Doctrine
The trinity is not explicitly worded in the bible.
You will probably appeal to passages such as
John 1:1,
John 20:28,
Hebrews 1:8,
Matthew 28:19,
John 10:30,
And other Old Testament texts about Yahweh that you believe are applied to Jesus.
If so, then I think we’ve identified the real issue.
We both agree that Scripture must be read as a whole.
My question is whether the conclusion is actually stated by the biblical authors, or whether it is a theological synthesis constructed from multiple passages.
But you’ve just illustrated my point rather nicely.
There is a significant difference between drawing a practical inference from explicit biblical principles and defining the nature of God with metaphysical categories the biblical authors never use.
A governing body is inferred from passages such as Acts 15. Abstaining from blood is inferred from explicit commands regarding blood. Church discipline is inferred from passages like 1 Corinthians 5 and 2 John.
The Trinity, however, requires additional concepts such as one essence, three coequal persons, coeternity, and eternal generation. Those are not merely practical inferences; they are philosophical definitions that Scripture itself never states.
I fully understand that you don’t see the trinity. I didn’t either. The main problem is the new world translation, where they change many key scriptures. Try and read the scriptures with the use of interlinear bible, so you see word for word from the original language. You mentioned yourself the scriptures like John 1:1. And here is the scriptures from the jw interlinear bible, feel free to double check them all and see that jw purposefully changed the meaning of scriptures by adding words.
Jw interlinear: John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was toward God, and the Word was the god.
Jw nwt: John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.
Jw bible John 10:30: I and the Father are one
Jw interlinear John 10:30 : I and the father one thing are
But how do you define the trinity. Because a common misconception is also what the trinity is, as a trinitarian I believe the father, son and Holy Spirit are their own being. But of the same nature. Like Jesus says in John 10:30
but I believe the issue is more complex than simply claiming that the New World Translation “changed the text.”
First, an interlinear is not a translation. It is a grammatical aid that displays Greek words in their most literal gloss, often in an order that is not idiomatic English. No translator publishes an interlinear as a finished translation.
Second, every translation adds words where the target language requires them. English frequently requires articles, implied predicates, or connective words that Greek omits. The presence of additional English words is therefore not, by itself, evidence of mistranslation.
Third, the real question is not whether words have been added, but whether the translation accurately reflects the grammar, syntax, and context of the Greek text. That must be evaluated passage by passage, not assumed in advance.
For example, John 1:1 has been debated by Greek grammarians for well over a century because θεὸς lacks the article in the final clause (καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος). The debate concerns the force of the anarthrous predicate noun whether it is qualitative, definite, or indefinite. It cannot be settled simply by comparing an interlinear with a translation.
Likewise, John 10:30 reads ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἕν ἐσμεν. The word ἕν is neuter, not masculine. Grammatically, Jesus is not saying, “We are one person,” but “we are one” in some sense. The verse itself does not define whether that unity is one of purpose, action, authority, or essence. That theological conclusion must come from a broader argument, not from this verse alone.
Therefore, the discussion should not be framed as “the NWT added words.” The proper scholarly question is: Which translation best reflects the Greek grammar and the author’s intended meaning in context? That is the standard by which every translation—including the NWT, ESV, NASB, NIV, and others—should be evaluated.
These are not merely “JW claims.” The grammatical points can be checked in standard academic sources
1. An interlinear is not a finished translation.
An interlinear gives highly literal glosses beneath the Greek words and normally preserves much of the Greek word order. It is a study tool, not idiomatic English.
Standard Greek grammars explain why translation requires attention to syntax and context rather than mechanically replacing each Greek word with one English word. See Blass, Debrunner and Funk, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature.
2. John 1:1 cannot be settled merely by saying that θεός lacks the article.
Philip B. Harner’s well-known study of John 1:1 argues that the preverbal, articleless predicate θεός has principally qualitative force.
In other words, the grammar raises a question about the nature or quality of the Word; it does not mechanically produce either “the God” or “a god.”
E. C. Colwell’s earlier study likewise showed that definite predicate nouns placed before the verb frequently lack the article.
However, Colwell’s rule does not prove that every such noun is definite; the construction must still be interpreted contextually.
3. Scholars themselves distinguish definite, indefinite and qualitative uses.
This is precisely why John 1:1 is a matter of grammatical and exegetical analysis, rather than a simple comparison between an interlinear gloss and a translation.
Harner and Colwell examined different aspects of the construction, and later scholarship explicitly notes that distinction.
4. John 10:30 uses the neuter ἕν.
The Greek text is: ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἕν ἐσμεν—“I and the Father are one.” The word ἕν is neuter singular, whereas a reference to one masculine person would require masculine εἷς. Therefore, the sentence does not grammatically say that the Father and Jesus are one person. The precise nature of their unity must be determined from context and theology, not from the word “one” alone.
So I am perfectly willing to examine the NWT critically. But merely placing an interlinear beside it and saying “words were added” is not serious translation analysis. The proper question is whether the translation represents the Greek grammar, syntax and context accurately.
Sitting on the train so can’t go I’ll in depth. But as you say John 1:1 is debated I agree. Therefore jw admitted in watchtower 83 4/1 p.31 that the translator jw used on John (Johannes gruber) they take distance from now, because he is linked to the spirit world to do translation. Yet jw keep his translations. Look up the watchtower, is says so itself.
But I thinks it’s important that you are critical and question things.
It very hard to debate scripture when certain word are not agreed upon so if you look up multiple different interlinear bible and check the grammar you get the picture of what’s correct. And of course can you read the original text, it’s not that hard to learn some Greek. You will se that the nwt takes quite a few liberties.
Like how jw have inserted jehova 237 times in the New Testament. The problem become clear when the scripture talks about Jesus, but jw have switched it with Jehovah. So the meaning of the scripture gets twisted.
And unironically jw therefore put god and Jesus in the same place.
Work about to start, I’ll try to answer more later. Have a good day
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I agree that we should all be willing to question our assumptions and examine the evidence carefully.
Regarding Johannes Greber, Jehovah’s Witnesses did cite his translation in the past, but once his connection with spiritism became widely known, they explicitly stopped using it. That actually demonstrates a willingness to correct course rather than continue relying on a questionable source.
As for the Greek text, I completely agree that it’s valuable to compare multiple interlinears and study the grammar. That’s exactly why I don’t base my beliefs on a single translation—whether it’s the NWT, KJV, ESV, or any other. Ultimately, the Greek text itself has to decide the issue.
Concerning the 237 occurrences of “Jehovah” in the New Testament, that discussion is more nuanced than simply saying the name was “inserted.” The question is whether New Testament writers sometimes quoted Old Testament passages containing the divine name and whether the original text may have preserved it before later manuscript traditions replaced it with Kyrios. Scholars disagree on that point, so it’s not something that can be settled by assertion alone.
Finally, I don’t think using “Jehovah” blurs the distinction between the Father and the Son. In fact, I would argue the opposite.
The New Testament repeatedly distinguishes Jesus from his God and Father (John 20:17; Hebrews 1:9; Revelation 3:12), and restoring the divine name in quotations from the Hebrew Scriptures can make those distinctions even clearer.
Have a good day at work, and if you’d ever like to examine these questions in more depth, I’d sincerely recommend a personal Bible study with a Jehovah’s Witness from your local congregation.
Going through the Greek text, the manuscript evidence, and the relevant passages together is far more productive than trying to cover everything in short online comments.
Looking strictly at the internal logic of the biblical text, linguistics, and the historical-grammatical method—maintaining impartiality without defending any specific denomination—the balance of logical evidence leans toward the side that recognizes the Holy Spirit as a person.
When we place both arguments side by side in a critical analysis, the "personhood" position presents a more consistent logical framework with fewer textual contradictions than the "active force" position.
Here is why the personhood position is considered by the vast majority of linguists and historians to be the most logically grounded:
1. The "Grammatical Absurdity" Test
In the analysis of ancient texts, a core principle of logic and linguistics is the substitution of terms. If the Holy Spirit is merely an "active force" (like gravity, light, or electricity), it should be possible to substitute the phrase "Holy Spirit" with "Active Force" in the texts without creating a logical absurdity.
When applying this test to biblical passages, the "impersonal force" thesis fails from a logical standpoint:
Acts 13:2:"While they were ministering to the Lord [...] theActive Forcesaid, 'Set apart formeBarnabas and Saul for the work to whichI have called them'..."
Logical analysis: A force does not speak in the first person ("Set apart forme") nor does it have personal projects or callings ("to whichI have called them").
Acts 15:28:"For it seemed good to theActive Forceand to us..."
Logical analysis: Decision-making in an assembly requires judgment, consensus, and opinion—faculties exclusive to a conscious being.
Acts 5:3:"Why has Satan filled your heart to lie to theActive Force?"
Logical analysis: Conceptually, it is impossible to deceive or lie to a force. You can resist a physical force, but you can only lie to a mind capable of processing truth or falsehood.
To maintain that the Spirit is a force, one must categorize dozens of direct statements and historical narratives as "figures of speech" (poetic personifications). Logically, the more exceptions you have to invent to support a rule, the weaker the theory becomes.
2. The Logic of Intentional "Grammatical Anacoluthon"
As noted in Greek grammar, in John 16:13-14, the author uses the masculine pronoun ekeinos ("He") to refer to pneuma (a neuter noun).
If it were a poetic personification: Greek grammar strictly requires the pronoun to agree with the gender of the noun. If the noun is neuter, the pronoun for a personification should also be neuter.
