Stephen E. Jones

Jesus is Jehovah Quotes: Unclassified quotes: February 2009

[Home] [Updates] [Site map] [My Quotes; JiJ unclassified & classified quotes] [My Jesus is Jehovah! blog]

The following are quotes added to my Jesus is Jehovah unclassified quotes database in February 2009.
The date format is dd/mm/yy. See copyright conditions at end.

2009: Jan, Mar, Apr, May, Jun, Jul, Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec.

2/02/2009
"[1Th 1:1] Also peculiar to these Epistles is the phrase in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ (Paul 
usually says 'in Christ'). It is striking (a) that he speaks of the Father and the Lord in one breath (no-one 
else could be linked with the Father in this way), (b) that he joins the two under one preposition in, and 
(c) that he expresses the closeness of the tie linking the Thessalonians with their God in terms of Christ as 
well as the Father. 'The association could hardly be closer' (Ward). This high view of Jesus is continued 
with the use of Lord and Christ. Lord was used in LXX as the translation of the divine name and it 
was commonly used of deity in other religions (as well as having less significant uses). It points to a very 
high place. Christ means 'anointed' and is equivalent to 'Messiah'. And all this in a letter written only 
about twenty years after the crucifixion. From very early times Jesus was seen to have the highest place." 
(Morris, L.L., "The Epistles of Paul to the Thessalonians: An Introduction and Commentary," Tyndale New 
Testament Commentaries, [1956], Inter-Varsity Press: Leicester UK, Second Edition, 1984, p.41)

3/02/2009
"[Gal 1:3] This grace and peace come from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ. It is probable 
that by the common construction known as chiasmus (which could be translated as an 'x-shaped' 
construction), the source of grace is seen as Christ, and the source of peace as God the Father. Again, 
however, the main theological point is the close association of Christ with God. Indeed, the use of the word 
Kyrios, 'Lord', as a title of Christ would in itself be sufficient to assure this. Much study has been devoted 
to this Greek word, the one chosen by the early translators into Greek of the Hebrew Bible to stand for the 
divine name YHWH, which might not be pronounced by the pious Jew, and for which the Hebrew adonai, 
'my Lord', had already been substituted. Kyrios varied in meaning from the polite 'sir', used in formal 
address to a stranger, to the full sense of 'Lord', in confession of the deity of Christ. When the early 
Christians used the phrase, 'Jesus is Lord' [Rom 10:9; 1Cor 12:3], as a baptismal confession, they cannot 
have meant less than this." (Cole, R.A., "The Letter of Paul to the Galatians: An Introduction and 
Commentary," The Tyndale New Testament commentaries, [1965], Inter-Varsity Press Leicester: UK, Second 
edition, 1989, p.70)

3/02/2009
"[Gal 1:5] To any Jew, it was natural to slip into reverential berakhah, or 'blessing', after any mention of 
the divine name. For instance, `The Holy One - blessed be he' is one of the commonest of such blessings 
used by later Jewish commentators. So here, after the mention of the name of God, it is natural to add to 
whom be the glory for ever and ever (literally, 'for ages of ages', where the same word aion is used). Just 
as in old days the name of Yahweh, with its association of salvation from Egyptian bondage, stirred a Jew to 
praise, so now the name of Jesus Christ stirs Paul to similar response. If the Jew of old was a 'Yahwist', to 
use modern theological jargon, then Paul and those to whom he wrote were 'Christians', whose whole 
understanding of God was dominated by the revelation in Christ." (Cole, R.A., "The Letter of Paul to the 
Galatians: An Introduction and Commentary," The Tyndale New Testament commentaries, [1965], Inter-
Varsity Press Leicester: UK, Second edition, 1989, p.72).

4/02/2009
"[Gal 6:18] ... The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit, brethren ... Christ is grace 
personified; but he is more than that, for he is the very grace of God become incarnate. ... For the Christian, 
this link between Christ and God is safeguarded in Paul's shorter formula by calling Jesus Lord, the great 
title of God in Old Testament times." (Cole, R.A., "The Letter of Paul to the Galatians: An Introduction and 
Commentary," The Tyndale New Testament commentaries, [1965], Inter-Varsity Press Leicester: UK, Second 
edition, 1989, pp.239-240)

5/02/2009
"Let us now turn to the South Galatian theory, which seems both simple and neat, and certainly fits such 
evidence as we have. Again, this does not necessarily prove it to be correct, but it certainly gives it 
probability. This theory assumes that the 'Galatians' addressed in the letter are those groups in the south of 
the Roman province who had been evangelized by Paul and Barnabas on their first missionary journey (Acts 
13 and 14), and revisited by Paul and Silas on their second missionary journey (Acts 15:36-16:6). The 
'Galatians' would then be the converts of Derbe, Lystra, Iconium, 'Pisidian' Antioch, and doubtless other 
small places whose names are unrecorded. We know the fact of their evangelization from the New 
Testament; we know of Jewish opposition (Acts 13:50; 14:19); and many other small details in the Galatian 
letter could be very well explained against this known background. The triple mention of Barnabas in the 
letter (2:1, 9, 13) might confirm a southern destination, since Barnabas would have been well known to the 
southern Galatians (Acts 14:12), but quite unknown to the northern Galatians. ... Other supporting points in 
favour of a South Galatian destination could be made ... For instance, the reference to the reception of Paul 
by the Galatians as 'an angel of God' (4:14) might possibly be a reference to the way in which he had been 
hailed at Lystra as Hermes, messenger of the gods (Acts 14:12)." (Cole, R.A., "The Letter of Paul to the 
Galatians: An Introduction and Commentary," The Tyndale New Testament commentaries, [1965], Inter-
Varsity Press Leicester: UK, Second edition, 1989, pp.22-23)

6/02/2009
"[1Th 1:8] The Lord's message (RSV 'the word of the Lord') is an expression very common in the prophetic 
writings of the Old Testament and found often in Acts, but twice only (here and 2 Thes. 3:1) in Paul (though 
it is not very different from expressions such as 'the word', 'the word of God', 'the gospel of God' and the like, 
which are frequent in Paul). It emphasizes the conviction of the early Christians that the message they 
proclaimed was not the product of human wisdom, but truly of divine origin. " (Morris, L.L., "The Epistles of 
Paul to the Thessalonians: An Introduction and Commentary," Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, 
[1956], Inter-Varsity Press: Leicester UK, Second Edition, 1984, p.46)

8/02/2009
"[1Th 2:19] Notice further that Paul combines the title Lord (the one who is in the highest place) with the 
human name Jesus (Christ is not in the older mss and should be omitted). 'Lord Jesus' or 'Lord Jesus 
Christ' occurs twenty-four times in the eight chapters of these two letters, which is more often than 
anywhere else in the New Testament. Acts, for example, has it seventeen times and Romans sixteen." 
(Morris, L.L., "The Epistles of Paul to the Thessalonians: An Introduction and Commentary," Tyndale New 
Testament Commentaries, [1956], Inter-Varsity Press: Leicester UK, Second Edition, 1984, p.68)

8/02/2009
"[1Th 3:11] From a rhetorical question Paul now turns to an actual prayer ... Notice that our God and Father 
is linked in the closest fashion in the address of this prayer with our Lord Jesus (again in 2 Thes. 2:16, in the 
reverse order), and that the verb (kateuthynai) is in the singular. There could scarcely be a more 
impressive way of indicating the lordship of Christ, and his oneness with the Father (... the singular 'implies 
that God and Jesus count as one in this connection'). From a very early time (this letter is dated about an 50) 
Christians accepted the deity of our Lord without question. (Prayer is not the place for the introduction of 
argument.) Prayer is offered to God alone; only one who was divine could be bracketed in this way with the 
Father. The prayer is that God and Christ may clear the way, i.e. remove the obstacles that Satan has put in 
the path. ... By the Lord he almost certainly means Jesus, but as we see from the preceding petition he is 
making no great distinction between the Father and the Son. For him both were God and the two were in 
some sense one." (Morris, L.L., "The Epistles of Paul to the Thessalonians: An Introduction and 
Commentary," Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, [1956], Inter-Varsity Press: Leicester UK, Second 
Edition, 1984, pp.76-77)

12/02/2009
"[Gn 1:26] Us...our...our. The plural is interpreted by, e.g., Delitzsch and von Rad as including the angels, 
whom the Old Testament calls at times 'sons of God' , or, generically, 'god(s) ' (cf Jb. 1:6; Ps. 8:5 with Heb. 
2:7; Ps. 82:1,6 with Jn. 10:34,35). This can claim some support from Genesis 3:22 ('as one of us'); but any 
implication that others had a hand in our creation is quite foreign to the chapter as a whole and to the 
challenge in Isaiah 40: 14: 'With whom took he counsel?' It is rather the plural of fullness, which is found in 
the regular word for God ('elohim) used with a singular verb; and this fullness, glimpsed in the Old 
Testament, was to be unfolded as triunity, in the further 'we' and 'our' of John 14:23 (with 14:17)." (Kidner, D., 
"Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary," Tyndale Press: London, 1967, pp.51-52)

12/02/2009
[Gn 1] Let us make man (26). The creation of man is the summit of the divine work. The deliberation here 
should be interpreted of the Holy Trinity, not of divine consultation with the angels. In our image, after our 
likeness (26). No difference is to be found between the two terms 'image and 'likeness', as if one were 
constitutional and the other acquired. The phrase conforms to the Hebrew style of parallelism in poetry. 
This likeness is both natural and moral, in the possession of personality and character. Dominion (26). 
From man's likeness to God flows his dominion over all created things. Male and female created he them 
(27). The more detailed account of this is found in the next chapter. Replenish (28). Heb. male, which 
means simply 'to fill', as in verse 22, and conveys no idea of refilling a world that has at some time become 
emptied. God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it (ii. 3). The sabbath appears from this passage to 
have been a pre-Mosaic institution: it must have been the subject of some early revelation by which God set 
it apart." (Kevan, E.F., "Genesis," in Davidson, F., et al., eds, "The New Bible Commentary," The Inter-
Varsity Fellowship: London, Second Edition, 1954, Reprinted, 1968, p.78) 

12/02/2009
"Trinity. The term designating one God in three persons. Although not itself a biblical term, `the Trinity' 
has been found a convenient designation for the one God self-revealed in Scripture as Father, Son, and Holy 
Spirit. It signifies that within the one essence of the Godhead we have to distinguish three `persons' who are 
neither three gods on the one side, nor three parts or modes of God on the other, but coequally and 
coeternally God." (Bromiley, G.W., "Trinity," in Elwell, W.A., ed., "Evangelical Dictionary of Theology," 
Baker: Grand Rapids MI, 1984, Seventh printing, 1990, p.1112. Emphasis original)

12/02/2009
"The main contribution of the OT to the doctrine is to emphasize the unity of God. God is not himself a 
plurality, nor is he one among many others. He is single and unique: `The Lord our God is one Lord' (Deut. 
6:4), and he demands the exclusion of all pretended rivals (Deut. 5:7-11). Hence there can be no question of 
tritheism." (Bromiley, G.W., "Trinity," in Elwell, W.A., ed., "Evangelical Dictionary of Theology," Baker: 
Grand Rapids MI, 1984, Seventh printing, 1990, p.1112. Emphasis original)

12/02/2009
"Yet even in the OT we have clear intimations of the Trinity. The frequent mention of the Spirit of God (Gen. 
1:2 and passim) may be noted, as also, perhaps, the angel of the Lord in Exod. 23:23. Again, the plural in 
Gen. 1:26 and 11:7 is to be noted, as also the plural form of the divine name and the nature of the divine 
appearance to Abraham in Gen. 18. The importance of the word (Ps. 33:6), and especially the wisdom, of God 
(Prov. 8:12ff.) is a further pointer, and in a mysterious verse like Isa. 48:16, in a strongly monotheistic 
context, we have a very close approach to Trinitarian formulation." (Bromiley, G.W., "Trinity," in Elwell, 
W.A., ed., "Evangelical Dictionary of Theology," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, 1984, Seventh printing, 1990, 
p.1112)

12/02/2009
"In the NT there is no explicit statement of the doctrine (apart from the rejected I John 5:7), but the 
Trinitarian evidence is overwhelming. God is still preached as the one God (Gal. 3:20). Yet Jesus proclaims 
his own deity (John 8:58) and evokes and accepts the faith and worship of his disciples (Matt. 16:16; John 
20:28). As the Son or Word, he can thus be equated with God (John 1:1) and associated with the Father, e.g., 
in the Pauline salutations (I Cor. 1:3, etc.). But the Spirit or Comforter is also brought into the same 
interrelationship (cf. John 14-16)." (Bromiley, G.W., "Trinity," in Elwell, W.A., ed., "Evangelical Dictionary of 
Theology," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, 1984, Seventh printing, 1990, p.1112)

12/02/2009
"It is not surprising, therefore, that while we have no dogmatic statement, there are clear references to the 
three persons of the Godhead in the NT All three are mentioned at the baptism of Jesus (Matt. 3:16-17). The 
disciples are to baptize in the name of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost (Matt. 28:19). The developed Pauline 
blessing includes the grace of the Son, the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost (II Cor 13:14). 
Reference is made to the election of the Father, the sanctification of the Spirit, and the sprinkling of the 
blood of Jesus Christ (I Pet. 1:2) in relation to the salvation of believers." (Bromiley, G.W., "Trinity," in 
Elwell, W.A., ed., "Evangelical Dictionary of Theology," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, 1984, Seventh printing, 
1990, p.1112)

12/02/2009
"The fact that Christian faith involves acceptance of Jesus as Savior and Lord meant that the Trinity quickly 
found its way into the creeds of the church as the confession of faith in God the Father, Jesus Christ his 
only Son, and the Holy Ghost. The implications of this confession, especially in the context of monotheism, 
naturally became one of the first concerns of patristic theology, the main aim being to secure the doctrine 
against tritheism on the one side and monarchianism on the other." (Bromiley, G.W., "Trinity," in Elwell, 
W.A., ed., "Evangelical Dictionary of Theology," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, 1984, Seventh printing, 1990, 
p.1112)

