The Watchtower on John 1:1 #1: "the Logos was with the God, and the Logos was a God."

This is part #1 of my new series, "The Watchtower on John 1:1."

[Above: Charles Taze Russell (1852-1916), founder of the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society: Wikipedia:

"... Russell admitted that at most he had attended school only seven years of his life ... and that he had left school when he was about fourteen years of age ... that he knew nothing about Latin and Hebrew, and that he had never taken a course in philosophy or systematic theology, and had never attended schools of higher learning ... that he never claimed knowledge of the Greek language..." ("Charles Taze Russell: Qualifications," Wikipedia"Charles Taze Russell," Wikipedia, 2 February 2010).]

I had originally planned to post a brief one-page refutation of the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society's arguments against the third clause in John 1:1 (John 1:1c), "and the Word was God" (as it is translated in the NIV and the overwhelming majority of mainstream Bible translations), and for the Watchtower's "the Word/Logos was a god" (as it is today translated only in the Society's New World Translation).

This was to be the start of my "Watchtower Errors by Bible Verses" but as I compiled an index of the Society's various arguments on John 1:1c, it grew too large (up to 1975 it was 40+ arguments) for a one-page post! So I had reluctantly decided to abandon the project when today (15 February) a JW (?) under a pseudonym commented on my post, Re: `So, Who sent Jesus? if he is Jehovah, did he send himself to earth?', etc about a (his?) forthcoming book, "What About John 1:1?" which is against "that God is a Trinity, and that Jesus is the second person of this triune God" with particular reference to "the third clause of John 1:1 as something different from the typical, Trinitarian influenced rendering [sic], `and the Word was God.'" I thanked him for his comment which had "given me the incentive to now proceed with my series"!

My approach will be generally to work through the Watchtower Society's various arguments about John 1:1c in the Society's (including its ancestor the International Bible Students Association) books that I own, in chronological order from the earliest to the latest, quoting the Society's own words, and where possible using them in the title of each post. However, I will also occasionally use CD and Internet sources for important quotes that I don't have in hardcopy. Excerpts of quotes will be linked to the full quotes towards the end of each post.

The first time (as far as I am aware), that the Watchtower's Society, in the person of its founder Charles Taze Russell, claimed that John 1:1c should be translated "the Logos was a God" or "the Word was a God" (as well as John 1:1b "the Logos was with the God) was in 1893:

"`THE WORD WAS A GOD' `In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with the God, and the Logos was a God. The same was in the beginning with the God. All things mere made by him [the Logos], and without him was not anything made that was made.'-John 1:1-3. ... We adopt the word Logos as one of our Lord's many names. ... Another difference between the above translation and the common version, is the addition of the italicized words a and the. These are supplied in order to give the reader the true sense of the Greek text. In which the presence or absence of the Greek article is very important. In the above translation the represents the article, while a shows that the article is lacking. In the above translation the represents the article, while a shows that the article is lacking. With this translation verified and appreciated (as can be done by consulting any Greek Testament or any Greek scholar) ..." (Russell, C.T., 1893, "The Word was a god," Zion's Watch Tower, April 15. Square brackets and emphasis original).

Russell repeated in 1898 that, "The first verse of John's Gospel" should be rendered "the Logos was with the God, and the Logos was a God":

"The first verse of John's Gospel is a marked instance of the use of theos in referring to Jehovah's Logos, his Only Begotten Son ... But the critical Greek student should find no difficulty in distinguishing between these two Gods ... for this distinction is clearly shown by the use of the Greek article before theos in referring to Jehovah, and the absence of that article when theos is used in referring to the Logos. The effect of this, expressed in our English language, would render the passage thus:- `In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with the God, and the Logos was a God ...' This translation will not be disputed by any Greek scholar ..." (Russell, C.T., 1898, "The True Light That Lighteth Every Man ," Zion's Watch Tower, December 15).

Note that Russell stated that there were "two Gods" (capital "G"), "Jehovah" and his "Son," which is polytheism, i.e. the belief in more than one true god (my emphasis below):

"polytheism ... the belief in or worship of more than one god." ("polytheism," Compact Oxford English Dictionary, 5 February 2010).

"pol•y•the•ism ... the doctrine of or belief in more than one god or in many gods." ("polytheism," Dictionary.com, 19 February 2010).

"poly•the•ism ... belief in or worship of more than one god." ("polytheism," Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, 19 February 2010).

"Polytheism is the belief in and/or worship of multiple deities, called gods and/or goddesses." ("Polytheism," Wikipedia, 18 February 2010).

So Jehovah's Witnesses who today follow Russell in his belief in "two Gods": Jehovah the "Almighty God" or "the God" and Jesus the "mighty god" or "a god":

"... God's Son, the Word, was and is `a god' (El) ... whereas Jehovah ... is `the God' (Elohim) ... He [Jesus] is a `mighty god', but not the Almighty God, who is Jehovah. (Isaiah 9:6)." (WB&TS, 1943, "The Truth Shall Make You Free," p.47).

"Jesus is a god. ... Christ is called `The mighty God' at Isaiah 9:6, `a god' at John 1:1 (NW) ... Jehovah is not the only god ... The very fact that he is called the Almighty God indicates that there are other gods not so mighty, not almighty like him." ("Watchtower, September 1, 1955, p.543).

"Jesus is a god, a mighty god, and so is Jehovah a God, a mighty God. But additionally, Jehovah is the mighty God and also the God Almighty.." ("Watchtower, September 15, 1961, p.551. Emphasis original).

are "polytheists" because they believe in the existence of more than one true god.

Specifically, by rendering "John 1:1" in "the Society's New World Translation" as "and the Word was a god" that "little addition `a,' makes John to say that Jesus was `a god,' a second, though inferior deity, and distinct from `the God'" which is "polytheism, `the belief in or worship of a plurality of gods' (my emphasis):

"At John 1:1 the Society's New World Translation reads, `In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.' `A god?' Yes, suddenly the seemingly insignificant article `a' takes on new relevance. The little addition `a,' makes John to say that Jesus was `a god,' a second, though inferior deity, and distinct from `the God.' Such an interpolation forces the apostle to polytheism, `the belief in or worship of a plurality of gods.' [Webster's Dictionary] While this alone should be enough for even a Witness to reject the translation, the Society argues that `a god' is the preferred translation since the Greek text does not say `the god.'" (Magnani & Barrett, 1985, pp.185-186. Emphasis original).

Which also contradicts Isa 43:10 (from where the name "Jehovah's Witnesses" came), where Jehovah states, "Before me there was no God formed, and after me there continued to be none" (NWT):

"The Jehovah's Witnesses took their name from Isaiah 43:10, but the Watchtower seems to have forgotten what the verse said they were supposed to be witnesses of, when they mistranslated John 1:1. `Understand that I am He. Before Me there was no God formed, and there will be none after Me' (Isa. 43:10 NASB)." (Magnani & Barrett, 1985, p.185).

"Although Jehovah clearly said, `Before Me there was no God formed, and there will be none after Me' (Isa. 43:10) ... Jehovah's Witnesses, will not believe Him " (Magnani & Barrett, 1985, pp.123-124).

But "There is no way John could have meant that Jesus was a god," i.e. "another god," because "John was a Jewish Christian, a monotheist" who "did not believe there were any other gods" (my emphasis):

"The common pagan opinion was that the world is populated by many gods. Such people who believe in the existence of more than one god are called polytheists. ... Jehovah's Witnesses are polytheists ... Jehovah's Witnesses translate John 1:1, `In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.' Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe Jesus (the Word) is the God, but another god! There is no way John could have meant that Jesus was a god. John was a Jewish Christian, a monotheist! He did not believe there were any other gods! That is why most recognized translations will read `and the Word was God." (Magnani, D. & Barrett, A., 1985, "The Watchtower Files," pp.123-124. Emphasis original).

In Zion's Watch Tower of April 1, 1902, Russell again repeated his rendering of John 1:1, "the Logos with the God, and the Logos was a God":

"Similarly, our context declares, that in his prehuman condition our Lord Jesus was from the beginning the head, the chief of all his Father's creatures, works, arrangements. `For by him were all things created, that are in heaven and that are in earth, visible, and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers; all things were created by him; and for him: and he is before all things, and by him all things consist.' (Col. 1:16, 17) This agrees also with the statement of John's Gospel (1:1), 'In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos with the God, and the Logos was a God: the same was in the beginning with the God. All things were made by him; and without him was not one thing made that was made.'" (Russell, C.T, 1902., "God First-His Appointments," Zion's Watch Tower, April 1. Emphasis original).

As can be seen from the three Zion's Watch Tower quotes above, Russell claimed that "this translation [could be] verified ... by consulting ... any Greek scholar" and "This translation will not be disputed by any Greek scholar." But this was a falsehood. There was then, and is to this day, no "Greek scholar" of any standing who has supported Russell's "the Logos/Word was a God" translation, and as we shall see, this translation has been disputed by many Greek scholars.

