Explain the Trinity to me.

[MoreCoffee]

If you met a young JW apologist who wanted you to explain the Trinity how would you go about it and what objections do you anticipate? How would you reply to the objections too?

 

[DanielL]

The last JW I've talked to ended up rejecting Jesus as the Saviour. I told him Jesus must be YHWH or else He isn't the Saviour.

Isaiah 43:11 I, even I, am the Lord; and beside me there is no saviour.

-So he had to reject Jesus as the Saviour, in order to keep his tradition. He said Jesus is just an agent. Which should be the end of the discussion, but I showed him places where Jesus is worshipped as God, and receives the same honor and glory as the Father, but he refused to listen, he closed his ears, there was nothing I could do for him, he said that this was just my interpretation, and that's how it ended, he would not listen, only their interpretation is right, we are all wrong in their eyes.

 

[Fritz Kobus]

The last JW I've talked to ended up rejecting Jesus as the Saviour. I told him Jesus must be YHWH or else He isn't the Saviour.

Isaiah 43:11 I, even I, am the Lord; and beside me there is no saviour.

-So he had to reject Jesus as the Saviour, in order to keep his tradition. He said Jesus is just an agent. Which should be the end of the discussion, but I showed him places where Jesus is worshipped as God, and receives the same honor and glory as the Father, but he refused to listen, he closed his ears, there was nothing I could do for him, he said that this was just my interpretation, and that's how it ended, he would not listen, only their interpretation is right, we are all wrong in their eyes.

Hopefully what you told him will come back to gnaw at him and eventually free him from being locked into his JW belief system. People generally don't like to admit that they were wrong, especially if they invested a lot of time and energy into that wrongness.

 

[Albion]

The last JW I've talked to ended up rejecting Jesus as the Saviour. I told him Jesus must be YHWH or else He isn't the Saviour.

Isaiah 43:11 I, even I, am the Lord; and beside me there is no saviour.

-So he had to reject Jesus as the Saviour, in order to keep his tradition. He said Jesus is just an agent.

That's right. Their belief is that Jesus was just an agent of God. That's based upon a very narrow selection of Bible verses, but as you noted, if we instead check with the whole of Scripture, we find that Jesus was acclaimed as God by various people during his life on Earth, and not only did they see him this way, but he did not respond by correcting their "error."

What that means (if the JW view were correct) is that he was willing to be seen as God by his people even though he wasn't. And this in turn would make the supposed agent sent from God a deceiver. God would have no reason to deny his own identity when speaking with the Jews, but it is inconceivable that any agent sent from God could fulfill his mission and, in the process, deliberately mislead the people that way.

 

[atpollard]

If you met a young JW apologist who wanted you to explain the Trinity how would you go about it and what objections do you anticipate? How would you reply to the objections too?

[Romans 10:9 NASB95] 9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus [as] Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;​

“Hell is really going to suck.”

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
• Gen 1:26 . . And God went on to say: Let us make man in our image, according to
our likeness

The introduction of the plural personal pronouns "us" and "our" into the narrative at
that point in Genesis has given rise to some interesting speculation regarding the
identities of the antecedents.

However, according to Gen 1:27, both of those plural personal pronouns refer to
just one god rather than a plurality of gods.

Within the context of the first chapter of Genesis, the one god is revealed as 1) God
himself, 2) God's spirit, and 3) God's voice.

All three of those aspects of God's existence took part in creating human life; and
seeing as how they are spoken of as "us" and as "our" then I think it's safe to
regard those three aspects as sentient beings, i.e. persons.

God' voice shows up again in John 1:1 where we find a supernatural being called
"the Word" which is translated from a Greek noun that refers to vocal words, i.e.
speech.

It's difficult for me to understand how God's speech is a sentient being but there it
is in black and white.

• John 1:2-3 . . This one was in the beginning with God. All things came into
existence through him, apart from him not even one thing came into existence.

We can see "this one" at work in the first chapter of Genesis where every time
God spoke, something came about, for example Gen 1:3

"And God proceeded to say: Let light come to be."
_

 

[Andrew]

If you met a young JW apologist who wanted you to explain the Trinity how would you go about it and what objections do you anticipate? How would you reply to the objections too?

Just tell them that it's always been a hot debate because even those who don't adhere to the Trinitarian creed still attempt to explain the mystery of the Godhead relating them to nature (liquid/solid/gas) and "roles", stuff like that.
The creed basically implies "it's a mystery but this is as close we are going to get to explaining it" .. thus ending the debate for centuries

 

[Origen]

“The Trinity is a mystery that cannot be comprehended by human reason but is understood by faith and is best confessed in the words of the Athanasian Creed which states that we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; neither confounding the Persons: nor dividing the Substance. That we are compelled by the Christian faith to confess that each distinct person is God and Lord and that the deity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is one equal in glory, coequal in majesty.”

