JW History: Trinity Rejection


#1

I’m making a sort of documentory-style video and a segment of the video is to demonstrate why JWs do not believe the Trinity Doctrine. Does anyone have a good recource that I could use that expresses Watchtower founder Charles Russell’s position on this and what reasoning influenced his beliefs and when exactly they came about? And don’t worry, I will refrain from being offensive in my video. Thank you. :thumbsup:


#2

A long time ago I had a debate with a JW on here, and I put together a LONG post on the history of the organization. Go to this old thread. Start at post 8. It should provide a good starting point for you.

forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=352446


#3

[quote="Rolltide, post:2, topic:284645"]
A long time ago I had a debate with a JW on here, and I put together a LONG post on the history of the organization. Go to this old thread. Start at post 8. It should provide a good starting point for you.

forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=352446

[/quote]

Thanks so much for that link, Rolltide. What a gold mine of information! I have to deal with these people on a regular basis, and that history will help a lot.

CatholicofAgora, good luck making your documentary. Let us know when it's finished, I'd love to see it.


#4

[quote="Rolltide, post:2, topic:284645"]
A long time ago I had a debate with a JW on here, and I put together a LONG post on the history of the organization. Go to this old thread. Start at post 8. It should provide a good starting point for you.

forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=352446

[/quote]

Wow, your post was an incredibly helpful outline. However, I am still confused as to where he formulated, recieved or came to understand his view of the Trinity Doctrine and the Deity of Christ. I happen to be an Alabama fan, too. Roll Tide!! :thumbsup:

I wondered if maybe he believed that the Protestant Reformation didn't "get the job done" in revoking "Catholic heresis" such as traditional doctrines like the Doctrine of the Trinity. :shrug:

I am wondering if maybe there was an interview of him or something where he'd explain this to someone, as I'd imagine that it would sound like an entirely new theological concept at the time....


#5

Basically, what I'm saying is that I'm not so much looking for an explanation of what he believed but why. In his own point of view being expressed in his words....


#6

[quote="Rolltide, post:2, topic:284645"]
A long time ago I had a debate with a JW on here, and I put together a LONG post on the history of the organization. Go to this old thread. Start at post 8. It should provide a good starting point for you.

forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=352446

[/quote]

Thank you Rolltide for this post. It is very informative and almost completely true. The only area where your theology might be flawed is in your school spirit. He He!!! :D Just kidding, I think you guys have what may end up being probably the best collage football coach ever.


#7

It is my understanding that the JW teaching in John 1 is that Jesus is a god with a small “g”.
And that Jehovah is a God with a capitol “G”.
Yet does the Greek Language have small letters and large letters, or isn’t every letter written in one size when John 1 was written?

Just a question, does anyone know?


#8

[quote="fred_conty, post:7, topic:284645"]
It is my understanding that the JW teaching in John 1 is that Jesus is a god with a small "g".
And that Jehovah is a God with a capitol "G".

Yet does the Greek Language have small letters and large letters, or isn't every letter written in one size when John 1 was written?

Just a question, does anyone know?

[/quote]

Well, GOD himself said he is the only God. He also said the same thing in Deut 32:39, Isa 43:3, Isa 43:10-11, Isa 44:6, Isa 45:5,21. How can Jesus Christ be 'a god', if GOD said he is the only God? And how many times does GOD have to repeat Himself before we humans get the message?

The Watchtower Society (WTS) teaching that Jesus Christ is 'a god', is an open admission that Jehovah is not the only god. That alone is a violation of the first commandment,
"I am the Lord, your GOD. YOU SHALL NOT HAVE OTHER GODS BESIDES ME."
Exodus 20:1-3

By adding that little letter 'a' to John 1:1, the WTS has changed the meaning of the entire Bible. That little letter is a predicate nominative, and it is not in the Greek text. It was deliberately inserted by the WTS to downgrade Jesus Christ to fit their false teaching. If we look at the context of John 1:1-18, we will find that the letter 'a' was not added in John 1:6, nor was it added in John 1:18. Why is this WTS? I suppose by adding the letter in John 1:18, "No man has seen 'a' God at any time;" just would not sound right now would it? Also we run into the problem of a capital 'G' for God in that verse. Inconsistencies abound in the NWT.


