, the first and the last,
the beginning and the end.’ …He that bears witness of these things says, ‘Yes; I am
coming quickly.’ ‘Amen! Come, Lord Jesus.’ ”—New World Translation
Revelation 1:17-18: “And when I saw him, I fell as dead at his feet. And he laid his right
hand upon me and said: ‘Do not be fearful. I am the First and the Last, and the living one;
and I became dead, but, look! I am living forever and ever, and I have the keys of death
and of Ha’des.’ ” —New World Translation
Isaiah 44:6: “This is what Jehovah has said, the King of Israel and the Repurchaser of him,
Jehovah of armies, ‘I am the first and I am the last, and besides me there is no God.” —
New World Translation
So to conclude this section on combating the henotheistic views of Jehovah’s Witnesses, we

have seen that Jesus cannot be just “a god” merely representing Jehovah, like Moses did to
Pharaoh, because He possesses the unique attributes of Jehovah God. A mere
representative of Jehovah, like Moses, cannot claim that He “knows all things” as Jesus did
(John 2:24; 16:30); nor can a mere representative of Jehovah claim to be the “One who is
coming, the Almighty” because there can only exist one Almighty God at one time. So if
Jesus is “Almighty,” He must be the one and only true God.
5/35
Next, we have seen that the claim of Jehovah’s Witnesses that the speaker who is identified
as Jesus in Revelation 1:7; 22:16 and 20, is somehow a different speaker from the “One who
is coming, the Almighty” in Revelation 1:8 and 22:12-13, in reality, cannot be a different
Person because the title of “first and last” is applied to Jesus in Revelation 1:17-18 (the one
who “became dead”), in the same way that it is applied to Jehovah God in Revelation 22:12-
13. Since there can only be One “first and last” God, and this “first and last” also calls
Himself “the Alpha and Omega” in Revelation 1:8 and 22:13 and also the “Almighty”
(Revelation 1:8), these must be referring to Jesus Himself, as the “Alpha and Omega …
Almighty,” God who is coming. Finally, the fact that all these titles and references to the
speaker are referring to Jesus Christ alone is affirmed by the apostle John when he
concluded the end of his book of Revelation saying: “He that bears witness of these things
says, ‘Yes; I am coming quickly.’ ‘Amen! Come, Lord Jesus.’ ” (Revelation 22:20). Thus,
we see there are not “two” separate Gods coming but only “one” God who is coming, the
Almighty Lord Jesus Christ.
MATTHEW 28:19: “Baptizing… in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy
Spirit…”
In the What About Trinity Proof Texts? section of the Watchtower brochure, Should You
Believe in the Trinity?, the Society reference four passages in the New Testament where the
three Persons of the Godhead are listed: 2 Corinthians 13:13-14; 1 Corinthians 12:4-6;
Matthew 3:16 and 28:19 and they attempt to excuse away these verses by claming that the
list of the three Persons in these verses does not prove the existence of the Triune God.
While it is true that simply listing a group of individuals does not prove their unity, we have
already discussed how 1 Corinthians 12:4-6 calls all three Persons the “same” God and
Matthew 28:19 is worth noting as well. It states:
“Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father
and the Son and the Holy Spirit… ”
Notice how the definite article (the) is placed in front of each of the Persons of the Trinity: “…
the Father… the Son… the Holy Spirit.” This demonstrates distinction between the
Persons, yet the word “name” is singular. If all three are separate “Gods,” how can they
all have the same name? It is obvious that these Persons are in some way, one essence of
Being, yet they are distinct from each other. Thus, the plurality within unity is revealed in this
passage.
Not only does Matthew 28:19 communicate the concept of composite unity within the Trinity,
but its reference to baptism being done “in the name of” each of the Persons of the Trinity,
indicates that each Person, individually possesses equal power and authority. So, just as
prayer being done in the name of Jesus means that we are invoking the power and authority
6/35
of Jesus, so baptism “in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit” is invoking the
power and authority of each of the Persons of the Triune God. Thus, Matthew 28:19 is one
of the clearest declarations of the Trinity found in the New Testament.
While the oneness and unity of the Persons of the Trinity may not be as clearly revealed in
other passages used to support the Trinity, when we consider the whole testimony of
Scripture, the Trinity doctrine is undoubtedly a Biblical concept, for we know from Scripture
that the Father is called God (Philippians 2:11), the Son is called God (Titus 2:13; 2 Peter
1:1; 1 John 5:20; John 1:1, 18; John 20:28; Hebrews 1:8), and the Holy Spirit is called God
(Acts 5:3-4; 2 Corinthians 3:17), and yet there is only one God.
“For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there
are many gods and many lords, yet for us there is but one God.…However at that
time, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those which by nature are no
gods.…Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory
forever and ever. Amen.…How can you believe, when you receive glory from one
another, and you do not seek the glory that is from the one and only God?…And this
is eternal life, that they may know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom
Thou hast sent.…Before Me there was no God formed, and there will be none after
Me. I, even I, am the LORD; And there is no savior besides Me.…I am the first and I
am the last, and there is no God besides Me.…Is there any God besides Me, Or is
there any other Rock? I know of none.…For I am God, and there is no other; I am
God, and there is no one like Me.…”—1 Corinthians 8:5-6; Galatians 4:8; 1 Timothy
1:17; John 5:44; 17:3; Isaiah 43:10-11; 44:6, 8; 46:9
In Old Testament history, Monotheism (the belief in only one God) was the unique religion of
the Jews. Adhering to the Hebrew Shema, Deuteronomy 6:4: “Hear, O Israel! The LORD is
our God, the LORD is one!” faithful Jews tenaciously threatened to stone anyone who would
dare to commit blasphemy by claiming to be God (Leviticus 24:16). This is why the Jews on
several occasions endeavored to stone Jesus, for He was claiming to have the attributes of
the one and only true God—thus declaring Himself to be God.1. The Jews realized that
since there is only one “true God” (John 17:3), all other “so-called” gods are, in
reality, only false gods. To the Jews, there was no middle ground. Either a person is the
true God, or he is a false god. This is why Christ’s Jewish disciples struggled with His
identity until they recognized that Jesus is indeed the “Holy One…who is called the God all
the earth.”
JEHOVAH GOD JESUS CHRIST
7/35
ISAIAH 54:5: “…And your Redeemer is the JOHN 6:69: “We have believed and
Holy One of Israel, Who is called the God have come to know that You are the
of all the earth.” Holy One of God.”
So when Thomas called Jesus, “My Lord, and my God,”2. Jesus blessed him for believing
saying: “Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see,
and yet believed” (John 20:29). Thus, Jesus is not just “a god” among many “gods” for
Jehovah God uncompromisingly declares at Isaiah 46:9 that He is the only God and “there
is no one like” Him. So, with this as a foundation, we will now focus our attention on the
Watchtower arguments against other Trinitarian “proof texts” referenced in the Society’s
booklet.
“But Jesus himself showed what he meant by his being ‘one’ with the Father. At John
17:21,22, he prayed to God that his disciples ‘may all be one, just as you, Father, are in
union with me and I am in union with you, that they also may be in union with us,…that
they may be one just as we are one.’ Was Jesus praying that all his disciples would
become a single entity? No, obviously Jesus was praying that they would be united in
thought and purpose, as he and God were….So when he used the word ‘one’ (hen) in
these cases, he was talking about unity of thought and purpose.”—Should You
The Watchtower claims that when Jesus said that He is “one” with the Father, he was merely
claiming to exist in unity with the Father and they reference John 17:21-22 in support of this
claim. However, the context of John 17:21-22 where Jesus prays that his followers would
be “one” just as He and the Father are “one” is totally different from the context of John
10:30. According to 2 Corinthians 13:5, the test of being a true believer is having Christ
living “in you.” When God, through the Holy Spirit, comes to dwell within a new believer (1
Corinthians 3:16; 6:19), He changes that person’s heart (2 Corinthians 5:17) and gives him a
new nature and a new love for fellow believers (Ephesians 1:15). God imparts to each
believer spiritual gifts (1 Corinthians 12, 14) that equip him to be able to work together in
unity with other believers for the cause of Christ (1 Corinthians 1:10). This “oneness” of
“unity of purpose” found among believers, however, is different from the oneness that
Jesus at John 10:30 was expressing that He and the Father possess. This is evident by
the Jews’ immediate reaction to Christ’s claim, for they took up stones to stone Him as they
understood His claim to be an affirmation of Deity.
“ ‘I and the Father are one.’ The Jews took up stones again to stone Him.…The Jews
answered Him, ‘For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because
You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God.’ ” —John 10:30-31, 33
8/35
If Jesus was merely claiming to have “unity of purpose” with the Father (as the Watchtower
Society asserts), why would the Jews try to stone Him for something that they believed
they already possessed—that is, unity of purpose with the Father? After all, were they
not God’s chosen people? If anyone had the right to claim oneness of unity with God,
certainly it would have been the Jews, right? Yet, the Jews understood that Jesus was
claiming far more than mere “unity” with the Father when He made this statement that He
and the Father are one.
Christ’s claim to Deity with this statement is even stronger when we examine the Greek text.
First of all, the Greek word hen (ἕν) translated “one” is a nominative singular neuter
noun,3. which means that Jesus was literally referring to His oneness with the Father being
an it or thing. Why is this significant? If Jesus had wanted to say that He and the Father
make up a singular Person, or are the SAME Person, there was a perfectly good Greek word
that He could have used for “one” that is masculine. He could have used the masculine heis
(εἷς) which would have indicated that He and the Father are “one” Him together, but instead,
He chose to say that they comprise a singular unit or thing, an it, not a Him.
Also, the Greek word translated “are” is esmen (ἐσμέν). It is the first person, plural present
indicative form of the verb “to be” or eimi “I am.” The plural form indicates that Jesus is
speaking of more than one Person, literally saying: “We are…” Thus, He admitted that He
was not claiming to be the same Person as the Father. Yet, in His humanity, He said that He
was presently existing together as “one” it with the Father at that very moment! Also, He
used the Indicative Greek mood which provides the strongest form of present reality that
could be stated.
So, when Jesus said at John 10:30: ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἕν ἐσμεν, the Jews literally heard Him
say: “I and the Father, WE are presently existing as ONE SUBSTANCE,” or as the
Watchtower’s Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures states: “I and the
Father one (thing) we are.” Is it any wonder the Jews tried to stone Jesus for claiming to be
God? There is no other statement in Scripture that Jesus made that shows just how much
Divine substance resides within His very Person. In His human nature, Jesus was not any
less God than the Father, nor did He possess any less Divine Nature than the Father when
He was on earth. Indeed, He truly was and is God and Man as the Apostle Paul stated:
“For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form.” —Colossians 2:9
If the Jews simply misunderstood Christ’s statements, why didn’t Jesus correct their
misunderstanding? Rather, instead of correcting their alleged misunderstanding, Jesus
proved that they understood his identity statements correctly.
9/35
Jehovah’s Witnesses often assert that when Jesus pointed to the so-called “gods” of Psalm
82:6, He was somehow aligning Himself with the category of human judges who were called
“gods,” rather than claiming to be the one true God Himself. Was Jesus saying that the
Pharisees had no right to judge His claim to Deity because other human judges were also
called “gods”? No, this is not what He was saying. Let’s examine the context. Immediately
following His statement that He is “one” with the Father, the Jews accused Jesus of claiming
to be God. This passage reads as follows:
“…The Jews answered Him, ‘For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and
because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God.’ Jesus answered them, ‘Has it
not been written in your Law, “I said, you are gods”? If he called them gods, to whom the
word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), do you say of Him, whom the
Father sanctified and sent into the world, “You are blaspheming,” because I said, “I
am the Son of God”?….believe the works, that you may know and understand that the
Father is in Me, and I in the Father.’ Therefore they were seeking again to seize Him,
and He eluded their grasp.”—John 10:32-36, 38-39
Why did Jesus quote Psalm 82:6 to the Pharisees to support His claims of being God? We
know that He was not aligning Himself with the deity claims of these false human judges in
Psalm 82:6 because these wicked judges were acting as false “gods” in that context. There
is no way that Jesus would have put Himself in that category of a false “god” to whom
Jehovah proclaimed death and victory over. So, why did Jesus mention them? I believe He
was contrasting His Deity claims as the one true God against these false “gods” and the
Pharisees who were acting JUST like these wicked judges when they were judging the true
Son of God of blasphemy! By contrasting His claims against these false “gods” to whom
God’s judgment was pronounced (Psalm 82:7-9), Jesus demonstrated that what these
judges claimed in falsehood, He is in reality—the one true God. Regarding this, the IVP New
Testament Commentary Series notes:
“The psalm is actually a condemnation of the judges for not exercising their responsibility
faithfully, thus corresponding both to the condemnation of these Jewish leaders in John and
to Jesus as the true judge. To make his point Jesus uses an argument from the lesser to the
greater, a very common form of argument in the ancient world, not least among the rabbis.
He compares the people who are called gods to himself, the Son of God. They merely
received the word of God, whereas he is the one whom the father set apart as his very own
and sent into the world (v. 36). Here is a succinct summary of the central truth of his identity,
which has been emphasized throughout this Gospel.” (John Rodney A. Whitacre, The IVP
New Testament Commentary Series (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1999), 273 )
Listen to how Jesus proclaimed the full nature of His Deity and Oneness with the Father in
the following verses:
10/35
JESUS DOES WHATEVER JEHOVAH GOD DOES: “…the Son can do nothing of Himself,
unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these
things the Son also does in like manner.” —John 5:19
WE MUST GIVE JESUS AS MUCH WORSHIP AS WE GIVE JEHOVAH GOD: “…For not
even the Father judges anyone, but He has given all judgment to the Son, in order that all
may honor the Son, even as they honor the Father, He who does not honor the Son
does not honor the Father who sent Him.” —John 5:22-23
SEEING/BELIEVING JESUS IS SEEING/BELIEVING JEHOVAH: “…I and the Father are

one. …Let not your heart be troubled; believe in God, believe also in Me. …Have I been so
long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has
seen the Father; how do you say, ‘Show us the Father’?” —John 10:30; 14:1, 9
EVERYTHING JEHOVAH OWNS BELONGS TO JESUS: “…All things that the Father has
are Mine; therefore I said, that He takes of Mine, and will disclose it to you.” —John 16:15
These verses are some of the many claims Christ made that convinced His followers that He
is indeed the one true Jehovah God. Thus, we see that far from trying to correct the Jews’
so-called “misunderstanding” concerning His Deity claims, He rather affirmed that they
understood Him correctly. Therefore, by quoting Psalm 82 where God proclaimed the
judgment of “death” upon the wicked false “gods” of ancient times, Jesus at John 10:34 was
reminding the Pharisees of the serious consequences of judging Him (the true God) of
blasphemy. Indeed, He is both the Son of the ONLY TRUE God (John 17:3) and the
only TRUE God Himself as the following Scripture proclaims:
“…we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal
life.…the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us.…” —1 John
5:20; 1:2
“It says that the Jews (as at John 10:31-36) wanted to kill Jesus because ‘he was also
calling God his own Father, making himself equal to God.’ But who said that Jesus was
making himself equal to God? Not Jesus. He defended himself against this false
charge in the very next verse (19): ‘To this accusation Jesus replied:… “the Son can do
nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees the Father doing.” ’ —JB.”—Should You
JOHN 5:17-23:
11/35
“But He answered them, ‘My Father is working until now, and I Myself am working.’
For this cause therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He
not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father,
making Himself equal with God. Jesus therefore answered and was saying to them,
‘Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He
sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also
does in like manner….For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life,
even so the Son also gives life to whom He wishes. For not even the Father judges
anyone, but He has given all judgment to the Son, in order that all may honor the
Son, even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not
honor the Father who sent Him.’ ”
Far from defending Himself from the Jews’ accusations, the context of John 5:18
demonstrates that Christ responded to the Jews—not by denying their claims—but by
affirming that they were correct in their understanding. Notice how Jesus responded to the
Jews by continuing to describe how He possesses all the power and authority of Jehovah
and does things that only Jehovah can do. Finally, He claims that He receives the same
honor and worship that Jehovah receives. Is it any wonder the Jews endeavored to stone
Him for blasphemy?
DIVINE WORKS OF JEHOVAH DIVINE WORKS OF JESUS
DEUTERONOMY 32:39: “See JOHN 5:21; 10:28; ACTS 9:34: “For just as the
now that I, I am He, and there is Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so
no god besides Me; It is I who put the Son also gives life to whom He wishes….and I
to death and give life. I have give eternal life to them, and they shall never
wounded, and it is I who heal; perish; and no one shall snatch them out of My
and there is no one who can hand….And Peter said to him, ‘Aeneas, Jesus
deliver from My hand.” Christ heals you.…”
PSALM 98:9: “Before the LORD; JOHN 5:22: “For not even the Father judges anyone,
for He is coming to judge the but He has given all judgment to the Son,”
earth; He will judge the world
with righteousness, and the
peoples with equity.”
EXODUS 34:14: “for you shall JOHN 5:23: “in order that all may honor the Son,
not worship any other god, for even as they honor the Father. He who does not
the LORD, whose name is honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent
Jealous, is a jealous God….” him.”
12/35
“Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others.
Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being [uparcw—
huparcho] in very nature [morfh—morphe] God, did not consider equality with God
something to be grasped [arpazw —harpazo], but made himself nothing, taking the very
nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.” —Philippians 2:4-7, New
International Version
In the Watchtower Society’s response to Philippians 2:6, they overlook the first half of this
verse which speaks of Christ having the nature of God, and they focus instead on the
second half of the verse which states that Christ did not seek to “grasp” at equality
with God. They then conclude that Philippians 2:6 is teaching that Christ is not equal in
nature to God the Father. (Should You Believe in the Trinity?, pp. 25-26)
“BEING IN VERY NATURE GOD”: 3 CONCEPTS TO NOTE:
1. The Greek word translated “being” (huparcho) is in the present tense and therefore carries
the idea of continual existence as God.4.
2. The Greek word translated “nature”(morphe) is unique in that it is only used twice in the
New Testament and in both cases, only of Christ. Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of
Old And New Testament Words offers the following insights concerning this word:
“morphe…is used with particular significance in the NT, only of Christ, in Phil. 2:6,7, in
the phrases ‘being in the form of God,’ and ‘taking the form of a servant.’ An excellent
definition of the word is that of Gifford: ‘morphe is therefore properly the nature or
essence, not in the abstract, but as actually subsisting in the individual, and
retained as long as the individual itself exists….Thus in the passage before us
morphe Theou is the Divine nature actually and inseparably subsisting in the
Person of Christ….For the interpretation of “the form of God” it is sufficient to say that
(1) it includes the whole nature and essence of Deity, and is inseparable from them,
since they could have no actual existence without it; and (2) that it does not
include in itself anything “accidental” or separable, such as particular modes of
manifestation, or conditions of glory and majesty, which may at one time be attached to
the “form,” at another separated from it….The true meaning of morphe in the
expression “form of God” is confirmed by its recurrence in the corresponding phrase,
“form of a servant.” It is universally admitted that the two phrases are directly
antithetical, and that “form” must therefore have the same sense in both.’ (From
Gifford, ‘The Incarnation,’ pp. 16,19,39.)” —Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of
Old and New Testament Words, 1985, p. 251
In the same way that Christ possesses the “nature” of a man and, as a result, is considered
to be a complete human being (not a creature who is half man and half divine), Jesus
possesses the “nature” of God and is therefore considered to be fully Divine as the infinite
God.
13/35
3. While it is true that in the incarnation, Christ did not seek to grasp (arpazw—harpazo) at
equality with God, this does not contradict the fact that Christ, in His Divine nature, is equal
to God the Father. An examination of the context of Philippians 2:6 reveals that Paul is
exhorting Christians to humbly give their lives in sacrifice for the brethren. It is in this context
of humility that Paul uses the example of Christ who laid aside the equality which He
possesses with the Father in order to give His life for us. If Christ did not possess this
equality with the Father prior to the incarnation, the whole example would be
destroyed. Not trying to exalt oneself to become equal with God is hardly an example
of humility.
3 WAYS JESUS “MADE HIMSELF NOTHING”:
1. HE CONCEALED HIS PREINCARNATE GLORY: Matt. 17:2; Rev. 1:12-18
2. HE SUBMITTED TO THE LIMITATIONS OF HUMAN WEAKNESS AND LIMITED SOME

OF THE USE OF HIS DIVINE QUALITIES ON CERTAIN OCCASIONS.
DIVINE QUALITIES HUMAN QUALITIES
OMNIPOTENCE: Mark 2:7-12; 14:62-64; Jn. HUNGER & WEARINESS: Lk 4:2; Jn 4:6;
2:7-11 Mt 8:24
OMNIPRESENCE: John 1:48; Matt. 18:20; FINITE PHYSICAL BODY: Mark 3:9; John
28:20 11:32
OMNISCIENCE: John 2:24-25; 6:64; 16:30 LIMITED KNOWLEDGE: Mark 13:32; John
11:34
3. “BEING MADE IN HUMAN LIKENESS”: HE TOOK ON AN ADDITIONAL NATURE =

THE NATURE OF A MAN: Prior to the incarnation Jesus was one in person and one in
nature; but at the incarnation, Jesus took on an additional nature and thus became a full man
while He still retained His full Deity as God. Although, on certain occasions, attributes of
His Divine nature are applied to His human person (John 16:30), His natures are not
mixed. He is not half God and half man, but is two in nature while yet remaining one person.
It is for this reason that we see in Scripture certain occasions where Jesus (while operating
under the limitations of His human nature) was unable to foretell the future (Mark 13:32), yet
on other occasions, He demonstrated His Divine attribute of omniscience by being able to
foretell the future (John 6:64).
14/35
“But we do see Him who has been made for a little while lower than the angels,
namely, Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that by
the grace of God He might taste death for everyone….Since then the children share
in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same, that through death
He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil; and
might deliver those who through fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives. For
assuredly He does not give help to angels, but He gives help to the descendant of
Abraham. Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all things…to make
propitiation for the sins of the people.” —Hebrews 2:9, 14-17
ISAIAH 45:23: “…that to Me PHILLIPIANS 2:10-11: “that at the name of Jesus

every knee will bow, every every knee should bow….and that every tongue
tongue will swear allegiance.” should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord….”
“Jesus said to them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.’ ”
—New American Standard Bible
“Jesus said to them: ‘Most truly I say to you, Before Abraham came into existence, I have
been.’ ”
“…in NW the latter part of John 8:58 reads: ‘Before Abraham came into existence, I have
been.…’ Which rendering agrees with the context? The question of the Jews (verse
57) to which Jesus was replying had to do with age, not identity. Jesus’ reply logically
dealt with his age, the length of his existence.” —Reasoning from the Scriptures, pp.
417-418
“Thus, the real thought of the Greek used here is that…Jesus had existed long before
Abraham was born.”—Should You Believe in the Trinity?, p. 26
“I have been (e-go’ ei-mi’). The action expressed by this verb began in the past, is still in
progress, and is properly translated by the perfect indicative.…attempting to identify
Jesus with Jehovah, some try to use Exodus 3:14 (LXX) which reads: E-go’ ei-mi ho on,
which means ‘I am The Being,’ or, ‘I am The Existing One.’ This attempt cannot be
sustained because the expression in Exodus 3:14 is different from the expression in John
8:58.” —The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures, 1985 pp. 451, 1145-
1146
3 REASONS THE SOCIETY’S TRANSLATION OF JOHN 8:58 IS INCORRECT:
1. TRANSLATING EIMI AS “I HAVE BEEN” IS INCONSISENT. The New World Translation