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
FAQ: Why does the Watchtower Society translate the Word in John 1:1 as god in
lower case instead of God in upper case?

REPLY: The Watchtower Society's translation is based upon an imaginary
grammatical technicality.

The common Greek word for "god" is theós (theh'-os). When it's modified by the
little Greek definite article "ho" the Society translates theós in upper case, viz: in
the Society's theological thinking; ho theós pertains to the one true God, while
theós by itself is somewhat flexible, for example John 1:18 and John 20:17 where
the Society translates theós in upper case though it be not modified by ho.

However, according to Dr. Archibald T. Robertson's "Grammar Of The Greek New
Testament", page 767: in regards to nouns in the predicate; the article is not
essential to speech. In other words: when theόs is in the predicate, ho can be
either used, or not used, without making any real difference.

So then; a translator's decision whether to capitalize either of the two theόs in John
1:1 or not to capitalize them, is entirely arbitrary rather than dictated by a strict
rule of Greek grammar.

Of course the Society prefers that the Word be a lower case god because that
spelling is agreeable with their version of Christ's status; whereas regular Christians
prefer the upper case God because that spelling agreeable with their version of Christ's
status; while in reality either spelling is acceptable.
_

 

[Albion]

Of course the Society prefers that the Word be a lower case god because that
spelling is agreeable with their version of Christ's status; whereas regular Christians
prefer the upper case God because that spelling agreeable with their version of Christ's
status; while in reality either spelling is acceptable.
_

Except that this lone verse upon which the Society hangs the whole of its belief concerning the nature of God is not the only verse in the Bible that conventional Christians can and do point to as proving that Jesus was God in the flesh.

By arguing over John 1:1 as though it is the only proof text for that doctrine, we would be playing into the theory of the Jehovah's Witnesses. It, by the way, is the reason for the JW missionaries having until recent years produced their own version of the Bible and asking people that they were trying to convert to respond to it and it alone.

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
• John 20:28 . . Thomas said to him: "My Lord and my God!"

"God" is translated from the Greek word theós (theh'-os).

Many moons ago; I asked some Watchtower Society missionaries to explain to me
why the Watchtower Society translated that particular theós in upper case seeing
as how in their theology; only Jehovah should be referred to as a god spelled with
an upper case G. Well; they were too inexperienced to explain and my question left
them stumped.

The fact of the matter is: in John 20:28, theós is modified by the Greek definite
article "ho". So by the Society's own rules; its translators had to use upper case
because it's normally their practice that whenever theós is modified by the Greek
definite article, then the upper case is required.

But I don't recommend making an issue of capitalization in this particular case
because skilled Witnesses can easily dodge that bullet. Instead, focus the attention
upon Thomas' possessive pronoun because he didn't just declare that Jesus was a
god. No, he clearly declared that Jesus was "my" god. Here's what it looks like in
the Kingdom Interlinear:

"the god of me"

Thomas was a Jew; so his association with Jehovah began with Abraham way back
in the seventeenth chapter of Genesis. In a nutshell, God voluntarily covenanted
with Abraham's posterity to be their god.

Centuries later, Abraham's posterity entered into a covenant with Jehovah in the
books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. They accepted that
covenant voluntarily and under oath, i.e. of their own free will; which is really
important because the covenant forbids them to possess more than one god. No
longer would Jehovah be a god to them; He would be their only god.

• Ex 20:1-3 . . And God proceeded to speak all these words, saying: I am Jehovah
your God, who have brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of
slaves. You must not have any other gods against my face.

"against my face" is a combination of two Hebrew words that essentially refer to
God's competitors. In other words: it is not Jehovah's wishes to have a market
share of His people's affections; no, He'll settle for nothing less than 100%. (cf.
Mark 12:28-30)

Now; if the apostle Thomas was a Torah-trained Jew, then he was fully aware that
possessing a second god along with Jehovah— in effect possessing multiple gods
--would incur the covenant's curse upon himself.

• Deut 27:26 . . Cursed is the one who will not put the words of this law in force by
doing them.

The way I see it: the Society has two options. Either the apostle Thomas knew what
he was doing when he addressed Jesus as his god, or he meant to say something
else.

Now, if the apostle Thomas knew what he was doing when he addressed Jesus as
his god, then the rank and file need to ask around and find out why it is that Jesus
Christ was the apostle Thomas' god but he isn't the Watchtower Society's god.

Plus: I would really like to know how it is that the apostle Thomas and the
Watchtower Society are poles apart in their opinions of Christ's divine status when
Thomas actually associated with Jesus and was one of his close personal friends.

FAQ: If Jesus isn't/wasn't Thomas' god, then why didn't Jesus strenuously object
when his apostle addressed him as such?

REPLY: That's a very intelligent question because Jesus said, in so many words; it was not
his intention to annul the old covenant. (Matt 5:17-19). In other words; were Jesus
not actually Thomas' god, then Jesus himself would've fallen under the curse for
accepting his apostle's statement without protest.
_

 

[MoreCoffee]

The last JW I've talked to ended up rejecting Jesus as the Saviour. I told him Jesus must be YHWH or else He isn't the Saviour.