Moreover, Russell was in no position to evaluate the "Greek [New] Testament" because in a 1913 court case, Russell had to admit under oath that he could not even identify the letters of the Greek alphabet!:

"In June, 1912, the Rev. Mr. J. J. Ross ... published a denunciatory pamphlet about Russell ... Russell sued Ross for libel. In the trial, which took place the following year, Russell was proved to be a perjurer. When asked by Attorney Staunton, Ross's lawyer, whether he knew the Greek alphabet, Russell replied, `Oh, yes.' When he was further asked to identify the Greek letters on top of a page of the Greek Testament which was handed him, he was unable to do so, finally admitting that he was not familiar with the Greek language." (Hoekema, A.A., 1963, "Jehovah's Witnesses, pp.13-14).

So clearly Russell's claim that John 1:1 means, "the Logos/Word was a God," was not based on his scholarly evaluation of the Greek New Testament text of John 1:1, but on his personal prejudice against the Trinity:

"The Trinity. Russell believed in the divinity of Christ, but differed from orthodoxy by teaching Jesus had received that divinity as a gift from the Father, after dying on the cross. He also taught that the Holy Spirit is not a person, but the manifestation of God's power." ("Charles Taze Russell: Theology and teachings," Wikipedia, 2 February 2010).

In 1902, a Professor William G. Moorehead of United Presbyterian Theological Seminary, Xenia, Ohio, published a widely-circulated tract called "Brief Review of Millennial Dawn" (the latter being the original title of Russell's Studies in the Scriptures) in which he explained from the original Greek what was wrong with Russell's rendering of John 1:1, "the Logos was with the God" as published in the April 1, 1902 Zion's Watch Tower. Under pressure to respond, Russell actually published Morehead's critique in the September 15 Zion's Watch Tower. Moorehead made four key points, as follows (emphasis original below):

1. In New Testament Greek, "the subject generally takes the article while its predicate omits it." So in John 1:1c, the Greek, kai theos en ho logos - "and God was the Word," logos has the article ho "the" showing it is the subject; and theos "God" has no article, showing it is the predicate:

"Nor is this all. One of the commonest rules of Greek Grammar as touching the use of the definite article the is this: in a simple sentence the subject generally takes the article while its predicate omits it. Jno. 1:1, third clause, is a simple, definite statement with a subject and a predicate; the subject is, `the Word' (Logos) and its predicate is unquestionably is, `God.' and hence the latter word does not take the article. Will some one kindly loan these gentlemen a Greek Grammar?" (Moorehead, 1902b, "A New Rendering of John 1:1," Zion's Watch Tower, September 15).

2. That theos ("God") without the article ho ("the") does not therefore mean "a God" is evident in that, "In this, same first chapter of John four times [Jn 1:6,12,13, 18], the Greek word God is found without the definite article the" but it is not translated "a god":

"But let us follow the example of the above queer rendering of Jno. 1:1, and apply the method to other places of Scripture. In this, same first chapter of John four times the Greek word God is found without the definite article the. Let us read these and hear how they sound: verse 6. `There was a man sent from a God whose name was John.' verse 12, `But as many as received him to them gave he power to become the children of a God:' verse 13. `Which were born ... of a God:' verse 18 `No man hath seen a God at any time.' Quite recently I read the eighth chapter of Romans through in the original, and found that ten times the apostle uses the name without the article, and in each instance the name is employed to designate the Supreme God. Let us read but one verse with Dawn-ist translation inserted: verse 14. `For as many as are led by the Spirit of a God, they are the sons of a God.' How does it sound, brethren? ... silly nonsense ..." (Moorehead, W.G, 1902a).

3. There "is a Greek adjective that expresses exactly the idea of a ... god-like being ... the word theios" which "John might have used ... to convey the idea that Christ in his pre-incarnate state was like a God" but "John does not use this term":

"Furthermore, there is a Greek adjective that expresses exactly the idea of a divine or god-like being, but who is not necessarily himself God. It is the word theios. This word John might have used had he wished to convey the idea that Christ in his pre-incarnate state was like a God. But John does not use this term, instead he employs the supreme title of God and applies it most emphatically to the Lord Jesus Christ in his eternal pre-existent state." (Moorehead, 1902c).

4. If "John had inserted the article the before the term God in the third clause of the verse," i.e. kai ho theos en ho logos , "the God was the Word," then the "distinction of the Persons in the Trinity would have been obliterated". Or if John had written, kai ho logos en ho theos, "and the Logos was the God," then that would mean "The Son is the Father":

"Once more, if John had inserted the article the before the term God in the third clause of the verse, then the word would have embraced the entire Godhead, and a distinction of the Persons in the Trinity would have been obliterated. Had he written (to follow again the example of the Dawn translation), `and the Word was the God.' then Christ would have been the whole of the Trinity. He might as well have written, `The Son is the Father,' for that would have been the exact equivalent." (Moorehead, 1902d).

But two years later in 1904, Russell the Greek-illiterate, was unrepentant. He simply ignored Prof. Moorehead's correct explanation of the Greek grammar of John 1:1c, and again asserted that "the Greek article does not appear before the word translated God, and hence the thought in the statement is a God, as in contrast with the previous statement, the God":

"A GOD, WITH THE GOD ... But the whole matter is still more clearly seen when we take the literal reading of the Greek, because in it the Greek article appears before the word rendered God, which would make the translation into English properly read. `And the Word was with the God.' ... The next statement, `And the Word was God,' is not to be understood as contradicting the statements previously and elsewhere made, but the distinction is considerably lost in the translation. We explain, therefore, that here the Greek article does not appear before the word translated God, and hence the thought in the statement is a God, as in contrast with the previous statement, the God. Thus understood the passage would properly read, `The Word was with the God and the Word was a God.' ... " (Russell, C.T., 1904, "The Life and Light of Men," Zion's Watch Tower, Vol. XXV, No. 24, December 15. Emphasis original).

In this Russell again effectively confirmed, that he (like all his Jehovah's Witness followers down to the present), was indeed a polytheist, believing in two true gods: "A GOD, WITH THE GOD," "a God ... in contrast with ... the God," "a god-not the Father, not the God, not Jehovah," "the Word, which was a God, was in the beginning ... with the God," "the Word as a God was with the God, and that therefore they were two and not one ...":

"A GOD, WITH THE GOD ... We explain, therefore, that here the Greek article does not appear before the word translated God, and hence the thought in the statement is a God, as in contrast with the previous statement, the God. ... The thought in our text, then, is that the Word of God ... was-in very fact a god-not the Father, not the God, not Jehovah, but `The Son of the Highest.' ... The second verse reiterates and thus emphasizes the statement that the Word, which was a God, was in the beginning (before the creation of others) with the God. If anyone were in danger of misunderstanding the statement of the first verse that the Word was a God, if in any danger of thinking of this as signifying that the Word was- the God, the second verse would correct the error by showing that the Word as a God was with the God, and that therefore they were two and not one in person." (Russell, 1904, Emphasis original).

As we shall see in future posts in this series, these same criticisms (and others) have been made by other Greek scholars down through the years, but the Watchtower Society, which never has had in its membership any recognised Greek (or Hebrew) scholars, has had to resort to pseudoscholarship, fallacious arguments, misquoting and even dishonesty to maintain its false, "the Word was a god" translation.

The bottom line is that the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society's "the Word was a god" translation of John 1:1c is, in the final analysis, based on the anti-Trinitarian prejudice of its founder Charles Taze Russell, who was so ignorant of New Testament Greek that he could not even identify the letters of the Greek alphabet! So in this, Russell and the Watchtower Society which blindly follows him, are "Blind guides" and they and their "blind man" Jehovah's Witness followers "both will fall into a pit":

Mt 15:14 NWT. "LET them be. Blind guides is what they are. If, then, a blind man guides a blind man, both will fall into a pit."

To be continued in: "The Watchtower on John 1:1 #2: Emphatic Diaglott: `and the Word was with the God, and a god was the Word.'"

Stephen E. Jones.
My other blogs: CreationEvolutionDesign & The Shroud of Turin

---

"In June, 1912, the Rev. Mr. J. J. Ross, pastor of the James Street Baptist Church of Hamilton, Ontario, published a denunciatory pamphlet about Russell entitled Some Facts about the Self-styled `Pastor,' Charles T. Russell. [Martin, W.R. & Klann, N.H., "Jehovah of the Watchtower," Zondervan: Grand Rapids, 1959, p.18] Russell sued Ross for libel. In the trial, which took place the following year, Russell was proved to be a perjurer. When asked by Attorney Staunton, Ross's lawyer, whether he knew the Greek alphabet, Russell replied, `Oh, yes.' When he was further asked to identify the Greek letters on top of a page of the Greek Testament which was handed him. he was unable to do so, finally admitting that he was not familiar with the Greek language. [Ibid., p.20] Russell, furthermore, had previously claimed to have been ordained by a recognized religious body. Staunton also pressed him on this point, finally asking him point-blank, `Now, you never were ordained by a bishop, clergyman, presbytery, council, or any body of men living?' Russell answered, after a long pause, `I never was.' [Ibid., p.22] In this trial, therefore, Russell's deliberate perjury was established beyond doubt, and the real character of the man looked up to by his followers as an inspired religious teacher was clearly revealed." (Hoekema, A.A., 1963, "Jehovah's Witnesses," Eerdmans: Grand Rapids MI, 1972, Reprinted, 1990, pp.13-14).

