Is it better to defend Christian doctrine, or have disputers prove their ideas?

[Alfred Persson]

I was converted by the classic Apologetic [Apostles of Denial, E.C. Gruss] from JW belief to Orthodox Trinitarianism, over 40 years ago. Since that time I've tried to convince other JW's, and failed. They endlessly dispute every text I bring to support the Christian idea of God.

What if I have been doing this backwards. When a JW says "the Trinity is not taught in the Bible," perhaps I should respond: "what is? What is your concept of God."

Ironically enough, for a group so invested in claiming Christians got their ideas from pagans, The JW's believe Jehovah God is the biggest "spirit body" on top of something like a pagan Greek Parthenon of "Elohim", and like them not omnipresent. Although Almighty, infinite in power unlike the angels, He lives in a "spirit-body" just like them.

In between God the biggest "spirit" in the Parthenon and the smaller "angel spirits", is the arch-angel Jesus (a.k.a. Michael)---unlike them Jesus is an "a-god". Above all other angel "Elohim" "sons of God", but below their Creator Jehovah God. They all live spatially in a place called "heaven:

"While there are physical bodies visible and palpable, there are also spiritual bodies, invisible to human eyes and entirely beyond human senses. (1 Cor. 15:44) The bodies of spiritual persons (God, Christ, the angels) are glorious...The true God is not omnipresent."--Aid To Bible Understanding, p. 247, 665 (Watchtower Bible & Tract Society, 1971)

Perhaps we would have more success demanding they prove from the scriptures their odd "pagan" view of a finite God.

Then the "shoe" is on the other foot, their proofs are being contradicted.

Whereas before, they ignored our "proofs”, they can't ignore how their "proofs" didn't hold up to scrutiny.

What say you?

 

[Josef]

Hey All,
Alfred Persson, we can defend the doctrine of the Trinity, and we should. I conceed nothing to the cults. We as believers need to do what we have been called to do. Speak the truth with the love of God in our hearts. Acceptance is not on us. We present the Word. The Holy Spirit does the revealing.

I did a study awhile back proving Jesus is God using just The Revelation. I will repost it here.
Unless the Jehovah's Witnesses have changed their book (I won't call it a Bible), their Revelation reads the same as the KJV. They cannot argue against what their book tells them is true.



How do you defend the trinity from the Bible alone. Does Jesus consider Himself God?

Let me ask this. Who is this that the apostle John is quoting in Revelation 1:8? Verse 7 tells us its the person "who was pierced." I have several translations. Please pay particular attention to the phrase, "says the Lord God," and the tag line at the end, "the Almighty."

Revelation 1:8
ESV
“I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.”
NIV
I am the Alpha and the Omega,' says the Lord God, 'who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.'
NASB
I am the Alpha and the Omega,' says the Lord God, 'who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.'
CSB
"I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "the one who is, who was, and who is to come, the Almighty."
NLT
I am the Alpha and the Omega — the beginning and the end,' says the Lord God. 'I am the one who is, who always was, and who is still to come — the Almighty One.'
KJV
I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

Who is saying, "says the Lord God?" The question is rhetorical because the verse answers itself.
The same is true for who is calling themselves "the Almighty." The Almighty is calling Himself "the Almighty. The same person is calling Himself the Lord God, and the Almighty. How can this be? We know John is only speaking for one person, right?

All of them save the KJV says "the Lord God" for the phrase.
All of them save the NLT uses " the Almighty" at the end of the verse.
So rather than argue about them, let's just ignore them. That still leaves four that read exactly the same way for those two points in the verse. How is there any question about who is speaking?
Whoever this is cosiders themselves as the Almighty. Who is the Almighty?

Now let's look at Revelation 22:12-13:

Revelation 22:12-13 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.
I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.

I know some of us still don't know who this is. Can we at least agree that this is the same person as who was in Revelation 1:8? The person is using the same introduction. We further know that this person is bringing their reward with them. They have the right to pass said reward on to every man according to his work. How many people can do this? Only one I can think of. Remember, we also know from verse 1:8 this is the Almighty.

Now we get to verse 16.

