User:GabrielVelasquez/Watchtower

THIS IS NOT A TALK PAGE, They are all quotes. PLEASE DO NOT EDIT THIS PAGE.

some Encyclopædias
The New Encyclopædia Britannica says: “Neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord’ (Deut. 6:4). . . . The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies. . . . By the end of the 4th century. . . the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since.”—(1976), Micropædia, Vol. X, p. 126.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia states: “The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.”—(1967), Vol. XIV, p. 299. In The Encyclopedia Americana we read: “Christianity derived from Judaism and Judaism was strictly Unitarian [believing that God is one person]. The road which led from Jerusalem to Nicea was scarcely a straight one. Fourth century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching.”—(1956), Vol. XXVII, p. 294L.

According to the Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel, “The Platonic trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave birth to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian churches. . . . This Greek philosopher’s [Plato, fourth century B.C.E.] conception of the divine trinity. . . can be found in all the ancient [pagan] religions.”—(Paris, 1865-1870), edited by M. Lachâtre, Vol. 2, p. 1467.

John L. McKenzie, S.J., in his Dictionary of the Bible, says: “The trinity of persons within the unity of nature is defined in terms of ‘person’ and ‘nature’ which are G[ree]k philosophical terms; actually the terms do not appear in the Bible. The trinitarian definitions arose as the result of long controversies in which these terms and others such as ‘essence’ and ‘substance’ were erroneously applied to God by some theologians.”—(New York, 1965), p. 899.

Isaac Newton’s Search for God
POPULAR tradition has it that the fall of an apple started Sir Isaac Newton on the way to discovering the universal law of gravitation. Whatever may be the truth of this tradition, there is no question about Newton’s remarkable powers of reason. Concerning his renowned scientific work the Principia, we are told: “The whole development of modern science begins with this great book. For more than 200 years it reigned supreme.”1 Celebrated as were Newton’s scientific discoveries, he himself humbly acknowledged his human limitations. He was modest. Shortly before his death in 1727 he said of himself: “I do not know what I may appear to the world, but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the seashore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me.”2 Newton appreciated that God is the Source of all truth, and in line with the deep reverence he had for his Creator, he appears to have spent even more time searching after the true God than he did in searching out scientific truths. An analysis of all that Newton wrote reveals that out of some 3,600,000 words only 1,000,000 were devoted to the sciences, whereas some 1,400,000 were on religious topics.3

NEWTON WRESTLES WITH THE TRINITY DOCTRINE In his writings, Newton gave much attention to the doctrine of the Trinity. One of his most outstanding contributions to the Biblical scholarship of the time was his work An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture, first published in 1754, twenty-seven years after his death. It reviewed all the textual evidence available from ancient sources on two Bible passages, at First John 5:7 and First Timothy 3:16. In the King James Version Bible, First John 5:7 reads: “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” Using early Church writers, the Greek and Latin manuscripts and the testimony of the first versions of the Bible, Newton proved that the words “in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one,” in support of the Trinity doctrine, did not appear in the original inspired Greek Scriptures. He then traced the way in which the spurious reading crept into the Latin versions, first as a marginal note, and later into the text itself. He showed that it was first taken into a Greek text in 1515 by Cardinal Ximenes on the strength of a late Greek manuscript corrected from the Latin. Finally, Newton considered the sense and context of the verse, concluding, “Thus is the sense plain and natural, and the argument full and strong; but if you insert the testimony of ‘the Three in Heaven’ you interrupt and spoil it.”4 The shorter portion of this dissertation was concerned with 1 Timothy 3:16, which reads (King James Version): “And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.” Newton showed how, by a small alteration in the Greek text, the word “God” was inserted to make the phrase read “God was manifest in the flesh.” He demonstrated that early Church writers in referring to the verse knew nothing of such an alteration. Summing up both passages, Newton said: “If the ancient churches in debating and deciding the greatest mysteries of religion, knew nothing of these two texts, I understand not, why we should be so fond of them now the debates are over.”5 In the two hundred years and more since that treatise was compiled by Isaac Newton, only a few minor corrections have been necessary to the evidence he adduced. Yet it was only in the nineteenth century that Bible translations appeared correcting these passages. Part of Newton’s original manuscript in his own handwriting is illustrated on the next page by courtesy of the Bodleian Library, Oxford, England. Why did Newton not publish these findings during his lifetime? A glance at the background of the times may explain this. Those who wrote against the doctrine of the Trinity were still subject to persecution in England. As late as 1698 the Act for the Suppression of Blasphemy and Profaneness made it an offense to deny one of the persons of the Trinity to be God, punishable with loss of office, employment and profit on the first occasion, and imprisonment for a repetition. Newton’s friend William Whiston (translator of the works of Josephus) lost his professorship at Cambridge for this reason in 1711. In 1693 a pamphlet attacking the Trinity was burned by order of the House of Lords, and the next year its printer and author were prosecuted. In 1697 Thomas Aikenhead, an eighteen-year-old student charged with denying the Trinity, was hanged at Edinburgh, Scotland.6, 7, 8

WHY NEWTON REJECTED THE TRINITY Through his scientific studies Newton came to have a high regard for the ‘Book of Nature’ and saw in it the evidence of design by God, the great Author. He also believed that the Bible was the revelation of God, and that it was always in harmony with the testimony of creation.9 The Bible was Newton’s touchstone for testing teachings and doctrine. In discussing the creeds of the Church, Newton made this position very clear. On the basis of the eighth of the Thirty-nine Articles dealing with the Nicene, Athanasius’ and Apostles’ Creeds, he said of the Church of England: “She doth not require us to receive them by authority of General Councils, and much less by authority of Convocations, but only because they are taken out of the Scriptures. And therefore are we authorised by the Church to compare them with the Scriptures, and see how and in what sense they can be deduced from thence? And when we cannot see the Deduction we are not to rely upon the Authority of the Councils and Synods.” His conclusion was even more emphatic: “Even General Councils have erred and may err in matters of faith, and what they decree as necessary to salvation is of no strength or authority unless they can be shown to be taken from the holy Scripture.”10 Newton’s principal reason for rejecting the Trinity was that when he sought to verify the statements of the creeds and the councils he found no support in Scripture for the doctrine. In weighing this evidence, Newton firmly held that reasoning should be used. He argued that nothing created by God was without purpose and reason, and Bible teachings would be sustained by similar application of logic and reason. Speaking of the apostle John’s writings, Newton said: “I have that honour for him as to believe that he wrote good sense; and therefore take that sense to be his which is the best.”11 So, as a second reason for rejecting the Trinity teaching, Newton declared: “Homoousion [the doctrine that the Son is of the same substance as the Father] is unintelligible. ’Twas not understood in the Council of Nice, nor ever since. What cannot be understood is no object of belief.”12 Dealing with this same aspect of the Trinity is a Newton manuscript entitled “Queries Regarding the Word Homoousios.” It reveals a third reason for his denial of the Trinity. This teaching was not part of early Christianity. Queries twelve to fourteen all highlight the doctrine’s lack of original first-century character: “Query 12. Whether the opinion of the equality of the three substances was not first set on foot in the reign of Julian the Apostate [361-363 C.E.], by Athanasius, Hilary, etc.? Query 13. Whether the worship of the Holy Ghost was not first set on foot presently after the Council of Sardica? [343 C.E.] Query 14. Whether the Council of Sardica was not the first Council which declared for the doctrine of the Consubstantial Trinity?”13 In another manuscript, now preserved in Jerusalem, Newton summed up the only answer to such questions. “We are commanded by the Apostle (2 Timothy 1:13) to hold fast the form of sound words. Contending for a language which was not handed down from the Prophets and Apostles is a breach of the command and they that break it are also guilty of the disturbances and schisms occasioned thereby. It is not enough to say that an article of faith may be deduced from scripture. It must be exprest in the very form of sound words in which it was delivered by the Apostles.” 14 So on the basis of Scripture, reason and the authentic teaching of early Christianity, Newton found that he could not accept the doctrine of the Trinity. He believed strongly in the supreme sovereignty of Jehovah God, and the proper position of Jesus Christ, neither derogating him as the Son of God nor elevating him to the position occupied by his Father.15 In discussing with John Locke the passage of Daniel 7:9, he wrote, “Whence are you certain that ye Ancient of Days is Christ? Does Christ anywhere sit upon ye Throne?”16 His own conclusion here is obvious, and the clarity of his thought regarding the relationship of the Father with the Son is always evident in Newton’s writings. So elsewhere he makes the point that prayer can be made to “God in the name of the Lamb, but not to the Lamb in the name of God.”17 Perhaps the best summary of Isaac Newton’s Scriptural arguments for his repudiation of the Trinity is found in fourteen ‘Argumenta,’ written in Latin, giving Bible citations for many of them. Numbers four to seven are particularly interesting: “4. Because God begot the Son at some time, he had not existence from eternity. Proverbs 8:23, 25. 5. Because the Father is greater than the Son. John 14:28. 6. Because the Son did not know his last hour. Mark 13:32, Matt. 24:36, Rev. 1:1, 5:3. 7. Because the Son received all things from the Father.”18 A perusal of Newton’s religious writings cannot fail to impress the reader with their thoroughness, and a realization of his long and deep meditation, his scholarly ability and grasp of the original Bible languages. His conclusions regarding the Trinity therefore merit our respect and consideration, even though he did not feel constrained to make them public during his lifetime. Today, when much more evidence is available than Newton had access to, we too should make investigation of our beliefs as he did, always seeking to reason first on the evidence of God’s Word. This will build in us a strong faith fully in harmony with the teaching of original Christianity. References 1. The Encyclopædia Britannica, 1971 ed., Vol. 16, p. 420. 2. The World Book Encyclopedia, 1973 ed., Vol. 14, p. 308. 3. The Correspondence of Isaac Newton, edited by H. W. Turnbull, F.R.S., Cambridge 1961, Vol. 1, p. XVII. 4. An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture, by Sir Isaac Newton, Edition of 1830, London, p. 60. 5. Ibid., p. 95. 6. Our Unitarian Heritage, by Earl M. Wilbur, Boston 1925, pp. 289-294. 7. History of English Nonconformity, by Henry W. Clark, London 1913, Vol. II, p. 157. 8. Religious Opinions of Milton, Locke and Newton, by H. McLachlan, Manchester 1941, pp. 146, 147. 9. The Religion of Isaac Newton, by F. E. Manuel, Oxford 1974, p. 48. 10. Sir Isaac Newton Theological Manuscripts, selected and edited by H. McLachlan, Liverpool 1950, pp. 37, 38. 11. An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture, p. 61. 12. Sir Isaac Newton Theological Manuscripts, p. 17. 13. Ibid., pp. 45, 46 14. The Religion of Isaac Newton, pp. 54, 55. Yahuda Ms. 15.1.fol.11r. 15. The Religion of Isaac Newton, p. 61. 16. The Correspondence of Isaac Newton, Vol. III, Letter 362. 17. The Religion of Isaac Newton, p. 61, Yahuda Ms. 15.4.fol.67v. 18. Isaac Newton, A Biography, p. 642. [Footnotes] Until recent years this scripture, also, was much quoted in support of the Trinity teaching, but most modern versions have now substituted “he” for “God”; the Catholic Jerusalem Bible even adds a footnote: “He, i.e. Christ.” [Box on page 246] Reproduction of a part of Newton’s handwritten “An Historical Account,” refuting the Trinity doctrine influenced by it. So then by the unanimous consent of all the ancient and faithful Interpreters we have hitherto met with (who doubtless made use of the best Manuscripts they could get) the testimony of the three in heaven was not anciently in the Greek. And that it was neither in the ancient Versions nor in the Greek but was wholy unknown to the first churches is most certain by an argument hinted above, namely that in all that vehement universal and lasting controversy about the Trinity in Jeromes time and both before and long enough after it, this text of the three in heaven was never thought of. Tis now in every bodies mouth and accounted the main text for the business and would have been so then had it been in their books and yet it is not once to be met with in all the Disputes, Epistles, Orations and other writings of the Greeks and Latines (Alexander of Alexandria, the Council of Sardica Athanasius, Basil,

The “Blessed Trinity”—Is It in the Bible?
SHE was burned to death in England in 1550. Her name? Joan Bocher. Her crime? The Encyclopædia Britannica (1964) says: “She was condemned for open blasphemy in denying the Trinity, the one offense which all the church had regarded as unforgivable ever since the struggle with Arianism.” The Trinity is a fundamental doctrine of the vast majority of churches. But what exactly is the Trinity? The Waverley Encyclopedia defines it as “the mystery of one God in three persons—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, co-equal and co-eternal in all things.” Yet The New Encyclopædia Britannica (1981) says: “Neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament.” This immediately raises questions about the doctrine. Compounding the matter is a frank admission that the New Catholic Encyclopedia presents in terms of a question that seminary students often ask, “But how does one preach the Trinity?” This Catholic work continues: “If the question is symptomatic of confusion on the part of the students, perhaps it is no less symptomatic of similar confusion on the part of their professors. If ‘the Trinity’ here means Trinitarian theology, the best answer would be that one does not preach it at all. . . because the sermon, and especially the Biblical homily, is the place for the word of God, not its theological elaboration.” When did this “theological elaboration” begin? Answers The New Encyclopædia Britannica (1981): “The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies.” Does that sound to you like a direct, clear revelation from God? So how can it be a revelation of Holy Scripture, as is claimed? A Biblical statement that church teachers often use to support the Trinity is Jesus’ command that his followers make disciples, “baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit.” (Matthew 28:19) This passage certainly mentions three entities, but it does not say that they are three persons or that they are all one. Furthermore, we know the name of the Father (Jehovah) and of the Son (Jesus), but what is the name of the holy spirit? This leads to the question. . . Is the Holy Spirit a Person? The fact that the Bible gives no indication of the holy spirit’s having a personal name at least suggests that it may not be a person. You might ask also, ‘Has the holy spirit ever been seen?’ Well, at Jesus’ baptism it was manifested as a dove and at Pentecost as tongues as if of fire. (Matthew 3:16; Acts 2:3, 4) If it is a person, why did it not appear as a person? And if the holy spirit is not a person, what is it? Undoubtedly, it is the active force from God that at Pentecost was ‘poured out’ on the disciples. (Acts 2:17, 18) By this active force, Jehovah performed his acts of creation—“God’s active force was moving to and fro over the surface of the waters.” (Genesis 1:2) The same active force inspired the writers of the Bible.—2 Timothy 3:16. One of those inspired writers was the prophet Daniel. In Daniel chapter 7 he describes a wonderful vision Jehovah gave to him: “the Ancient of Days” on his heavenly throne, with a multitude of angels ministering to him. Daniel saw also “someone like a son of man [Jesus],” who was given “rulership and dignity and kingdom, that the peoples, national groups and languages should all serve even him.” (Daniel 7:9, 10, 13, 14) What, though, about the holy spirit? It is not mentioned as a person in this celestial scene. The final book of the Bible—Revelation—describes other remarkable heavenly visions. The Supreme Being, Jehovah, is depicted there on his throne, and the Lamb, Jesus Christ, is with him. But, again, the holy spirit is not mentioned as a distinct person. (Revelation, chapters 4–6) So even the final Bible book does not reveal that there are three persons in one god. This raises. . . Another Important Question The Trinity dogma has been described as “the central doctrine of the Christian religion.” If this were true, why did Jesus not reveal it when he was on earth? His disciples, being Israelites, believed that Jehovah is unique. To this day, Jews continue to recite Deuteronomy 6:4: “Listen, O Israel: Jehovah our God is one Jehovah.” There is no suggestion in the Hebrew Scriptures that the Supreme Being is in three persons. You may well wonder, ‘If this were true, why did this “central doctrine” not become dogma until the fourth century—amid bitter controversy that caused widespread confusion?’ Some might argue: ‘But Jesus did say, “I and the Father are one.”’ (John 10:30) True. In what sense, though, are they one? Jesus himself clarified this later by saying in prayer: “Holy Father, watch over them [his disciples]. . . in order that they may be one just as we are one.” (John 17:11, 22) Hence, the unity of Father and Son is the same as the unity that exists among Christ’s true followers—a harmony of purpose and cooperation. Still, some may suggest that although Jesus did not spell out the Trinity doctrine, the apostle John did at 1 John 5:7, which, according to the King James Version, says: “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” However, more modern versions omit this passage. Why? The Catholic Jerusalem Bible explains in a footnote that this text is not found in any of the early Greek or the best Latin manuscripts of the Bible. It is spurious. It was added, no doubt, to try to support the Trinity. As you can check in your own Bible, the apostle Paul in the opening of his letters often used expressions like this: “May you have undeserved kindness and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.” (Romans 1:7) Why did he not mention the holy spirit as a person? Because Paul knew nothing of the “Holy Trinity.” James, Peter, and John used similar phrases in their letters where they likewise do not mention the holy spirit. Why? Because they were not Trinitarians either. The holy spirit is not a person as are God and his Son. But since the Son is a person, the question arises. . . Is Jesus the Supreme Being? Believers in the Trinity say yes. Yet you should be more interested in what Jesus said: “The Father is greater than I am.” (John 14:28) “The Son cannot do a single thing of his own initiative, but only what he beholds the Father doing.” (John 5:19) Paul added: “The head of the Christ is God.”—1 Corinthians 11:3. Consider carefully, too, these questions: Does Jehovah have a God? Obviously not, he is supreme, the Almighty. Does Jesus have a God? After his resurrection Jesus said to Mary Magdalene: “I am ascending to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God.” The apostle Peter wrote: “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.”—John 20:17; 1 Peter 1:3. Has God ever died? ‘Of course not,’ might be your correct response. God is immortal. The prophet Habakkuk said of Jehovah: “My Holy One, you do not die.” (Habakkuk 1:12) In contrast, Jesus did die. Then who raised him from the dead? Said Peter: “God raised [Christ] up from the dead.” It becomes evident, then, that Jesus is not the Supreme Being.—Acts 3:15; Romans 5:8. You can go further. Has God ever been seen? “No man has seen God at any time.” (John 1:18) Yet thousands saw Jesus on earth. Has God ever prayed to anyone? To whom could he pray? He is the great “Hearer of prayer.” (Psalm 65:2) And Jesus? He frequently prayed to his Father, even spending a whole night in prayer. Is God a priest? Obviously not. Is Jesus? We read: “Consider the apostle and high priest whom we confess—Jesus.”—Hebrews 3:1. Is it not abundantly clear that Jesus is not the Supreme Being? Is the Trinity Dogma Harmful? Yes. This widespread dogma distorts the simple Bible truths that Jehovah alone is the Supreme Being, that Jesus is his Son, and that the holy spirit is God’s active force. The doctrine causes confusion by presenting God in a haze of mystery, leading to spiritual darkness. You, however, need not be in that darkness. You can fix clearly in mind some facts: The Trinity dogma is not mentioned in the Bible. It is a “theological elaboration” that developed centuries after Jesus’ day, and it was imposed under threat of death at the stake. It has downgraded the worship of the Supreme Being, teaching belief in a mystery.