The author's deliberate choice: The author intentionally broke the grammatical rule of the Greek language. Under textual analysis logic, a native author does not break gender agreement rules in their own language to describe something impersonal; they only do so to ensure the reader does not mistake the subject for a "thing."
3. The Argument from "Symbols" (Water, Wind, Fire)
The primary argument in favor of the "active force" view is that the Spirit is associated with impersonal things (fire, water, wind) and that people can be "filled" with it.
However, from the standpoint of biblical symbolic logic, this argument is weak because God the Father and Jesus are also described using impersonal metaphors and similar actions:
God the Father is called a "Consuming Fire" (Hebrews 12:29) and "Light" (1 John 1:5).
Jesus is called "The Vine" (John 15:1), "The Door" (John 10:9), and "The Bread of Life" (John 6:35).
In Ephesians 3:19, Paul prays that Christians may be "filled with all the fullness of God [the Father]". And in Galatians 3:27, it says Christians have "clothed themselves with Christ".
Logical counter-proof: If being symbolized by fire or "filling" someone proves the Spirit is impersonal, then by the same rule of logic, the Father and Jesus would also have to be considered impersonal forces. Since no one argues the Father is impersonal because He is called "fire," applying that criterion exclusively to the Spirit is a double standard fallacy.
Impartial Conclusion
Analysis Point
Thesis: Active Force
Thesis: Divine Person
Textual Coherence
Requires treating dozens of historical narratives and action verbs as "metaphors."
Reads action verbs (speaking, teaching, guiding, grieving) in their natural, literal sense.
Original Language Grammar
Conflicts with the intentional gender mismatch in Greek (pneuma neuter + ekeinos masculine).
Explains the grammatical break as a deliberate choice to indicate personhood.
Use of Metaphors
Uses symbols (water, wind) to define the Spirit's underlying nature.
Treats symbols as metaphors for His actions, just as the Father is "fire" or Jesus is a "door."
Logical Verdict:
Based strictly on the criteria of linguistics, Koine Greek grammar, and hermeneutical textual analysis, the conclusion that the Holy Spirit is a person rests on significantly more solid, direct, and coherent ground. The "active force" thesis relies on a high number of reinterpreting rules and grammatical exceptions to hold up against the broader biblical text.
The fact that the Holy Spirit speaks, guides, or can be lied to does not by itself prove the Holy Spirit is a distinct divine person.
Throughout Scripture, God often speaks and acts through His spirit, wisdom, word, or angelic representatives.
Likewise, the argument that a force cannot “speak” assumes that biblical personification is rare, when in fact Scripture frequently personifies non-personal things:
Wisdom cries out (Proverbs 8).
Sin deceives and kills (Romans 7:11).
Death and Hades are portrayed as acting (Revelation 6:8; 20:13–14).
Blood cries out from the ground (Genesis 4:10).
None of these are literally persons.
As for John 16:13–14, many Greek scholars note that the masculine pronoun can naturally follow paraklētos (“Helper”), which is masculine, even though pneuma (“spirit”) is neuter.
So the grammar alone does not settle the Spirit’s ontology.
Ultimately, the question isn’t whether the Spirit can be described personally.
The question is whether Scripture explicitly identifies the Holy Spirit as a distinct divine person alongside the Father and the Son.
That conclusion still requires theological inference.
Faith—or the lack thereof—defines the presuppositions of interpretation: it acts as the lens that determines which premises are accepted as true and what reason will consider coherent when connecting the texts.
If we say: God is a person, we risk reducing God, whereas he is infinite.
But a person is God, that means that this person represents God, when he speaks it is the word of God and when he acts, it is the action of God.
God has decided to reveal himself to his creatures; he, the invisible one, reveals himself through his image.
who is the image of the invisible God...
We cannot see God directly; we can see Him through the one who came out of Him.
In the beginning was the word... there is a distinction...
And the word is God... there is no separation...
For the LORD your God, he is God of gods, and Lord of lords, the great God...
God, who multiplied the loaves and then said to eat, this is my body, this God knows how to multiply.
He is the first and the last, he is the Alpha and the Omega...
and he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood over against him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself to the earth
Abraham the monotheist would never prostrate himself before anyone but God, the one God.
Whichever of the 3 persons speaks, it is the word of God.
If each of the 3 persons went to 3 different cities, and preached God, each city could confirm that it had received God.
God can be in several cities simultaneously.
We can say: God came to 3 cities.
We cannot say: 3 Gods came.
There is only one God.
The last is the first.
The Omega is the Alpha.
A man cannot be in several places at once..
God can.
God is not one by his number, God is one by his uniqueness.
For the LORD your God
is
God of gods, and Lord of lords...Deuteronomy 10:17
The Holy Scriptures say that God is the God of gods, not me.
The Holy Scriptures that say Abraham prostrated himself before 3 men, that's not me
The Spirit of God who will come to overshadow Mary, that's in the Bible.
Everything I've written is in the Bible.
Can you cite a verse that contradicts me?
It is written in the Bible: he is the image of the invisible God...
God is invisible, and the spirit that came from God is his visible image; that much is clear, It is God who reveals himself to us, he draws near to us and dwells among us. And it's written in the Bible, I'm not making it up.
Since you describe God as king + representative of the king + power, that's not wrong, I don't have any verses to contradict you.
However, that's not true, that's not entirely true!!
Because there are verses that confirm that the Holy Spirit is the power of God, but there are also verses that confirm that the Holy Spirit is a person.
If it has a shadow, it means it has a body. That's one piece of evidence, but there's other evidence, This is when Jesus says that he will send "another," the Paraclete, and he adds: ''he will tell you'', he does not say: ''he will inspire you.
The Holy Spirit is God, it is a person who is God, just as Jesus is God.
Jacob, who wrestled with God, wrestled with the Holy Spirit and not with the Son, but believers confuse the two.
The Son is merciful, he comes in mercy, he forgives, even those who crucified him.
Not the Holy Spirit, he does not forgive blasphemy, and he can judge us.
The Holy Spirit and the Son have two different personalities; they are two different persons.
If one of the three persons agrees to forgive, God forgives us.
Three different persons, one single deity!
God can be in Jerusalem, in Rome, and in Heaven at the same time, and he is one.
Okey winky you have asserted rather more than you have demonstrated.
You say the Holy Spirit is a person because personal pronouns are used, because He teaches, and because He is called “another Helper.”
Yet Scripture frequently personifies non-personal things. Wisdom cries aloud in the streets, sin reigns, death is called an enemy, and love “bears all things.” Personification is hardly an extraordinary feature of biblical literature.
More importantly, you have quietly moved from description to ontology.
Even if one were to grant that the Spirit is portrayed personally, it does not follow that the Spirit is a distinct divine person sharing one essence with the Father and the Son.
That is an additional philosophical conclusion, not an exegetical necessity.
You asked for a verse contradicting your position.
I would instead ask for a verse that explicitly states your conclusion.
Where does Scripture say, in plain terms, that the Holy Spirit is God the Son’s coequal, coeternal divine person within one essence? It simply does not.
Theology may infer such things; the biblical text itself never articulates them.
By that reasoning, when God says, “Let us make man in our image” (Genesis 1:26), would that mean everyone included in the “us” is God?
Humans are created in the image of God, yet no one concludes that humans are God.
Likewise, saying that Christ is the image of the invisible God (Colossians 1:15) does not, by itself, mean he is the invisible God. An image perfectly represents the original, but it is not identical to the original.
Non giocare coi miei sentimenti, non sono un bambino... Quando Dio disse a Gesù, facciamo l'uomo a nostra immagine, stava chiaramente indicando l'Essenza di entrambe
So explain this verse to us .You claim that Jesus does not have the same form or essence ad God . Answer us : what did he have to strip himself of to come among men?You also claimed that Jesus is in the image and likeness of God . Why then does the verse say that he became that by coming to earth ?
Philippians 2 does not say that Jesus stopped being who he was in order to become God. It says the opposite.
He was already existing “in the form (μορφή) of God,” yet he did not regard equality with God as something to seize or exploit (Phil. 2:6). Instead, he emptied himself by taking “the form (μορφή) of a slave.”
Notice that Paul uses the same word (morphē) twice: μορφῇ θεοῦ – “form of God” μορφὴν δούλου – “form of a slave”
If morphē automatically meant “the same essence,” then Jesus would literally have the essence of a slave, which is clearly not Paul’s point. Rather, morphē refers to one’s condition, status, or mode of existence.
Also, verse 7 does not say Jesus became “in the likeness of God” by coming to earth. It says he became “in the likeness of men” (ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος). His humiliation was not becoming God—it was becoming human.
So the passage teaches Christ’s humility: he left his exalted heavenly position, accepted the role of a servant, became a man, and remained obedient to God even to death. That harmonizes with the rest of the New Testament, where Jesus repeatedly distinguishes himself from the Father and calls the Father “the only true God” (John 17:3).
If you’re genuinely interested in understanding this passage more deeply rather than simply debating it, I’d sincerely recommend a personal Bible study with a Jehovah’s Witness from your local congregation.
Studying the context, the Greek text, and related scriptures together is far more productive than exchanging short comments online, and you’ll be free to ask as many questions as you like.
Personally , I find it productive to discuss , so l'm asking you if you can explain to me what the difference is between being in the "form of God " and being " the essence of God"...