"The common pagan opinion was that the world is populated by many gods. Such people who believe in the existence of more than one god are called polytheists. ... Although Jehovah clearly said, `Before Me there was no God formed, and there will be none after Me' (Isa. 43:10), some pseudo-Christian groups, like the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses, will not believe Him. Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are polytheists. Mormons themselves hope to become gods. Jehovah's Witnesses translate John 1:1, `In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.' Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe Jesus (the Word) is the God, but another god! There is no way John could have meant that Jesus was a god. John was a Jewish Christian, a monotheist! He did not believe there were any other gods! That is why most recognized translations will read `and the Word was God." (Magnani, D. & Barrett, A., 1985, "The Watchtower Files: Dialogue With a Jehovah's Witness," Bethany House Publishers: Bloomington MN, pp.123-124. Emphasis original).

"The Jehovah's Witnesses took their name from Isaiah 43:10, but the Watchtower seems to have forgotten what the verse said they were supposed to be witnesses of, when they mistranslated John 1:1. `Understand that I am He. Before Me there was no God formed, and there will be none after Me' (Isa. 43:10). Strikingly similar to this Old Testament revelation are the words of Jesus, `Unless you believe that I am He, you shall die in your sins' (John 8:24). ... For the Watchtower Society, the issue of the deity of Christ has always been a choice item of discussion. While ready to debate with Christians on most issues, John 1:1 becomes a special delight-especially since the Society has published their own translation of the Bible. At John 1:1 the Society's New World Translation reads, `In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.' `A god?' Yes, suddenly the seemingly insignificant article `a' takes on new relevance. The little addition `a,' makes John to say that Jesus was `a god,' a second, though inferior deity, and distinct from `the God.' Such an interpolation forces the apostle to polytheism, `the belief in or worship of a plurality of gods.' [Webster's Third New International Dictionary Encyclopaedia Britannica: Chicago, 1966, Vol 11, p.1761] While this alone should be enough for even a Witness to reject the translation, the Society argues that `a god' is the preferred translation since the Greek text does not say `the god.'" (Magnani & Barrett, 1985, "The Watchtower Files, pp.185-186. Emphasis original).

"The Millennial Dawn people may perhaps ask: `but is not our translation of the verse exactly literal?' Yes, surprisingly literal. The reader who is not acquainted with the Greek may be here informed that the definite article the is very often attached (not always) to the term God in the original of the N. T. Its use there is idiomatic. Our English forbids it save in certain well-defined cases, as e. g. `The God of Abraham,' etc.. Its presence or absence in each is governed by the genius of the two tongues respectively. But let us follow the example of the above queer rendering of Jno. 1:1, and apply the method to other places of Scripture. In this, same first chapter of John four times the Greek word God is found without the definite article the. Let us read these and hear how they sound: verse 6. `There was a man sent from a God whose name was John.' verse 12, `But as many as received him to them gave he power to become the children of a God:' verse 13. `Which were born ... of a God:' verse 18 `No man hath seen a God at any time.' Quite recently I read the eighth chapter of Romans through in the original, and found that ten times the apostle uses the name without the article, and in each instance the name is employed to designate the Supreme God. Let us read but one verse with Dawn-ist translation inserted: verse 14. `For as many as are led by the Spirit of a God, they are the sons of a God.' How does it sound, brethren? This silly nonsense is matched only by the Reims version of Heb. 11:21. `By faith Jacob when `he was a dying ... adored the top of his staff.'" (Moorehead, W.G, 1902a, "A New Rendering of John 1:1," Zion's Watch Tower, Vol. XXIII, No. 18, September 15. Emphasis original).

"Nor is this all. One of the commonest rules of Greek Grammar as touching the use of the definite article the is this: in a simple sentence the subject generally takes the article while its predicate omits it. Jno. 1:1, third clause, is a simple, definite statement with a subject and a predicate; the subject is, `the Word' (Logos) and its predicate is unquestionably is, `God.' and hence the latter word does not take the article. Will some one kindly loan these gentlemen a Greek Grammar?" (Moorehead, W.G., 1902b. Emphasis original).

"Furthermore, there is a Greek adjective that expresses exactly the idea of a divine or god-like being, but who is not necessarily himself God. It is the word theios. This word John might have used had he wished to convey the idea that Christ in his pre-incarnate state was like a God. But John does not use this term, instead he employs the supreme title of God and applies it most emphatically to the Lord Jesus Christ in his eternal pre-existent state." (Moorehead, W.G., 1902c. Emphasis original).

"Once more, if John had inserted the article the before the term God in the third clause of the verse, then the word would have embraced the entire Godhead, and a distinction of the Persons in the Trinity would have been obliterated. Had he written (to follow again the example of the Dawn translation), `and the Word was the God.' then Christ would have been the whole of the Trinity. He might as well have written, `The Son is the Father,' for that would have been the exact equivalent." (Moorehead, W.G, 1902d. Emphasis original).

"In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with the God, and the Logos was a God. The same was in the beginning with the God. All things mere made by him [the Logos], and without him was not anything made that was made.'-John 1:1-3. The Apostle gives us in these words a brief statement of our great Redeemer's pre-human history. We adopt the word Logos as one of our Lord's many names. Dr. Adam Clarke also advocates its use in this manner, saying, `This term [Logos] should be left untranslated, for the very same reasons why the names Jesus and Christ are left untranslated. As every appellative of the Saviour of the world was descriptive of some excellence in his person, nature or work, so the epithet Logos, which signifies a word spoken, speech, eloquence, doctrine, reason or the faculty of reasoning, is very properly applied to him.' Another difference between the above translation and the common version, is the addition of the italicized words a and the. These are supplied in order to give the reader the true sense of the Greek text. In which the presence or absence of the Greek article is very important. In the above translation the represents the article, while a shows that the article is lacking. With this translation verified and appreciated (as can be done by consulting any Greek Testament or any Greek scholar), these verses, long doubtful and obscure to so many, become luminous." (Russell, C.T., 1893, "The Word was a god," Zion's Watch Tower, Vol. XIV, No. 8, April 15. Square brackets and emphasis original).

"The first verse of John's Gospel is a marked instance of the use of theos in referring to Jehovah's Logos, his Only Begotten Son, `the beginning of the creation of God.' (Rev. 3:14) But the critical Greek student should find no difficulty in distinguishing between these two Gods, and noting that the one is distinctly referred to as the superior of the other, for this distinction is clearly shown by the use of the Greek article before theos in referring to Jehovah, and the absence of that article when theos is used in referring to the Logos. The effect of this, expressed in our English language, would render the passage thus:- `In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with the God, and the Logos was a God. The same was in the beginning with the God.' This translation will not be disputed by any Greek scholar.; and it sets at rest all ground for dispute respecting the primary relationship between the Father and the Son." (Russell, C.T., 1898, "The True Light That Lighteth Every Man," Zion's Watch Tower, Vol. XIX, No. 24, December 15).

"Similarly the Almighty did not inquire of the angels whether or not they would accept the glorified Jesus as their Lord; he autocratically elevated our Lord Jesus, because of his implicit obedience even unto death, even the death of the cross, as the Apostle declares, `Wherefore [on account of his obedience unto death] God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name; that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow ... and every tongue confess ... to the glory of God the Father.' Similarly, our context declares, that in his prehuman condition our Lord Jesus was from the beginning the head, the chief of all his Father's creatures, works, arrangements. `For by him were all things created, that are in heaven and that are in earth, visible, and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers; all things were created by him; and for him: and he is before all things, and by him all things consist.' (Col. 1:16, 17) This agrees also with the statement of John's Gospel (1:1), 'In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos with the God, and the Logos was a God: the same was in the beginning with the God. All things were made by him; and without him was not one thing made that was made.'" (Russell, C.T., 1902, "God First-His Appointments," Zion's Watch Tower, Vol. XXIII, No. 7, April 1. Emphasis original).