correctly translates eimi (εἰμι) as “I am” in nearly every place throughout the New Testament
except where it appears in John 8:58. Why the inconsistency in translation? The translation
15/35
of the present tense ego eimi (ἐγὼ εἰμί) as “I am” in this context indicates a continuous
existence, without beginning, and therefore contradicts the Watchtower Society’s doctrine
that Jesus is a created being, that is, the Archangel Michael. Thus, in an attempt to make
this verse compatible with their doctrine, they chose to translate the present tense ego eimi
as “I have been,” thereby dropping the connection between the Greek Septuagint’s rendering
of “I am” in Exodus 3:14 for Jehovah God and Jesus’ statement of “I am” in John 8:58. The
bias of the Watchtower’s New World Translation against the Deity of Jesus Christ is clearly
demonstrated when one compares this translation with the Greek-English Kingdom
Interlinear translation that is published by the Watchtower Society. Note the following chart:
KINGDOM INTERLINEAR NEW WORLD TRANSLATION
JOHN 8:58: “Said to them Jesus Amen JOHN 8:58: “Jesus said to them: ‘Most truly I
amen I am saying to you Before say to you, Before Abraham came into
Abraham to become I am.” existence, I have been.’ ”
Here, the context is so important. The phrase ego eimi (“I am”) is not a term that was used
exclusively by Jesus to refer to Deity. It was used throughout Scripture by many individuals
and many different situations, but it is the context of John 8:58, where Jesus is giving his
claims to Deity, that provides the significance of His use of this phrase in this passage where
He refers to Himself as the “I AM” of Exodus 3:14. So, while the Watchtower Society
presents many arguments against the standard Bible translation of ego eimi as “I am” at
John 8:58, the fundamental question that needs to be asked is this:
When challenged by the Jews about Who He claimed to be at John 8:58, did Jesus claim to
be the “I am” of Exodus 3:14 or was He merely claiming to have existed for a long time by
saying: “I have been” before Abraham?
An analysis of the Greek text may prove helpful here as εἰμι (eimi) (which literally means “I
am”) is the present active indicative of the present infinitive “to be” (εἶναι— einai). Used in
John 8:58, The New Englishman’s Greek Concordance and Lexicon notes that eimi is a
“basic verb capable of many translations, e.g., to be, to exist, to happen, to be present.” This
Lexicon goes on to list all of the Scriptures where eimi appears in the Greek text and
provides the King James Version’s translation of this verb in each of the verses. With very
few exceptions, eimi is translated “I am.”
Yet, John 14:9 is one place where eimi is translated similarly to the rendering of John 8:58 in
the New World Translation. At John 14:9, the New American Standard Bible reads: “Have I
been so long with you…?” Although the Watchtower Society admits that ego eimi is a
present tense verb, they insist that it should be translated in the “perfect” tense as “I have
been” and try to justify their translation by pointing to the passage’s connection to a past
historical event (the birth of Abraham). They claim that a perfect tense translation can be
applied to a present tense Greek verb if the event is referencing an earlier period.
16/35
Thus, to provide justification for the New World Translation’s rendering of the present
indicative eimi as “I have been” at John 8:58, the Watchtower appeals to John 14:9 and a
few other passages where eimi and other present tense verbs are translated in the perfect
tense when conveying an action that occurred in the past with continuing results to the
present. Yet, in his Exegetical Analysis of John 8:58, Justin Alfred, MA, notes concerning
John 14:9:
“Jesus said (λέγει – legei) to him: ‘Have I been (εἰμι – eimi) with YOU men so long a time,
and yet, Philip,you have not come to know me? He that has seen me has seen the Father
[also]. How is it you say, ‘Show us the Father’?” Both λέγει (legei) and εἰμι (eimi) are present,
indicative verbs, and here too, the grammatical rule for translating a present tense verb in a
past or perfect form is in place: ‘Sometimes the progressive present is retroactive in its
application, denoting that which has begun in the past and continues into the present. For
want of a better name, we may call it the present of duration. This use is generally
associated with an adverb of time, and may best be rendered by the English
perfect.’[5] And again, the ‘said’ is not an aorist, indicating a completed act in past time, and
the ‘have been’ is not a ‘perfect indicative’ in any sense of the word or meaning, but
rather both these verbs are present indicatives, and in no way do they EVER LOSE
their continuous action identity, but they are given a past and perfect form in translation
for the sake of English readers.”
So, although it is true that in cases like these where a present tense verb can be translated
by a perfect tense to convey an action that started in the past with continuing results into the
present, such is the exception to the rule, not the standard. In each case, the context
determines how eimi would be best translated as the present tense of “I am” or the perfect
tense of “I have been.” Likewise, in each case where a perfect tense can be translated for
the present tense, the verb never looses its present tense identity and it never becomes a
“perfect indicative.” Thus, in the case of John 14:9, a rendering of eimi as, “Have I been” at
John 14:9 in the New American Standard Bible and the King James Bible Version, means
essentially the same as the translation of, “Am I so long a time with you…” in the Darby
Translation.
Using a prefect tense in this instance does not change the basic continuous existence of the
verb in this context. So, the essential meaning of John 14:9 does not change regardless of
whether one renders eimi as “Am I…” or “Have I been” in this context. However, one cannot
use John 14:9 where eimi is translated in a perfect form to support the faulty rendering of the
New World Translation at John 8:58 because the rendering of “I have been” in John 8:58
completely changes the meaning of the passage as determined by the context. Here at
John 8:58, Jesus was claiming continuous existence from “before Abraham” to the present
and specifically used the exact phrase ego eimi that is found in the LXX Septuagint’s
rendering of Jehovah’s statements about Himself at Exodus 3:14. It is obvious by the Jews
reaction in the very next verse (verse 59) that they saw the connection with His claim to be
Jehovah because they tried to stone Him for blasphemy.
17/35
2. JESUS COULD HAVE USED A DIFFERENT TENSE TO SAY THAT HE EXISTED
BEFORE ABRAHAM. To support their translation of “I have been” at John 8:58, the 1985
edition of the Watchtower Society’s Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures
explains that they translated eimi in the “perfect indicative” tense as “I have been” because
they assert that Jesus was only claiming to exist before Abraham.5. Yet, there was a better
verb tense for eimi that Jesus could have used that would have supported a rendering of
prior existence before Abraham without the confusion with Exodus 3:14. It is the Greek
“imperfect indicative” ἤμην(ēmēn) for “I was.” If Jesus had merely wanted to say that he
had been existing before Abraham, he could have easily used this imperfect indicative verb
instead of using the present tense ἐγὼ εἰμί(egōeimi) form of “I am.” As we see by the
context, His use of the present indicative eimi stirred the anger of the Jews who clearly saw
the connection with Jehovah’s claim to be the ego eimi ho ohn (ἐγὼ εἰμί) of the LXX
Septuagint’s rendering of Exodus 3:14.
3. THE EGO EIMI HO OHN OF THE LXX SEPTUAGINT MEANS “I AM THE CONTINUOUS
EXISTING BEING”. Contrary to the Watchtower Society’s claim that the expression of
Exodus 3:14 in the Greek LXX Septuagint is “different from the expression in John 8:58”, the
Greek phrase ὁ ὢν (ho ohn), that is used in the LXX translation of Exodus 3:14, is a present
participle of eimi. So, both are present tense forms of “to be” and both indicate timeless
existence given the context of these passages. Thus, the Watchtower Society is wrong when
they claim that the phrase used in the LXX is different. The Jews who lived at the time of
Christ were assuredly well familiar with the Greek Septuagint, and as a result, tried to stone
Jesus for blasphemy at verse 59, just as Leviticus 24:16 commanded them to do. The Jews
had no laws commanding the stoning of people who merely thought of themselves as being
angels! Indeed, Jesus in His Divine nature has “neither beginning of days nor end of life”
(Hebrews 7:3), because He has always existed as God throughout all eternity.
A MADE-UP GREEK TENSE: The Watchtower Society has made other grammatical
blunders when it comes to Greek verb tenses. On page 312 of their 1950 edition of their New
World Translation Bible, the footnote for their John 8:58 translation reads:
“I have been… properly rendered in the perfect indefinite tense.”
The term “indefinite” does not exists in Greek grammar. While the perfect tense exists for
many Greek verbs, there does not exist a Greek verb mood called “indefinite.” That term
was made up! This demonstrates the utter incompetence of the translators of the New World
Translation Bible of Jehovah’s Witnesses. 6.
18/35
NOTE: For further analysis of the errors in the New World Translation when it comes to John
8:58 and Exodus 3:14, see excerpts from Justin Alfred’s Exegetical Analysis of John 8:58
reproduced in the Exodus 3:14 and John 8:58 Appendix chapter of this book.
JOHN 1:1: “The Word Was God”
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
—New American Standard
“In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.”
“Note, however, that here again the context lays the groundwork for accurate
understanding. Even the King James Version says, ‘The Word was with God.’ (Italics
ours.) Someone who is ‘with’ another person cannot be the same as that other
person….The Koine Greek language had a definite article (‘the’), but it did not have an
indefinite article (‘a’ or ‘an’)….So John 1:1 highlights the quality of the Word, that he was
‘divine,’ ‘godlike,’ ‘a god,’ but not Almighty God.”—Should You Believe in the Trinity?, p.
27
Attempting to disprove the Deity of Christ that is so clearly articulated at John 1:1, the
Society setup a straw-man argument based on the preposition “with” found in this passage,
and thus, they proceeded to knock that argument down. This type of reasoning serves as a
clever way to sidestep the key issue being addressed and to confuse people as to how the
doctrine of the Trinity is defined. Since Trinitarians do not believe that God the Father and
God the Son are the same person, this argument has no basis in reality. When one defines
the doctrine of the Trinity as consisting of three separate and distinct persons who are one
God, it is not inconceivable to comprehend how Jesus is “with” God the Father, and yet
possesses the same power, authority, and Divine nature that God the Father possesses. At
Isaiah 44:24, the Society’s New World Translation states: “I, Jehovah, am doing everything,
stretching out the heavens by myself, laying out the earth. Who was with me?” Since no
one was “with” Jehovah when He created the earth, Jesus must be Jehovah God!
Likewise, John 1:3 states: “All things came into being by Him, and apart from Him nothing
came into being that has come into being.” Upon consideration of this passage, the crucial
questions that must be asked are: Which category does Jesus fall under? Is He in the
created being category, or the eternal, non-created category?
THINGS THAT “CAME INTO BEING” THINGS THAT NEVER “CAME INTO BEING”
(WERE CREATED) THROUGH BECAUSE THEY HAVE ALWAYS EXISTED:
CHRIST:
19/35
All CREATION: UNIVERSE THE TRIUNE GOD:
· Time: Past, Present, Future · THE FATHER: Psalm 90:2
· Space: Length, Width, Height · THE SON: Jn. 8:58; Isa. 9:6; Heb. 7:3
· Matter: Energy, Movement, · THE HOLY SPIRIT: Hebrews 9:14
Phenomenon
Since it is preposterous to assert that Jesus created Himself, the only rational conclusion one
can draw is that Jesus must be as eternal as God the Father is. Thus, this passage is one of
the clearest passages that demonstrates the eternal and omnipotent nature of the Son.
Since Jesus created “all things” and no created thing came into existence “apart from Him,”
Jesus certainly cannot be a created creature, as the Society claims, but must reign supreme
as the eternal God who is without “beginning of days, nor end of life.” ((Hebrews 7:3)
ISAIAH 9:6: Jesus is the “Everlasting Father”

We have already discussed how Scripture acknowledges the distinction between the Person
of the Father and the Person of the Son within the Godhead. Yet, Isaiah 9:6 not only declares
that Jesus is the “mighty God” but it attributes the title “Eternal Father” to Him. How are we to
understand this title of Christ? Does this mean that Christ the Son of God is somehow
interchangeable with the Person of the Father? No. Scripture often uses the phrase “Father
of…” to denote authorship, possession or the source of something. Thus, when Scripture
proclaims that God is:
“the Father of mercies”—2 Corinthians 1:3

“the Father of glory”—Ephesians 1:17
“the Father of lights”—James 1:17
It declares that God is the Author and Source of all of these attributes. Likewise, when the
Son is called the “Eternal Father”, we understand this to mean that Jesus is the “Father of
Eternity” or as the Orthodox Jewish Bible (OJB) translates this phrase in Isaiah 9:6, He is the
“Avi Ad (Possessor of Eternity).” This agrees with John 10:28 where Jesus is said to “give”
eternal life to his followers. How could Jesus “give” eternal life to people if He Himself does
not own or possess eternity as the uncreated God? This is why the Pharisees criticized
Jesus for claiming the authority to “forgive sins” (Mark 2:7). Just as the true God is the only
One who has the authority to forgive sins since He is ultimately the One being insulted by our
sins, so it is with the gift of eternal life. Only the uncreated, eternal God, who Possesses
Eternity, has the authority to grant eternal life to those He chooses to pardon. Thus, as
Author and “Possessor of Eternity,” Isaiah 9:6 is yet another Scripture that proves the fact
that Jesus is eternal, without “beginning of days…” (Hebrews 7:3) and cannot be created.
THE NEW TESTAMENT IN AN IMPROVED VERSION, Upon the Basis of Archbishop

Newcome’s New Translation: With a Corrected Text, 1808: “…and the word was a
god.”7.
20/35
Concerning the Society’s quoting of this version in support of their claim that Jesus is “a
god,” Peter Barnes notes the following:
“The New Testament in an Improved Version, based on Archbishop Newcome’s manuscript

was not published until years after Newcome’s death, when his original text came into the
possession of the ‘Society for promoting Christian Knowledge and the Practice of Virtue –
Unitarian.’ Unitarians are the same as Jehovah’s Witnesses in that they refuse to
believe in the deity of Jesus Christ. Those Unitarian publishers produced an ‘edited
version’ of Newcomb’s manuscript!”—The Truth About Jesus and the Trinity, 1994, p. 11
Peter Barnes received this information the Cambridge History of the Bible: The west from the
Reformation to the Present day:
“The translations by Wakefield and Newcome were in no sense sectarian. Yet both are
sometimes listed as Unitarian. The facts are that the Unitarian Society for Promoting
Christian Knowledge sought to produce a version of the New Testament divesting the sacred
volume of the technical phrases of a systematic theology which has no foundation in the
Scriptures themselves. …It was decided to adopt Newcome’s text as the basis for the
Unitarian version, to be edited and adapted by Dr Thomas Belsham. This was published in
1808 as The New Testament in an Improved Version, upon the basis of Archbishop
Newcome’s New Translation, with a corrected text. Newcome had died in 1800, and could
not object; Bishop Stock, who was a relative of Newcome, protested, but to no effect. The
fifth edition, 1819, bears the title Unitarian Version on the back.” — Cambridge History of the
Bible: Volume 3, page 366
THE EMPHATIC DIAGLOTT, interlinear reading, by Benjamin Wilson8.
Just as The New Testament in an Improved Version is not without bias, Wilson’s translation
has an element of bias due to the fact that Wilson was a Christadelphian. According to the
November 8, 1944 Watchtower publication Consolation: “Mr. Wilson was reportedly a
Christadelphian. Christadelphians believe the organized churches are apostate, do not
believe in the ‘trinity’, do not believe in the ‘inherent immortality of the soul’ or in ‘eternal
torment’, but hold that eternal death is the punishment awaiting the wicked.”9. However,
despite all of this, Peter Barnes observes:
“If we look at the Emphatic Diaglott and check Benjamin Wilson’s translation of John
1:1, we will note that in the interlinear section (which shows each Greek word with its
corresponding English word underneath), Wilson has written under the Greek word
‘QeoV’ (deity, God), ‘a god,’ but when we examine Wilson’s finalized translation (his
preferred rendering), we find that he does not say ‘the word was a god,’ but ‘the Word
was God.’ Therefore his translation does not provide adequate support for the
New World Translation.”—The Truth About Jesus and the Trinity, pp. 11-12
21/35
Likewise, when we examine page 872 of the “Valuable Alphabetical Appendix” by Benjamin
Wilson, published in the Watchtower Society’s 1942 edition of the Emphatic Diaglott, we see
that Wilson considered Jesus Christ to be called “Almighty” and the Alpha and Omega God
at Revelation 1:8. So, again, Benjamin Wilson’s Emphatic Diaglott cannot be regarded as a
strong support of the Watchtower Society’s position that Jesus is simply “a god” type
creature who is not the one and only Almighty God.
Endeavoring to find support for their conclusions from the Journal of Biblical Literature, the
Society declares:
“The Journal of Biblical Literature says that expressions ‘with an anarthrous [no article]
predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning.’ As the Journal
notes, this indicates that the lo’gos can be likened to a god. It also says of John
1:1: ‘The qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun [the-os’]
cannot be regarded as definite.’ ”—Should You Believe in the Trinity?, p. 27
In the Journal of Biblical Literature, the author lists five possible ways John could have
written John 1:1. I will list these ways and then quote his statements concerning them. Keep
in mind that Clause B is the clause that John used when he wrote John 1:1:
22/35
A. ho logos en ho theos (The Word was the God.)
B. theos en ho logos (God was the Word.)
C. ho logos theos en (The Word God was.)
D. ho logos en theos (The Word was God.)
E. ho logos en theios (The Word was divine.)
“Clause A, with an arthrous predicate, would mean that logos and theos are
equivalent and interchangeable. There would be no ho theos which is not also ho
logos. But this equation of the two would contradict the preceding clause of 1:1,
in which John writes that ho logos en pros ton theon [The Word was with the God].
This clause suggests relationship, and thus some form of ‘personal’ differentiation,
between the two. Clause D, with the verb preceding an anarthrous predicate, would
probably mean that the logos was ‘a god’ or a divine being of some kind,
belonging to the general category of theos but as a distinct being from ho theos.
Clause E would be an attenuated form of D. It would mean that the logos was
‘divine,’ without specifying further in what way or to what extent it was divine. It could
also imply that the logos, being only theios, was subordinate to theos. John evidently
wished to say something about the logos that was other than A and more than D
and E. Clauses B and C, with an anarthrous predicate preceding the verb, are
primarily qualitative in meaning. They indicate that the logos has the nature of
theos. There is no basis for regarding the predicated theos as definite. This would
make B and C equivalent to A, and like A they would then contradict the
preceding clause of 1:1. As John has just spoken in terms of relationship and
differentiation between ho logos and ho theos, he would imply in B or C that they
share the same nature as belonging to the reality theos. Clauses B and C are
identical in meaning but differ slightly in emphasis. C would mean that the logos (rather
than something else) had the nature of theos. B means that the logos has the nature
of theos (rather than something else). In this clause, the form that John actually
uses, the word theos is placed at the beginning for emphasis.…Perhaps the
clause could be translated, ‘the Word had the same nature as God.’ This would be one
way of representing John’s thought, which is, as I understand it, that ho logos, no less
than ho theos, had the nature of theos.”—Journal of Biblical Literature, 1973, pp. 85,
87
Note that the Journal specifically identifies how John would have had to write John 1:1 if he
had wanted to communicate the Watchtower teaching that Jesus is “divine” or “a god.” Then,
the Journal specifically demonstrates how John did not want to communicate this idea for it
states: “John evidently wished to say something about the logos [Word] that was other than
A [the God] and more than D and E [‘a god’ or divine].” According to the Journal, the
reason John did not say that the Word was “the God” (as in Clause A) is due to the fact that
had John made this statement, he would have contradicted the preceding clause (“the Word
was with God”), and as a result, would have made a statement that would have denied the
23/35
distinction between the person of the Father and the person of the Son. As can be seen, far
from supporting the Watchtower position, the Journal of Biblical Literature actually militates
against their position for the Journal concludes that “ho logos, [the Word] no less than ho
theos, [the God] had the nature of theos [God].”
We have just seen how the Watchtower Society misquoted the “Qualitative Anarthrous
Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1” article by Philip B. Harner to support their
translation of “a god” at John 1:1, claiming that because the word “God” in reference to the
“Word” is not proceeded by the article “the”, it is “qualitative in meaning” rather than definite.
While it is true that John’s use of “God” in John 1:1 presents more the quality or character of
the Word as possessing God’s full nature of Deity, rather than identifying Him to be the same
person as the Father, this in no way supports the Watchtower’s rendering of John 1:1 as “a
god.” H. E. Dana and Julius R. Mantey elaborate on the significance of “The Absence of the
Article” in their 1957 book, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament stating:
“Sometimes with a noun which the context proves to be definite the article is not used. This
places stress upon the qualitative aspect of the noun rather than its mere identity. An
object of thought may be conceived of from two points of view: as to identity or quality. To
convey the first point of view the Greek uses the article; for the second the anarthrous
construction is used. …The use of θεὸ ς in Jn. 1:1 is a good example. Πρὸς τὸν θεόν points to
Christ’s participation in the essence of the divine nature. The former clearly applies to
personality, while the latter applies to character. …The articular construction emphasizes
identity; the anarthrous construction emphasizes character.” —A Manual Grammar of the
Greek New Testament (London, England: MacMillan Publishing, 1957), 149, 140
In the 1969 edition of the Society’s Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures,
pages 1158-1159, the Watchtower misquoted Dr. Julius Robert Mantey’s A Manual Grammar
of the Greek New Testament to try to elicit support for their rendering of John 1:1. In
response to the Society’s misquoting of him, Dr. Mantey 13. called the Society’s New World
Translation a “grossly misleading translation.” The following is an excerpt taken from the
statement Mantey wrote in response to the Society’s translation:
“Since my name is used and our Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament is quoted on
page 744 to seek to justify their translation I am making this statement. The translation
suggested in our Grammar for the disputed passage is, ‘the Word was deity.’ Moffatt’s
rendering is ‘the Word was divine.’ William’s translation is, ‘the Word was God Himself.’ Each
translation reflects the dominant idea in the Greek. For, whenever an article does not
precede a noun in Greek, that noun can either be considered as emphasizing the character,
nature, essence or quality of a person or thing, as theos (God) does in John 1:1, or it can be
24/35
translated in certain contexts as indefinite, as they have done. But of all the scholars in the
world, as far as we know, none have translated this verse as Jehovah’s Witnesses
have.…And, if we contrast with that the belittling implication that Christ was only a god, do
we not at once detect the discord? Does not such a conception conflict with the New
Testament message both in whole and in part?”—“A Grossly Misleading Translation,” pp.
1-2
As is clearly evident, the scholarly community does not endorse the assertions of the
Watchtower Society of Jehovah’s Witnesses concerning their translation of John 1:1.
JOSEPH HENRY THAYER
Endeavoring to find support for their theology from the well-known Greek scholar Joseph
Henry Thayer, the Society allegedly quotes Thayer as stating that “The Logos was divine, not
the divine Being himself.”10. A look at the Society’s bibliography for the Trinity brochure lists
this quote as coming from “Thayer’s personal copy of Griesbach’s Greek New Testament
text, 1809, with Thayer’s handwritten comments on John 1:1 interleaved.” Since I don’t have
a way of checking the context or the accuracy of this quote, I cannot substantiate or refute
this statement which was supposedly made by Thayer. However, in order to determine
whether or not Thayer supports Watchtower ideology, one can look at other statements
Thayer has made regarding Christ.
One prime example to consider is Thayer’s comments on Colossians 2:9 which states that
“…in Him all the fulness of Deity dwells in bodily form.” In his Greek English Lexicon,
Thayer notes that the Greek word for Deity (theotes) used in this verse means “deity i.e. the
state of being God, Godhead: Col. ii.9.”11. This is certainly not the kind of statement one
would expect from a scholar who doesn’t believe in the Deity of Christ. Thus, it is reasonable
to conclude that Thayer does not support Watchtower ideology. Although it is impossible to
do a contextual study of Thayer’s alleged statement concerning the Word, one can assume
that if Thayer did make this statement, it may very well have been in the context of the Word
not being the same person as the person of God the Father.
The Society quotes John L. McKenzie as stating that “Jn 1:1 should rigorously be
translated…‘the word was a divine being.’ ”12. Let’s look at the context from which this
statement was taken:
25/35
“In the words of Jesus and in much of the rest of the NT the God of Israel (Gk ho
theos) is the Father of Jesus Christ. It is for this reason that the title ho theos,
which now designates the Father as a personal reality, is not applied in the NT to
Jesus Himself; Jesus is the Son of God (of ho theos). This is a matter of usage and
not of rule, and the noun is applied to Jesus a few times. Jn 1:1 should rigorously
be translated ‘the word was with the God [= the Father], and the word was a divine
being.’ Thomas invokes Jesus with the titles which belong to the Father, ‘My Lord
and my God’ (Jn 20:28). ‘The glory of our great God and Savior’ which is to
appear can be the glory of no other than Jesus (Tt 2:13).”—Dictionary of the Bible,
1965, p. 317
Here again is another example of how the Watchtower has twisted a statement made by a
scholar attempting to make it appear that the particular scholar supports their doctrine. Just
like the other scholars previously discussed, McKenzie believes that the Word is “divine” in
the same sense that the Father is divine and that the reason the title of “the God” is applied
to Christ only a few times in Scripture is due to the fact that the biblical writers recognized the
distinction between the person of the Father and the person of the Son. However, McKenzie
is quick to point out that these writers invoked “Jesus with the titles which belong to the
Father”, and therefore proves that Jesus is just as much God as the Father is God.
Violating a Rule?
“SOME claim, however, that such renderings violate a rule of Koine Greek grammar
published by Greek scholar E. C. Colwell back in 1933. He asserted that in Greek a
predicate noun ‘has the [definite] article when it follows the verb; it does not have
the [definite] article when it precedes the verb.’ By this he meant that a predicate noun
preceding the verb should be understood as though it did have the definite article (‘the’) in
front of it. At John 1:1 the second noun (the-os’), the predicate, precedes the verb—‘and
[the-os’] was the Word.’ So, Colwell claimed, John 1:1 should read ‘and [the] God was the
Word.’…Does the context require an indefinite article at John 1:1? Yes, for the
testimony of the entire Bible is that Jesus is not Almighty God.…it is apparent from
the many translations that insert the indefinite article ‘a’ at John 1:1 and in other places
that many scholars disagree with such an artificial rule, and so does God’s Word.”—
It is true that Trinitarians in the past have attempted to use Colwell’s rule about the non-use
of the definite article preceding a verb, to try to prove that in the phrase, “God was the Word,”
the noun “God” should be regarded as definite, that is, “the God.” However, Trinitarian
thought since this time has shifted to viewing the lack of the definite article in this phrase as a
type of qualitative form, rather than a definite form. Thus, most Trinitarians now view the lack
of the definite article before the word, “God,” in John 1:1 as describing the Godlike quality of
the Word (Christ), rather than stating that Jesus is the definite same Person as “the God”
(the Father). Thus, the lack of the definite article in this passage is seen as a way to
differentiate between the Person of the Father, “…the God,” and the Person of the Son, “…
and God was the Word.”
26/35
As has already been discussed, when one considers the testimony of Scripture with regard
to the doctrine of the Trinity, several passages can be cited to derive the concept of the
Trinity. Although the Society has repeatedly sought scholarly support for their anti-Trinitarian
doctrine, such support has been difficult for the Society to obtain, not only with those who
hold to Colwell’s rule, but also with those who hold to the qualitative view of John 1:1 as
discussed earlier in my analysis of the article in the Journal of Biblical Literature and A
Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament by Dana and Mantey. In fact, scholarly
support for the New World Translation’s unique rendering of John 1:1 and other passages
has been so seriously lacking that at one point in their history, the Watchtower Bible and
Tract Society of Jehovah’s Witnesses turned to the world of the occult to find support for their
translation.
THE NEW TESTAMENT BY JOHANNES GREBER translated with Spirit-World Mediums
From 1962 to 1971, the Watchtower quoted The New Testament – A New Translation and
Explanation Based on the Oldest Manuscripts by Johannes Greber in support of John 1:1
being translated as “a god” in their New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures. Who was
Johannes Greber? The February 15, 1956 issue of The Watchtower explains on pages 110-
111:
“Says Johannes Greber in the introduction of his translation of The New Testament,
copyrighted in 1937: ‘I myself was a Catholic Priest, and until I was forty-eight years old had
never as much as believed in the possibility of communicating with the world of God’s spirits.
The day came, however, when I involuntarily took my first step toward such
communication, and experienced things that shook me to the depths of my soul…. My
experiences are related in a book that has appeared in both German and English and bears
the title, Communication with the Spirit World: Its Laws and Its Purpose. …The most
significant spiritualistic book is the Bible.’ Under this impression Greber endeavors to make
his New Testament translation read very spiritualistic. …Very plainly the spirits in which
ex-priest Greber believes helped him in his translation.”
Not only does the Watchtower of February 15, 1956 admit to Greber’s connection with the
spirit-world as stated in his Introduction to the 1937 edition of his New Testament, but his
Introduction goes on to admit:
“In the rare instances in which a text pronounced correct by the divine spirits can be found
in none of the manuscripts available to-day, I have used the text as it was given to me
by those spirits.” —Johannes Greber, “Introduction,” The New Testament, Part 1
Translation,(New York: John Felsberg Inc, 1937), 15
27/35
So, Greber admits that where his translation differs from the text of the manuscripts, he
provided the text directly inspired by the spirit mediums. Yet, despite the fact that the
Watchtower Society was well-aware of his connection with the demonic spirit-world, they
quoted Greber’s rendering of John 1:1 as “a god” in support of their New World Translation
four times, starting as early as September 15, 1962, just 6 months after they exposed his
“Communication with the Spirit World” in the February 15th issue of The Watchtower
published that same year. It wasn’t until 1983 that they publicized their decision to stop citing
him because of his connection with the spirit-world.
1. IS SATAN JEHOVAH? HE IS CALLED “THE GOD” AT 2 CORINTHIANS 4:4: “among

whom the god of this system of things has blinded the minds of the unbelievers.…”—New
World Translation Doesn’t this passage undermine the Society’s rule concerning the definite
article (the) being used to designate the true God from lesser “gods”?
2. JEHOVAH IS ALSO CALLED “A GOD” AT LUKE 20:37-38: “…when he calls Jehovah

‘the God of Abraham and God of Isaac and God of Jacob.’ He is a God, not of the dead, but
of the living, for they are all living to him.”—New World Translation Since the term “God” is
used of Jehovah without the definite article, doesn’t this discredit the Society’s claim that
Jesus is not the true God because the term “God” is used in reference to Christ without the
definite article?
3. CONSISTENCY IN TRANSLATION: If one is consistent in applying the Society’s rule of

inserting the article “a” whenever the definite article (the) is not written in the Greek, the
following verses would read this way:
· JOHN 1:6:“There came a man, sent from a God.…”

· JOHN 1:18: “No man has seen a God at any time.…”
· MATTHEW 5:9: “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of a God.”
4. SCRIPTURE CALLS JESUS “THE GOD” WHICH INDICATES HE IS JEHOVAH:
· MATTHEW 1:23: “Look! The virgin…will give birth to son, and they will call the name of him
Immanuel; which is being translated With us the God.” —Kingdom Interlinear Translation
· JOHN 20:28: “Answered Thomas and he said to him The Lord of me and the God of
me!”—Kingdom Interlinear Translation
· JOHN 1:18: “No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten God, who is in the
bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.”
· 1 JOHN 5:20; 1:2: “…we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true
God and eternal life.…the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to
28/35
us.…”
· HEBREWS 1:8: “But of the Son He says, ‘Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever, and the
righteous scepter is the scepter of His Kingdom.’ ”
HEBREWS 1:8:“toward but the Son The HEBREWS 1:8:“But with reference to
throne of you the God into the age of the the Son: ‘God is your throne forever.…’ ”
age.…”
Throughout Hebrews 1-3, Christ is shown to be superior to creation as He is contrasted to

the angels, the prophets, and Moses. At Hebrews 1:10-12, we read a passage taken from
Psalm 102:25-28 that was written exclusively of Jehovah in the Old Testament but applied
directly to Christ here in the New Testament.
Incidentally, Hebrews 1:8-9 is a quotation taken right out of Psalm 45:6-7. Hebrew
Parallelism occurs where the literary structure of one verse is seen to be identical to
that of another verse. In this case, in the Septuagint, the literary structure of Psalm 45:6:
“Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever” is seen to be identical to the literary structure of the
previous verse, Psalm 45:5: “Thy weapons, O Mighty One, are sharpened.” Therefore, the
translation of “Thy throne, O God….” at Hebrews 1:8 is much more correct than the
Watchtower Society’s New World Translation.
KINGDOM INTERLINEAR: KINGDOM INTERLINEAR: JOHN 3:16

JOHN 1:1
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος καὶ ὁ Οὕτως γὰ ρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸ ς τὸ ν κόσμον ὥστε τὸ ν υἱὸ ν τὸ ν

λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ μονογενῆ ἔδωκεν ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸ ν μὴ
θεὸ ς ἦν ὁ λόγος. ἀπόληται ἀλλἀ ἔχῃ ζωὴ ν αἰώνιον.
Jehovah’s Witnesses often point to the fact that at John 1:1, the first occurrence of the Greek
word translated “God” (in reference to the Father) appears as theon, while the second
occurrence of the Greek word translated “God” (in reference to the Son) appears as theos.
They then proceed to argue that since a different form of the word appears in reference to
Jesus, He can’t possibly be the same God as the Father. However, the difference between
these Greek forms is due only to Greek grammar and can be demonstrated by noting that at
John 3:16, the Greek grammar form of theos is used in reference to the Father. If John had
wanted to communicate the idea that Jesus merely possesses “divine qualities” (as the
29/35
Watchtower Society asserts), there was a clearer word he could have used—theios. Instead,
he used theos which is the strongest word for Deity available in the Greek language. Notice
how the lesser word for deity theios is employed in the following passage:
2 PETER 1:4: “For by these He has granted to us His precious and magnificent promises, in
order that by them you might become partakers of the Divine [theias] nature, having
escaped the corruption that is in the world by lust.”
This verse is not implying that Christians will become “little gods” or that their human natures
will turn into “divine natures.” Rather, it is teaching that when the Holy Spirit regenerates a
person, the Holy Spirit actually dwells within that person (1 Corinthians 3:16), and it is in this
sense that the person becomes a partaker of the “divine nature.” Jesus, in contrast to men
and angels, is Divine and is therefore God (theos). Jehovah God declares:
“Remember the first things of a long time ago, that I am the Divine One and there is
no other God, nor anyone like me.”—Isaiah 46:9, New World Translation
One more fact worth noting at John 1:1 is that Jehovah’s Witnesses often point to the fact
that in their Greek text found in the Watchtower produced Kingdom Interlinear Translation of
the Greek Scriptures, the word “Theon” for God the Father is capitalized while the term
“theos” for Christ is not. This, however, does not affect the veracity of the text nor does it
support their theology, for the original Greek manuscripts were uncial manuscripts and thus
were written in all capital letters. The Watchtower even notes this fact in their 1962
publication, “The Word” Who is He? According to John, p. 54
Must Harmonize with the Bible
“But does not ‘Mighty God’ with its capital letters indicate that Jesus is in some way
equal to Jehovah God? Not at all.…Still, even though Jesus was called ‘Mighty,’ there can
be only one who is ‘Almighty’….Since the Bible calls humans, angels, even Satan,
‘gods,’ or powerful ones, the superior Jesus in heaven can properly be called ‘a god’…
But what about the apostle Thomas’ saying, ‘My Lord and my God!’ to Jesus at John
20:28? To Thomas, Jesus was like ‘a god,’….Thomas may simply have made an
emotional exclamation of astonishment, spoken to Jesus but directed to God.”—
Should You Believe in the Trinity?, pp. 28-29
ISAIAH 10:20-21; JEREMIAH 32:17-18 ISAIAH 9:6
“…but will truly rely on the LORD, the Holy One of Israel. A “For a child will be
remnant will return, the remnant of Jacob, to the mighty born to us…And His
God….Nothing is too difficult for Thee…O great and mighty name will be called…
God. The LORD of hosts is His name;” Mighty God….”
30/35
At Isaiah 9:6, we read that Jesus is called the “mighty God” Yet, Jehovah God is called
“mighty God” at Isaiah 10:20-21. Are there two “mighty Gods”? The real issue is not
whether other beings are called “gods,” but which category of “god” does Jesus fall under?
Does He fall under the category of being the true God or a false god? While Jehovah’s
Witnesses assert that there is a category of “gods” that is neither true nor false and that
these “gods” hold the title of “god” due to their power and authority, Scripture reveals that this
is not the case. For example, at Psalm 82:6-7, Israelite judges were called “gods” in
sarcasm because these judges (who thought of themselves a “gods”) were reviling the true
God by their unrighteous judgments. Psalm 82 is a psalm of condemnation for these judges
who acted as if they were “gods” in that they made life and death decisions for others, but
they would ultimately “die like men” —thus proving the infinite difference between the true
God and the mightiest of mortals.
At 2 Corinthians 4:4, Satan is addressed as “the god of this world.” Since it is obvious that
Satan is a false god, he is addressed as “god” because pagans and unbelievers throughout
history have worshipped him by serving false idol “gods” made of wood and stone, powered
by demons (1 Corinthians 10:20). Yet, despite Satan’s authority as “god of this world,” the
demons recognize that Satan is not a real “god.” At James 2:19, the Bible declares that
even the demons recognize that there is only “one God.” Since there is only one true God
(John 17:3) who has revealed Himself as the “only God” (1 Timothy 1:17), Jesus is either in
the true God category of being Jehovah God Himself, or He is a counterfeit god who is a
false god. There is no middle ground. While Scripture reveals that there is only one God “by
nature” and that all other “so-called gods” are false gods (1 Corinthians 8:5-6), Jesus is “by
nature” the one and only true God.
“However at that time, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those which by
nature are no gods.…Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in
very nature God….we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God
and eternal life.…the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us.…And
yet for this reason I found mercy, in order that in me as the foremost, Jesus Christ might
demonstrate His perfect patience, as an example for those who would believe in Him for
eternal life. Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory
forever and ever. Amen.…For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one
like Me.” —Galatians 4:8; Philippians 2:5-614.; 1 John 5:20; 1:2; 1 Timothy 1:16-17; Isaiah
46:9
By teaching that there are many “gods” who are neither true or false, Watchtower doctrine
resembles henotheism rather than monotheism or polytheism. While henotheism is very
similar to polytheism in that it advocates the existence of many “gods,” it differs from
polytheism by teaching that there is only one God who should receive worship. As is clearly
demonstrated by Scripture, neither henotheism or polytheism is correct, for Jehovah God is
the “only God” (1 Timothy 1:17).
31/35
WHO IS THE “FIRST AND LAST”?
ISAIAH 43:10-11; 44:6; 48:12: “‘You are My REVELATION 1:17-18; 2:8: “And when I
witnesses,’ declares the LORD… ‘Before saw Him, I fell at His feet as a dead man.
Me there was no God formed, and there will And He laid His right hand upon me,
be none after Me. I, even I, am the LORD; saying, ‘Do not be afraid; I am the first
and there is no savior beside Me.…I am the and the last, and the living One; and I was
first and I am the last, and there is no God dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore,
besides Me.…Listen to Me, O Jacob, even and I have the keys of death and of
Israel whom I called; I am He, I am the Hades.’…The first and the last, who was
first, I am also the last.’” dead, and has come to life, says this….”
WHO IS THE ROCK?
ISAIAH 44:6-8: “Thus says the 1 Corinthians 10:4: “…and all drank the same spiritual
LORD…’ I am the first and I am drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which
the last, and there is no God followed them; and the rock was Christ.”
besides Me. And who is like
Me?…Is there any God
besides Me, or is there any
other Rock? I know of none.’
”
< I PETER 3:14-15; 2:4, 6-8: “…And do not fear their

intimidation, and do not be troubled, but sanctify Christ
ISAIAH 8:12-14: “…And you as Lord.…And coming to Him as to a living stone,
are not to fear what they fear or rejected by men.…For this is contained in Scripture:
be in dread of it. It is the LORD ‘Behold I lay in Zion a choice stone, a precious corner
of hosts whom you should stone, and he who believes in Him shall not be
regard as holy. And He shall disappointed.’ This precious value, then, is for you who
be your fear, and He shall be believe. But for those who disbelieve, ‘The stone which
your dread. Then He shall the builders rejected, this became the very corner
become a sanctuary; But to stone,’ and, ‘A stone of stumbling and a rock of
both the houses of Israel, a offense’;”
stone to strike and a rock to
stumble over.…”
In chapters two and three of First Peter, Peter quotes Isaiah 8:12-14 which speaks
exclusively of Jehovah God and applies this passage directly to Christ. Regarding the
Watchtower Society’s insertion of the Divine Name (Jehovah) into the texts of their Christian
Greek Scriptures (New Testament), the Society’s Greek-English Translation states:
32/35
“In the LXX the Greek words Ky’ri-os and The-os’ [Lord and God] have been used to
crowd out the distinctive name of the Supreme Deity. Every comprehensive Greek-
English dictionary states that these two Greek words have been used as equivalents of
the divine name [Jehovah]. Hence, the modern translator is warranted in using the
divine name Jehovah as an equivalent of those two Greek words, that is, at
places where the writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures quote verses,
passages, and expressions from the Hebrew Scriptures or from the LXX where
the divine name occurs.…How many modern translators determine when to render
the Greek words Ky’ri-os and The-os’ as the divine name? By determining where the
inspired Christian writers have quoted from the Hebrew Scriptures. Then they
must refer back to the Hebrew text to locate whether the divine name appears there.
In this way they can determine the identity to be given to Ky’ri-os and The-os’, and
make appropriate use of the personal name.” —The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of
the Greek Scriptures, 1985, pp. 11-12
I Peter 3:15 states that we are to “sanctify Christ as Lord.…” According to Webster’s New
World Dictionary, the word “sanctify” means “to set apart as holy.” Thus, Peter (quoting
Isaiah 8:13 which speaks of regarding Jehovah as holy) literally states that we are to
“sanctify” (regard as holy) “Christ as Lord.” If we apply the Society’s rule of inserting the
name “Jehovah” into the text of any New Testament passage which is quoting a Hebrew
passage where the divine name (Jehovah or YHWH) appears, we could literally translate 1
Peter 3:15 as “…sanctify Christ as Jehovah.…”, for the divine name appears in Isaiah 8:13!
At 1 Peter 2:4-8, Peter also quotes Isaiah 8:14 which states that Jehovah God is the
stumbling stone of Israel and reveals that this Jehovah God who is the “stone of stumbling” is
Jesus Christ. Thus, Jesus is Jehovah God!
JESUS IS ALMIGHTY!
REVELATION 1:8; 22:13 REVELATION 1:17-18
“ ‘I am the Alpha and the Omega,’ says the “Do not be afraid; I am the first and
Lord God, ‘who is and who was and who is to the last, and the living One; and I
come, the Almighty.…I am the Alpha and the was dead, and behold, I am alive
Omega, the first and the last, the beginning forevermore, and I have the keys of
and the end.’ ” death and of Hades.”
· MATTHEW 28:18: “And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, ‘All authority has been
given to Me in heaven and on earth.’ ”15.
· HEBREWS 1:3: “And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His
nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power.”16.
· MARK 2:7-12: “ ‘Why does this man speak that way? He is blaspheming; who can
forgive sins but God alone?’ And immediately Jesus, aware in His spirit that they were
reasoning that way within themselves, said to them, ‘Why are you reasoning about these
33/35
things in your hearts?…But in order that you may know that the Son of Man has authority
on earth to forgive sins’—He said to the paralytic—’I say to you, rise, take up your pallet
and go home.’ And he rose and immediately took up the pallet and went out in the sight of
all; so that they were all amazed and were glorifying God, saying, ‘We have never seen
anything like this.’ ”
PSALM 89:6-9 MATTHEW 8:24-27
“For who in the skies is comparable “And behold, there arose a great storm in the
to the LORD? Who among the sons of sea, so that the boat was covered with the
the mighty is like the LORD, a God waves; but He himself was asleep. And they
greatly feared in the council of the holy came to Him, and awoke Him, saying, ‘Save us,
ones, and awesome above all those Lord; we are perishing!’ And He said to them,
who are around Him? O Lord God of ‘Why are you timid, you men of little faith?’
hosts, who is like Thee, O mighty Then He arose, and rebuked the winds and
LORD? Thy faithfulness also surrounds the sea; and it became perfectly calm. And
Thee. Thou dost rule the swelling of the men marveled, saying, ‘What kind of a
the sea; When its waves rise, Thou man is this, that even the winds and the sea
dost still them.” obey Him?’ ”
JESUS IS JEHOVAH GOD!
At John 20:28, Thomas addressed Jesus as “My Lord and my God!” If Thomas were merely
making “an emotional exclamation of astonishment” by addressing Jesus as God, wouldn’t
this have been equivalent to taking the name of Jehovah in vain? If Jesus were not God,
wouldn’t this exclamation require a rebuke on the part of Christ? Instead of correcting
Thomas, however, at verse 29 we read that Jesus commended Thomas for believing in Him!
Psalm 35:23 calls Jehovah (Yahweh) “my God and my Lord.” It may be that Thomas, who
was quite familiar with the Old Testament, had this verse in mind when he addressed Jesus
as “My Lord and my God.”
“Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has
made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His
own blood.”—Acts 20:28
“For it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fulness to dwell in Him.…For in Him
all the fulness of Deity dwells in bodily form.”—Colossians 1:19; 2:9
NEXT CHAPTER
============
1. See John 5:18; John 8:58-59; John 10:30-39 and John 19:7
2. John 20:28. Note that Psalm 35:23 calls Jehovah (Yahweh) “my God and my Lord.” It may
be that Thomas, who was quite familiar with the Old Testament, had this verse in mind when
he addressed Jesus as “my Lord and my God.”
34/35
3. Cf. Wesley J. Perschbacher, The New Analytical Greek Lexicon (Peabody, MA:
Hendrickson Publishers Inc., 1990), 140; William D. Mounce, Basics of Biblical Greek (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1993), 342
4. The New Englishman’s Greek Concordance And Lexicon, by Jay P. Green, Sr., 1982
(Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody, MS), p. 883
5. The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures, 1985 pp. 451, 1145-1146
6. For further analysis of the errors in the New World Translation when it comes to John 8:58
and Exodus 3:14, see excerpts from Justin Alfred’s Exegetical Analysis of John 8:58
reproduced in the Appendix of this book.
7. Quoted in Should You Believe in the Trinity?, p. 27
8. Ibid.
9. Consolation, November 8, 1944, p. 26
11. The New Thayer’s Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament, 1974, p. 288
13. Dr. Mantey is a professor of Greek and New Testament at Northern Baptist Theological
Seminary of Chicago, Illinois.
14. This verse is quoted from the New International Version
15. See also John 16:15
16. See also Colossians 1:17
35/35
“Worship God On His Terms” – Chapter 8 – Yes, You
Should Believe in the Trinity!
4jehovah.org/worship-god-on-his-terms-chapter-8-yes-you-should-believe-in-the-trinity/
YES, YOU SHOULD BELIEVE IN THE TRINITY

BOOK TABLE OF CONTENTS

IS JESUS CHRIST THE ARCHANGEL
MICHAEL?
TITLES AND ATTRIBUTES OF JEHOVAH
APPLIED TO JESUS
“Therefore, if we want God’s approval, we

need to ask ourselves: What does God say
about himself? How does he want to be
worshiped? What are his purposes, and how
should we fit in with them? An accurate
knowledge of the truth gives us the right
answers to such questions. Then we can
worship God on his terms.”—Should You
Another way Jesus indicated that He is God is by not rejecting worship that was rendered to
Him. At Revelation 22:8-9 we read of an incident where John “fell down to worship at the
feet of the angel who showed me these things. And he said to me, ‘Do not do that; I am a
fellow servant of yours and of your brethren the prophets and of those who heed the words
of this book; worship God.’ ” If Jesus is merely a created being such as an angel, He would
have rejected worship. (Exodus 34:14)
JOHN 5:23: “in order that all may honor the Son, even as they honor the Father. He
who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.”
HEBREWS 1:6: “And when He again brings the first-born into the world, He says, ‘And
let all the angels of God worship Him.’ ”1.
At Hebrews 1:6, we read that angels are commanded to worship Christ. If Jesus were an
angel, this would have amounted to nothing less than creature worship. Endeavoring to
avoid the obvious condemnatory implication of this passage with the Watchtower teaching
1/10
that Jesus is the archangel Michael, the Society cleverly distorted this passage in their New
World Translation. At Hebrews 1:6 and many other passages where Jesus is said to receive
“worship,”2. the current edition of the New World Translation renders proskuneo (the Greek
word for “worship”) as “do obeisance to.” The Society argues that “obeisance” is not worship
but is merely respectful honor that is rendered to Christ due to his position as Jehovah God’s
representative. Is this a tenable argument? At Acts 10:25-26 in the New World Translation,
we read of a incident where Peter rejected “obeisance” because he realized that it should be
given only to God. Since Peter would not even accept “obeisance,” Jesus cannot be a
created being, for He receives the same “worship” and “obeisance” that Jehovah God
receives.
THE FATHER RECEIVES THE LAMB RECEIVES WORSHIP

WORSHIP
REVELATION 4:10-11: “the REVELATION 5:11-14: “And I looked, and I heard the
twenty-four elders will fall voice of many angels around the throne and the living
down before Him who sits creatures and the elders; and the number of them was
on the throne, and will myriads of myriads, and thousands of thousands, saying
worship Him who lives with a loud voice, ‘Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to
forever and ever, and will receive power and riches and wisdom and might and
cast their crowns before the honor and glory and blessing.’ And every created thing
throne, saying, ‘Worthy art which is in heaven and on the earth and under the earth
Thou, our Lord and our and on the sea, and all things in them, I heard saying, ‘To
God, to receive glory and Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb, be
honor and power; for Thou blessing and honor and glory and dominion forever and
didst create all things, and ever.’ And the four living creatures kept saying, ‘Amen.’
because of Thy will they And the elders fell down and worshiped.”
existed, and were created.’ ”
Since prayer is a form of worship, Jesus demonstrates that He is God by the fact that He not
only accepts prayer, but He encourages His followers to pray to Him.
JOHN 14:14: “If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it.” 3.

ACTS 7:59: “And they went on stoning Stephen as he called upon the Lord and said,
‘Lord Jesus, receive my spirit!’ ”
2 CORINTHIANS 12:8-9: “Concerning this I entreated the Lord three times that it
might depart from me. And He has said to me, ‘My grace is sufficient for you, for power
is perfected in weakness.’ Most gladly, therefore, I will rather boast about my
weakness, that the power of Christ may dwell in me.”
ACTS 22:16: “And now why do you delay? ‘Arise, and be baptized, and wash away
your sins, calling upon His name.’ ”
1 CORINTHIANS 1:2, 9: “…to those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, saints
by calling, with all who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,
their Lord and ours….you were called into fellowship with His Son, Jesus Christ our
Lord.”
2/10
Not only did the martyr Steven call out to Jesus in prayer (Acts 7:59), but at 1 Corinthians
1:2, 9, Paul admonishes believers to not only “call upon” the name of Jesus in prayer, but to
have “fellowship” with Him. If prayer should not be addressed to Jesus, as the Watchtower
Society asserts,4. how can a person have “fellowship” with Christ? How can a person have
“fellowship” with someone he never talks to? At John 14:14, Jesus encourages His disciples
to call upon Him in prayer. In order to make this verse compatible with Watchtower doctrine,
the Society cleverly left out the “Me” in their New World Translation. The deception of the
Society’s New World Translation is readily seen when one compares this passage with the
Society’s Greek-English interlinear translation.
JOHN 14:14: “If ever anything you should ask me JOHN 14:14: “If You ask anything
in the name of me this I shall do.” in my name, I will do it.”
“…do not mention the name of other gods, nor let them be heard from your mouth.”—
Exodus 23:13
WHO ARE WE TO SERVE?
2 KINGS 17:35 COLOSSIANS 3:24
“with whom the LORD made a covenant and “knowing that from the Lord you
commanded them, saying, ‘You shall not fear other will receive the reward of the
gods, nor bow down yourselves to them nor serve inheritance. It is the Lord Christ
them nor sacrifice to them.’ ” whom you serve.”
IS JESUS CHRIST THE ARCHANGEL MICHAEL?
Although not directly stated in the Watchtower Society’s brochure on the Trinity, the Society
officially teaches that Jesus Christ is the archangel Michael. Asserting that Jesus existed as
Michael prior to coming to earth and that Jesus was “no more, no less” than a perfect man
when He was on earth, they claim that at His death, the “man” Jesus ceased to exist,5. being
raised as a “spirit creature”—the archangel Michael.6. Endeavoring to prove that Jesus is
Michael, Jehovah’s Witnesses often point to passages like Daniel 10:13 where Michael is
seen as “one of the chief princes.” The fact that Michael is “one of the chief princes,”
however, indicates that Michael is not unique. Jesus is more than just a prince or ruler. The
Bible calls Jesus “King of Kings” and “Lord of Lords.” (Revelation 17:14; 19:16) This title
indicates absolute sovereignty and authority and is a far cry from being “one of the chief
princes” who is one among a group of equals.
3/10
Daniel 10:5-9 describes the person who is speaking to Daniel as “a certain man dressed in
linen.” Although it is not specifically stated in the text, when the description of this “man” in
linen is compared with the description of Jesus Christ at Revelation 1:13-18, some people
speculate that this person is Jesus Christ who is speaking to Daniel in this passage. Verses
12-13 state that this man in linen (who may be Jesus Christ) needed the “help” of “Michael,
one of the chief princes.” Thus, one could ask the question that if Michael the archangel
helped Jesus, how can Jesus be Michael?
DANIEL 10:5-6, 8-10, 12-13 REVELATION 1:13-18
“I lifted my eyes and looked, and behold, there “and in the middle of the lampstands
was a certain man dressed in linen, whose one like a son of man, clothed in a
waist was girded with a belt of pure gold of robe reaching to the feet, and girded
Uphaz. His body also was like beryl, his face across His breast with a golden
had the appearance of lightning, his eyes girdle. And His head and His hair were
were like flaming torches, his arms and feet white like white wool, like snow; and His
like the gleam of polished bronze, and the eyes were like a flame of fire; and His
sound of his words like the sound of a feet were like burnished bronze, when
tumult….no strength was left in me, for my it has been caused to glow in a furnace,
natural color turned to a deathly pallor, and I and His voice was like the sound of
retained no strength. But I heard the sound of many waters. And in His right hand He
his words; and as soon as I heard the sound of held seven stars; and out of His mouth
his words, I fell into a deep sleep on my came a sharp two-edged sword; and His
face, with my face to the ground. Then face was like the sun shining in its
behold, a hand touched me and set me strength. And when I saw Him, I fell at
trembling on my hands and knees….Then he His feet as a dead man. And He laid
said to me, ‘Do not be afraid…I have come His right hand upon me, saying, ‘Do
in response to your words. But the prince of not be afraid; I am the first and the last,
the kingdom of Persia was withstanding me for and the living One; and I was dead, and
twenty-one days; then behold, Michael, one behold, I am alive forevermore, and I
of the chief princes, came to help me….’ ” have the keys of death and of Hades.’ ”
Of course, since Daniel doesn’t reveal the name of this man in linen, the idea that this person
is Jesus Christ is a matter of pure speculation. Those who contend that this man is not
Jesus Christ would ask why Jesus, as God, needed Michael to “help” him. Others who hold
that this person is Jesus would reply that although Jesus does not need the “help” of His
creatures, He chooses to accept this help to accomplish His own purposes, just as we know
that Jesus will use the help of His heavenly army to defeat Satan and his followers at
Revelation 19:14. So, regardless of where you stand on this argument, we do know that
nowhere in the Bible does it ever say that Jesus is Michael the Archangel. In fact, there are
other Scriptures that indicate a clear distinction between the person of Michael and that of
Jesus Christ. Note the following chart:
JESUS CHRIST MICHAEL THE ARCHANGEL
Has authority to rebuke Satan: Mark 8:33 Cannot rebuke Satan: Jude 9
4/10
Is exclusively God’s Son: Hebrews 1:5 Has an inferior name: Hebrews 1:4
Receives worship and God’s future Rejects worship, not given God’s
Kingdom: Hebrews 1:6; Matthew 28:17-18 Kingdom: Revelation 22:8-9; Hebrews 2:5
1 Thessalonians 4:16 states, “For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout,
with the voice of the archangel, and with the trumpet of God.…” Jehovah’s Witnesses use
this verse to try to prove that Jesus is Michael the archangel because He comes “with the
voice of the archangel.” However, the fact that Jesus is coming with the archangel’s voice
doesn’t mean that He is an archangel. Notice that this verse also says that Jesus is coming
with God’s trumpet, but one wouldn’t argue that Jesus is God simply because He is coming
with God’s trumpet.
In 2 Thessalonians 1:7, we read that “the Lord Jesus will be revealed from heaven with His
mighty angels in flaming fire.…” Thus, it appears that Jesus will come with the archangel
who issues the shout. In Zechariah 14:5-6, we read that Jehovah God “will come, and all the
holy ones with Him! And it will come about in that day that there will be no light.” When one
compares this passage of Jehovah’s coming with the coming of Christ as described in 2
Thessalonians 1:7 and Matthew 24:29-31, it is obvious that the Jehovah who is coming in
Zechariah is the Jesus who is coming with “His angels” in Matthew 24 and 2 Thessalonians.
JEHOVAH IS COMING CHRIST IS COMING
ZECHARIAH 14:3-6: “Then MATTHEW 24:3, 29-31: “And as He was sitting on the
the LORD will go forth and Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately,
fight against those nations, saying, ‘Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be
as when He fights on a day the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?’…’But
of battle. And in that day His immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun
feet will stand on the Mount will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light,
of Olives….Then the LORD, and the stars will fall from the sky, and the powers of
my God, will come and all the heavens will be shaken, and then the sign of the Son
the holy ones with Him! of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the
And it will come about in that earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man
day that there will be no coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great
light; the luminaries will glory. And He will send forth His angels with a great
dwindle.” trumpet….’ ”
5/10
ISAIAH 60:19-20: “No REVELATION 21:23, 25: “And the city has no need of
longer will you have the sun the sun or of the moon to shine upon it, for the glory of
for light by day, Nor for God has illumined it, and its lamp is the Lamb….And in
brightness will the moon the daytime (for there shall be no night there)….”
give you light; But you will
have the LORD for an
everlasting light, And your
God for your glory. Your sun
will set no more, Neither will
your moon wane; For you
will have the LORD for an
everlasting light, And the
days of your mourning will be
finished.”
REVELATION 1:7-8: “Look! REVELATION 22:12-13, 20: “ ‘Look! I am coming