How Is the Trinity Explained?
THE Roman Catholic Church states: “The Trinity is the term employed to signify the central doctrine of the Christian religion. . . Thus, in the words of the Athanasian Creed: ‘the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God.’ In this Trinity. . . the Persons are co-eternal and co-equal: all alike are uncreated and omnipotent.”—The Catholic Encyclopedia. Nearly all other churches in Christendom agree. For example, the Greek Orthodox Church also calls the Trinity “the fundamental doctrine of Christianity,” even saying: “Christians are those who accept Christ as God.” In the book Our Orthodox Christian Faith, the same church declares: “God is triune. . . . The Father is totally God. The Son is totally God. The Holy Spirit is totally God.” Thus, the Trinity is considered to be “one God in three Persons.” Each is said to be without beginning, having existed for eternity. Each is said to be almighty, with each neither greater nor lesser than the others. Is such reasoning hard to follow? 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? “Beyond the Grasp of Human Reason” 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. Monsignor Eugene Clark says: “God is one, and God is three. Since there is nothing like this in creation, we cannot understand it, but only accept it.” Cardinal John O’Connor states: “We know that it is a very profound mystery, which we don’t begin to understand.” And Pope John Paul II speaks of “the inscrutable mystery of God the Trinity.” Thus, A Dictionary of Religious Knowledge says: “Precisely what that doctrine is, or rather precisely how it is to be explained, Trinitarians are not agreed among themselves.” We can understand, then, why the New Catholic Encyclopedia observes: “There are few teachers of Trinitarian theology in Roman Catholic seminaries who have not been badgered at one time or another by the question, ‘But how does one preach the Trinity?’ And if the question is symptomatic of confusion on the part of the students, perhaps it is no less symptomatic of similar confusion on the part of their professors.” The truth of that observation can be verified by going to a library and examining books that support the Trinity. Countless pages have been written attempting to explain it. Yet, after struggling through the labyrinth of confusing theological terms and explanations, investigators still come away unsatisfied. In this regard, Jesuit Joseph Bracken observes in his book What Are They Saying About the Trinity?: “Priests who with considerable effort learned. . . the Trinity during their seminary years naturally hesitated to present it to their people from the pulpit, even on Trinity Sunday. . . . Why should one bore people with something that in the end they wouldn’t properly understand anyway?” He also says: “The Trinity is a matter of formal belief, but it has little or no [effect] in day-to-day Christian life and worship.” Yet, it is “the central doctrine” of the churches! Catholic theologian Hans Küng observes in his book Christianity and the World Religions that the Trinity is one reason why the churches have been unable to make any significant headway with non-Christian peoples. He states: “Even well-informed Muslims simply cannot follow, as the Jews thus far have likewise failed to grasp, the idea of the Trinity. . . . The distinctions made by the doctrine of the Trinity between one God and three hypostases do not satisfy Muslims, who are confused, rather than enlightened, by theological terms derived from Syriac, Greek, and Latin. Muslims find it all a word game. . . . Why should anyone want to add anything to the notion of God’s oneness and uniqueness that can only dilute or nullify that oneness and uniqueness?” “Not a God of Confusion” HOW could such a confusing doctrine originate? The Catholic Encyclopedia claims: “A dogma so mysterious presupposes a Divine revelation.” Catholic scholars Karl Rahner and Herbert Vorgrimler state in their Theological Dictionary: “The Trinity is a mystery. . . in the strict sense. . ., which could not be known without revelation, and even after revelation cannot become wholly intelligible.” However, contending that since the Trinity is such a confusing mystery, it must have come from divine revelation creates another major problem. Why? Because 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 that even Hebrew, Greek, and Latin scholars cannot really explain it? Furthermore, do people have to be theologians ‘to know the only true God and Jesus Christ whom he has sent’? (John 17:3, JB) If that were the case, why did so few of the educated Jewish religious leaders recognize Jesus as the Messiah? His faithful disciples were, instead, humble farmers, fishermen, tax collectors, housewives. Those common people were so certain of what Jesus taught about God that they could teach it to others and were even willing to die for their belief.—Matthew 15:1-9; 21:23-32, 43; 23:13-36; John 7:45-49; Acts 4:13.

Is It Clearly a Bible Teaching?
IF THE Trinity were true, it should be clearly and consistently presented in the Bible. Why? Because, as the apostles affirmed, the Bible is God’s revelation of himself to mankind. And since we need to know God to worship him acceptably, the Bible should be clear in telling us just who he is. First-century believers accepted the Scriptures as the authentic revelation of God. It was the basis for their beliefs, the final authority. For example, when the apostle Paul preached to people in the city of Beroea, “they received the word with the greatest eagerness of mind, carefully examining the Scriptures daily as to whether these things were so.”—Acts 17:10, 11. What did prominent men of God at that time use as their authority? Acts 17:2, 3 tells us: “According to Paul’s custom. . . he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving by references [from the Scriptures].” Jesus himself set the example in using the Scriptures as the basis for his teaching, repeatedly saying: “It is written.” “He interpreted to them things pertaining to himself in all the Scriptures.”—Matthew 4:4, 7; Luke 24:27. Thus Jesus, Paul, and first-century believers used the Scriptures as the foundation for their teaching. They knew that “all Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.”—2 Timothy 3:16, 17; see also 1 Corinthians 4:6; 1 Thessalonians 2:13; 2 Peter 1:20, 21. 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? “Trinity” in the Bible? 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. The Catholic Encyclopedia also comments: “In Scripture there is as yet no single term by which the Three Divine Persons are denoted together. The word τρίας [tri´as] (of which the Latin trinitas is a translation) is first found in Theophilus of Antioch about A. D. 180. . . . Shortly afterwards it appears in its Latin form of trinitas in Tertullian.” However, this is no proof in itself that Tertullian taught the Trinity. The Catholic work Trinitas—A Theological Encyclopedia of the Holy Trinity, for example, notes that some of Tertullian’s words were later used by others to describe the Trinity. Then it cautions: “But hasty conclusions cannot be drawn from usage, for he does not apply the words to Trinitarian theology.” Testimony of the Hebrew 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? The Encyclopedia of Religion admits: “Theologians today are in agreement that the Hebrew Bible does not contain a doctrine of the Trinity.” And the New Catholic Encyclopedia also says: “The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not taught in the O[ld] T[estament].” Similarly, in his book The Triune God, Jesuit Edmund Fortman admits: “The Old Testament. . . tells us nothing explicitly or by necessary implication of a Triune God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. . . . There is no evidence that any sacred writer even suspected the existence of a [Trinity] within the Godhead. . . . Even to see in [the “Old Testament”] suggestions or foreshadowings or ‘veiled signs’ of the trinity of persons, is to go beyond the words and intent of the sacred writers.”—Italics ours. An examination of the Hebrew Scriptures themselves will bear out these comments. Thus, there is no clear teaching of a Trinity in the first 39 books of the Bible that make up the true canon of the inspired Hebrew Scriptures. Testimony of the Greek Scriptures WELL, then, do the Christian Greek Scriptures (“New Testament”) speak clearly of a Trinity? The Encyclopedia of Religion says: “Theologians agree that the New Testament also does not contain an explicit doctrine of the Trinity.” Jesuit Fortman states: “The New Testament writers. . . give us no formal or formulated doctrine of the Trinity, no explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons. . . . Nowhere do we find any trinitarian doctrine of three distinct subjects of divine life and activity in the same Godhead.” The New Encyclopædia Britannica observes: “Neither the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament.” Bernhard Lohse says in A Short History of Christian Doctrine: “As far as the New Testament is concerned, one does not find in it an actual doctrine of the Trinity.” The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology similarly states: “The N[ew] T[estament] does not contain the developed doctrine of the Trinity. ‘The Bible lacks the express declaration that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are of equal essence’ [said Protestant theologian Karl Barth].” Yale University professor E. Washburn Hopkins affirmed: “To Jesus and Paul the doctrine of the trinity was apparently unknown;. . . they say nothing about it.”—Origin and Evolution of Religion. Historian Arthur Weigall notes: “Jesus Christ never mentioned such a phenomenon, and nowhere in the New Testament does the word ‘Trinity’ appear. The idea was only adopted by the Church three hundred years after the death of our Lord.”—The Paganism in Our Christianity. Thus, neither the 39 books of the Hebrew Scriptures nor the canon of 27 inspired books of the Christian Greek Scriptures provide any clear teaching of the Trinity. Taught by Early Christians? DID the early Christians teach the Trinity? Note the following comments by historians and theologians: “Primitive Christianity did not have an explicit doctrine of the Trinity such as was subsequently elaborated in the creeds.”—The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology. “The early Christians, however, did not at first think of applying the [Trinity] idea to their own faith. They paid their devotions to God the Father and to Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and they recognised the. . . Holy Spirit; but there was no thought of these three being an actual Trinity, co-equal and united in One.”—The Paganism in Our Christianity. “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.”—Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics. “The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. . . . Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.”—New Catholic Encyclopedia. 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. Justin Martyr, who died about 165 C.E., called the prehuman Jesus a created angel who is “other than the God who made all things.” He said that Jesus was inferior to God and “never did anything except what the Creator. . . willed him to do and say.” Irenaeus, who died about 200 C.E., 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.” 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.” He said that the Son “is next to the only omnipotent Father” but not equal to him. Tertullian, who died about 230 C.E., 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.” Hippolytus, who died about 235 C.E., said that God is “the one God, the first and the only One, the Maker and Lord of all,” who “had nothing co-eval [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. Origen, who died about 250 C.E., said that “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.” 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 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.

How Did the Trinity Doctrine Develop?
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. Constantine’s Role at Nicaea FOR many years, there had been much opposition on Biblical grounds to the developing idea that Jesus was God. To try to solve the dispute, Roman emperor Constantine summoned all bishops to Nicaea. About 300, a fraction of the total, actually attended. 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. 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.” What role did this unbaptized emperor play at the Council of Nicaea? The Encyclopædia Britannica relates: “Constantine himself presided, actively guiding the discussions, and personally proposed. . . the crucial formula expressing the relation of Christ to God in the creed issued by the council, ‘of one substance with the Father’. . . Overawed by the emperor, the bishops, with two exceptions only, signed the creed, many of them much against their inclination.” Hence, Constantine’s role was crucial. After two months of furious religious debate, this pagan politician intervened and decided in favor of those who said that Jesus was God. But why? Certainly not because of any Biblical conviction. “Constantine had basically no understanding whatsoever of the questions that were being asked in Greek theology,” says A Short History of Christian Doctrine. What he did understand was that religious division was a threat to his empire, and he wanted to solidify his domain. None of the bishops at Nicaea promoted a Trinity, however. They decided only the nature of Jesus but not the role of the holy spirit. If a Trinity had been a clear Bible truth, should they not have proposed it at that time? Further Development AFTER Nicaea, debates on the subject continued for decades. Those who believed that Jesus was not equal to God even came back into favor for a time. But later Emperor Theodosius decided against them. He established the creed of the Council of Nicaea as the standard for his realm and convened the Council of Constantinople in 381 C.E. to clarify the formula. That council agreed to place the holy spirit on the same level as God and Christ. For the first time, Christendom’s Trinity began to come into focus. Yet, even after the Council of Constantinople, the Trinity did not become a widely accepted creed. Many opposed it and thus brought on themselves violent persecution. It was only in later centuries that the Trinity was formulated into set creeds. 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.” The Athanasian Creed THE Trinity was defined more fully in the Athanasian Creed. Athanasius was a clergyman who supported Constantine at Nicaea. The creed that bears his name declares: “We worship one God in Trinity. . . The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God; and yet they are not three gods, but one God.” Well-informed scholars agree, however, that Athanasius did not compose this creed. The New Encyclopædia Britannica comments: “The creed was unknown to the Eastern Church until the 12th century. Since the 17th century, scholars have generally agreed that the Athanasian Creed was not written by Athanasius (died 373) but was probably composed in southern France during the 5th century. . . . The creed’s influence seems to have been primarily in southern France and Spain in the 6th and 7th centuries. It was used in the liturgy of the church in Germany in the 9th century and somewhat later in Rome.” So it took centuries from the time of Christ for the Trinity to become widely accepted in Christendom. And in all of this, what guided the decisions? Was it the Word of God, or was it clerical and political considerations? In Origin and Evolution of Religion, E. W. Hopkins answers: “The final orthodox definition of the trinity was largely a matter of church politics.” Apostasy Foretold THIS disreputable history of the Trinity fits in with what Jesus and his apostles foretold would follow their time. They said that there would be an apostasy, a deviation, a falling away from true worship until Christ’s return, when true worship would be restored before God’s day of destruction of this system of things. Regarding that “day,” the apostle Paul said: “It will not come unless the apostasy comes first and the man of lawlessness gets revealed.” (2 Thessalonians 2:3, 7) Later, he foretold: “When I have gone fierce wolves will invade you and will have no mercy on the flock. Even from your own ranks there will be men coming forward with a travesty of the truth on their lips to induce the disciples to follow them.” (Acts 20:29, 30, JB) Other disciples of Jesus also wrote of this apostasy with its ‘lawless’ clergy class.—See, for example, 2 Peter 2:1; 1 John 4:1-3; Jude 3, 4. Paul also wrote: “The time is sure to come when, far from being content with sound teaching, people will be avid for the latest novelty and collect themselves a whole series of teachers according to their own tastes; and then, instead of listening to the truth, they will turn to myths.”—2 Timothy 4:3, 4, JB. Jesus himself explained what was behind this falling away from true worship. He said that he had sowed good seeds but that the enemy, Satan, would oversow the field with weeds. So along with the first blades of wheat, the weeds appeared also. Thus, a deviation from pure Christianity was to be expected until the harvest, when Christ would set matters right. (Matthew 13:24-43) The Encyclopedia Americana comments: “Fourth century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching.” Where, then, did this deviation originate?—1 Timothy 1:6. What Influenced It THROUGHOUT the ancient world, as far back as Babylonia, the worship of pagan gods grouped in threes, or triads, was common. That influence was also prevalent in Egypt, Greece, and Rome in the centuries before, during, and after Christ. And after the death of the apostles, such pagan beliefs began to invade Christianity. Historian Will Durant observed: “Christianity did not destroy paganism; it adopted it. . . . From Egypt came the ideas of a divine trinity.” And in the book Egyptian Religion, Siegfried Morenz notes: “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.” Thus, in Alexandria, Egypt, churchmen of the late third and early fourth centuries, such as Athanasius, reflected this influence as they formulated ideas that led to the Trinity. Their own influence spread, so that Morenz considers “Alexandrian theology as the intermediary between the Egyptian religious heritage and Christianity.” In the preface to Edward Gibbon’s History of Christianity, we read: “If Paganism was conquered by Christianity, it is equally true that Christianity was corrupted by Paganism. The pure Deism of the first Christians. . . was changed, by the Church of Rome, into the incomprehensible dogma of the trinity. Many of the pagan tenets, invented by the Egyptians and idealized by Plato, were retained as being worthy of belief.” A Dictionary of Religious Knowledge notes that many say that the Trinity “is a corruption borrowed from the heathen religions, and ingrafted on the Christian faith.” And The Paganism in Our Christianity declares: “The origin of the [Trinity] is entirely pagan.” That is why, in the Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics, James Hastings wrote: “In Indian religion, e.g., we meet with the trinitarian group of Brahmā, Siva, and Visnu; and in Egyptian religion with the trinitarian group of Osiris, Isis, and Horus. . . Nor is it only in historical religions that we find God viewed as a Trinity. One recalls in particular the Neo-Platonic view of the Supreme or Ultimate Reality,” which is “triadically represented.” What does the Greek philosopher Plato have to do with the Trinity? Platonism PLATO, it is thought, lived from 428 to 347 before Christ. While he did not teach the Trinity in its present form, his philosophies paved the way for it. Later, philosophical movements that included triadic beliefs sprang up, and these were influenced by Plato’s ideas of God and nature. The French Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel (New Universal Dictionary) says of Plato’s influence: “The Platonic trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave birth to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian churches. . . . This Greek philosopher’s conception of the divine trinity. . . can be found in all the ancient [pagan] religions.” The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge shows the influence of this Greek philosophy: “The doctrines of the Logos and the Trinity received their shape from Greek Fathers, who. . . were much influenced, directly or indirectly, by the Platonic philosophy. . . That errors and corruptions crept into the Church from this source can not be denied.” The Church of the First Three Centuries says: “The doctrine of the Trinity was of gradual and comparatively late formation;. . . it 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.” By the end of the third century C.E., “Christianity” and the new Platonic philosophies became inseparably united. As Adolf Harnack states in Outlines of the History of Dogma, church doctrine became “firmly rooted in the soil of Hellenism [pagan Greek thought]. Thereby it became a mystery to the great majority of Christians.” The church claimed that its new doctrines were based on the Bible. But Harnack says: “In reality it legitimized in its midst the Hellenic speculation, the superstitious views and customs of pagan mystery-worship.” In the book A Statement of Reasons, Andrews Norton says of the Trinity: “We can trace the history of this doctrine, and discover its source, not in the Christian revelation, but in the Platonic philosophy. . . The Trinity is not a doctrine of Christ and his Apostles, but a fiction of the school of the later Platonists.” Thus, in the fourth century C.E., the apostasy foretold by Jesus and the apostles came into full bloom. Development of the Trinity was just one evidence of this. The apostate churches also began embracing other pagan ideas, such as hellfire, immortality of the soul, and idolatry. Spiritually speaking, Christendom had entered its foretold dark ages, dominated by a growing “man of lawlessness” clergy class.—2 Thessalonians 2:3, 7. Why Did God’s Prophets Not Teach It? WHY, for thousands of years, did none of God’s prophets teach his people about the Trinity? At the latest, would Jesus not use his ability as the Great Teacher to make the Trinity clear to his followers? Would God inspire hundreds of pages of Scripture and yet not use any of this instruction to teach the Trinity if it were the “central doctrine” of faith? Are Christians to believe that centuries after Christ and after having inspired the writing of the Bible, God would back the formulation of a doctrine that was unknown to his servants for thousands of years, one that is an “inscrutable mystery” “beyond the grasp of human reason,” one that admittedly had a pagan background and was “largely a matter of church politics”? The testimony of history is clear: The Trinity teaching is a deviation from the truth, an apostatizing from it.