"A GOD, WITH THE GOD In the beginning the Word was alone with the Father, the Apostle declares. But the whole matter is still more clearly seen when we take the literal reading of the Greek, because in it the Greek article appears before the word rendered God, which would make the translation into English properly read. `And the Word was with the God.' Here we see most clearly and beautifully the close relationship existing in the very remote past between the heavenly Father and the heavenly Son, between the Almighty God and his only begotten Son, in whom centered all the divine purposes and through whom he was pleased to manifest every feature of the divine power and glory. The next statement, `And the Word was God,' is not to be understood as contradicting the statements previously and elsewhere made, but the distinction is considerably lost in the translation. We explain, therefore, that here the Greek article does not appear before the word translated God, and hence the thought in the statement is a God, as in contrast with the previous statement, the God. Thus understood the passage would properly read, `The Word was with the God and the Word was a God.' Ah, now we have it clearly! The word god signifies mighty one, and in the Scriptures is used not only respecting the Father but also respecting the Son, also in reference to the angels, and in one instance when referring to men, influential men-the seventy elders of Israel whom Moses appointed or designated elohim, that is gods, mighty ones. The thought in our text, then, is that the Word of God, the Only Begotten of the Father, the beginning of the creation of God, was created on a nobler and higher plane of being, endued with grand qualities, so that he was-in very fact a god-not the Father, not the God, not Jehovah, but `The Son of the Highest.' The Apostle Paul clearly sets forth this matter, saying, `To us [Christians] there is one God the Father, and one Lord Jesus Christ.'-1 Cor. 8:6. The second verse reiterates and thus emphasizes the statement that the Word, which was a God, was in the beginning (before the creation of others) with the God. If anyone were in danger of misunderstanding the statement of the first verse that the Word was a God, if in any danger of thinking of this as signifying that the Word was- the God, the second verse would correct the error by showing that the Word as a God was with the God, and that therefore they were two and not one in person." (Russell, C.T., 1904, "The Life and Light of Men," Zion's Watch Tower, Vol. XXV, No. 24, December 15. Emphasis original).

"By remembering that the word `god', according to the Hebrew, means `mighty one' or `one who is before (others)', and by remembering the Son's power and position with reference to all the rest of creation, it is easily grasped that God's Son, the Word, was and is `a god' (El), or `mighty one', pre-eminent above other creatures, whereas Jehovah, the Producer of the Word, is `the God' (Elohim), without beginning and `from everlasting to everlasting'.' By referring to John 10:34-36 you will note that Jesus quotes from the law at Psalm 82:6 and says: `Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?' If those mighty men of earth against whom God directed his word of condemnation could be called `gods', much more could and do the true Scriptures speak of God's Son, the Word, as `a god'. He is a `mighty god', but not the Almighty God, who is Jehovah. (Isaiah 9:6). Certainly, then, John 1:1-3, according to its original Greek text, is no proof that Jehovah God and his Son are `one in person, equal in power and glory', as religious catechisms say without Scripture proof." (WB&TS, 1943, "The Truth Shall Make You Free," Watchtower Bible & Tract Society: Brooklyn NY, p.47).

"Trinitarians point to John 20:28 as proof that Jesus is God. There Thomas said (NW): `My Master and my God! [Gk.ho kurios mou kai ho theos mou - "the Lord of me and the God of me"]' How can this argument be answered?-F. W., Philippine Republic. Jesus is a god. `God' means a strong one. Christ is called `The mighty God' at Isaiah 9:6, `a god' at John 1:1 (NW), and `the only- begotten god' at John 1:18 (NW). Jehovah is not the only god or strong one. The very fact that he is called the Almighty God indicates that there are other gods not so mighty, not almighty like him. So Thomas could call Jesus God, but not THE God, and three verses later Jesus is called `the Son of God,' as we read (NW): `But these have been written down that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, and that, because of believing, you may have life by means of his name.' So there was no objection to John's reporting that Thomas addressed Jesus as a deity, and certainly John does not say that Thomas' address to Jesus was to make us believe that Jesus was The God, but says it was to make us believe Jesus was God's Son. In this same chapter (20:17, NW) Jesus said: `I am ascending to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God.' He was not ascending to himself [Straw Man Fallacy!]." ("Questions From Readers," Watchtower, September 1, 1955, p.543. Emphasis original. Words in square brackets mine).

"The title `Mighty God' applied to Jesus Christ at Isaiah 9:6 is also used to prove that Jesus is God, because Isaiah 10:21 and Jeremiah 32:18 speak of Jehovah God as `mighty God.' But here again too much is read into the texts. Only the superlatives and the infinites can dogmatically be limited to Jehovah, such as `the Most High.' Jesus is a god, a mighty god, and so is Jehovah a God, a mighty God. But additionally, Jehovah is the mighty God and also the God Almighty. The term in the Hebrew, el gibbór, `mighty God,' is not limited to Jehovah, but the term el Shaddái, `God Almighty,' is.-Gen. 17:1." ("What Does the Bible Teach About the Divinity of Christ?," Watchtower, September 15, 1961, p.551. Emphasis original)

Re: `So, Who sent Jesus? if he is Jehovah, did he send himself to earth?', etc

Anonymous

Thanks for you comment under my post, Introduction to my Jesus is Jehovah! blog (JiJ). As indicated in my brief reply, since it

[Above: The Stoning of St Stephen, Pietro Da Cortona, c. 1660: Lib-Art.com:

Acts 7:55. "But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God."]

would be too complex to answer your questions in a comment under a 2007 post that few would probably see, I am answering them here in a separate blog post. Your words are in bold to distinguish them from mine. Brief quotes are linked to the full quote towards the end of this post.

----- Original Message -----
From: Anonymous
To: Stephen E. Jones.
Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2010 3:08 PM
Subject: New comment on Introduction to my Jesus is Jehovah! blog (JiJ).

Greetings, I am not JW but I read the bible and try to study it in a good way, have some questions for you, Please you can answer to my mail ...

Sorry, but I have a long standing policy to not get involved in private emails on topics that are relevant to one of my blogs, but to answer via that blog.

Just because you say you are not a JW does not mean that you aren't one. I have in the past encountered anonymous individuals on the Internet who claimed they were not JW's but they asked JW questions and directly or indirectly argued for JW positions. It later turned out that some of them were JWs engaging in "theocratic warfare," i.e. lying for the Watchtower:

"From time to time letters are received asking whether a certain circumstance would justify making an exception to the ... [JW's] obligation to tell the truth. In reply to these the following is given: ... There is one exception, however ... As a soldier ... he is in theocratic warfare and he must exercise added caution when dealing with God's foes. Thus the Scriptures show that for the purpose of protecting the interests of God's cause, it is proper to hide the truth from God's enemies. ... This would come under the term `war strategy' ...." (WB&TS, The Watchtower, June 1, 1960, p.352).

You do not say what you are , except that you "read the bible and try to study it in a good way" whatever that means. I assume you are not a Christian because you deny the Trinity (see below where you say "if you believe in trinity").

But whatever you are, the arguments in your questions are similar to those presented by JWs and since I assume that many (if not most) of the readers of this blog are JWs, ex-JWs, or would-be JWs, my answers are directed to those readers, even though this reply is formally addressed to you personally.

Question A) if you say that Jesus is Jehovah, why does Jesus says on John 12:44 "When a man believes in me, he does not believe in me only, but in the one who sent me"

First, it is not me who says that Jesus is Jehovah, but the Bible. See my post "Jesus is Jehovah!" and also my series "Jesus is Jehovah in the New Testament."

And also note that in Jn 12:44 that Jesus says, "When a man believes in me ..." That is, "Jesus ... expected them [his followers] to place their faith unconditionally in him" and for the disciples to believe in him as they believed in God ... as the supreme object of faith":

"On the basis of his divine identity, Jesus made promises to his followers and expected them to place their faith unconditionally in him. ... `... Those who believe in me, even though they die, will live, and everyone who lives and believes in me will never die' (John 11:25-26). ...`Whoever believes in me will never be thirsty' (John 6:35; see also 7:37-39). ... `You will die in your sins unless you believe that I am he [Gk. I AM]' (John 8:24). Moses never spoke like this! Again, belief in Jesus is not in place of belief in God. The person who accepts his teachings, Jesus said, `believes him who sent me' (John 5:24). ... `Whoever believes in me believes not in me but in him who sent me' (John 12:44). Jesus ... made the claim-audacious for any creature to make-that he was just as trustworthy an object of faith as God himself. `Do not let your hearts be troubled. Believe in God, believe also in me' (John 14:1). Jesus' call here for the disciples to believe in him as they believed in God `links Jesus with the Father as the supreme object of faith:' ..." (Bowman, R.M., Jr. & Komoszewski, J.E., 2007, "Putting Jesus In His Place," pp.62-63. Emphasis original).