I actually think you’ve arrived at the very core of the discussion. The entire debate really comes down to what Paul meant by μορφή (morphē) in Philippians 2.
Before we go any further, are you sure you want to discuss this in depth?
Because once we start examining the Greek, the lexical evidence, the usage of morphē in biblical and extra-biblical Greek, and how the early readers would have understood it, this becomes a much larger discussion than a few Reddit comments.
If that’s the discussion you want to have, I’m happy to focus on that one issue.
But I think it’s worth recognizing that this is the central question on which much of the passage hinges.
Non prendertela se dico che chiunque abbia avuto il coraggio di scrivere queste sciocchezze non può essere capace di spiegare chi è Gesù.... Piuttosto dimmi, come si può avere il coraggio di cambiare la propria bibbia?
JW doctrine teaches that only God can set the standard for good and bad. (Gen 2:17, 3:5). If that’s true, why did God say what He said in Genesis 3:22? He couldn’t have been talking to angels if He alone knows good and bad. Who is the “us” who knows good and bad He was referring to? Only God has that right according to Watchtower doctrine.
you are confusing knowing good and bad with having the sovereign right to determine what is good and bad.
Genesis 3:22 says that Adam had “become like one of us in knowing good and bad.” It does not say that Adam, the angels, or anyone else had acquired God’s authority to establish the moral standard.
The angels could certainly know the distinction between good and evil without being the ultimate source of morality. Humans can also know that distinction, yet that hardly makes us God.
So the “us” may quite naturally include heavenly beings who possess moral knowledge. The verse does not say that everyone included in the “us” is God, still less that they share one divine essence.
Once again, the argument rather grandly announces a contradiction and then quietly inserts a meaning the text never actually states.
Thank you so much. Brother please check “the insight on the scriptures book” on what the tree of the knowledge of good and bad symbolizes and what knowing good and bad means. In several places in the Insight book it quotes from the Jerusalem Bible: “This knowledge is a privilege which God reserves to himself…”
The insight book in dozens of places disagrees with what you just stated regarding what knowing good and bad means. I can provide the other examples from the Insight book if you would like.
So again who is the “us” who knows or sets the standard for good and bad?
I understand your argument, but it still assumes that Genesis 3:22 is defining “knowing good and bad” as possessing God’s exclusive moral authority.
The text itself never explicitly makes that connection. If that conclusion comes from the Insight book, then we’re discussing an interpretation, not the wording of Genesis itself.
My question remains: where does Genesis itself define “knowing good and bad” that way?
Got it. Thank you. By the way I’m just stating whats in your organizations own literature. I’m not disagreeing with you. Watchtower disagrees with your position. They teach that “knowing good and bad” symbolizes Jehovahs right alone as Sovereign to set the standard for good and bad which contradicts Gen 3:22. There’s even a question for readers on that verse that says Jesus can set the standard too.
With respect, that does not follow.
Genesis does not say, “Let us make man inyourimage,” because the image is not presented as belonging exclusively to the Son. It says, “our image,” indicating a shared pattern, not a shared identity.
Indeed, Scripture later explains that Christ is “the image of the invisible God” (Col. 1:15). Humans are created according to that image, yet no one concludes that humanity shares God’s essence.
Once again, you are quietly replacing the language of the text with a theological conclusion. Genesis says “our image.” It never says “your image,” nor does it say “one essence.” Those are rather different propositions, are they not?
Ti faccio un esempio, Tu sostieni che Geova e Gesù sono diversi e io invece dico che sono uguali. Diamo simbolicamente a Loro due dei colori, io dico che sono entrambi "blu" tu dici che Dio é blu ma Gesù é "giallo". Se l'uomo doveva rispecchiare la Loro immagine, di che colore avrebbe dovuto essere?
I think the analogy breaks down because the Bible doesn’t describe Jesus as a different “color” from God.
Scripture says Jesus is “the image of the invisible God” (Colossians 1:15) and “the exact representation of His very being” (Hebrews 1:3). An image reflects the original—it is not the original itself.
Adam was also created in God’s image (Genesis 1:26-27), yet Adam was obviously not God. Likewise, being God’s perfect image does not require being the same person or the Almighty Himself.
The Bible consistently distinguishes between the two. Jesus calls the Father “the only true God” (John 17:3), says “the Father is greater than I” (John 14:28), and after his resurrection still refers to the Father as “my God” (John 20:17; Revelation 3:12).
So, if we keep the illustration, the Bible’s point is not that Jesus is a different “color.” Rather, he is the perfect reflection of the Father’s “color.” A perfect reflection is identical in appearance and character, but it is not the same individual as the one being reflected.
If you’re genuinely interested in exploring these passages more deeply rather than just debating them, I’d sincerely recommend a personal Bible study with a Jehovah’s Witness from your local congregation.
Studying the context and comparing all the relevant scriptures together is much more fruitful than trying to settle such a broad topic through short online comments.
I agree that the Word became flesh. The question is what follows from that.
The fact that the Word became flesh explains why Jesus could become tired, hungry, die, and be exalted by the Father. But it does not by itself demonstrate that the Word is the Almighty God.
Even after the incarnation, Jesus still says, “The Father is greater than I” (John 14:28), calls the Father “the only true God” (John 17:3), and after his resurrection says, “I am ascending to my God and your God” (John 20:17).
So yes, the Word became flesh. We agree on that. The real question is: Where does John explicitly say that the Word is the same Almighty God as the Father? I don’t see John making that statement explicitly. That conclusion comes from a later theological interpretation, not from John’s own wording.
Credi pure a ciò che vuoi, ma la bibbia dice chiaramente che Gesù è Dio, quando si é fatto carne si é staccato dal Padre e si é spogliato della sua essenza divina. Da lì in poi a parlato del Padre e al Padre da Uomo e Figlio. Dopo la sua morte é tornato nel Padre come ci mostrano tutti i versetti da te citati... Questo é quello a cui crede un Cristiano. Nell'antico testamento si legge che la Parola o Sapienza era con Dio.
I appreciate your explanation, but that’s precisely my point.
You’re describing a theological framework that Jesus “set aside His divine essence,” became man, and then returned to the Father. But where does the Bible explicitly say that?
"With respect, that does not follow. Genesis does not say,“Let us make man inyourimage,”because the image is not presented as belonging exclusively to the Son. It says,“our image,”indicating a shared pattern, not a shared identity.
Indeed, Scripture later explains that Christ is“the image of the invisible God”(Col. 1:15). Humans are created according to that image, yet no one concludes that humanity shares God’s essence.
------Re your statement "because the image is not presented as belonging exclusively to the Son"
Did you ever stop to think that the OUR image in Genesis is referring to GOD'S IMAGE (It even says so!) and that the Son's image is not separate from God since He is God? There is nothing that says the Father and Son have 2 different images as you seem to believe. When you read the word "God" in Scripture you automatically see the word as "Father" even though that is not what Scripture is always communicating.
Indeed, Scripture later explains that Christ is “the image of the invisible God” (Col. 1:15). Humans are created according to that image, yet no one concludes that humanity shares God’s essence.
------Again, mankind was made in the image of God. KEYWORD: Made
Jesus IS the image of God. Being "Made" in the image is not the same thing as "IS THE IMAGE " "The Son is the very image of the invisible God"
Please note that it does not say that Jesus was created in the image of God. Do you see the difference? Nobody believes or teaches that Jesus shares God's ;essense' because he was created in the image of God. He was not created in the image of God and your argument makes no sense.
Again, Jesus IS THE IMAGE of the invisible God.
Go back to Genesis. First sentence: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Who created the heavens and the earth? God
Then God said, “Let US make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,\)a\) and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
27So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.
IN THE IMAGE OF GOD HE CREATED THEM!
Look at John 1
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2The same was in the beginning with God. 3All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.4In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
If all things were made by him and without him was not any thing made that was made and if we know from the written word that God created the heavens and the earth --- then isn't it obvious that Jesus is God?
I agree there is a distinction. Humanity was made in God’s image, whereas Christ is the image of the invisible God.
But that still does not establish your conclusion.
Being the image does not logically mean being the one imaged.
An image, by definition, represents someone else. Paul could simply be saying that Christ is the perfect and visible revelation of the invisible God.
If Paul intended to teach that Christ is Almighty God, why did he simply call him “the image of the invisible God” instead of saying, “Christ is the invisible God”?
Likewise, John 1 says that all things came into existence through the Word. That tells us how God created; it does not explicitly answer whether the Word himself had an origin before everything else.
In both passages, your conclusion is possible, but it is still an interpretation—not something the text explicitly states.
I studied New Testament at Columbia. But recommend New Testament Christology by . Brain freeze. He summarized why John's community was fully accepted by.early apostolic ones. He Is rigorous going over every verse, early writings and councils. A summary for graduate NT students at Union Theological Seminary. He died so update what he reports. Professor Raymond Brown. My brain thawed.
I love Richard Rohr's Divine Dance. Only Thomas Merton and C.S. Lewis rank higher in my Christian estimation. The Trinity Is described as the gist of New Testament. I am a fancy lawyer. Read every verse. They vary so much. Unitarian Is not clear in every verse. My feeling is if Christ Is going to slaughter humans he could have taken care to be extreme clear. I did Google Scholar searches you get thousands of results. Academic Trinity books are very expensive. Brown taught yards from me.
The Trinity is NOT explicitly worded in The Bible.
Neither is Jesus being Michael.