What Does the Bible Say About God and Jesus?
IF PEOPLE were to read the Bible from cover to cover without any preconceived idea of a Trinity, would they arrive at such a concept on their own? Not at all. What comes through very clearly to an impartial reader is that God alone is the Almighty, the Creator, separate and distinct from anyone else, and that Jesus, even in his prehuman existence, is also separate and distinct, a created being, subordinate to God. God Is One, Not Three 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: “The Old Testament is strictly monotheistic. God is a single personal being. The idea that a trinity is to be found there. . . is utterly without foundation.” Was there any change from monotheism after Jesus came to the earth? Paine answers: “On this point there is no break between the Old Testament and the New. The monotheistic tradition is continued. Jesus was a Jew, trained by Jewish parents in the Old Testament scriptures. His teaching was Jewish to the core; a new gospel indeed, but not a new theology. . . . And he accepted as his own belief the great text of Jewish monotheism: ‘Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one God.’” Those words are found at Deuteronomy 6:4. The Catholic New Jerusalem Bible (NJB) here reads: “Listen, Israel: Yahweh our God is the one, the only Yahweh.” In the grammar of that verse, the word “one” has no plural modifiers to suggest that it means anything but one individual. The Christian apostle Paul did not indicate any change in the nature of God either, even after Jesus came to the earth. He wrote: “God is only one.”—Galatians 3:20; see also 1 Corinthians 8:4-6. 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. As God states: “I am Jehovah. That is my name; and to no one else shall I give my own glory.” (Isaiah 42:8) “I am Yahweh your God. . . You shall have no gods except me.” (Italics ours.)—Exodus 20:2, 3, JB. Why would all the God-inspired Bible writers speak of God as one person if he were actually three persons? What purpose would that serve, except to mislead people? 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. At least the writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures who had personal contact with God’s own Son would have done so. But they did not. Instead, what the Bible writers did make abundantly clear is that God is one Person—a unique, unpartitioned Being who has no equal: “I am Jehovah, and there is no one else. With the exception of me there is no God.” (Isaiah 45:5) “You, whose name is Jehovah, you alone are the Most High over all the earth.”—Psalm 83:18. Not a Plural God 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. At Genesis 17:1 he declares: “I am God Almighty.” And Exodus 18:11 says: “Jehovah is greater than all the other gods.” In the Hebrew Scriptures, the word ´eloh´ah (god) has two plural forms, namely, ´elo•him´ (gods) and ´elo•heh´ (gods of). 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. In A Dictionary of the Bible, William Smith says: “The fanciful idea that [´elo•him´] referred to the trinity of persons in the Godhead hardly finds now a supporter among scholars. 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.” The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures says of ´elo•him´: “It is almost invariably construed with a singular verbal predicate, and takes a singular adjectival attribute.” To illustrate this, the title ´elo•him´ appears 35 times by itself in the account of creation, and every time the verb describing what God said and did is singular. (Genesis 1:1–2:4) Thus, that publication concludes: “[´Elo•him´] must rather be explained as an intensive plural, denoting greatness and majesty.” ´Elo•him´ means, not “persons,” but “gods.” So those who argue that this word implies a Trinity make themselves polytheists, worshipers of more than one God. Why? Because it would mean that there were three gods in the Trinity. But nearly all Trinity supporters reject the view that the Trinity is made up of three separate gods. The Bible also uses the words ´elo•him´ and ´elo•heh´ when referring to a number of false idol gods. (Exodus 12:12; 20:23) But at other times it may refer to just a single false god, as when the Philistines referred to “Dagon their god [´elo•heh´].” (Judges 16:23, 24) Baal is called “a god [´elo•him´].” (1 Kings 18:27) In addition, the term is used for humans. (Psalm 82:1, 6) Moses was told that he was to serve as “God” [´elo•him´] to Aaron and to Pharaoh.—Exodus 4:16; 7:1. Obviously, using the titles ´elo•him´ and ´elo•heh´ for false gods, and even humans, did not imply that each was a plurality of gods; neither does applying ´elo•him´ or ´elo•heh´ to Jehovah mean that he is more than one person, especially when we consider the testimony of the rest of the Bible on this subject. Jesus a Separate Creation WHILE on earth, Jesus was a human, although a perfect one because it was God who transferred the life-force of Jesus to the womb of Mary. (Matthew 1:18-25) But that is not how he began. He himself declared that he had “descended from heaven.” (John 3:13) So it was only natural that he would later say to his followers: “What if you should see the Son of man [Jesus] ascend to where he was before?”—John 6:62, NJB. Thus, Jesus had an existence in heaven before coming to the earth. But was it as one of the persons in an almighty, eternal triune Godhead? No, for the Bible plainly states that in his prehuman existence, Jesus was a created spirit being, just as angels were spirit beings created by God. Neither the angels nor Jesus had existed before their creation. Jesus, in his prehuman existence, was “the first-born of all creation.” (Colossians 1:15, NJB) He was “the beginning of God’s creation.” (Revelation 3:14, RS, Catholic edition). “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. Notice how closely those references to the origin of Jesus correlate with expressions uttered by the figurative “Wisdom” in the Bible book of Proverbs: “Yahweh created me, first-fruits of his fashioning, before the oldest of his works. Before the mountains were settled, before the hills, I came to birth; before he had made the earth, the countryside, and the first elements of the world.” (Proverbs 8:12, 22, 25, 26, NJB) While the term “Wisdom” is used to personify the one whom God created, most scholars agree that it is actually a figure of speech for Jesus as a spirit creature prior to his human existence. As “Wisdom” in his prehuman existence, Jesus goes on to say that he was “by his [God’s] side, a master craftsman.” (Proverbs 8:30, JB) In harmony with this role as master craftsman, Colossians 1:16 says of Jesus that “through him God created everything in heaven and on earth.”—Today’s English Version (TEV). So it was by means of this master worker, his junior partner, as it were, that Almighty God created all other things. The Bible summarizes the matter this way: “For us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things. . . and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things.” (Italics ours.)—1 Corinthians 8:6, RS, Catholic edition. It no doubt was to this master craftsman that God said: “Let us make man in our image.” (Genesis 1:26) Some have claimed that the “us” and “our” in this expression indicate a Trinity. But if you were to say, ‘Let us make something for ourselves,’ no one would normally understand this to imply that several persons are combined as one inside of you. You simply mean that two or more individuals will work together on something. So, too, when God used “us” and “our,” he was simply addressing another individual, his first spirit creation, the master craftsman, the prehuman Jesus. Could God Be Tempted? AT MATTHEW 4:1, Jesus is spoken of as being “tempted by the Devil.” After showing Jesus “all the kingdoms of the world and their glory,” Satan said: “All these things I will give you if you fall down and do an act of worship to me.” (Matthew 4:8, 9) Satan was trying to cause Jesus to be disloyal to God. But what test of loyalty would that be if Jesus were God? Could God rebel against himself? No, but angels and humans could rebel against God and did. The temptation of Jesus would make sense only if he was, not God, but a separate individual who had his own free will, one who could have been disloyal had he chosen to be, such as an angel or a human. On the other hand, it is unimaginable that God could sin and be disloyal to himself. “Perfect is his activity. . . A God of faithfulness,. . . righteous and upright is he.” (Deuteronomy 32:4) So if Jesus had been God, he could not have been tempted.—James 1:13. Not being God, Jesus could have been disloyal. But he remained faithful, saying: “Go away, Satan! For it is written, ‘It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service.’”—Matthew 4:10. How Much Was the Ransom? ONE of the main reasons why Jesus came to earth also has a direct bearing on the Trinity. The Bible states: “There is one God, and one mediator between God and men, a man, Christ Jesus, who gave himself a corresponding ransom for all.”—1 Timothy 2:5, 6. 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. So Jesus could rightly be called “the last Adam” by the apostle Paul, who said in the same context: “Just as in Adam all are dying, so also in the Christ all will be made alive.” (1 Corinthians 15:22, 45) The perfect human life of Jesus was the “corresponding ransom” required by divine justice—no more, no less. A basic principle even of human justice is that the price paid should fit the wrong committed. If Jesus, however, were part of a Godhead, the ransom price would have been infinitely higher than what God’s own Law required. (Exodus 21:23-25; Leviticus 24:19-21) It was only a perfect human, Adam, who sinned in Eden, not God. So the ransom, to be truly in line with God’s justice, had to be strictly an equivalent—a perfect human, “the last Adam.” Thus, when God sent Jesus to earth as the ransom, he made Jesus to be what would satisfy justice, not an incarnation, not a god-man, but a perfect man, “lower than angels.” (Hebrews 2:9; compare Psalm 8:5, 6.) How could any part of an almighty Godhead—Father, Son, or holy spirit—ever be lower than angels? How the “Only-Begotten Son”? 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 of God is eternal. But how can a person be a son and at the same time be as old as his father? Trinitarians claim that in the case of Jesus, “only-begotten” is not the same as the dictionary definition of “begetting,” which is “to procreate as the father.” (Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary) They say that in Jesus’ case it means “the sense of unoriginated relationship,” a sort of only son relationship without the begetting. (Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words) Does that sound logical to you? Can a man father a son without begetting him? Furthermore, why does the Bible use the very same Greek word for “only-begotten” (as Vine admits without any explanation) to describe the relationship of Isaac to Abraham? Hebrews 11:17 speaks of Isaac as Abraham’s “only-begotten son.” There can be no question that in Isaac’s case, he was only-begotten in the normal sense, not equal in time or position to his father. 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. Hence, mo•no•ge•nes´ is defined as: “Only born, only begotten, i.e. an only child.”—A Greek and English Lexicon of the New Testament, by E. Robinson. The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, edited by Gerhard Kittel, says: “[Mo•no•ge•nes´] means ‘of sole descent,’ i.e., without brothers or sisters.” This book also states that at John 1:18; 3:16, 18; and 1 John 4:9, “the relation of Jesus is not just compared to that of an only child to its father. It is the relation of the only-begotten to the Father.” 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. (Hebrews 11:17) Hence, when the Bible speaks of God as the “Father” of Jesus, it means what it says—that they are two separate individuals. God is the senior. Jesus is the junior—in time, position, power, and knowledge. When one considers that Jesus was not the only spirit son of God created in heaven, it becomes evident why the term “only-begotten Son” was used in his case. Countless other created spirit beings, angels, are also called “sons of God,” in the same sense that Adam was, because their life-force originated with Jehovah God, the Fountain, or Source, of life. (Job 38:7; Psalm 36:9; Luke 3:38) But these were all created through the “only-begotten Son,” who was the only one directly begotten by God.—Colossians 1:15-17. Was Jesus Considered to Be God? WHILE Jesus is often called the Son of God in the Bible, nobody in the first century ever thought of him as being God the Son. Even the demons, who “believe there is one God,” knew from their experience in the spirit realm that Jesus was not God. So, correctly, they addressed Jesus as the separate “Son of God.” (James 2:19; Matthew 8:29) And when Jesus died, the pagan Roman soldiers standing by knew enough to say that what they had heard from his followers must be right, not that Jesus was God, but that “certainly this was God’s Son.”—Matthew 27:54. 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. That would be a pretending to be something he is not. The Bible is clear and consistent about the relationship of God to Jesus. Jehovah God alone is Almighty. He created the prehuman Jesus directly. Thus, Jesus had a beginning and could never be coequal with God in power or eternity. [Footnotes] God’s name is rendered “Yahweh” in some translations, “Jehovah” in others. (Psalms 83:18/ Isaiah 42:8 / Matthew 6:9)

Is God Always Superior to Jesus?
JESUS never claimed to be God. Everything he said about himself indicates that he did not consider himself equal to God in any way—not in power, not in knowledge, not in age. In every period of his existence, whether in heaven or on earth, his speech and conduct reflect subordination to God. God is always the superior, Jesus the lesser one who was created by God. Jesus Distinguished From God TIME and again, Jesus showed that he was a creature separate from God and that he, Jesus, had a God above him, a God whom he worshiped, a God whom he called “Father.” In prayer to God, that is, the Father, Jesus said, “You, the only true God.” (John 17:3) At John 20:17 he said to Mary Magdalene: “I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.” (RS, Catholic edition) At 2 Corinthians 1:3 the apostle Paul confirms this relationship: “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Since Jesus had a God, his Father, he could not at the same time be that God. The apostle Paul had no reservations about speaking of Jesus and God as distinctly separate: “For us there is one God, the Father,. . . and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ.” (1 Corinthians 8:6, JB) The apostle shows the distinction when he mentions “the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and of the elect angels.” (1 Timothy 5:21, RS Common Bible) Just as Paul speaks of Jesus and the angels as being distinct from one another in heaven, so too are Jesus and God. Jesus’ words at John 8:17, 18 are also significant. He states: “In your own Law it is written, ‘The witness of two men is true.’ I am one that bears witness about myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness about me.” 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? Jesus further showed that he was a separate being from God by saying: “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.” (Mark 10:18, JB) So Jesus was saying that no one is as good as God is, not even Jesus himself. God is good in a way that separates him from Jesus. God’s Submissive Servant TIME and again, Jesus made statements such as: “The Son cannot do anything at his own pleasure, he can only do what he sees his Father doing.” (John 5:19, The Holy Bible, by Monsignor R. A. Knox) “I have come down from heaven to do, not my will, but the will of him that sent me.” (John 6:38) “What I teach is not mine, but belongs to him that sent me.” (John 7:16) Is not the sender superior to the one sent? This relationship is evident in Jesus’ illustration of the vineyard. He likened God, his Father, to the owner of the vineyard, who traveled abroad and left it in the charge of cultivators, who represented the Jewish clergy. When the owner later sent a slave to get some of the fruit of the vineyard, the cultivators beat the slave and sent him away empty-handed. Then the owner sent a second slave, and later a third, both of whom got the same treatment. Finally, the owner said: “I will send my son [Jesus] the beloved. Likely they will respect this one.” But the corrupt cultivators said: “‘This is the heir; let us kill him, that the inheritance may become ours.’ With that they threw him outside the vineyard and killed him.” (Luke 20:9-16) Thus Jesus illustrated his own position as one being sent by God to do God’s will, just as a father sends a submissive son. The followers of Jesus always viewed him as a submissive servant of God, not as God’s equal. They prayed to God about “thy holy servant Jesus, whom thou didst anoint,. . . and signs and wonders are performed through the name of thy holy servant Jesus.”—Acts 4:23, 27, 30, RS, Catholic edition. God Superior at All Times AT THE very outset of Jesus’ ministry, when he came up out of the baptismal water, God’s voice from heaven said: “This is my Son, the beloved, whom I have approved.” (Matthew 3:16, 17) Was God saying that he was his own son, that he approved himself, that he sent himself? No, God the Creator was saying that he, as the superior, was approving a lesser one, his Son Jesus, for the work ahead. Jesus indicated his Father’s superiority when he said: “Jehovah’s spirit is upon me, because he anointed me to declare good news to the poor.” (Luke 4:18) Anointing is the giving of authority or a commission by a superior to someone who does not already have authority. Here God is plainly the superior, for he anointed Jesus, giving him authority that he did not previously have. Jesus made his Father’s superiority clear when the mother of two disciples asked that her sons sit one at the right and one at the left of Jesus when he came into his Kingdom. Jesus answered: “As for seats at my right hand and my left, these are not mine to grant; they belong to those to whom they have been allotted by my Father,” that is, God. (Matthew 20:23, JB) Had Jesus been Almighty God, those positions would have been his to give. But Jesus could not give them, for they were God’s to give, and Jesus was not God. Jesus’ own prayers are a powerful example of his inferior position. When Jesus was about to die, he showed who his superior was by praying: “Father, if you wish, remove this cup from me. Nevertheless, let, not my will, but yours take place.” (Luke 22:42) To whom was he praying? To a part of himself? No, he was praying to someone entirely separate, his Father, God, whose will was superior and could be different from his own, the only One able to “remove this cup.” Then, as he neared death, Jesus cried out: “My God, my God, why have you deserted me?” (Mark 15:34, JB) To whom was Jesus crying out? To himself or to part of himself? Surely, that cry, “My God,” was not from someone who considered himself to be God. And if Jesus were God, then by whom was he deserted? Himself? That would not make sense. Jesus also said: “Father, into your hands I entrust my spirit.” (Luke 23:46) If Jesus were God, for what reason should he entrust his spirit to the Father? After Jesus died, he was in the tomb for parts of three days. If he were God, then Habakkuk 1:12 is wrong when it says: “O my God, my Holy One, you do not die.” But the Bible says that Jesus did die and was unconscious in the tomb. And who resurrected Jesus from the dead? If he was truly dead, he could not have resurrected himself. On the other hand, if he was not really dead, his pretended death would not have paid the ransom price for Adam’s sin. But he did pay that price in full by his genuine death. So it was “God [who] resurrected [Jesus] by loosing the pangs of death.” (Acts 2:24) The superior, God Almighty, raised the lesser, his servant Jesus, from the dead. Does Jesus’ ability to perform miracles, such as resurrecting people, indicate that he was God? Well, the apostles and the prophets Elijah and Elisha had that power too, but that did not make them more than men. God gave the power to perform miracles to the prophets, Jesus, and the apostles to show that He was backing them. But it did not make any of them part of a plural Godhead. Jesus Had Limited Knowledge WHEN Jesus gave his prophecy about the end of this system of things, he stated: “But of that day or that hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” (Mark 13:32, RS, Catholic edition) 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. Similarly, we read at Hebrews 5:8 that Jesus “learned obedience from the things he suffered.” Can we imagine that God had to learn anything? No, but Jesus did, for he did not know everything that God knew. And he had to learn something that God never needs to learn—obedience. God never has to obey anyone. The difference between what God knows and what Christ knows also existed when Jesus was resurrected to heaven to be with God. Note the first words of the last book of the Bible: “The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him.” (Revelation 1:1, RS, Catholic edition) If Jesus himself were part of a Godhead, would he have to be given a revelation by another part of the Godhead—God? Surely he would have known all about it, for God knew. But Jesus did not know, for he was not God. Jesus Continues Subordinate IN HIS prehuman existence, and also when he was on earth, Jesus was subordinate to God. After his resurrection, he continues to be in a subordinate, secondary position. Speaking of the resurrection of Jesus, Peter and those with him told the Jewish Sanhedrin: “God exalted this one [Jesus]. . . to his right hand.” (Acts 5:31) Paul said: “God exalted him to a superior position.” (Philippians 2:9) If Jesus had been God, how could Jesus have been exalted, that is, raised to a higher position than he had previously enjoyed? He would already have been an exalted part of the Trinity. If, before his exaltation, Jesus had been equal to God, exalting him any further would have made him superior to God. Paul also said that Christ entered “heaven itself, so that he could appear in the actual presence of God on our behalf.” (Hebrews 9:24, JB) If you appear in someone else’s presence, how can you be that person? You cannot. You must be different and separate. Similarly, just before being stoned to death, the martyr Stephen “gazed into heaven and caught sight of God’s glory and of Jesus standing at God’s right hand.” (Acts 7:55) Clearly, he saw two separate individuals—but no holy spirit, no Trinity Godhead. In the account at Revelation 4:8 to 5:7, God is shown seated on his heavenly throne, but Jesus is not. He has to approach God to take a scroll from God’s right hand. This shows that in heaven Jesus is not God but is separate from him. In agreement with the foregoing, the Bulletin of the John Rylands Library in Manchester, England, states: “In his post-resurrection heavenly life, Jesus is portrayed as retaining a personal individuality every bit as distinct and separate from the person of God as was his in his life on earth as the terrestrial Jesus. Alongside God and compared with God, he appears, indeed, as yet another heavenly being in God’s heavenly court, just as the angels were—though as God’s Son, he stands in a different category, and ranks far above them.”—Compare Philippians 2:11. The Bulletin also says: “What, however, is said of his life and functions as the celestial Christ neither means nor implies that in divine status he stands on a par with God himself and is fully God. On the contrary, in the New Testament picture of his heavenly person and ministry we behold a figure both separate from and subordinate to God.” In the everlasting future in heaven, Jesus will continue to be a separate, subordinate servant of God. The Bible expresses it this way: “After that will come the end, when he [Jesus in heaven] will hand over the kingdom to God the Father. . . Then the Son himself will be subjected to the One who has subjected everything to him, so that God may be all in all.”—1 Corinthians 15:24, 28, NJB. Jesus Never Claimed to Be God 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. Jesus is always presented as separate and lesser, a humble servant of God. That is why the Bible plainly says that “the head of the Christ is God” in the same way that “the head of every man is the Christ.” (1 Corinthians 11:3) And this is why Jesus himself said: “The Father is greater than I.”—John 14:28, RS, Catholic edition. The fact is that Jesus is not God and never claimed to be. This is being recognized by an increasing number of scholars. As the Rylands Bulletin states: “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.” The Bulletin also says of first-century Christians: “When, therefore, they assigned [Jesus] such honorific titles as Christ, Son of man, Son of God and Lord, these were ways of saying not that he was God, but that he did God’s work.” Thus, even some religious scholars admit that the idea of Jesus’ being God opposes the entire testimony of the Bible. There, God is always the superior, and Jesus is the subordinate servant. [Blurb on page 19] ‘New Testament research has been leading an increasing number of scholars to the conclusion that Jesus certainly never believed himself to be God.’—Bulletin of the John Rylands Library [Picture on page 17] Jesus told the Jews: “I have come down from heaven to do, not my will, but the will of him that sent me.”—John 6:38 [Picture on page 18] When Jesus cried out: “My God, my God, why have you deserted me?” he surely did not believe that he himself was God