He is coming with the quickly, and the reward I give is with me, to render to
clouds, and every eye will each one as his work is. I am the Al’pha and the O-
see him, and those who me’ga, the first and the last, the beginning and the
pierced him; and all the end.’…He that bears witness of these things says, ‘Yes; I
tribes of the earth will beat am coming quickly.’ ‘Amen! Come, Lord Jesus.’ ”—
themselves in grief because New World Translation
of him. Yes, Amen. ‘I am the
Al’pha and the O-me’ga,’
says Jehovah God, ‘the
One who is and who was
and who is coming, the
Almighty.’ ”—New World
Translation
In order to try to prove that when Jesus was claiming to be the “Son of God,” He was
claiming to be one of God’s angels, Jehovah’s Witnesses point to Job 38:7 where angels are
called sons of God. However, Hebrews 1:5 states, “For to which of the angels did He ever
say, ‘Thou art My Son, Today I have begotten Thee’? And again, ‘I will be a Father to Him
and He shall be a Son to Me’?” Since the Bible doesn’t contradict itself, it is obvious that
Jesus is called the “Son of God” in a different sense than angels are called God’s sons.
Indeed, Jesus was never Michael the archangel before He came to earth, nor did He raise as
“a spirit creature”—the archangel Michael. The Bible testifies: “For He did not subject to
angels the world to come, concerning which we are speaking”—Hebrews 2:5
Jehovah knows “all things.” (1 John 3:20; Psalm 147:5) Jesus knows “all things.”
(John 16:30)
Jehovah is the only one who knows the hearts of all men. (1 Kings 8:39; Jeremiah
17:9-10) Jesus knows the hearts of all men. (John 2:24-25; Rev. 2:18, 23)
Jehovah is our sanctifier. (Exodus 31:13) Jesus sanctifies us. (Hebrews 10:10)
6/10
Jehovah is our peace. (Judges 6:23) Jesus is our peace. (Ephesians 2:14)
Jehovah is our righteousness. (Jeremiah 23:6) Jesus is our righteousness. ( 1
Corinthians 1:30)
Jehovah is our healer. (Exodus 15:26) Jesus heals us. (Acts 9:34)
Jehovah God dwells in us. (2 Corinthians 6:16) Jesus is in us. (Romans 8:10)1.
Jehovah is the giver of life who will not allow His people to be “snatched” out of His
hand. (Deuteronomy 32:39) Jesus is the giver of life who will not allow His people to be
“snatched” out of His hand. (John 10:28)
Jehovah’s voice is “like the roar of rushing waters.” (Ezekiel 43:2) Jesus’ “voice was
like the sound of rushing waters.” (Revelation 1:15)
Jehovah is present everywhere. (Proverbs 15:3; Jeremiah 23:24; I Kings 8:27) Jesus
is omnipresent. (John 1:48; Matthew 18:20; 28:20)
Jehovah’s nature does not change. (Malachi 3:6) Jesus’ nature does not change.
(Hebrews 13:8)2.
Jehovah is the only God we are to “serve.” (2 Kings 17:35) Jesus is to be served.
(Col. 3:24)
Jehovah is the only God to be “worshipped.” (Exodus 34:14) Jesus receives the
same honor and “worship” that the Father receives. (John 5:23; Revelation 5:11-14
compare with Rev. 4:10-11)3. No angel can receive “worship.” (Revelation 22:8-9)
Jehovah the Lord is to be set apart as holy. (Isaiah 8:12b-13) Jesus as Jehovah is to
be set apart as holy. (1 Peter 3:14b-15a)4.
Jehovah’s glory is not to be given to another. (Isaiah 42:8) Jesus shares Jehovah’s
glory. (Jn. 17:5)
God’s name is Jehovah (or Yahweh–YHWH). (Isaiah 42:8) Jesus has Jehovah’s
name. (John 17:11; John 16:14-15)
Jehovah is the only God to be mentioned in prayer. (Exodus 23:13) Christians are to
pray to Jesus. (John 14:14) 5.
Calling upon Jehovah (Joel 2:32) is the same as calling upon Jesus. (Acts 2:21;
Romans 10:9-13)6.
Jehovah “the true God” is called “eternal life.” (1 John 5:20) Jesus is called “the
eternal life.” (1 John 1:2)
Jehovah is the “mighty God.” (Jeremiah 32:17-18; Isaiah 10:20-21) Jesus is the
“mighty God” (Isaiah 9:6) who is “Almighty.” (Revelation 1:7-8)7. THERE IS ONLY ONE
GOD. (1 Timothy 1:17; Isaiah 44:8)
Jehovah is an “everlasting light.” (Psalm 27:1; Isaiah 60:19-20) Jesus is the light of
men and the everlasting light of the future city. (John 1:4-9; Revelation 21:23)
Jehovah is “the first and the last.” (Isaiah 44:6; 48:12) Jesus is the “first and the last.”
(Revelation 1:17-18; 22:12-13, 20)
Jehovah is the “Alpha and the Omega.” (Revelation 1:8; Revelation 21:6-7) Jesus is
the “Alpha and the Omega.” (Revelation 22:12-13, 20)
Jehovah’s title is “the Holy One.” (Isaiah 47:4) Jesus is “the Holy One.” (Acts 3:14;
John 6:69)
7/10
Jehovah is the “stumbling stone” of Israel. (Isaiah 8:13-15) Jesus is the “stumbling
stone” of Israel. (1 Peter 2:6-8)
John the Baptist was to prepare the way for Jehovah. (Isaiah 40:3) The Jehovah who
came was Jesus. (Mark 1:1-4; John 1:6-7, 23)
Jehovah is the one who was “pierced.” (Zechariah 12:10)8. Jesus is the pierced
Jehovah. (John 19:34; Revelation 1:7-8)
The Jehovah who was sold for 30 pieces of silver (Zechariah 11:13) is Jesus.
(Matthew 27:2-6)
Jehovah is Lord of the elements. (Psalm 89:8-9) Jesus is Lord of the elements.
(Matthew 8:26-27; John 2:7-9)
Jehovah is Lord of the Sabbath. (Exodus 20:10) Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath. (Mark
2:28)
Jehovah is the great Judge who gives life to whom he wishes and who renders to
each man “according” to his “deeds.” (Psalm 98:9; Deuteronomy 32:39; Jeremiah 17:9-
10) Jesus is the only judge who gives life to whom he wishes and renders to each
man “according” to his “deeds.” (John 5:21-22; Revelation 2:18, 23)
Jehovah is the only one who can forgive sins. (Mark 2:7; Daniel 9:9) Jesus forgives
sins. (Mark 2:10-11; Luke 24:46-47)
Jehovah is the great “shepherd” who leads his people to “the spring of the water of
life.” (Psalm 23:1-2; Revelation 21:6-7) Jesus as the “shepherd” of His people, leads
them “to springs of the water of life.” (John 10:11-18; Revelation 7:17) THERE IS ONLY
ONE SHEPHERD— John 10:16.
Jehovah is “Lord of Lords.” (Deuteronomy 10:17) Jesus is “Lord of Lords.”
(Revelation 17:14; 19:16) The Father is Lord of all. (Matthew 11:25; Acts 17:24) Jesus
is “Lord of all.” (Acts 10:36) THERE IS ONLY ONE LORD. (Jude 4)
Jehovah is the Savior. (Isaiah 45:21-22) Jesus is the Savior. (Titus 2:13; 2 Peter 1:1)
THERE IS ONLY ONE SAVIOR. (Isaiah 43:11)
Jehovah created the universe. (Psalm 102:25-27) Jesus created the universe. (John
1:3; Colossians 1:15-19;9. Hebrews 1:10-12).10. THERE IS ONLY ONE CREATOR.
(Isaiah 44:24)
Isaiah saw Jehovah. (Isaiah 6:1-5) The Jehovah that Isaiah saw was Jesus. (John
12:41)
Could it be that Jehovah gave Jesus all these qualities, and therefore, Jesus is a “lesser
God” under Jehovah? No! For Jehovah declares:
“For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me.”—Isaiah
46:9
DISHONORING GOD
8/10
“Be very careful to be accurate in all statements you make. Use evidence honestly. In
quotations, do not twist the meaning of a writer or speaker or use only partial quotations to
give a different thought than the person intended.…Avoid the pitfalls of improper
argumentation….When you make references to the Scriptures or to any other authority, be
definite. And use reliable, capable authority….Quoting from official publications of an
organization to show what they believe is good. Also one wants to use evidence from an
authority that the hearers will accept.”—Qualified to Be Ministers, 1955, Watchtower Bible
And Tract Society, p. 199
“We should want to speak the truth and be absolutely accurate in every detail at all times.
This should be so not only as regards doctrine but also in our quotations, what we say about
others or how we represent them.…Wrong statements delivered to an audience may be
repeated and the error magnified. Inaccuracies that are recognized by an audience raise
questions as to the authority of the speaker on other points, perhaps even calling in question
the truth of the message itself.”—Theocratic Ministry School Guidebook, 1992, p. 110
“Knowing these things, what will you do? It is obvious that the true God, who is himself ‘the
God of truth’ and who hates lies, will not look with favor on persons who cling to
organizations that teach falsehood. (Psalm 31:5; Proverbs 6:16-19; Revelation 21:8) And,
really, would you want to be even associated with a religion that had not been honest with
you?”—Is This Life All There Is?, 1974, Watchtower Bible And Tract Society, p. 46
2 CORINTHIANS 10:17 PHILIPPIANS 3:3
“But he that boasts, let him “For we are those…who are rendering sacred service…
boast in Jehovah.”—New World and have our boasting in Christ Jesus.…” —New World
Translation Translation
NEXT CHAPTER
============
1. Like many other Watchtower doctrines, the Society’s position on this important doctrine
has also changed over the years. Originally they taught that Christ should receive worship.
This teaching was reflected in the editions of the New World Translation prior to 1971. Since
1971, however, the Society no longer renders proskuneo as “worship” when it is used of
Christ. The only exception to this is found at Revelation 5:14 where the New World
Translation describes an incident in which both Jesus and the Father receive “worship.”
2. See Matthew 2:11; 14:33; 28:9, 17; John 9:38
3. Note there is a textual variance in the manuscripts of this passage. Some manuscripts do
not have the “me” in this passage (like the KJV and NKJV Bibles), however the oldest and
best Greek manuscripts that we have available today (including Papyrus 66 –the oldest
9/10
manuscript of the book of John at about 125C.E. and the Society’s manuscript of the
Westcott and Hort manuscripts—Codex Siniaticus and Vaticanus) contain the “me.”
4. Insight on the Scriptures, vol. 2, 1998, p. 667
5. The Atonement Between God and Man, Studies in the Scriptures, vol. 5, p. 454
6. See Reasoning from the Scriptures, p. 218
FOOTNOTES FOR TITLES AND ATTRIBUTES OF JEHOVAH APPLIED TO JESUS:
1. Every place where Jesus is said to dwell “in” someone, the Watchtower Society’s New
World Translation of the Holy Scriptures mistranslates it to read “Christ is in union with you.”
However, note that the correct translation of “in you” can be found in Romans 8:10 of the
Society’s Greek/English Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures.
2. In the incarnation, Jesus took on an addition nature — a human nature (John 1:14;
Philippians 2:7-8), but he still possessed and continues to posses God’s nature (Philippians
2:6) “For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form.” — Colossians 2:9
3. Also Compare Isaiah 45:23 with Philippians 2:10-11.
4. Compare the Hebrew Scripture Greek Septuagint’s rendering of Isaiah 8:12-13 with 1
Peter 3:14-15. Peter quotes this passage of Jehovah and applies it directly to Jesus.
5. The Society’s New World Translation mistranslates this verse to read “ask anything” rather
than “ask me anything.” Note the correct rendering can be found under John 14:14 in the
Society’s Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures.
6. The New World Translation inserts the word “Jehovah” for “Lord” 237 times into their
Christian Scriptures without the support of a single Greek manuscript of the Christian
Scriptures. This is the case with Acts 2:21 and Romans 10:13. Note, however, the correct
translation of “Lord” can be found in the Society’s Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the
Greek Scriptures.
7. The Society translates “Lord God” in Rev. 1:8 as “Jehovah God.” Notice that in this verse,
Jehovah the Lord is called “Alpha and Omega.” At Revelation 22:12-13, 20, Jesus is called
the “Alpha and Omega,” therefore, Jesus is the “Almighty” God of Revelation 1:8.
8. While the best Hebrew manuscripts available render Zechariah 12:10 as, “look upon Me
whom they have pierced,” the New World Translation mistranslates it to read, “look to the
One whom they have pierced.”
9. In this passage of Colossians, the New World Translation, adds the word “other” four times
against all Greek manuscripts available. Note the correct translation of this passage can be
found in the Society’s Kingdom Interlinear Translation.
10. Paul quotes Psalm 102:25-27 which speaks of Jehovah and applies this passage directly
to Christ in Hebrews 1:10-12.
10/10
Who Should We Pray To? – The Father or the Son? –
Chapter 9 – Yes, You Should Believe in the Trinity!
4jehovah.org/who-should-we-pray-to-the-father-or-the-son/
.:SHOULD WE PRAY DIRECTLY TO JESUS? —If we are

encouraged to pray to Jesus, when should we pray to the
Father?
“I read the Acts 7:59 verse quoted on your website to

support the idea that we can pray directly to Jesus, but I
am still unsure about this because I have been taught to
pray to Jehovah the Father and not to Jesus the Son. Can
you please send me more Scriptures that explain why we
can pray to Jesus? Also, if we are supposed to pray
directly to Jesus, what do you say about the Lord’s prayer
where Jesus taught us to pray saying: ‘Our Father…’
Since Jesus taught us to pray to the Father, why should
we pray to Jesus?”
OUR RESPONSE:
Dear friend,
We agree with you that prayer is a form of worship that belongs exclusively to the Jehovah,
the true God. Thus, when we see verses like Acts 7:59 where Stephen said: “Lord Jesus,
receive my spirit,”1. we conclude that Scripture elevates Jesus to the level of Jehovah God
because He not only receives prayer, but He is also worshipped along with the Father (see
Revelation 5:11-14). Yet, Jehovah’s Witnesses often argue that this verse at Acts 7:59 does
not support the idea of “prayer” because a few verses earlier, Stephen saw Jesus in a vision.
They maintain that Stephen was merely talking to Jesus like he would any other being whom
would appear to him (as the angel Gabriel that spoke to Daniel in a vision at Daniel 9:21-22).
Is this argument valid? We believe it is not because Stephen saw the vision of Jesus at
verse 55-56 before the Jews ran him out of the city and stoned him (see verses 57-58). So,
by the time we get to verse 59 where Stephen called out to Jesus, he was no longer seeing
Him in a vision. Also, if you notice the footnote on the word “appeal” in verse 59 in the 1984
study edition of The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures with References, it says
regarding Stephen’s calling out to Jesus: “Or, ‘invocation; prayer.’ ” This same footnote
appears in the Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures published by
the Watchtower Society. So, even the Bible publications of the Watchtower Society agree
with our assessment about this verse providing an example of a “prayer” to Jesus.
1/7
However, even if you don’t want to accept this verse as a guide for a Christian’s response to
Christ, take notice for this next verse because Jesus commands us to pray to Him:
“If ever anything you should ask me in the name of me this I shall do.” —John 14:14,
Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures
The reason we quote the literal English text under the Kingdom Interlinear’s Greek text is
because the translators of the Watchtower Bible removed the first “me” in “ask me” from their
New World Translation. In removing the first “me,” we see a clear example of bias against
the worship of Jesus in the New World Translation of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Notice that Jesus
not only proclaims that we are to “ask” Him for an answer to our petition, but He is the one
who responds to our prayers: “…this I shall do.” He does not say: “…this Jehovah shall do”
or “…this the Father shall do.” The fact that Jesus answers our prayers demonstrates a
direct parallel between the One who receives our prayers and the One who responds. Thus,
we see that Jesus encourages His disciples to address their prayers directly to Him. 2.
The next Scripture we would like to bring to your attention is 2 Corinthians 12:8-9. It reads in
the New World Translation:
“In this behalf I three times entreated the Lord that it might depart from me; and yet
he really said to me: ‘My undeserved kindness is sufficient for you; for [my] power is
being made perfect in weakness.’ Most gladly, therefore, will I rather boast as respects
my weaknesses, that the power of the Christ may like a tent remain over me.”
Here Paul prayed to the “Lord” Jesus three times and Jesus answered his prayer by saying:
“My… power is being make perfect in weakness.” Paul concluded by admitting that he
would “rather boast …that the power of the Christ may like a tent remain over me.” So,
here again, we see an example of a Christian in the Bible praying to the Lord Jesus with
Jesus responding to the prayer with His “underserved kindness” and “power.”
Consider these verses of Acts 4:10,12 and 22:16:
“Let it be known to all of YOU and to all the people of Israel, that in the name of Jesus
Christ the Naz·a·rene´…by this one does this man stand here sound in front of YOU.
…Furthermore, there is no salvation in anyone else, for there is not another name
under heaven that has been given among men by which we must get saved.’ ‘…
Rise, get baptized and wash your sins away by your calling upon his name.’”
If we are to “call upon” Jehovah’s name in prayer for salvation, why do these verses say that
we must call upon Jesus’ name and “not another name” for salvation? If Jehovah’s name
must be invoked in prayer for salvation, why would Acts 4:12 say that there is “not another
name” but the name of Jesus “by which we must get saved”? It is clear from these
passages that the “calling upon” of Jesus name is a prerequisite for salvation and the
washing away of our sins.
2/7
Romans 10:13 in the Jehovah’s Witness Bible reads: “For ‘everyone who calls on the name
of Jehovah will be saved.’ ” If calling upon Jehovah means to pray to Jehovah, why doesn’t
the act of calling upon Jesus’ name mean to pray directly to Jesus? Ponder what Jesus said
at John 6:45:
“Everyone that has heard from the Father and has learned comes to me.”
If you have learned from Jehovah, you are commanded to “come to” Jesus. Have you come
to Jesus by asking Him to wash away your sins and to give you eternal life? At John 10:27-
30, Jesus promised:
“My sheep listen to my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. And I give them
everlasting life, and they will by no means ever be destroyed, and no one will snatch
them out of my hand. What my Father has given me is something greater than all
other things, and no one can snatch them out of the hand of the Father. I and the
Father are one.”
How can you “listen to” Jesus voice if you don’t communicate with Him in prayer? How can
you receive “everlasting life” if you don’t ask Jesus to give it to you? Jesus said at John
14:6: “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through
me.” How can you go “through” Jesus to get to the Father if you do not deal directly with
Jesus by first going to Him prayer for salvation?
“…saints by calling, with all who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus
Christ, their Lord and ours… God is faithful, through whom you were called into
fellowship with His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.” —1 Corinthians 1:2, 9 3.
How can you have “fellowship” with Jesus if you never talk to Him?
IF JESUS TAUGHT US TO PRAY TO THE FATHER, WHY SHOULD WE PRAY TO

JESUS?
You raised a good point when you mentioned the Lord’s prayer and how Jesus taught us to
pray, “Our Father…” at Matthew 6:9. We must keep in mind that by the time Jesus taught His
disciples this prayer, they were already clean and forgiven of their sins (John 13:10). But
before we can approach the Father ourselves, we must first have our sins forgiven by Jesus
Christ:
3/7
“And when Jesus saw their faith he said to the paralytic: ‘Child, your sins are
forgiven.’ Now there were some of the scribes there, sitting and reasoning in their
hearts: ‘Why is this man talking in this manner? He is blaspheming. Who can forgive
sins except one, God?’ But Jesus, having discerned immediately by his spirit that
they were reasoning that way in themselves, said to them: ‘Why are YOU reasoning
these things in YOUR hearts? Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, “Your sins are
forgiven,” or to say, “Get up and pick up your cot and walk”? But in order for YOU men
to know that the Son of man has authority to forgive sins upon the earth,’—he said
to the paralytic: ‘I say to you, Get up, pick up your cot, and go to your home.’ ”—Mark
2:5-11
The Jews correctly understood that God is the only One who can forgive sins. Jesus
as God the Son has the authority of God to forgive sins. This shocked the Jews because
they constantly attempted to merit God’s forgiveness by presenting periodical animal
sacrifices to the high priest of the Jewish temple system. Their human “high priest” would
offer up sacrifices to God that would temporarily mediate between the people and God
(Hebrews 10:11).
However, when Jesus died to pay the penalty for our sins, He replaced the Jewish Old
Covenant system and permanently fulfilled the New Covenant role (Hebrews 10:9-10, 12) as
our only “High Priest” (Hebrews 4:14) and “Mediator” (1 Timothy 2:5). Thus, He is the only
One qualified to forgive our sins and to reconcile us to God the Father (2 Corinthians 5:17-
21). This is why we must first pray to Jesus by asking Him for forgiveness of our sins
(John 6:45; 14:6) before we can call out to God the Father in prayer.
WHEN SHOULD WE PRAY TO THE FATHER?
Scripture teaches that once we have received forgiveness of sins by making Jesus the Lord
and Savior of our lives (Romans 10:13), we are “adopted” out of Satan’s family (John 8:44)
into God’s family (Galatians 4:5-7). While the Jews of the Old Covenant system approached
God with formal titles such as “God,” “Lord,” or the personal name “YHWH” (Jehovah),
Jesus gave His followers permission to use the intimate title of “Father” when
petitioning God because we have a special position as “adopted” children of God. IN
the same way that only a son or daughter in a human family is able to call his or her parents
“mom” or “dad,” Jesus emphasized that as His followers, we have the special position with
God that enables us also to approach Him as “Our Father.”
“Now because YOU are sons, God has sent forth the spirit of his Son into our hearts
and it cries out: ‘Abba, Father!’” —Galatians 4:5
So, as adopted children of God, Jesus taught His disciples to pray the following sample
prayer from Matthew 6:9-13: Take note of the four aspects prayer that He modeled in this
prayer:
4/7
“YOU must pray, then, this way: ‘Our Father in the heavens, let your name be
sanctified. Let your kingdom come. Let your will take place, as in heaven, also upon
earth. Give us today our bread for this day; and forgive us our debts, as we also
have forgiven our debtors. And do not bring us into temptation, but deliver us from the
wicked one.’”
1. ADORATION: The expression of worship for Who God is. (“…Let your name
be sanctified.”)
2. CONFESSION: Admit our sins and receive cleansing and forgiveness. (“…
forgive us our debts…”)
3. THANKSGIVING: Gratitude for God’s protection, provision and the promise

that He plans will be fulfilled. (“Let your will take place…”)
4. SUPPLICATION: Request for the provision and strength to resist temptation.

(“Give us today our bread for this day …deliver us from the wicked one.”)
WE CAN PRAY TO GOD THE FATHER AND THE SON INTERCHANGEABLY:
Since we are the children of God as seen in the model prayer of Jesus, we can approach the
Father not only for the forgiveness of sins that we confess, but also for strength to endure
temptation. Yet, Scripture consistently proclaims that Jesus, as our “High Priest,” is able to
be approached with these same requests just as Paul approached Jesus for strength and
healing at 2 Corinthians 12:8-9. Since Jesus lived among us and experienced everything
that we struggle with, He is most qualified to relate to our daily struggles and provide the
grace and guidance that we need to overcome:
“Seeing, therefore, that we have a great high priest who has passed through the
heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold onto [our] confessing of [him]. For we
have as high priest, not one who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but one
who has been tested in all respects like ourselves, but without sin. Let us,
therefore, approach with freeness of speech to the throne of undeserved
kindness, that we may obtain mercy and find undeserved kindness for help at
the right time.”—Hebrews 4:14-16
One of the reasons that we can present our prayer requests to the Father and the Son
interchangeably is because the Father receives honor and worship by our honoring of the
Son.
“In order that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He that does not
honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him.” —John 5:23
5/7
At Revelation 5:11-14, we read of an incident where Jesus receives “worship” along with the
Father. If Jesus was created by the Father and is not the true God, why does the Father
share His glory with Jesus and allow Him to receive “worship” alongside Himself?
“I am Jehovah. That is my name; and to no one else shall I give my own glory,
neither my praise to graven images.”—Isaiah 42:8
“So now you, Father, glorify me alongside yourself with the glory that I had
alongside you before the world was.”—John 17:5
“And I saw, and I heard a voice of many angels around the throne and the living
creatures and the elders, and the number of them was myriads of myriads and
thousands of thousands, saying with a loud voice: ‘The Lamb that was slaughtered
is worthy to receive the powerand riches and wisdom and strength and honor and
glory and blessing.’ And every creature that is in heaven and on earth and underneath
the earth and on the sea, and all the things in them, I heard saying: ‘To the One
sitting on the throne and to the Lamb be the blessing and the honor and the glory
and the might forever and ever.’ And the four living creatures went saying: ‘Amen!’ and
the elders fell down and worshiped.”—Revelation 5:11-14
At Revelation 22:1,3, the throne of God is said to belong to both the Father and the Son. If
Jesus is a separate “god” who serves under the true God Jehovah, how can Jesus own the
Father’s throne?
“And he showed me a river of water of life, clear as crystal, flowing out from the
throne of God and of the Lamb… And no more will there be any curse. But the
throne of God and of the Lamb will be in [the city], and his slaves will render him
sacred service; and they will see his face, and his name will be on their foreheads.”
Whose “throne” is this—the throne of Jesus or Jehovah? Who is the “him” that the slaves
will render service to — Jesus or Jehovah? Whose “slaves” will they be —the slaves of
Jesus Christ or the slaves of Jehovah?
“for YOU know that it is from Jehovah YOU will receive the due reward of the
inheritance. SLAVE for the Master, Christ.”—Colossians 3:24
Whose “face” will these slaves see — Jesus or Jehovah?
“…by means of the Son… He is the reflection of [his] glory and the exact
representation of his very being.” —Hebrews 1:2-3
“Jesus said to him: “Have I been with YOU men so long a time, and yet, Philip, you
have not come to know me? He that has seen me has seen the Father [also]. How
is it you say, ‘Show us the Father’?”—John 14:9
6/7
Whose “name” will be on their foreheads —the name of Jesus or Jehovah?
“And I saw, and, look! the Lamb standing upon the Mount Zion, and with him a hundred
and forty-four thousand having his name and the name of his Father written on their
foreheads” —Revelation 14:1
From these Scriptural examples, we conclude that it is proper to pray to and worship the Son
of God, not only because Jesus is the representation of God’s very being and possesses His
glory and His throne of authority, but also because Jesus shares God’s nature as the second
Person of the triune Jehovah Godhead.
“because it is in him [Jesus Christ] that all the fullness of the divine quality dwells
bodily.” —Colossians 2:9
“In answer Thomas said to him: ‘My Lord and my God!’ Jesus said to him: ‘Because
you have seen me have you believed? Happy are those who do not see and yet
believe.’—John 20:28-29
NEXT CHAPTER
=========
1. Unless otherwise noted, all Scriptures are quoted from the New World Translation of
Jehovah’s Witnesses.
2.Note there is a textual variance in the manuscripts of this passage. Some manuscripts do
not have the “me” in this passage (like the KJV and NKJV bibles), however the oldest and
best Greek manuscripts that we have available today (including Papyrus 66 –the oldest
manuscript of the book of John at about 125C.E. and the Society’s manuscript of the
Westcott and Hort manuscripts—Codex Siniaticus and Vaticanus) contain the “me.” To learn
more about this translational variant see: JOHN 14:14 — DID JESUS SAY “ASK ME
ANYTHING” OR DID HE SAY “ASK ANYTHING”?
3.Quoted from the New American Standard Bible.
7/7
Did the Hebrew writers of the New Testament call Jesus
YHWH (Jehovah)? – Chapter 10 – Yes, You Should
Believe in the Trinity
4jehovah.org/did-the-hebrew-writers-of-the-new-testament-call-jesus-yhwh-jehovah/

DOES ROMANS 10:13 CONFUSE JESUS WITH JEHOVAH?
DO THE HEBREW J MANUSCRIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CALL JESUS
YHWH?
Throughout the years, Hebrew translations of the Christian