12/02/2009
"In the fully developed doctrine the unity of God is safeguarded by insisting that there is only one essence 
or substance of God. Yet the deity of Jesus Christ is fully asserted against those who would think of him as 
merely adopted to divine sonship, or preexistent, but in the last resort created. The individuality of Father, 
Son, and Holy Spirit is also preserved against the notion that these are only modes of God for the various 
purposes of dealing with man in creation or salvation. God is one, yet in himself and from all eternity he is 
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, the triune God." (Bromiley, G.W., "Trinity," in Elwell, W.A., ed., "Evangelical 
Dictionary of Theology," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, 1984, Seventh printing, 1990, p.1112)

12/02/2009
"Trinitarian analogies have been found by many apologists both in nature generally and in the constitution 
of man. These are interesting, but are not to be thought of as providing a rationale of the divine being. More 
pregnant is the suggestion of Augustine that without the Trinity there could be no fellowship or love in 
God, the divine Triunity involving an interrelationship in which the divine perfections find eternal exercise 
and expression independent of the creation of the world and man." (Bromiley, G.W., "Trinity," in Elwell, 
W.A., ed., "Evangelical Dictionary of Theology," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, 1984, Seventh printing, 1990, 
p.1112)

12/02/2009
"Rationalist objections to the Trinity break down on the fact that they insist on interpreting the Creator in 
terms of the creature, i.e., the unity of God in terms of mathematical unity. More scientifically, the Christian 
learns to know God from God himself as he has acted for us and attested his action in Holy Scripture. He is 
not surprised if an element of mystery remains which defies ultimate analysis or understanding, for he is 
only man and God is God. But in the divine work as recorded in the Bible the one God is self-revealed as 
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and therefore in true faith he must `acknowledge the glory of the eternal 
Trinity.'" (Bromiley, G.W., "Trinity," in Elwell, W.A., ed., "Evangelical Dictionary of Theology," Baker: Grand 
Rapids MI, 1984, Seventh printing, 1990, pp.1112-1113)

13/02/2009
"TRINITY. The word Trinity is not found in the Bible, and though used by Tertullian in the last decade of 
the 2nd century, it did not find a place formally in the theology of the church till the 4th century. It is, 
however, the distinctive and all-comprehensive doctrine of the Christian faith. It makes three affirmations: 
that there is but one God, that the Father, the Son and the Spirit is each God, and that the Father, the Son 
and the Spirit is each a distinct Person. In this form it has become the faith of the church since it received its 
first full formulation at the hands of Tertullian, Athanasius and Augustine." (Finlayson, R.A., "Trinity," in 
Douglas, J.D., et al., eds., "New Bible Dictionary," [1962], Inter-Varsity Press, Leicester UK, Second edition, 
1982, Reprinted, 1988, p.1221. Emphasis original)

13/02/2009
"Derivation Though it is not a biblical doctrine in the sense that any formulation of it can be found in the 
Bible, it can be seen to underlie the revelation of God, implicit in the OT and explicit in the NT. By this we 
mean that though we cannot speak confidently of the revelation of the Trinity in the OT, yet once the 
substance of the doctrine has been revealed in the NT, we can read back many implications of it in the OT." 
(Finlayson, R.A., "Trinity," in Douglas, J.D., et al., eds., "New Bible Dictionary," [1962], Inter-Varsity Press, 
Leicester UK, Second edition, 1982, Reprinted, 1988, p.1221. Emphasis original)

13/02/2009
"In the Old Testament It can be understood that in ages when revealed religion had to hold its own in the 
environment of pagan idolatry, nothing that would imperil the oneness of God could be freely given. The 
first imperative, therefore, was to declare the existence of the one living and true God, and to this task the 
OT is principally dedicated. But even in the opening pages of the OT we are taught to attribute the existence 
and persistence of all things to a threefold source. There are passages where God, his Word and his Spirit 
are brought together, as, for example, in the narrative of the creation where Elohim is seen to create by 
means of his Word and Spirit (Gn. 1:2-3). It is thought that Gn. 1:26 points in the same direction, where it is 
stated that God said: `Let us make man in our image, after our likeness', followed by the statement of 
accomplishment: `So God created man in his own image', a striking case of plural and singular interchanged, 
suggesting plurality in unity." (Finlayson, R.A., "Trinity," in Douglas, J.D., et al., eds., "New Bible 
Dictionary," [1962], Inter-Varsity Press, Leicester UK, Second edition, 1982, Reprinted, 1988, p.1221. 
Emphasis original)

13/02/2009
"There are many other passages where God and his Word and Spirit are brought together as `co-causes of 
effects'. In Is. 63:8-10 we have the three speakers, the covenant God of Israel (v. 8), the angel of the presence 
(v. 9) and the Spirit `grieved' by their rebellion (v. 10). Both the creative activity of God and his government 
are, at a later stage, associated with the Word personified as `Wisdom' (Pr. 8:22; Jb. 28:23-27), as well as with 
the Spirit as the Dispenser of all blessings and the source of physical strength, courage, culture and 
government (Ex. 31:3; Nu. 11:25; Jdg. 3:10)." (Finlayson, R.A., "Trinity," in Douglas, J.D., et al., eds., "New 
Bible Dictionary," [1962], Inter-Varsity Press, Leicester UK, Second edition, 1982, Reprinted, 1988, p.1221)

13/02/2009
"The threefold source revealed in creation becomes still more evident in the unfolding of redemption. At an 
early stage there are the remarkable phenomena connected with the angel of Yahweh who receives and 
accepts divine honour (Gn. 16:2-13; 22:11-16). Not in every OT passage in which it appears does the 
designation refer to a divine being, for it is clear that in such passages as 2 Sa. 24:16; 1 Ki. 19:35, the 
reference is to a created angel invested with divine authority for the execution of a special mission. In other 
passages the angel of Yahweh not only bears the divine name, but has divine dignity and power, dispenses 
divine deliverance, and accepts homage and adoration proper only to God. In short, the Messiah has deity 
ascribed to him, even when he is regarded as a person distinct from God (Is. 7:14; 9:6)." (Finlayson, R.A., 
"Trinity," in Douglas, J.D., et al., eds., "New Bible Dictionary," [1962], Inter-Varsity Press, Leicester UK, 
Second edition, 1982, Reprinted, 1988, p.1221)

13/02/2009
"The Spirit of God is also given prominence in connection with revelation and redemption, and is assigned 
his office in the equipment of the Messiah for his work (Is. 11:2; 42:1; 61:1), and of his people for the 
response of faith and obedience (Joel 2:28; Is. 32:15; Ezk. 36:26-27). Thus the God who revealed himself 
objectively through the Angel-Messenger revealed himself subjectively in and through the Spirit, the 
Dispenser of all blessings and gifts within the sphere of redemption. The threefold Aaronic blessing (Nu. 
6:24) must also be noted as perhaps the prototype of the NT apostolic blessing." (Finlayson, R.A., "Trinity," 
in Douglas, J.D., et al., eds., "New Bible Dictionary," [1962], Inter-Varsity Press, Leicester UK, Second 
edition, 1982, Reprinted, 1988, p.1221. Emphasis original)

13/02/2009
"In the Gospels By way of contrast it must be remembered that the OT was written before the revelation 
of the doctrine of the Trinity was clearly given, and the NT after it. In the NT it was given particularly in the 
incarnation of God the Son, and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. But however dim the light in the old 
dispensation, the Father, Son and Spirit of the NT are the same as in the OT. It can be said, however, that 
preparatory to the advent of Christ, the Holy Spirit came into the consciousness of God-fearing men in a 
degree that was not known since the close of Malachi's prophetic ministry. John the Baptist, more 
especially, was conscious of the presence and calling of the Spirit, and it is possible that his preaching had a 
trinitarian reference. He called for repentance toward God, faith in the coming Messiah, and spoke of a 
baptism of the Holy Spirit, of which his baptism with water was a symbol (Mt. 3:11)." (Finlayson, R.A., 
"Trinity," in Douglas, J.D., et al., eds., "New Bible Dictionary," [1962], Inter-Varsity Press, Leicester UK, 
Second edition, 1982, Reprinted, 1988, pp.1221-1222. Emphasis original)

13/02/2009
"The special epochs of trinitarian revelation were as follows. (i) The annunciation. The agency of the 
Trinity in the incarnation was disclosed to Mary in the angelic annunciation that the Holy Spirit would come 
upon her, the power of the Most High would overshadow her and the child born of her would be called the 
Son of God (Lk. 1:35). Thus the Father and the Spirit were disclosed as operating in the incarnation of the 
Son. (ii) The baptism of Christ. At the baptism of Christ in the Jordan the three Persons can be 
distinguished, the Son being baptized, the Father speaking from heaven in recognition of his Son and the 
Spirit descending in the objective symbol of a dove. Jesus, having thus received the witness of the Father 
and the Spirit, received authority to baptize with the Holy Spirit. John the Baptist would seem to have 
recognized very early that the Holy Spirit would come from the Messiah, and not merely with him. The third 
Person was thus the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ. (iii) The teaching of Jesus. The teaching of 
Jesus is trinitarian throughout. He spoke of the Father who sent him, of himself as the one who reveals the 
Father, and the Spirit as the one by whom he and the Father work. The interrelations between Father, Son 
and Spirit are emphasized throughout (see Jn. 14:7, 9-10). He declared with emphasis: `I will pray the Father, 
and he will give you another counsellor (Advocate), to be with you for ever, even the Spirit of truth' (Jn. 
14:16-26). There is thus a distinction made between the Persons, and also an identity. The Father who is God 
sent the Son, and the Son who is God sent the Spirit, who is himself God. This is the basis of the Christian 
belief in the `double procession' of the Spirit. In his disputation with the Jews, Christ claimed that his 
Sonship was not simply from David, but from a source that made him David's Lord, and that he had been so 
at the very time when David uttered the words (Mt. 22:43). This would indicate both his deity and his pre-
existence. (iv) The commission of the Risen Lord. In the commission given by Christ before his ascension, 
instructing his disciples to go into the whole world with his message, he made specific reference to baptism 
as `in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit'. It is significant that the name is one, but 
within the bounds of the one name there are three distinct Persons. The Trinity as tri-unity could not be 
more clearly expressed." (Finlayson, R.A., "Trinity," in Douglas, J.D., et al., eds., "New Bible Dictionary," 
[1962], Inter-Varsity Press, Leicester UK, Second edition, 1982, Reprinted, 1988, p.1222. Emphasis original)

13/02/2009
"The New Testament writings The evidence of the NT writings, apart from the Gospels, is sufficient to 
show that Christ had instructed his disciples on this doctrine to a greater extent than is recorded by any of 
the four Evangelists. They whole-heartedly proclaim the doctrine of the Trinity as the threefold source of 
redemption. The outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost brought the personality of the Spirit into greater 
prominence and at the same time shed light anew from the Spirit upon the Son. Peter, in explaining the 
phenomenon of Pentecost, represents it as the activity of the Trinity: `This Jesus ... being ... exalted at the 
right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out 
this which you see and hear' (Acts 2:32-33). So the church of Pentecost was founded on the doctrine of the 
Trinity. In 1 Cor. there is mention of the gifts of the Spirit, the varieties of service for the same Lord and the 
inspiration of the same God for the work (1 Cor. 12:4-6). Peter traces salvation to the same triunal source: 
`destined by God the Father and sanctified by the Spirit for obedience to Jesus Christ' (1 Pet. 1:2). The 
apostolic benediction: `The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the 
Holy Spirit be with you all' (2 Cor. 13:14), not only sums up the apostolic teaching, but interprets the deeper 
meaning of the Trinity in Christian experience, the saving grace of the Son giving access to the love of the 
Father and to the communion of the Spirit. What is amazing, however, is that this confession of God as One 
in Three took place without struggle and without controversy by a people indoctrinated for centuries in the 
faith of the one God, and that in entering the Christian church they were not conscious of any break with 
their ancient faith." (Finlayson, R.A., "Trinity," in Douglas, J.D., et al., eds., "New Bible Dictionary," [1962], 
Inter-Varsity Press, Leicester UK, Second edition, 1982, Reprinted, 1988, p.1222. Emphasis original)

13/02/2009
"Formulation Although Scripture does not give us a formulated doctrine of the Trinity, it contains all the 
elements out of which theology has constructed the doctrine. The teaching of Christ bears testimony to the 
true personality of each of the distinctions within the Godhead, and also sheds light upon the relations 
existing between the three Persons. It was left to theology to formulate from this a doctrine of the Trinity. 
The necessity to formulate the doctrine was thrust upon the church by forces from without, and it was, in 
particular, its faith in the deity of Christ and the necessity to defend it, that first compelled the church to face 
the duty of formulating a full doctrine of the Trinity for its rule of faith. Irenaeus and Origen share with 
Tertullian the responsibility for the formulation which is still, in the main, that of the church catholic. Under 
the leadership of Athanasius the doctrine was proclaimed as the faith of the church at the Council of Nicea 
(AD 325), and at the hands of Augustine, a century later, it received a formulation enshrined in the so-called 
Athanasian Creed that is accepted by Trinitarian churches to this day. After it had received a further 
elucidation at the hands of John Calvin (for which see B. B. Warfield, Calvin and Augustine, 1956, pp. 
189-284), it passed into the body of the reformed faith." (Finlayson, R.A., "Trinity," in Douglas, J.D., et al., 
eds., "New Bible Dictionary," [1962], Inter-Varsity Press, Leicester UK, Second edition, 1982, Reprinted, 
1988, p.1222. Emphasis original)