The Holy Spirit—God’s Active Force
ACCORDING to the Trinity doctrine, the holy spirit is the third person of a Godhead, equal to the Father and to the Son. As the book Our Orthodox Christian Faith says: “The Holy Spirit is totally God.” In the Hebrew Scriptures, the word most frequently used for “spirit” is ru´ach, meaning “breath; wind; spirit.” In the Greek Scriptures, the word is pneu´ma, having a similar meaning. Do these words indicate that the holy spirit is part of a Trinity? An Active Force THE Bible’s use of “holy spirit” indicates that it is a controlled force that Jehovah God uses to accomplish a variety of his purposes. To a certain extent, it can be likened to electricity, a force that can be adapted to perform a great variety of operations. At Genesis 1:2 the Bible states that “God’s active force [“spirit” (Hebrew, ru´ach)] was moving to and fro over the surface of the waters.” Here, God’s spirit was his active force working to shape the earth. God uses his spirit to enlighten those who serve him. David prayed: “Teach me to do your will, for you are my God. Your spirit [ru´ach] is good; may it lead me in the land of uprightness.” (Psalm 143:10) When 70 capable men were appointed to help Moses, God said to him: “I shall have to take away some of the spirit [ru´ach] that is upon you and place it upon them.”—Numbers 11:17. Bible prophecy was recorded when men of God were “borne along by holy spirit [Greek, from pneu´ma].” (2 Peter 1:20, 21) In this way the Bible was “inspired of God,” the Greek word for which is The•o´pneu•stos, meaning “God-breathed.” (2 Timothy 3:16) And holy spirit guided certain people to see visions or to have prophetic dreams.—2 Samuel 23:2; Joel 2:28, 29; Luke 1:67; Acts 1:16; 2:32, 33. The holy spirit impelled Jesus to go into the wilderness after his baptism. (Mark 1:12) The spirit was like a fire within God’s servants, causing them to be energized by that force. And it enabled them to speak out boldly and courageously.—Micah 3:8; Acts 7:55-60; 18:25; Romans 12:11; 1 Thessalonians 5:19. By his spirit, God carries out his judgments on men and nations. (Isaiah 30:27, 28; 59:18, 19) And God’s spirit can reach everywhere, acting for people or against them.—Psalm 139:7-12. ‘Power Beyond Normal’ GOD’S spirit can also supply “power beyond what is normal” to those who serve him. (2 Corinthians 4:7) This enables them to endure trials of faith or to do things they could not otherwise do. For example, regarding Samson, Judges 14:6 relates: “The spirit of Yahweh seized on him, and though he had no weapon in his hand he tore the lion in pieces.” (JB) Did a divine person actually enter or seize Samson, manipulating his body to do what he did? No, it was really “the power of the LORD [that] made Samson strong.”—TEV. The Bible says that when Jesus was baptized, holy spirit came down upon him appearing like a dove, not like a human form. (Mark 1:10) This active force of God enabled Jesus to heal the sick and raise the dead. As Luke 5:17 says: “The Power of the Lord [God] was behind his [Jesus’] works of healing.”—JB. God’s spirit also empowered the disciples of Jesus to do miraculous things. Acts 2:1-4 relates that the disciples were assembled together at Pentecost when “suddenly there occurred from heaven a noise just like that of a rushing stiff breeze,. . . and they all became filled with holy spirit and started to speak with different tongues, just as the spirit was granting them to make utterance.” So the holy spirit gave Jesus and other servants of God the power to do what humans ordinarily could not do. Not a Person ARE there not, however, Bible verses that speak of the holy spirit in personal terms? Yes, but note what Catholic theologian Edmund Fortman says about this in The Triune God: “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.” 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) At Genesis 4:7 The New English Bible (NE) says: “Sin is a demon crouching at the door,” personifying sin as a wicked spirit crouching at Cain’s door. 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. In harmony with this is the Bible’s general usage of “holy spirit” in an impersonal way, such as paralleling it with water and fire. (Matthew 3:11; Mark 1:8) People are urged to become filled with holy spirit instead of with wine. (Ephesians 5:18) They are spoken of as being filled with holy spirit in the same way they are filled with such qualities as wisdom, faith, and joy. (Acts 6:3; 11:24; 13:52) And at 2 Corinthians 6:6 holy spirit is included among a number of qualities. Such expressions would not be so common if the holy spirit were actually a person. Then, too, while some Bible texts say that the spirit speaks, other texts show that this was actually done through humans or angels. (Matthew 10:19, 20; Acts 4:24, 25; 28:25; Hebrews 2:2) The action of the spirit in such instances is like that of radio waves transmitting messages from one person to another far away. 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, either in Greek or in English. When we say “in the name of the law,” we are not referring to a person. We mean that which the law stands for, its authority. 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.” So baptism ‘in the name of the holy spirit’ recognizes the authority of the spirit, that it is from God and functions by divine will. The “Helper” JESUS spoke of the holy spirit as a “helper,” and he said it would teach, guide, and speak. (John 14:16, 26; 16:13) The Greek word he used for helper (pa•ra´kle•tos) is in the masculine gender. So when Jesus referred to what the helper would do, he used masculine personal pronouns. (John 16:7, 8) On the other hand, when the neuter Greek word for spirit (pneu´ma) is used, the neuter pronoun “it” is properly employed. Most Trinitarian translators hide this fact, as the Catholic New American Bible admits regarding John 14:17: “The Greek word for ‘Spirit’ is neuter, and while we use personal pronouns in English (‘he,’ ‘his,’ ‘him’), most Greek MSS [manuscripts] employ ‘it.’” So when the Bible uses masculine personal pronouns in connection with pa•ra´kle•tos at John 16:7, 8, it is conforming to rules of grammar, not expressing a doctrine. No Part of a Trinity VARIOUS sources acknowledge that the Bible does not support the idea that the holy spirit is the third person of a Trinity. For example: The Catholic Encyclopedia: “Nowhere in the Old Testament do we find any clear indication of a Third Person.” Catholic theologian Fortman: “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.” The New Catholic Encyclopedia: “The O[ld] T[estament] clearly does not envisage God’s spirit as a person. . . God’s spirit is simply God’s power. If it is sometimes represented as being distinct from God, it is because the breath of Yahweh acts exteriorly.” It also says: “The majority of N[ew] T[estament] texts reveal God’s spirit as something, not someone; this is especially seen in the parallelism between the spirit and the power of God.”—Italics ours. A Catholic Dictionary: “On the whole, the New Testament, like the Old, speaks of the spirit as a divine energy or power.” Hence, neither the Jews nor the early Christians viewed the holy spirit as part of a Trinity. That teaching came centuries later. As A Catholic Dictionary notes: “The third Person was asserted at a Council of Alexandria in 362. . . and finally by the Council of Constantinople of 381”—some three and a half centuries after holy spirit filled the disciples at Pentecost! No, the holy spirit is not a person and it is not part of a Trinity. The holy spirit is God’s active force that he uses to accomplish his will. It is not equal to God but is always at his disposition and subordinate to him. [Blurb on page 22] “On the whole, the New Testament, like the Old, speaks of the spirit as a divine energy or power.”—A Catholic Dictionary [Pictures on page 21] On one occasion the holy spirit appeared as a dove. On another occasion it appeared as tongues of fire—never as a person

What About Trinity “Proof Texts”?
IT IS said that some Bible texts offer proof in support of the Trinity. However, when reading such texts, we should keep in mind that the Biblical and historical evidence does not support the Trinity. Any Bible reference offered as proof must be understood in the context of the consistent teaching of the entire Bible. Very often the true meaning of such a text is clarified by the context of surrounding verses. Three in One THE New Catholic Encyclopedia offers three such “proof texts” but also admits: “The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not taught in the O[ld] T[estament]. In the N[ew] T[estament] the oldest evidence is in the Pauline epistles, especially 2 Cor 13.13 [verse 14 in some Bibles], 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 those verses the three “persons” are listed as follows in The New Jerusalem Bible. Second Corinthians 13:13 (14) puts the three together in this way: “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.” First Corinthians 12:4-6 says: “There are many different gifts, but it is always the same Spirit; there are many different ways of serving, but it is always the same Lord. There are many different forms of activity, but in everybody it is the same God who is at work in them all.” And Matthew 28:19 reads: “Go, therefore, make disciples of all nations; baptise them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” Do those verses say that God, Christ, and the holy spirit constitute a Trinitarian Godhead, that the three are equal in substance, power, and eternity? No, they do not, no more than listing three people, such as Tom, Dick, and Harry, means that they are three in one. This type of reference, admits McClintock and Strong’s Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, “proves only that there are the three subjects named,. . . but it does not prove, by itself, that all the three belong necessarily to the divine nature, and possess equal divine honor.” Although a supporter of the Trinity, that source says of 2 Corinthians 13:13 (14): “We could not justly infer that they possessed equal authority, or the same nature.” And of Matthew 28:18-20 it says: “This text, however, taken by itself, would not prove decisively either the personality of the three subjects mentioned, or their equality or divinity.” When Jesus was baptized, God, Jesus, and the holy spirit were also mentioned in the same context. Jesus “saw descending like a dove God’s spirit coming upon him.” (Matthew 3:16) This, however, does not say that the three are one. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are mentioned together numerous times, but that does not make them one. Peter, James, and John are named together, but that does not make them one either. Furthermore, God’s spirit descended upon Jesus at his baptism, showing that Jesus was not anointed by spirit until that time. This being so, how could he be part of a Trinity where he had always been one with the holy spirit? Another reference that speaks of the three together is found in some older Bible translations at 1 John 5:7. Scholars acknowledge, however, that these words were not originally in the Bible but were added much later. Most modern translations rightly omit this spurious verse. Other “proof texts” deal only with the relationship between two—the Father and Jesus. Let us consider some of them. “I and the Father Are One” THAT text, at John 10:30, is often cited to support the Trinity, even though no third person is mentioned there. 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.—See also 1 Corinthians 1:10. At 1 Corinthians 3:6, 8, Paul says: “I planted, Apollos watered. . . He that plants and he that waters are one.” Paul did not mean that he and Apollos were two persons in one; he meant that they were unified in purpose. The Greek word that Paul used here for “one” (hen) is neuter, literally “one (thing),” indicating oneness in cooperation. It is the same word that Jesus used at John 10:30 to describe his relationship with his Father. It is also the same word that Jesus used at John 17:21, 22. So when he used the word “one” (hen) in these cases, he was talking about unity of thought and purpose. Regarding John 10:30, John Calvin (who was a Trinitarian) said in the book Commentary on the Gospel According to John: “The ancients made a wrong use of this passage to prove that Christ is. . . of the same essence with the Father. For Christ does not argue about the unity of substance, but about the agreement which he has with the Father.” Right in the context of the verses after John 10:30, Jesus forcefully argued that his words were not a claim to be God. He asked the Jews who wrongly drew that conclusion and wanted to stone him: “Why do you charge me with blasphemy because I, consecrated and sent into the world by the Father, said, ‘I am God’s son’?” (John 10:31-36, NE) No, Jesus claimed that he was, not God the Son, but the Son of God. “Making Himself Equal to God”? ANOTHER scripture offered as support for the Trinity is John 5:18. 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. By this, Jesus showed the Jews that he was not equal to God and therefore could not act on his own initiative. Can we imagine someone equal to Almighty God saying that he could “do nothing by himself”? (Compare Daniel 4:34, 35.) Interestingly, the context of both John 5:18 and 10:30 shows that Jesus defended himself against false charges from Jews who, like the Trinitarians, were drawing wrong conclusions! “Equal With God”? AT PHILIPPIANS 2:6 the Catholic Douay Version (Dy) of 1609 says of Jesus: “Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.” The King James Version (KJ) of 1611 reads much the same. A number of such versions are still used by some to support the idea that Jesus was equal to God. But note how other translations render this verse: 1869: “who, being in the form of God, did not regard it as a thing to be grasped at to be on an equality with God.” The New Testament, by G. R. Noyes. 1965: “He—truly of divine nature!—never self-confidently made himself equal to God.” Das Neue Testament, revised edition, by Friedrich Pfäfflin. 1968: “who, although being in the form of God, did not consider being equal to God a thing to greedily make his own.” La Bibbia Concordata. 1976: “He always had the nature of God, but he did not think that by force he should try to become equal with God.” Today’s English Version. 1984: “who, although he was existing in God’s form, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God.” New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures. 1985: “Who, being in the form of God, did not count equality with God something to be grasped.” The New Jerusalem Bible. Some claim, however, that even these more accurate renderings imply that (1) Jesus already had equality but did not want to hold on to it or that (2) he did not need to grasp at equality because he already had it. In this regard, Ralph Martin, in The Epistle of Paul to the Philippians, says of the original Greek: “It is questionable, however, whether the sense of the verb can glide from its real meaning of ‘to seize’, ‘to snatch violently’ to that of ‘to hold fast.’” The Expositor’s Greek Testament also says: “We cannot find any passage where αρπάζω [har•pa´zo] or any of its derivatives has the sense of ‘holding in possession,’ ‘retaining’. It seems invariably to mean ‘seize,’ ‘snatch violently’. Thus it is not permissible to glide from the true sense ‘grasp at’ into one which is totally different, ‘hold fast.’” From the foregoing it is apparent that the translators of versions such as the Douay and the King James are bending the rules to support Trinitarian ends. Far from saying that Jesus thought it was appropriate to be equal to God, the Greek of Philippians 2:6, when read objectively, shows just the opposite, that Jesus did not think it was appropriate. The context of the surrounding verses (3-5, 7, 8, Dy) makes it clear how verse 6 is to be understood. The Philippians were urged: “In humility, let each esteem others better than themselves.” Then Paul uses Christ as the outstanding example of this attitude: “Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus.” What “mind”? To ‘think it not robbery to be equal with God’? No, that would be just the opposite of the point being made! Rather, Jesus, who ‘esteemed God as better than himself,’ would never ‘grasp for equality with God,’ but instead he “humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death.” Surely, that cannot be talking about any part of Almighty God. It was talking about Jesus Christ, who perfectly illustrated Paul’s point here—namely the importance of humility and obedience to one’s Superior and Creator, Jehovah God. “I Am” AT JOHN 8:58 a number of translations, for instance The Jerusalem Bible, have Jesus saying: “Before Abraham ever was, I Am.” Was Jesus there teaching, as Trinitarians assert, that he was known by the title “I Am”? And, as they claim, does this mean that he was Jehovah of the Hebrew Scriptures, since the King James Version at Exodus 3:14 states: “God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM”? At Exodus 3:14 (KJ) the phrase “I AM” is used as a title for God to indicate that he really existed and would do what he promised. The Pentateuch and Haftorahs, edited by Dr. J. H. Hertz, says of the phrase: “To the Israelites in bondage, the meaning would be, ‘Although He has not yet displayed His power towards you, He will do so; He is eternal and will certainly redeem you.’ Most moderns follow Rashi [a French Bible and Talmud commentator] in rendering [Exodus 3:14] ‘I will be what I will be.’” The expression at John 8:58 is quite different from the one used at Exodus 3:14. Jesus did not use it as a name or a title but as a means of explaining his prehuman existence. Hence, note how some other Bible versions render John 8:58: 1869: “From before Abraham was, I have been.” The New Testament, by G. R. Noyes. 1935: “I existed before Abraham was born!” The Bible—An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed. 1965: “Before Abraham was born, I was already the one that I am.” Das Neue Testament, by Jörg Zink. 1981: “I was alive before Abraham was born!” The Simple English Bible. 1984: “Before Abraham came into existence, I have been.” New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures. Thus, the real thought of the Greek used here is that God’s created “firstborn,” Jesus, had existed long before Abraham was born.—Colossians 1:15; Proverbs 8:22, 23, 30; Revelation 3:14. Again, the context shows this to be the correct understanding. This time the Jews wanted to stone Jesus for claiming to “have seen Abraham” although, as they said, he was not yet 50 years old. (Verse 57) Jesus’ natural response was to tell the truth about his age. So he naturally told them that he “was alive before Abraham was born!”—The Simple English Bible. “The Word Was God” AT JOHN 1:1 the King James Version reads: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Trinitarians claim that this means that “the Word” (Greek, ho lo´gos) who came to earth as Jesus Christ was Almighty God himself. 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. In agreement with this, the Journal of Biblical Literature, edited by Jesuit Joseph A. Fitzmyer, notes that if the latter part of John 1:1 were interpreted to mean “the” God, this “would then contradict the preceding clause,” which says that the Word was with God. Notice, too, how other translations render this part of the verse: 1808: “and the word was a god.” The New Testament in an Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation: With a Corrected Text. 1864: “and a god was the word.” The Emphatic Diaglott, interlinear reading, by Benjamin Wilson. 1928: “and the Word was a divine being.” La Bible du Centenaire, L’Evangile selon Jean, by Maurice Goguel. 1935: “and the Word was divine.” The Bible—An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed. 1946: “and of a divine kind was the Word.” Das Neue Testament, by Ludwig Thimme. 1950: “and the Word was a god.” New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures. 1958: “and the Word was a God.” The New Testament, by James L. Tomanek. 1975: “and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word.” Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz. 1978: “and godlike kind was the Logos.” Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider. At John 1:1 there are two occurrences of the Greek noun the•os´ (god). The first occurrence refers to Almighty God, with whom the Word was (“and the Word [lo´gos] was with God [a form of the•os´]”). This first the•os´ is preceded by the word ton (the), a form of the Greek definite article that points to a distinct identity, in this case Almighty God (“and the Word was with [the] God”). On the other hand, there is no article before the second the•os´ at John 1:1. So a literal translation would read, “and god was the Word.” Yet we have seen that many translations render this second the•os´ (a predicate noun) as “divine,” “godlike,” or “a god.” On what authority do they do this? The Koine Greek language had a definite article (“the”), but it did not have an indefinite article (“a” or “an”). So when a predicate noun is not preceded by the definite article, it may be indefinite, depending on the context. 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.” So John 1:1 highlights the quality of the Word, that he was “divine,” “godlike,” “a god,” but not Almighty God. This harmonizes with the rest of the Bible, which shows that Jesus, here called “the Word” in his role as God’s Spokesman, was an obedient subordinate sent to earth by his Superior, Almighty God. There are many other Bible verses in which almost all translators in other languages consistently insert the article “a” when translating Greek sentences with the same structure. For example, at Mark 6:49, when the disciples saw Jesus walking on water, the King James Version says: “They supposed it had been a spirit.” In the Koine Greek, there is no “a” before “spirit.” But almost all translations in other languages add an “a” in order to make the rendering fit the context. In the same way, since John 1:1 shows that the Word was with God, he could not be God but was “a god,” or “divine.” Joseph Henry Thayer, a theologian and scholar who worked on the American Standard Version, stated simply: “The Logos was divine, not the divine Being himself.” And Jesuit John L. McKenzie wrote in his Dictionary of the Bible: “Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated. . . ‘the word was a divine being.’” 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.” But consider just two examples found at John 8:44. There Jesus says of the Devil: “That one was a manslayer” and “he is a liar.” Just as at John 1:1, the predicate nouns (“manslayer” and “liar”) precede the verbs (“was” and “is”) in the Greek. There is no indefinite article in front of either noun because there was no indefinite article in Koine Greek. But most translations insert the word “a” because Greek grammar and the context require it.—See also Mark 11:32; John 4:19; 6:70; 9:17; 10:1; 12:6. Colwell had to acknowledge this regarding the predicate noun, for he said: “It is indefinite [“a” or “an”] in this position only when the context demands it.” So even he admits that when the context requires it, translators may insert an indefinite article in front of the noun in this type of sentence structure. 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. Thus, not Colwell’s questionable rule of grammar, but context should guide the translator in such cases. And 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. No Conflict DOES saying that Jesus Christ is “a god” conflict with the Bible’s teaching that there is only one God? No, for at times the Bible employs that term to refer to mighty creatures. Psalm 8:5 reads: “You also proceeded to make him [man] a little less than godlike ones [Hebrew, ´elo•him´],” that is, angels. In Jesus’ defense against the charge of the Jews, that he claimed to be God, he noted that “the Law uses the word gods of those to whom the word of God was addressed,” that is, human judges. (John 10:34, 35, JB; Psalm 82:1-6) Even Satan is called “the god of this system of things” at 2 Corinthians 4:4. Jesus has a position far higher than angels, imperfect men, or Satan. Since these are referred to as “gods,” mighty ones, surely Jesus can be and is “a god.” Because of his unique position in relation to Jehovah, Jesus is a “Mighty God.”—John 1:1; Isaiah 9:6. But does not “Mighty God” with its capital letters indicate that Jesus is in some way equal to Jehovah God? Not at all. Isaiah merely prophesied this to be one of four names that Jesus would be called, and in the English language such names are capitalized. Still, even though Jesus was called “Mighty,” there can be only one who is “Almighty.” To call Jehovah God “Almighty” would have little significance unless there existed others who were also called gods but who occupied a lesser or inferior position. The Bulletin of the John Rylands Library in England notes that according to Catholic theologian Karl Rahner, while the•os´ is used in scriptures such as John 1:1 in reference to Christ, “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.” And the Bulletin adds: “If the New Testament writers believed it vital that the faithful should confess Jesus as ‘God’, is the almost complete absence of just this form of confession in the New Testament explicable?” 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,” especially in the miraculous circumstances that prompted his exclamation. Some scholars suggest that Thomas may simply have made an emotional exclamation of astonishment, spoken to Jesus but directed to God. In either case, Thomas did not think that Jesus was Almighty God, for he and all the other apostles knew that Jesus never claimed to be God but taught that Jehovah alone is “the only true God.”—John 17:3. Again, the context helps us to understand this. A few days earlier the resurrected Jesus had told Mary Magdalene to tell the disciples: “I am ascending to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God.” (John 20:17) Even though Jesus was already resurrected as a mighty spirit, Jehovah was still his God. And Jesus continued to refer to Him as such even in the last book of the Bible, after he was glorified.—Revelation 1:5, 6; 3:2, 12. Just three verses after Thomas’ exclamation, at John 20:31, the Bible further clarifies the matter by stating: “These have been written down that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God,” not that he was Almighty God. And it meant “Son” in a literal way, as with a natural father and son, not as some mysterious part of a Trinity Godhead. Must Harmonize With the Bible IT IS claimed that several other scriptures support the Trinity. But these are similar to those discussed above in that, when carefully examined, they offer no actual support. Such texts only illustrate that when considering any claimed support for the Trinity, one must ask: Does the interpretation harmonize with the consistent teaching of the entire Bible—that Jehovah God alone is Supreme? If not, then the interpretation must be in error. We also need to keep in mind that not even so much as one “proof text” says that God, Jesus, and the holy spirit are one in some mysterious Godhead. Not one scripture anywhere in the Bible says that all three are the same in substance, power, and eternity. The Bible is consistent in revealing Almighty God, Jehovah, as alone Supreme, Jesus as his created Son, and the holy spirit as God’s active force. [Blurb on page 24] “The ancients made a wrong use of [John 10:30] to prove that Christ is. . . of the same essence with the Father.”—Commentary on the Gospel According to John, by John Calvin [Blurb on page 27] Someone who is “with” another person cannot also be that other person [Blurb on page 28] “The Logos was divine, not the divine Being himself.”—Joseph Henry Thayer, Bible scholar [Pictures on page 24, 25] Jesus prayed to God that his disciples might “all be one,” just as he and his Father “are one” [Picture on page 26] Jesus showed the Jews that he was not equal to God, saying that he could ‘do nothing by himself but only what he saw the Father doing’ [Pictures on page 29] Since the Bible calls humans, angels, even Satan, “gods,” or powerful ones, the superior Jesus in heaven can properly be called “a god”