Greek New Testament Scriptures have been made. Some of
the earliest Hebrew translations that we possess today are
DuTillet’s Matthew confiscated from the Jews in Rome in 1553
A.D. and Shem Tob’s Matthew transcribed in approximately
1380 A.D. Other Hebrew manuscripts include The Old Syriac
Gospels, The Peshitta New Testament which may have come
into existence at the time of Josephus, and The Crawford
Aramaic version of Revelation purchased by Earl of Crawford
around 1860. 1. The Watchtower refers to these Hebrew
translations as “J” manuscripts and these documents provide
most of the manuscript support for the Watchtower’s insertion
of God’s name “Jehovah” into the New Testament portion of
their New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures.2.
While there is evidence that at least the book of Matthew was originally written in Hebrew
and later translated into Greek,3. all of the Hebrew manuscripts of the New Testament that
we possess today were copied sometime between the thirteen and eighteenth century, while
the Greek manuscripts of these books were copied as far back as the second century. So,
from the standpoint that our copies of the Greek New Testament manuscripts predate the
Hebrew copies by several centuries and greatly outnumber the Hebrew manuscripts by
several thousand copies, it seems probable that most of the books of the New Testament
were originally written in Greek.
1/12
Jehovah’s Witnesses claim that their New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures is one of
the only Bible translations that shows proper appreciation for
God’s name by inserting the name “Jehovah” for the Hebrew
Tetragrammaton or “YHWH” name of God. Most
scholars prefer the pronunciation of “Yahweh” over “Jehovah”
because they regard “Jehovah” as an inaccurate rendition for
these Hebrew consonants which do not contain vowels in the
original text. Yet, historically, “Jehovah” is the most common transliteration for the name of
God. It was derived by inserting the vowels from “Adonai,” the Hebrew word for “Lord,” into
the Hebrew consonants of “YHWH.” Thus, the name “Ya-Ho-Wa-H” or “Ja-Ho-Va-H” was
created.4.
Why did early scholars choose the vowels from the Hebrew word for “Lord” instead of using
the more common vowels associated with this type of configuration in the Hebrew
consonants? They chose the vowels from “Adonai” because for many years, the Jews were
careful to pronounce “Lord” in place of God’ss name when reading the Old Testament
Scriptures because they wanted to honor the holiness of God’s name by not defaming His
name when pronouncing it. So, in keeping with their custom, Bible scholars have
traditionally translated God’s name as “Lord” or used the vowels from the Hebrew word for
“Lord” to transliterate God’s name as “Jehovah.”
I find it ironic that Jehovah’s Witnesses will denounce modern Bible translations that render
God’s name as “LORD” when their own translation uses an inaccurate pronunciation of
God’s name derived from the vowels of the Hebrew word for “Lord.” Is there really that much
difference between a translator choosing to use a name for God that is created from the
Hebrew word for “Lord” or choosing the word “LORD” in all capital letters to denote His
name? It seems clear to me that the important key in this issue is whether the translator
does something to distinguish where the divine name appears in the Hebrew text as modern
translators do when they translate YHWH as “LORD” in all capital letters. As long as the
name is distinguished in the text, it should be clear to the reader when the Scripture
reference is referring to LORD (YHWH) and when it is referring to someone who is simply a
ruler or “Adonai” (Lord).
While a case may be made for the insertion of God’s name into the text of the New World
Translation’s version of the Hebrew Old Testament Scriptures, there is not a single Greek
manuscript of the entire New Testament Scripture that renders God’s name in full. With over
5,000 partial and complete manuscript copies of the Greek text of the New Testament, if the
authors of the New Testament inserted YHWH into their original writings of the Christian
Greek Scriptures, we would expect to find some kind of trace of it existing originally as is the
case with the ancient copies of the Greek translation of the Old Testament Scriptures called
2/12
the LXX Septuagint. In their brochure, The Divine Name That Will Endure Forever, the
Watchtower provides the evidence for the divine name being in the Septuagint translation of
the Old Testament Scriptures by stating:
“Well, some very old fragments of the Septuagint Version that actually existed in Jesus’
day have survived down to our day, and it is noteworthy that the personal name of God
appeared in them. The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology
(Volume 2, page 512) says: ‘Recent textual discoveries cast doubt on the idea that the
compilers of the LXX [Septuagint] translated the tetragrammaton YHWH by kyrios. The
oldest LXX MSS (fragments) now available to us have the tetragrammaton
written in Heb[rew] characters in the G[ree]k text. This custom was retained by
later Jewish translators of the O[ld] T[estament] in the first centuries A.D.’ Therefore,
whether Jesus and his disciples read the Scriptures in Hebrew or Greek, they would
come across the divine name. …God’s name remained in Greek translations of the
‘Old Testament’ for a while longer. …Even in the fourth century, Jerome writes in his
prologue to the books of Samuel and Kings: ‘and we find the name of God, the
Tetragrammaton [‫]ﬣ וּ ﬣיִ‬, in certain Greek volumes even to this day expressed in
ancient letters.’ …Eventually, many readers did not even recognize what it was and
Jerome reports that in his time ‘certain ignorant ones, because of the similarity of
the characters, when they would find [the Tetragrammaton] in Greek books, were
accustomed to read ΠΙΠΙ.’ ” —The Divine Name That Will Endure Forever, pp. 24-25
Thus, we can tell that the divine name was removed in recent copies of the Greek translation
of the Hebrew Old Testament by finding ancient copies that either contained the name
written out in the ancient Hebrew characters or finding copies that contained an attempt at
writing the Hebrew characters by transcribing them into the Greek characters, pi-iota-pi-iota
(ΠΙΠΙ). Yet, this NEVER occurs in any of the 5,000 Greek manuscripts that we possess of
the Greek New Testament. There is not even a trace of the name in the most ancient Greek
fragments from the second century. Not only is the name missing from the Greek New
Testament, but it is missing in the 86,000 quotations of the New Testament from the early
Church Fathers. Although there are enough quotations of the New Testament from the
Church Fathers to entirely reconstruct the entire New Testament with all but 11 verses,5.
there is not a single incidence when they inserted the divine name into their quotes of the
New Testament Scriptures.6. Why is the lack of evidence of God’s name being removed
from the text of the Greek New Testament Scriptures significant?
At Matthew 24:35, Jesus promised: “Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will
not pass away,” and at 1 Peter 1:25, Scripture reminds us of God’s promise to preserve His
Word. So, if “something” happened “to the text of the Christian Greek Scriptures before the
fourth century that resulted in the omission of God’s name” as the Watchtower Society
claims7. what does this say about Jesus’ ability to preserve His Word from corruption? If
something as important as God’s name was removed from the text of the New Testament
without a trace of evidence, how can we trust the accuracy of God’s Word? No Jehovah’s
3/12
Witness that I have confronted with these claims of Christ has been able to stand with the
Watchtower’s assertions that the New Testament text was corrupted by the removal of God’s
name, because they all believe in the miraculous preservation of the New Testament text.8.
DOES ROMANS 10:13 CONFUSE JESUS WITH JEHOVAH?
Many years ago, I was sitting in the living room of my friend’s home, talking with a Jehovah’s
Witness elder who had come to their door offering a “free home Bible study.” The topic of
God’s name being removed from our modern translations of the Scriptures came up in our
study, and I brought up the fact that there is no evidence in the Greek manuscripts of our
New Testament that the Biblical writers of the New Testament never inserted God’s name,
even when they quoted passages from the Hebrew Old Testament Scriptures that contained
the name. I pointed out that if the Apostle Paul used the same Greek word “Kyrios” (Lord) in
reference to Jehovah that he does when referring to Jesus, this showed a connection
between the Persons of the Trinity that would ultimately cause people to think that Jesus is
Jehovah God. To this statement, the Jehovah’s Witness elder strongly disagreed with me,
saying: “No, there is no confusion. People can clearly tell by the context which verses are
talking about Jehovah God and which verses refer to Jesus.” When he said this, I
responded by showing him an example from Scripture where people would get the
impression that Jesus and Jehovah by the use of “Lord”. Our conversations went something
like this:
4/12
ME: So you think there is no confusion? Well, then let’s look at this Scripture here in
Romans 10:9. Who is the “Lord” that the Apostle Paul is referring to here? [Note: We
read the Scriptures from his New World Translation Bible.]
JW: “For if you publicly declare that ‘word in your own mouth,’ that Jesus is Lord, and
exercise faith in your heart that God raised him up from the dead, you will be saved.”
That Lord is Jesus [he said].
ME: That’s right. Now let’s read verse 10.
JW: “For with the heart one exercises faith for righteousness, but with the mouth one
makes public declaration for salvation.”
ME: According to the context, who are we to “exercise faith” in for salvation?
JW: Jesus.
ME: OK, so these verses are clearly talking about Jesus, right?
JW: Yes.
ME: OK, let’s look at the next verse, verse 11: “For the Scripture says: ‘None that rests
his faith on him will be disappointed.’ ” Who is the “him” that this verse is talking
about?
JW: Jesus.
ME: Now, will you read verse 12 for us?
JW: “For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for there is the same Lord
over all, who is rich to all those calling upon him.”
ME: Who is this “same Lord over all” that this passage is talking about?
JW: Hum… Jesus. [At this point in the 1984 edition of the New World Translation, the
page breaks between verses 12 and 13. So at first, with slight hesitation, he agreed
that Jesus is “the same Lord over all” referred to at verse 12, but then when he turned
the page and saw Jehovah in his translation at verse 13, he quickly back tracked and
said:] No, that’s not Jesus, that Lord is Jehovah! “For ‘everyone who calls on the name
of Jehovah will be saved.’ ”
ME: So, you can see my point. If there is only one Lord (“the same Lord over all”) and
the New Testament writers use the word “Lord” to refer to both Jesus and Jehovah,
one can easily get the impression that they thought Jesus was Jehovah God Himself!”
5/12
He saw my point. Incidentally, the Watchtower makes the same claim in their Divine Name
brochure when they say:
“…Bible translators and students came to realize that without God’s name, some parts
of the Christian Greek Scriptures are very difficult to understand properly. …For
example, consider the words of Paul to the Romans, as they appear in the Authorized
Version: ‘For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.’ (Romans
10:13) Whose name do we have to call on to be saved? Since Jesus is often
spoken of as ‘Lord’ …should we conclude that Paul was here speaking about
Jesus? …No, we should not. A marginal reference to Romans 10:13 in the
Authorized Version points us to Joel 2:32 in the Hebrew Scriptures. If you check that
reference, you will find that Paul was actually quoting the words of Joel in his letter to
the Romans; and what Joel said in the original Hebrew was: ‘Everyone who calls on
the name of Jehovah will get away safe.’ (New World Translation) Yes, Paul meant
there that we should call on the name of Jehovah.Hence, while we have to believe
in Jesus, our salvation is closely linked with a proper appreciation of God’s name.
This example demonstrates how the removal of the name of God from the Greek
Scriptures contributed to confusing Jesus and Jehovah in the minds of many.
Undoubtedly, it contributed greatly to the development of the doctrine of the Trinity!” —
The Divine Name That Will Endure Forever, p. 26
So, when we read the context of Romans 10 and see that Paul was applying the Joel 2:32
Scripture directly to Jesus, it is obvious that he considered Jesus to be Jehovah God. Yet,
the Watchtower insists upon inserting God’s name “Jehovah” at Romans 10:13 because it is
quoting Joel 2:32 where God’s name appears, and then they create an artificial distinction
between the person of Jehovah and the person of Christ by claiming that Romans 10:13
proves that we must call upon the name “Jehovah” for salvation, rather than call upon the
name “Jesus.” Yet, the testimony of Scripture proclaims at Philippians 2:9 that Jesus
possess “the name which is above every name”9. and states at Acts 4:12:
“Furthermore, there is no salvation in anyone else, for there is not another name
under heaven that has been given among men by which we must get saved.” —New
World Translation of the Holy Scriptures
It is significant to point out that Philippians 2:9 has been changed in the New Word
Translation. Instead of saying that the name of Jesus is “above every name” as all other
translations state, the translators of the 1984 edition inserted the word “other” into this
phrase so that it reads, “above every [other] name,” even though the word “other” is not in
the Greek text. This again demonstrates their absolute bias against Jesus possessing a
name greater than Jehovah God. The deception of the translators of the New World
Translation continued in the 2013 edition in which all brackets have been removed, leaving
the reader clueless as to which words are in the original Greek text and which ones were
added by the translators.
6/12
DO THE HEBREW J MANUSCRIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CALL JESUS YHWH?
We have seen how the translators of the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures have
chosen to insert God’s name “Jehovah” into their translation of the New Testament even
through there is no evidence for it in the Greek manuscripts. Yet, they claim that it is proper
to insert God’s name where the New Testament writers are quoting passages from the
Hebrew Old Testament where the divine name appears.10. They also claim to insert God’s
name wherever the Hebrew translations of the New Testament Greek manuscripts insert the
name. Concerning these translations, the forward to the Kingdom Interlinear Translation of
the Greek Scriptures, published by the Watchtower Society states:
“Throughout the centuries many translations of parts or of all the Christian Greek
Scriptures have been made into Hebrew. Such translations, designated in this work
by ‘J’ with a superior number, have restored the divine name to the Christian
Greek Scriptures in various places. …To avoid overstepping the bounds of a
translator into the field of exegesis, we have tried to be most cautious about rendering
the diving name, always carefully considering the Hebrew Scriptures as a background.
We have looked for some agreement with us by the Hebrew versions we
consulted to confirm our rendering.” —The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the
Greek Scriptures, pp. 11-12
So, the authors of the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures claim that they carefully
considered the quotations of the Hebrew Scriptures and consulted the Hebrew translations of
the New Testament to “confirm” their insertion of the divine name into the text of their New
Testament 237 times. Yet, there are two strikingly clear incidences where the translators of
the New World Translation chose not to insert the divine name “Jehovah” into their text even
through the passages being quoted from the Hebrew Old Testament contained the name.
Why did they chose not include the divine name even through both of these passages had
support for God’s name in the Hebrew J manuscripts? I believe the reason is because in
both cases, the Hebrew writer of the New Testament passage was calling Jesus Jehovah!
Thus, in his book, Hebraic-Roots Version “New Testament,” James Scott Trimm translates
both 1 Peter 3:15 and Philippians 2:11 from the Hebrew versions with YHWH in reference to
Jesus Christ and correctly footnotes the Hebrew Old Testament passage where the divine
name quotation occurs. See these charts below:
7/12
1st KEFA (Peter) 3:14-15 “…And do not be afraid of those who frighten you and do not
be troubled. But sanctify YHWH,* the Messiah, in your hearts….” —Hebraic-Roots
Version “New Testament,” James Scott Trimm, pp. 339-340 (Footnote: *Isaiah 8:12-13)
OLD TESTAMENT – 1984 NWT NEW TESTAMENT – 1984 NWT
ISAIAH 8:12-13: “…the object of their 1 PETER 3:14-15: “…the object of their fear do
fear YOU men must not fear, nor not YOU fear,* neither become agitated. But
must YOU tremble at it.* Jehovah of sanctify the Christ as Lord** in YOUR hearts…”
armies—he is the One whom YOU (Footnotes: *Isaiah 8:12, **The Christ as Lord,”
should treat as holy….” (Footnote: ‫א‬ABC; TR, “the Lord God”; J7,8,11-14,16,17,24,
* 1 Peter 3:14) “Jehovah God.”)
Notice that the 1984 edition of the New World Translation correctly cross references 1 Peter
3:14 to Isaiah 8:12, but when the divine name appears in the quote of Isaiah 8:13 in 1 Peter
3:15, they deceptively leave off the cross-reference which gives support to the Hebrew
version’s translation of “YHWH, the Messiah.” Likewise, in the newer 2013 edition of the
New World Translation, the Watchtower continued their deception by completely removing all
cross-references to Isaiah 8 in this passage of 1 Peter 3:14-15.
It is important to note that there is a textual variant in the manuscripts of 1 Peter 3:15 with
some of the texts saying “sanctify the Lord God” instead of “sanctify Christ as Lord.” The
Textus Receptus Greek manuscript used for the King James Bible is one of the manuscripts
that reads “sanctify the Lord God” as it follows the more recent majority texts from the Middle
Ages, rather than the most ancient Greek manuscripts of this passage, such as the Codex
Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus from the fourth century and the Codex Alexandrinus and the
Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus from the fifth century, which read “sanctify Christ as Lord.”
Since the most ancient manuscripts that we possess of this passage all agree with the
“sanctify Christ as Lord” rendering over the “sanctify the Lord God” rendering of the King
James Bible, it is clear that the Apostle Peter quoted Isaiah 8:12-13 and applied it directly to
Jesus by saying that just as we are to set Jehovah apart as holy, we are to set the Messiah
(Christ) apart as holy by sanctifying Him in our hearts. Thus, when the translators of the
Hebrew version’s rendering of 1 Peter 3:15 encountered this quote of Isaiah 8:12-13, they
translated 1 Peter 3:15 as “sanctify YHWH, the Messiah, in your hearts.”
8/12
PHILIPPIANS 2:11 “That at the name of Yeshua every knee will bow that is in heaven
and on earth and that is under the earth, And every tongue will confess* that Yeshua
the Messiah is YHWH, to the glory of Eloah his Father.” —Hebraic-Roots Version “New
Testament,” James Scott Trimm, pp. 339-340 (Footnote: *Isaiah 45:23-24)
OLD TESTAMENT – 1984 NWT NEW TESTAMENT – 1984 NWT
ISAIAH 45:23-24: “…to me every PHILIPPIANS 2:10-11: “so that in the name of
knee will bend down, every tongue Jesus every knee should bend … and every
will swear, saying, ‘Surely in tongue should openly acknowledge that
Jehovah there are full righteousness Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the
and strength….” Father.”
When Dr. Bruce Metzger, a well-respected Greek and Hebrew scholar and a professor at
Princeton University, wrote publicly against the Watchtower’s New World Translation, noting
its failure to insert “Jehovah” for kyrios at Philippians 2:11 even though it is quoting Isaiah
45:23, the Watchtower responded with the following Questions from Readers article
published in the May 15, 1960 edition of The Watchtower:
9/12
“Dr. Bruce M. Metzger… writes: ‘In the New World Translation it is stated (page 9 of the
New Testament volume), “To each major word we have assigned one meaning and
have held to that meaning as far as the context permitted.” My question arises from
the failure to abide by this self-imposed rule at Philippians 2:11, where the word
kyrios, elsewhere rendered “Jehovah” 237 times, is not rendered “Jehovah”
despite the clear allusion to Isaiah 45:23 and following where the word Jehovah
appears. Could it be that the Arian theology of the translators overrode their expressed
rule of translating?’
“…A number of Watchtower readers, evidently unacquainted with the New Testament
Greek, have written us a similar question, apparently inspired by the publicity that Dr.
Metzger has given to a discussion of this matter. The doctor quotes from …the
Forward…
“…This Foreword shows that in the course of time nineteen translations of the
Christian Greek Scriptures, or of parts of them, have been made from the Greek into
the ancient Biblical Hebrew, and that these Hebrew translators …used the name
Jehovah or the Hebrew tetragrammaton… in translating the writings of Christ’s
apostles and disciples, generally known as the New Testament. Thus, before the New
World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures came along, these Hebrew
translators put the divine name in the Christian writings officially called the New
Testament.
“…The theologian says that Philippians 2:11 clearly alludes to Isaiah 45:23 and
following material. …This is not the same as the Isaiah quotation. Philippians 2:11
does not say that every tongue should swear to Jesus. It says that every tongue
should confess something concerning Jesus to the glory of God the Father. So this is
not an allusion to Isaiah 45:23 such as would require Jesus to be identified with
Jehovah.
“…All the English versions of Christendom, even those in Hebrew, show that in
Philippians 2:11 the ky’rios without article is used as a title, not as a personal name. …
No Christian has to confess that Jesus Christ is Jehovah, because that is not the truth.
“…The word ky’rios without the definite article is thus used also in 1 Corinthians
12:3. There in the Greek text the same expression occurs as in Philippians 2:11,
namely, KYRIOS YESOUS. In both texts the Greek word ky’rios is a title by which a
person of a certain name is to be addressed. hence it would be wrong, in fact
ridiculous, to render that expression, ‘Jehovah Jesus,’ None of the Hebrew
translations render it ‘Jehovah Jesus,’ but recognize the Greek word ky’rios there
as a title and hence use the Hebrew word Adón, meaning Lord, instead of the name
Jehovah.” —The Watchtower, May 15, 1960pp. 318-320
10/12
Not only does the Watchtower Society deny the obvious connection of Philippians 2:10-11
with Isaiah 45:23-24, but they boldly state that: “None of the Hebrew translations
render”KYRIOS YESUS (Lord Jesus) as “ ‘Jehovah Jesus.” This is completely untrue as
we have already seen an example of where the Hebrew versions say, “Yeshua the Messiah
is YHWH” at Philippians 2:11. Likewise, the Watchtower’s claim concerning the Hebrew
versions is false when it comes to the second passage they reference in their article, 1
Corinthians 12:3 which reads in the Hebrew manuscripts: “YHWH is Yeshua”! See the chart
below:
1 CORINTHIANS 12:3 – HEBREW Versions 1 CORINTHIANS 12:3 – 1984

NWT
“And neither is a man able to say that YHWH is “…nobody can say: ‘Jesus is
Yeshua except by the Ruach HaKodesh.” Lord!’ except by holy spirit.”
NEXT CHAPTER
===========
1. See James Scott Trimm, Hebraic-Roots Version “New Testament” (Hurst, TX: Society for
the Advancement of Nazarene Judaism, 2001), XXVIII – XXXI
2. See the “Forward” of The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures,
(Brooklyn, NY: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., 1985), 11-12 and The
Watchtower, May 15, 1960, 319.
3. See The Divine Name That Will Endure Forever, Brooklyn, NY: Watchtower Bible and
Tract Society of New York, Inc., 1984), 24
4. See The Divine Name That Will Endure Forever, (Brooklyn, NY: Watchtower Bible and
Tract Society of New York, Inc., 1984), 8
5. See Dan Story, Defending Your Faith —How to Answer the Tough Questions (Nashville,
TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1992), 38-39
6. For photocopied documentation on this subject including statements from the early Church
Fathers who quoted the New Testament passages without the name Jehovah, see the
“Should Christians Use the Divine Name ‘Jehovah’ In Prayer?” dialogue and documentation
in Christian Conversations with Jehovah’s Witnesses (Colorado Springs, CO: Witnesses for
Jesus Inc, 2012)
11/12
7. The Divine Name That Will Endure Forever, (Brooklyn, NY: Watchtower Bible And Tract
Society of New York, Inc., 1984), 24
8. See The Bible —God’s Word or Man’s (Brooklyn, NY: Watchtower Bible And Tract Society
of New York, Inc., 1989), 59-60
9. Quoted from the New American Standard Bible.
10. The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures, (Brooklyn, NY: Watchtower
Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., 1985), 11-12
12/12
How To Discuss The Deity Of Jesus Christ With
Jehovah’s Witnesses – Chapter 11 – Yes, You Should
4jehovah.org/how-to-discuss-the-deity-of-jesus-christ-with-jehovahs-witnesses/
Have you ever felt dismay after presenting the standard

Biblical Scripture proof texts for the Deity of Jesus Christ and
the Trinity, only to find your Jehovah’s Witness friend
unconvinced? There are three reasons for this:
1. MISCONCEPTIONS REGARDING THE TRINITY:

Jehovah’s Witnesses have several misconceptions about
what Christians believe regarding the Deity of Christ and
the Triune God. We must address their misconceptions
and deal with the verses they rely on to support their
position, before they can adequately grasp the Biblical
support we have for our position.
2. FALSE AUTHORITY: Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that the leaders of their

Watchtower organization are appointed by God to act as His supreme representatives
on earth. In order to maintain good standing with the organization, they are required to
accept, without question, all beliefs and policies presented by their leaders. So, when
the plain reading of a Scripture passage contradicts a doctrinal belief held by their
leaders, they will question their own ability to understand the meaning of that Scripture
passage before they will question the belief itself. We must undercut their trust in their
leaders before they will be free to accept the plain and simple interpretation of Scripture
passages that differ from what they have been taught.
3. SPIRITUAL BLINDNESS: Satan, “the god of this world,” has blinded the minds of
Jehovah’s Witnesses so that they cannot see “Christ, who is the image of God” (2
Corinthians 4:4). We must remember that we are engaged in a spiritual battle for their
minds and hearts. This battle transcends mere intellectual understanding. We must
implore the Spirit of the Living God to free them so that they can say, “Jesus is indeed
Lord, Jehovah!” (See 1 Corinthians 12:3).
The following steps will guide you to effectively present the Deity of Jesus Christ in terms
your Jehovah’s Witness friend will be able to grasp. Although there is no guarantee that he
or she will be convinced by the concepts we present here, in our ministry to Jehovah’s
Witnesses, we have found these steps essential to breaking the faulty reasoning Jehovah’s
Witnesses have embraced on these issues.
1/7
Step 1: Articulate an accurate understanding of the Trinity doctrine.
Step 2: Emphasize that Jesus is not the Father.
Step 3: Remove Watchtower Proof Texts against the Deity of Christ.
Step 4: Discuss the limitations of Jesus’ humanity as they relate to his Divine nature.
Step 5: Prove how submission to authority does not affect nature.
Step 6: Present Scriptural proof texts for the Deity of Christ and the Trinity.
Step 7: Remove the Watchtower Authority Barrier.
STEP 1: ARTICULATE AN ACCURATE UNDERSTANDING OF THE TRINITY

DOCTRINE. Before we can adequately defend the doctrine of the Trinity and the Deity of
Jesus Christ, we must have an accurate understanding of what the Trinity is and what it is
not.
The Trinity is the view that the three persons mentioned in the Bible: Father, Son (i.e., Jesus)
and Holy Spirit are one God. This Triune God is called “Jehovah” in the Old Testament and
“Lord” in the New Testament. Each person of the Godhead is distinct in His Personhood, yet
each is equal in nature and eternal in uncreated substance. Together as the one and only
true God, they co-exist, co-create and co-rule this present world. There is a functional
hierarchy that exists within the members of this Triune God. The Father, being the supreme
person in authority, sends His “Son” Jesus Christ to redeem mankind, and the Son sends the
Holy Spirit to indwell Christian believers. During the incarnation (Christ’s coming to earth),
Jesus added a human nature to His Divine person. Thus, it was when He operated under the
limitations of His humanity that He was unable to do things that He would otherwise have
been able to do as God.
Misconceptions regarding the Trinity doctrine occur when the doctrine is misdefined in
Modalistic or Tritheistic terms. Modalism is the view that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit
operate not only as one God, but as one person manifesting Himself in various modes at
different times and places. In this view, the person of God may appear as the Father. At other
times, He appears as the Son and then again as the Holy Spirit, but always as one person.
The problem with this view is that if God is only “one person,” He would be unable to
manifest as Father, Son and Holy Spirit at one time. Thus, we would have to discount
Scriptural passages such as Matthew 3:16 where at the baptism of Jesus, all three persons
manifested Themselves, and Genesis 1:26 where God refers to Himself in the plural
pronouns of “Us” and “Our.”
Tritheism is the direct opposite of Modalism. It teaches that the three persons (Father, Son,
Holy Spirit) are not only distinct in their Personhoods, but are separate “Gods.” In the third
and fourth centuries, the Church soundly defeated this view in favor of the clear teaching of
Scripture that there is only one true God (John 17:3).
2/7
Thus, this single Being we call the Triune God came to be defined as three distinct Persons
in one substance. During the fourth century, in an attempt to prevent Modalistic and
Tritheistic views of God from being promulgated in Christian Churches, this belief was
codified into the Creed of Athanasius. Throughout the centuries, the Athanasian Creed has
served as the accepted standard by which Christians define the Trinity doctrine. Today,
when witnessing to Jehovah’s Witnesses, it is often necessary to appeal to this creed in
order to counter the Modalistic views of the Trinity presented in Watchtower literature.
2. Emphasize that Jesus is not the Father. Because Jehovah’s Witnesses have a
modalistic view of the Trinity doctrine, when they hear you say, “Jesus is God,” they
automatically assume you said, “Jesus is the Father.” Immediately, Scripture verses that
demonstrate the distinction between the Father and the Son flood into their minds. To
preempt this argument, say to your Jehovah’s Witness friend:
I believe Jesus is God, but I DO NOT believe Jesus is the Father.
Pause, and let them ask you how you can believe Jesus is God without believing He is the
Father. Because Jehovah’s Witnesses are accustomed to going right into their arguments
about the distinction between the Father and the Son, they may miss the point you are
making about Jesus not being the same person as the Father. If this occurs, do not argue
about the verses they bring up. Just repeat your statement about Jesus not being the Father
until they ask you what you mean by Jesus being God, but not the Father. Once they ask,
you are ready to proceed to the next point below.
3. Use a human analogy to explain Jesus’ relationship to the Father. Jehovah’s

Witnesses have a hard time understanding how both the Father and the Son can co-exist as
two distinct persons, yet one God. To aid in communicating this concept, we have found it
helpful to draw an analogy between God’s nature and human nature. Ask the Jehovah’s
Witness:
Do you believe that a human son is less human than his father?
(The Jehovah’s Witness will answer, “No.”)
Then, how can Jesus as God’s Son be less God than His Father is God?
Just as a son is no more, no less “human” than his father, so Jesus as God’s Son is no more,
no less “God” than his Father is “God.” This is why the Jews endeavored to stone Jesus for
blasphemy. They understood Jesus’ claim to be the “Son of God” as a claim that made Him
“equal” in nature to the one and only true God (See John 5:18; 19:7; c.f., Leviticus 24:16).
This is also why Jesus called the Father His “God” at John 20:17. His Father would always
be His “God,” just as our human fathers will always be our “human” ancestors. For more
3/7
examples on how to use this analogy to respond to Jehovah’s Witness objections, see the
following What Does God Require mock dialogues between Jehovah’s Witness Cindy and
Christian Karen, posted on our www.4jehovah.org website at:
Why is the Father “Greater” Than Jesus—John 14:28?

How Can Jesus Be “With” God and at the Same Time Be God?—John 1:1?
Was Jesus Created as God’s “Firstborn Son” —Colossians 1:15-16?
Pointing to the fact that the angels are called “sons of God” at Job 38:7, a Jehovah’s
Witness may object to your conclusions by saying that Jesus was claiming to be an angel,
rather than God Himself. To this objection, have the Jehovah’s Witness read Hebrews 1:5
which says in their New World Translation Bible, “For example, to which one of the angels
did he ever say: ‘You are my son; I, today, I have become your father’? And again: ‘I myself
shall become his father, and he himself will become my son’?” Then, ask the Jehovah’s
Witness the following questions:
Since the Bible does not contradict itself, why does Hebrews 1:5 say that God never
said, “You are My Son” to any of His angels?
Doesn’t this mean that Jesus is called the “Son of God” in a different sense than
angels are called God’s sons?
What does the Bible mean when it says that Jesus is the “Son of Man” at Matthew
26:64?
Since God is not a man (Hosea 11:9), could it be that Jesus is the “Son of Man”
because He possesses the nature of man, being fully human?
Since Jesus is called the “Son of Man” because He is 100% man, what do you
think Scripture means when it calls Jesus the “Son of God”? He must be 100%
God, right?
4. Discuss the limitations of Jesus’ humanity as they relate to His Divine nature.
Common objections Jehovah’s Witnesses raise against the belief that Jesus is God are the
facts that no human has seen God (John 1:18), but Jesus was seen (John 1:14);God cannot
die (Habakkuk 1:12), but Jesus died (Philippians 2:8); God cannot be tempted (James 1:13),
but Jesus was tempted (Matthew 4:1); God knows all things (1 John 3:20), but Jesus did not
know the day or hour of His return (Matthew 24:36; Mark 13:32). To answer these
objections, explain to the Jehovah’s Witness that because God in His very nature cannot be
seen, tempted, nor physically die to pay for the sins of mankind, it was necessary for Jesus
to add a human nature to His Divine person so that He could redeem mankind. Philippians
2:5-10 explains how Jesus continued to exist in God’s “form” (i.e., nature), but relinquished
His right to enjoy equality with God so that He could limit Himself to the human nature he had
adopted in order to redeem mankind. Thus, by adding a human dimension to His Divine
person, Jesus became the visible “image of the invisible God” (Colossians 1:15). The
following chart illustrates how Jesus limited Himself to the finiteness of His human nature at
certain times, but expressed the God-attributes of His Divine nature at others:
4/7
DIVINE QUALITIES HUMAN QUALITIES
OMNIPOTENCE (All Power): Mark 2:7-12; HUNGER & WEARINESS: Luke 4:2;
14:62-64; John 2:7-11 John 4:6; Matthew 8:24
OMNIPRESENCE (Present Everywhere): LIMITED PHYSICAL BODY: Mark 3:9;

John 1:48; Matt. 18:20; 28:20 John 11:32
OMNISCIENCE (All Knowledge): John 2:24- LIMITED KNOWLEDGE: Mark 13:32;

25; 6:64; 16:30 John 11:34
For more information on answering common Jehovah’s Witness arguments against the Deity
of Jesus Christ and the Trinity, see the following resources on our website:
The Deity of Jesus Christ – Simple Reference Outline

Is Jesus Christ God? – Response to a Jehovah’s Witness
5. Prove how submission to authority does not affect nature. Jehovah’s Witnesses
struggle with the concept that Jesus can submit His will to the will of the Father and yet
remain “equal” in nature to the Father. They may also question how Jesus can be “equal” to
God, yet proclaim at John 14:28 that the Father is “greater” than Him. Here again, our human
analogy comes into play to explain how this is the case. Ask the Jehovah’s Witness:
In God’s design for the family, doesn’t the human father hold the greatest authority
within the family? Although the father may share his authority with the mother, would
you not you agree that he is in a “greater” position than anyone else in the family and is
the ultimate one in charge?
(The Jehovah’s Witness should agree.)
Does the fact that the human father is in a “greater” position of authority than anyone
else in the family prove that his wife or his son or daughter is inherently inferior to him?
If so, are we to argue that they are less human than their father is simply because they
submit to his “greater” authority and obey his rules and guidelines?
Then, why argue that Jesus is inferior to God simply because He submits His will to the
Father? At Luke 2:51, we read that Jesus “continued in subjection” to Mary and
Joseph. Does this mean that Jesus was inferior to them?
6. Present Scriptural proof texts for the Deity of Christ and the Trinity. By this point,
your Jehovah’s Witness friend should understand what you believe concerning the Deity of
Christ. Your friend should understand that Jesus is not the same person as the Father, but
yet possess God’s nature as the only true God. He or she should understand that as the Son
of God, Jesus is equal in nature to God the Father, but chose to be confined to the limitations
of His humanity while on earth so that He could purchase mankind’s redemption. Finally,
5/7
your friend should agree with you that submission to one in “greater” authority does not
prove an inferior nature. Having laid the foundation for an accurate understanding of Jesus’
Deity, you are now ready to present your Scriptural proof that Jesus is indeed God. There are
many passages one can present to prove that Jesus is God, but we have found that some of
the best Scriptures are those that demonstrate how both the Son and Holy Spirit possess
God’s attributes and perform actions that only Jehovah God is able to perform. See the
following chart:
DIVINE QUALITY THE FATHER THE SON THE HOLY