13/02/2009
"In the relationship between the Persons there are recognizable distinctions. a. Unity in diversity In 
most formularies the doctrine is stated by saying that God is One in his essential being, but that in his being 
there are three Persons, yet so as not to form separate and distinct individuals. They are three modes or 
forms in which the divine essence exists. `Person' is, however, an imperfect expression of the truth inasmuch 
as the term denotes to us a separate rational and moral individual. But in the being of God there are not three 
individuals, but three personal self-distinctions within the one divine essence. Then again, personality in 
man implies independence of will, actions and feelings leading to behaviour peculiar to the person. This 
cannot be thought of in connection with the Trinity. Each person is self-conscious and self-directing, yet 
never acting independently or in opposition. When we say that God is a Unity we mean that, though God is 
in himself a threefold centre of life, his life is not split into three. He is one in essence, in personality and in 
will. When we say that God is a Trinity in Unity, we mean that there is a unity in diversity, and that the 
diversity manifests itself in Persons, in characteristics and in operations." (Finlayson, R.A., "Trinity," in 
Douglas, J.D., et al., eds., "New Bible Dictionary," [1962], Inter-Varsity Press, Leicester UK, Second edition, 
1982, Reprinted, 1988, pp.1222-1223. Emphasis original)

13/02/2009
"b. Equality in dignity There is perfect equality in nature, honour and dignity between the Persons. 
Fatherhood belongs to the very essence of the first Person and it was so from all eternity. It is a personal 
property of God `from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named' (Eph. 3:15). The Son is called the 
`only begotten' perhaps to suggest uniqueness rather than derivation. Christ always claimed for himself a 
unique relationship to God as Father, and the Jews who listened to him apparently had no illusions about 
his claims. Indeed they sought to kill him because he `called God his own Father, making himself equal with 
God' (Jn. 5:18). The Spirit is revealed as the One who alone knows the depths of God's nature: `For the Spirit 
searches everything, even the depths of God ... No one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit 
of God' (1 Cor. 2:10f.). This is saying that the Spirit is `just God himself in the innermost essence of his 
being'. This puts the seal of NT teaching upon the doctrine of the equality of the three Persons." (Finlayson, 
R.A., "Trinity," in Douglas, J.D., et al., eds., "New Bible Dictionary," [1962], Inter-Varsity Press, Leicester 
UK, Second edition, 1982, Reprinted, 1988, pp.1222-1223. Emphasis original)

13/02/2009
"c. Diversity in operation In the functions ascribed to each of the Persons in the Godhead, especially in 
man's redemption, it is clear that a certain degree of subordination is involved (in relation, though not in 
nature); the Father first, the Son second, the Spirit third. The Father works through the Son by the Spirit. 
Thus Christ can say: `My Father is greater than I' As the Son is sent by the Father, so the Spirit is sent by 
the Son. As it was the Son's office to reveal the Father, so it is the Spirit's office to reveal the Son, as Christ 
testified: `He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you' (Jn. 16:14). It has to be 
recognized that the doctrine arose as the spontaneous expression of the Christian experience. The early 
Christians knew themselves to be reconciled to God the Father, and that the reconciliation was secured for 
them by the atoning work of the Son, and that it was mediated to them as an experience by the Holy Spirit. 
Thus the Trinity was to them a fact before it became a doctrine, but in order to preserve it in the credal faith 
of the church the doctrine had to be formulated." (Finlayson, R.A., "Trinity," in Douglas, J.D., et al., eds., 
"New Bible Dictionary," [1962], Inter-Varsity Press, Leicester UK, Second edition, 1982, Reprinted, 1988, 
pp.1222-1223. Emphasis original)

13/02/2009
"Implications of the doctrine The implications of the doctrine are vitally important not only for 
theology, but for Christian experience and life. a. It means that God is revealable Revelation is as natural 
for God as it is for the sun to shine. Before there had been any created being, there was self-revelation 
within the Trinity, the Father revealing to the Son, the Father and the Son revealing to the Spirit, and the 
Spirit communicating that revelation within the Being of God. When God willed to create a universe it 
implied no change in God's behaviour; it meant letting his revelation shine outwards to his creation. And 
this he did by his revealing Spirit. b. It means that God is communicable As the sun shines it 
communicates its light and heat and energy. So if God is a fellowship within himself he can let that 
fellowship go out to his creatures and communicate himself to them according to their capacity to receive. 
This is what happened supremely when he came to redeem men: he let his fellowship bend down to reach 
outcast man and lift him up. And so because God is a Trinity he has something to share: it is his own life 
and communion. c. It means that the Trinity is the basis of' all true fellowship in the world Since God is 
within himself a fellowship, it means that his moral creatures who are made in his image find fullness of life 
only within a fellowship. This is reflected in marriage, in the home, in society and above all in the church 
whose koinonia is built upon the fellowship of the three Persons. Christian fellowship is, therefore, the 
divinest thing on earth, the earthly counterpart of the divine life, as Christ indeed prayed for his followers: 
`That they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us' (Jn. 
17:21). d. It gives variety to the life of the universe There is, as we have seen, diversity in the life of God. 
God the Father designs, God the Son creates, God the Spirit quickens; a great diversity of life and operation 
and activity. For that reason we can realize that if the universe is a manifestation of God, we can expect a 
diversity of life within the whole of the created universe. We think that the so-called uniformity of nature is 
utterly untrue. All the wonders of creation, all the forms of life, all the movement in the universe, are a 
reflection, a mirroring, of the manifold life of God. There is no monotonous sameness, no large-scale 
uniformity of pattern, for nature reflects the many-sidedness of the nature and character of the living God." 
(Finlayson, R.A., "Trinity," in Douglas, J.D., et al., eds., "New Bible Dictionary," [1962], Inter-Varsity Press, 
Leicester UK, Second edition, 1982, Reprinted, 1988, p.1223. Emphasis original)

13/02/2009
"Trinity, the term by which is expressed the unity of three persons in the one God. The Christian doctrine 
is: 1. That there is only one God, one divine nature and being. 2. This one divine being is tripersonal, 
involving the distinctions of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. 3. These three are joint partakers of the 
same nature and majesty of God. This doctrine is preeminently one of revelation. And while it brings before 
us one of the great mysteries of revelation, and transcends the finite comprehension, it is essential to the 
understanding of the Scriptures; and, as we shall see, has its great value and uses." (Unger, M.F., "Trinity," 
in "Unger's Bible Dictionary," [1957], Moody Press: Chicago IL, Third edition, 1966, Fifteenth printing, 1969, 
p.1118. Emphasis original)

13/02/2009
"1. Scripture Doctrine. Although the doctrine of the Trinity is implicit rather than explicit in the Old 
Testament, at the same time, it is properly held that with the accompanying light of the New Testament this 
truth can be found in the Old (e.g., Num. 6:24-26; Isa. 6:3; 63:9, 10, the sanctity of the symbolical number 
three-the plural form of Elohim, also places in which the deity is spoken of as conversing with himself). This 
is in accord with the gradual development of revealed truth in other particulars. The religion of the Old 
Testament is emphatically monotheistic. The almost exclusive proclamation of the unity of God was 
essential as a safeguard against polytheism." (Unger, M.F., "Trinity," in "Unger's Bible Dictionary," [1957], 
Moody Press: Chicago IL, Third edition, 1966, Fifteenth printing, 1969, p.1118. Emphasis original)

13/02/2009
"The New Testament teaching upon this subject is not given in the way of formal statement. The formal 
statement, however, is legitimately and necessarily deduced from the Scriptures of the New Testament, and 
these, as has been suggested, cast a light backward upon the intimations of the Old. Reliance, it is held by 
many competent critics, is not to be placed upon the passages in Acts 20:28 and I Tim. 3:16; and I John 5:7 is 
commonly regarded as spurious. Aside from these, however, it is plain that both Christ and the apostles 
ascribe distinct personality to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (see articles, Father, God the; Sonship 
of Christ; Holy Spirit, The). And these utterances are such as to admit legitimately of no other conception 
than that of the unity of these three persons in the ontological oneness of the whole divine nature (see, e.g., 
Matt. 28:19; John 14:16, 17; I Cor. 12:4-6; II Cor. 13:13; Eph- 4:4-6; I Pet. 1:2; Rev. 1:4-6). The same worship is 
paid, the same works are ascribed to each of these three persons, and in such a way as to indicate that these 
three are united in the fullness of the one living God. The Monotheism of the Old Testament is maintained, 
while glimpses are nevertheless, afforded into the tripersonal mode of the divine existence." (Unger, M.F., 
"Trinity," in "Unger's Bible Dictionary," [1957], Moody Press: Chicago IL, Third edition, 1966, Fifteenth 
printing, 1969, p.1118. Emphasis original)

13/02/2009
"2. Theological Suggestions. (1) The Christian faith at this period does not ground itself: upon philosophy, 
for it here extends to a matter far above the reach of philosophical reflection. Also but little stress, if any, is 
to be laic upon apparent resemblances between pagan religions and Christianity at this point-resemblances 
more apparent than real. The doctrine is to be accepted by faith in the divine revelation; and while it is 
above reason. and cannot be comprehended in its depth and fullness, it does not follow, nor can it be 
shown, that it is opposed to reason." (Unger, M.F., "Trinity," in "Unger's Bible Dictionary," [1957], Moody 
Press: Chicago IL, Third edition, 1966, Fifteenth printing, 1969, p.1118. Emphasis original)

13/02/2009
"(2) The question whether the Trinity is merely one of manifestation or that of essential nature has been 
raised again and again in the history of the Church (see Sabellianism in works of Doctrine). Undoubtedly the 
history of revelation shows a progress in the unfolding of truth concerning God. And in that sense the 
Trinity is dispensational. But it is also emphatically to be borne in mind that if God reveals himself, he must 
reveal himself as he is, and the Trinity of revelation must therefore rest upon a Trinity of nature. The attempt 
to remove difficulty by any sort of Sabellian interpretation only raises difficulty of a deeper character. Can 
God on the whole reveal himself other than he actually is?" (Unger, M.F., "Trinity," in "Unger's Bible 
Dictionary," [1957], Moody Press: Chicago IL, Third edition, 1966, Fifteenth printing, 1969, p.1118)

13/02/2009
"(3) On the other hand Christianity has reason to guard itself, as it has generally sought to do, against 
tritheistic conceptions. Both the unity and the tripersonal nature of God are to be maintained. And thus the 
proper baptismal formula is not, `In the name of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit,' but 
the words as our Lord gave them (Matt. 28:19)." (Unger, M.F., "Trinity," in "Unger's Bible Dictionary," 
[1957], Moody Press: Chicago IL, Third edition, 1966, Fifteenth printing, 1969, p.1118)

13/02/2009
"(4) It is admitted by all who thoughtfully deal with this subject that the Scripture revelation here leads us 
into the presence of a deep mystery; and that all human attempts at expression are of necessity imperfect. 
The word person, it may be, is inadequate, and is doubtless used often in a way that is misleading, "That 
God is alike one Person, and in the same sense three Persons, is what Christianity has never professed" 
(Van Oosterzee). Said Augustine, "Three persons, if they are to be so called, for the unspeakable 
exaltedness of the object cannot be set forth by this term." And yet the long standing and prevailing 
doctrine of the Church expresses more nearly than any other the truth concerning God as it comes to us in 
the Holy Scriptures. And it L - further to be borne in mind that this teaching of the Church has been called 
forth for the purpose of combating various forms of error. It has not been held as a complete or perfect 
expression of the truth concerning the unfathomable being of God, but rather as a protest against the 
denials of the personality and supreme deity of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." (Unger, M.F., "Trinity," in 
"Unger's Bible Dictionary," [1957], Moody Press: Chicago IL, Third edition, 1966, Fifteenth printing, 1969, 
p.1118)

13/02/2009
"(5) Accordingly the doctrine has a large measure of importance. It has been called `a bulwark for Christian 
theism.' Unitarianism is very apt to degenerate into deism or pantheism. Also this doctrine affords us a 
glimpse into the wonderful being of God, while at the same time it constantly proclaims the impossibility of 
comprehending God. Thus while it is a stumbling-block to rationalism, it is for those who accept it a 
safeguard against all tendency to rationalism or intellectual pride. And, further, in the Trinity we should 
behold not only a God who is exalted far above us, but also Christ with us, and the Holy Spirit who will dwell 
in us. Thus in a proper way is harmonized the divine transcendence with the divine immanence. The glory of 
the Gospel depends upon this truth; for Christ is most clearly seen to be God's unspeakable gift, the bringer 
of the most perfect revelation, and the author of eternal salvation, when we recognize his essential oneness 
with the Father. Likewise the Holy Spirit is thus seen to be, in his relation to a sinful world, and to the 
Church, as well as to individual believers, the infinite source of hope and new and holy life." (Unger, M.F., 
"Trinity," in "Unger's Bible Dictionary," [1957], Moody Press: Chicago IL, Third edition, 1966, Fifteenth 
printing, 1969, pp.1118-1119)

13/02/2009
"3. Historical. Briefly it may be said that the faith of the primitive Christians at this point, as many others, 
was without attempt at scientific form. The elements of the doctrine, however, were embraced by their simple 
reliance upon the teaching of Christ and his apostles. It was only gradually, and after a considerable period, 
in its conflict with Judaism and paganism, that the thought of the Church arrived at something of formal 
statement. The word Trinity (Trinitas) was first employed by Tertullian (2d century), though his word was 
only the Latin translation of the Greek trias, employed by Theophilus of Antioch. The word Person was 
also first employed by Tertullian, though he used it in the inadmissible sense of individual." (Unger, M.F., 
"Trinity," in "Unger's Bible Dictionary," [1957], Moody Press: Chicago IL, Third edition, 1966, Fifteenth 
printing, 1969, p.1119)

13/02/2009
"The Council of Nicaea (A. D. 325) was an epoch in Christian history. The heresy of Sabellius and Paul of 
Samosata, which refused to recognize the Father as in any personal sense distinct from the Son and the 
Holy Spirit, had been previously condemned. But Arius, who began with the Sabellian idea that the Trinity 
is only one of manifestation; changed his position and declared that there were three persons in God, but 
that these three were unequal in glory. In short, the Son and the Holy Spirit owed their existence to the 
divine will, and, accordingly, were creatures of God (see Arianism in books on Doctrine). The Council of 
Nice, in opposition to Arianism and various other theories, adopted the formal statement of the 
consubstantiality of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, while maintaining the distinction of personality. 
The doctrine of the Nicene Council was reaffirmed at carious succeeding councils, and is the generally 
recognized doctrine of the Christian Church." (Unger, M.F., "Trinity," in "Unger's Bible Dictionary," [1957], 
Moody Press: Chicago IL, Third edition, 1966, Fifteenth printing, 1969, p.1119) 