Dishonoring God
“THOSE honoring me I shall honor,” says God. (1 Samuel 2:30) Does it honor God to call anyone his equal? Does it honor him to call Mary “the mother of God” and the “Mediatrix. . . between the Creator and His creatures,” as does the New Catholic Encyclopedia? No, those ideas insult God. No one is his equal; nor did he have a fleshly mother, since Jesus was not God. And there is no “Mediatrix,” for God has appointed only “one mediator between God and men,” Jesus.—1 Timothy 2:5; 1 John 2:1, 2. Beyond a doubt, the Trinity doctrine has confused and diluted people’s understanding of God’s true position. It prevents people from accurately knowing the Universal Sovereign, Jehovah God, and from worshiping him on his terms. As theologian Hans Küng said: “Why should anyone want to add anything to the notion of God’s oneness and uniqueness that can only dilute or nullify that oneness and uniqueness?” But that is what belief in the Trinity has done. Those who believe in the Trinity are not “holding God in accurate knowledge.” (Romans 1:28) That verse also says: “God gave them up to a disapproved mental state, to do the things not fitting.” Verses 29 to 31 list some of those ‘unfitting’ things, such as ‘murder, strife, being false to agreements, having no natural affection, merciless.’ Those very things have been practiced by religions that accept the Trinity. For instance, Trinitarians have often persecuted and even killed those who rejected the Trinity doctrine. And they have gone even further. They have killed their fellow Trinitarians in wartime. What could be more ‘unfitting’ than Catholics killing Catholics, Orthodox killing Orthodox, Protestants killing Protestants—all in the name of the same Trinitarian God? Yet, Jesus plainly said: “By this all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love among yourselves.” (John 13:35) God’s Word expands on this, saying: “The children of God and the children of the Devil are evident by this fact: Everyone who does not carry on righteousness does not originate with God, neither does he who does not love his brother.” It likens those who kill their spiritual brothers to “Cain, who originated with the wicked one [Satan] and slaughtered his brother.”—1 John 3:10-12. Thus, the teaching of confusing doctrines about God has led to actions that violate his laws. Indeed, what has happened throughout Christendom is what Danish theologian Søren Kierkegaard described: “Christendom has done away with Christianity without being quite aware of it.” Christendom’s spiritual condition fits what the apostle Paul wrote: “They publicly declare they know God, but they disown him by their works, because they are detestable and disobedient and not approved for good work of any sort.”—Titus 1:16. Soon, when God brings this present wicked system of things to its end, Trinitarian Christendom will be called to account. And she will be judged adversely for her God-dishonoring actions and doctrines.—Matthew 24:14, 34; 25:31-34, 41, 46; Revelation 17:1-6, 16; 18:1-8, 20, 24; 19:17-21. Reject the Trinity THERE can be no compromise with God’s truths. Hence, to worship God on his terms means to reject the Trinity doctrine. It contradicts what the prophets, Jesus, the apostles, and the early Christians believed and taught. It contradicts what God says about himself in his own inspired Word. Thus, he counsels: “Acknowledge that I alone am God and that there is no one else like me.”—Isaiah 46:9, TEV. God’s interests are not served by making him confusing and mysterious. Instead, the more that people become confused about God and his purposes, the better it suits God’s Adversary, Satan the Devil, the ‘god of this world.’ It is he who promotes such false doctrines to ‘blind the minds of unbelievers.’ (2 Corinthians 4:4) And the Trinity doctrine also serves the interests of clergymen who want to maintain their hold on people, for they make it appear as though only theologians can understand it.—See John 8:44. 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. As Jesus said: “You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”—John 8:32. By honoring God as supreme and worshiping him on his terms, we can avoid the judgment that he will soon bring on apostate Christendom. Instead, we can look forward to God’s favor when this system ends: “The world is passing away and so is its desire, but he that does the will of God remains forever.”—1 John 2:17. [Picture on page 31] This centuries-old sculpture in France depicts the coronation of the “virgin” Mary by the Trinity. Belief in the Trinity led to veneration of Mary as the “Mother of God”

Trinity
Definition: The central doctrine of religions of Christendom. According to the Athanasian Creed, there are three divine Persons (the Father, the Son, the Holy Ghost), each said to be eternal, each said to be almighty, none greater or less than another, each said to be God, and yet together being but one God. Other statements of the dogma emphasize that these three “Persons” are not separate and distinct individuals but are three modes in which the divine essence exists. Thus some Trinitarians emphasize their belief that Jesus Christ is God, or that Jesus and the Holy Ghost are God. It is not a Bible teaching. What is the origin of the Trinity doctrine? The New Encyclopædia Britannica says: “Neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord’ (Deut. 6:4). . . . The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies. . . . By the end of the 4th century. . . the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since.”—(1976), Micropædia, Vol. X, p. 126. The New Catholic Encyclopedia states: “The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.”—(1967), Vol. XIV, p. 299. In The Encyclopedia Americana we read: “Christianity derived from Judaism and Judaism was strictly Unitarian [believing that God is one person]. The road which led from Jerusalem to Nicea was scarcely a straight one. Fourth century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching.”—(1956), Vol. XXVII, p. 294L. According to the Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel, “The Platonic trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave birth to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian churches. . . . This Greek philosopher’s [Plato, fourth century B.C.E.] conception of the divine trinity. . . can be found in all the ancient [pagan] religions.”—(Paris, 1865-1870), edited by M. Lachâtre, Vol. 2, p. 1467. John L. McKenzie, S.J., in his Dictionary of the Bible, says: “The trinity of persons within the unity of nature is defined in terms of ‘person’ and ‘nature’ which are G[ree]k philosophical terms; actually the terms do not appear in the Bible. The trinitarian definitions arose as the result of long controversies in which these terms and others such as ‘essence’ and ‘substance’ were erroneously applied to God by some theologians.”—(New York, 1965), p. 899. Even though, as Trinitarians acknowledge, neither the word “Trinity” nor a statement of the Trinitarian dogma is found in the Bible, are the concepts that are embodied in that dogma found there? Does the Bible teach that the “Holy Spirit” is a person? Some individual texts that refer to the holy spirit (“Holy Ghost,” KJ) might seem to indicate personality. For example, the holy spirit is referred to as a helper (Greek, pa•ra´kle•tos; “Comforter,” KJ; “Advocate,” JB, NE) that ‘teaches,’ ‘bears witness,’ ‘speaks’ and ‘hears.’ (John 14:16, 17, 26; 15:26; 16:13) But other texts say that people were “filled” with holy spirit, that some were ‘baptized’ with it or “anointed” with it. (Luke 1:41; Matt. 3:11; Acts 10:38) These latter references to holy spirit definitely do not fit a person. To understand what the Bible as a whole teaches, all these texts must be considered. What is the reasonable conclusion? That the first texts cited here employ a figure of speech personifying God’s holy spirit, his active force, as the Bible also personifies wisdom, sin, death, water, and blood. (See also pages 380, 381, under the heading “Spirit.”) The Holy Scriptures tell us the personal name of the Father—Jehovah. They inform us that the Son is Jesus Christ. But nowhere in the Scriptures is a personal name applied to the holy spirit. Acts 7:55, 56 reports that Stephen was given a vision of heaven in which he saw “Jesus standing at God’s right hand.” But he made no mention of seeing the holy spirit. (See also Revelation 7:10; 22:1, 3.) The New Catholic Encyclopedia admits: “The majority of N[ew] T[estament] texts reveal God’s spirit as something, not someone; this is especially seen in the parallelism between the spirit and the power of God.” (1967, Vol. XIII, p. 575) It also reports: “The Apologists [Greek Christian writers of the second century] spoke too haltingly of the Spirit; with a measure of anticipation, one might say too impersonally.”—Vol. XIV, p. 296. Does the Bible agree with those who teach that the Father and the Son are not separate and distinct individuals? Matt. 26:39, RS: “Going a little farther he [Jesus Christ] fell on his face and prayed, ‘My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt.’” (If the Father and the Son were not distinct individuals, such a prayer would have been meaningless. Jesus would have been praying to himself, and his will would of necessity have been the Father’s will.) John 8:17, 18, RS: “[Jesus answered the Jewish Pharisees:] In your law it is written that the testimony of two men is true; I bear witness to myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness to me.” (So, Jesus definitely spoke of himself as being an individual separate and distinct from the Father.)