Revelation 22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

Is there any question about who is saying it now?
The person identifies himself by name as Jesus. Who is also both the root and offspring
of David?
One author (John), one book (the Revelation), and a personal proclamation. (Jesus is taking the proclamations of God, the Almighty, Alpha and Omega, the beginning and end, the first aid last, and applying them to Himself.) Jesus is stating that He has the attributes of God. To deny what Jesus said, is to call Jesus a liar. By His own words, Jesus is God. Prove to me how this is wrong.

I hope you can use this to God's glory. Amen.
Keep walking everybody.
May God bless,
Taz

 

[Alfred Persson]

Hey All,
Alfred Persson, we can defend the doctrine of the Trinity, and we should. I conceed nothing to the cults. We as believers need to do what we have been called to do. Speak the truth with the love of God in our hearts. Acceptance is not on us. We present the Word. The Holy Spirit does the revealing.

I did a study awhile back proving Jesus is God using just The Revelation. I will repost it here.
Unless the Jehovah's Witnesses have changed their book (I won't call it a Bible), their Revelation reads the same as the KJV. They cannot argue against what their book tells them is true.



How do you defend the trinity from the Bible alone. Does Jesus consider Himself God?

Let me ask this. Who is this that the apostle John is quoting in Revelation 1:8? Verse 7 tells us its the person "who was pierced." I have several translations. Please pay particular attention to the phrase, "says the Lord God," and the tag line at the end, "the Almighty."

Revelation 1:8
ESV
“I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.”
NIV
I am the Alpha and the Omega,' says the Lord God, 'who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.'
NASB
I am the Alpha and the Omega,' says the Lord God, 'who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.'
CSB
"I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "the one who is, who was, and who is to come, the Almighty."
NLT
I am the Alpha and the Omega — the beginning and the end,' says the Lord God. 'I am the one who is, who always was, and who is still to come — the Almighty One.'
KJV
I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

Who is saying, "says the Lord God?" The question is rhetorical because the verse answers itself.
The same is true for who is calling themselves "the Almighty." The Almighty is calling Himself "the Almighty. The same person is calling Himself the Lord God, and the Almighty. How can this be? We know John is only speaking for one person, right?

All of them save the KJV says "the Lord God" for the phrase.
All of them save the NLT uses " the Almighty" at the end of the verse.
So rather than argue about them, let's just ignore them. That still leaves four that read exactly the same way for those two points in the verse. How is there any question about who is speaking?
Whoever this is cosiders themselves as the Almighty. Who is the Almighty?

Now let's look at Revelation 22:12-13:

Revelation 22:12-13 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.
I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.

I know some of us still don't know who this is. Can we at least agree that this is the same person as who was in Revelation 1:8? The person is using the same introduction. We further know that this person is bringing their reward with them. They have the right to pass said reward on to every man according to his work. How many people can do this? Only one I can think of. Remember, we also know from verse 1:8 this is the Almighty.

Now we get to verse 16.

Revelation 22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

Is there any question about who is saying it now?
The person identifies himself by name as Jesus. Who is also both the root and offspring
of David?
One author (John), one book (the Revelation), and a personal proclamation. (Jesus is taking the proclamations of God, the Almighty, Alpha and Omega, the beginning and end, the first aid last, and applying them to Himself.) Jesus is stating that He has the attributes of God. To deny what Jesus said, is to call Jesus a liar. By His own words, Jesus is God. Prove to me how this is wrong.

I hope you can use this to God's glory. Amen.
Keep walking everybody.
May God bless,
Taz

I didn't state my argument properly. JW's are trained so thoroughly they "don't hear" what the Bible (or you) say. As you cite verses, in their mind they are already queuing up the next verse they want to discuss.

I'm suggesting a way around this barrier.

If you force them to fully explain what they believe, its a totally different approach they aren't used to. The Proofs against their claims will have more force.

But I am only suggesting a different approach be added to whatever you do now. Not take its place.

Socrates would approve, his manner of persuasion was to show how his opponent's claim contradicted another principle deeply held.

The Socratic method of persuasion involves asking a series of probing questions to lead an individual to a particular conclusion or truth, based on their own answers and beliefs. It emphasizes critical thinking and self-reflection rather than direct argumentation.