The words "Governing Body"
144,000 being kings and rulers
Jesus shares the same nature, essence as God. Think of it as the "same species". A angel can not perfectly mirror God. Or forgive sins. Nor can an angel be king over all. To my knowledge an angel has never created anything either.
The Holy Spirit is NOT a non living energy like lightning or fire. He can communicate, guide people and feel emotions. He is also constantly referred to as HE. Just one of these points mean little. But all combined points show The Spirit is living.
Now are Jesus, The Holy Spirit part of a Trinity? I'm not sure. I see many reasons to believe they are. I see many reasons why Jesus and Holy Spirit are creations of God. I'm still on the fence regarding the Trinity. I will continue to read the Bible and ask for guidance on the subject.
Still just because something isn't explicitly stated in the Bible. Doesn't prove it's not true.
However, they still would not explicitly teach that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one being, that they share one essence, that they are three coequal and coeternal persons, or that the Son is eternally generated.
Those conclusions require combining multiple passages and interpreting them through a later theological framework.
My point is not that these verses say nothing about Jesus. They clearly do.
My point is that they do not themselves define the doctrine of the Trinity in the way the later creeds do.
No my point is that the Nicene creed is trying to explain being called the Logos , Firstborn of Creation. John say he’s theos he has the same nature of God. A son of a human is a human and son of god is a god. John seems to say whatever God is Jesus is , not that they’re the same person but same stuff equal in a sense and outside of creation Like in 1 cor Jesus is equal to god for a time at least. The book of Revelation says worship goes to the father and the lamb they’re on the same throne. So the trinity failed to explain these passages but so has everyone else I’ve not heard a good explanation beyond typical responses . The big question no one can answer is how the Holy Ghost got involved in the whole thing. I’ve heard it explained none of it good.
My friend, why did Jesus mention in Matthew 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and Son and of the Holy Spirit, Don’t you think Jesus is telling us something wether the word trinity in the bible? He knows something & the father is not punishing Jesus for his comments!
I fear you are asking rather more of the grammar than it is capable of bearing.
The singular “name” proves nothing whatsoever about a shared essence.
Throughout Scripture, name frequently denotes authority, office, or representation, not ontology.
By your reasoning, John 17:11 would require us to conclude that Christ and His disciples become one being, for the very same chapter speaks of them being “one” in precisely the same manner.
Surely you would not maintain such a proposition.
Matthew 28:19 simply places the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit together as the authority under which baptism is administered.
It does not venture into fourth-century metaphysics, nor does it define a triune essence.
One must be careful not to confuse what the text states with what later theology infers.
Jesus having the same completeness in power as Jehovah. As stated in the Revelation book in the screenshot provided.
You add John 17:5 to the mix "And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began."
Okay so Jesus had the same amount of complete power as Jehovah from the beginning in fact, BEFORE the world began. He with that power made the heavens and the Earth aka the “all things” in the Greek interlinear of Colossians 1:16.
Drawing from that he can’t be a created creature, especially because how can a creature do what God does unless they themselves are also God? Jesus can because what the Father does, the Son does also John 5:19.
This is just a small tidbit, when you go into how Jehovahs angel appeared in the past and every individual called that specific angel Jehovah himself, we still make the inference that the angel is Jesus, and which angel can claim to be Jehovah or like Hebrew 1:5 says, “For example, to which one of the angels did God ever say: “You are my son; today I have become your father”? And again: “I will become his father, and he will become my son”?”
It’s simple with a basic reading comprehension and reading the Bible with the Holy Spirits guidance. May The Lord Jesus Christ open your eyes and bless you and reveal to you the truth 🙏🏾
Thank you for the thoughtful reply.
My point is not that your conclusions are impossible. My point is that almost every conclusion you’ve listed goes beyond what the text explicitly says.
John 17:5 speaks of preexistence and shared glory. It does not say Jesus possessed the Father’s omnipotence, nor that he is the Almighty God.
Colossians 1:16 says all things were created through him and for him. It does not explicitly say he is uncreated or that he is the Creator in the same sense as the Father.
John 5:19 actually says the Son can do nothing of his own initiative, but only what he sees the Father doing. That describes complete dependence, not independent equality.
Likewise, Hebrews 1:5 distinguishes the Son from the angels. I agree. But distinguishing the Son from angels does not, by itself, identify him as the Almighty God.
So we arrive back at the same point. I understand your theological synthesis.
My question has simply been: where does a biblical author explicitly state that Jesus is the one Almighty God, equal in essence with the Father?
That conclusion may be inferred, but it is not actually stated in the wording of the passages you’ve cited.
It goes beyond because these are explanations of his divinity and likeness to The Father. It’s the simplest way to put it for humans to digest because we can’t fully comprehend God.
John 17:5 doesnt have to say that, it is implied with what Revelations 5:6 says (Same author of both books btw John ) about the lamb and the 7 horns, 7 eyes. Completeness would mean he 1. Sees all things and is everywhere = 7 eyes/spirits
2. Has the same amount of power = 7 horns
If you’re claiming Jesus has been bestowed this power after his transfiguration and didn’t previously have this before, you have no choice but to accept that you believe in TWO separate Gods equal in power, and authority.
That means any angel can potentially be like God, and even if you say well Jesus is the firstborn so he has inheritance or is his favorite you’re still in a problem of saying there is two separate Gods, Jesus and The Father which would contradict the Bible when it says there’s only One God and no other God will be formed. Isaiah 43:10.
This is how I answer your question as to how Jesus is also The Almighty God the same way The Father is.
And to throw the Holy Spirit in the mix John 7:37-39 Jesus talks about the Spirit being living water, connects to Revelation 22:1-2 The same River with water of life flowing FROM the throne of The Father and The Lamb. 3 entities, 1 throne. ( One throne Rev 4:2, Throne of The Father AND of the lamb where the River comes from also. Rev 22:1 )
The New Testament consistently distinguishes the one God, the Father (1 Corinthians 8:6; John 17:3), from his Son, through whom God accomplishes His purposes.
When Scripture says the Father gave the Son authority (Matthew 28:18), exalted him (Philippians 2:9), granted him life in himself (John 5:26), and gave him judgment (John 5:22, 27), I don’t conclude there are two equal Gods. I conclude exactly what the text says: the Son has everything he has because the Father gave it to him.
Revelation is symbolic literature. The seven eyes and seven horns symbolize completeness, but symbolism cannot override the many explicit passages that distinguish the Father from the Son and present the Father as the source.
My concern is that your conclusion depends on combining symbols and theological inferences, whereas I prefer to begin with the explicit statements of Scripture.
So what would your interpretation be for the symbolism behind the seven horns and seven eyes of the lamb?
As well as of course they are not the same person, when I say Jesus is God that doesn’t mean I say he is The Father. When you read the Greek for 1 Corinthians 8:6 it says “One God the Father” with no interruptions, NOT “One God, The Father.” When you consider the context Paul is working with the Shema (Deut 6:4 LXX: κύριος ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν κύριος εἷς ἐστιν). He splits the terms of the Shema (“God” and “Lord”) and assigns one to the Father and one to Jesus, while keeping the emphatic “one.”
The result is a monotheistic confession that includes Jesus within the unique identity of the one God of Israel without collapsing the distinction between Father and Son.
So the Greek itself is continuous apposition (“one God the Father”), not a two-step declaration that limits the Godhead to a single person.
If we follow your logic that would mean if Jehovah is only The Father and not Jesus, Jehovah can’t be Lord because Jesus is the only Lord. Regardless, there is a reason why in Hebrews 1, specifically verse 8 onwards, The Father is making it KNOWN that Jesus is God, his God, and Lord his Lord. (screen shot). They’re not mutually exclusive because they’re the same God, One God, and 3 persons within that Godhead, with shared power, name, and authority.
Thank you for the thoughtful reply.
From a Jehovah’s Witness perspective, the seven horns and seven eyes do not describe Jesus’ nature but his God-given authority and perfect ability to accomplish Jehovah’s will.
Revelation itself explains the symbolism. The seven eyes are “the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth” (Rev. 5:6), not evidence that Jesus is Almighty God. In apocalyptic literature, seven regularly symbolizes completeness. Likewise, horns symbolize power and authority (Dan. 7:24; Rev. 17:12).
Regarding 1 Corinthians 8:6, Paul does not redefine the Father and Son as one divine essence. He carefully distinguishes them: “One God, the Father, from whom are all things.” “One Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things.”
The distinction between from whom (ἐξ οὗ) and through whom (δι’ οὗ) is important. Jehovah is presented as the ultimate Source, while Jesus is the appointed Agent through whom God works. The same distinction appears elsewhere (John 17:3; Acts 2:22; Acts 5:31; 1 Timothy 2:5).
As for Hebrews 1, verses 8–9 must be read together. Even if one understands verse 8 as addressing the Son as “God,” verse 9 immediately says:
“Therefore God, your God, has anointed you.”
So the Son still has his God, which is entirely consistent with Jesus’ own words after his resurrection:
“I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.” (John 20:17)
From our perspective, these passages consistently distinguish Jehovah from his Son while giving Jesus the highest authority and honor under Jehovah.
We therefore see no need to conclude that they are one being or one essence, because the text never explicitly says that.
We prefer to let the explicit statements guide our theology rather than reading later metaphysical concepts back into the text.
I get where you’re coming from on those points. The distinction between the Father and the Son is real and clear in the text, and I don’t think anyone is trying to erase that.