Does the Bible teach that all who are said to be part of the Trinity are eternal, none having a beginning? Col. 1:15, 16, RS: “He [Jesus Christ] is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation; for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth.” In what sense is Jesus Christ “the first-born of all creation”? (1) Trinitarians say that “first-born” here means prime, most excellent, most distinguished; thus Christ would be understood to be, not part of creation, but the most distinguished in relation to those who were created. If that is so, and if the Trinity doctrine is true, why are the Father and the holy spirit not also said to be the firstborn of all creation? But the Bible applies this expression only to the Son. According to the customary meaning of “firstborn,” it indicates that Jesus is the eldest in God’s family of sons. (2) Before Colossians 1:15, the expression “the firstborn of” occurs upwards of 30 times in the Bible, and in each instance that it is applied to living creatures the same meaning applies—the firstborn is part of the group. “The firstborn of Israel” is one of the sons of Israel; “the firstborn of Pharaoh” is one of Pharaoh’s family; “the firstborn of beast” are themselves animals. What, then, causes some to ascribe a different meaning to it at Colossians 1:15? Is it Bible usage or is it a belief to which they already hold and for which they seek proof? (3) Does Colossians 1:16, 17 (RS) exclude Jesus from having been created, when it says “in him all things were created. . . all things were created through him and for him”? The Greek word here rendered “all things” is pan´ta, an inflected form of pas. At Luke 13:2, RS renders this “all. . . other”; JB reads “any other”; NE says “anyone else.” (See also Luke 21:29 in NE and Philippians 2:21 in JB.) In harmony with everything else that the Bible says regarding the Son, NW assigns the same meaning to pan´ta at Colossians 1:16, 17 so that it reads, in part, “by means of him all other things were created. . . All other things have been created through him and for him.” Thus he is shown to be a created being, part of the creation produced by God. Rev. 1:1; 3:14, RS: “The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him. . . ‘And to the angel of the church in La-odicea write: “The words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning [Greek, ar•khe´] of God’s creation.”’” (KJ, Dy, CC, and NW, as well as others, read similarly.) Is that rendering correct? Some take the view that what is meant is that the Son was ‘the beginner of God’s creation,’ that he was its ‘ultimate source.’ But Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon lists “beginning” as its first meaning of ar•khe´. (Oxford, 1968, p. 252) The logical conclusion is that the one being quoted at Revelation 3:14 is a creation, the first of God’s creations, that he had a beginning. Compare Proverbs 8:22, where, as many Bible commentators agree, the Son is referred to as wisdom personified. According to RS, NE, and JB, the one there speaking is said to be “created.”) Prophetically, with reference to the Messiah, Micah 5:2 (KJ) says his “goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.” Dy reads: “his going forth is from the beginning, from the days of eternity.” Does that make him the same as God? It is noteworthy that, instead of saying “days of eternity,” RS renders the Hebrew as “ancient days”; JB, “days of old”; NW, “days of time indefinite.” Viewed in the light of Revelation 3:14, discussed above, Micah 5:2 does not prove that Jesus was without a beginning. Does the Bible teach that none of those who are said to be included in the Trinity is greater or less than another, that all are equal, that all are almighty? Mark 13:32, RS: “Of that day or that hour no ones knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” (Of course, that would not be the case if Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were coequal, comprising one Godhead. And if, as some suggest, the Son was limited by his human nature from knowing, the question remains, Why did the Holy Spirit not know?) Matt. 20:20-23, RS: “The mother of the sons of Zebedee . . . said to him [Jesus], ‘Command that these two sons of mine may sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your kingdom.’ But Jesus answered, . . . ‘You will drink my cup, but to sit at my right hand and at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.’” (How strange, if, as claimed, Jesus is God! Was Jesus here merely answering according to his “human nature”? If, as Trinitarians say, Jesus was truly “God-man”—both God and man, not one or the other—would it truly be consistent to resort to such an explanation? Does not Matthew 20:23 rather show that the Son is not equal to the Father, that the Father has reserved some prerogatives for himself?) Matt. 12:31, 32, RS: “Every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. And whoever says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.” (If the Holy Spirit were a person and were God, this text would flatly contradict the Trinity doctrine, because it would mean that in some way the Holy Spirit was greater than the Son. Instead, what Jesus said shows that the Father, to whom the “Spirit” belonged, is greater than Jesus, the Son of man.) John 14:28, RS: “[Jesus said:] If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I go to the Father; for the Father is greater than I.” 1 Cor. 11:3, RS: “I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.” (Clearly, then, Christ is not God, and God is of superior rank to Christ. It should be noted that this was written about 55 C.E., some 22 years after Jesus returned to heaven. So the truth here stated applies to the relationship between God and Christ in heaven.) 1 Cor. 15:27, 28 RS: “‘God has put all things in subjection under his [Jesus’] feet.’ But when it says, ‘All things are put in subjection under him,’ it is plain that he is excepted who put all things under him. When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things under him, that God may be everything to every one.” The Hebrew word Shad•dai´ and the Greek word Pan•to•kra´tor are both translated “Almighty.” Both original-language words are repeatedly applied to God, the Father. (Ex. 6:3; Rev. 19:6) Neither expression is ever applied to either the Son or the holy spirit. Does the Bible teach that each of those said to be part of the Trinity is God? Jesus said in prayer: “Father, . . . this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.” (John 17:1-3, RS; italics added.) (Most translations here use the expression “the only true God” with reference to the Father. NE reads “who alone art truly God.” He cannot be “the only true God,” the one “who alone [is] truly God,” if there are two others who are God to the same degree as he is, can he? Any others referred to as “gods” must be either false or merely a reflection of the true God.) 1 Cor. 8:5, 6, RS: “Although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many ‘gods’ and many ‘lords’—yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.” (This presents the Father as the “one God” of Christians and as being in a class distinct from Jesus Christ.) 1 Pet. 1:3, RS: “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ!” (Repeatedly, even following Jesus’ ascension to heaven, the Scriptures refer to the Father as “the God” of Jesus Christ. At John 20:17, following Jesus’ resurrection, he himself spoke of the Father as “my God.” Later, when in heaven, as recorded at Revelation 3:12, he again used the same expression. But never in the Bible is the Father reported to refer to the Son as “my God,” nor does either the Father or the Son refer to the holy spirit as “my God.”) For comments on scriptures used by some in an effort to prove that Christ is God, see pages 212-216, under the heading “Jesus Christ.” In Theological Investigations, Karl Rahner, S.J., admits: “Θεός [God] is still never used of the Spirit,” and: “ο θεός [literally, the God] is never used in the New Testament to speak of the πνευµα αγιον [holy spirit].”—(Baltimore, Md.; 1961), translated from German, Vol. I, pp. 138, 143. Do any of the scriptures that are used by Trinitarians to support their belief provide a solid basis for that dogma? A person who is really seeking to know the truth about God is not going to search the Bible hoping to find a text that he can construe as fitting what he already believes. He wants to know what God’s Word itself says. He may find some texts that he feels can be read in more than one way, but when these are compared with other Biblical statements on the same subject their meaning will become clear. It should be noted at the outset that most of the texts used as “proof” of the Trinity actually mention only two persons, not three; so even if the Trinitarian explanation of the texts were correct, these would not prove that the Bible teaches the Trinity. Consider the following: (Unless otherwise indicated, all the texts quoted in the following section are from RS.) Texts in which a title that belongs to God is applied to Jesus Christ or is claimed to apply to Jesus Alpha and Omega: To whom does this title properly belong? (1) At Revelation 1:8, its owner is said to be God, the Almighty. In verse 11 according to KJ, that title is applied to one whose description thereafter shows him to be Jesus Christ. But scholars recognize the reference to Alpha and Omega in verse 11 to be spurious, and so it does not appear in RS, NE, JB, NAB, Dy. (2) Many translations of Revelation into Hebrew recognize that the one described in verse 8 is God, and so they restore the personal name of God there. See NW, 1984 Reference edition. (3) Revelation 21:6, 7 indicates that Christians who are spiritual conquerors are to be ‘sons’ of the one known as the Alpha and the Omega. That is never said of the relationship of spirit-anointed Christians to Jesus Christ. Jesus spoke of them as his ‘brothers.’ (Heb. 2:11; Matt. 12:50; 25:40) But those ‘brothers’ of Jesus are referred to as “sons of God.” (Gal. 3:26; 4:6) (4) At Revelation 22:12, TEV inserts the name Jesus, so the reference to Alpha and Omega in verse 13 is made to appear to apply to him. But the name Jesus does not appear there in Greek, and other translations do not include it. (5) At Revelation 22:13, the Alpha and Omega is also said to be “the first and the last,” which expression is applied to Jesus at Revelation 1:17, 18. Similarly, the expression “apostle” is applied both to Jesus Christ and to certain ones of his followers. But that does not prove that they are the same person or are of equal rank, does it? (Heb. 3:1) So the evidence points to the conclusion that the title “Alpha and Omega” applies to Almighty God, the Father, not to the Son. Savior: Repeatedly the Scriptures refer to God as Savior. At Isaiah 43:11 God even says: “Besides me there is no savior.” Since Jesus is also referred to as Savior, are God and Jesus the same? Not at all. Titus 1:3, 4 speaks of “God our Savior,” and then of both “God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior.” So, both persons are saviors. Jude 25 shows the relationship, saying: “God, our Savior through Jesus Christ our Lord.” (Italics added.) (See also Acts 13:23.) At Judges 3:9, the same Hebrew word (moh•shi´a', rendered “savior” or “deliverer”) that is used at Isaiah 43:11 is applied to Othniel, a judge in Israel, but that certainly did not make Othniel God, did it? A reading of Isaiah 43:1-12 shows that verse 11 means that God alone was the One who provided salvation, or deliverance, for Israel; that salvation did not come from any of the gods of the surrounding nations. God: At Isaiah 43:10 God says: “Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me.” Does this mean that, because Jesus Christ is prophetically called “Mighty God” at Isaiah 9:6, Jesus must be God? Again, the context answers, No! None of the idolatrous Gentile nations formed a god before God, because no one existed before God. Nor would they at a future time form any real, live god that was able to prophesy. (Isa. 46:9, 10) But that does not mean that God never caused to exist anyone who is properly referred to as a god. (Ps. 82:1, 6; John 1:1, NW) At Isaiah 10:21 God is referred to as “mighty God,” just as Jesus is in Isaiah 9:6; but only God is ever called “God Almighty.”—Gen. 17:1. If a certain title or descriptive phrase is found in more than one location in the Scriptures, it should never hastily be concluded that it must always refer to the same person. Such reasoning would lead to the conclusion that Nebuchadnezzar was Jesus Christ, because both were called “king of kings” (Dan. 2:37; Rev. 17:14); and that Jesus’ disciples were actually Jesus Christ, because both were called “the light of the world.” (Matt. 5:14; John 8:12) We should always consider the context and any other instances in the Bible where the same expression occurs. Application to Jesus Christ by inspired Bible writers of passages from the Hebrew Scriptures that clearly apply to God Why does John 1:23 quote Isaiah 40:3 and apply it to what John the Baptizer did in preparing the way for Jesus Christ, when Isaiah 40:3 is clearly discussing preparing the way before God? Because Jesus represented his Father. He came in his Father’s name and had the assurance that his Father was always with him because he did the things pleasing to his Father.—John 5:43; 8:29. Why does Hebrews 1:10-12 quote Psalm 102:25-27 and apply it to the Son, when the psalm says that it is addressed to God? Because the Son is the one through whom God performed the creative works there described by the psalmist. (See Colossians 1:15, 16; Proverbs 8:22, 27-30.) It should be observed in Hebrews 1:5b that a quotation is made from 2 Samuel 7:14 and applied to the Son of God. Although that text had its first application to Solomon, the later application of it to Jesus Christ does not mean that Solomon and Jesus are the same. Jesus is “greater than Solomon” and carries out a work foreshadowed by Solomon.—Luke 11:31. Scriptures that mention together the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit Matthew 28:19 and 2 Corinthians 13:14 are instances of this. Neither of these texts says that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are coequal or coeternal or that all are God. The Scriptural evidence already presented on pages 408-412 argues against reading such thoughts into the texts. McClintock and Strong’s Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, though advocating the Trinity doctrine, acknowledges regarding Matthew 28:18-20: “This text, however, taken by itself, would not prove decisively either the personality of the three subjects mentioned, or their equality or divinity.” (1981 reprint, Vol. X, p. 552) Regarding other texts that also mention the three together, this Cyclopedia admits that, taken by themselves, they are “insufficient” to prove the Trinity. (Compare 1 Timothy 5:21, where God and Christ and the angels are mentioned together.) Texts in which the plural form of nouns is applied to God in the Hebrew Scriptures At Genesis 1:1 the title “God” is translated from ’Elo•him´, which is plural in Hebrew. Trinitarians construe this to be an indication of the Trinity. They also explain Deuteronomy 6:4 to imply the unity of members of the Trinity when it says, “The LORD our God [from ’Elo•him´] is one LORD.” The plural form of the noun here in Hebrew is the plural of majesty or excellence. (See NAB, St. Joseph Edition, Bible Dictionary, p. 330; also, New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol. V, p. 287.) It conveys no thought of plurality of persons within a godhead. In similar fashion, at Judges 16:23 when reference is made to the false god Dagon, a form of the title ’elo•him´ is used; the accompanying verb is singular, showing that reference is to just the one god. At Genesis 42:30, Joseph is spoken of as the “lord” (’adho•neh´, the plural of excellence) of Egypt. The Greek language does not have a ‘plural of majesty or excellence.’ So, at Genesis 1:1 the translators of LXX used ho The•os´ (God, singular) as the equivalent of ’Elo•him´. At Mark 12:29, where a reply of Jesus is reproduced in which he quoted Deuteronomy 6:4, the Greek singular ho The•os´ is similarly used. At Deuteronomy 6:4, the Hebrew text contains the Tetragrammaton twice, and so should more properly read: “Jehovah our God is one Jehovah.” (NW) The nation of Israel, to whom that was stated, did not believe in the Trinity. The Babylonians and the Egyptians worshiped triads of gods, but it was made clear to Israel that Jehovah is different. Texts from which a person might draw more than one conclusion, depending on the Bible translation used If a passage can grammatically be translated in more than one way, what is the correct rendering? One that is in agreement with the rest of the Bible. If a person ignores other portions of the Bible and builds his belief around a favorite rendering of a particular verse, then what he believes really reflects, not the Word of God, but his own ideas and perhaps those of another imperfect human. John 1:1, 2: RS reads: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God.” (KJ, Dy, JB, NAB use similar wording.) However, NW reads: “In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. This one was in the beginning with God.” Which translation of John 1:1, 2 agrees with the context? John 1:18 says: “No one has ever seen God.” Verse 14 clearly says that “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. . . we have beheld his glory.” Also, verses 1, 2 say that in the beginning he was “with God.” Can one be with someone and at the same time be that person? At John 17:3, Jesus addresses the Father as “the only true God”; so, Jesus as “a god” merely reflects his Father’s divine qualities.—Heb. 1:3. Is the rendering “a god” consistent with the rules of Greek grammar? Some reference books argue strongly that the Greek text must be translated, “The Word was God.” But not all agree. In his article “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1,” Philip B. Harner said that such clauses as the one in John 1:1, “with an anarthrous predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning. They indicate that the logos has the nature of theos.” He suggests: “Perhaps the clause could be translated, ‘the Word had the same nature as God.’” (Journal of Biblical Literature, 1973, pp. 85, 87) Thus, in this text, the fact that the word the•os´ in its second occurrence is without the definite article (ho) and is placed before the verb in the sentence in Greek is significant. Interestingly, translators that insist on rendering John 1:1, “The Word was God,” do not hesitate to use the indefinite article (a, an) in their rendering of other passages where a singular anarthrous predicate noun occurs before the verb. Thus at John 6:70, JB and KJ both refer to Judas Iscariot as “a devil,” and at John 9:17 they describe Jesus as “a prophet.” John J. McKenzie, S.J., in his Dictionary of the Bible, says: “Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated ‘the word was with the God [= the Father], and the word was a divine being.’”—(Brackets are his. Published with nihil obstat and imprimatur.) (New York, 1965), p. 317. In harmony with the above, AT reads: “the Word was divine”; Mo, “the Logos was divine”; NTIV, “the word was a god.” In his German translation Ludwig Thimme expresses it in this way: “God of a sort the Word was.” Referring to the Word (who became Jesus Christ) as “a god” is consistent with the use of that term in the rest of the Scriptures. For example, at Psalm 82:1-6 human judges in Israel were referred to as “gods” (Hebrew, ’elo•him´; Greek, the•oi´, at John 10:34) because they were representatives of God and were to speak his law. See also NW appendix, 1984 Reference edition, p. 1579. John 8:58: RS reads: “Jesus said to them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am [Greek, e•go´ ei•mi´].’” (NE, KJ, TEV, JB, NAB all read “I am,” some even using capital letters to convey the idea of a title. Thus they endeavor to connect the expression with Exodus 3:14, where, according to their rendering, God refers to himself by the title “I Am.”) However, in NW the latter part of John 8:58 reads: “Before Abraham came into existence, I have been.” (The same idea is conveyed by the wording in AT, Mo, CBW, and SE.) 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. Interestingly, no effort is ever made to apply e•go´ ei•mi´ as a title to the holy spirit. Says A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, by A. T. Robertson: “The verb [ei•mi´]. . . Sometimes it does express existence as a predicate like any other verb, as in [e•go´ ei•mi´] (Jo. 8:58).”—Nashville, Tenn.; 1934, p. 394. See also NW appendix, 1984 Reference edition, pp. 1582, 1583. Acts 20:28: JB reads: “Be on your guard for yourselves and for all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you the overseers, to feed the Church of God which he bought with his own blood.” (KJ, Dy, NAB use similar wording.) However, in NW the latter part of the verse reads: “the blood of his own [Son].” (TEV reads similarly. Although the 1953 printing of RS reads “with his own blood,” the 1971 edition reads “with the blood of his own Son.” Ro and Da simply read “the blood of his own.”) Which rendering(s) agree with 1 John 1:7, which says: “The blood of Jesus his [God’s] Son cleanses us from all sin”? (See also Revelation 1:4-6.) As stated in John 3:16, did God send his only-begotten Son, or did he himself come as a man, so that we might have life? It was the blood, not of God, but of his Son that was poured out. See also NW appendix, 1984 Reference edition, p. 1580. Romans 9:5: JB reads: “They are descended from the patriarchs and from their flesh and blood came Christ who is above all, God for ever blessed! Amen.” (KJ, Dy read similarly.) However, in NW the latter part of the verse reads: “from whom the Christ sprang according to the flesh: God, who is over all, be blessed forever. Amen.” (RS, NE, TEV, NAB, Mo all use wording similar to NW.) Is this verse saying that Christ is “over all” and that he is therefore God? Or does it refer to God and Christ as distinct individuals and say that God is “over all”? Which rendering of Romans 9:5 agrees with Romans 15:5, 6, which first distinguishes God from Christ Jesus and then urges the reader to “glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ”? (See also 2 Corinthians 1:3 and Ephesians 1:3.) Consider what follows in Romans chapter 9. Verses 6-13 show that the outworking of God’s purpose depends not on inheritance according to the flesh but on the will of God. Verses 14-18 refer to God’s message to Pharaoh, as recorded at Exodus 9:16, to highlight the fact that God is over all. In verses 19-24 God’s superiority is further illustrated by an analogy with a potter and the clay vessels that he makes. How appropriate, then, in verse 5, the expression: “God, who is over all, be blessed forever. Amen”!—NW. The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology states: “Rom. 9:5 is disputed. . . . It would be easy, and linguistically perfectly possible to refer the expression to Christ. The verse would then read, ‘Christ who is God over all, blessed for ever. Amen.’ Even so, Christ would not be equated absolutely with God, but only described as a being of divine nature, for the word theos has no article. . . . The much more probable explanation is that the statement is a doxology directed to God.”—(Grand Rapids, Mich.; 1976), translated from German, Vol. 2, p. 80. See also NW appendix, 1984 Reference edition, pp. 1580, 1581. Philippians 2:5, 6: KJ reads: “Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.” (Dy has the same wording. JB reads: “he did not cling to his equality with God.”) However, in NW the latter portion of that passage reads: “who, although he was existing in God’s form, gave no consideration to a seizure [Greek, har•pag•mon´], namely, that he should be equal to God.” (RS, NE, TEV, NAB convey the same thought.) Which thought agrees with the context? Verse 5 counsels Christians to imitate Christ in the matter here being discussed. Could they be urged to consider it “not robbery,” but their right, “to be equal with God”? Surely not! However, they can imitate one who “gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God.” (NW) (Compare Genesis 3:5.) Such a translation also agrees with Jesus Christ himself, who said: “The Father is greater than I.”—John 14:28. The Expositor’s Greek Testament says: “We cannot find any passage where [har•pa´zo] or any of its derivatives [including har•pag•mon´] has the sense of ‘holding in possession,’ ‘retaining’. It seems invariably to mean ‘seize,’ ‘snatch violently’. Thus it is not permissible to glide from the true sense ‘grasp at’ into one which is totally different, ‘hold fast.’”—(Grand Rapids, Mich.; 1967), edited by W. Robertson Nicoll, Vol. III, pp. 436, 437. Colossians 2:9: KJ reads: “In him [Christ] dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead [Greek, the•o´te•tos] bodily.” (A similar thought is conveyed by the renderings in NE, RS, JB, NAB, Dy.) However, NW reads: “It is in him that all the fullness of the divine quality dwells bodily.” (AT, We, and CKW read “God’s nature,” instead of “Godhead.” Compare 2 Peter 1:4.) Admittedly, not everyone offers the same interpretation of Colossians 2:9. But what is in agreement with the rest of the inspired letter to the Colossians? Did Christ have in himself something that is his because he is God, part of a Trinity? Or is “the fullness” that dwells in him something that became his because of the decision of someone else? Colossians 1:19 (KJ, Dy) says that all fullness dwelt in Christ because it “pleased the Father” for this to be the case. NE says it was “by God’s own choice.” Consider the immediate context of Colossians 2:9: In verse 8, readers are warned against being misled by those who advocate philosophy and human traditions. They are also told that in Christ “are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” and are urged to “live in him” and to be “rooted and built up in him and established in the faith.” (Verses 3, 6, 7) It is in him, and not in the originators or the teachers of human philosophy, that a certain precious “fulness” dwells. Was the apostle Paul there saying that the “fulness” that was in Christ made Christ God himself? Not according to Colossians 3:1, where Christ is said to be “seated at the right hand of God.”—See KJ, Dy, TEV, NAB. According to Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon, the•o´tes (the nominative form, from which the•o´te•tos is derived) means “divinity, divine nature.” (Oxford, 1968, p. 792) Being truly “divinity,” or of “divine nature,” does not make Jesus as the Son of God coequal and coeternal with the Father, any more than the fact that all humans share “humanity” or “human nature” makes them coequal or all the same age. Titus 2:13: RS reads: “Awaiting our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ.” (Similar wording is found in NE, TEV, JB.) However, NW reads: “while we wait for the happy hope and glorious manifestation of the great God and of the Savior of us, Christ Jesus.” (NAB has a similar rendering.) Which translation agrees with Titus 1:4, which refers to “God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior”? Although the Scriptures also refer to God as being a Savior, this text clearly differentiates between him and Christ Jesus, the one through whom God provides salvation. Some argue that Titus 2:13 indicates that Christ is both God and Savior. Interestingly, RS, NE, TEV, JB render Titus 2:13 in a way that might be construed as allowing for that view, but they do not follow the same rule in their translation of 2 Thessalonians 1:12. Henry Alford, in The Greek Testament, states: “I would submit that [a rendering that clearly differentiates God and Christ, at Titus 2:13] satisfies all the grammatical requirements of the sentence: that it is both structurally and contextually more probable, and more agreeable to the Apostle’s way of writing.”—(Boston, 1877), Vol. III, p. 421. See also NW appendix, 1984 Reference edition, pp. 1581, 1582. Hebrews 1:8: RS reads: “Of the Son he says, ‘Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever.’” (KJ, NE, TEV, Dy, JB, NAB have similar renderings.) However, NW reads: “But with reference to the Son: ‘God is your throne forever and ever.’” (AT, Mo, TC, By convey the same idea.) Which rendering is harmonious with the context? The preceding verses say that God is speaking, not that he is being addressed; and the following verse uses the expression “God, thy God,” showing that the one addressed is not the Most High God but is a worshiper of that God. Hebrews 1:8 quotes from Psalm 45:6, which originally was addressed to a human king of Israel. Obviously, the Bible writer of this psalm did not think that this human king was Almighty God. Rather, Psalm 45:6, in RS, reads “Your divine throne.” (NE says, “Your throne is like God’s throne.” JP [verse 7]: “Thy throne given of God.”) Solomon, who was possibly the king originally addressed in Psalm 45, was said to sit “upon God’s throne.” (1 Chron. 29:23, NW) In harmony with the fact that God is the “throne,” or Source and Upholder of Christ’s kingship, Daniel 7:13, 14 and Luke 1:32 show that God confers such authority on him. Hebrews 1:8, 9 quotes from Psalm 45:6, 7, concerning which the Bible scholar B. F. Westcott states: “The LXX. admits of two renderings: [ho the•os´] can be taken as a vocative in both cases (Thy throne, O God, . . . therefore, O God, Thy God . . . ) or it can be taken as the subject (or the predicate) in the first case (God is Thy throne, or Thy throne is God . . . ), and in apposition to [ho the•os´ sou] in the second case (Therefore God, even Thy God . . . ).. . . It is scarcely possible that [’Elo•him´] in the original can be addressed to the king. The presumption therefore is against the belief that [ho the•os´] is a vocative in the LXX. Thus on the whole it seems best to adopt in the first clause the rendering: God is Thy throne (or, Thy throne is God), that is ‘Thy kingdom is founded upon God, the immovable Rock.’”—The Epistle to the Hebrews (London, 1889), pp. 25, 26. 1 John 5:7, 8: KJ reads: “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.” (Dy also includes this Trinitarian passage.) However, NW does not include the words “in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth.” (RS, NE, TEV, JB, NAB also leave out the Trinitarian passage.) Regarding this Trinitarian passage, textual critic F. H. A. Scrivener wrote: “We need not hesitate to declare our conviction that the disputed words were not written by St. John: that they were originally brought into Latin copies in Africa from the margin, where they had been placed as a pious and orthodox gloss on ver. 8: that from the Latin they crept into two or three late Greek codices, and thence into the printed Greek text, a place to which they had no rightful claim.”—A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament (Cambridge, 1883, third ed.), p. 654. See also footnote on these verses in JB, and NW appendix, 1984 Reference edition, p. 1580. Other scriptures that are said by Trinitarians to express elements of their dogma Notice that the first of these texts refers to only the Son; the other refers to both Father and Son; neither refers to Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and says that they comprise one God. John 2:19-22: By what he here said, did Jesus mean that he would resurrect himself from the dead? Does that mean that Jesus is God, because Acts 2:32 says, “This Jesus God raised up”? Not at all. Such a view would conflict with Galatians 1:1, which ascribes the resurrection of Jesus to the Father, not to the Son. Using a similar mode of expression, at Luke 8:48 Jesus is quoted as saying to a woman: “Your faith has made you well.” Did she heal herself? No; it was power from God through Christ that healed her because she had faith. (Luke 8:46; Acts 10:38) Likewise, by his perfect obedience as a human, Jesus provided the moral basis for the Father to raise him from the dead, thus acknowledging Jesus as God’s Son. Because of Jesus’ faithful course of life, it could properly be said that Jesus himself was responsible for his resurrection. Says A. T. Robertson in Word Pictures in the New Testament: “Recall [John] 2:19 where Jesus said: ‘And in three days I will raise it up.’ He did not mean that he will raise himself from the dead independently of the Father as the active agent (Rom. 8:11).”—(New York, 1932), Vol. V, p. 183. John 10:30: When saying, “I and the Father are one,” did Jesus mean that they were equal? Some Trinitarians say that he did. But at John 17:21, 22, Jesus prayed regarding his followers: “That they may all be one,” and he added, “that they may be one even as we are one.” He used the same Greek word (hen) for “one” in all these instances. Obviously, Jesus’ disciples do not all become part of the Trinity. But they do come to share a oneness of purpose with the Father and the Son, the same sort of oneness that unites God and Christ. In what position does belief in the Trinity put those who cling to it? It puts them in a very dangerous position. The evidence is indisputable that the dogma of the Trinity is not found in the Bible, nor is it in harmony with what the Bible teaches. (See the preceding pages.) It grossly misrepresents the true God. Yet, Jesus Christ said: “The hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for such the Father seeks to worship him. God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.” (John 4:23, 24, RS) Thus Jesus made it clear that those whose worship is not ‘in truth,’ not in harmony with the truth set out in God’s own Word, are not “true worshipers.” To Jewish religious leaders of the first century, Jesus said: “For the sake of your tradition, you have made void the word of God. You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said: ‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’” (Matt. 15:6-9, RS) That applies with equal force to those in Christendom today who advocate human traditions in preference to the clear truths of the Bible. Regarding the Trinity, the Athanasian Creed (in English) says that its members are “incomprehensible.” Teachers of the doctrine often state that it is a “mystery.” Obviously such a Trinitarian God is not the one that Jesus had in mind when he said: “We worship what we know.” (John 4:22, RS) Do you really know the God you worship? Serious questions confront each one of us: Do we sincerely love the truth? Do we really want an approved relationship with God? Not everyone genuinely loves the truth. Many have put having the approval of their relatives and associates above love of the truth and of God. (2 Thess. 2:9-12; John 5:39-44) But, as Jesus said in earnest prayer to his heavenly Father: “This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ.” (John 17:3, NW) And Psalm 144:15 truthfully states: “Happy is the people whose God is Jehovah!”—NW.