15/02/2009
"TRINITY (from Lat. trinitas). An expression for the revelation of the one God (Deut. 6:4) in three 
`persons,' Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The doctrine of the trinity is a theoretical model intended to 
systematize various expressions in the Bible. The basis in Scripture on which it was built can be summarized 
as follows: there is only one God; each of the three divine persons is recognized to be God; God's self-
revelation recognizes distinctions among these three persons in that there are interactions among them; and 
these distinctions are not just a matter of revelation (as received by humans) but are also eternally immanent 
in the Godhead." (Myers, A.C., ed., "Trinity," in "The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary," Eerdmans: Grand Rapids 
MI, 1987, Reprinted, 2000, p.1019. Emphasis original)

15/02/2009
"Old Testament Roots The doctrine of the trinity has been related to various aspects of the Old 
Testament revelation, the most important being possible indications of plurality within the Godhead and 
indications of the deity and distinctness of the Spirit of God and of the Messiah. The support of all these 
aspects of the Old Testament revelation for the Christian doctrine of the trinity have been exaggerated, 
especially what have been taken as indications of plurality in the Godhead. The `us' in `Let us make man in 
our image' (Gen. 1:26; cf. 3:22; 11:67) refers to the `sons of God' or lesser `gods' mentioned elsewhere (6:1-4; 
Job 1:6; Ps. 29:1), here viewed as a heavenly council centered around the one God (cf Ps. 82:1). In later usage 
these probably would be called `angels.'" (Myers, A.C., ed., "Trinity," in "The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary," 
Eerdmans: Grand Rapids MI, 1987, Reprinted, 2000, p.1019. Emphasis original)

15/02/2009
"The Holy Spirit of Christian belief began as the Old Testament `Spirit of the Lord,' but the latter is pictured 
as essentially equivalent to the power of Yahweh that comes upon, seizes, or falls on certain individuals for 
special tasks (e.g., Exod. 31:3; Num. 11:17, 25; Judg. 3:10; 6:34; 11:29; 14:6; 1 Sam. 10:10; 16:13). The figure of 
Wisdom at Prov. 8 is a poetic personification, holding up God's wise craftsmanship in creation as an example 
for mortals to follow, but it contributed to the later development of the doctrine of the trinity. Many 
`messianic' texts referred originally to the newborn or newly crowned king of Judah in terms derived from 
Canaanite royal ideology praising the king as a demigod (e.g., Ps. 2:7; 45:6 [MT 7]; Isa. 9:6 [MT 5]; Jet 23:5-
6). Such borrowing in Judah's case was hyperbole. The appearances of the `angel of the Lord' are sometimes 
taken as `christophanies' foreshadowing the incarnation. In these incidents (e.g., Gen. 16:7, 13; ch. 18; Judg. 
6:11, 22-23; 13:3', 22) God has for a moment taken on a human appearance, but not always an entirely human 
form (note the implication that the angel does not eat; 6:19-21; 13:16; cf. Gen. 18:8; Tob. 12:19; see also Luke 
24:39-43)." (Myers, A.C., ed., "Trinity," in "The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary," Eerdmans: Grand Rapids MI, 
1987, Reprinted, 2000, pp.1019-1020)

15/02/2009
"New Testament Roots The beginnings of trinitarian thought arose from New Testament speculation 
about Jesus Christ. Some strands of New Testament tradition associate Jesus' attainment of divine sonship 
with his resurrection (Acts 13:33; Rom. 1:4; cf. Acts 2:32-36). Others stress his miraculous birth; like Adam, 
he had no human father (Luke 1:35; 3:38). Jesus' sonship began to imply full divinity when `Son of God' was 
interpreted in the categories of Jewish wisdom speculation. The personification of Wisdom at Prov. 8 had 
long been the object of speculation similar to the Logos doctrine of Heraclitus and the Stoics. In such works 
as the Wisdom of Solomon and the writings of Philo Judaeus, Wisdom (or the Word) had indeed become a 
distinct, quasi-personal aspect of the Godhead. Philo even called the Word/ Wisdom God's `firstborn son' 
(De conf. ling. 62-63). Jesus is interpreted in these categories at Luke 11:49 (cf. Matt. 23:34; compare also 
11:28-30 with Sir. 6:18, 24-30); Col. 1:15-19; Heb. 1:2-3 (cf. Wis. 7:24-26)." (Myers, A.C., ed., "Trinity," in "The 
Eerdmans Bible Dictionary," Eerdmans: Grand Rapids MI, 1987, Reprinted, 2000, p.1020. Emphasis original)

15/02/2009
"The second major New Testament source of trinitarian doctrine is the reinterpretation of the Spirit as the 
Spirit of Christ. Acts 16:6-7 suggests a close linkage, perhaps verging on an outright identification, of the 
exalted Christ with the Spirit (cf. v. 10). Paul often says the same things now of Christ, now of the Spirit. The 
Spirit within seems indistinguishable from Christ within. The Spirit is "the Spirit of his Son" (Gal. 4:6). Paul 
seems to understand the Spirit as the mode whereby the exalted Lord is present on earth with his people, 
rather than as a person distinct from Christ." (Myers, A.C., ed., "Trinity," in "The Eerdmans Bible 
Dictionary," Eerdmans: Grand Rapids MI, 1987, Reprinted, 2000, p.1020. Emphasis original)

15/02/2009
"Triadic formulas in the New Testament are often regarded as implying a developed doctrine of the trinity, 
but this is to read too much into them. 1 Cor. 12:4-6; 2 Cor. 13:14 are implicitly subordinationist since they 
use the formula `Lord (i.e., Christ)-Spirit-God,' differentiating the first two from God. Nonetheless, such 
formulas may indeed embody what might be called `prototrinitarian' thought patterns. This is especially true 
of Matt. 28:19, a baptismal formula invoking Father (not simply God), Son, and Holy Spirit." (Myers, A.C., 
ed., "Trinity," in "The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary," Eerdmans: Grand Rapids MI, 1987, Reprinted, 2000, 
p.1020)

15/02/2009
"The strongest attempt in the New Testament to deal with the questions implied in the linking of Jesus 
Christ with the Word and the Spirit may be found in the Johannine writings. Jesus' farewell discourse (John 
14-16) depicts a complex interplay between the Father and the Son, each of whom is `in' the other (14:10), 
and between the Son and the `Comforter' (Gk. parakletos; RSV `Counselor'), the latter being both the Spirit 
(vv. 16-17) and the presence of Jesus himself (vv. 18-19). 1 John 5:7 in the Textus Receptus (represented in 
the KJV) makes it appear that John had arrived at the doctrine of the trinity in explicit form ('the Father, the 
Word, and the Holy Ghost'), but this text is clearly an interpolation since no genuine Greek manuscript 
contains it. Also of importance in the development of the doctrine of the trinity are indications of interaction 
(and therefore distinction) among the persons of the trinity, most specifically Jesus and `the Father' to whom 
he prayed (e.g., Matt. 26:39)." (Myers, A.C., ed., "Trinity," in "The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary," Eerdmans: 
Grand Rapids MI, 1987, Reprinted, 2000, p.1020)

15/02/2009
"Early Church Creedal developments in the Church reflected growing recognition of the importance of the 
existence of God in three persons, first by the trinitarian form of early creeds, some as early as the second 
century, which developed into the Apostles' Creed. A second development is seen in the creeds of the 
ecumenical councils of Nicea (325) and Constantinople (381), which sought to state christological and 
trinitarian doctrines in such a way as to achieve as much clarity as possible and to guard against the less 
than adequate ideas put forward by some. The heart of the trinitarian doctrine of the councils was the 
statement that the persons of the trinity are of the same essence but distinct in their offices." (Myers, A.C., 
ed., "Trinity," in "The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary," Eerdmans: Grand Rapids MI, 1987, Reprinted, 2000, 
p.1020)

15/02/2009
"Irenaeus of Lyons, at the end of the second century, put forth the doctrine of `economic trinitarianism,' 
whereby the Spirit and the Word were first differentiated from the Father at creation (cf. Ps. 33:6). In the 
fourth century Marcellus of Ancyra would further develop this view in terms of successive economies or 
dispensations of activity by the Word (here identified with the Spirit): first in the creation, second in the 
incarnation, and third in the outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost. At the second coming of Christ the Word 
will once again be absorbed into God, `that God may be all in all' (KJV, 1 Cor. 15:28)." (Myers, A.C., ed., 
"Trinity," in "The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary," Eerdmans: Grand Rapids MI, 1987, Reprinted, 2000, p.1020)

15/02/2009
"In the early third century Tertullian introduced the expression `three persons, one essence,' meaning by 
`persons' (Lat. personae) `faces' or `masks:' Later in that century Sabellius developed from Tertullian's rather 
imprecise terminology the alternative doctrine of modalism (also called Patripassianism [lit. `the Father 
suffers'] or Theopascism ['God suffers']). According to Sabellius, Father, Son, and Spirit are three transitory 
modes in which God manifests himself (cf. the popular analogy of the three persons to water, ice, and 
steam), not three distinct entities in the Godhead." (Myers, A.C., ed., "Trinity," in "The Eerdmans Bible 
Dictionary," Eerdmans: Grand Rapids MI, 1987, Reprinted, 2000, p.1020)

15/02/2009
"In the fourth century the three Cappadocian Fathers Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Basil of 
Caesarea experimented with Tertullian's schema, substituting the Greek term hypostasis: `three substances, 
one essence,' implying three individual existences sharing one essence. In the eleventh century the 
nominalist Roscellinus took a tritheist position, arguing that to speak in this way of a divine essence shared 
by three distinct individuals was in fact to speak of three (incarnate) Gods, just as Peter, James, and John as 
three individual existences who share one human nature are three different persons (cf. the popular analogy 
of Father, Son, and Spirit as three bulbs emitting the same light). Again in the fourth century Augustine of 
Hippo sought to explain the trinity in terms of relations within a person or between persons. He pictured the 
trinity as ,analogous to memory, intellect, and will within a single mind, and to the triad of the lover, the 
beloved, and their love." (Myers, A.C., ed., "Trinity," in "The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary," Eerdmans: Grand 
Rapids MI, 1987, Reprinted, 2000, pp.1020-1021)

15/02/2009
"INTIMATIONS IN THE OLD TESTAMENT Although the great emphasis of the Old Testament is the unity 
of God, hints of plurality in the Godhead are not lacking, nor are suggestions that this plurality is a trinity. It 
is interesting that God used plural pronouns (Gen. 1:26; 3:22; 11:7; Isa. 6:8) and plural verbs (Gen. 1:26; 11:7) 
to refer to himself. The name for God (Elohim) is plural and may imply plurality, though this is dubious. 
The plural form is probably used for intensity, rather than for expressing plurality. More definite indications 
that this plurality is a trinity are found in the following facts: (1) The Lord is distinguished from the Lord. 
Gen. 19:24 states, `Then the Lord rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of 
heaven,' and Hosea 1:7 declares, `I will have compassion on the house of Judah and deliver them by the 
Lord their God' (cf. Zech. 3:2; 2 Tim. 1:18). (2) The Son is distinguished from the Father. The Son speaking 
through Isaiah the prophet said, `The Lord God has sent Me, and His Spirit' (Isa. 48:16; cf. Ps. 45:6f.; Isa. 
63:9f.). Ps. 2:7 reads, `Thou art My Son, today I have begotten Thee.' Jesus is not only called the Son of God 
(Rom. 1:4), but also the only begotten Son (John 3:16, 18) and his first-born Son (Heb. 1:6). Christ did not 
become the eternal Son of God at the incarnation; he was the Son before he was given (Isa. 9:6). `His goings 
forth are from long ago, from the days of eternity' (Mic. 5:2). (3) The Spirit is also distinguished from God. 
Gen. 1:1 reads, `In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.' Then v. 2 states, `The Spirit of God 
was moving over the surface of the waters.' Note also the quotation, `The Lord said, 'My Spirit shall not 
strive with man forever' (Gen. 6:3; cf. Num. 27:18; Ps. 51:11; Isa. 40:13; Hag. 2:4f.). (4) Other such matters as 
the triple use of `holy' in Isa. 6:3 may imply a trinity (cf. Rev. 4:8), as well as the triple benediction of Num. 
6:24-26." (Thiessen, H.C. & Doerksen, V.D., "Lectures in Systematic Theology," [1949], Eerdmans: Grand 
Rapids MI, Revised, 1977, pp.9-910. Emphasis original)

15/02/2009
"The oft-recurring phrase `the angel of the Lord,' as found in the Old Testament, has special reference to the 
preincarnate second person of the trinity. His appearances in the Old Testament foreshadowed his coming 
in the flesh. The angel of the Lord is identified with the Lord and yet distinguished from him. He appeared to 
Hagar (Gen. 16:7-14), Abraham (Gen. 22:11-18), Jacob (Gen. 31:11-13), Moses (Exod. 3:2-5), Israel (Exod. 
14:19), Balaam (Num. 22:22-35), Gideon (Judg. 6:11-23), Manoah (Judg. 13:2-25), Elijah (1 Kings 19:5-7), and 
David (1 Chron. 21:15-17). The angel of the Lord slew 185,000 Assyrians (2 Kings 19:35), stood among the 
myrtle trees in Zechariah's vision (Zech. 1:11), defended Joshua the high priest against Satan (Zech. 3:1f.), 
and was one of the three men who appeared to Abraham (Gen. 18). In light of the above intimations of the 
trinity in the Old Testament, we conclude with Berkhof, `The Old Testament contains a clear anticipation of 
the fuller revelation of the Trinity in the New Testament.' [Berkhof, L., "Systematic Theology," Eerdmans: 
Grand Rapids MI, 1965, p.86]." (Thiessen, H.C. & Doerksen, V.D., "Lectures in Systematic Theology," 
[1949], Eerdmans: Grand Rapids MI, Revised, 1977, p.91) 