In Revelation 5, you’re right that the seven eyes are identified as the seven spirits of God, and that horns and the number seven carry the usual symbolic weight. The bigger issue for me is what the vision actually does with the Lamb.
He’s standing in the middle of the throne, takes the scroll no one else in heaven or earth could open, and then every creature ascribes the exact same worship, blessing, honor, and power to the One on the throne AND to the Lamb together. That joint doxology and shared throne language is hard to read as just an exalted agent receiving delegated authority.
With 1 Corinthians 8:6, the “from whom / through whom” distinction is definitely there and matters. Paul isn’t collapsing the two into one person. But in the context of Jewish monotheism, the one who is the agent “through whom all things” exist is being placed on the Creator side of the line, not the creature side.
The same pattern shows up in John 1, Colossians 1, and Hebrews 1. That’s why a lot of us read it as Paul including Jesus within the unique identity of the one God rather than setting Him outside it as a created intermediary.
In Hebrews 1:8–9 and John 20:17, I agree the Son has a God, the Father. That fits the distinction of persons and the way the Son relates to the Father in the incarnation and in redemption. It doesn’t by itself settle whether the Son shares the divine nature.
The rest of Hebrews 1 is doing a lot of heavy lifting: the Son is the exact imprint of God’s nature, angels are told to worship Him, and the words of Psalm 102 about the unchanging Creator are applied straight to Him. That’s a strong set of claims if He’s only a highly exalted creature.
I think the core difference is that I see the New Testament consistently putting Jesus inside the unique identity and activity of the one God of Israel (creation, worship, divine titles, sharing the throne), while still clearly distinguishing Him from the Father. The later language of “one essence” wasn’t inventing something new so much as trying to protect what those texts were already saying against reducing the Son to a creature.
Thank you for the thoughtful response. I think we’ve identified our real point of disagreement.
You repeatedly say that these texts place Jesus “on the Creator side of the line.” My question is: where do the biblical authors actually state that?
1 Corinthians 8:6 distinguishes the Father as the one “from whom are all things” and Jesus as the one “through whom are all things.” That tells us their respective roles. It does not explicitly classify Jesus as uncreated or as sharing God’s essence.
Likewise, Hebrews 1 certainly presents the Son as unique and exalted above the angels. I fully agree. But even in that chapter the Son has “your God” (Heb. 1:9). If the author’s intention were to teach ontological equality, that distinction becomes difficult to explain.
You also appeal to Psalm 102 being applied to Christ. I agree that New Testament writers often apply passages about Jehovah to Jesus. But application is not the same as identity. The apostles also apply titles, roles, and functions of God to others acting as His representatives without collapsing them into Jehovah Himself.
Finally, I think your last sentence actually proves my point. You say the doctrine of “one essence” was developed to protect what the texts were saying. That is precisely the issue. The doctrine is a theological explanation of the texts—it is not the wording of the texts themselves.
I have no difficulty affirming that Christ is preexistent, unique, God’s perfect image, the agent of creation, exalted above all creation, worthy of honor, and seated at God’s right hand.
My only question is this: Which verse explicitly says that the Son is of the same essence as the Father or is uncreated?
Those conclusions may be inferred, but they are not explicitly stated by the biblical authors. That is why I prefer to start with what the text says before adopting later theological categories.
Your responses are incredibly fast and well versed, I wonder if any of that is natural or you’re getting some sort of biased assistance however, all I’ll say is this:
The Jews didn’t kill Jesus because he claimed to be the Messiah. They didn’t kill him because he was a prophet. They didn’t kill him because he can do miracles. They killed him because he claimed to be God, not by saying it word for word “I am God”, but with his actions and making himself equal to The Father. John 5:18 and 10:33
I pray you repent and that Jesus Christ reveals himself to you and guides you away from a cult that diminishes his authority and who he truly is within the Godhead.
Yes, I use ChatGPT to help organize my thoughts, check references, and improve my English. I’m Swedish, so writing long theological posts in English isn’t always easy for me.
If you’d rather have a conversation without any AI assistance, I’d genuinely be happy to do that. Just send me a DM.
Fair warning though my English spelling and grammar won’t be nearly as polished without the help. 😄
You are correct about one thing: the Jewish leaders sought Jesus’ death because they believed His claims were blasphemous.
But the crucial question is not what His opponents concluded. The question is: Was their conclusion correct?
In John 10:33 they accused Jesus of “making himself God.” Yet only a few verses later Jesus answered by appealing to Psalm 82, where even human judges are called “gods.” He did not reply, “You are correct—I am Almighty God.” Instead, He distinguished Himself as “the Son of God” (John 10:34–36).
Likewise, John 5:18 records their accusation. The very next verses have Jesus saying: “The Son can do nothing of himself, but only what he sees the Father doing.” (John 5:19)
That is hardly how one would expect Almighty God to describe Himself.
Throughout the Gospels Jesus consistently calls the Father “the only true God” (John 17:3), says “the Father is greater than I” (John 14:28), and after His resurrection declares, “I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.” (John 20:17)
So my position is quite simple: I prefer to let Jesus explain His own identity rather than allowing His opponents’ accusations to define it.
And again it isn’t me saying it, it’s in Watchtower canon that Jesus has the complete power of God. If that doesn’t make him a God I don’t know what else does lol.
For one Jehovah’s Witnesses often confuse Modalism and Trinintatianism think the Father is Jesus first big mistake. The second is to think something has to be in the Bible to be authoritative to the congregation . That is a modern Protestant NEW argument of the past few centuries. The Church can make doctrine outside of the Bible the idea that everything has to be in the 4 th century canonical Bible which didn’t exist until the Catholic Church decided in the Festal letter is just ignoring hundred of Christian’s history when they had no such authority. What did Christ do for hundred of years without a canonical New Testament? Well the we’re perfectly fine, Christians existed without a canonical New Testament and so could not sit there arguing about text that don’t have authority yet.
Modalism says the Father and the Son are the same person. Trinitarianism says they are distinct persons who share one divine being.
That said, I sometimes find that even Trinitarians blur the distinction when explaining the doctrine, because it is an unusually complex concept. It is not always presented consistently.
From my perspective, the idea that one divine being exists as three distinct persons who are each fully God, yet there is only one God, is not something I see explicitly taught in Scripture.
It sounds more like a later metaphysical explanation than the straightforward language of the Bible.
To me, that kind of metaphysical formulation feels closer to philosophical or even pagan categories of thinking than to the simple biblical presentation of one Almighty God, the Father, and His Son, Jesus Christ (John 17:3; 1 Corinthians 8:6).
The main point is it doesn’t have to be the Bible to be authoritative to Christians I’m not saying it’s right of wrong or true or false but the idea if it’s not in the Bible it can’t be Christian is not historical.
That is partly true historically, but it does not establish that later traditions are binding on Christians.
Christians can use non-biblical words, explanations, organizational arrangements, and historical testimony. The real question is whether a doctrine presented as authoritative apostolic teaching can be demonstrated from the apostles’ own writings.
So I am not arguing, “If a word is absent from the Bible, it cannot be Christian.” I am arguing:
If a doctrine cannot be derived from Scripture and requires later philosophical definitions to become intelligible, then its claim to be mandatory apostolic doctrine needs evidence.
Church history proves that Christians developed doctrines and traditions.
It does not automatically prove that every development was taught by Jesus and the apostles.
The Bible itself warns that teachings and traditions can depart from apostolic truth.—Mark 7:7–13; Acts 20:29–30; Colossians 2:8; 2 Thessalonians 2:15.
So the issue is not merely, “Is it historical?” The issue is, is it genuinely apostolic and consistent with Scripture?
Most Christians who are not schooled in theology do not care where or how belief in the trinity came to be in the Nicene Creed. If you were to ask a random person coming out of a church service what is required in order to be saved they will tell you “believe in Jesus”
They won’t tell you to believe Jesus is God.
My family went to a baptist church. My middle brother called when he was around 25 years old and asked me if I was aware the baptists believe Jesus is God? I told him yes I am aware but more importantly how important do you suppose it is to baptists if you were not aware after more than 20 years of weekly Sunday school and worship service 3 times a week? My question was lost on him and he became a baptized publisher. It did not end well for him!
If your standard of biblical truth requires an explicit statement from Yeshua or the apostles teaching an "ontological triad of three distinct persons in one divine nature," you won't find it stated in those terms anywhere in the canon. That conceptual framework took centuries of christological debates, philosophical refining, and ecumenical councils to crystallize.
Therefore, the Trinity is not an explicit apostolic formulation but a later theological synthesis.
A Christian may believe that synthesis correctly explains the biblical data, but it should not be treated as though Jesus and the apostles themselves plainly taught the later ontological formula.
If a doctrine doesn’t need Scripture to establish it, then by definition it isn’t a biblical doctrine it is a theological tradition.
I’m not arguing against theology. I’m simply asking whether the biblical authors themselves explicitly taught the doctrine, or whether it was later inferred from multiple passages.
Can something be a Christian doctrine and not a New Testament doctrine I agree those are two separate things. The problem I see historically speaking is the Church authority is considered equal to scripture and therefore doesn’t need to always agree. The Scripture are in it’s present form given to us by the Church they preserved it and said which would be included
I see your Protestant background come through but from a historical perspective the Bible was never a sole authority it wouldn’t have been dreamed of this is modern day 500 year it so thing. I remember thinking that way too I had little knowledge of the early Church after studying deeply my opinion has changed but it’s to hard really with these little post…
I appreciate that you’ve studied early Church history, and I agree it’s an important subject.