‘Do you believe in the Trinity?’ ‘That is a very popular belief in our time. But did you know that this is not what was taught by Jesus and his disciples? So, we worship the One that Jesus said to worship.’ (1) ‘When Jesus was teaching, here is the commandment that he said was greatest. . . (Mark 12:28-30).’ (2) ‘Jesus never claimed to be equal to God. He said. . . (John 14:28).’ (3) ‘Then what is the origin of the Trinity doctrine? Notice what well-known encyclopedias say about that. (See pages 405, 406.)’ ‘No, I do not. You see, there are Bible texts that I could never fit in with that belief. Here is one of them. (Matt. 24:36) Perhaps you can explain it to me.’ - (1) ‘If the Son is equal to the Father, how is it that the Father knows things that the Son does not?’ If they answer that this was true only regarding his human nature, then ask: (2) ‘But why does the holy spirit not know?’ (If the person shows a sincere interest in the truth, show him what the Scriptures do say about God. (Ps. 83:18; John 4:23, 24)’ ‘We do believe in Jesus Christ but not in the Trinity. Why? Because we believe what the apostle Peter believed about Christ. Notice what he said . . . (Matt. 16:15-17).’ ‘I find that not everyone has the same thing in mind when he refers to the Trinity. Perhaps I could answer your question better if I knew what you mean.’ - ‘I appreciate that explanation. But what I believe is only what the Bible teaches. Have you ever seen the word “Trinity” in the Bible? . . . (Refer to the concordance in your Bible.) But is Christ referred to in the Bible? . . . Yes, and we believe in him. Notice here in the concordance under “Christ” one of the references is to Matthew 16:16. (Read it.) That is what I believe.’ (if the person draws particular attention to John 1:1): ‘I am acquainted with that verse. In some Bible translations it says that Jesus is “God,” and others say that he is “a god.” Why is that?’ (1) ‘Could it be because the next verse says that he was “with God”?’ (2) ‘Might it also be because of what is found here in John 1:18?’ (3) ‘Have you ever wondered whether Jesus himself worships someone as God? (John 20:17)’ ‘Do you believe in the divinity of Christ?’ ‘Yes, I certainly do. But perhaps I do not have in mind the same thing that you do when you refer to “the divinity of Christ.”’ Then perhaps add: (1) ‘Why do I say that? Well, at Isaiah 9:6 Jesus Christ is described as “Mighty God,” but only his Father is ever referred to in the Bible as the Almighty God.’ (2) ‘And notice that at John 17:3 Jesus speaks of his Father as “the only true God.” So, at most, Jesus is just a reflection of the true God.’ (3) ‘What is required on our part to be pleasing to God? (John 4:23, 24)

“The Word”—Who Is He? According to John
“IN THE beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God.” That is how the first two verses of the apostle John’s account of the life of Jesus Christ read, according to the Roman Catholic Douay Version and the King James Version of the Holy Bible. 2 Thus at the very beginning of John’s account the very first one to be introduced to us is someone who is called “the Word.” After having such a sudden introduction to the Word, any reader would naturally want to know who or what this Word was. In fact, since the second century of our Common Era there has been a big debate as to the identity of this Word. And particularly since the fourth century there has been much religious persecution poured out upon the minority group in this debate. 3 The apostle John wrote his account in the common Greek of the first century. Such Greek was then an international language. Those for whom John wrote could speak and read Greek. So they knew what he meant by those opening statements, or, at least, they could get to know by reading all the rest of John’s account in its original Greek. But, when it comes to translating those opening statements into other languages, say modern English, there arises a difficulty in translating them right in order to bring out the exact meaning. 4 Of course, the Bible reader who uses the generally accepted versions or translations will at once say: “Why, there should be no difficulty about knowing who the Word is. It plainly says that the Word is God; and God is God.” But, in answer, we must say that not all our newer modern translations by Greek scholars read that way, to say just that. For instance, take the following examples: The New English Bible, issued in March of 1961, says: “And what God was, the Word was.” The Greek word translated “Word” is logós; and so Dr. James Moffatt’s New Translation of the Bible (1922) reads: “The Logos was divine.” The Complete Bible—An American Translation (Smith-Goodspeed) reads: “The Word was divine.” So does Hugh J. Schonfield’s The Authentic New Testament. Other readings (by Germans) are: By Boehmer: “It was tightly bound up with God, yes, itself of divine being.” By Stage: “The Word was itself of divine being.” By Menge: “And God (=of divine being) the Word was.” By Pfaefflin: “And was of divine weightiness.” And by Thimme: “And God of a sort the Word was.” 5 But most controversial of all is the following reading of John 1:1, 2: “The Word was in the beginning, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. This Word was in the beginning with God.” This reading is found in The New Testament in An Improved Version, published in London, England, in 1808. Similar is the reading by a former Roman Catholic priest: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. This was with God in the beginning. Everything came into being through the Word, and without it nothing created sprang into existence.” (John 1:1-3) Alongside that reading with its much-debated expression “a god” may be placed the reading found in The Four Gospels—A New Translation, by Professor Charles Cutler Torrey, second edition of 1947, namely: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was god. When he was in the beginning with God all things were created through him; without him came no created thing into being.” (John 1:1-3) Note that what the Word is said to be is spelled without a capital initial letter, namely, “god.” 6 So in the above-quoted Bible translations we are confronted with the expressions “God,” “divine,” “God of a sort,” “god,” and “a god.” Men who teach a triune God, a Trinity, strongly object to the translation “a god.” They say, among other things, that it means to believe in polytheism. Or they call it Unitarianism or Arianism. The Trinity is taught throughout those parts of Christendom found in Europe, the Americas and Australia, where the great majority of the 4,000,000 readers of The Watchtower live. Readers in the other parts, in Asia and Africa, come in contact with the teaching of the Trinity through the missionaries of Christendom. It becomes plain, in view of this, that we have to make sure of not only who the Word or Logos is but also who God himself is. 7 Christendom believes that the fundamental doctrine of her teachings is the Trinity. By Trinity she means a triune or three-in-one God. That means a God in three Persons, namely, “God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost.” Since this is said to be, not three Gods, but merely “one God in three Persons,” then the term God must mean the Trinity; and the Trinity and God must be interchangeable terms. On this basis let us quote John 1:1, 2 and use the equivalent term for God, and let us see how it reads: 8 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the Trinity, and the Word was the Trinity. The same was in the beginning with the Trinity.” But how could such a thing be? If the Word was himself a Person and he was with the Trinity, then there would be four Persons. But the Word is said by the trinitarians to be the Second Person of the Trinity, namely, “God the Son.” But even then, how could John say that the Word, as God the Son, was the Trinity made up of three Persons? How could one Person be three? 9 However, let the trinitarians say that in John 1:1 God means just the First Person of the Trinity, namely, “God the Father,” and so the Word was with God the Father in the beginning. On the basis of this definition of God, how could it be said that the Word, who they say is “God the Son,” is “God the Father”? And where does their “God the Holy Ghost” enter into the picture? If God is a Trinity, was not the Word with “God the Holy Ghost” as well as with “God the Father” in the beginning? 10 Suppose, now, they say that, in John 1:1, 2, God means the other two Persons of the Trinity, so that in the beginning the Word was with God the Father and God the Holy Ghost. In this case we come to this difficulty, namely, that, by being God, the Word was God the Father and God the Holy Ghost, the other two Persons of the Trinity. Thus the Word, or “God the Son,” the Second Person of the Trinity, is said to be also the First Person and the Third Person of the Trinity. It does not solve the difficulty to say that the Word was the same as God the Father and was equal to God the Father but still was not God the Father. If this were so, it must follow that the Word was the same as God the Holy Ghost and was equal to God the Holy Ghost but still was not God the Holy Ghost. 11 And yet the trinitarians teach that the God of John 1:1, 2 is only one God, not three Gods! So is the Word only one-third of God? 12 Since we cannot scientifically calculate that 1 God (the Father) + 1 God (the Son) + 1 God (the Holy Ghost) = 1 God, then we must calculate that 1/3 God (the Father) + 1/3 God (the Son) + 1/3 God (the Holy Ghost) = 3/3 God, or 1 God. Furthermore, we would have to conclude that the term “God” in John 1:1, 2 changes its personality, or that “God” changes his personality in one sentence. Does he? 13 Are readers of The Watchtower now confused? Doubtlessly so! Any trying to reason out the Trinity teaching leads to confusion of mind. So the Trinity teaching confuses the meaning of John 1:1, 2; it does not simplify it or make it clear or easily understandable. 14 Certainly the matter was not confused in the mind of the apostle John when he wrote those words in the common Greek of nineteen centuries ago for international Christian readers. As John opened up his life account of Jesus Christ he was in no confusion of mind as to who the Word or Logos was and as to who God was. 15 We must therefore let the apostle John himself identify to us who the Word was and explain who God was. This is what John does in the rest of his life account of Jesus Christ and also in his other inspired writings. Besides the so-called Gospel of John, he wrote three letters or epistles and also Revelation or Apocalypse. By many John is understood to have written first the book Revelation, then his three letters and finally his Gospel. Says Biblical Archaeology, by G. Ernest Wright (1957), page 238: “John is usually connected with Ephesus in Asia Minor and is dated about A.D. 90 by most scholars.” For the Gospel of John The Watchtower accepts the date A.D. 98. So for an explanatory enlargement of things written in the Gospel of John we can draw upon his earlier writings, Revelation or Apocalypse and his three letters or epistles. 16 This we shall now do. We do so with a desire to reach the same conclusion about who the Word or Logos was that the apostle John does. For us to do so means our gaining a happy everlasting life in God’s righteous new world now so near at hand. John, with all the firsthand knowledge and associations that he had, had a reason or basis for reaching an absolutely right conclusion. He wanted us as his readers to reach a right conclusion. So he honestly and faithfully presented the facts in his five different writings, that he might help us to come to the same conclusion as he did. Thus, as we accept John’s witness as true, we start out with a right aim, one that will lead to an endless blessing for us. WHAT ABOUT 1 JOHN 5:7, DY; AV? 17 If Trinity believers are not up-to-date, they will ask: Does not John himself teach the Trinity, namely, that three are one? In their copy of the Bible they will point to 1 John 5:7 and read: “And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one.” That is what 1 John 5:7 says in the Roman Catholic Douay Version and similarly in the Authorized or King James Version. But the words “in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one” do not appear in the oldest Greek manuscripts. Hence the most modern Bible translations omit those words, the Bible edition by the Roman Catholic Episcopal Committee of the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine putting the words in brackets along with an explanatory footnote, as follows: “The Holy See reserves to itself the right to pass finally on the origin of the present reading.” 18 The oldest Greek manuscript of the Christian Scriptures is, in the judgment of many, the Vatican Manuscript No. 1209, written in the first half of the fourth century. In our own copy of this Greek manuscript as edited by Cardinal Angelus Maius in 1859, he inserted the Greek words into the Manuscript copy but added a sign of a footnote at the end of the preceding verse. The footnote is in Latin and, translated, reads: From here on in the most ancient Vatican codex, which we reproduce in this edition, the reading is as follows: “For there are three that give testimony, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and the three are for one. If the testimony” etc. There is therefore lacking the celebrated testimony of John concerning the divine three persons, which fact was already long known to critics. 19 Says Dr. Edgar J. Goodspeed, the Bible translator, on 1 John 5:7: “This verse has not been found in Greek in any manuscript in or out of the New Testament earlier than the thirteenth century. It does not appear in any Greek manuscript of 1 John before the fifteenth century, when one cursive has it; one from the sixteenth also contains the reading. These are the only Greek manuscripts of the New Testament in which it has ever been found. But it occurs in no ancient Greek manuscript or Greek Christian writer or in any of the oriental versions. . . . It is universally discredited by Greek scholars and editors of the Greek text of the New Testament.” So in our examination of John’s writings as to who the Word and God are, we cannot proceed on the basis of what the spurious words in 1 John 5:7 say. HUMAN BIRTH ON EARTH 20 There came a time when the Word or Logos left the personal presence of God with whom he had been in the beginning. This was when he came down to earth and mingled with men. Says John 1:10, 11: “He was in the world, and the world came into existence through him, but the world did not know him. He came to his own home, but his own people did not take him in.” When coming down, did the Word do the same as heavenly angels had done, still stay a spirit person but merely clothe himself with a visible human body and operate through this body in mingling with men? Or did the Word become a mixture, an intermixture of that which is spirit and that which is flesh? Rather than guess at it, let us allow John to tell us: 21 “So the Word became flesh and resided among us, and we had a view of his glory, a glory such as belongs to an only-begotten son from a father; and he was full of undeserved kindness and truth.” (John 1:14) Other Bible translations agree that the Word “became flesh.” (RS; AT; Ro; New English) This is far different from saying that he clothed himself with flesh as in a materialization or as in an incarnation. It means he became what man was—flesh and blood—that he might be one of us humans. Search John’s writings as much as we can, yet we do not once find that John says that the Word became a God-Man, that is, a combination of God and man. 22 The expression God-Man is an invention of trinitarians and is found nowhere in the entire Bible. What the Word called himself when on earth was “the Son of man,” something very different from God-Man. When he first met the Jew named Nathanael, he said to this Jew: “You will see heaven opened up and the angels of God ascending and descending to the Son of man.” (John 1:51) To the Jewish Pharisee Nicodemus he said: “Just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so the Son of man must be lifted up, that everyone believing in him may have everlasting life.” (John 3:14, 15) In John’s writings the expression “Son of man” is applied to the Word sixteen times. This indicates that it was by a human birth on earth that he “became flesh.” His becoming flesh meant nothing less than that he ceased to be a spirit person. 23 By becoming flesh the Word, who was formerly an invisible spirit, became visible, hearable, feelable to men on earth. Men of flesh could thus have direct contact with him. The apostle John reports to us his own experience with the Word when he existed in the flesh, that John might share that blessing with us. John says: 24 “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have viewed attentively and our hands felt, concerning the word of life, (yes, the life was made manifest, and we have seen and are bearing witness and reporting to you the everlasting life which was with the Father and was made manifest to us,) that which we have seen and heard we are reporting also to you, that you too may be having a sharing with us. Furthermore, this sharing of ours is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ.”—1 John 1:1-3. 25 John brings to our attention the human mother of this Son of man, but never by her personal name. John never speaks of her firstborn Son as the “Son of Mary.” John mentions his human caretaker father by name right near the beginning of the account, when Philip said to Nathanael: “We have found the one of whom Moses, in the Law, and the Prophets wrote, Jesus, the son of Joseph, from Nazareth.” (John 1:45) Later, after this Jesus fed five thousand men miraculously from five loaves and two fishes, the Jews who tried to belittle Jesus’ background said: “Is this not Jesus the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know?” (John 6:42) So, whereas John speaks of other women by their name Mary, he leaves the mother of Jesus nameless. Whenever she is spoken of it is never as “Mary,” or “Mother,” but always as “Woman.” 26 For example, in his last reported words to her, when Jesus was dying like a criminal on a stake at Golgotha as his earthly mother and his beloved disciple John stood looking on, he “said to his mother: ‘Woman, see! your son!’ Next he said to the disciple: ‘See! Your mother!’ And from that hour on the disciple took her to his own home.” (John 19:25-27) How long John took care of Mary the mother of Jesus he does not tell us; but he never tries to glorify her or beatify her, even name her, for being Jesus’ mother. 27 However, according to Trinity teachers, when “the Word became flesh,” Mary became the mother of God. But since they say God is a Trinity, then the Jewish virgin Mary became the mother of merely a third of God, not “the mother of God.” She became the mother of only one Person of God, the Person that is put second in the formula “God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost.” So Mary was merely the mother of “God the Son”; she was not the mother of “God the Father,” neither the mother of “God the Holy Ghost.” 28 But if Roman Catholics and others insist that Mary was “the mother of God,” then we are compelled to ask, Who was the father of God? If God had a mother, who was his father? Thus we see again how the Trinity teaching leads to the ridiculous. 29 Furthermore, the apostle John saw in a vision certain heavenly creatures saying to God on his throne: “Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, who was, and who is, and who is to come,” and others saying: “Thou art worthy, O Lord our God, to receive glory, and honour, and power: because thou hast created all things; and for thy will they were, and have been created.” (Rev. 4:8, 11, Dy) The Bible is plain in saying that the heaven of heavens could not contain the Lord God Almighty; and King Solomon’s stupendous temple in Jerusalem could not contain the only Lord God Almighty. How, then, could such a microscopic thing as the egg cell in Mary’s womb contain God, for her to become “the mother of God”? So let us be careful of what we teach so that we do not belittle God. HIS BIRTHPLACE 30 Among the Jews a debate arose as to the birthplace of Jesus who came from Nazareth in the province of Galilee. The Jews in general did not know that he had been born in Bethlehem. Hence John tells us: “Others were saying: ‘This is the Christ.’ But some were saying: ‘The Christ is not actually coming out of Galilee, is he? Has not the Scripture said that the Christ is coming from the offspring of David, and from Bethlehem the village where David used to be?’ Therefore a division over him developed among the crowd.” (John 7:41-43) However, when Jesus made his triumphal ride into Jerusalem in the spring of A.D. 33, there were many Jews who were ready to hail him as God’s promised King, the Son of King David of Bethlehem. John 12:12-15 tells us: 31 “The next day the great crowd that had come to the festival, on hearing that Jesus was coming to Jerusalem, took the branches of palm trees and went out to meet him. And they began to shout: ‘Save, we pray you! Blessed is he that comes in Jehovah’s name, even the king of Israel!’ But when Jesus had found a young ass, he sat on it, just as it is written [in Zechariah 9:9]: ‘Have no fear, daughter of Zion. Look! Your king is coming, seated upon an ass’s colt.’”—See Psalm 118:25, 26. 32 Yet, three years before that, when Jesus began his public career in the land of Israel, Nathanael recognized Jesus’ connections with King David, saying to him: “Rabbi, you are the Son of God, you are King of Israel.” (John 1:49) And in the vision to the apostle John the royal connections of Jesus are emphasized a number of times. In Revelation 3:7 Jesus himself says: “These are the things he says who is holy, who is true, who has the key of David.” In Revelation 5:5 an elderly person says of Jesus: “Look! The Lion that is of the tribe of Judah, the root of David, has conquered.” Finally, in Revelation 22:16, we read: “I, Jesus, sent my angel to bear witness to you people of these things for the congregations. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright morning star.” Although Jesus on earth spoke of himself as “Jesus the Nazarene,” he had really been born in King David’s native town of Bethlehem but had merely been brought up in Nazareth. (John 18:5-7; 19:19) There Joseph his caretaker came to be looked on as his father. His forefather David had an earthly kingdom; but Jesus’ heavenly kingdom is something grander and more beneficial to all mankind. 33 The one who was the Word or Logos spent only a brief time among men, less than thirty-five years from the time of his conception in the womb of the Jewish virgin who descended from King David. As An American Translation renders John 1:14: “So the Word became flesh and blood and lived for a while among us.” Clergymen who believe in an incarnation and a God-Man call notice to the fact that the Greek verb translated “lived for a while” has its root in the word meaning “tent” or “tabernacle.” In fact, that is the way that Dr. Robert Young renders the expression, translating it: “And the Word became flesh, and did tabernacle among us.” Since campers dwell in a tent, the clergymen argue that Jesus was still a spirit person and was merely tabernacling in a fleshly body and so was an incarnation, a God-Man. However, the apostle Peter used a like expression about himself, saying: “I think it meet as long as I am in this tabernacle, to stir you up by putting you in remembrance: being assured that the laying away of this my tabernacle is at hand.” (2 Pet. 1:13, 14, Dy) Certainly by such words Peter did not mean he himself was an incarnation. Peter meant he was merely going to reside for a while longer on earth as a fleshly creature. 34 The same Greek word used in John 1:14 is used also of other persons who are not incarnations, in Revelation 12:12; 13:6. So the words of John 1:14 do not support the incarnation theory. [Footnotes] “Es war fest mit Gott verbunden, ja selbst goettlichen Wesens,” The New Testament, by Rudolf Boehmer, 1910. “Das Wort war selbst goettlichen Wesens,” The New Testament, by Curt Stage, 1907. “Und Gott (=goettlichen Wesens) war das Wort,” The Holy Scriptures, by D. Dr. Hermann Menge, twelfth edition, 1951. “Und war von goettlicher Wucht,” The New Testament, by Friedrich Pfaefflin, 1949. “Und Gott von Art war das Wort,” The New Testament, by Ludwig Thimme, 1919. The title page reads: “The New Testament in An Improved Version, upon the basis of Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation: with a Corrected Text, and Notes Critical and Explanatory. Published by a Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge and the Practice of Virtue, by the Distribution of Books.”—Unitarian. The New Testament—A New Translation and Explanation Based on the Oldest Manuscripts, by Johannes Greber (a translation from German into English), edition of 1937, the front cover of this bound translation being stamped with a golden cross. Says La Sainte Bible, a new version according to the original texts by the Monks of Maredsous, Editions de Maredsous, 1949, in a footnote under John 1:1: “1:1. The Word: the Word substantial and eternal of the Father, constituting the second person of the holy Trinity.” (1:1. Le Verbe: la Parole substantielle et eternelle du Pere, constituant la seconde personne de la sainte Trinité.) BÍBLIA SAGRADA, a translation from the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek by means of the French version of the Benedictine Monks of Maredsous (Belgium) by the Catholic Bible Center of São Paulo, 2nd edition, 1960, says the same thing as the above, and reads: “Cap. 1:—1. O Verbo: a palavra substancial e eterna do Pai, que constitui a segunda pessoa da Santissima Trindade.” The Latin footnote reads: Exin in antiquissimo codice vaticano quem hac editione repraesentamus legitur tantum: οτι τρεις εισιν οι µαρτυρουντες, το πνευµα, και το υδωρ, και το αιµα· και το τρεις εις το εν εισιν. Ει την µαρτυριαν etc. Deest igitur celebre Iohannis de divinis tribus personis testimonium, quae res iamdiu criticis nota erat.”—Page 318. Quoted from page 557 of The Goodspeed Parallel New Testament—The American Translation and The King James Version. Edition of 1943.