That would be blasphemous unless Jesus was (and is) Jehovah, come in the flesh, which the Bible states He is:

"Jesus Is Yahweh ... A comparison of the Old and New Testaments provides powerful testimony to Jesus' identity as Yahweh. .... In Zechariah 12:10 Yahweh is speaking prophetically: `They will look on me, the one they have pierced.'... We know that `the one they have pierced' is Jesus, for He is described this same way ... in Revelation 1:7. ... The Septuagint ... renders the Hebrew phrase for `I AM' (God's name) in Exodus 3:14 as ego eimi. On a number of occasions ... Jesus used this term as a way of identifying Himself as God. For example, in John 8:24 (NASB) Jesus declared, `Unless you believe that I am [I AM or ego eimi] He, you shall die in your sins.' ... The verse is literally, `If you do not believe that I AM, you shall die in your sins.' Then, according to verse 28, Jesus told the Jews, ...`When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I AM' (there is no he). Jesus purposely used the phrase as a means of pointing to His identity as Yahweh. ... Old Testament passages about Yahweh were directly applied to Jesus in the New Testament. For instance, Isaiah 40:3 says: `In the desert prepare the way for the LORD [Yahweh]; make straight in the wilderness a highway for our God ...' Mark's Gospel tells us that Isaiah's words were fulfilled in the ministry of John the Baptist preparing the way for Jesus Christ (Mark 1:2-4). Still another illustration is Isaiah 6:1-5, where the prophet recounts his vision of Yahweh `seated on a throne, high and exalted' (verse 1). ... Later, the apostle John-under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit-wrote that Isaiah `saw Jesus' glory' (John 12:41). Yahweh's glory and Jesus' glory are equated." (Rhodes, R., 1993, "Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovah's Witnesses," pp.62-64. Emphasis original).

So, Who sent Jesus? if he is Jehovah, did he send himself to earth?,

The Father sent Jesus the Son to Earth (Jn 5:36-37; 6:44,57; 8:16,18,42; 10:36; 12:49; 14:24; 17:21,25; 20:21).

As for the second part of the above question, it wrongly assumes that if Jesus is Jehovah then the Father (and the Holy Spirit) cannot also be Jehovah. But as I stated at the outset of my series, "Jesus is Jehovah in the New Testament" (and several other times in that series):

"That the Lord Jesus Christ is revealed in the New Testament as being Jehovah (Heb. Yahweh) of the Old Testament come in the flesh, does not preclude the other two Persons of the Holy Trinity (Mt 28:19; 2Cor 13:14; 1Pet 1:2): the Father (Dt 32:6; Isa 63:16; 64:8; Mal 1:6) and the Holy Spirit (Lk 4:18 = Isa 61:1; Acts 5:3-4,9; 2Cor 3:17), also being, as revealed in the New Testament, Jehovah: the one Triune God."

As former JW, Ted Dencher, correctly points out, the Bible reveals that "All three Persons [Father, Son and Holy Spirit] are Jehovah, the one God":

"At Isaiah chapter forty-eight Jehovah is sent by the Lord God! In verse twelve He says: `I am the first, I also am the last' ([Isa 48:12] A.S.V.). In verse sixteen He says: `Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; from the beginning I have not spoken in secret; from the time that it [the beginning] was, there am I [John 1:1]: and now THE LORD JEHOVAH HATH SENT ME, and his Spirit.' ([Isa 48:16] We find at Acts 5:4 that the Holy Spirit is also God; and if God, then He, too is Jehovah. He is sent by the Father, as the Son is sent. So Jehovah sends and is sent; but it is the Father who sends and the Son and Holy Spirit are the sent Ones. ... All three Persons are Jehovah, the one God." (Dencher, T., 1985, "Why I Left Jehovah's Witnesses," p.144. Emphasis original).

Question B) to whom did Jesus prayed on John 17:1-3 If he is Jehovah, did he prayed to himself?

No. See above that Jesus is Jehovah does not preclude the other two Persons of the Holy Trinity, the Father and the Holy Spirit, being Jehovah, the one triune God.

It is noteworthy that you did not quote John 17:1-3 as you did the other verses you cited, because then you would have the answer, that Jesus prayed not to "Jehovah" but to the "Father":

Jn 17:1-3. ¹After Jesus said this, he looked toward heaven and prayed: "Father, the time has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you. ²For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him. ³Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.

In fact there is no prayer of Jesus in the Bible addressed to "Jehovah." As ex-JW elder David Reed points out, "The pattern Jesus set was to address God as `Father.' ... even the New World Translation does not contain any examples of Christ praying to `Jehovah'":

"Prayer The Watchtower Society has taught its followers that they must address all their prayers to `Jehovah God,' ... However, is that what Jesus taught? .... Did He pray to `Jehovah God?' No, the pattern Jesus set is this: `Abba, Father, all things are possible to you.' - Mark 14:36 NWT. `Father, I thank you.' - John 11:41 NWT. `Father, the hour has...' - John 17:1 NWT. `You must pray, then, this way: 'Our Father...' - Matthew 6:9 NWT. The pattern Jesus set was to address God as `Father.' In fact, even the New World Translation does not contain any examples of Christ praying to `Jehovah'-in spite of the fact that the name `Jehovah' is inserted by the translators in hundreds of verses.." (Reed, D.A. , 1996, "Answering Jehovah's Witnesses: Subject by Subject," 1998, p.182. Emphasis original).

Which again is inexplicable for a devout Jewish rabbi as Jesus was, unless Jesus is Jehovah come in the flesh, which again the Bible states He is :

"Jesus as Jehovah The amount of material in the Bible supporting the teaching that Jesus Christ is Jehovah God is actually quite staggering. ... Philippians 2:9-11, which says that Jesus has been given `the name which is above every name,' the name Lord, or Jehovah. Even clearer is Romans 10:9-13. Here we are told to confess Jesus as Lord (vv. 9-10) ... hen verse 13 concludes that whoever will call upon the name of the Lord will be saved. In context, this must be Jesus, because he is the Lord on whom all must call to be saved, as verses 9-12 have said; but the NWT translates `Lord' here as `Jehovah,' because it is a quote from Joel 2:32, where the original Hebrew has the divine name! Thus Jesus is here identified as Jehovah. Similar is 1 Peter 2:3, which is nearly an exact quotation from Psalm 34:8, where the Lord is Jehovah; but from verses 4-8 it is also clear that the Lord in verse 3 is Jesus. .... Jesus is the first and the last (Rev. 1:17; 22:13; cf. Isa. 44:6). He is the King of kings and Lord of lords (1 Tim. 6:15; Rev. 17:14; 19:16). ... Jesus is revealed to be God by his having the titles Savior (Luke 2:11; John 4:42; 1 John 4:14; cf. Isa. 43:11; 45:21-22; 1 Tim. 4:10), Shepherd (John 10:11; Heb. 13:20; cf. Ps. 23:1; Isa. 40:11), and Rock (1 Cor. 10:4; cf. Isa. 44:8). Jesus ... is to receive the same honor given to the Father (John 5:23). ... He receives prayer (John 14:14; Acts 7:59-60 ... worship (Matt. 28:17; Heb. 1:6), and sacred service (Rev. 22:3)." (Bowman, R.M., 1989, "Why You Should Believe in the Trinity," pp.108-109).

If the Watchtower was consistent in replacing "Lord" (Gk. "kyrios) with "Jehovah" in the New Testament, especially when it is a quote from the Old Testament containing "Jehovah" (Heb. YHWH):

"How is a modern translator to know or determine when to render the Greek words Κυριοσ and Θεοσ into the divine name in his version? By determining where the inspired Christian writers have quoted from the Hebrew Scriptures. Then he must refer back to the original to locate whether the divine name appears there. This way he can determine the identity to give to Ky'ri-os and the-os' and he can then clothe them with personality. Realizing that this is the time and place for it, we have followed this course in rendering our version of the Christian Greek Scriptures." (WB&TS, 1969, "The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures," Watchtower Bible & Tract Society: Brooklyn NY, pp.18-19).

then Php 2:10-11 NWT:

"¹⁰so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the ground, ¹¹and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father."

then verse 11 should read:

"¹¹and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is JEHOVAH ...

because it is a quote from Isa 45:23 where Paul has substituted in Php 2:11 "Jesus Christ" for the "me" in Isa 45:23 who in the context is "Jehovah" (v. 21) and "God" (v. 22) :

Isa 45:23 NWT. By my own self I have sworn-out of my own mouth in righteousness the word has gone forth, so that it will not return-that to me every knee will bend down, every tongue will swear,

In fact, Rom 14:11 NWT has the same quote from Isa 45:23 but it there translates "kurios" as "Jehovah":

¹¹for it is written: "`As I live,' says Jehovah, `to me every knee will bend down, and every tongue will make open acknowledgment to God.'"

So it is only by being deliberately and dishonestly inconsistent can the Watchtower maintain its false claim that Jesus is not Jehovah come in the flesh.

Question C) When Stephen was dying, he said on ACTS 7:56 "I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God."

Note that in the same passage (Acts 7:55-60 NIV), Stephen called Jesus "Lord" [Gk. kyrie] and "prayed" [Gk. epikaloumenon] to Him, "Lord [kyrie] Jesus, receive my spirit":

Acts 7:55-60. ⁵⁵But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. ⁵⁶"Look," he said, "I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God." ⁵⁷At this they covered their ears and, yelling at the top of their voices, they all rushed at him, ⁵⁸dragged him out of the city and began to stone him. Meanwhile, the witnesses laid their clothes at the feet of a young man named Saul. ⁵⁹While they were stoning him, Stephen prayed, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." ⁶⁰Then he fell on his knees and cried out, "Lord, do not hold this sin against them." When he had said this, he fell asleep.