 

[Josef]

Hey All,
I believe you stated your position just fine Alfred Persson. I understand the Jehovah's Witnesses are trained. I have the expertise of one of their ex-members in our church. Plus, I have experienced their "switching the topic" tactic first hand. I am strong enough to not let them. I respectfully remind them that they are at my door. I am the one being proselytized. I get to ask the questions. "Please stay on the topic I asked about." If you stand firm, they will either comply, or walk away.
The Socratic method works great when the topic has multiple conclusions. It doesn't work with mathematics where there is one right answer and everything else is wrong. There is one right answer to who Jesus is, Every other answer is wrong. But give me an example as you see it working.
Keep walking everybody.
May God bless,
Taz

 

[Who Me]

What say you?

We used to have an x jw attend our church h and his advice was not to argue endlessly and uselessly, but to sow a seed of doubt and move on to something else.

He suggested 2 cor13:5,Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves. Do you not realize that Christ Jesus is in you—unless, of course, you fail the test?

The aim being to say something 5hat they will think about later, which hasn't been buried under a mountain of arguments about that verse.


That said it is a tactic I've failed to do as every conversation I've had goes round in circles les.

 

[tigger 2]

Josef said in post #2 above:

Revelation 22:12-13 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.
I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.

I know some of us still don't know who this is. Can we at least agree that this is the same person as who was in Revelation 1:8? The person is using the same introduction. We further know that this person is bringing their reward with them. They have the right to pass said reward on to every man according to his work. How many people can do this? Only one I can think of. Remember, we also know from verse 1:8 this is the Almighty.

Now we get to verse 16.

Revelation 22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

Is there any question about who is saying it now?
The person identifies himself by name as Jesus. Who is also both the root and offspring
of David?
.................................
This old Alpha and Omega trick has been used forever it seems. Even many trinitarian scholars and translators refute it as a proof:
http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2009/09/ao-speaker-confusion.html
A part of this study of mine includes the following:
"The ESV; ISV; LEB; MEV; MOUNCE; NAB (2010 ed.); NASB; NEB; NKJV; NLT; NRSV; REB; RSV; 21st Century King James Version, TEV; and WE show (by quotation marks and indenting/paragraphs) that Rev. 22:14 and 15 are not the words of the speaker of verses 12 and 13 but are John’s words. (The Jerusalem Bible; the NJB; and Moffatt show us that the angel spoke all the words from verse 10 through verse 15.)

" Then they show Jesus as a new speaker beginning to speak in verse 16.

"So, if you must insist that the person speaking just before verse 16 is the same person who is speaking in verse 16, then, according to the trinitarian ESV; ISV; LEB; MEV; MOUNCE; NAB (2010 ed.); NASB; NEB; NKJV; NLT; NRSV; REB; RSV; 21st Century King James Version, TEV; and WE , you are saying John is Jesus!!! (According to the JB and NJB you would be insisting that the angel is Jesus!)"

 

[Alfred Persson]

Hey All,
I believe you stated your position just fine Alfred Persson. I understand the Jehovah's Witnesses are trained. I have the expertise of one of their ex-members in our church. Plus, I have experienced their "switching the topic" tactic first hand. I am strong enough to not let them. I respectfully remind them that they are at my door. I am the one being proselytized. I get to ask the questions. "Please stay on the topic I asked about." If you stand firm, they will either comply, or walk away.
The Socratic method works great when the topic has multiple conclusions. It doesn't work with mathematics where there is one right answer and everything else is wrong. There is one right answer to who Jesus is, Every other answer is wrong. But give me an example as you see it working.
Keep walking everybody.
May God bless,
Taz

Whatever works, do it.

Another example, resurrection. JWs believe in "recreation", not "resurrection" but they call it "resurrection":

"Similar to what happens at the time of conception, at the time of the resurrection or re-creation …Jehovah…is capable of having an accurate record by which to re-create one who has died.

We can have confidence in Jehovah's perfect memory. Why, even imperfect humans, by means of videotape, can preserve and construct visible and audible reproductions of persons. Far greater is God's ability to keep such records, for he calls all the numberless stars by name!-Psalm 147:4

It can be seen, therefore, that resurrection or recreation is possible because the deceased individual lives in God's memory...

'But if a person is thus re-created,' someone may say, 'is he really the same person? Is he not just a copy?' -Is This Life All There Is, Watchtower Bible & Tract Society, 1974, pp. 173, 172.

I once asked a JW what would happen if God didn't wait for him to die. If the "recreated you" suddenly appeared in your home and romanced your wife, is that you with her or a "copy." That upset him, but I don't know if it had any lasting beneficial effect.