15/02/2009
"If I were on the translation committee, I would want my name to be kept secret also." Work on the New 
World Translation was being done and much was completed while I was in Bethel. The translation 
committee requested that the names of the translators remain secret even after their deaths (Jehovah's 
Witnesses in the Divine Purpose, p. 258). Knowing who the translators were, for this was common 
knowledge at Bethel, if I were on the translation committee, I would want my name to be kept secret also. 
The reason for the anonymity of the translators was twofold: (1) the qualifications of the translators could 
not be checked and evaluated, and (2) there would be no one to assume the responsibility for the 
translation. However, when Franz was asked in a courtroom in Scotland, "Why the secrecy?" he said, 
"Because the committee of translation wanted it to remain anonymous and not seek any glory or honour at 
the making of a translation, and having any names attached thereto." The attorney replied, "Writers of 
books and translators do not always get glory and honour for their efforts, do they?" (Pursuer's Proof of 
Douglas Walsh vs. The Right Honourable James Latham, M.P., P.C., Scottish Court of Sessions, November, 
1954, p. 92)." (Cetnar, W.I., "An Inside View of the Watchtower Society," in Cetnar, W.I. & J., "Questions 
for Jehovah's Witnesses," [1983], Bill & Joan Cetnar: Kunkletown PA, Reprinted, 2001, p.69. Emphasis 
original)

15/02/2009
"Would it not be of the utmost importance to know the men, their qualifications and credentials-men to 
whom we would entrust our spiritual lives? We certainly would not put trust in a surgeon who would not 
give us his name or credentials. It was interesting to me that at Bethel these translators took no precautions 
to keep themselves anonymous. ... From my observation, N. H. Knorr ... , F. W. Franz ... , Albert D. Schroeder 
... , G. D. Gangas, and M. Henschel met together in these translation sessions. Aside from Vice-president 
Franz (and his training was limited), none of the committee members had adequate schooling or background 
to function as critical Bible translators." (Cetnar, W.I., "An Inside View of the Watchtower Society," in 
Cetnar, W.I. & J., "Questions for Jehovah's Witnesses," [1983], Bill & Joan Cetnar: Kunkletown PA, 
Reprinted, 2001, p.69. Emphasis original)

15/02/2009
"Franz's ability to do a scholarly job of translating Hebrew is open to serious question since he never 
formally studied Hebrew. This came out in the Scottish Court of Sessions in November, 1954. The following 
exchange of questions and answers between the attorney and Franz is taken from the trial transcript: Q. 
Have you also made yourself familiar with Hebrew? A. Yes.... Q. So that you have a substantial 
linguistic apparatus at your command? A. Yes, for use in my biblical work. Q. I think you are able to read 
and follow the Bible in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Spanish, Portuguese, German and French? A. Yes [Pursuer's 
Proof, p. 7] .... Q. You, yourself, read and speak Hebrew, do you? A. I do not speak Hebrew. Q. You do 
not? A. No. Q. Can you, yourself, translate that into Hebrew? A. Which? Q. That fourth verse of 
second chapter of Genesis? A. You mean here? Q. Yes? A. No. I wouldn't attempt to do that 
[Pursuer's Proof, p. 102] What Franz `wouldn't attempt' to translate into Hebrew was a simple exercise with 
which an average first-or second-year Hebrew student in seminary would have no difficulty." (Cetnar, W.I., 
"An Inside View of the Watchtower Society," in Cetnar, W.I. & J., "Questions for Jehovah's Witnesses," 
[1983], Bill & Joan Cetnar: Kunkletown PA, Reprinted, 2001, p.69)

16/02/2009
"Paul frequently refers to Jesus as `Lord' in 1 Corinthians in such a way as to identify him as, or equate him 
with, the Lord Jehovah of the Old Testament. Three instances appear in the opening ten verses alone. 
Christians, according to Paul, are `all those who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ' (1 
Cor. 1:2). The Old Testament, of course, taught that one should call on the name of the Lord YHWH (e.g., 
Joel 2:32, which, as we have seen, Paul also applied to Jesus in Romans 10:13). A few verses later, Paul says 
that Christians hope to be found `blameless on the day of our Lord Jesus Christ' (1:8; see also 5:5), whereas 
the Old Testament spoke of that judgment day as `the day of YHWH' (e.g., Joel 1:15; 2:1, 11, 31). The 
allusion to `the day of the Lord' (cf. Joel 2:31) in the same context as `calling on the name of the Lord' (cf. 
Joel 2:32) makes it all the more likely that Paul's language alludes directly to Joel. He refers to this future day 
of the Lord Jesus in several other epistles (2 Cor. 1:14; Phil. 1:6, 10; 2:16; 1 Thess. 5:2; 2 Thess. 2:1-2; 2 Tim. 
1:18). Paul then exhorts his readers `by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ' (1:10), again placing the focus 
on the name of the Lord Jesus that Judaism placed on the name of the Lord YHWH ... Paul's language clearly 
refers to Jesus as if he were YHWH" (Bowman, R.M., Jr. & Komoszewski, J.E., "Putting Jesus In His Place:
The Case for the Deity of Christ," Kregel: Grand Rapids MI, 2007, pp.163, 339 n.25)

17/02/2009
"The Old Testament frequently speaks of the eschatological Day of judgment (as well as certain historical 
judgments on the nations that were precursors to that day) as `the day of the LORD,' that is, the day of 
YHWH (Isa. 13:6, 9; Ezek. 13:5; 30:3; Joel 1:15; 2:1, 11, 31; 3:14; Amos 5:18, 20; Obad. 15; Zeph. 1:7, 14). As 
we pointed out in chapter 13, the apostle Paul frequently referred to the eschatological Day of judgment as 
the Day of the Lord Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 1:8; 5:5; 2 Cor. 1:14; Phil. 1:6, 10; 2:16; 1 Thess. 5:2; 2 Thess. 2:1-2; 2 
Tim. 1:18; cf. 2 Peter 3:8-10,12). The use of such a familiar Old Testament idiom in reference to the Lord Jesus' 
exercising the same function of judgment strongly identifies the Lord Jesus with the Lord YHWH." 
(Bowman, R.M., Jr. & Komoszewski, J.E., "Putting Jesus In His Place: The Case for the Deity of Christ," Kregel: 
Grand Rapids MI, 2007, p.230)

17/02/2009
"Jesus warns the church at Thyatira that he is going to bring disciplinary judgment on those who are 
compromising the faith, `and all the churches shall know that I am He who searches the minds and hearts. 
And I will give to each one of you according to your works' (Rev. 2:23 NKJV). The Old Testament, however, 
teaches that `the righteous God tests the hearts and minds' (Ps. 7:9 NKJV; cf. Prov. 24:12a; Jer. 11:20) and 
that the Lord God `will recompense every one according to his works' (Ps. 62:12 LXX; Prov. 24:12b. Yet, 
Jesus himself claimed that he will perform this judgment according to each person's works (Matt. 16:27). 
Paul, too, alludes to the same Old Testament texts when he writes, `For all of us must appear before the 
judgment seat of Christ, so that each may receive recompense for what has been done in the body, whether 
good or evil' (2 Cor. 5:10).According to Paul, Jesus Christ will carry out the final judgment from what he calls 
`the judgment seat of Christ:' ... We already have seen that Jesus Christ does everything that God does: he 
creates and sustains the universe, saves people from their sins, provides them with every spiritual blessing, 
speaks with absolute truth and authority, raises the dead, and judges all humanity." (Bowman, R.M., Jr. & 
Komoszewski, J.E., "Putting Jesus In His Place: The Case for the Deity of Christ," Kregel: Grand Rapids MI, 
2007, pp.230-231) 

17/02/2009
"DAY OF THE LORD. This expression forms part of the eschatology of the Bible. It has various equivalents, 
such as `the day', `in that day'. In this article we consider the uses of the actual phrase. Am. 5:18-20, the 
earliest use, shows that the phrase was already a standard one in popular phraseology. To the people it 
meant the day when Yahweh would intervene to put Israel at the head of the nations, irrespective of Israel's 
faithfulness to him. Amos declares that the Day means judgment for Israel. So also in Is. 2:12f.; Ezk. 13:5; 
Joel 1:15; 2:1, 11; Zp. 1:7, 14; Zc. 14:1. Other prophets, conscious of the sins of other nations as well as of 
Israel, declare that the Day will come on individual nations as a punishment for their brutalities, e.g. 
Babylon, Is. 13:6, 9; Egypt, Je. 46:10; Edom, Ob. 15; many nations, Joel 2:31; 3:14; Ob. 15. The Day of the 
Lord is thus the occasion when Yahweh actively intervenes to punish sin that has come to a climax. This 
punishment may come through an invasion (Am. 5-6; Is. 13; Ezk. 13:5), or through some natural disaster, 
such as a locust invasion (Joel 1-2). All lesser interventions come to a head in the actual coming of the Lord 
himself. At this Day there are truly repentant believers who are saved (Joel 2:28-32), while those who remain 
enemies of the Lord, whether Jews or Gentiles, are punished. There are also physical effects on the world of 
nature (Is. 2). In the NT the Day of the Lord (as in 2 Thes. 2:2) is the second coming of Christ, and the 
phrase `the day of Jesus Christ', or an equivalent, occurs in 1 Cor. 1:8; 5:5; Phil. 1:6. 10; 2:16; 2 Thes. 2:2 
(AV). The coming is unexpected (1 Thes. 5:2; 2 Pet. 3:10), yet certain signs must occur first, and these should 
be discerned by Christians (2 Thes. 2:2f.). Physical effects on the world of nature accompany the Day (2 Pet. 
3:12f.)." (Wright, J.S., "Day of the Lord," in Douglas, J.D., et al., eds., "New Bible Dictionary," [1962], Inter-
Varsity Press, Leicester UK, Second edition, 1982, Reprinted, 1988, p.269. Emphasis original)

17/02/2009
"Day of Christ, God, the Lord. In Semitic thought it was customary to designate events of importance 
with the term `day.' These could be decisive events in Israel's history (the day of Jerusalem's destruction, Ps. 
137:7) or random events which took on symbolic value (the day of trouble, Ps. 77:2). Among Israel's 
prophets the term often took on an eschatological tenor describing a future climactic day of judgment (the 
day of the Lord of hosts, Isa. 2:12). This day of the Lord was anticipated by Israel as a future day of 
Yahweh's visitation. It would inaugurate some hopeful era for God's people. But as the earliest reference in 
Amos (5:18-20) makes clear, this visitation would not reaffirm Israel's hopes. ... Jerusalem would be 
destroyed (Amos 2:5) and foreign powers would raze Israel (3:9-11). Other prophets confirmed this same 
picture (Isa. 2:12; Zech. 14:1). Joel writes that `the day of the Lord is near-it will come like destruction from 
the Almighty' (1:15, NIV). Zephaniah in particular gives this theme increased attention when he describes 
the coming catastrophe (1:7, 14) and employs images descriptive of an impending battle (1:10-12, 16-17; 2:5-
15). ... The prophets not only view historical events as ushering in the day of the Lord's visitation, but they 
look to an ultimate eschatological event. Even for Amos this will be a day of universal judgment (8:8-9; 9:5) 
... The NT maintains this futurist expectation consistently but adds that the second coming of Jesus Christ 
(or the parousia) will hallmark the day of the Lord. It will be a day of Christ's revealing (I Cor. 1:8; 5:5; cf. II 
Thess. 2:2) and thus may be termed `the day of the Lord Jesus' (II Cor. 1:14) or simply `the day of Christ' 
(Phil. 1:10; 2:16). It will be a day of surprise (I Thess. 5:2; II Pet. 3:10) ushering in a climactic battle (Rev. 
16:14) and universal judgment (II Pet. 3:12). This surprising climactic denouement to history parallels the 
eschatological Son of man sayings in the Gospels ('For as lightning flashes and lights up the sky... so will 
the Son of man be in his day' Luke 17:24)." (Burge, G.M., "Day of Christ, God, the Lord," in Elwell, W.A., ed., 
"Evangelical Dictionary of Theology," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, 1984, Seventh printing, 1990, p.295)

19/02/2009
"The conclusion that appearances of the Angel of Yahweh in the Old Testament were actually preincarnate 
appearances of Jesus Christ is the only sensible explanation of an otherwise confusing picture. For how can 
a person who is clearly God (as the Angel of Yahweh) address another person who is just as clearly God 
(Yahweh)? Since there is only one God, the answer must lie in the personal distinctions of the Trinity. 
More specifically, the answer lies in recognizing the Angel as the second person of the Trinity, Jesus 
Christ." (Rhodes, R., "Christ Before the Manger: The Life and Times of the Preincarnate Christ," Baker: 
Grand Rapids MI, 1992, p.85. Emphasis original)

19/02/2009
"From a theological perspective, it would seem unlikely that the Angel of the Lord was the Father or the 
Holy Spirit. Paul tells us that God the Father is invisible (Col. 1:15; 1 Tim. 1:17) and `lives in unapproachable 
light, whom no one has seen or can see ...' (1 Tim. 6:16). John's Gospel tells us that `no one has ever seen 
God [the Father], but God the One and Only [Jesus Christ], who is at the Father's side, has made him known' 
(John 1:18, inserts mine). John 5:37 tells us that no one has ever seen God the Father's form. These passages 
indicate that it was the Son's unique function to make the Father, who has never been seen, known to 
man. We know that `the One and Only' is Jesus Christ, for John tells us: `The Word became flesh, and made 
his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, 
full of grace and truth' (1:14, italics added). This One and Only, Jesus Christ, was sent to reveal and manifest 
the invisible God to the world. The Holy Spirit is also invisible. In the Upper Room Discourse, Jesus said of 
the Holy Spirit: `The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know 
him, for he lives with you and will be in you' (John 14:17). The invisible Holy Spirit is known by believers 
because he indwells them. Jesus also said: `The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but 
you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit' (3:8). The 
presence of the Holy Spirit is known not by a visible manifestation but by his effect on people. In view of 
the above factors, it is safe to assume that every visible manifestation of God in bodily form in Old 
Testament times was a preincarnate appearance of the second person of the Trinity-Jesus Christ." (Rhodes, 
R., "Christ Before the Manger: The Life and Times of the Preincarnate Christ," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, 1992, 
pp.85-86. Emphasis original)