#9

[quote="Nicea325, post:8, topic:284645"]
Well, GOD himself said he is the only God. He also said the same thing in Deut 32:39, Isa 43:3, Isa 43:10-11, Isa 44:6, Isa 45:5,21. How can Jesus Christ be 'a god', if GOD said he is the only God? And how many times does GOD have to repeat Himself before we humans get the message?

The Watchtower Society (WTS) teaching that Jesus Christ is 'a god', is an open admission that Jehovah is not the only god. That alone is a violation of the first commandment,
"I am the Lord, your GOD. YOU SHALL NOT HAVE OTHER GODS BESIDES ME."
Exodus 20:1-3

By adding that little letter 'a' to John 1:1, the WTS has changed the meaning of the entire Bible. That little letter is a predicate nominative, and it is not in the Greek text. It was deliberately inserted by the WTS to downgrade Jesus Christ to fit their false teaching. If we look at the context of John 1:1-18, we will find that the letter 'a' was not added in John 1:6, nor was it added in John 1:18. Why is this WTS? I suppose by adding the letter in John 1:18, "No man has seen 'a' God at any time;" just would not sound right now would it? Also we run into the problem of a capital 'G' for God in that verse. Inconsistencies abound in the NWT.

[/quote]

So there are small and large letters in the Greek language and in that passage small "g' and large "G" is used?

Just a question.


#10

If I am correct,lower case “g” is used and it can refer to angelical beings,unless I am totally wrong?


#11

Not to put you out, but do you know of "god" being used in reference to angels anywhere?
If not, that's ok.

Thanks.


#12

[quote="fred_conty, post:11, topic:284645"]
Not to put you out, but do you know of "god" being used in reference to angels anywhere?
If not, that's ok.

Thanks.

[/quote]

Okay here it goes.

As I said I am not an expert,but I do believe some people refer the phrase: sons of God to angels while others say it does not? I believe some refer to it in Gensis 6.


#13

[quote="Nicea325, post:12, topic:284645"]
Okay here it goes.

As I said I am not an expert,but I do believe some people refer the phrase: sons of God to angels while others say it does not? I believe some refer to it in Gensis 6.

[/quote]

Nicea325, thanks for your reference, and this is what I found.

In Genesis 6, the Jerusalem bible has a commentary.

The commentary said that the writer cites a popular myth at that time, mortals and gods intermarriage made a superhuman race that were also becoming super in their vice.
This was used to give the reason for the great flood which followed. The author did not say the pagan myth was true or false. He just used the idea to introduce the flood which followed.

The second part of the commentary said,
"...later Judaism and almost all the earliest eccesastical writers identify the "sons of God" with the fallen angels; but from the forth century onwards, as the idea of angelic natures becomes less material, the Fathers take the "sons of God" to be Seth's descendents and the "daughters of men those of Cain."

So it looks like this particular passage had three meanings over time:

-mortals and gods(pagan myth)
-mortals and fallen angels (in another passage the fallen angels were sent to the earth)
-Cain and Abel's descendents.

So probably the second idea was applied to say that Christ was St. Michael in JW belief because St. Michael won the battle with Lucifer and sent them down to the earth.

Just a thought.


#14

[quote="fred_conty, post:13, topic:284645"]
So probably the second idea was applied to say that Christ was St. Michael in JW belief because St. Michael won the battle with Lucifer and sent them down to the earth.

Just a thought.

[/quote]

The JW's reason that since Michael is the only one referred to specifically as an archangel in scripture, and since they deny the divinity of Jesus, they then deduce from this verse that He must be Michael.(From their own translation):

1 Thess. 4:16

16 because the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice and with God’s trumpet, and those who are dead in union with Christ will rise first.

Note the verse says an archangel's voice, denoting there are other archangel's.

It's a very easy argument to blow out of the water. Too bad it's not easy to get most of them to connect the dots and acknowledge it.


#15

[quote="T_More, post:14, topic:284645"]
The JW's reason that since Michael is the only one referred to specifically as an archangel in scripture, and since they deny the divinity of Jesus, they then deduce from this verse that He must be Michael.(From their own translation):

1 Thess. 4:16

16 because the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice and with God’s trumpet, and those who are dead in union with Christ will rise first.

Note the verse says an archangel's voice, denoting there are other archangel's.

It's a very easy argument to blow out of the water. Too bad it's not easy to get most of them to connect the dots and acknowledge it.

[/quote]

Even easier: Ch 1. of Hebrews ;)


#16

Well I feel like this thread has been de-railed. -.-


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.