The NWT tries to get around this by translating Gk. kyrie as "Jehovah" in verse 60, even though in the context, and indeed the previous verse 59, kyrie is "Jesus":

[Acts 7:55-60 NWT] ⁵⁵But he [Stephen], being full of holy spirit, gazed into heaven and caught sight of God's glory and of Jesus standing at God's right hand, ⁵⁶and he said: "Look! I behold the heavens opened up and the Son of man standing at God's right hand." ⁵⁷At this they cried out at the top of the voice and put their hands over their ears and rushed upon him with one accord. ⁵⁸And after throwing him outside the city, they began casting stones at him. And the witnesses laid down their outer garments at the feet of a young man called Saul. ⁵⁹And they went on casting stones at Stephen as he made appeal [epikaloumenon] and said: "Lord [kyrie] Jesus, receive my spirit." ⁶⁰Then, bending his knees, he cried out with a strong voice: "Jehovah [kyrie] , do not charge this sin against them." And after saying this he fell asleep [in death].

Also, note that the NWT correctly translates that Stephen is not even seeing God the Father, but only the "sight of God's glory." So inadvertently the NWT here states that Jesus is Jehovah!

Moreover, while the Gk. epikaloumenon can mean "appeal," that is only in the context of an "appeal to Caesar" (Acts 25:11-12, 21, 25, 26:32; 28:19) where one is calling on a higher authority to be set free. But Stephen was not appealing to be set free. He was asking Jesus to receive his spirit and to forgive his executioners. That is a prayer, not an appeal.

The primary meaning of the Gk. verb epikaleomai in the New Testament is "to call upon" in the sense of calling upon God in prayer, as is evident in the NWT's rendering of the following instances of epikaleomai (or its cognates):

Acts 2:21. And everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved.
Acts 9:14. And here he has authority from the chief priests to put in bonds all those calling upon your [Jesus'] name.
Acts 9:21. ... "Is this not the man that ravaged those in Jerusalem who call upon this [Jesus'] name ...
Acts 22:16. ... Rise, get baptized and wash your sins away by your calling upon his [Jesus'] name.
Rom 10:12. ...: for there is the same Lord over all, who is rich to all those calling upon him.
Rom 10:13. For "everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved.".
Rom 10:14. However, how will they call on him in whom they have not put faith?
1Cor 1:2. ... together with all who everywhere are calling upon the name of our Lord, Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours:
2Tim 2:22. ... pursue righteousness, faith, love, peace, along with those who call upon the Lord out of a clean heart.
1Pet 1:17. Furthermore, if YOU are calling upon the Father who judges impartially according to each one's work ...

Indeed, the 1984 reference edition of the New World Translation in Acts 7:59 has a footnote against "appeal" explaining that it was an "invocation; prayer":

[Acts 7:59 NWT] And they went on casting stones at Stephen as he made appeal* and said: `Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.' ... * `invocation; prayer.']" (WB&TS, 1984, "New World translation of the Holy Scriptures: With References," Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York: Brooklyn NY, p.1323).

In fact, the February 1, 1959 Watchtower five times referred to "Stephen's prayer to Jesus, as found in Acts 7:59," "The prayer offered by Stephen ...", "... his prayer ...", "In the wording of his prayer Stephen ..." and "it was proper for Stephen to petition Jesus over this matter, and his prayer ..."

"Does Stephen's prayer to Jesus, as found in Acts 7:59, show that he understood Jesus to be Jehovah?-W. R., U.S.A. The prayer offered by Stephen when he was being martyred is recorded at Acts 7:59, 60, ... Rather than indicating that Stephen understood both Jesus and Jehovah to be the same person, his prayer shows that he knew they were not, because he differentiates between the two. His request to Jesus he does not address merely to the Lord, but to the Lord Jesus, thus doing away with any ambiguity. Further, his statement shortly prior to this, as recorded in verse 56, indicates two persons: `And he said: `Look! I behold the heavens opened up and the Son of man standing at God's right hand.' He does not say the Son of man, Christ Jesus, is Jehovah God, but that he was standing at God's right hand. Not only does Stephen's request, `Lord Jesus, receive my spirit,' not prove the trinity, but Jesus' similar fervent prayer, `Father, into your hands I entrust my spirit,' conclusively shows that Jesus is not the same as his Father Jehovah.-Luke 23:46. In the wording of his prayer Stephen showed that he understood the difference between Jehovah and the Lord Jesus as set out in Psalm 110:1 and applied by Jesus at Matthew 22:42-46. He was not perplexed by Jesus' application of it, as were the Pharisees to whom Jesus spoke and who were silenced by his answer. Jesus had taught his followers that the Father authorized him to raise others to life. (John 5:26; 6:40; 11:25, 26) So it was proper for Stephen to petition Jesus over this matter, and his prayer indicates proper understanding on his part. It does not support the trinity." (WB&TS, Watchtower, February 1, 1959, p.96. Emphasis original).

So the Watchtower Society has admitted that Stephen prayed to Jesus! Yet, "If a Witness were overheard praying to Jesus, he would be put on trial by a judicial committee and would be disfellowshiped unless he repented of his `sin'":

"Acts 7:59-60 While they were stoning him, Stephen prayed, `Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.' Then he fell on his knees and cried out, `Lord, do not hold this sin against them... .' (NIV) Jehovah's Witnesses never address Jesus in prayer. They have been taught that their prayers must be directed only to the Father and that they must call him `Jehovah.' If a Witness were overheard praying to Jesus, he would be put on trial by a judicial committee and would be disfellowshiped unless he repented of his `sin.' But the Scripture passage above clearly shows Stephen praying to Jesus Christ, the risen Lord. (The JW Bible changes `Lord' in v. 60 to `Jehovah,' but v 59 still says `Jesus.')"(Reed, D.A.1986, "Jehovah's Witnesses Answered Verse by Verse," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, Thirty-first printing, 2006, p.87. Emphasis original).

Moreover, the Society's counter-argument that this shows Jesus and the Father were "two persons" and therefore "does not support the trinity":

"Rather than indicating that Stephen understood both Jesus and Jehovah to be the same person, his prayer shows that he knew they were not ... Further, his statement shortly prior to this, as recorded in verse 56, indicates two persons ... Jesus' similar fervent prayer, `Father, into your hands I entrust my spirit,' conclusively shows that Jesus is not the same as his Father Jehovah " (WB&TS, Watchtower, February 1, 1959, p.96

fails because the Watchtower admits that the Christian doctrine of the Trinity is "three persons in one God" or "one God in three Persons":

"Now, the trinity doctrine means that there are three persons in one God: God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost, all coequal and coeternal." (WB&TS, 1967, "Qualified to be Ministers," pp.197-198).

"Thus, the Trinity is considered to be `one God in three Persons.' Each is said to be without beginning, having existed for eternity." (WB&TS, 1989, "Should You Believe in the Trinity?," pp.3-4).

"According to the teaching of the Trinity, there are three persons in one God, that is, there is `one God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.'" (WB&TS, 1989, "You Can Live Forever in Paradise on Earth," p.39).

"PEOPLE who believe the Trinity teaching say that God consists of three persons - the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Each of these three persons is said to be equal to the others, almighty, and without beginning. According to the Trinity doctrine, therefore, the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, yet there is only one God." (WB&TS, 2005, "What Does the Bible Really Teach?," pp.201-202. Emphasis original).

and therefore far from not supporting the Trinity, Stephen's praying to the Person Jesus the Son, at the Person the Father's right hand, is further evidence for the Trinity of one God in three Persons!

So he saw 2 persons, if Jesus Is Jehovah , shouldn't Stephen see only one person ?

See above that Acts 7:55 does not say that Stephen saw "2 persons." It says that Stephen saw "God's glory," not God the Father Himself. So Stephen did "see only one person," Jesus, the Second Person of the Trinity.

And see above that Jesus is Jehovah does not preclude the other two Persons of the Holy Trinity, the Father and the Holy Spirit being Jehovah, the one triune God.

or three if you believe in trinity?

See above that I take it you don't believe in the Trinity, and therefore you are not a Christian.

This is fallacious that all three Persons of the Trinity must be seen if one or two of the Persons are to be seen. According to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, i.e. one God in three persons, Stephen could have seen one, two or three Persons of the Trinity, if they chose to reveal themselves.

But in fact all three persons of the Trinity ("God" the Father, "Jesus" the Son, and "the Holy Spirit") are mentioned in the passage because Acts 7:55 (NIV) says:

"But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God."