Not one Bible verse teaches "recreation", physical resurrection is the only kind seen in scripture.

 

[tigger 2]

Hey All,
I believe you stated your position just fine Alfred Persson. I understand the Jehovah's Witnesses are trained. I have the expertise of one of their ex-members in our church. Plus, I have experienced their "switching the topic" tactic first hand. I am strong enough to not let them. I respectfully remind them that they are at my door. I am the one being proselytized. I get to ask the questions. "Please stay on the topic I asked about." If you stand firm, they will either comply, or walk away.
The Socratic method works great when the topic has multiple conclusions. It doesn't work with mathematics where there is one right answer and everything else is wrong. There is one right answer to who Jesus is, Every other answer is wrong. But give me an example as you see it working.
Keep walking everybody.
May God bless,
Taz

........................................
I have carefully studied John's use of Greek grammar at John 1:1c (and John 20:28) and have presented its strong evidence that John intended "a god" there. But none of the MANY trinitarians have responded as you suggest JWs should. Not only do they never stay on the topic (John's intention at John 1:1c and the grammatically parallel examples also found in John's writings), but they never take even a small slice of that study and show where I am wrong.

They always do as you suggest the JWs do: change the subject ('walk away').

http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2009/09/john-11c-primer_21.html

Yes, it's lengthy and demands a little introduction to NT Greek, but there are many points you could attack and still remain on subject (John 1:1c and John's parallel constructions).

 

[Free]

"So, if you must insist that the person speaking just before verse 16 is the same person who is speaking in verse 16, then, according to the trinitarian ESV; ISV; LEB; MEV; MOUNCE; NAB (2010 ed.); NASB; NEB; NKJV; NLT; NRSV; REB; RSV; 21st Century King James Version, TEV; and WE , you are saying John is Jesus!!! (According to the JB and NJB you would be insisting that the angel is Jesus!)"

The conclusion doesn't follow. Just because John inserts his own words in verses 14 and 15, doesn't mean that the same person isn't speaking in verses 12, 13, and 16, or that somehow one would be saying that John is Jesus. Verses 14 and 15 are clearly making statements about others; verses 12, 13, and 16 are all in the first person singular. Not to mention that another speaker suddenly interjects in 16:15 and 22:7 as well.

A natural reading would be that the same person is speaking in verses 12, 13, and 16. Besides, we already see in 1:18 and 2:8 that Jesus says he is the "first and the last."

........................................
I have carefully studied John's use of Greek grammar at John 1:1c (and John 20:28) and have presented its strong evidence that John intended "a god" there. But none of the MANY trinitarians have responded as you suggest JWs should. Not only do they never stay on the topic (John's intention at John 1:1c and the grammatically parallel examples also found in John's writings), but they never take even a small slice of that study and show where I am wrong.

They always do as you suggest the JWs do: change the subject ('walk away').

http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2009/09/john-11c-primer_21.html

Yes, it's lengthy and demands a little introduction to NT Greek, but there are many points you could attack and still remain on subject (John 1:1c and John's parallel constructions).

As I have pointed out before, "a god" is precluded by the fact that God himself says there is no other God--that there never was and never will be. It also is precluded by the grammar indicating absolute existence of the Word in intimate union and communion with God.

The grammar is very specific so that John avoids polytheism, Arianism, and Modalism.

 

[tigger 2]

The conclusion doesn't follow. Just because John inserts his own words in verses 14 and 15, doesn't mean that the same person isn't speaking in verses 12, 13, and 16, or that somehow one would be saying that John is Jesus. Verses 14 and 15 are clearly making statements about others; verses 12, 13, and 16 are all in the first person singular. Not to mention that another speaker suddenly interjects in 16:15 and 22:7 as well.

A natural reading would be that the same person is speaking in verses 12, 13, and 16. Besides, we already see in 1:18 and 2:8 that Jesus says he is the "first and the last."


As I have pointed out before, "a god" is precluded by the fact that God himself says there is no other God--that there never was and never will be. It also is precluded by the grammar indicating absolute existence of the Word in intimate union and communion with God.

The grammar is very specific so that John avoids polytheism, Arianism, and Modalism.