19/02/2009
"When I share the truth about the Trinity and the deity of Christ with Jehovah's Witnesses, I often begin 
with something like this: `I believe in the Trinity because the Bible teaches the doctrine. No, the Bible 
doesn't use the specific word "Trinity" any more than it uses the specific word "theocratic" or "Bible:" 
Instead, it teaches the doctrine by teaching the three pillars or foundations that make up the doctrine. The 
first such pillar is that there is only one true God, Yahweh, the Creator of all things. The second is that there 
are three divine persons, the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. The Father is not the Son, the Son is not the 
Spirit, and the Spirit is not the Father. Three persons who communicate with one another and love one 
another. Finally, the third pillar is the teaching that these three persons are completely equal in sharing in 
the divine Being. This would include the deity of Christ and the personality of the Holy Spirit. This is where 
we directly disagree. May I show you from the Bible how it teaches these truths?' Jehovah's Witnesses 
believe the Trinity is nowhere to be found in Scripture, so they are quite confident that you will fail in 
attempting to support the Trinity from the Bible. So I press on: `I assume you would agree with me that there 
is only one true God, Yahweh, or as you pronounce it, Jehovah. I believe the name "Jehovah" refers to the 
very divine Being, the eternal God who created every thing. We can agree, I assume, that the Father is 
identified as Jehovah.' But I believe that the Bible identifies Jesus as Yahweh, as well, and the Spirit is the 
Spirit of Yahweh. Each of these three persons share the one divine name, Yahweh or Jehovah. May I show 
you a few passages of Scripture that make this identification? At this point I can go to a large number of 
passages where the New Testament writers think nothing of applying to the Lord Jesus passages from the 
Old Testament that were written in reference to Yahweh. But I have found two particular passages to carry 
the most weight in communicating this truth to those who believe that Yahweh is God, believe the Bible is 
true, but reject the deity of Christ: Hebrews 1:10-12 in comparison with Psalm 102:25-27, and John 12:37 in 
comparison with Isaiah 6:1-10." (White, J.R., "The Forgotten Trinity: Recovering the Heart of Christian 
Belief," Bethany House: Minneapolis MN, 1998, pp.131-132) 

20/02/2009
"The Sense in which Christ is called Lord. The first argument from the New Testament in proof of the 
divinity of Christ, is derived from the fact that He is everywhere called Lord ; the Lord ; our Lord. It is 
admitted that the Greek word kurios means owner, and one who has the authority of an owner, whether of 
men or things. The Lord of a vineyard is the owner of the vineyard, and the Lord of slaves is the owner of 
slaves. It is also admitted that the word is used with all the latitude of the Latin word Dominus, or the 
English Master or Mister. It is applied as a title of respect, not only to magistrates and princes, but to those 
who are not invested with any official authority. It is, therefore, not merely the fact that Jesus is called Lord, 
that proves that He is also God; but that He is called Lord in such a sense and in such a way as is consistent 
with no other hypothesis." (Hodge, C., "Systematic Theology," [1892], James Clark & Co: London, 
Reprinted, 1960, Vol. I, p.495. Emphasis original)

20/02/2009
"In the first place, Christ is called Lord in the New Testament with the same constancy and with the same 
preeminence that Jehovah is called Lord in the Old Testament. This was the word which all the readers, 
whether of the Hebrew or Greek Scriptures, under the old economy were accustomed to use to express their 
relation to God. They recognized Him as their owner, as their Supreme Sovereign, and as their protector. He 
was in that sense their Lord. The Lord is on our side. The Lord be with you. The Lord He is God. Blessed is 
the nation whose God is the Lord. Thou Lord art good. Thou Lord art most high forever. O Lord, there is 
none like unto thee. I will praise the Lord. Have mercy upon me, O Lord. O Lord, thou art my God. The 
religious ear of the people was educated in the use of this language from their infancy. The Lord was their 
God. They worshipped and praised Him, and invoked his aid in calling him Lord. The same feelings of 
reverence, adoration, and love, the same sense of dependence and desire of protection are expressed 
throughout the New Testament in calling Jesus Lord. Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean. Lord, 
save me. Joy of thy Lord. Lord, when saw we thee a hungered ? He that judgeth me is the Lord. If the Lord 
will. To be present with the Lord. Them that call on the Lord. Which the Lord shall give me in the last day. 
Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord. Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour." (Hodge, 
C., "Systematic Theology," [1892], James Clark & Co: London, Reprinted, 1960, Vol. I, pp.495-496. 
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/hodge/theology1.iv.vii.ii.html)

20/02/2009
"Jesus Christ, therefore, is Lord to Christians in the same sense that Jehovah was Lord to the Hebrews. The 
usage referred to is altogether peculiar ; no man - not Moses, nor Abraham, nor David, nor any of the 
prophets or Apostles, is ever thus prevailingly addressed or invoked as Lord. We have but one Lord; and 
Jesus Christ is Lord. This is an argument which addresses itself to the inward experience, rather than to the 
mere understanding. Every believer knows in what sense he calls Jesus Lord ; and he knows that in thus 
recognizing Him as his owner, as his absolute sovereign, to whom the allegiance of his soul, and not merely 
of his outward life, is due ; and as his protector and Saviour, he is in communion with the Apostles and 
martyrs. He knows that it is from the New Testament he has been taught to worship Christ in calling him 
Lord." (Hodge, C., "Systematic Theology," [1892], James Clark & Co: London, Reprinted, 1960, Vol. I, p.496. 
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/hodge/theology1.iv.vii.ii.html)

20/02/2009
"But in the second place, Jesus Christ is not only thus called Lord by way of eminence, but He is declared to 
be the Lord of lords ; to be the Lord of glory; the Lord of all ; the Lord of the living and the dead; the Lord of 
all who are in heaven and on earth, and under the earth. All creatures, from the highest to the lowest, must 
bow the knee to Him, and acknowledge his absolute dominion. He is in such a sense Lord as that no man 
can truly call Him Lord but by the Holy Ghost. If his Lordship were merely the supremacy which one 
creature can exercise over other creatures, there would be no necessity for a divine illumination to enable us 
to recognize his authority. But if He is Lord in the absolute sense in which God alone is Lord; if He has a 
right in us, and an authority over us, which belong only to our Maker and Redeemer, then it is necessary 
that the Holy Spirit should so reveal to us the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ, as to lead us to 
prostrate ourselves before Him as our Lord and our God." (Hodge, C., "Systematic Theology," [1892], James 
Clark & Co: London, Reprinted, 1960, Vol. I, p.496)

20/02/2009
"In the third place, Christ is called Lord, when that word is used for the incommunicable divine names and 
titles Jehovah and Adonai. It is well known that the Jews from an early period had a superstitious reverence, 
which prevented their pronouncing the word Jehovah. They therefore, in their Hebrew Scriptures, gave it 
the vowel points belonging to the word Adonai, and so pronounced it whenever they read the sacred 
volume. When they translated their Scriptures into Greek, they uniformly substituted kurios, which 
answers to Adon, for Jehovah. In like manner, under the influence of the LXX., the Latin Christians in 
their version used Dominus; and constrained by the same wide spread and long-continued usage, the 
English translators have, as a general thing, put Lord (in small capitals) where the Hebrew has Jehovah. In 
very many cases we find passages applied to Christ as the Messiah, in which He is called Lord, when Lord 
should be Jehovah or Adonai. In Luke i. 76, it is said of John the Baptist, the forerunner of Christ, that he 
should go before the face of the Lord; but in Malachi iii. 1, of which this passage declares the fulfilment, the 
person speaking is Jehovah. The day of Christ, in the New Testament, is called ` the day of the Lord; ` in the 
Old Testament it is called `the day of Jehovah, the great day.' [Zep 1:14] ... Romans x.13, quotes Joel ii. 32, 
which speaks of Jehovah, and applies it to Christ, saying, `Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord 
shall be saved.' Rom xiv. 10, 11, quotes Isaiah xlv. 23, `We shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. 
For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord (Jehovah), every knee shall bow to me,' etc. This is common 
throughout the New Testament, and therefore Christ is there set forth as Lord in the same sense in which 
the Supreme God is Lord. The meaning of the word as applied to Christ being thus established, it shows 
how constant and familiar is the recognition of his divinity by the sacred writers. They acknowledge Him to 
be God every time they call Him Lord." (Hodge, C., "Systematic Theology," [1892], James Clark & Co: 
London, Reprinted, 1960, Vol. I, pp.496-497)

20/02/2009
"Christ presented as the Object of our Religious Affections. Another general feature of the New 
Testament, intimately connected with the one just mentioned, and consequent upon it, is, that Christ is 
everywhere recognized as the proper object of all the religious affections. As He is our Lord, in the sense of 
being our absolute proprietor, our maker, preserver, and redeemer, and our sovereign, having the right to do 
with us as seems good in his sight, we are called upon to make Him the supreme object of our love, his will 
the highest rule of duty, and his glory the great end of our being. We are to exercise the same faith and 
confidence in Him that we do in God; yield Him the same obedience, devotion, and homage. We find, 
therefore, that such is the case from the beginning to the end of the New Testament writings. Christ is the 
God of the Apostles and early Christians, in the sense that He is the object of all their religious affections. 
They regarded Him as the person to whom they specially belonged ; to whom they were responsible for 
their moral conduct; to whom they had to account for their sins; for the use of their time and talents; who 
was ever present with them, dwelling in them, controlling their inward, as well as their outward life ; whose 
love was the animating principle of their being; in whom they rejoiced as their present joy and as their 
everlasting portion." (Hodge, C., "Systematic Theology," [1892], James Clark & Co: London, Reprinted, 
1960, Vol. I, pp.497-498)

20/02/2009
"They knew that they were to. stand before his judgment seat ; that every act, thought, and word of theirs, 
and of every man who shall ever live, was to lie open to his omniscient eye ; and that on his decision the 
destiny of every human soul was to depend. Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, they persuaded men. 
They enforced every moral duty, not merely on the grounds of moral obligation, but by considerations 
drawn from the relation of the soul to Christ. Children are to obey their parents, wives their husbands, 
servants their masters, not as pleasing men, but as doing the will of Christ: True religion in their view 
consists not in the love or reverence of God, merely as the infinite Spirit, the creator and preserver of all 
things, but in the knowledge and love of Christ. Whoever believes that Jesus is the Son of God, i. e., 
whoever believes that Jesus of Nazareth is God manifested in the flesh, and loves and obeys Him as such, is 
declared to be born of God. Any one who denies that truth, is declared to be antichrist, denying both the 
Father and the Son, for the denial of the one is the denial of the other. The same truth is expressed by 
another Apostle, who says, ` If our gospel be hid it is hid to them that are lost, in whom the god of this 
world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest they should see the glory of God as it shines in 
the face of Jesus Christ.' They are lost, according to this Apostle, who do not see, as well as believe, Jesus 
to be God dwelling in the flesh. Hence such effects are ascribed to the knowledge of Christ, and to faith in 
Him ; such hopes are entertained of the glory and blessedness of being with Him, as would be impossible or 
irrational if Christ were not the true God." (Hodge, C., "Systematic Theology," [1892], James Clark & Co: 
London, Reprinted, 1960, Vol. I, p.498)

20/02/2009
"He, is our life. He that hath the Son hath life. He that believes on Him shall be forever. It is not we that live, 
but Christ that liveth in us. Our life is hid with Christ in God. We are complete in Him, wanting nothing. 
Though we have not seen Him, yet believing in Him, we rejoice in Him with joy unspeakable. It is because 
Christ is God, because He is possessed of all divine perfections, and because He loved us and gave Himself 
for us, and hath redeemed us and made us kings and priests unto God, that the Spirit of God says, ` If any 
man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be anathema maran atha.' The denial of the divinity of the Son of 
God, the refusal to receive, love, trust, worship, and serve Him as such, is the ground of the hopeless 
condemnation of all who hear and reject the gospel. And to the justice of this condemnation all rational 
creatures, holy and unholy, justified or condemned, will say, Amen. The divinity of Christ is too plain a fact, 
and too momentous a truth, to be innocently rejected. Those are saved who truly believe it, and those are 
already lost who have not eyes to see it. He that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not 
believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life; 
and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him. It is the doctrine of 
the New Testament, therefore, that the spiritual apprehension and the sincere recognition of the Godhead of 
the Redeemer constitutes the life of the soul. It is in its own nature eternal life ; and the absence or want of 
this faith and knowledge is spiritual and eternal death. Christ is our life ; and therefore he that hath not the 
Son hath not life." (Hodge, C., "Systematic Theology," [1892], James Clark & Co: London, Reprinted, 1960, 
Vol. I, p.499) 

20/02/2009
"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." ("If God Has an Organization, What Is It?," The 
Watchtower, May 1, 1981, pp.17-20, p.17)

21/02/2009
"Denying the deity of Christ and the personality and deity of the Holy Spirit, Witnesses apply the name 
Jehovah only to the Father. In doing so, however, they ignore the testimony of Scripture concerning the 
triune nature of God. Theological considerations aside, their own New World Translation testifies to the 
divine name's application to the Son ("Father, watch over them on account of your own name which you 
have given me"-John 17:11) and to the Holy Spirit ("Now Jehovah is the Spirit"-2 Corinthians 3:17)." (Reed, 
D.A., "Answering Jehovah's Witnesses: Subject by Subject," [1996], Baker: Grand Rapids MI, Second 
printing, 1998, p.144)

21/02/2009
"God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. The combination of both terms (a. God the Father, b. the Lord 
Jesus Christ) after one preposition (in; that is grounded in) would seem to indicate that the two are 
entirely co-ordinate, that is, that the reference is to the first and to the second person of the Holy Trinity. 
Note also the trinitarian character of verses 3-5. Hence, the third person (Holy Spirit), mentioned in verse 5, 
is implied already in verse 1. Paul often mentions the three together in series of closely connected passages 
(II Thess. 2:13, 14; I Cor. 12:4-6; II Cor. 13:14; Eph. 2:18; 3:2-5; 3:14-17; 4:4-6; 5:18-20). In referring to the 
second person the full name is used here: the Lord Jesus Christ. In the LXX the name Lord (kurios) 
translates Jehovah, the God of Israel. It is more often the rendering of Jehovah than of anything else. (At 
times it is the equivalent of Adon, Adonai, Baal, etc.) Now the Jews were strict monotheists. Yet Paul, 
though himself a Jew, again and again gives to Jesus the title Lord. This shows that, in the thinking of the 
apostle, Jesus is just as fully divine as is God the Father: one and the same essence ispossessed by the 
Father and by the Son (also by the Spirit, II Cor. 13:14)." (Hendriksen, W., "1 & 2 Thessalonians," New 
Testament Commentary, [1955], Banner of Truth: Edinburgh UK, British edition, 1972, pp.40-41. Emphasis 
original)