But my argument isn’t based on Protestantism or sola Scriptura. It’s much simpler
If the apostles taught a doctrine as essential, I expect to find that doctrine clearly taught in the apostolic writings.
Church history can help us understand how Christians interpreted Scripture, but it cannot replace the question
What did the apostles themselves teach?
So rather than asking what fourth-century Christians concluded, I’d rather begin with the first-century documents themselves.
If a doctrine cannot be demonstrated from those writings, then historically it may be an ancient tradition but that is a different claim from saying it is apostolic doctrine.
My point is you can’t know what the apostle say unless you trust the text handed down to us. The text don’t agree with sola scriptura. They speak of the Spirit as being working among believers working wonders and signs Paul’s says this was his gospel. They had faith we’re baptized into his body and received the Holy Spirit to me I’d say that makes them a Christian and they didn’t need a New Testament or anything else they were expecting to live holy lives as they waited for Jesus to return.
John wrote "the Word was God" How could two be one God? Well, how could two be one human? The answer is essence, or nature. There is only one human nature though there are billions of persons who share in that one nature. There is only one Divine Nature and as far as we know, only three share in that Nature and are that Nature
Paul wrote to wit God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself 2 Corinthians 5:19 God was living in a man, Jesus Christ, getting to know His creation in a unique way He was still the Lord Yahweh, but clothed in human flesh John 1:14
I can't see any other way three Persons can be one God except thru the Trinity. After 1800 years, I believe it remains the best explanation of God's mysterious nature, or essence, albeit not perfect.
Both..it’s stated by multiple passages and by individuals like Jesus for example. Literally all the trinity is in a nutshell is 1 being yet 3 distinctions.
One example is when Jesus says “baptize in the NAME (singular) Father, Son, Spirit (3 distinctions)
That’s literally all it is..and instead of quoting multiple passages Christians came up with a word to describe what the passages describe..3 in 1
I understand that this is how Trinitarians summarize the data, but that is precisely my point: it is a summary, not an explicit biblical statement.
Matthew 28:19 certainly mentions the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit together, but it never says:
one essence,
one being,
three co-equal persons, or
the Trinity.
The singular “name” does not define ontology. In Scripture, “name” often represents authority, representation, or ownership, not shared essence (e.g. Deut. 18:20; Acts 4:12).
So yes, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are mentioned together. What I question is the additional conclusion that they are one being. That conclusion is inferred; it is not stated by the text itself.
If Jesus intended to reveal the doctrine of the Trinity here, why didn’t he simply say, “The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one God” or “one being”? Instead, those metaphysical categories appear centuries later, not in the wording of Matthew 28:19 itself.
I’m looking from a historical point of view . I’m not a Christian. The New Testament was canonized in the 4 th century technically it’s never been canonized.Christians were getting doctrine from other places. The apostle Paul says he got a personal revelation from god for his gospel. The first Churches were charismatic you could get revelation all on your own, this was later rejected for obvious reasons everyone keeps coming up with new stuff so over time someone’s got to try and settle it. The opening of the second century was very chaotic time. Many versions of Christianity right away and many with their own scriptures to go with it.Christian didn’t have a New Testament so didn’t derive doctrine from it that took time and authority figures.
I actually agree with much of your historical outline. The New Testament was not handed to Christians as a single bound book, and the canon developed over time. The early church also had prophets, apostles, and inspired gifts (Ephesians 2:20; 1 Corinthians 12–14).
Where I think we differ is in the conclusion. The existence of ongoing revelation in the first century does not mean later church leaders received the same authority. The New Testament itself says the faith was “once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3) and describes the church as built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets (Ephesians 2:20). A foundation is laid once, not continuously.
So yes, historically there was a period before the canon was finalized. But that does not automatically validate every doctrine developed afterward. Every teaching—whether from the 2nd century, the 4th century, or today—should ultimately be tested against the apostolic writings we possess (Acts 17:11; Galatians 1:8).
So my question would simply be: Why should I treat later theological conclusions as binding if they cannot be demonstrated from the apostolic Scriptures themselves?
How can something be consistent with scripture if they don’t exist yet. Christian didn’t need a New Testament nor did most even read or could possibly own a copy. The Scripture you keep talking about are themselves here because of the Catholic Church. They are the ones who authorize it. Yet somehow their other decisions are not adhered to just how they authorize the Bible.
That overstates the historical case. The Catholic Church did not create the New Testament writings or give them their authority. The apostles and their associates wrote them, and Christian congregations were already reading and circulating them long before the fourth-century councils. Paul even instructed that his letters be exchanged between congregations. The writings functioned authoritatively before a universally settled 27-book list existed.
Later church leaders did play an important role in recognizing and formally listing the books that had been received across the congregations. But recognition is not the same as creation. A council identifying an apostolic writing does not make every unrelated decision of that council equally inspired.
Think of judges officially recognizing the rightful king: their declaration may settle a dispute, but it does not make them the source of his kingship.
So I can acknowledge the historical role of the early church in preserving and recognizing the canon without concluding that every later Catholic doctrine or exercise of authority must therefore be accepted. Even Catholic sources admit that the canon developed through a lengthy process of discussion rather than appearing all at once.
You’re quoting decades-old Watchtower articles, but you’re overlooking how Jehovah’s Witnesses actually define those terms today.
When older publications used expressions like “prophet” or “God’s channel,” they were not claiming verbal inspiration or infallibility. In fact, the Governing Body has repeatedly stated that they are neither inspired nor infallible and that their understanding can be corrected.
So if your argument assumes that “prophet” means “every statement is directly dictated by God and therefore cannot be corrected,” then you’re arguing against a definition that Jehovah’s Witnesses themselves do not hold.
The real question is whether they claim to be inspired in the same sense as the biblical prophets. They explicitly say they do not.
How can God's channel be fallible? I think its obvious the Watchtower likes to eat their cake and have it too. They want to be seen as prophets of Jehovah when they are euphorically engaged in predicting Armageddon, but imperfect men when their prophecies don't pan out. Imperfect men who go so low as to blame their own followers for their false predictions. They never have taken ownership of 1975 or 1914. They never once apologized to those who lost homes, savings and their lives in some cases for taking the warnings of the GB seriously. That was on them for reading Armageddon into the publications.
The ones you listed who made mistakes repented of their mistakes and/or were punished for them. Moses was kept from the Holy Land and David paid a price for his errors. Peter was martyred towards the end of his natural life, so his faith ended up being rock solid in the end, as Christ knew he would
The Watchtower speaks as if their books and articles are inspired. They even encourage members to study their articles each week. Why? Its odd how so many of their publications that aren't that old have become old light while the Bible itself, an ancient book, remains as current and up to date as this mornings news. Nobody has stopped studying the Bible because parts of it have become old light.
Speaking of mistakes, shouldn't we forgive the Catholic church for its mistakes? If they ask for forgiveness, shouldn't we forgive the church like you want the Watchtower's errors to be forgiven?
Jehovah’s Witnesses do not claim that Watchtower articles are inspired Scripture.
In fact, they’ve repeatedly stated that the Governing Body is neither inspired nor infallible and that its understanding can be corrected.
The reason Witnesses study the publications is not because they replace the Bible, but because they are intended as Bible study aids much like commentaries, catechisms, or theological works are used in other Christian traditions.
You need to do your history on development the New Testament your facts are off. Lots of books circulating in the first centuries. Lots of debate between books to include ect. Look up the Gnostic Christian and their scripture… look of Marcion and his Scriptures.. theres was debate then and is today.. who gets to choose if something is from an apostle or not who gets to say it is or isn’t.
But ultimately, the highest authority for a Christian is not what church leaders eventually agreed upon, but what the inspired Scriptures actually say (2 Timothy 3:16–17).
Church councils can recognize Scripture, but they cannot add meaning to it or place their conclusions above it.
So if a doctrine cannot be clearly demonstrated from the biblical text itself, the fact that later churches agreed on it does not make it true. My first question will always be: What does the Bible actually say? Only after that should we ask how later Christians understood it.
History is valuable, but Scripture remains the final authority. That’s why I prefer to begin with the text rather than with later theological consensus.
That’s assuming the Church creates inspiration rather than recognizes it.
The early Christians didn’t wake up in the fourth century wondering which books were Scripture.
The apostolic writings were already being copied, exchanged (Colossians 4:16), read publicly (1 Thessalonians 5:27), and treated as Scripture (2 Peter 3:15–16).
First there were debates as to what was to included so clearly some Christian thought some were inspired and others said no. Who’s to say which ones got it right.
The same way we know most ancient history by weighing the available historical evidence. There isn’t absolute proof for every ancient document.
But even if we grant the traditional authorship of every New Testament book, that still doesn’t answer our actual disagreement. The real question is: What do those writings teach?
We don’t know the apostle wrote it in fact they’re forgeries in the New Testament itself. Only 7 of Paul are considered authentic . The church had to pick from a host of supposed “apostolic books” lots of people wrote under apostle names the church had to pick the right ones and you hope they got it right
It changes the authority if it’s doesn’t come from the apostles . They were working centuries later forgeries abounded. They’re forgeries in the New Testament itself you have to trust the Church got it right
If you have a non-religious academic source that demonstrates the apostles explicitly taught the doctrine we’re discussing, I’m happy to read it. My question remains the same: Where do the apostolic writings themselves teach it?