.........................................
It doesn't say that the same person is speaking again in 16. In fact, the phrase "I, Jesus" indicates otherwise, and he mentions in :16 that he has sent his angel to speak to them.

You have 'walked away' from the study of John 1:1c again (it's not the trinity in general).

 

[Free]

.........................................
I'm sorry Free, do you understand the usage of quotation marks in English translations?

Of course.

And you have 'walked away' from the study of John 1:1c again (not the trinity in general).

I haven't walked away from anything. "A god" is precluded from consideration; it's over before it even begins.

Deu 4:35 To you it was shown, that you might know that the LORD is God; there is no other besides him.
…
Deu 4:39 Acknowledge and take to heart this day that the LORD is God in heaven above and on the earth below. There is no other.

Deu 32:39 "'See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god beside me; I kill and I make alive; I wound and I heal; and there is none that can deliver out of my hand.

Isa 37:20 Now, LORD our God, deliver us from his hand, so that all the kingdoms of the earth may know that you, LORD, are the only God."

Isa 43:10 "You are my witnesses," declares the LORD, "and my servant whom I have chosen, that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me.

Isa 44:6 Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: "I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god.
…
Isa 44:8 Fear not, nor be afraid; have I not told you from of old and declared it? And you are my witnesses! Is there a God besides me? There is no Rock; I know not any."
…
Isa 44:24 Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, who formed you from the womb: "I am the LORD, who made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself,

It's interesting to note that within the context of God saying he is the only one, he also says he "made all things," that it was him "who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself." Yet, in the context of John 1:1 and 2 (just a very succinct restatement of verse 1), we have verse 3:

Joh 1:3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.

So, what you claim is "a god," helped God with all of creation. Indeed, "without [a god] was not any thing made that was made." Not only does that clearly contradict Isa 44:24, is also means that this "a god" has absolute existence; but absolute existence is an attribute of God alone. The whole idea of "a god" is fraught with contradiction.

Lest there be any doubt, let's look at 1 Cor 8:6 and Col 1:15-17:

1Co 8:6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.

Col 1:16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.
Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

The same thing in all three passages is being said: that not one thing came into being apart from Christ, the Son, the preincarnate Word. The conclusion is unavoidable--the Son cannot be a created thing. That leads to the next unavoidable conclusion--he is truly God, since being uncreated is an attribute of God alone. It's all very simple logic that shows both the deity of the Son and precludes him from being "a god."

It's also worth noting Heb 1:10-12, where the Father says of the Son:

Heb 1:10 And, “You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands;
Heb 1:11 they will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment,
Heb 1:12 like a robe you will roll them up, like a garment they will be changed. But you are the same, and your years will have no end.”

(All ESV.)

As you know, that is a quote from Psalm 102 which is speaking of Yahweh; the Father is saying that the Son did those things. Together with John 1:1-3, 1 Cor 8:6, Col 1:15-16, and Isa 44:24, the only logical conclusion is that Jesus is also Yahweh; just not the Father.

The message of the NT is consistent from beginning to end: Jesus is truly God and truly man, although he is not the Father nor the Holy Spirit. Again, based on all the above, "a god" simply cannot be a legitimate translation.

 

[tigger 2]

There is not a reply concerning even one slice of my study concerning the grammar of John 1:1c in your off-subject reply! That's a lengthy walk away.

 

[Free]

There is not a reply concerning even one slice of my study concerning the grammar of John 1:1c in your off-subject reply! That's a lengthy walk away.

Have you no response to what I've given? It's very simple, straightforward logic. I've addressed your study at least in part before, and it's problematic, but it is irrelevant. All of what I have given precludes the "a god" translation. John's grammar is specific to avoid, in part, that very translation.

You need to deal with a number of things:

1. God says he is the only God and there never was nor will be another.
2. Yahweh says he alone created everything.
3. The Father says the Son created everything.
4. Everything that has come into being, came into being through the Son.
5. The Word existed prior to the creation of everything and was in intimate union and communion with God.

I have given passages to support all those points and can give more. Whatever you think John 1:1c says, it simply cannot contradict any of those points. Simple logic dictates that the Son cannot be created; he must necessarily have always existed, and is therefore truly God.

You also seem to want people to go to your blog and read through reams of information rather than just copying and pasting the relevant bits here. As I've state before, most are not going to do it.