21/02/2009
"For Paul, Jesus is our Lord because: a. he is the second person in the Holy Trinity (I Cor. 13:3; Phil. 2:11), 
the highly exalted One, rightful object of worship, b. he has made us (Col. 1:3, 16), and c. he has bought 
(redeemed) us with his precious blood (Col. 1:3, 14); hence, we belong to him according to body and soul, in 
life and death and throughout all eternity. We owe him our full allegiance. This description of Jesus as Lord 
was not derived from the pagan world nor necessarily from the Christian communities in such cities as 
Antioch, Tarsus, and Damascus. No, Paul`received' it from the original disciples. The early church at 
Jerusalem (the Aramaicspeaking and then also the Greek-speaking believers) already used the title with 
reference to Jesus (cf. Gal. 1:18, 19; I Cor. 16:22: `Maranatha,' meaning `Our Lord, come,' or simply `Lord, 
come'; 28 John 20:28. Acts 6:1 shows that the early Jerusalem church was bilingual)." (Hendriksen, W., "1 & 
2 Thessalonians," New Testament Commentary, [1955], Banner of Truth: Edinburgh UK, British edition, 
1972, p.41)

21/02/2009
"To the title Lord Paul adds the name Jesus. Our English word Jesus is really Latin from the closely 
resembling Greek name ('Iesous). This, in turn, is the hellenized form of the late Hebrew Jeshua (see 
postexilic historical books; e.g., Ezra 2:2), the contracted form of Jehoshua (cf. Joshua, .Josh. 1:1; Zech. 
3:1). This has been interpreted to mean Help of Jehovah. Byy another approach it has been explained as 
indicating: he will certainly save (this agrees with Matt. 1:21). Accordingly, by giving this name to the 
Mediator, God meant to indicate that a. no one can save himself, b. salvation ever comes from God, c. this 
salvation is bestowed through the person and work of him who according to his divine nature is the Son of 
God, and according to his human nature, the son of Mary, d. it is he who saves, and he alone. No one else 
in all the wide world has been appointed to perform this task." (Hendriksen, W., "1 & 2 Thessalonians," New 
Testament Commentary, [1955], Banner of Truth: Edinburgh UK, British edition, 1972, p.41) 

21/02/2009
"Military Service ...The New Testament does not specifically address the question of military service for 
Christians, but it does mention persons who served in the Roman army. For example, when John the Baptist 
preached in territory under Roman occupation, "Soldiers also asked him, 'And we, what shall we do?' And 
he said to them, 'Rob no one by violence or by false accusation, and be content with your wages.' (Luke 
3:14 RSV) He could easily have told them to lay down their weapons and take off their uniforms, but he did 
not. Jehovah's Witnesses will not accept for baptism a man in uniform. He must first obtain a discharge from 
the military before he can be baptized. But the apostle Peter freely baptized `a Roman army officer, Cornelius, 
a captain of an Italian regiment.' (Acts 10:1 Living Bible) Since the JWs would refuse to baptize such a 
man, it is clear that they `overstep the commandment of God because of their tradition,' teaching `commands 
of men as doctrines.' (Matthew 15:3, 9 NWT) .. by going `beyond what is written' in the opposite direction, 
Watchtower leaders have shown themselves to be equally unwilling to accept the direction of God's Word 
the Bible in this matter. (1 Corinthians 4:6) Far from identifying them as the only true religion, the shunning 
of young men whose conduct is not condemned in Scripture proves that Jehovah's Witnesses obey men 
rather than God. Although the men to whom they give unquestioning allegiance are their own organizational 
leaders rather than military or government leaders, their course is still one of unfaithfulness to God." (Reed, 
D.A., "Answering Jehovah's Witnesses: Subject by Subject," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, 1996, Second 
printing, 1998, pp.144-145. Emphasis original)

22/02/2009
"The New World Translation of the Christian Scriptures inserts the name `Jehovah' into those writings 237 
times, doing so without sound basis. Yet, even with this essentially arbitrary introduction of something not 
found in any ancient manuscript of the Christian Scriptures, the reference to God as `Father' is still more 
prominent, for He is called, or addressed, as `Father' some 260 times in those Christian writings-this without 
any need for an arbitrary introduction of the term by translators." (Franz, R., "In Search of Christian Freedom," 
[1991], Commentary Press: Atlanta GA, Second edition, 2007, p.514)

22/02/2009
"Contrary to the common practice of Jehovah's Witnesses when addressing God in prayer Jesus consistently 
addressed Him, never as `Jehovah,' but always as `Father' (employing that expression six times in just his final 
prayer with his disciples). Even in the New World Translation, never once in any of his prayers is Jesus found 
addressing or referring to his Father as `Jehovah.' [Matthew 11:25, 26; 26:39, 42; Mark 14:36; Luke 10;21; 22:42; 
23:34, 46; John 11:41, 42; 12:28; 17:1, 5, 11, 21, 24, 25] Hence, when he prays to his Father, saying `Father, glorify 
your name,' it is evident that the term `name' is here used in its fuller, deeper sense, as representing the Person 
himself. Otherwise the complete absence in Jesus' prayers of a specific appellative, such as `Jehovah,' would be 
inexplicable. [John 12:28.] When with his disciples the final night before his death, both in talking to them and in 
a lengthy prayer Jesus referred to God's `name' four times. [John 17:6, 11, 12, 26] Yet in that entire night, filled 
with counsel and exhortation to his disciples and in prayer, not a single occurrence is found of his employing the 
name `Jehovah.' Rather he consistently employed the designation `Father,' doing so some fifty times! When 
dying the next day, he did not cry out using the name `Jehovah' but said, `My God, my God,' and in his final 
words said, `Father, into your hands I entrust my spirit.' [Matthew 27:46; Luke 23:46] As Christians, whose 
example, then, should we follow? That of a twentieth-century religious denomination or that of God's Son, 
manifest at such a crucial time? When Jesus taught his disciples to pray, had he followed the practice developed 
among Jehovah's Witnesses by the Watch Tower organization he would have taught them either to address their 
prayer to `Jehovah God' or to have included that name somewhere in their prayer. Instead, he taught them to 
follow his own example and address their prayer to `Our Father in the heavens.' [Matthew 6:6-9; compare John 
15:16; 16:26, 27]" (Franz, R., "In Search of Christian Freedom," [1991], Commentary Press: Atlanta GA, Second 
edition, 2007, pp.514-515)

22/02/2009
"Finally, something needs to be said about the question of the submission of the Son to the Father. No 
trinitarian questions that when Christ was on earth he lived in submission to God the Father. The Father in 
heaven was exalted while the Son was humble; the Father was greater than Christ (John 14:28). Christ's 
human nature was not itself divine; the manhood of Christ was created, and therefore Christ as man had to 
honor the Father as his God. Thus, the Athanasian Creed states that Christ is `equal to the Father as 
touching his Godhead and inferior to the Father as touching his manhood.' There is no question from a 
trinitarian perspective that, as man, Christ was in submission to the Father." (Bowman, R.M., Jr., "Why You 
Should Believe in the Trinity: An Answer to Jehovah's Witnesses," [1989], Baker: Grand Rapids MI, Third 
printing, 1990, pp.14-15)

22/02/2009
"Yet this submission evidently transcends the historical life of Jesus on earth. He was sent by the Father 
into the world (1 John 4:9), implying that in some sense Christ was in submission to the Father before 
becoming a man. Yet, in becoming a man, he became a servant of God (Phil. 2:8), implying that he was not in 
that master-servant relationship with the Father before becoming a man. After his resurrection and 
ascension, Jesus continued to refer to the Father as his God (John 20:17; Rev. 3:12) and to regard the Father 
God as his `head' (see 1 Cor. 11:3)." (Bowman, R.M., Jr., "Why You Should Believe in the Trinity: An Answer to 
Jehovah's Witnesses," [1989], Baker: Grand Rapids MI, Third printing, 1990, p.15)

22/02/2009
"Trinitarians have somewhat different ways of explaining these facts, but they all agree on these 
conclusions. First, the Son has always been distinct from the Father, and he always will be. Second, in his 
human nature, Christ will always honor the Father as his God. (Trinitarians believe that Jesus rose from the 
dead as an exalted man, not as an immaterial spirit, as the JWs teach.) Third, even before becoming man 
Christ gladly represented the Father to men and sought to honor the Father. Fourth, in his divine nature, 
Christ has always been and always will be fully God, equal to the Father in essential nature or attributes. 
Fifth, in his humanity, Christ stands in a relationship to God different than he did before becoming a man. 
Thus, Christ in his divine nature is essentially equal to the Father, though relationally (or functionally) 
subordinate or submissive to the Father, especially since becoming a man. As we shall see, nearly all of the 
arguments brought against the Trinity by JWs depend to some extent on misunderstanding the Trinity." 
(Bowman, R.M., Jr., "Why You Should Believe in the Trinity: An Answer to Jehovah's Witnesses," [1989], 
Baker: Grand Rapids MI, Third printing, 1990, p.15) 

22/02/2009
"The Submission of Jesus to God Perhaps the most frequently heard argument against Jesus being God 
by nature and equal in deity to the Father is the biblical teaching regarding Jesus' submission to the Father. 
The JWs realize that trinitarians believe that in his human nature Christ was in a position of submission to 
the Father. However, the Witnesses argue that this cannot account for Jesus submitting to God after his 
resurrection from the dead and ascension to heaven. Thus, JWs, although they do quote Scriptures that 
speak of Christ's humble position relative to the Father while a man on earth (especially John 14:28), rely 
even more so on Scriptures that speak of Christ's submission after his resurrection. For instance, they note 
that 1 Corinthians 11:3 says that `God is the head of Christ'; 1 Corinthians 15:28 says that the Son will 
subject himself to God the Father after sin and death have been eliminated; and various Scriptures say that 
even now, after Christ's ascension, the Father is Christ's God (e.g., John 20:17; Rom. 15:6; 1 Cor. 15:24; 2 Cor. 
1:3; Rev. 1:6; 3:12). On the basis of these Scriptures, they conclude that Jesus was not simply lower than the 
Father temporarily while on earth, but will always be in submission to God. Two points may be made that will 
show that none of these Scriptures contradicts the Bible's teaching that Jesus Christ is God. First, the JWs' 
argument assumes that Jesus is no longer a man. The Witnesses believe that the physical body of Jesus 
was never raised to life, but was `raised' ('recreated' might be more accurate) as a mere spirit. If Jesus' body 
was raised from the dead, though, as trinitarians believe, then as a man Jesus would still naturally be in some 
sense required to submit to the Father as his God." (Bowman, R.M., Jr., "Why You Should Believe in the 
Trinity: An Answer to Jehovah's Witnesses," [1989], Baker: Grand Rapids MI, Third printing, 1990, pp.78-79. 
Emphasis original)

23/02/2009
[2Th 2:2] ... From God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ (apo theou patros kai Kuriou Iesou 
Christou). These words are not genuine in I Thess. 1:1, but are here and they appear in all the other Pauline 
Epistles. Note absence of article both after en and apo, though both God and Lord Jesus Christ are 
definite. In both cases Jesus Christ is put on a par with God, though not identical. See on I Thess. 1:1 for 
discussion of words, but note difference between en, in the sphere of, by the power of, and apo, from, 
as the fountain head and source of grace and peace." (Robertson, A.T., "Word Pictures in the New 
Testament: Volume IV: The Epistles of Paul," Broadman Press: Nashville TN, 1931, p.41)

23/02/2009
"We need to examine, not only what we personally believe, but also what is taught by any religious 
organization with which we may be associated. Are its teachings in full harmony with God's Word, or are 
they based on the traditions of men? If we are lovers of the truth, there is nothing to fear from such an 
examination." ("The Truth That Leads To Eternal Life," 1968, p.13)

23/02/2009
"Reasonable persons agree that the only fair method is to examine the evidence on both sides, both for and 
against a disputed theory. That is how one arrives at the truth." (Awake, Oct. 22, 1973, p.6)

23/02/2009
"Can there be false religion? It is not a form of religious persecution for anyone to say and to show that 
another religion is false. It is not religious persecution for an informed person to expose publicly a certain 
religion as being false, thus allowing persons to see the difference between false religion and true religion." 
(Watchtower, Nov. 15, 1963, p.688)

23/02/2009
"So, does Jehovah have a prophet to help them, to warn them of dangers and to declare things to come? 
These questions can be answered in the affirmative. Who is this prophet? This `prophet' was not one man, 
but was a body of men and women. It was the small group of footstep followers of Jesus Christ, known at 
that time as International Bible Students. Today they are known as Jehovah's Christian witnesses Of course, 
it is easy to say that this group acts as a `prophet' of God. It is another thing to prove it. The only way that 
this can be done is to review the record. What does it show?" (Watchtower, April 1, 1972, p.197)

23/02/2009
"True, there have been those in times past who predicted an `end of the world,' even announcing a specific 
date. Some have gathered groups of people with them and fled to the hills or withdrawn into their houses 
waiting for the end. Yet, nothing happened. The `end' did not come. They were guilty of false prophesying. 
Why? What was missing? Missing was the full measure of evidence required in fulfillment of Bible 
prophecy. Missing from such people were God's truths and the evidence that he was guiding and using 
them." (Awake, 1968, p.23)

23/02/2009
"Jehovah, the God of the true prophets, will put all false prophets to shame either by not fulfilling the false 
prediction of such self-assuming prophets or by having His own prophecies fulfilled in a way opposite to 
that predicted by the false prophets. False prophets will try to hide their reason for feeling shame by 
denying who they really are." ("Paradise Restored to Mankind-By Theocracy," 1972 ed., pp.353-354. 
http://tinyurl.com/az2z75)