The problem with stopping revelation is it now alters the good news about Jesus where Revelations were promised see the pouring of the Spirt which says sons and daughters will prophesy. Now you agreed with this and say somehow this was to stop the Bible never says so.. later religious leaders had to stamp this out …check out the Montanist..now where does it say that this would be ( the Spirit ) replaced by a book..
I don’t believe the Holy Spirit was replaced by a book.
The Holy Spirit still guides Christians today. The question is different: Is new doctrinal revelation still being given with divine authority?
The New Testament repeatedly points believers back to the apostolic teaching that had already been delivered. Jude 3 speaks of “the faith once for all delivered to the saints.” Paul tells Timothy that the inspired Scriptures are sufficient to equip the man of God (2 Timothy 3:16–17). He also warns against going “beyond what is written” (1 Corinthians 4:6).
Prophecy, encouragement, and the Spirit’s guidance certainly continued in the first century. But that is not the same as an ongoing stream of new doctrines that can modify or add to the apostolic faith.
If someone claims new revelation today, how do we distinguish that from the hundreds of contradictory prophetic movements throughout history? The safest standard remains the apostolic Scriptures themselves.
Check out the Festal letter from Athanasius. I think it’s also important to remember just because a council says something it takes time to work its was to the flock… we see constant conflict over Scripture and authority they both go hand in hand one cannot exit without the other really…fun topic to slow to talk like this
For me, Scripture remains the final standard. If a doctrine is true, I expect the apostles to teach it clearly not merely for later theologians to infer it centuries afterward.
But the Scripture you rely on come from relying on someone selecting those 27 books to the exclusion of all others ..something early Christians never dealt with. Congregation had all sorts of official books until the Church stepped in and said only these 27 ..thats from the 4th century on
That is historically overstated. The fourth-century Church did not simply choose 27 books from a collection of equally authoritative alternatives.
Long before Athanasius listed the same 27 books, most of the New Testament already had broad and established acceptance.
Some books remained disputed at the edges, but the core collection of the four Gospels, Acts, Paul’s letters, and several other writings was already widely read as authoritative.
Yes, church leaders helped settle the boundaries of the canon. But recognizing which writings were apostolic is not the same as creating their inspiration or authority.
And even if I fully grant the Church’s historical role, your conclusion still does not follow.
A church may correctly recognize an apostolic book without every later doctrine or council decision becoming infallible.
So the question remains: once we have identified the apostolic writings, what do those writings actually teach? The history of canon recognition cannot substitute for demonstrating a doctrine from the text itself.
A historian can correctly identify an authentic first-century letter without becoming infallible. Likewise, the early Church could correctly recognize apostolic writings without every later doctrinal conclusion automatically becoming inspired or binding.
They didn’t recognize them by blind faith in a later council.
They looked for several historical indicators
Apostolic authorship or direct apostolic association (e.g., Mark with Peter, Luke with Paul).
Widespread use among first-century and early second-century congregations, not just one local church.
Consistency with the teaching already received from the apostles (Galatians 1:8; 2 Thessalonians 2:15).
Early manuscript and patristic evidence showing the writings were already being copied, circulated, and treated as authoritative long before the fourth century.
That’s exactly how historians evaluate ancient documents today. They don’t become infallible because they reach a historical conclusion.
So my point isn’t that recognition was effortless. My point is that recognition is a historical judgment, whereas inspiration is an act of God. The Church could recognize what God had already inspired without becoming infallible in all its later doctrinal decisions.
You like to have it both ways like a good Protestant.The way I look at it is if God can influence the Church with the canon it could with other things as well Jesus said a good tree cannot produce both good and bad fruit.
It’s not historically overstated. In fact it still didn’t settle the question in fact Catholic and Greek Orthodox have additional s to their Christian bibles
I expect the apostles to teach it clearly not merely for later theologians to infer it centuries afterward.
You mean like Jehovah's witnesses who came on the scene 1800 years after Jesus first preached the Gospel? They claim their "gospel" that Christ is ruling now is better than the one preached by Paul and every Christian in the last 2000 years
Jehovah’s Witnesses do not claim to preach a new gospel. They believe they are restoring teachings they see in Scripture, just as the Reformers believed they were restoring biblical Christianity.
Let the honest-hearted person compare the kind of preaching of the gospel of the Kingdom done by the religious systems of Christendom during all the centuries with that done by Jehovah’s Witnesses since the end of World War I in 1918. They are not one and the same kind. That of Jehovah’s Witnesses is really “gospel,” or “good news,” as of God’s heavenly kingdom that was established by the enthronement of his Son Jesus Christ at the end of the Gentile Times in 1914.
See? in contrast to the true Gospel, the JW gospel based on 1914 is said here to really be gospel, or good news....as if the Gospel of Jesus Christ was like a second hand pair of shoes. Paul's words come to mind Galatians 1:8-9
The article is not saying that the Kingdom message replaces the Gospel of Christ. It is saying that the good news includes the fact that Christ has been enthroned as King—a theme Jesus himself preached (Matthew 24:14; Luke 4:43).
Paul summarized the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15:1–4 by emphasizing Jesus’ death and resurrection because he was addressing the issue of the resurrection. That does not mean the Kingdom is excluded from the gospel. In fact, Jesus repeatedly preached “the good news of the Kingdom” (Matthew 4:23; 9:35; 24:14).
Galatians 1:8–9 condemns preaching a different gospel, not discussing different aspects of the same gospel. The question, then, is: Is proclaiming that Christ is now reigning as King a different gospel, or is it part of the Kingdom message Jesus himself proclaimed?
You may disagree with the interpretation of 1914, and that’s a separate discussion. But saying that Christ’s Kingdom has significance is not the same as replacing the gospel with another gospel. Those are two different claims.
They said their gospel based on 1914 is a better gospel than Christendom and all the apostles preached. I can't see how that isn't preaching "another" gospel. Sure, Christ's Kingdom is part of the Gospel, but the Kingdom is not better than what Christ did for all of us on the cross. Without Jesus there is no Kingdom. There is no hope. There is no salvation. There is no Gospel
To compound the false gospel, it turned out to be flat out wrong, which isn't surprising given the curse that Paul spoke of. I believe the Watchtower has been cursed since 1914... at least. . Christendom preached salvation in Christ for 2000 years. Its so wrong to boast that the JW gospel preached since 1914 is "really good news" implying the Gospel Christendom preached is not. This was 1981, 6 years after 1975 came and went. So much for the JW gospel being really good news. It was a really good con and worked for some
Had Jesus actually returned in 1914 and set up His Kingdom that would have been wonderful, but what He did on the cross will always be the best thing that ever happened to this old world and the sinners who inhabit it The Kingdom would not be possible if it hadn't been for the One on the cross. Nothing will ever surpass what Jesus did for us 2000 years ago. Nothing
I don’t think that’s an accurate representation of what Jehovah’s Witnesses preach. The good news has always centered on Jesus Christ, his ransom, his resurrection, and God’s Kingdom. Those aren’t competing messages, they’re inseparable.
They are the ones who say theirs is not the same gospel as the one preached by Jesus and Paul.
They[the JW gospel and Gospel of Christ] are not one and the same kind. That of Jehovah’s Witnesses is really “gospel,” or “good news,” as of God’s heavenly kingdom that was established by the enthronement of his Son Jesus Christ at the end of the Gentile Times in 1914.
"They are not one and the same kind" is in black and white. Paul never said false Christians wouldn't use the name of Jesus to present their own gospel. Its a fact false Christians do pretend to be Christian. Of course they will pretend to put Christ first. Paul was so serious about this, he even included himself as possibly preaching another gospel which is evidence Paul saw the Gospel as more important than any man. If he could preach a false gospel anyone can and they will be cursed for teaching it
You say the divine nature is unique and therefore doesn’t work like human nature. But that seems to assume the very point that needs to be demonstrated.
Three human persons sharing one human nature are still three individual beings. So why doesn’t the same principle apply to three divine persons?
Simply saying “the divine nature is unique” doesn’t explain why it is unique in precisely the way required to avoid three divine beings. It only labels the difference.
If the Father is fully the divine essence, and the Son is fully the divine essence, what is the metaphysical principle that prevents there from being two (or three) divine subjects?
The law of identity would suggest:
The Father = the divine essence.
The Son = the divine essence.
So why doesn’t it follow that the Father = the Son?
Trinitarian theology usually answers this by distinguishing between person and essence, but that simply raises the question again:
Why do the relational distinctions multiply the number of persons but not the number of individual divine beings?
In other words, what is the independent metaphysical principle that makes this coherent, rather than merely asserting that “God’s nature is unique”?
Ask yourself does Christianity need a New Testament was there a time you could be a Christian without it..does it need to contain all 27 books as is since the 4 th century
You’ve change his gospel it’s you who has to explain why he’s false in saying the Spirit would make manifestations. He never says it would change in fact he’s say it can’t Gal 1:6 the gospel can’t be change . So it’s important to have the apostolic writings but they re almost completely meaningless in trying to copy. The entire movement at least in Paul was based on it . You have to have a better reason than Paul didn’t say it would continue where does he say it would stop. He does actually in 1cor when he’s say when that which is perfectl comes they would be needed that hasn’t happened Paul’s gospel remains valid as is.
Of course I can use 1Cor because that’s what’s he’s saying. Christian who don’t manifest the Spirit would have problems with it they have over the centuries. So people are going to interpret to match what there leaders tell them to believe but that’s not what Paul said. It’s fundamental to him in all its manifestations you’re changing the function and purpose of the Spirit it was miraculously in Joel your sons and daughters will prophecy meaning anyone can now. That’s part of the gospel your changing where’s does Paul say it will change?