So Acts 7:55 is another of the Trinitarian passages in the Bible that mention all three Persons of the Trinity in the same or adjoining verses, e.g. Mt 3:16-17; 28:19; Mk 1:10-11; Lk 1:35; 3:21-22; Jn 3:34; 14:16-17,26; 15:26; Ac 2:33,38; Rom 1:1-4; 8:11; 15:16,18-19,30; 1Cor 12:4-6; 2Cor 13:14; Eph 1:13-14; 2:18; 3:14-17; 4:4-6; 2Th 2:13; Heb. 9:14; 1Pet. 1:2; Jude 1:20-21.

Question D) As far as I know , in order for us to be saved , Jesus had no only to come to earth but DIE, so only by DYING he will free us from sin ,

Strictly speaking it was not Jesus who came to Earth, but the pre-incarnate Word, the Second Person of the Trinity, who at the Incarnation took upon Himself a human body and nature (see further below):

Jn 1:1-3,14. ¹In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. ²He was with God in the beginning. ³Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. ... ¹⁴The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Php 2:5-8. ⁵our attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: ⁶Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, ⁷but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. ⁸And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death-even death on a cross!

becoming Jesus, the God-man, who did not exist until His virginal conception in early 5BC:

Mt 1:18, 21,25. ¹⁸This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit. ... ²¹She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins." ... ²⁵But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.

Lk 1:26-31. ²⁶In the sixth month, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, ²⁷to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin's name was Mary. ²⁸The angel went to her and said, "Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you." ²⁹Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. ³⁰But the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, you have found favor with God. ³¹You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus. ...

and was not named "Jesus" until 8 days after His birth in late 5BC:

Lk 2:4-7,21. ⁴So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David. ⁵He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child. ⁶While they were there, the time came for the baby to be born, ⁷and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn. ... ²¹On the eighth day, when it was time to circumcise him, he was named Jesus, the name the angel had given him before he had been conceived.

but on Habakkuk 1:12 says that God never dies " LORD, are you not from everlasting? My God, my Holy One, you will never die"

I don't know what translation you are quoting, but the NIV says "we will not die":

Hab. 1:12. O LORD, are you not from everlasting? My God, my Holy One, we will not die. O LORD, you have appointed them to execute judgment; O Rock, you have ordained them to punish.

as does the ASV, KJV, NASB, NKJV, and my Hebrew-English Interlinear Bible.

However, I agree that God (including God the Son) not only "will never die" but can never die.

But the bible said that Jesus died on Mathew 16:21.

Yes, "Jesus" the God-man, died in His human nature. He did not and could not die in His God nature.

So if Jesus never died then the bible is lying, is that possible?

See above. Your argument is fallacious, not recognising that Jesus is both God and man, i.e. "Jesus, who is the non-created second hypostasis of the triune God, took on a human body and nature and became both man and God":

"Incarnation (Christianity) ... The Incarnation is the belief in Christianity that the second person in the Christian Godhead, also known as the Son or the Logos (Word), `became flesh' when he was miraculously conceived in the womb of the Virgin Mary. The word Incarnate derives from Latin (in=in or into, caro, carnis=flesh) meaning `to make into flesh' or `to become flesh'. The incarnation is a fundamental theological teaching of orthodox (Nicene) Christianity, based on its understanding of the New Testament. The incarnation represents the belief that Jesus, who is the non-created second hypostasis of the triune God, took on a human body and nature and became both man and God. In the Bible its clearest teaching is in John 1:14: `And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us.' This is central to the traditional faith held by most Christians." ("Incarnation (Christianity)," Wikipedia, 14 February 2010).

In conclusiion, you claim you are not a JW but in your comment you used the typical JW and other cults' method of playing one Bible verse off against another, rather than the Christian method of trying to see how all the Bible's verses can be harmonised. The Bible warns in 2 Peter 3:16 that "ignorant and unstable people" can "distort" (Gk. strebloo "1. to twist, turn awry; 2. to torture, put to the rack; 3. metaph. to pervert, of one who wrests or tortures language in a false sense") "the .. scriptures" but it will be "to their own destruction":

He [Paul] writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort [Gk. strebloo "twist"] as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

You might consider whether from God's point of view, someone who deliberately sets out to twist His word, by playing one verse off against another, rather than trying to see how all His words can be harmonised, might be regarded by God of being guilty of a greater crime, and therefore due a greater punishment, than a murderer.

Stephen E. Jones
My other blogs: CreationEvolutionDesign & The Shroud of Turin

---

"Jesus as Jehovah The amount of material in the Bible supporting the teaching that Jesus Christ is Jehovah God is actually quite staggering. Here we can summarize only some of the remaining highlights. Mention has already been made of Philippians 2:9-11, which says that Jesus has been given `the name which is above every name,' the name Lord, or Jehovah. Even clearer is Romans 10:9-13. Here we are told to confess Jesus as Lord (vv. 9-10), confident that no one trusting in him, that is, in Jesus, the rock over which the Jews stumbled, will be disappointed (v. 11; cf. 9:33), because he is Lord for both Jew and Greek, rich to all who call upon him for salvation (v. 12). Then verse 13 concludes that whoever will call upon the name of the Lord will be saved. In context, this must be Jesus, because he is the Lord on whom all must call to be saved, as verses 9-12 have said; but the NWT translates `Lord' here as `Jehovah,' because it is a quote from Joel 2:32, where the original Hebrew has the divine name! Thus Jesus is here identified as Jehovah. Similar is 1 Peter 2:3, which is nearly an exact quotation from Psalm 34:8, where the Lord is Jehovah; but from verses 4-8 it is also clear that the Lord in verse 3 is Jesus. Besides the name Jehovah and the title God, Jesus has other titles belonging exclusively to Jehovah. Jesus is the first and the last (Rev. 1:17; 22:13; cf. Isa. 44:6). He is the King of kings and Lord of lords (1 Tim. 6:15; Rev. 17:14; 19:16). Used in a spiritual, ultimate sense, Jesus is revealed to be God by his having the titles Savior (Luke 2:11; John 4:42; 1 John 4:14; cf. Isa. 43:11; 45:21-22; 1 Tim. 4:10), Shepherd (John 10:11; Heb. 13:20; cf. Ps. 23:1; Isa. 40:11), and Rock (1 Cor. 10:4; cf. Isa. 44:8). Jesus also receives the honors due to Jehovah God alone. He is to receive the same honor given to the Father (John 5:23). He is to be feared (Eph. 5:21), to receive absolute love (Matt. 10:37), and to be the object of the same faith we have in God (John 3:16; 14:1). He receives prayer (John 14:14; Acts 7:59-60 compared with Luke 23:34, 46; Rom. 10:12-13; 1 Cor. 1:2; etc.), worship (Matt. 28:17; Heb. 1:6), and sacred service (Rev. 22:3)." (Bowman, R.M., 1989, "Why You Should Believe in the Trinity: An Answer to Jehovah's Witnesses," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, Third printing, 1990, pp.108-109).

"On the basis of his divine identity, Jesus made promises to his followers and expected them to place their faith unconditionally in him. While Martha's brother Lazarus lay dead, Jesus assured her, `I am resurrection the life. Those believe me, even though they die, live, everyone who lives and believes in me will never die? (John 8:24). Moses never spoke like this! Again, belief in Jesus is not in place of belief in God. The person who accepts his teachings, Jesus said, `believes him who sent me' (John 5:24). This is what Jesus meant when he said, `Whoever believes in me believes not in me but in him who sent me' (John 12:44). Jesus made it clear that he was not inviting faith in him apart from, or in place of, faith in God. On the other hand, he made the claim-audacious for any creature to make-that he was just as trustworthy an object of faith as God himself. `Do not let your hearts be troubled. Believe in God, believe also in me' (John 14:1). Jesus' call here for the disciples to believe in him as they believed in God `links Jesus with the Father as the supreme object of faith:' [Keener, C.S., "The Gospel of John: A Commentary," Hendrickson: Peabody MA, 2003, 2:931]" (Bowman, R.M., Jr. & Komoszewski, J.E., 2007, "Putting Jesus In His Place: The Case for the Deity of Christ," Kregel: Grand Rapids MI, pp.62-63. Emphasis original).

"At Isaiah chapter forty-eight Jehovah is sent by the Lord God! In verse twelve He says: `I am the first, I also am the last' ([Isa 48:12] A.S.V.). In verse sixteen He says: `Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; from the beginning I have not spoken in secret; from the time that it [the beginning] was, there am I [John 1:1]: and now THE LORD JEHOVAH HATH SENT ME, and his Spirit.' ([Isa 48:16] We find at Acts 5:4 that the Holy Spirit is also God; and if God, then He, too is Jehovah. He is sent by the Father, as the Son is sent. So Jehovah sends and is sent; but it is the Father who sends and the Son and Holy Spirit are the sent Ones. No one has seen the person of the Father, but they have seen the Son and the Spirit visibly manifested. All three Persons are Jehovah, the one God. At Isaiah 9: 6 the Son is called `Mighty God'. Is He a God other than Jehovah? At Deuteronomy 32:39 Jehovah says: `See now that I, even I, am he, and THERE IS NO GOD (elohim) WITH ME' (A.S.V.). Yet Jesus, referred to as the Word at John 1:1, is said to be eternally `WITH God'. The Watch Tower Society translates the end of this verse thus: `The Word was a god' (New World). They have `a god' WITH `the God', giving us a big God and a little god, one with the other. It is significant that the word elohim is used at Deuteronomy 32:39. This word means God, gods, or any object(s) of worship in any rank, position or category, `a god' included!" (Dencher, T., 1985, "Why I Left Jehovah's Witnesses," [1966], Christian Literature Crusade: Fort Washington PA, Revised, p.144. Emphasis original).