Isaiah 43:11 I, even I, am the Lord; and beside me there is no saviour.

-So he had to reject Jesus as the Saviour, in order to keep his tradition. He said Jesus is just an agent. Which should be the end of the discussion, but I showed him places where Jesus is worshipped as God, and receives the same honor and glory as the Father, but he refused to listen, he closed his ears, there was nothing I could do for him, he said that this was just my interpretation, and that's how it ended, he would not listen, only their interpretation is right, we are all wrong in their eyes.

An interesting encounter.

 

[MoreCoffee]

“The Trinity is a mystery that cannot be comprehended by human reason but is understood by faith and is best confessed in the words of the Athanasian Creed which states that we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; neither confounding the Persons: nor dividing the Substance. That we are compelled by the Christian faith to confess that each distinct person is God and Lord and that the deity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is one equal in glory, coequal in majesty.”

It's amusing, to a degree.
Rather adolescent also.
But that's how many debates go anyway.
the quoted text is good, the Athanasian Creed is always worth a mention.

 

[MoreCoffee]

.
FAQ: Why does the Watchtower Society translate the Word in John 1:1 as god in
lower case instead of God in upper case?

REPLY: The Watchtower Society's translation is based upon an imaginary
grammatical technicality.

The common Greek word for "god" is theós (theh'-os). When it's modified by the
little Greek definite article "ho" the Society translates theós in upper case, viz: in
the Society's theological thinking; ho theós pertains to the one true God, while
theós by itself is somewhat flexible, for example John 1:18 and John 20:17 where
the Society translates theós in upper case though it be not modified by ho.

However, according to Dr. Archibald T. Robertson's "Grammar Of The Greek New
Testament", page 767: in regards to nouns in the predicate; the article is not
essential to speech. In other words: when theόs is in the predicate, ho can be
either used, or not used, without making any real difference.

So then; a translator's decision whether to capitalize either of the two theόs in John
1:1 or not to capitalize them, is entirely arbitrary rather than dictated by a strict
rule of Greek grammar.

Of course the Society prefers that the Word be a lower case god because that
spelling is agreeable with their version of Christ's status; whereas regular Christians
prefer the upper case God because that spelling agreeable with their version of Christ's
status; while in reality either spelling is acceptable.
_

Good work, worth knowing.
What do you anticipate the JWs may say in reply?

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.

What do you anticipate the JWs may say in reply?

In Watchtower Society theology, there are three primary categories of gods. One is
the true God, a second consists of false gods, and a third consists of a category
they've labeled "mighty ones"

So it's possible to interpret John 1:1 to mean something like this:

"In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a
mighty one."

Their defense of "mighty ones" is based upon Psalm 82 where magistrates are called
gods. (cf. John 10:34)
_

 

[MoreCoffee]

.


In Watchtower Society theology, there are three primary categories of gods. One is
the true God, a second consists of false gods, and a third consists of a category
they've labeled "mighty ones"

So it's possible to interpret John 1:1 to mean something like this:

"In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a
mighty one."

Their defense of "mighty ones" is based upon Psalm 82 where magistrates are called
gods. (cf. John 10:34)
_

But you think that they are wrong? Unjustified in their line of reasoning?

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.

But you think that they are wrong? Unjustified in their line of reasoning?

I disagree with their take on John 1:1 but am reluctant to say they are wrong
and/or unjustified in their reasoning lest the hapless day should arrive when it's
discovered that I was a heretic all along and didn't know it; 'cause then I would
have to eat my words and that would be very humiliating.
_

 

[MoreCoffee]

I disagree with their take on John 1:1 but am reluctant to say they are wrong
and/or unjustified in their reasoning lest the hapless day should arrive when it's
discovered that I was a heretic all along and didn't know it; 'cause then I would
have to eat my words and that would be very humiliating.
_

Life is one long humiliation on so many levels

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
• 1Thess 4:16-17 . .The Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding
call, with an archangel's voice and with God's trumpet, and those who are dead in
union with Christ will rise first.

That verse is used by the Watchtower Society to prove that Jesus is the arch angel
Michael named in Jude 9. However, Michael isn't the only arch angel. According to
Dan 10:13, there's more than one.
_

 

[NathanH83]

If you met a young JW apologist who wanted you to explain the Trinity how would you go about it and what objections do you anticipate? How would you reply to the objections too?

I would get a sheet of paper and write the numbers 1, 2, and 3.
Then I’d ask them, “How many numbers do you see?”

When they say, “three numbers,” then I’ll say, “Wrong.”

There’s only 1 number. The number “One Hundred Twenty Three.”

Granted, that one number consists of 3 digits. And each digit is a number of its own. But it’s still only 1 number.