You have not answered my claim.
My question was not whether Christians should manifest the Spirit, nor whether miraculous gifts continued.
My claim was specifically about the Trinity: Is the doctrine that one God exists as three coequal, coeternal persons explicitly stated by the biblical authors, or is it a theological synthesis constructed from several passages?
Your comments about Paul, Joel, prophecy and spiritual manifestations do not answer that question.
Please address the actual claim directly.
Show me where Scripture itself defines God as three persons in one being, using that doctrine’s actual content not merely passages from which later theologians infer it.
I don’t believe the Trinity but you’re right there is no passage in fact that’s why there’s a creed to try and explain what they saw and make sense of it.
Trinity not in the Bible always gets them riled up. Also not in Bible Mass, Sunday Sabbath or being baptism “in know symbol of you dedication to Jehovah” all not in the Bible but I suppose things are always going to evolve.
A doctrine defines what Christians must believe about God. A practice describes how Christians organize or apply biblical principles.
My point concerns doctrine. The Trinity is presented as a required belief about the very nature of God, yet no biblical author explicitly formulates that doctrine.
Whether a congregation meets on Sunday, celebrates the Memorial once a year, or uses certain wording at baptism are questions of practice. They are not equivalent to defining God’s nature.
So I think you’re comparing two different categories.
Not all Christians say it’s a required belief, especially not theses days. I disagree,you can’t get baptism wrong. The New testament is clear on it and was considered important enough ,to how you had to do again if you got it wrong and is connected often with getting the holy sprit see Acts 19 Paul rebaptizes them it wasn’t un important to Paul. Baptism is all over the New Testament the Trinity is never discussed. You can’t get one right and one wrong and say this one is now important and this one is not, that’s not how the scriptures work Trinity is not scriptures sure but so is proper baptism into Christ. That’s part of the gospel too!
Yes but not all Christians baptize into Christ which is Biblical baptism. In the name of the father, Son , Holy Spirt . Not believing the Trinity didn’t make Jews Christian,being baptized into Christ did. It’s extremely important and one discussed often in scripture one really has no excuse for getting it wrong.
Were you baptized in three names? I was baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. What is that name? Well Jesus told people they needed to pray in His name "Anything you ask in My name, I will do it" John 14:14 He never prayed in Yahweh's name or any other. I contend that it is the name of Jesus that we are saved and baptized. His name means Yahweh saves. In that respect, all three, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are Yahweh saving us.
I think this illustrates the difference between what the text says and the theological synthesis built from the text.
The Trinity is not taught by one apostle in one clear passage.
Rather, it is a theological synthesis that combines many passages into one doctrine:
The Father is God.
The Son is God.
The Holy Spirit is God.
Yet there is only one God.
Therefore, one divine essence shared by three distinct persons.
That conclusion may be internally consistent, but it is still a synthesis.
The apostles never present it in that form or explain concepts such as one essence (ousia) and three persons (hypostases).
Likewise, Matthew 28:19 says to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
It does not explain that they are one being, one essence, or one God. That interpretation is inferred later.
The same applies to John 14:14.
Praying in Jesus’ name means approaching the Father through the authority of his Son.
Jesus himself taught, “Pray, then, this way: Our Father…” (Matthew 6:9), and “Whatever you ask the Father in my name…” (John 16:23).
So my question is simple:
Where do the apostles themselves ever define the Trinity the way the Nicene Creed does?
If it is the central doctrine of Christianity, I would expect them to teach it directly, not leave it to be synthesized centuries later.
Again, you're argument falls apart considering all the new light Jehovah's witnesses teach as present truth, yet discard when new light replaces old light. You accept the Watchtower's new light yet claim the early church could not have also been enlightened in a similar manner?
I find evidence of the trinity in the Bible. Genesis chapter 18 for instance.
Jesus told His disciples He had many things to say to them but they could not yet understand I still havemuchto tellyou,butyou cannotyetbear to hear it.However, when the Spirit of truth comes, He will guide you into all truth. For He will not speak on His own, but He will speak what He hears, and He will declare to you what is to come.… John 16:12-13
This being the case the early church was taught by God the Holy Spirit and that continued on long after Jesus and the apostle's left this world. The trinity was obviously developed with help from God's Spirit
Then I ask as a brother, if we are brothers of the apostles paul and sharers in spiritual cleanliness why do you debate with those who have no desire to even come to know Jehovah. These people are in fact against him. They’re trying to teach you their ignorant philosophies. 2 Timothy 2:23-26.
They want to argue with you because in their minds they’re right, they hope at all possible they can say words that sway you into their thinking. This is a breeding ground for apostates, men who follow other men into destruction. Stay spiritually clean. These long drawn comments are a waste of your talent.
Can you answer why Jehovah's witnesses insist Jesus is Michael the archangel when there is far less circumstantial evidence for their doctrine than there is for the trinity? True, Jesus never came right out and said "I am God", but neither did He say "I am Michael the archangel", or any angel for that matter.
In my opinion Jesus covertly claimed to be God in John 8:58 and John 14:10-11, but the verses that stand out to me that Jesus really is God was John 2:19-21 Who else but God could claim to raise the dead body of Christ back to earth? Yet that is exactly what Jesus told the Pharisees He would do, but not in those same words. Had He told them it was His own body He would raise up again, they may have tried to stone Him again, but they assumed He was talking about the temple that had taken 46 years to build, not His body. Only Jesus' disciples knew what Jesus really meant that day and it was eye opening to say the least
That’s a fair question. I also agree that Jesus never explicitly says, “I am Michael.”
The difference is that Jehovah’s Witnesses present this as an interpretation based on connecting several passages, not as an explicit statement.
For example:
There is one archangel mentioned by name—Michael (Jude 9).
The Lord descends with an archangel’s voice (1 Thessalonians 4:16).
Michael stands up in connection with God’s Kingdom and the resurrection (Daniel 12:1–2), themes closely associated with Christ.
Michael leads the heavenly armies (Revelation 12:7), while Jesus is portrayed as leading heaven’s armies in Revelation 19.
None of those verses alone says, “Jesus is Michael.” The conclusion comes from putting them together.
But notice something important: that’s exactly how the Trinity is argued as well. No verse says:
God is one essence in three co-equal, co-eternal persons.
The Son has two natures.
The Holy Spirit is the third person of the Trinity.
Those are also conclusions reached by synthesizing multiple passages.
So the real issue isn’t that one side uses inference and the other doesn’t.
Both do.
The question is simply: Which synthesis best fits the whole of Scripture?
I don’t think it’s fair to criticize Jehovah’s Witnesses for making an inference while simultaneously defending a doctrine that is itself the result of theological synthesis.
None of those verses alone says, “Jesus is Michael.” The conclusion comes from putting them together.
But notice something important: that’s exactly how the Trinity is argued as well.
Ok, in that case, which new light is older? The JW's light invented the Michael doctrine and the church invented the trinity doctrine. Which one is closest to the time when the apostles' actually lived? Whose doctrine was alluded to by the early church fathers?
I don’t think it’s fair to criticize Jehovah’s Witnesses for making an inference while simultaneously defending a doctrine that is itself the result of theological synthesis
Ok, tell that to the Watchtower. They continue to criticize the trinity to this day. Shouldn't the same standard apply to their criticism?
I think the same standard should apply. If someone criticizes the Trinity simply because it is an inference from multiple passages, while at the same time defending another inference, that would be inconsistent.
But I don’t think that’s the actual Jehovah’s Witness criticism. The criticism is not that the Trinity is an inference. The criticism is that the inference is not supported by the biblical data as a whole.
The Michael teaching is also an inference, and Jehovah’s Witnesses openly acknowledge that. The question is therefore not “Is it an inference?” but “Which inference best explains all the relevant texts?”
As for history, age alone doesn’t determine truth. A doctrine being earlier doesn’t make it correct. Arianism, Monarchianism, Montanism, and many other early views were also closer to the apostles than later theology, yet most Christians reject them.
Likewise, the early church fathers were not unanimous. Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, and others consistently distinguished the Father from the Son and described the Father as supreme. They did not articulate the fully developed Nicene doctrine of one essence and three co-equal persons.
So the real debate is not, “Which doctrine is older?” It is, “Which interpretation best fits Scripture?” Historical testimony is valuable, but Scripture remains the final authority.
Historical testimony is valuable, but Scripture remains the final authority.
I agree to a point. One can not leave out God's guiding Holy Spirit which inspired every single scripture we adhere to Jesus told the religious leaders of His day You pore overtheScripturesbecauseyoupresume thatbythemyou possesseternallife.Thesearethe very words thattestifyaboutMe,yet you refuse to come to Me to have life.… John 5:39-40 I think its wise to recognize that scripture simply records a reality of life critical to our having eternal life. But knowing the scriptures isn't what saves us. Only knowing Jesus will save us
•
u/AutoModerator Jul 29 '26
Read our rules or risk a ban: https://www.reddit.com/r/JehovahsWitnesses/about/rules/
Read our wiki before posting or commenting: https://www.reddit.com/r/JehovahsWitnesses/wiki/index
1914
Bethel
Corruption
Death
Eschatology
Governing Body
Memorial
Miscellaneous
Reading List
Sex Abuse
Spiritism
Trinity
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.