"Prayer The Watchtower Society has taught its followers that they must address all their prayers to `Jehovah God,' using this modern transliteration of the ancient Hebrew Tetragrammaton. (You Can Live Forever in Paradise on Earth, pages 44 and 228) However, is that what Jesus taught? The four Gospels record sufficient details of Jesus' earthly life for us to follow Him as our exemplar in the matter of prayer. Many of Jesus' prayers are recorded. Did He pray to `Jehovah God?' No, the pattern Jesus set is this: `Abba, Father, all things are possible to you.' - Mark 14:36 NWT. `Father, I thank you.' - John 11:41 NWT. `Father, the hour has...' - John 17:1 NWT. `You must pray, then, this way: 'Our Father...' - Matthew 6:9 NWT. The pattern Jesus set was to address God as `Father.' In fact, even the New World Translation does not contain any examples of Christ praying to `Jehovah'-in spite of the fact that the name `Jehovah' is inserted by the translators in hundreds of verses.." (Reed, D.A. , 1996, "Answering Jehovah's Witnesses: Subject by Subject," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, Second printing, 1998, p.182. Emphasis original).

"Jesus Is Yahweh ... A comparison of the Old and New Testaments provides powerful testimony to Jesus' identity as Yahweh. Support for this is found, for example, in Christ's crucifixion. In Zechariah 12:10 Yahweh is speaking prophetically: `They will look on me, the one they have pierced.' Though Yahweh is speaking, this is obviously a reference to Christ's future crucifixion. We know that `the one they have pierced' is Jesus, for He is described this same way by the apostle John in Revelation 1:7. ... The Septuagint provides us with additional insights on Christ's identity as Yahweh. The Septuagint is a Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament that dates prior to the birth of Christ. It renders the Hebrew phrase for `I AM' (God's name) in Exodus 3:14 as ego eimi. On a number of occasions in the Greek New Testament, Jesus used this term as a way of identifying Himself as God. For example, in John 8:24 (NASB) Jesus declared, `Unless you believe that I am [I AM or ego eimi] He, you shall die in your sins.' The original Greek text for this verse does not have the word he. The verse is literally, `If you do not believe that I AM, you shall die in your sins.' Then, according to verse 28, Jesus told the Jews, `When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am [I AM, or ego eimi] He.' Again, the original Greek text reads, `When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I AM' (there is no he). Jesus purposely used the phrase as a means of pointing to His identity as Yahweh. It is also highly revealing that Old Testament passages about Yahweh were directly applied to Jesus in the New Testament. For instance, Isaiah 40:3 says: `In the desert prepare the way for the LORD [Yahweh]; make straight in the wilderness a highway for our God [Elohim].' Mark's Gospel tells us that Isaiah's words were fulfilled in the ministry of John the Baptist preparing the way for Jesus Christ (Mark 1:2-4). Still another illustration is Isaiah 6:1-5, where the prophet recounts his vision of Yahweh `seated on a throne, high and exalted' (verse 1). He said, `Holy, holy, holy is the LORD [Yahweh] Almighty; the whole earth is full of his glory' (verse 3). Isaiah also quotes Yahweh as saying: `I am the LORD; that is my name! I will not give my glory to another' (42:8). Later, the apostle John-under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit-wrote that Isaiah `saw Jesus' glory' (John 12:41). Yahweh's glory and Jesus' glory are equated." (Rhodes, R., 1993, "Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovah's Witnesses," Harvest House: Eugene OR, Reprinted, 2006, pp.62-64. Emphasis & parentheses original).

"Does Stephen's prayer to Jesus, as found in Acts 7:59, show that he understood Jesus to be Jehovah?-W. R., U.S.A. The prayer offered by Stephen when he was being martyred is recorded at Acts 7:59, 60, which says: `And they went on casting stones at Stephen as he made appeal and said: `Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.' Then, bending his knees, he cried out with a strong voice: `Jehovah, do not charge this sin against them.' And after saying this he fell asleep in death.' Rather than indicating that Stephen understood both Jesus and Jehovah to be the same person, his prayer shows that he knew they were not, because he differentiates between the two. His request to Jesus he does not address merely to the Lord, but to the Lord Jesus, thus doing away with any ambiguity. Further, his statement shortly prior to this, as recorded in verse 56, indicates two persons: `And he said: `Look! I behold the heavens opened up and the Son of man standing at God's right hand.' He does not say the Son of man, Christ Jesus, is Jehovah God, but that he was standing at God's right hand. Not only does Stephen's request, `Lord Jesus, receive my spirit,' not prove the trinity, but Jesus' similar fervent prayer, `Father, into your hands I entrust my spirit,' conclusively shows that Jesus is not the same as his Father Jehovah.-Luke 23:46. In the wording of his prayer Stephen showed that he understood the difference between Jehovah and the Lord Jesus as set out in Psalm 110:1 and applied by Jesus at Matthew 22:42-46. He was not perplexed by Jesus' application of it, as were the Pharisees to whom Jesus spoke and who were silenced by his answer. Jesus had taught his followers that the Father authorized him to raise others to life. (John 5:26; 6:40; 11:25, 26) So it was proper for Stephen to petition Jesus over this matter, and his prayer indicates proper understanding on his part. It does not support the trinity." (WB&TS, "Questions From Readers," The Watchtower, February 1, 1959, p.96. Emphasis original).

"From time to time letters are received asking whether a certain circumstance would justify making an exception to the Christian's obligation to tell the truth. In reply to these the following is given: ... There is one exception, however, that the Christian must ever bear in mind. As a soldier of Christ he is in theocratic warfare and he must exercise added caution when dealing with God's foes. Thus the Scriptures show that for the purpose of protecting the interests of God's cause, it is proper to hide the truth from God's enemies. A Scriptural example of this is that of Rahab the harlot. She hid the Israelite spies because of her faith in their God Jehovah. This she did both by her actions and by her lips. That she had Jehovah's approval in doing so is seen from James' commendation of her faith.-Josh. 2:4, 5; Jas. 2:25. This would come under the term `war strategy,' as explained in The Watchtower, February 1, 1956, and is in keeping with Jesus' counsel that when among wolves we must be as `cautious as serpents.' Should circumstances require a Christian to take the witness stand and swear to tell the truth, then, if he speaks at all, he must utter the truth. When faced with the alternative of speaking and betraying his brothers or not speaking and being held in contempt of court, the mature Christian will put the welfare of his brothers ahead of his own, remembering Jesus' words: `No one has greater love than this, that someone should surrender his [life] in behalf of his friends.'-Matt. 10:16; John 15:13." (WB&TS, 1960, "Questions From Readers," The Watchtower, June 1, pp.351-352, p.352).

"Successful argument is based on three main principles: First, get a plain, clear statement of the proposition, both sides agreeing as to what the argument is about. In this way you can come to grips with one another and not beat the air. ... Second, get definitions of terms clear. Be sure each understands just what the other means by his use of a term or expression. For example, someone may say, `You don't believe in the doctrine of the trinity.' Now, the trinity doctrine means that there are three persons in one God: God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost, all coequal and coeternal." (WB&TS, 1967, "Qualified to be Ministers," [1955], Watchtower Bible & Tract Society: Brooklyn NY, Revised, pp.197-198).

"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." (WB&TS, 1989, "Should You Believe in the Trinity?," Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York: Brooklyn NY, Reprinted, 2006, pp.3-4. Emphasis original).

"Who is this wonderful God? Some persons say his name is Jesus. Others say he is a Trinity, although the word `trinity' does not appear in the Bible. According to the teaching of the Trinity, there are three persons in one God, that is, there is `one God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.'" (WB&TS, 1989, "You Can Live Forever in Paradise on Earth," [1982], Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York: Brooklyn NY, Second edition, p.39).

"The Truth About the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit PEOPLE who believe the Trinity teaching say that God consists of three persons - the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Each of these three persons is said to be equal to the others, almighty, and without beginning. According to the Trinity doctrine, therefore, the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, yet there is only one God. Many who believe the Trinity admit that they are not able to explain this teaching. Still, they may feel that it is taught in the Bible. It is worth noting that the word `Trinity' never occurs in the Bible. But is the idea of a Trinity found there?" (WB&TS, 2005, "What Does the Bible Really Teach?," Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York: Brooklyn NY, pp.201-202. Emphasis original).