SPIRIT
OMNIPRESENCE Jeremiah 23:24; 1 Kings Matthew 28:20; 18:20; Psalm 139:7

8:27 John 1:48
OMNISCIENCE Psalm 147:5; 1 Kings 8:39 John 16:30; 2:24-25 1 Corinthians

2:10-11
OMNIPOTENCE Jeremiah 32:17,27; Matthew 28:18; John Romans

Matthew 19:26; Luke 1:37; 16:15; Hebrews 1:3 15:19
Psalm 135:6
HOLINESS Revelation 15:4 Acts 3:14 Romans 1:4
ETERNITY Psalm 90:2; Romans Hebrews 7:3; Isaiah Hebrews 9:14

16:26 9:6; John 8:58
THE TRUTH John 7:28 John 8:32,36; 14:6; John 16:13; 1

Revelation 3:7 John 5:6-7
LORD Luke 1:32; 10:21 Romans 10:9; 2 Corinthians

Philippians 2:11 3:17
GOD 1 Peter 1:2; Philippians 2 Peter 1:1; Titus 2:13; Acts 5:3-4; 1
2:11 John 1:1; 20:28; Corinthians
Hebrews 1:8 3:16-17
ALMIGHTY Genesis 17:1 Revelation 1:8; 22:12- Zechariah 4:6

13, 20
RESURRECTION 1 Thessalonians 1:10; Eph John 10:17-18; John Romans 1:4;

1:20 2:18-22 8:11
7. Remove the Watchtower Authority Barrier. Although your Jehovah’s Witness friend
may better understand your beliefs at this point, he or she may not be ready to agree with
you that Jesus is indeed God. This is because your friend is committed to following the
Watchtower organization, and as long as your friend wishes to remain associated as “one of
Jehovah’s Witnesses,” he or she will not be able to embrace beliefs contrary to this religion.
So, to be effective in helping your friend come to the real Jesus for salvation, you must help
6/7
him or her divorce the false authority this counterfeit religion has set up. When it comes to
discussing the Trinity doctrine, we have found the best way to attack this false authority is to
focus on how the Watchtower Society twists and misrepresents facts in their Should You
Believe in the Trinity? brochure. We provide the following resources on our website to assist
you in breaking this organization’s hold on their minds:
10 Questions for Jehovah’s Witnesses on Lies in the Watchtower Trinity

Brochure
Yes, You Should Believe in the Trinity!!! Book
How To Witness Effectively to Jehovah’s Witnesses – Breaking the Watchtower
Authority Barrier
NEXT CHAPTER
7/7
10 Questions for Jehovah’s Witnesses on the Watchtower
Trinity Brochure – Chapter 12 – Yes, You Should Believe
in the Trinity!
4jehovah.org/10-questions-for-jehovahs-witnesses-on-the-watchtower-trinity-brochure/
Most objections Jehovah’s Witnesses raise against the

Doctrine of the Trinity can be answered by accurately defining
the doctrine.
For example, many Jehovah’s Witnesses think that when

Christians claim that Jesus is “God,” they are claiming He is
the same Person as the Father. This misunderstanding is
easily corrected by quoting the Creed of Athanasius, the most
authoritative Creed that Christianity has used for centuries to
define the Trinity. It demonstrates how the Son is a distinct
“Person” from the “Person” of the Father, yet “one God” with
the Father:
“For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy
Ghost… So the Father is God, the Son is God: and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet
they are not three Gods: but one God.” (View PDF of the Athanasius Creed)
So, when Jesus was praying to the Father, He wasn’t praying to Himself, but to the Person of
the Father who is just as much “God” by nature as Jesus is “God.” Another misconception
Jehovah’s Witnesses embrace is the idea that since “in this Trinity none is before, or after
other: none is greater, or less than other,” Jesus could not have said, “the Father is greater
than I” at John 14:28. This objection is easily answered by the following statement found in
the Creed: “Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead: and inferior to the Father, as
touching His Manhood.” Thus, many of the occasions where Jesus operated under the
limitations of His humanity, the Father was indeed in a “greater” position than He was, but
this does not prove that Jesus in His God nature is less “God” than God the Father is “God.”
At this point, it is helpful to draw an analogy between a human father and his son. Just as a
human son is not any less “human” than his father is “human,” so Jesus as God’s “Son” is
not any less “God” than His Father is “God.” To drive this point home, you can ask a
Jehovah’s Witness why Jesus is called the “Son of Man” at Mark 14:62. If God is not a “man”
(Hosea 11:9), why is Jesus called the “Son of Man”? Could it be that He is called the “Son of
Man” because He is 100% human? In the same way, when Jesus claimed to be the “Son of
God,” the Jews fully understood Him to be claiming to be 100% God (See John 5:18; John
19:7 c.f., Leviticus 24:16).
1/4
Having addressed some of the most common objections against the Deity of Jesus Christ
and the Trinity doctrine, we will turn our attention to 10 Questions one can ask concerning
lies in the Watchtower Should You Believe in the Trinity? brochure:
1. Does the Watchtower claim that Clement of Alexandria taught Jesus is “not equal”
to God?
“Clement of Alexandria, who died about 215 C.E… said that the son ‘is next to the only
omnipotent Father’ but not equal to him.” —Should You Believe in the Trinity?, 1989,
p. 7 (View PDF of the page)
2. If it is true that Clement did not teach Jesus is “equal” to God, why did he say Jesus
has “equality of substance” with the Father and is “eternal and uncreate”?
“There was, then, a Word importing an unbeginning eternity; as also the Word itself,
that is, the Son of God, who being, by equality of substance, one with the Father, is
eternal and uncreate.” — The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol 2, p. 574 (View PDF of this
page)
3. If Clement taught Watchtower doctrine on the nature of Christ, why did he teach that
“the Divine Word” (Jesus) is “equal” to the Lord of the universe? Did the Watchtower
lie about Clement?
“…the Divine Word, He that is truly most manifest Deity, He that is made equal to the
Lord of the universe.” — The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol 2, p. 202 (View PDF of this
page)
4. Does the Watchtower claim “the Trinity” was “unknown” for “several centuries”
after Biblical times, implying the Fathers prior to the council of Nicaea did not teach
it?
“ ‘…the Trinity… derives no support from the language of Justin [Martyr]: and this
observation may be extended to all the ante-Nicene Fathers; that is, to all Christian
writers for three centuries after the birth of Christ… It is true, they speak of the Father,
Son, and … holy Spirit, but not as co-equal, not as one numerical essence, not as
Three in One…’ Thus, the testimony of the Bible and of history makes clear that the
Trinity was unknown throughout Biblical times and for several centuries thereafter.”—
Should You Believe in the Trinity?, 1989, p. 7 (View PDF of this page)
5. If Clement did not know about the “Trinity” doctrine, why did he teach it?
“I understand nothing else than the Holy Trinity to be meant; for the third is the Holy
Spirit, and the Son is the second, by whom all things were made according to the will
of the Father.”—The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol 2, p. 468 (View PDF of this page)
2/4
6. If Tertullian (another Ante-Nicene Father featured in the Watchtower’s Trinity
brochure) did not know about the “Trinity” doctrine, why did he teach it?
“If the number of the Trinity also offends you… I ask you how it is possible for a Being
who is merely and absolutely One and Singular, to speak in the plural phrase, saying,
‘Let us make man in our own image, and after our own likeness;’… Nay, it was
because He had already His Son close at His side, as a second Person, His own
Word, and a third Person also, the Spirit in the Word….”—The Ante-Nicene Fathers,
vol 3, p. 606 (View PDF of this page)
7. If none of the Ante-Nicene Church Fathers taught that the three Persons are “co-
equal” or “one numerical essence,” why did Clement teach Jesus was “equal” to the
Father as we saw earlier? And why did Tertullian teach the three are “one…
substance…”?
“I mean the Word of God… Now if He too is God, according to John, (who says,) ‘The
Word was God,’ then you have two Beings… In what sense, however, you ought to
understand Him to be another, I have already explained, on the ground of
Personality, not of Substance—in the way of distinction, not of division. But
although I must everywhere hold one only substance in three coherent and
inseparable (Persons)…” —The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol 3, p. 607 (View PDF of this
page)
8. If the Trinity “derives no support from the language of Justin [Martyr],” why did
Justin teach that Christ is the “Angel of God” who spoke to Moses at Exodus 3 and
proclaimed, “I Am that I Am, the God of Abraham”?
“…our Christ conversed with him [Moses] under the appearance of fire from a
bush… ‘And the Angel of God spake to Moses, … and said, I am that I am, the God
of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob, the God of they fathers’… the Father
of the universe has a Son; who also, being the first-begotten Word of God, is even
God. And of old He appeared in the shape of fire and in the likeness of an angel to
Moses and to the other prophets.” —The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, p. 184 (View
PDF of this page)
9. Does the Watchtower claim that The Journal of Biblical Literature supports their
translation of “the Word was a god” at John 1:1 in the Jehovah’s Witness New World
Translation Bible?
“The Journal of Biblical Literature says that expressions ‘with an anarthrous [no article]
predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning.’ As the Journal
notes, this indicates that the lo’gos can be likened to a god.”—Should You Believe
in the Trinity?, 1989, p. 27 (View PDF of this page)
3/4
10. If The Journal of Biblical Literature supports the Watchtower’s “a god” rendering,
why does the Journal specifically state that John would have had to write John 1:1
differently (using either Clause D or E) if he wanted to teach the Word is “a god” or
“divine”? Is the Watchtower guilty of misrepresenting the Journal’s claims?
“John could have written any of the following:
A. ho logos en ho theos (The Word was the God.)

B. theos en ho logos (God was the Word.)
C. ho logos theos en (The Word God was.)
D. ho logos en theos (The Word was God.)
E. ho logos en theios (The Word was divine.)
“Clause D, with the verb preceding an anarthrous predicate, would probably mean that
the logos [Word] was ‘a god’ or a divine being of some kind, belonging to the general
category of theos [God] but as a distinct being from ho theos [the God]. Clause E would be
an attenuated form of D. It would mean that the logos [Word] was ‘divine,’… John
evidently wished to say something about the logos [Word] that was other than A and more
than D and E… B means that the logos [Word] has the nature of theos [God] (rather
than something else). In this clause, the form that John actually uses, the word theos
[God] is placed at the beginning for emphasis.This would be one way of representing John’s
thought, which is, as I understand it, that ho logos, [the Word] no less than ho theos, [the
God] had the nature of theos [God].” —Philip B. Harner,“Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate
Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1,” The Journal of Biblical Literature, 1973, pp. 84-85, 87
(View PDF of these pages)
NEXT CHAPTER
4/4
Questions for Jehovah’s Witnesses on the True God and
the Trinity – Chapter 13 – Yes, You Should Believe in the
Trinity!
4jehovah.org/questions-for-jehovahs-witnesses-on-the-true-god-and-the-trinity/
Presenting the Deity of Christ and the Personhood of the

Holy Spirit
1. How many true Gods exist?
John 17:3: “This means everlasting life, their taking in

knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one
whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ.” **
2. Is Satan a true or false God? Do demons believe he is a

god?
2 Corinthians 4:4: “among whom the god of this system of things has blinded the
minds of the unbelievers…”
James 2:19: “You believe there is one God, do you? You are doing quite well. And yet
the demons believe and shudder.”
3. So if demons don’t consider Satan is a real god, why is he called “the god” of this
world? Wouldn’t you agree that these beings that are called “gods” are not really
gods, but are rather false gods?
1 Corinthians 8:5-6: “For even though there are those who are called ‘gods,’
whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many ‘gods’ and many ‘lords,’ there is
actually to us one God the Father … and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ…”
NOTE: Jehovah’s Witnesses claim to put Jesus in a neutral category of “god” beings
that are merely divine, but are not the true God. By demonstrating that Satan is a false
“god” because he is worshipped by false religion, and that even his followers, the
demons, don’t believe he is a real “god,” this demonstrates that a neutral category of
“divine/god” beings that are neither true nor false does not exist.
4. Since there is only one true God, is Jesus the true God or is He a false god like
Satan? How can a false god save anyone? Since there is only one God, why did
Thomas call Jesus his God?
1/7
John 20:28: “…Thomas said to him: ‘My Lord and my God!’ ”
5. Who is the Lord of Lords? Jehovah or Jesus?
Deuteronomy 10:17: “For Jehovah YOUR God is the God of gods and the Lord of
lords, the God great, mighty and fear-inspiring…”
Revelation 17:14: “…the Lamb… is Lord of lords and King of kings, the Lamb will
conquer them.”
Revelation 19:16: “And upon his outer garment, even upon his thigh, he has a name
written, King of kings and Lord of lords.”
6. Is Jesus Christ your ONLY Lord?
Jude 4: “proving false to our only Owner and Lord, Jesus Christ.”
7. How many true Gods, true Lords, and true Spirits exist?
1 Corinthians 12:4-6: “Now there are varieties of gifts, but there is the same spirit;
and there are varieties of ministries, and yet there is the same Lord; and there are
varieties of operations, and yet it is the same God who performs all the operations in
all persons.”
Romans 8:9: “However, YOU are in harmony…with the spirit, if God’s spirit truly
dwells in YOU. But if anyone does not have Christ’s spirit, this one does not belong to
him.”
8. Who is the “first and last”? Is there “a God” besides Him?
Isaiah 44:6-9: “This is what Jehovah has said, the King of Israel and the Repurchaser
of him, Jehovah of armies, ‘I am the first and I am the last, and beside me there is
no God. And who is there like me? …Does there exist a God besides me? No, there is
no Rock. I have recognized none.”
Revelation 1:17: “And when I saw him, I fell as dead at his feet. And he laid his right
hand upon me and said: ‘Do not be fearful. I am the First and the Last, and the living
one,’ ”
9. When did Jehovah God die? How many first and last Gods can there be?
Revelation 1:18: “ ‘and I became dead, but, look! I am living forever and ever.’ ”
Revelation 2:8: “…These are the things that he says, ‘the First and the Last,’ who
became dead and came to life [again].”
10. If no one has ever seen God (John 1:18), why did Isaiah say he saw Jehovah
(Isaiah 6:1)?
2/7
John 1:18: “No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is in the
bosom [position] with the Father is the one that has explained him.”
μονογενής (monogenēs) = “only-begotten, unique, one of its special kind”—The New

Englishman’s Greek Concordance and Lexicon, p. 579
Isaiah 6:1: “…I, however, got to see Jehovah …And I proceeded to say: ‘Woe to me!
…for my eyes have seen the King, Jehovah of armies, himself!’ ”
11. According to John, who is the Jehovah whom Isaiah saw? What cross-reference
footnote is linked to verse 41 of John 12?
John 12:36-42: “Jesus spoke these things… But although he had performed so many
signs before them, they were not putting faith in him… The reason why they were not
able to believe is that again Isaiah said: ‘He has blinded their eyes…’ Isaiah said
these things because he saw his glory,* and he spoke about him. All the same,
many even of the rulers actually put faith in him…”
NWT Cross Reference footnote at verse 41 is Isa. 6:1
12. Can you see why Jesus is the image of the invisible Jehovah?
Colossians 1:15:“And He is the image of the invisible God…”

John 14:9: “…He that has seen me has seen the Father [also]. How is it you say,
‘Show us the Father’?”
13. Colossians 1:15 calls Jesus the “first born” of creation. Did creation parent
Jesus? Verse 18 says Jesus is the “first born” from the dead. Was Jesus the first one
raised from death? Which meaning of “firstborn” best fits the context: “first birth of”
or “preeminent position over” creation and death?
πρωτότοκος (prōtotokos) = “firstborn” …is used of Christ …expressing His priority to,
and preeminence over, creation, not in the sense of being the ‘first’ to be born.”—Vine’s
Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, p. 240
Colossians 1:15-18: “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation;
because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon
the earth…he is before all [other] things…he is the head… He is the beginning, the
firstborn from the dead, that he might become the one who is first in all things.”
NOTE: The NWT places the word “other” in brackets because it is not in the Greek text.
At Revelation 3:14, Jesus is called the “beginning” because He is the “Beginner” just
as Jehovah is the “beginning” (Rev. 21:6, 22:13).
14. Has Jesus always existed or did He create Himself?
3/7
John 1:3: “All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even
one thing came into existence.”
15. If no one was “with” Jehovah when He created the world, how can Jesus be a
separate God from Jehovah?
Isaiah 44:24: “… ‘I, Jehovah, am doing everything, stretching out the heavens by
myself, laying out the earth. Who was with me?’ ”
16. How can Jesus, in His divine nature, be created if He has “neither a beginning of
days, nor an end of life”?
Hebrews 7:3: “…having neither a beginning of days nor an end of life, but having
been made like the Son of God…”
17. How can Jesus be the “Eternal Father,” if He is created? How can Jesus give
eternal life, if He doesn’t own eternity?
Isaiah 9:6: “…And his name … Mighty God, Eternal Father…” (NOTE: The Orthodox
Jewish Bible – OJB translates “Eternal Father” as “Possessor of Eternity”)
John 10:28: “ …I give them everlasting life …”
18. Since no God was formed after Jehovah, how can Jesus be a created God?
Isaiah 43:10: “ ‘…I am the same One. Before me there was no God formed, and after
me there continued to be none.”
19. Why is Jesus called the “Son of Man”? Is God a Man?
John 6:62: “What, therefore, if YOU should behold the Son of man ascending to
where he was before.”
Hosea 11:9: “…I am God and not man, the Holy One in the midst of you…”
20. So if the term “Son of Man” means Jesus is 100% human, what does the term
“Son of God” mean?
John 19:7: “The Jews answered him: ‘We have a law, and according to the law he
ought to die, because he made himself God’s son.’ ”
NOTE: The law of blasphemy (Leviticus 24:16) prescribed death for anyone misusing
Jehovah’s name by claiming equality with Jehovah.
John 5:18: “On this account, indeed, the Jews began seeking all the more to kill him,
because …he was also calling God his own Father, making himself equal to God.”
4/7
21. At Job 38:7, angels are called “sons” of God. Yet the Bible says that God never
said to any of His angels, “You are my Son.” Doesn’t this indicate Jesus is called the
“Son of God” in a way that is different from the angels? Could it be that Jesus is
God’s Son by nature (being fully God), whereas angels are sons only by creation?
Hebrews 1:5: “For example, to which one of the angels did he ever say: ‘You are my
son; I, today, I have become your father’?”
Mark 14:61-64: “…the high priest began to question him and said to him: ‘Are you the
Christ the Son of the Blessed One?’ Then Jesus said: ‘I am…’ At this the high priest
ripped his inner garments and said: ‘What further need do we have of witnesses? YOU
heard the blasphemy…’ …They all condemned him to …death.”
22. How can Christ’s decision NOT to grasp at “equality” with God at Philippians 2:5-7
be an example of humility if Jesus was not already entitled to claim equality?
Philippians 2:5-7: “Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who,
being [huparcho] in very nature [morphe] God, did not consider equality with God
something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature [morphe] of
a servant, being made in human likeness.”—New International Version
“Being” ὑπάρχω (hyparchō) = present tense, continued existence
“nature” μορφή (morphē) = “…the nature or essence, not in the abstract, but as
actually subsisting in the individual, and retained as long as the individual itself
exists….Thus in the passage before us morphe Theou is the Divine nature actually
and inseparably subsisting in the Person of Christ.”—Vine’s Complete Expository
Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, 1985, p. 251
At John 14:28 Jesus said, “…I am going away to the Father, because the Father is
greater than I am.” In comparison to the limitations of Jesus’ humanity and being upon
the earth, the Father was “greater” than Him.
At 1 Corinthians 11:3 and 15:28, Jesus submits Himself to God the Father’s authority.
We also see women submitting to men (1 Corinthians 11:3) even though they are
“equal” (Galatians 3:28). So, how can Jesus’ submission to the Father make Him
inferior to God? At Luke 2:51, Jesus submitted to Mary and Joseph. Was He inferior to
them? No!
23. Who is the “One” Who is coming? Jehovah or Jesus?
5/7
Revelation 1:7-8: “Look! He is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him,
and those who pierced him; and all the tribes of the earth will beat themselves in grief
because of him. Yes, Amen. ‘I am the Al’pha and the O×me’ga,’ says Jehovah God,
‘the One who is and who was and who is coming, the Almighty.’ ” (Cross-reference
Revelation 22:12-13, 20)
24. If the Holy Spirit is a force and not a person, how can He “feel hurt” or be
“grieved”?
Isaiah 63:10: “But they themselves rebelled and made his holy spirit feel hurt.”
Ephesians 4:30: “…do not be grieving God’s holy spirit…”
25. How can the Holy Spirit “plead” and “groan” for us in prayer before the Father if
He is not a distinct Person from the Father?
Romans 8:26: “…but the spirit itself pleads for us with groanings unuttered.”
26. How can the Holy Spirit speak and issue commands, if He is not a person?
Acts 8:29: “So the spirit said to Philip: ‘Approach and join yourself to this chariot.’ ”
Acts 13:2: “As they were publicly ministering to Jehovah and fasting, the holy spirit
said: ‘Of all persons set Bar´na·bas and Saul apart for me for the work to which I have
called them.’ ”
Acts 16:6: “Moreover, they went through Phryg´i·a and the country of Ga·la´ti·a,
because they were forbidden by the holy spirit to speak the word in the [district of]
Asia.”
27. How can the Holy Spirit have a “name” and possess the authority of God, if He is
an abstract force and not a person?
Matthew 28:19: “…baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of
the holy spirit.”
28. How can the Holy Spirit have a “will” if He is not a person?
1 Corinthians 12:11: “But all these operations the one and the same spirit performs,
making a distribution to each one respectively just as it wills.”
NOTE: It is true that the Greek word πνεῦμα (pneuma) for “Spirit” is in the neuter
gender. Yet in Greek, neuter terms are used for these persons: an infant (Luke 2:16-
17), a young child (Mark 5:39-41), a little girl (Matthew 9:24-25), demons (Mark
7:26,29,30), and angels (Hebrews 1:14). Are we to call these personal beings, non-
personal “its” because of their neuter genders?
6/7
29. Why did the apostle John break Greek Grammar rules to use the masculine
pronoun “He” ἐκεῖνος (ekeinos) in reference to the neuter noun “spirit,” instead of the
neuter pronoun “it” ἐκεῖνο (ekeino) at John 16:13?
John 16:13 “However, when that one [ἐκεῖνος (ekeinos)] arrives, the spirit of the truth,
he will guide YOU into all the truth, for he will not speak of his own impulse, but what
things he hears he will speak, and he will declare to YOU the things coming.”
NOTE: Jehovah’s Witnesses often argue that Scripture attributes personal qualities to
the Holy Spirit as a personification of a non-personal force, much like wisdom is
personified in the book of Proverbs. While Proverbs is written in poetic and allegorical
form, there is nothing in these Scriptures to indicate such is being done here.
Challenge the Jehovah’s Witnesses to prove to you that demons are spirit persons and
not personifications of non-personal forces. Then, show them how every argument
they use to prove a demon is a real spirit-person, can be used to prove the Holy Spirit
is a real spirit-person as well.
30. If the Holy Spirit can’t be a person because believers are “filled” with the Spirit
(Ephesians 5:18), are demons, non-personal spirit beings because they indwell
unbelievers? Of course, not!
Luke 8:27, 30: “a certain man from the city who had demons met him. … Jesus asked
him: ‘What is your name?’ He said: ‘Legion,’ because many demons had entered into
him.”
NEXT CHAPTER
===========
** Unless otherwise noted, all Scriptures are quoted from the New World Translation.
7/7
Quick Answers to Frequent Objections to the Trinity
Doctrine – Chapter 14 – Yes, You Should Believe in the
Trinity!
4jehovah.org/quick-answers-to-frequent-objections-to-the-trinity-doctrine/
QUICK ANSWERS GUIDE TO

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ON
THE DEITY OF JESUS CHRIST
Below is a list of common questions

raised by Jehovah’s Witnesses and other
anti-Trinitarians. Following the questions
are brief Biblical responses and
references to chapters and sections
within this book that will aid further
research on the topics being addressed.
How can Jesus be God when He can only do what He sees

the Father do (John 5:19)?
Just as a human “son” is able to physically do what a human

“father” is able to do, so Jesus demonstrates His power as the
“Son of God” by claming that He can do everything His
“Father” God does (John 5:19, 21-23).
CHAPTER 7: JESUS IS GOD ALMIGHTY!
If no man has seen God at any time, how can Jesus be God (John 1:18)?
1/7
Colossians 1:15 states that Jesus is the “image of the invisible God.” Thus, the Jehovah that
Isaiah saw (Isaiah 6:5) is Jesus (John 12:41). John 14:9 explains: “Jesus said to him, ‘Have I
been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me
has seen the Father; how can you say, “Show us the Father”?’ ”
COLOSSIANS 1:15-16
JESUS THE “ONLY-BEGOTTEN SON”: John 1:18
4 REASONS THE SOCIETY’S TRANSLATION OF JOHN 1:1 IS UNTENABLE: 4.

Scripture Calls Jesus “The God” Which Indicates He Is Jehovah: JOHN 1:18
How can Jesus be God if He has a God over Him (John 20:17)?
Just because a human son is subject to the authority of his human father, does not make him
any less human that his father is. In the same way, the subjection of Jesus to His Father God
does not make Him any less “God” (Colossians 2:9; John 5:23).
JOHN 20:17
REVELATION 3:12
If Jesus is God, why does He submit His will to the Father (Luke 22:42)? How can
Jesus surrender the Kingdom to God if He is God Himself (1 Corinthians 15:28)?
The Biblical doctrine of the Trinity teaches that Jesus and the Father are distinct Persons,
even though they share the same Being and essence of nature, unified as the one and only
true God (1 John 5:20). Just as Christ’s subjection to Mary and Joseph did not make Him
inferior to them (Luke 2:51), so Christ’s subjection to the Father does not make Him inferior.
These Scriptures where Jesus surrenders His will to the Father and the Kingdom to the
Triune God are not denying the Godhood of Christ, but rather revealing the functional
hierarchy within the Persons of the Trinity. As Christ reigns until the end of this age, when
everything (including death) is subject to Christ, He will turn over His rulership of the
Kingdom to the Triune God where all three Persons will reign eternally together as one God
(Matthew 28:18; 1 Corinthians 15:24-28; Hebrews 2:8; Psalm 110:1-2; Hebrews 1:13; 10:12-
13).
2/7
If Jesus is God, did God die when Jesus died?
No, the divine nature of Jesus and the deity of God the Father did not die when the man
Jesus died. Philippians 2:5-11 states that although Jesus existed in the form and nature of
God, He “emptied Himself” to take upon Himself the additional nature of humanity and thus,
brought manhood into His divine Person. So, while the human nature of Jesus died, His
divine nature raised His physical human body from the dead (John 2:18-22; 10:17-18)
HABAKKUK 1:12
If God can’t be tempted by evil, how could Jesus be God (James 1:13; Matthew 4:1)?
How Could Satan tempt Jesus with something God already possesses (Matthew 4:8-
9)?
Since God, in His divine nature, cannot be tempted (James 1:13), Jesus took on the
additional nature of a man (Philippians 2:6-7) to experience all the temptations of humanity
(Hebrews 4:15) and atone for our sins (1 Peter 2:24). Thus, the divine nature of Jesus
remained veiled while the human nature of Jesus was tempted and prevailed without sin, so
that He could become our advocate with the Father (Hebrews 4:15-16). It is true that Christ,
as God, is Himself the ultimate ruler of the world (Daniel 4:17). Yet, for a limited time, Satan
has control of the kingdoms of the earth (1 John 5:19, 2 Corinthians 4:4; John 14:30). So the
temptation Satan offered Christ at Matthew 4:8-9 was to take back the kingdoms of the earth
and begin reigning before it was time. Indeed, it wasn’t until Jesus paid the penalty for our
sins and rose from the dead that He was able to say: “All authority has been given to Me in
heaven and on earth” (Matthew 28:18). Although we do not yet see all things in subjection to
Christ (Hebrews 2:8), the Father has fixed a day when the world will be judged by the “Man”
Jesus Christ Whom He raised from the dead as proof of Christ’s authority (Acts 17:31).
3/7
Therefore, Jesus affirmed His Deity, not only by refusing to fall for Satan’s “If you are the Son
of God…” prove it temptations, but Jesus affirmed His Deity at Matthew 4:7 when He quoted
to Satan, Deuteronomy 6:16 which says: “You shall not put the LORD your God to the test…”
Indeed, Satan was breaking this commandment by tempting Jesus because Jesus is Himself
the LORD God!
CHAPTER 11: HOW TO DISCUSS THE DEITY OF JESUS CHRIST
STEP 5: DISCUSS THE LIMITATIONS OF JESUS’ HUMANITY.
How can Jesus be God and at the same time be the “Son of God” (John 1:1; 3:16)? If
Jesus is “begotten,” how can He be God Himself (John 1:18)? Since angels are called
“sons of God” (Job 38:7), does this prove Jesus is a created angel?
Why is Jesus called the “Son of Man” (Matthew 26:64)? He was not begotten by a man
(Matthew 1:18) as God is not a man (Hosea 11:9). In Scripture, the phrase “son of…” is often
used to denote, “order and nature of….” Thus, Jesus as the “Son of Man” is claiming to be
“of the nature of man.” In the same way, the Jews understood Christ’s claim to be “the Son of
God” as a claim to possess “the nature of God” (John 5:18; 19:7; Matthew 26:63). Likewise,
the word “begotten”has several meanings. When it is used of Jesus Christ, it refers to His
“uniqueness” as the one and only “Son of God” by nature (Hebrews 1:5). While other beings
(including Adam and angels) are called “sons of God” (Luke 3:38; Job 38:7) because they
are creations of God, Jesus is the “only begotten” (unique) “Son of God” because He is by
nature, fully God. Hence, no angel is called the “Son of God” in the way that Jesus is called
God’s Son (Hebrews 1:4-5). In fact, angels are commanded to worship Christ (Hebrews 1:6)
as He is eternal (Isaiah 9:6), without “beginning of days” (Hebrews 7:3) and is their Creator
(John 1:3; Colossians 1:16). Colossians 1:19 and 2:9 explain: “For it was the Father’s good
pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him … For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in
bodily form.”