23/02/2009
"It is obvious that the true God, who is himself `the God of truth' and who hates lies, will not look with favor 
on persons who cling to organizations that teach falsehood. (Psalm 31:5; Proverbs 6:16-19; Revelation 21:8) 
And, really, would you want to be even associated with a religion that had not been honest with you?" ("Is 
This Life Are There Is," 1974, p.46)

23/02/2009
"We see no reason for changing the figures - nor could we change them if we would. They are, we believe, 
God's dates, not ours. But bear in mind that the end of 1914 is not the date for the beginning, but for the end 
of the time of trouble." (Watchtower Reprints, July 15, 1894, p.1672)

23/02/2009
"The date of the close of that `battle' is definitely marked in Scripture as October, 1914. It is already in 
progress, its beginning dating from October, 1874." (Watchtower Reprints, January 15, 1892, p.1355)

23/02/2009
"In this chapter we will present the Bible evidence proving that the full end of the times of the Gentiles, i.e., 
the full end of their lease of dominion, will be reached in A.D. 1914; and that date will be the farthest limit of 
the rule of imperfect men." (Russell, C.T., "The Time Is at Hand," Studies in the Scriptures, Vol. 2, 1907 ed., 
pp.76-77)

23/02/2009
"The `battle of the great day of God Almighty' (Rev. 16:14), which will end in A.D. 1914 with the complete 
overthrow of earth's present rulership, is already commenced." (Russell, C.T., "The Time Is At Hand," 
Studies in the Scriptures, Vol. 2, p.101, 1907)

23/02/2009
"In this chapter we present the Bible evidence proving that the full end of the times of the gentiles, i.e., the 
full end of their lease of dominion, will be reached in A.D. 1914; and that the date will be the farthest limit of 
the rule of imperfect men. And be it observed, that if this is shown to be a fact firmly established by the 
Scriptures, it will prove; Firstly, that at that date the Kingdom of God, for which our Lord taught us to pray, 
saying, Thy Kingdom come, will obtain full, universal control, and that it will then be set up, or firmly 
established, in the earth, on the ruins of present institutions." (Russell, C.T., "The Time Is At Hand," 1888, 
p. 76, 77)

27/02/2009
"1 Corinthians 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the 
woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. (KJV) Jehovah's Witnesses use this verse, too, in their 
attempt to deny the deity of Christ. But this passage does not support Watchtower doctrine that Christ was 
an angel created by God. It simply shows that the principle of headship applies. Within the human family, 
the head of the woman is the man. Does that mean that women are a lower form of life than men? Are women 
somehow inferior to men? Not at all! It is simply God's arrangement that someone act as head, and he 
assigned that role to the man. Likewise within the Godhead-the Father acts as head without diminishing the 
full deity of the Son." (Reed, D.A., "Jehovah's Witnesses Answered Verse by Verse," Baker: Grand Rapids 
MI, 1986, Thirty-first printing, 2006, pp.96-97. Emphasis original)

27/02/2009
1 Corinthians 11:3-God, the Head of Christ? ... The New World Translation renders 1 Corinthians 11:3, 
"But I want you to know that the head of every man is the Christ; in turn the head of a woman is the man; in 
turn the head of the Christ is God" (emphasis added). The Jehovah's Witnesses say that because 
Jehovah is said to be the head of Christ, then Christ cannot be God. If Christ were God, then He would be 
the head. The book Reasoning from the Scriptures argues that 1 Corinthians 11:3 shows that Jehovah is 
superior in rank to Jesus, thereby proving that Jesus is not God Almighty. The book also argues that since 1 
Corinthians was written around A.D. 55 (22 years after Jesus had ascended into heaven), then this superior 
rank of Jehovah over Jesus applies to the present relationship between the two in heaven. If Jesus were 
truly God Almighty, then there would be no one in a superior rank to Him. In keeping with this, the booklet 
Should You Believe in the Trinity? comments, "Not only is Almighty God, Jehovah, a personality 
separate from Jesus but He is at all times his superior. Jesus is always presented as separate and lesser, a 
humble servant of God." [Should You Believe in the Trinity?, 1989, p.20.] ... A close examination of 1 
Corinthians 11:3 shows that it has nothing to do with inferiority or superiority of one person over another; 
rather, it has to do with patterns of authority. Notice that Paul says the man is the head of the woman, even 
though men and women are utterly equal in their essential being. The Bible clearly teaches that men and 
women are equal in terms of nature. They are both human and both are created in God's image (Genesis 1:26-
28). They are also said to be one in Christ (Galatians 3:28). These verses, taken with 1 Corinthians 11:3, show 
us that equality of being and social hierarchy are not mutually exclusive. Even though men and women 
are completely equal in terms of their nature, there is nevertheless a functional hierarchy that exists between 
them. In the same way, Christ and the Father are utterly equal in their divine being (Jesus said, "I and the 
Father are one" [John 10:30]), even though Jesus is functionally under the Father's headship. There is no 
contradiction in affirming both an equality of being and a functional subordination among the Persons 
in the Godhead. Christ in His divine nature is fully equal to the Father, even though relationally (or 
functionally) He is subordinate or submissive to the Father, especially since becoming a man. So in no 
way does 1 Corinthians 11:3 imply that Jesus is less than God." (Rhodes, R., "Reasoning from the Scriptures 
with the Jehovah's Witnesses," Harvest House: Eugene OR, 1993, Reprinted, 2006, pp.140-141. Emphasis 
original) 

28/02/2009
"[2Th 1:8] He will punish points to an activity that belongs to God alone (Dt. 32:35), and its ascription to 
Christ shows that Paul regarded him as divine in the fullest sense (in vv. 5-6 he spoke of God as judge). The 
word means not arbitrary punishment, but something like 'he will do justice upon' (NEB)." (Morris, L.L., "The 
Epistles of Paul to the Thessalonians: An Introduction and Commentary," Tyndale New Testament 
Commentaries, [1956], Inter-Varsity Press: Leicester UK, Second Edition, 1984, p.121)

28/02/2009
"[2Th 1:7] With the angels of his power in flaming fire The addition of the phrase `in flaming fire' indicates 
the Lord's holiness manifested in judgment (cf. Ex. 3:2; 19:16-20; Is. 29:6; 66:15, 16; Ps. 50:3; 97:3). The 
passage which must have been vividly present to Paul's consciousness when he wrote this is Is. 66:15, 16: 
`For behold, Jehovah will come with fire, and his chariots will be like the whirlwind; to render his anger with 
fierceness, and his rebuke with flames of fire. For by fire will Jehovah execute judgment... '" (Hendriksen, W., 
"1 & 2 Thessalonians," New Testament Commentary, [1955], Banner of Truth: Edinburgh UK, British edition, 
1972, p.159)

28/02/2009
"The most basic sort of argument employed by JWs to show that Jesus cannot be God is this: There are 
several Scriptures that distinguish between Jesus and God, treating them as different individuals. Some of 
these Scriptures simply distinguish between Jesus and the Father (e.g., John 8:17-18). These texts present 
no difficulty for the trinitarian position, since the Trinity doctrine also distinguishes between the Father and 
the Son as two `persons.'" (Bowman, R.M., Jr., "Why You Should Believe in the Trinity: An Answer to 
Jehovah's Witnesses," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, 1989, Third printing, 1990, p.71)

28/02/2009
"Then there are texts that speak of the Father as the God of Jesus Christ (e.g., John 20:17; 1 Cor. 11:3). The 
Watchtower booklet [Should You Believe in the Trinity?] argues, `Since Jesus had a God, his Father, he 
could not at the same time be that God' (p. 17). But again, trinitarians do not hold that Jesus is his Father. 
They hold that Jesus, because he became a man, was placed in a position in which as man he was required 
to honor the Father as his God. At the same time, trinitarians may point out some aspects of the Bible's 
teaching that show that JWs have misunderstood the implications of the Father being Christ's God." 
(Bowman, R.M., Jr., "Why You Should Believe in the Trinity: An Answer to Jehovah's Witnesses," Baker: 
Grand Rapids MI, 1989, Third printing, 1990, pp.71-72)

28/02/2009
"First, Jesus made it clear that the Father was his God in a unique manner compared with the manner in 
which the Father is our God. Thus, in John 20:17 Jesus stated, `I am ascending to my Father and YOUR 
Father and to my God and YOUR God' (NWT). Why did Jesus not simply say, `I am ascending to our Father 
and our God'? In fact, Jesus never spoke of the Father as `our Father,' including himself along with his 
disciples. (In Matt. 6:9 Jesus told the disciples that they should pray, `Our Father...,' but did not include 
himself in that prayer.) Jesus was careful to distinguish the two relationships, because he was God's Son 
 by nature, whereas Christians are God's `sons' by adoption. Similarly, the Father was Jesus' God 
because Jesus humbled himself to become a man (Phil. 2:7), whereas the Father is our God because we are 
by nature creatures." (Bowman, R.M., Jr., "Why You Should Believe in the Trinity: An Answer to Jehovah's 
Witnesses," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, 1989, Third printing, 1990, p.72)

28/02/2009
"Second, in the immediate context of John 20:17 it is made clear that whatever relation Jesus has with the 
Father, the relationship that we disciples have with Jesus is that he is our `Lord' and our `God' (John 20:28). 
... Then there are texts that simply refer to `God' alongside Christ in such a way as to distinguish them. For 
instance, 1 Timothy 5:21 speaks of `God and Christ Jesus,' and 1 Corinthians 8:6 distinguishes between `one 
God, the Father,' and `one Lord, Jesus Christ.' But trinitarians have a simple answer: These texts refer to the 
Father as `God' not because Jesus Christ is less than God, but simply because the title God was normally 
used of the Father." (Bowman, R.M., Jr., "Why You Should Believe in the Trinity: An Answer to Jehovah's 
Witnesses," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, 1989, Third printing, 1990, pp.72-73)

28/02/2009
"That these texts cannot mean that Jesus is not God can be proved from some of the very texts themselves. 
As we have said, 1 Corinthians 8:6 distinguishes between `one God, the Father,' and `one Lord, Jesus 
Christ.' The JWs conclude from this verse that since the Father is the `one God,' Jesus cannot be God. But 
by that reasoning, since Jesus is the `one Lord,' the Father cannot be Lord! Yet we know that the Father is 
Lord (Matt. 11:25). Therefore, there must be something wrong with this reasoning. What is wrong with it, as 
has been explained, is that it assumes that the use of a title for one person rules out its application to 
another. This cannot be assumed, but must be determined by considering all of the relevant biblical 
teaching." (Bowman, R.M., Jr., "Why You Should Believe in the Trinity: An Answer to Jehovah's 
Witnesses," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, 1989, Third printing, 1990, p.73)

28/02/2009
"Finally, 1 Timothy 2:5 says that Jesus is the `one mediator between God and men' (NWT), and from this 
statement the JW booklet [Should You Believe in the Trinity?] concludes that Jesus cannot be God, 
because `by definition a mediator is someone separate from those who need mediation' (p. 16). But by this 
reasoning Jesus cannot be a man, either; yet this very text says that he is `a man'! The truth is that Jesus is 
able to mediate between God and men because he is himself both God and man." (Bowman, R.M., Jr., "Why 
You Should Believe in the Trinity: An Answer to Jehovah's Witnesses," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, 1989, 
Third printing, 1990, p.73)

28/02/2009
"The second point that ought to be made about the submission of the Son to the Father after his 
resurrection and ascension is that such submission is in no way inconsistent with the Trinity. The doctrine 
of the Trinity maintains that the three persons are equal to one another in essence or nature, and it leaves 
open the question of how the three persons relate to one another within the Trinity. Thus, while trinitarians 
insist that Christ is just as much God as the Father, they do not deny that the Son is in some sense 
submissive to the Father even after his ascension." (Bowman, R.M., Jr., "Why You Should Believe in the 
Trinity: An Answer to Jehovah's Witnesses," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, 1989, Third printing, 1990, p.80)

28/02/2009
"An examination of the `subordinationist' texts cited by JWs bears out this point. For example, 1 Corinthians 
11:3 says that `God is the head of Christ.' But it also says that Christ is the head of every man, and that the 
man (that is, the husband) is the head of the woman (that is, his wife). Now, the Bible is very clear that men 
and women are equal in terms of nature; both are fully human, both are in God's image, and in Christ they are 
one (Gen. 1:26-28; Gal. 3:28). Female submission, then, is a matter of function or position or role, not of 
essential superiority of the man over the woman. As for Christ's being the head of every man, in context this 
also refers to a functional headship, not an essential superiority. And in one sense Christ is not essentially 
superior to men, since Christ himself is a man, as we have seen. Of course, in another sense Christ is far 
superior to men in essence, since Christ is also God." (Bowman, R.M., Jr., "Why You Should Believe in the 
Trinity: An Answer to Jehovah's Witnesses," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, 1989, Third printing, 1990, pp.80-81)

28/02/2009
"The fact that Christ's submission to the Father is so often assumed to prove inferiority of nature actually 
reveals something about our mistaken, and sinful, attitude toward authority and submission. We assume 
that whoever is `on top' must be there because he is somehow `better.' We regard submission as an 
undesirable position. But the persons of the Trinity evidently do not feel that way. Each of the three 
persons delights in glorifying the others. Thus the Son wants to be glorified by the Father only so that he 
may thus bring more glory to the Father (John 17:1). The Holy Spirit comes solely for the purpose of 
glorifying the Son (John 16:14). The Father exalts Jesus before the world and calls on all to honor him as 
Lord, that is, as Jehovah; yet, this brings glory to God the Father (Phil. 2:9-11). There is no competition 
among the persons of the Trinity for glory, honor, or power; if anything, the persons of the Trinity are 
zealously working to bring glory to one another." (Bowman, R.M., Jr., "Why You Should Believe in the 
Trinity: An Answer to Jehovah's Witnesses," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, 1989, Third printing, 1990, p.81)

[top]