How Are God and Christ “One”?
“I AND the Father are one.” (John 10:30) Those words, uttered by Jesus Christ, enraged his fellow countrymen. They considered his statement to be blasphemous and were ready to stone him. (John 10:31-33) Why was this so? Had Jesus Christ claimed that he was God himself, his Father’s equal? The context in which Jesus’ words appear in the Biblical narrative reveal what he meant. A group of Jews had encircled him, demanding that he tell them outspokenly whether he was indeed the Christ. Answering them, Jesus stated: “I have told you, but you do not believe. The works I do in my Father’s name are my witness; but you do not believe, because you are no sheep of mine. The sheep that belong to me listen to my voice; I know them and they follow me. I give them eternal life; they will never be lost and no one will ever steal them from me. The Father who gave them to me is greater than anyone, and no one can steal from the Father. The Father and I are one.”—John 10:25-30, Jerusalem Bible. ONENESS NOT EQUALITY Clearly Jesus Christ was not claiming to be his Father’s equal. He himself stated that he acted, not in his own name, but in the ‘name of his Father.’ He recognized his Father’s superior position and authority, acknowledging that the “sheep” had been given to him by his Father. He pointedly said that ‘the Father is greater than anyone.’ At the same time the Father and the Son are “one” in purpose respecting the salvation of the “sheep.” That is, both are equally concerned about the “sheep,” not allowing anyone to snatch them out of their hand. That Jesus referred—not to an equality of godship—but to a oneness of purpose and action is confirmed by his prayer recorded at John chapter 17. Jesus said: “I have made your name manifest to the men you gave me out of the world. They were yours, and you gave them to me, and they have observed your word. They have now come to know that all the things you gave me are from you. . . I make request, not concerning the world, but concerning those you have given me; because they are yours, and all my things are yours and yours are mine. . . Also, I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world and I am coming to you. Holy Father, watch over them on account of your own name which you have given me, in order that they may be one just as we are.”—John 17:6-11. Note that the thoughts voiced by Jesus in this prayer are similar to his words recorded at John chapter 10. In chapter 17, Jesus again acknowledged that his disciples, his “sheep,” were given to him by the Father. So the kind of oneness referred to in both of these chapters is the same. From Jesus’ prayer we can see that Jesus and his Father are “one” in the same sense that his true followers can be “one.” (John 17:11) Obviously the faithful disciples of Jesus Christ could never become part of a triune God. However, they could be one in purpose and activity. Further proving that Jesus never claimed equality with his Father is the fact that, in his prayer, he addressed his Father as the “only true God” and spoke of himself as his Father’s “representative.”—John 17:3, 8. But someone might object, arguing, ‘When Jesus said “I and the Father are one,” the Jews took it to mean that he was God, and Jesus did not deny this.’ But is that really the case? Why not examine the account? The Catholic Jerusalem Bible reads: “Jesus said to them, ‘I have done many good works for you to see, works from my Father; for which of these are you stoning me?’ The Jews answered him, ‘We are not stoning you for doing a good work but for blasphemy: you are only a man and you claim to be God’. Jesus answered: ‘Is it not written in your Law: I said, you are gods? So the Law uses the word gods of those to whom the word of God was addressed, and scripture cannot be rejected. Yet you say to someone the Father has consecrated and sent into the world, “You are blaspheming”, because he says, “I am the Son of God”. If I am not doing my Father’s work, there is no need to believe me; but if I am doing it, then even if you refuse to believe in me, at least believe in the work I do; then you will know for sure that the Father is in me and I am in the Father’”—John 10:32-38. Why, then, did faithless Jews come to the conclusion that Jesus was making himself “God”? Evidently because Jesus attributed to himself powers that the Jews believed belonged exclusively to the Father. For example, Jesus said that he would give “eternal life” to the “sheep.” That was something no human could do. However, what the unbelieving Jews overlooked was that Jesus acknowledged having received everything from his Father, and the fine works he was doing proved that he was his Father’s representative. They were wrong in concluding that he was blasphemously making himself God. That the unbelieving Jews reasoned wrongly is also evident from other incidents. When questioned before the Sanhedrin, Jesus was falsely accused of blasphemy, not because of claiming to be ‘God the Son,’ but because of claiming to be the ‘Messiah, the Son of the living God.’ (Matt. 26:63-68; Luke 22:66-71) Also, on an earlier occasion, certain Jews got the idea that Jesus was making himself equal to God and wanted to kill him as a blasphemer. Of this, John 5:18 tells us: “The Jews began seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath but he was also calling God his own Father, making himself equal to God.” Note that Jesus did not say that he was God himself but that he called ‘God his Father.’ Jesus’ unbelieving fellow countrymen, however, objected to his claiming this relationship to his Father, this special Sonship. And just as they were wrong in labeling Jesus as a Sabbath breaker, they were also wrong in their assertion about Jesus’ making himself equal to God because of ‘calling God his own Father.’ NOT ETERNAL LIKE HIS FATHER The oneness or unity that Jesus enjoyed with his Father is, of course, far greater and grander than that enjoyed in any human father-and-son relationship. Even before the creation of the physical universe the Father and the Son were “one.” With reference to his prehuman existence, Jesus said to unbelieving Jews: “Before Abraham ever was, I Am.” (John 8:58, Jerusalem Bible) Did Jesus thereby identify himself as being Jehovah? Did not God tell Moses, “‘I Am who I Am. This’ he added ‘is what you must say to the sons of Israel: “I Am has sent me to you”’”? (Ex. 3:14, Je) Many translations use the expression “I Am” both at John 8:58 and Exodus 3:14. But do both texts express the same thought? No. We know that they do not because at Exodus 3:14 the Greek Septuagint Version (the translation that was often quoted by the apostles in the first century C.E.) reads, e•go´ ei•mi´ ho Ohn´, “I am the Being.” This is quite different from the simple use of the words e•go´ ei•mi´ (I am) at John 8:58. The verb ei•mi´, at John 8:58, is evidently in the historical present, as Jesus was speaking about himself in relation to Abraham’s past. Numerous translators indicate this in their renderings. For example, An American Translation reads: “I existed before Abraham was born!” Jesus’ pointing to his prehuman existence should have come as no surprise to the Jews. Centuries earlier, Micah’s prophecy said of the Messiah: “You, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, the one too little to get to be among the thousands of Judah, from you there will come out to me the one who is to become ruler in Israel, whose origin is from early times, from the days of time indefinite.” (Mic. 5:2) Thus while Jesus existed long before Abraham, he is not without beginning. Unlike his Father, who is “from time indefinite to time indefinite,” the Son is spoken of as having “origin.”—Ps. 90:2. The very fact that Jesus is called the “Son of God” reveals that he was produced by the Father and is, therefore, his firstborn and only-begotten Son. Jesus himself said: “I live because of the Father.” (John 6:57) After having come into existence, the Son was used in creating everything. (John 1:1-3; Col. 1:15-17; Heb. 1:2) As firstborn Son, this one enjoyed a special intimacy with the Father. He is spoken of in Scripture as being “in the bosom position with the Father.”—John 1:18. So perfectly did Jesus reflect the image—the personality and ways—of his Father that he could say to Philip: “He that has seen me has seen the Father.” (John 14:9) That is why one can come to know God only through the Son. As Jesus put it: “All things have been delivered to me by my Father, and who the Son is no one knows but the Father; and who the Father is, no one knows but the Son, and he to whom the Son is willing to reveal him.”—Luke 10:22. What a grand oneness exists between Jehovah God and his firstborn Son! They are always “one” in purpose and activity. But, as the Scriptures clearly show, they are not equal. The Son always acknowledges his Father’s superior position, subjecting himself to his Father as his God and delighting in doing his Father’s will. “He that sent me,” said Jesus, “is with me; he did not abandon me to myself, because I always do the things pleasing to him.” (John 8:29; 1 Cor. 11:3) Thus Jesus truly is, not ‘God the Son’ or the “second person” of a triune God, but the “Son of God.”—John 20:31. [Footnotes] This rendering is in harmony with the lexicons of Brown-Driver-Briggs, Koehler-Baumgartner and Gesenius.

Appendix 6A Jesus—A Godlike One; Divine
Joh 1:1—“and the Word was a god (godlike; divine)” Gr., και θεος ην ο λόγος (kai the•os´ en ho lo´gos) 1808 “and the word was a god”       The New Testament, in An                                     Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation: With a                                    Corrected Text, London. 1864 “and a god was the Word”       The Emphatic Diaglott (J21,                                     interlinear reading), by                                     Benjamin Wilson, New York and London. 1935 “and the Word was divine”      The Bible—An American Translation, by J. M. P.                                    Smith and E. J. Goodspeed, Chicago. 1950 “and the Word was a god”       New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, Brooklyn. 1975 “and a god (or, of a divine    Das Evangelium nach       kind) was the Word”          Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz,Göttingen, Germany. 1978 “and godlike sort was          Das Evangelium nach the Logos”                  Johannes,by Johannes Schneider,Berlin. 1979 “and a god was the Logos”     Das Evangelium nach Johannes,by Jürgen Becker, Würzburg, Germany. These translations use such words as “a god,” “divine” or “godlike” because the Greek word θεός (the•os´) is a singular predicate noun occurring before the verb and is not preceded by the definite article. This is an anarthrous the•os´. The God with whom the Word, or Logos, was originally is designated here by the Greek expression ο θεός, that is, the•os´ preceded by the definite article ho. This is an articular the•os´. Careful translators recognize that the articular construction of the noun points to an identity, a personality, whereas a singular anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb points to a quality about someone. Therefore, John’s statement that the Word or Logos was “a god” or “divine” or “godlike” does not mean that he was the God with whom he was. It merely expresses a certain quality about the Word, or Logos, but it does not identify him as one and the same as God himself. In the Greek text there are many cases of a singular anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb, such as in Mr 6:49; 11:32; Joh 4:19; 6:70; 8:44; 9:17; 10:1, 13, 33; 12:6. In these places translators insert the indefinite article “a” before the predicate noun in order to bring out the quality or characteristic of the subject. Since the indefinite article is inserted before the predicate noun in such texts, with equal justification the indefinite article “a” is inserted before the anarthrous θεός in the predicate of John 1:1 to make it read “a god.” The Sacred Scriptures confirm the correctness of this rendering. In his article “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1,” published in Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 92, Philadelphia, 1973, p. 85, Philip B. Harner said that such clauses as the one in Joh 1:1, “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 predicate theos as definite.” On p. 87 of his article, Harner concluded: “In John 1:1 I think that the qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun cannot be regarded as definite.” Following is a list of instances in the gospels of Mark and John where various translators have rendered singular anarthrous predicate nouns occurring before the verb with an indefinite article to denote the indefinite and qualitative status of the subject nouns: Scripture Text New World Translation King James Version An American Translation New International Version Revised Standard Version Today’s English Version Mark 6:49 an apparition  a spirit  a ghost  a ghost  a ghost  a ghost 11:32 a prophet a prophet  a prophet  a prophet  a real prophet  a prophet John 4:19 a prophet  a prophet  a prophet  a prophet  a prophet  a prophet 6:70 a slanderer  a devil  an informer  a devil  a devil  a devil 8:44 a manslayer  a murderer  a murderer  a murderer  a murderer  a murderer 8:44 a liar  a liar  a liar  a liar  a liar  a liar 9:17 a prophet  a prophet  a prophet  a prophet  a prophet  a prophet 10:1 a thief  a thief  a thief  a thief  a thief  a thief 10:13 a hired man an hireling  a hired man  a hired hand  a hireling  a hired man 10:33 a man a man  a mere man  a mere man  a man  a man 12:6 a thief  a thief  a thief  a thief  a thief  a thief