APPENDIX: IS JESUS THE ANGEL OF THE LORD?
4/7
If Jesus is God, wouldn’t His ransom sacrifice be far greater than what was required to
pay for Adam’s sin?
This question assumes that the covering of Adam’s sin is all that is necessary for justification
before God, but Adam’s sin was just the beginning of human iniquity as it infected every
human with a sin nature that leads to all the wickedness found upon the earth. The
cumulative weight of the sin of all mankind is far greater than the sin of the single man Adam.
Thus, a perfect man serving as the equivalent of Adam, could not possibly atone for the sins
of all mankind (Psalm 49:7). This is why Romans 5:16 says: “The gift is not like that which
came through the one who sinned…” Thus, it took the Christ, the Perfect Son of God who
was not just a perfect human, but far greater as God in the flesh, to atone for the sins of the
whole world (Romans 5:16-17). Acts 20:28 states: “Be on guard …to shepherd the church of
God which He purchased with His own blood.” 2 Corinthians 5:19 also says: “God was in
Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them…” And
1 Timothy 3:16 in the King James Version reads: “And without controversy great is the
mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh…” **
Why does Jesus say the Father is “greater” than Him (John 14:28)?
When Jesus lived upon the earth, He operated under the limitations of His humanity. Thus,
He spoke of the Father as being in a “greater” position because the Father was in Heaven
while He was humbly living under the weakness of frail humanity. Regarding this, the
Athanasian Creed states that Christ was: “Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and
inferior to the Father as touching His manhood…”
JOHN 14:28
If Jesus is God’s “Firstborn” Son, was He created (1 Corinthians 1:15)?
5/7
“Firstborn” does not necessarily mean “first-created.” When used of Christ, “firstborn”
denotes Christ’s preeminent position over creation as the supreme Creator of “all things”
(Colossians 1:16-18). Jesus is not part of the creation which He began (Revelation 3:14)
because John 1:3 states: “All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him
nothing came into being that has come into being.” If “nothing” was created apart from Christ,
Jesus could not be part of creation or He would have had to create Himself! Indeed Isaiah
44:24 in the New World Translation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses reads: “This is what Jehovah
says, your Repurchaser, Who formed you since you were in the womb: I am Jehovah, who
made everything. I stretched out the heavens by myself, And I spread out the earth. Who
was with me?” Since no one was with Jehovah when He created the earth, Jesus must be
Jehovah God Himself.
COLOSSIANS 1:15-16
REVELATION 3:14
If God is not a God of Confusion, how can God be a Trinity (1 Corinthians 14:33)?
It is true that God is not the author of confusion in our worship, but this Scripture says
nothing about whether certain aspects of God’s character and nature should or should not be
“confusing” to the human mind. God is eternal and infinite (Psalm 90:2). Can we comprehend
that? We are temporal, created and finite beings. If our finite minds were fully able to
comprehend our infinite God, how could He be worthy of our worship? Consequently, the fact
that certain aspect of God’s nature such as His eternality and His Triune Being cannot be
fully comprehended by our finite minds, should not pose a threat to the validity of these
Biblical doctrines.
If the Bible calls angels and humans “gods” because of their authority (2 Corinthians
4:4; Psalm 82:6; John 10:34; Exodus 7:1), why can’t Jesus be just “a god” (John 1:1,
NWT) serving under the authority of Jehovah, the Almighty God?
It is true that some creations of God are called “gods” in Scripture due to their authority, but 1
Corinthians 8:5-6 makes it clear that only one true God exists. Since there can only exist one
true, Almighty God at a time (John 17:3), Jesus must be the same “God” as the Father
because He is called “Almighty” at Revelation 1:7-8 and “the true God” at 1 John 5:20. Isaiah
46:9 in the New World Translation of Jehovah’s Witnesses: “Remember the former things of
long ago, that I am God, and there is no other. I am God, and there is no one like me.”
6/7

JOHN 10:30: “I and the Father are One… ”
JESUS IS ALMIGHTY!
=========
** Some translations say “He was manifest…” instead of “God was manifest…” This is due to
a scribal error in some of the Greek manuscripts where the Θ in Θς (God) was accidentally
misread as Ο in ὃς (He).
RETURN TO TABLE OF CONTENTS
7/7
PRAYER TO JESUS: John 14:14 – Did Jesus Say “Ask
Me” Anything? – Appendix – Yes, You Should Believe in
the Trinity!
4jehovah.org/john-1414-did-jesus-say-ask-me-anything/
JOHN 14:14 — DID JESUS SAY “ASK ME ANYTHING” OR

DID HE SAY “ASK ANYTHING”? —Does John 14:14 indicate
that Christians should pray directly to Jesus?
NEW AMERICAN STANDARD:

JOHN 14:14: “If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do
it.”
KINGDOM INTERLINEAR TRANSLATION
NEW WORLD
TRANSLATION
JOHN 14:14: : “If ever anything JOHN 14:14: “If You

you should ask me in the name of ask anything in my
me this I shall do.” name, I will do it.”
Christians and Jehovah’s Witnesses agree that if Jesus is not God, He should not be prayed
to because prayer is a form of worship. However, when we see that Scripture supports the
idea that Jesus is worthy of prayer and worship, we must conclude that Jesus is indeed God
by nature. Thus, the idea that Jesus receives prayer in Scripture is strongly contended
against by Jehovah’s Witnesses who maintain that no such practice exists in Scripture.
One Scripture that Christians appeal to in support of the idea that Jesus receives prayer is
John 14:14. It says in the New American Standard Bible: “If you ask Me anything in My
name, I will do it.” Christians appeal to the fact that not only does Jesus encourage believers
to pray to Him by saying, “ask Me anything,” but He is the One who answers the prayer when
He promises, “I will do it.”
While this Scripture is a strong support of prayer being rendered to Jesus, it is complicated
by the fact that the Jehovah’s Witness Bible, The New World Translation, omits the “me” in
the phrase “ask Me anything” of John 14:14. To demonstrate the Society’s bias against this
devotion to Jesus, one need only appeal to the Greek/English text of the Society’s Kingdom
Interlinear Translation that was used as a basis for the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ Bible. Here the
English words underneath the Greek text state: “If ever anything you should ask me in the
name of me this I shall do.”
1/2
IF THE NWT IS BIASED WHEN IT OMITS THE “ME,” IS THE KJV ALSO BIASED?
One issue that Christians should be prepared to address is the fact that not only does the
Watchtower’s New World Translation leave out the first “me” in “ask Me anything,” but other
Bibles like the King James Version do not contain the first “me” in their text either. The
reason that certain Bible versions, other than the New World Translation, leave out the “me”
is due to a textual variant in the manuscripts of the Greek text of this verse.
The Majority text (most dating from around the 9th century) is split on this issue with some
containing the “me” and others dropping the “me.” But in recent years, scholars have
uncovered manuscripts of the Christian Greek Scriptures (New Testament) that date as far
back as the second and third centuries. The oldest manuscripts we have available today of
this verse in the Gospel of John are Papyrus 66, written in 125 A.D., and Papyrus 75, written
sometime between 175-225 A.D. Both of these papyrus fragments contain the “me” in this
passage. Not only do the oldest fragments of John that we possess today contain the “me,”
but two of the oldest ancient complete copies of the entire New Testament in Greek, the
Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus (also called the Wescott and Hort manuscripts)
written around the 4th century, both agree with the papyrus’ renderings of “ask me” in John
14:14.
Since Desiderius Erasmus complied and published the Greek text (Textus Receptus) of the
King James Bible version in the 1500’s, he did not have access to the older Greek
manuscripts that we have today. Thus, the King James Bible version and other Bible
versions based upon the Textus Receptus or the Majority text (including the Watchtower
Society’s Emphatic Diaglott Greet text published by Benjamin Wilson in 1942), do not contain
the “me” in John 14:14. While these Bibles leave out the “me” based upon the text of the
Greek manuscripts they follow, this is not the case for the Watchtower Society’s New World
Translation. It claims to be based upon the Greek text of the “Wescott and Hort” (the Codex
Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus) ** both of which support the rendering of “me” in “ask me
anything.” Therefore, when the translators of the New World Translation chose to omit the
“me,” they do so with clear bias against the manuscript support for prayers to Jesus. Indeed,
John 14:14 is a strong testimony to Jesus’ approval of the early Christian practice of directing
their prayers to Jesus Christ as God.
NEXT CHAPTER
=========
** See the “Greek Text” section of the “Introduction” to The New World Translation of the Holy
Scriptures with References, 1984, p. 6
2/2
Exodus 3:14 and John 8:58 – The Great “I Am” –
Appendix – Yes, You Should Believe in the Trinity!
4jehovah.org/exodus-314-and-john-858-the-great-i-am/
SHOULD EXODUS 3:14 AND JOHN 8:58 BE TRANSLATED

AS “I AM” OR “I WILL PROVE TO BE” AND “I HAVE
BEEN”?
By Justin T. Alfred, MA 1.
NEW AMERICAN NEW WORLD TRANSLATION

STANDARD
EXODUS 3:14: “God EXODUS 3:14: “At this, God said

said to Moses, ‘I AM to Moses: ‘I SHALL PROVE TO BE
WHO I AM’; and He WHAT I SHALL PROVE TO BE.’
said, ‘Thus you shall And he added: ‘This is what you re
say to the sons of to say to the sons of Israel, “I
Israel, “I AM has sent SHALL PROVE TO BE has sent me
me to you.” ’ ” to you.” ’ ”2.
JOHN 8:58: “Jesus JOHN 8:58: “Jesus said to them:

said to them, ‘Truly, ‘Most truly I say to YOU, Before
truly, I say to you, Abraham came into existence, I
before Abraham was have been.’ ”
born, I am.’ ”
The identity of Jesus’ statement in John 8:58 with God’s revelation of Himself to Moses in
Exodus 3:14 is the primary issue of John 8:58. The argument presented by The Kingdom
Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures is as follows:
Attempting to identify Jesus with Jehovah, some say that ἐγὼ εἰμί (e-go’ ei-mi’) is the
equivalent of the Hebrew expression ‘ani’ hu’, “I am he,” which is used by God.
However, it is to be noted that this Hebrew expression is also used by man, as in 1
Chronicles 21:17.
Further attempting to identify Jesus with Jehovah, some try to use Exodus 3:14 (LXX)
which reads: ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν (E-go’ ei-mi’ ho on), which means “I am The Being,” or, “I
am the Existing One.” This attempt cannot be sustained because the expression in
Exodus 3:14 is different from the expression in John 8:58. Throughout the Christian
Greek Scriptures Jehovah and Jesus are never identified as being the same person. –
See App 2A, 2E.3.
1/8
The first thing to do, therefore, is to actually look at the quote from Exodus 3:14, and then we
will analyze its usage in the LXX and in I Chronicles 21:17, and as with the New Testament
quotes, so too with the Old Testament, I will be quoting the text of the New World Translation
of the Holy Scriptures.
(1) Exodus 3:14: “At this, God said to Moses: ‘I SHALL PROVE TO BE WHAT I SHALL
PROVE TO BE.’ And he added: ‘This is what you are to say to the sons of Israel, ‘I SHALL
PROVE TO BE has sent me to you.’” Without any equivocation, this is one of the most non-
legitimate translations I have ever read of the Hebrew text of Exodus 3:14. The following is
the actual Hebrew text of Exodus 3:14:
‫֙ר‬ ‫ֹּ֗י‬ ‫ֶׁ֔ש‬ ‫֙ם‬
‫ַוֹּ֤יאֶמ ר ֱא ֹלִה י ֶא ל־ֹמ ה ֶֽא ְה ה ֲא ר ֶֽא ְה ה ַו אֶמ ר ה ֹתאַמ ִל ְב י‬
‫ֵ֣נ‬ ‫ֹּ֤כ‬ ‫ֶ֑י‬ ‫ֶ֖י ֶׁ֣ש‬
‫ֵ֔א‬
‫ִיְׂש ָר ל ֶֽא ְה ה ְׁש ָל ִני ֲא ֵליֶֽכ ם׃‬
‫ַ֥ח‬ ‫ֶ֖י‬
The Hebrew that is translated in the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures as “I
SHALL PROVE TO BE WHAT I SHALL PROVE TO BE,” is ‫’( ֶֽא ְה ה ֲא ר ֶֽא ְה ה‬ehyeh ’¦šer
’ehyeh), and the verb in this passage is ‫( ָה ָיה‬hāyâ). The definition ‫ֶ֑י‬ ‫ ֶ֖י‬verb is “to fall out,
‫ ֶׁ֣ש‬this
of
to come to pass, to become, to be, to exist, to come into being, and to be in existence.”4. In
the Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, after a very lengthy analysis of the verb ‫ָה ָיה‬
(hāyâ) as a whole, and then an analysis of its use in Exodus 3:14, we read the following:
This situation suggests that the correct translation of Ex. 3:14 should be “I will be who I
will be.” The ancient versions of Aquila and Theodotion understood the Hebrew text in
this sense (ésomai hós ésomai – “I will be who I will be” in Greek – my translation and
note). Such an interpretation is also supported by the appearance of the expression “I
‫ָּ֔מ‬
will be with you” in Ex. 3:12 ( ‫’ – ֶֽא ְה ה ִע ְך‬ehyeh ‘immāk – “I will be with you” – my
Hebrew insertion, transliteration, and ‫ ֶ֣י‬translation). This ’ehyeh ‘im, the fundamental
promise in the election relationship between God and his people, would then be taken
up in v. 14 to explain the name and nature of Yahweh. It is not possible, however, to
be really certain of what the formula means. All that is sure is that the author of Ex.
3:14 sought to derive the name Yahweh from the root hāyāh.5.
Thus, even though there may be some uncertainty as to just exactly how the translation of
‫’( ֶֽא ְה ה ֲא ר ֶֽא ְה ה‬ehyeh ’¦šer ’ehyeh) should read, the consensus by all reputable scholars is
‫“ ֶ֑י‬I ‫ֶׁ֣ש‬
that ‫ ֶ֖י‬who I will be” is the best translation that can be given. When we look in the
will be
Hebrew for an equivalent verb for the English word “to prove” as the New World Translation
of the Holy Scriptures uses it in Exodus 3:14 with the idea of God demonstrating to Moses
that He is the God Who He says He is, we come up with the Hebrew verb ‫( ָנָסה‬nāsâ), which
means “to test, to try, to attempt, assay, to tempt, and to prove.”6. And if we try to find a
Hebrew verb that expresses the idea of “showing” somebody something, as here in Exodus
3:14 with the idea of “showing proof” of something, then the Hebrew verb that is used with
that sense of meaning is ‫( ָרָאה‬rā’â), which means “to see” as its basic meaning, but in the
2/8
Hiphil stem, it is translated as “to cause someone to see something,” as in Exodus 9:16:
“But, in fact, for this cause I have kept you in existence, for the sake of showing you
( ‫ – ַה ְר ֹאְת‬har’ōtkā) my power and in order to have my name declared in all the earth” (New
‫ָ֣ך‬
World Translation of the Holy Scriptures). However, even though there is some discussion
as to just how ‫’( ֶֽא ְה ה ֲא ר ֶֽא ְה ה‬ehyeh ’¦šer ’ehyeh) should be translated, NO ONE WHO HAS
ANY CREDIBLE ‫ ֶ֑י‬UNDERSTANDING
‫ֶ֖י ֶׁ֣ש‬ OF HEBREW WOULD THINK OF GIVING SUCH A
TRANSLATION AS, “I SHALL PROVE TO BE WHAT I SHALL PROVE TO BE,” coming from
the Hebrew verb ‫( ָה ָיה‬hāyâ). Thus, the translation given in the New World Translation of the
Holy Scriptures is a fallacious fabrication of what the Hebrew phrase, ‫’( ֶֽא ְה ה ֲא ר ֶֽא ְה ה‬ehyeh
’¦šer ’ehyeh) actually means. ‫ֶ֑י‬ ‫ֶ֖י ֶׁ֣ש‬
(2) Exodus 3:14 (LXX): “And God spoke to Moses, saying, I am THE BEING; and he said,
Thus shall ye say to the children of Israel, THE BEING has sent me to you.” In Greek, the
phrase, “I am THE BEING,” is written as, ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν (egō eimi ho ōn), and with personal
pronoun, ἐγώ (egō), attached to the verb, εἰμι (eimi), it is an emphatic assertion of identity –
literally, “I myself am.” However, the next phrase, ὁ ὤν (ho ōn), is a very interesting Greek,
grammatical construction. The Greek word ὤν (ōn) is what is called a nominative, singular,
masculine, present, active participle, from the verb εἰμι (eimi), which is the Greek verb that
means “to be and to exist.” In addition, as has already been stated, “The present participle
indicates action simultaneous with action of the main verb.”7. Thus, with εἰμι (eimi) being the
first person singular, present active indicative of “to be” – literally, “I continually am” – the
present active participle accentuates that ongoing, continuous action, and the definite article,
ὁ (ho), is used to point out the specific identity of who “I am” actually is: “The purpose of the
definite article is to identify, to limit, and, as the name implies, to make definite. Thus, when
the article appears it emphasizes identity, and when it is absent the emphasis is usually
quality and not specificity.”8. Therefore, the translation, “I am THE BEING,” may also be
translated in an amplified manner, “I continually am THE CONTINUAL BEING,” and there is
none other besides me! Therefore, when Jesus identified Himself in John 8:58 as ἐγώ εἰμι
(egō eimi), and the context of this identification had to do with His statement, “Truly, truly, I
say to you, before Abraham was born,” the Pharisees, who were not only familiar with the
Hebrew text, but also the Greek Septuagint (LXX), clearly understood what He was saying,
and that was, “I continually am THE CONTINUAL BEING,” and that is why in John 8:59 “they
picked up stones to throw at Him” (John 8:59).
(3) 1 Chronicles 21:17 (New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures): “And David
proceeded to say to the [true] God: ‘Was it not I that said to make a numbering of the people,
and is it not I that have sinned and have unquestionably done bad? As for these sheep,
what have they done? O Jehovah my God, let your hand, please, come to be upon me and
my father’s house; but not upon your people, for a scourge.’” The point to be made in this
verse by the translators of the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures is that the
Greek expression, ἐγώ εἰμι (egō eimi), is also used here by David, who was a mere man.
The LXX translation, therefore follows with the usage of ἐγώ εἰμι (egō eimi): “And David said
3/8
to God, Was it not I (ἐγώ εἰμι – egō eimi) that gave orders to number the people? and I am
(ἐγώ εἰμι – egō eimi) the guilty one; I have greatly sinned: but these sheep, what have they
done? O Lord God, let thy hand be upon me, and upon my father’s house, and not on thy
people for destruction, O Lord!” As stated, ἐγώ εἰμι (egō eimi) is not an exclusive term that
Jesus used to focus on Himself for whatever reason at the various times He used it, but it
was also used frequently throughout the New Testament by various people, as the examples
above have demonstrated. Therefore, just the phrase, ἐγὼ εἰμί (egō eimi), by itself, does not
signify deity, but the context in which it is used does, and that is what we have seen
throughout this analysis. Thus, in I Chronicles 21:17, David is using ἐγώ εἰμι (egō eimi) to
emphatically focus on his sin and failure, versus anything the people have done – he and he
alone is responsible for the judgment falling upon his people, and he is begging God for
deliverance for them.
THE PROGRESSIVE PRESENT AND JOHN 8:58

The following quote is taken from The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek
Scriptures, 1985 Edition:
The action expressed in John 8:58 started “before Abraham came into existence” and
is still in progress. In such situation εἰμί (ei-mi’), which is the first-person singular
present indicative, is properly translated by the perfect indicative. Examples of the
same syntax are found in Luke 2:48; 13:7; 15:29; John 5:6; 14:9; 15:27; Acts 15:21; 2
Corinthians 12:19; 1 John 3:8.
Concerning this construction, A Grammar of the Idiom of the New Testament, by G. B.

Winer, seventh ed., Andover, 1897, p. 267, says: “Sometimes the Present includes
also a past tense (Mdv. 108), viz. when the verb expresses a state which commenced
at an earlier period but still continues, – a state in its duration; as Jno. xv. 27 ἀπ᾽
ἀρχῆς μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ ἐστε [ap’ ar-khes’ met’ e-mou’ e-ste’], viii. 58 πρὶν Ἀβραὰ μ γενέσθαι
ἐγὼ εἰμι [prin A-bra-am’ ge-ne’sthai e-go’ ei-mi].”
Likewise, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, by J. H. Moulton, Vol. III, by Nigel

Turner, Edinburgh, 1963, p. 62, says: “The Present which indicates the continuance of
an action during the past and up to the moment of speaking is virtually the same as
Perfective, the only difference being that the action is conceived as still in progress . . .
It is frequent in the N[ew] T[estament]: Lk 2:48 13:7 . . . 15:29 . . . Jn 5:6 8:58 . . .”
What we now do is look at the comments made by the publisher in the above section in order
to either verify his correctness, or to expose the errors contained therein.
(1) With reference to the quote from Winer, the present tense verb in Greek is used to
indicate a continuous, ongoing action. Thus, in John 15:27, we read in the Greek: καὶ ὑμεῖς
δὲ μαρτυρεῖτε, ὅτι ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ ἐστε (kai humeis de martureite, hoti ap’ archēs met’
4/8
emou este), and the literal, English translation is: “And you all also are continuing to bear
witness, that from the beginning you are with Me.” When a native, reading Greek would read
this, this is how he would read and understand it, and he would know that the phrase, ἀπ᾽
ἀρχῆς μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ ἐστε (ap’ archēs met’ emou este) meant that from the beginning of Jesus’
calling them to follow Him, from that moment until the time He is making this statement, “they
are continually with Him – from the past up to the very moment He is speaking.” However,
when translating this grammatical truth into English, the phrase, “have been with Me” is used
to simply express for the English reader what is actually being expressed in the Greek verb
tense. The following quote comes from A. T. Robertson, who is the unquestioned,
recognized, and pre-eminent New Testament Greek Scholar, and from whose research,
writings, and studies, a plethora of New Testament Greek Grammars have come:
The Progressive Present. This is a poor name in lieu of a better one for the present of
past action still in progress. …Often it has to be translated into English by a sort of
“progressive perfect” (‘have been’), though, of course, that is the fault of the English.
“So in modern Greek, ἑξῆντα μῆνας σʼ ἀγαπῶ (Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 222 – “I continually
love/have loved to the sixtieth month” – my translation). The durative present in such
cases gathers up past and present time into one phrase” (Moulton, Prol., p. 119). …
(Jo. 5:6 – “he continually has a long time/he had a long time” – my translation);
τοσοῦτον χρόνον μεθʼ ὑμῶν εἰμί (14:9 – “I am continually with you so long a time/I
have been with you so long a time” – my translation); …(2 Tim. 3:15 – “from childhood
you have known” – my translation). … In Jo. 8:58 εἰμί is really absolute.9.
So what is the above quote stating? First of all, in the 2 Timothy 3:15 quote, the Greek verb
οἶδας (oidas) is actually a perfect tense verb, but it is used quite often to translate a present
reality because that is what the perfect tense does –it expresses a completed action with an
ongoing, continuous result. … when Robertson says “In Jo. 8:58 εἰμί is really absolute,” what
he is saying is the following:
There is an important distinction between absolute and relative time. An indicative

verb indicates absolute time. For example, if an indicative verb is present tense, then
it usually indicates an action occurring in the present.10.
Thus, what Robertson is stating about John 8:58 in that the grammatical construction of that
sentence, Jesus is unequivocally stating that He is presently God, the great “I AM” of Exodus
3:14, and that is exactly what the Jews understood Him to be saying, as we see their
response in the following verse: “Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus
hid Himself, and went out of the temple” (John 8:59). The word “indicative” that Mounce is
referring to in the above quote is one of the Greek moods, and the Greek moods describe
the level of reality that is being described. That is, it describes something actually happening
– indicative mood; the probability that something will occur – subjunctive mood; the
possibility that something may or may not occur – optative mood; and finally, the least of
reality is the mood of commanding someone to do something, in which there is no certainty
5/8
that a person will follow through with such a command – imperative mood. Thus, the
indicative mood indicates actual reality, and here in John 8:58, Jesus is saying, in no
uncertain terms of actual reality, THAT HE IS THE ETERNAL GOD OF EXODUS 3:14, and
the Jews clearly understood exactly what He was saying. The following quote also deals
with the present tense in helping those who are not familiar with Greek to understand what it
is actually conveying:
The present tense approaches its kindred tense, the perfect, when used to denote the
continuation of existing results. Here it refers to a fact which has come to be in the
past, but is emphasized as a present reality, as we say, “I learn that you have moved”
(that is, information has come to me in the past which I now possess.) . . .
Sometimes the progressive present is retroactive in its application, denoting that which
has begun in the past and continues into the present. For want of a better name, we
may call it the present of duration. This use is generally associated with an adverb of
time, and may best be rendered by the English perfect.
ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ ἐστε (John 15:27)
“You have been (literally, “You are”) with me from the beginning.”11.
What is being said, therefore, is that even when a present tense verb is given an English
perfect translation, that is merely for the purpose of enabling English readers to better
understand what is being said, but THE PERFECT FORM OF TRANSLATION IN NO WAY
negates the continuous, ongoing action contained in the present tense.
(2) With regard to the reference made to Moulton’s grammar, it is exactly as has been
discussed above with Winer – the present tense does not lose any of its continuous, ongoing
action, but it is merely given a perfect form of translation to help English readers understand
the text.
(3) The third area to analyze has to do with the initial Scripture references that were given
that, according to the translator of The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek
Scriptures, 1985 Edition, indicate that:
The action expressed in John 8:58 started “before Abraham came into existence” and is still
in progress. In such situation εἰμί (ei-mi’), which is the first-person singular present
indicative, is properly translated by the perfect indicative. Examples of the same syntax are
found in Luke 2:48; 13:7; 15:29; John 5:6; 14:9; 15:27; Acts 15:21; 2 Corinthians 12:19; 1
John 3:8.”12.
What we have seen, therefore, is that there is NO SITUATION EVER when a present tense
verb “is properly translated by a perfect indicative,”13. but rather, a perfect form of translation
may be given simply to help English readers understand what is being said. But the present
6/8
tense retains its present tense action of continuous, ongoing movement, regardless of how
the translation may be given.
==========
1. Justin Alfred holds a Masters in Near Eastern Languages and Cultures from the University
of California, Los Angeles and is an Adjunct Professor at the Haggard Graduate School of
Theology in San Diego, CA. He is also the president of Word in Life Ministries
(www.wordinlife.com). This is an excerpt from his thesis, An Exegetical Analysis of John
8:58 (Word in Life Ministries, 2014). Republished with permission.
2. New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures (Brooklyn, NY: Watchtower Bible And Tract
Society of New York, Inc., 1984). NOTE: The 2013 edition of the New World Translation of
the Holy Scriptures changed this questionable phrase of Exodus 3:14 to: “I Will Become
What I Choose to Become.” This is still a fallacious rendering of the Hebrew text.
3. The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures (Brooklyn, NY: Watchtower
Bible And Tract Society of New York, Inc., 1985), 1145-1146.
4. Francis Brown, The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew and English Lexicon

(Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1979), 224-227.
5. G. Johannes Botterwick and Helmer Ringgren, eds., Theological Dictionary of the Old
Testament, Vol. III, trans. John T. Willis, Geoffrey W. Bromiley, and David E. Greene (Grand
Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1978), 381.
6. Francis Brown, 650.
7. Ray Summers and Thomas Sawyer, Essentials of New Testament Greek, rev. ed.
(Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1995), 97.
8. Ibid., 151.
9. A. T. Robertson , A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical

Research (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1934), 879–880.
10. William D. Mounce, Basics of Biblical Greek (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing
House, 1993), 249.
11. H. E. Dana and Julius R. Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament
(Toronto: The Macmillan Company, 1957), 182-183.
12. The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures (Brooklyn, NY: Watchtower
Bible And Tract Society of New York, Inc., 1985), 1145.
13. Ibid., 451.
7/8
8/8
Is Jesus Christ the Angel of the LORD? Appendix – Yes,
You Should Believe in the Trinity
4jehovah.org/is-jesus-christ-the-angel-of-the-lord/
At John 8:56, Jesus made an interesting statement regarding

His appearances to humankind prior to the incarnation. He
said to the Jews: “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My
day, and he saw it and was glad.” He also alluded to the fact
that He was directly involved in Old Testament history when at
Luke 24:27: “…beginning with Moses and with all the prophets,
He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the
Scriptures.” Likewise, at John 5:39-40, Jesus chided the Jews
with this statement: “You search the Scriptures because you
think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify
about Me; and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you
may have life.” In all their studies of the Old Testament
Scriptures, the religious experts of the day missed the whole
point of the Scriptures: “For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.” (Revelation
19:10)
WHEN DID ABRAHAM “SEE” JESUS’ DAY?
In view of the many Scriptures where Jesus announces His involvement in Hebrew history, it
seems clear that many incidents in the Old Testament not only revealed the coming of Christ,
but also foreshadowed it. Yet, what about the appearances of God in the Old Testament?
Since Jesus is “the image of the invisible God,” (Colossians 1:15) could it be that the Old
Testament appearances of God (also called “Theophanies”) were actual appearances of the
pre-incarnate Christ or “Christophanies”? In particular, what about the appearances of “the
angel of the LORD”? Were they merely appearances of a created angel (as the Jehovah’s
Witnesses teach), or were they appearances of the LORD (Yahweh or Jehovah) God Himself
in the “image” of Jesus Christ? 2 Corinthians 4:6 states:
“For God, who said, Light shall shine out of darkness, is the One who has shone in our
hearts to give the Light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.”
Let’s consider the account of Genesis 22:11-12 where “the angel of the LORD” appears to
Abraham to “provide” (Genesis 22:14) a substitute ram for sacrifice in place of Abraham’s
son Isaac whom “God” had commanded Abraham to offer in the land of Moriah (Genesis
22:1-2).
1/5
Notice how the angel of the LORD proclaimed to Abraham: “for now I know that you fear
God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me.” (Genesis 22:12).
Here, the angel of the LORD identifies Himself with “God” by stating that if Abraham had
withheld his son, Isaac, from the sacrifice, he would have withheld his son “from Me.” Thus,
the angel of the LORD revealed Himself to be God.
Now, recall how Jesus said at John 8:56 that Abraham rejoiced to “see” His “day.” Could it
be that the “day” of Jesus’ redemption and resurrection was revealed to Abraham when the
angel of the LORD provided a ram for the sacrifice at Genesis 22:13? Concerning this,
Hebrews 11:17, 19 explains:
“By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the
promises was offering up his only begotten son;…He considered that God is able to raise
people even from the dead, from which he also received him back as a type.”
Genesis 18:1-2 records another account in which Abraham saw “three men” as “the LORD
appeared” to Abraham “by the oaks of Mamre” with two other messengers. The text goes on
to describe how the LORD and these two beings interacted with Abraham, by eating the food
he prepared for “them” and discussing the outcome of Sodom and Gomorrah whose
judgment for sin was imminent. Perhaps Jesus at John 8:56 was also referring to this
incident because Abraham saw a picture of His “day” of judgment and redemption by seeing
the LORD send His two angels to spare the righteous man, Lot, from fiery destruction
(Genesis 18-19).
THE ANGEL OF THE LORD IN THE OLD TESTAMENT
Genesis 22:11-12 and Genesis 18-19 are not the only Scriptures where the “the angel of the
LORD” identifies Himself as “God” and provides redemption as a picture of Christ. There are
many other Scriptures that seem to identify the angel of the LORD in the Old Testament with
Jehovah God and Jesus Christ. You can draw your own conclusion as to the identity of the
angel of the LORD as we examine the following Scriptures:
THE ANGEL OF THE LORD IS THE I AM.
Who was “the angel of the LORD” who appeared to Moses in the burning bush exclaiming, “I
AM WHO I AM …the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob” (Exodus 3:2,
14-15)? Didn’t Jesus refer to Himself as the “I AM” at John 8:58?
THE NAME OF THE ANGEL OF THE LORD IS WONDERFUL.
Who was the “man” (Genesis 32:24) and “angel” (Hosea 12:3) who wrestled with Jacob and
prevailed? He is called “God” at Genesis 32:28 and “the angel” and “the LORD” at Hosea
12:3-5. Yet, this same “angel of the LORD” (Judges 13:3, 15-17) also appeared to Manoah
2/5
and his wife as “a man of God” (Judges 13:6, 10-11) and “the angel of God” (Judges 13:9),
and called Himself “Wonderful” at Judges 13:18. Wasn’t Jesus called “Wonderful” at Isaiah
9:6?
THE ANGEL OF THE LORD REMOVES SIN.
Who was “the angel of the LORD” who appeared to Joshua as the “LORD” standing up to
defend Joshua against Satan’s accusations, proclaiming: “The LORD rebuke you, Satan!”
and then telling Joshua: “See I have taken your iniquity away from you and will clothe you
with festal robes.” (Zechariah 3:1-4)? Also, at Exodus 23:20-21, we see another depiction of
the angel pardoning transgression because God’s name is “in Him.” Doesn’t Scripture say
that Jesus Christ removes our iniquity (Mark 2:10-11; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Colossians 3:3)?
Isn’t He our advocate before the Father (1 John 2:1)? And didn’t Jesus say that the Father
had given Him His name (John 17:11)?
THE ANGEL OF THE LORD REDEEMS US.
Who is “the angel” who “redeemed” Jacob (Israel) from all evil” (Genesis 48:16)? Isaiah
63:9 says: “…the angel of His [God’s] presence saved them [Israel]; in His love and in His
mercy He redeemed them.” Yet, doesn’t Scripture teach that “the LORD of hosts” who is
called the “Redeemer” and “the Holy One of Israel” (Isaiah 47:4), is Jesus, our “Redeemer”
(Job 19:25) and “Holy One” (Acts 2:27)?
THE ANGEL OF THE LORD IS WORSHIPPED AS CAPTAIN OF GOD’S ARMY.
Who was the “man” who appeared to Joshua “with his sword drawn in his hand” proclaiming
that He is “the captain of the host of the LORD” and was worshipped by Joshua by removing
his sandal because the ground where he was “standing is holy” (Joshua 5:13-15)? Didn’t
“the angel of the LORD” who appeared to Moses as “God” also proclaim to Moses that he
must remove his sandals from his feet because Moses also was “standing” upon “holy
ground” when he was in His presence (Exodus 3:4-5)? Yet, Jesus who is also the captain of
the armies of Heaven (Revelation 19:11-14), is the only one who allows worship of Himself
(Revelation 5:11-14). No created “angel” receives worship (Revelation 22:8-9).
THE ANGEL OF THE LORD ENCAMPED AND RESCUED ISRAEL.
Psalm 34:7 reveals: “The angel of the LORD encamps around those who fear Him, and
rescues them.” Exodus 13:21 states that when the LORD led Israel out of Egypt, He went
before them “in a pillar of cloud by day to lead them on the way…” Yet, Exodus 14:19
identifies this “pillar of cloud” as the “angel of God.” Likewise, at Judges 2:1,4-5: “the angel
of the LORD” says: “I brought you up out of Egypt and led you into the land which I have
sworn to your fathers; and I said, ‘I will never break My covenant with you. …When the
3/5
angel of the LORD spoke…they sacrificed to the LORD.” Could it be that this “angel of the
LORD” who led Israel out of Egypt was “the spiritual rock which followed them; and the
rock was Christ” (1 Corinthians 10:4)?
THE ANGEL OF THE LORD IS THE LORD OF PEACE.
At Judges 6:20-24, the “angel of the LORD” appeared to Gideon as “the LORD” of “Peace”
(Judges 6:24). Isn’t Jesus our “Prince of Peace” (Isaiah 9:6 and Ephesians 2:14)?
OTHER SCRIPTURES LINKING THE ANGEL OF THE LORD TO YAHWEH GOD:
The “angel of the LORD” spoke to Hagar (Genesis 16:7-12) and “Then she called the
name of the LORD who spoke to her, ‘You are a God who sees’; for she said, ‘Have
I even remained alive here after seeing Him?’ ” (Genesis 16:13).
At Genesis 28:13-20, Jacob made a vow to God at Bethel after the LORD appeared to
him. Then at Genesis 31:11-13, the “angel of the LORD” appeared to Jacob saying: “I
am the God of Bethel, where you anointed a pillar, where you made a vow to Me…”
(Genesis 31:13).
Zechariah 12:8: “In that day the LORD will defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem, …
and the house of David will be like God, like the angel of the LORD before them.”
DOES THE HEBREW WORD FOR “ANGEL” MEAN A CREATED BEING?
Some may ask, if Jesus is not a created being, how can “the angel of the LORD” be
identified with Jesus since most “angels” in Scripture are created beings? This objection is
easily answered by the fact that the Hebrew word “mal-awk”for “angel” does not necessarily
mean a created being. While it is often used of created beings, like angels, prophets, and
kings, its root meaning according to Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible simply
means: “to despatch as a deputy; a messenger; spec[ifically] of God…”** The connection
between Jesus and “the angel of the LORD” is so close that Vine’s Complete Expository
Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words notes:
“The relation between the Lord and the ‘angel of the Lord’ is often so close that it is difficult to
separate the two …. This identification has led some interpreters to conclude that the ‘angel
of the Lord’ was the pre-incarnate Christ.” – W.E. Vine, Merrill F. Unger, William White, Jr.,
Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words (Nashville, TN:
Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1985), page 5
Thus, in the Old Testament it is reasonable to conclude that “the angel of the LORD” is the
pre-incarnate Jesus Christ, but this is not the case with the New Testament reference to “an
angel of the Lord.” While there are many references to “an angel of the Lord” appearing in
New Testament Scriptures, none of these cases have the “angel” identifying himself with God
Himself. Also, the “angel of the Lord” who appeared to Joseph in the New Testament
4/5
proclaimed the birth of Jesus at Matthew 1:20. This proves that this “angel” in the New
Testament could not possibly be the same person as Jesus Christ. Since “the angel of the
LORD” of the Old Testament who identified Himself with God never appears in the New
Testament, it seems that once the incarnation occurred, Jesus no longer appeared to
humankind as “the angel of the LORD” but rather as the suffering Messiah and “Lord of
glory” (1 Corinthians 2:8).
==========
** James Strong, Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, (Peabody, MA:

Hendrickson Publishers, 1986), 66.
5/5
Jehovah’s Witness Bible Translation Examined
4jehovah.org/jehovahs-witness-bible-translation-examined/
.:IS THE JEHOVAH’S WITNESS BIBLE, THE

NEW WORLD TRANSLATION, A GOOD
TRANSLATION?
It is a well-known fact that the Watchtower

Bible and Tract Society religion of Jehovah’s
Witnesses denies the Deity of Jesus Christ. To
this end, when they produced their own
translation of the Bible (The New World
Translation of the Holy Scriptures), they went
to great lengths to make it appear that the
Scriptures do not support the idea that Jesus
Christ is God (Jehovah). In an attempt to shift
the emphasis off of Jesus Christ as God, they inserted the derivation “Jehovah” (an
adaptation from the original Hebrew “YHWH” for God’s Name) in place of theos (God) and
kurios (Lord) in multiple verses in the Christian Greek Scriptures (New Testament). Thus,
they created a distinction between Jehovah God and Jesus Christ that is not warranted in the
text. In addition to inserting God’s Name where it is not supported by the text, they have also
mistranslated many verses that support the Deity of Jesus Christ to justify their own anti-
Trinitarian dogma. The following list (prepared by Chris Stire of Life After Watchtower
Support Ministries) provides a record of the verses where the Watchtower Society’s anti-
Trinitarian bias can be seen in their New World Translation. We encourage readers to verify
these errors with any Greek/English Interlinear, including the Kingdom Interlinear Translation
of the Greek Scriptures published by the Watchtower Society. NOTE: All references to
brackets in the list below are from the 1984 edition of the New World Translation because in
2006, the Watchtower Society updated their version of the New World Translation Bible to
remove the brackets that they used to have around words that they inserted that are not
found in the Greek text. Thus, all editions of the New World Translation except the ones
between 1984 and 2006 have words deceptively added without the brackets to make it seem
as if these words are found in the original Greek text even though they are not in the text.
Note: The examples in this article are based upon the 1984 edition of the New World
Translation of the Holy Scriptures compared to the 1985 edition of the Kingdom Interlinear
translation of the Greek Scriptures.
List of Mistranslated Verses in the Christian Greek Scriptures (New Testament) of

Jehovah’s Witnesses
INSERTING “JEHOVAH” IN PLACE OF “LORD” OR “GOD” IN THE NEW TESTAMENT
1/8
The Greek word kurios meaning “Lord” is mistranslated as “Jehovah” or “Jehovah’s.”
Matthew 22:44; 23:39; 27:10

Mark 5:19; 12:29; 12:30; 12:36; 13:20
Luke 1:25; 1:28; 1:32; 1:58; 1:68; 2:15; 20:42
Acts 2:34; 2:39; 2:47; 3:22; 7:33; 7:49; 12:11; 12:17; 13:47
Romans 4:8; 9:28; 9:29; 12:19; 14:11
1 Corinthians 1:31; 3:20; 4:4; 4:19; 7:17; 14:21; 16:7
2 Corinthians 6:17; 6:18; 10:18
Colossians 3:16
1 Thessalonians 4:6
2 Timothy 1:18; 2:19 (twice); 4:14
Hebrews 7:21; 8:2; 8:8; 8:9; 8:10; 10:16; 10:30; 12:6; 13:6
James 4:15; 5:15
2 Peter 2:9; 3:9
Jude 5, 9, 14
Revelation 1:8; 4:11; 18:8; 19:6; 21:22; 22:5; 22:6
Greek word kurie meaning “Lord” is mistranslated as “Jehovah.”
John 12:38
Acts 1:24; 4:29; 7:60
Romans 10:16; 11:3; 14:6 (three times); 14:8 (three times)
Revelation 15:4; 16:7
The Greek word kuriou meaning “of Lord” or “of Lord’s” is mistranslated as “Jehovah” or
“Jehovah’s.”
Matthew 1:20; 1:22; 1:24; 2:13, 2:15; 2:19; 3:3; 28:2

Mark 1:3; 11:9; 12:11
Luke 1:6; 1:9; 1:15; 1:45; 1:66; 1:76; 2:9 (twice); 2:23; 2:24; 2:26; 2:39; 3:4; 4:18; 4:19;
5:17; 13:35; 19:38
John 1:23; 12:13; 12:38
Acts 2:20; 2:21; 3:19; 4:26; 5:9; 5:19; 7:31; 8:22; 8:25; 8:26; 8:39; 9:31; 10:33; 11:21;
12:7; 12:23; 12:24; 13:10; 13:11; 13:12; 13:49; 15:35; 15:36; 15:40; 18:25; 19:20
Romans 10:13; 11:34
1 Corinthians 10:21; 10:26; 11:32; 16:10
2 Corinthians 3:17 (twice) 3:18 (twice); 8:21
Ephesians 5:17; 6:4; 6:8
Colossians 1:10; 3:24
1 Thessalonians 1:8; 4:15; 5:2
2 Thessalonians 2:2; 2:13; 3:1
Hebrews 12:5
2/8
James 1:7; 4:10; 5:4; 5:10; 5:11 (twice); 5:14
1 Peter 1:25; 3:12
2 Peter 3:10
The Greek word kurion meaning “Lord” is mistranslated as “Jehovah.”
Matthew 4:7; 4:10; 22:37

Luke 1:16; 1:46; 4:8; 4:12; 10:27; 30:37
Acts 2:25; 8:24; 15:17
Romans 15:11
1 Corinthians 10:9; 10:22
2 Corinthians 3:16
Colossians 3:23
Hebrews 8:11
James 3:9
The Greek word kurio meaning “Lord” is mistranslated as “Jehovah.”
Matthew 5:33
Luke 1:17; 2:22; 2:23
Acts 13:2; 14:3; 14:23; 16:15
Romans 12:11; 14:4
1 Corinthians 2:16
2 Corinthians 10:17
Ephesians 2:21; 5:19; 6:7
Colossians 3:22
Hebrews 8:11
James 3:9
NOTE: Some of the strongest evidence of the New World Translation’s bias against the Deity
of Jesus Christ can be seen in the surrounding verses of many of the passages noted above
where the Jehovah’s Witness Bible inserts “Jehovah” instead of “Lord” when referencing
attributes of God that are being applied directly to Jesus Christ in the New Testament. One
example is Romans 10:9-13 where Jesus is proclaimed as the “Lord” to whom we are to
confess and believe in for salvation. The flow of the context from verses 9 to 12 repeatedly
emphasize that Jesus is the “Lord” we are to confess and believe, but when Paul cites Joel
2:32 of Jehovah God and applies this passage directly to Christ as “Lord” at verse 13, the
Watchtower inserts “Jehovah” to draw attention away from Jesus Christ. Another example
is Romans 14:7-9 where verse 9 in the New World Translation does not logically flow from
the context of verses 7-8 because the Watchtower inserts “Jehovah” in these verses while
leaving the translation “Lord” in verse 9 to interrupt the contextual emphasis of Jesus being
the “Lord” to whom we are to live or die.
3/8
The Greek word theos meaning “God” is mistranslated as “Jehovah.”
Hebrews 2:13
Revelation 4:8
The Greek word theou meaning “of God” or “of God’s” is mistranslated as “Jehovah’s.”
Matthew 4:4
John 6:45
Acts 13:44; 13:48; 16:32; 18:21
James 2:23
2 Peter 3:12
The Greek word theon meaning “God” is mistranslated as “Jehovah.”
Acts 16:14
The Greek word theo meaning “God” is mistranslated as “Jehovah.”
Romans 4:3
Galatians 3:6
Colossians 3:16
James 2:23
ADDING “IN UNION WITH” TO THE WORD “IN”
The Greek word en meaning “in” is paraphrased as “in union with” to support the Watchtower
teaching that Christians support the cause of Christ, but do not have Christ dwelling within
them.
Matthew 10:32 (twice)

Luke 12:8 (twice)
John 6:56; 10:38; 14:10 (three times); 14:11 (twice); 14:20 (three times); 15:4 (three
times); 15:5 (twice); 15:6; 15:7; 17:21 (three times); 17:26
Romans 8:1; 8:2; 8:10; 12:5; 16:7
1 Corinthians 1:2; 1:30; 15:18; 16:24
2 Corinthians 5:17; 12:2; 13:5
Galatians 1:22; 2:4; 2:20; 3:28; 5:10
Ephesians 1:1; 1:3; 1:4; 1:11; 2:6; 2:7; 2:10; 2:13; 2:15; 2:21; 2:22; 3:6; 6:1
Philippians 1:1; 3:9; 4:21
Colossians 1:27; 1:28; 2:6; 3:3
2 Timothy 1:1; 2:10; 3:15
Philemon :23
1 Peter 5:10; 5:14
1 John 1:5; 2:5; 2:6; 2:24; 2:27; 2:28; 3:6; 3:24 (three times)
4/8
1 John 4:4 (twice). 4:13 (twice); 4:15 (twice); 4:16 (twice); 5:20
Revelation 14:13
ADDING “EXERCISE” TO THE WORD “FAITH”
The English words “exercise,” “exercising,” “exercised,” “exercises” are added with no basis
in the Greek text. This term is added to support the Watchtower doctrine of works being
added to faith to complete the salvation process.
Mark 5:36
John 1:12; 3:16, 18, 36; 6:29, 35; 7:5; 11:25; 12:36; 14:1 (twice); 14:12; 16:9
Romans 4:3; 10:4, 9, 10
2 Corinthians 4:13 (twice)
Galatians 3:22
2 Thessalonians 1:10
Hebrews 4:3
1 Peter 1:8; 2:6
CHANGING ETERNAL “PUNISHMENT” TO EVERLASTING “CUTTING OFF”
The Greek word kolasis is translated “cutting-off” instead of “punishment” to support the
Watchtower’s belief in annihilation and the rejection of an eternal place of torment called
“hell.”
Matthew 25:46
THE WORD WAS GOD OR THE WORD WAS A GOD
The Greek words kai theos en ho logos are mistranslated as “the Word was a god,” instead
of “the Word was God.” This is a distortion of the text as the word “a” is not in the Greek, but
was added by the New World Translators to make the Word (Jesus) “a” second “god” who is
separate from God the Father.
John 1:1
CHANGING “I AM” TO “I HAVE BEEN”
The Greek words ego eimi meaning “I am” are mistranslated as “I have been” to obscure the
connection between Jesus being the “I Am” Jehovah God of Exodus 3:14.
John 8:58
REMOVING “ME” FROM “ASK ME”
The word “me” is omitted in “ask Me anything” to support the Watchtower claim that Jesus is
not worthy to receive prayer.
5/8
John 14:14
CHANGING “YOUR THRONE, O GOD” TO “GOD IS YOUR THRONE”
The phrase “Your throne, O God” is replaced with the phrase “God is your throne” to distort
the fact that the writer of Hebrews is calling Jesus God by quoting Psalm 45:6 and applying it
directly to the Son of God.
Hebrew 1:8
ADDING “SON” TO “BLOOD OF HIS OWN”
The English word “son” in “blood of his own [son]” is added in brackets without any support in
the Greek text. This demonstrates the length that the Watchtower goes to deny that Jesus is
the God who shed His own blood for us.
Acts 20:28
CHANGING “KNOW” TO “TAKING IN KNOWLEDGE”
The Greek word ginoskosin meaning “to know, intimately” is mistranslated as “taking in
knowledge of” to support the Watchtower doctrine that accurate knowledge is necessary for
eternal life. Changing this translation from “know You” (as all other Bible translations have it)
to “taking in knowledge of You” shifts the focus from a personal relationship with God to a
mere intellectual study of God to gain eternal life.
John 17:3
CHANGING “WAS” TO “MEANT”
The Greek phrase, he petra de en ho Kristos meaning “and the rock was Christ” is
mistranslated as “and that rock mass meant the Christ.” Again, this shifts the focus from
Jesus being the Jehovah God, Rock of Israel (Isaiah 30:29).
1 Corinthians 10:4
ADDING “OTHER” TO “ALL THINGS” AND “EVERY NAME”
In the 1984 edition of the New World Translation, the English word “other” is added in
brackets to indicate that the word does not occur in the Greek text. The translators of the
New World Translation added the word “other” in “gave him the name that is above every
[other] name” to support the Watchtower teaching that the name “Jehovah” is superior to the
name “Jesus.” However, all editions of the New World Translation prior to 1981 and current
editions after 2006 have “other” added without brackets making it seem as if this word is in
the original Greek text. Even on page 27 of the February 1, 1992 Watchtower magazine, we
6/8
again see Philippians 2:9 being quoted without the brackets being used around the word
“other.” This again demonstrates the deep-rooted bias of the Watchtower Society against
Jesus possessing a name equal and superior to name “Jehovah.”
Philippians 2:9
Translation bias against the eternal nature of Jesus Christ as Creator God is clearly seen in
the New World Translation’s insertion of the word “other” in reference to Jesus’ work in
creation. By adding the word “other” to “all things” so that it reads “by means of him all [other]
things were made to exist,” the Watchtower is able to justify its claim that Jehovah God
created Jesus first and then used Jesus as His creative agent for the rest of creation.
However, Scripture proclaims that Jesus is the Creator of “all things,” for He has always
existed as the uncreated, “everlasting father” — possessor of eternity (Isaiah 9:6). We again
see translation bias against the Deity of Jesus Christ recurring in Watchtower literature on
pages 20 and 21 of the February 1, 1992 issue of The Watchtower where the Watchtower’s
insertion of “other” in Colossians 1:16 is again quoted without the brackets.
Colossians 1:16, 17, 20
CHANGING “DEITY” TO “DIVINE QUALITY”
The Greek word theotetos meaning “Godship, Deity, Godhead” is mistranslated as “divine
quality” to detract from the full Deity of God being attributed to Christ in this passage.
Colossians 2:9
CHANGING “GOD AND SAVIOR” TO “GOD AND OF THE SAVIOR OF US”
The Greek phrase theou kai soteros emon meaning “God and Savior of us” or “our God and
Savior” is mistranslated as “god and of [the] Savior of us.” This word “the,” being inserted in
brackets with no basis in the Greek text is yet another attempt of NWT translators to
separate Christ from being God.
Titus 2:13
CHANGING “SPIRIT” TO “SPIRITUAL LIFE”
The Greek words pneumaton and pneumas meaning “spirits” is mistranslated as “spiritual
life” and “spiritual lives” to fit with the Watchtower doctrine that denies the existence of the
human “spirit” that lives on past death.
Hebrews 12:9, 23
FOR MORE INFORMATION SEE
7/8
Who Are the Translators of the New World Translation?
“Proskuneo” (Worship) in the New World Translation (Christian Apologetics & Research
Ministry)
What Do Greek Scholars Think About the Jehovah’s Witness Translation of John 1:1?
(Let Us Reason Ministries)
Scholars the Watchtower Quotes for the NWT and What They Really Said
(apologeticacatolica.org)
Mantey’s Response to the NWT: “A Grossly Misleading Translation” PDF
What Mantey has said about the New World Translation
(https://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-Mantey.htm)
8/8

You Should Believe in The Trinity

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

You Should Believe in The Trinity

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Yes, You Should Believe in the Trinity!

—A Page-by-Page Response To The Watchtower Society’s 1989 Brochure: “Should

English Paperback / English KDP

INTRODUCTION: WHY YOU SHOULD BELIEVE IN IT

CHAPTER 1: DEFINING THE TRINITY

WHAT IS THE TRINITY?

CHAPTER 2: HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

TAUGHT BY EARLY CHRISTIANS

CHAPTER 3: PAGAN ROOTS OF THE TRINITY?

WHAT ABOUT EGYPTIAN, BABYLONIAN, AND HINDU TRIADS?

CHAPTER 4: TRINITY IN THE BIBLE

CHAPTER 5: IS JESUS INFERIOR TO GOD?

WHAT ABOUT JESUS’ SUBMISSION TO THE FATHER’S WILL?

CHAPTER 6: THE HOLY SPIRIT—A PERSON OR FORCE?

PERSONAL ATTRIBUTES OF THE HOLY SPIRIT

CHAPTER 7: JESUS IS GOD!

WHAT ABOUT TRINITY “PROOF TEXTS”?

CHAPTER 8: “WORSHIP GOD ON HIS TERMS”

SHOULD WE WORSHIP JESUS?

CHAPTER 9: WHO SHOULD WE PRAY TO? – The Father or the Son?

IF JESUS TAUGHT US TO PRAY TO THE FATHER, WHY SHOULD WE PRAY TO

SHOULD GOD’S NAME BE TRANSLATED JEHOVAH, YAHWEH OR LORD?

CHAPTER 11: HOW TO DISCUSS THE DEITY OF JESUS CHRIST

CHAPTER 12: QUESTIONS EXPOSING TRINITY BROCHURE LIES

CHAPTER 13: SIMPLE QUESTIONS TO ASK ABOUT THE TRUE GOD

IS JESUS THE ANGEL OF THE LORD?

ERRORS IN THE NEW WORLD TRANSLATION OF JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES

WHY YOU SHOULD BELIEVE IN IT

rinity is the belief that the three divine persons in Scripture,

Here we see that in one passage, God first refers to Himself in

1. God Has Revealed His Triune Nature in Creation.

Dimensions: Length, Width, Height

2. Confessing Jesus’ Identity as God the Son is Foundational to

3. God had to become Human to “Redeem” Mankind.

ISAIAH 43:15; 47:4; 54:5 JOHN 6:69

“Because You will

4. God’s Love Required the Existence of an Eternally Triune

5. Our Sins Cannot be Forgiven if We Refuse to Pray to Jesus for

[4] See James 2:19.

CHAPTER 1: DEFINING THE TRINITY

WHAT IS THE TRINITY?

WHAT IS THE TRINITY?

The Trinity is the view that the 3 Persons mentioned in

3 DEFINING PRINCIPLES OF THE DOCTINE OF THE TRINITY:

“Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance….”

3. IN THE TRINITY “NONE IS BEFORE OR AFTER OTHER; NONE IS GREATER OR

“BEYOND THE GRASP OF HUMAN REASON”

Concerning the practical significance of the Trinity, Robert M. Bowman comments:

“IS IT CLEARLY A BIBLE TEACHING?”

“First-century believers accepted the Scriptures as the authentic revelation of God.

TESTIMONY OF THE HEBREW AND GREEK SCRIPTURES

THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGION

THE TRIUNE GOD, by Jesuit Edmund Fortman

THE NEW ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA

“PROTESTANT THEOLOGIAN KARL BARTH”

CHAPTER 2: HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

TAUGHT BY EARLY CHRISTIANS

TAUGHT BY EARLY CHRISTIANS

The following is the complete quote from this encyclopedia in context:

“WHAT THE ANTE-NICENE FATHERS TAUGHT”

“Such thinking is an evidence of pride….If we get to thinking that we know better

IGNATIUS (30-107 A.D.)