1 Timothy 2:1-6 and All Men~

“First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time.”

Does “all men” mean every individual that has ever lived, a universal application, or is there a delimiter to the term, “all men”? The first time the term, all men, occurs in this text is when Paul says to pray on behalf of all men. Can even one Christian say that he has prayed for every individual? Are we to go to the Mormon Ancestry headquarters in Temple Square and get a list of every person and pray for them? Or like the Roman Catholics, do we pray for every person that has died? It says “all men” and all means all and that's all that all means...right? Or maybe there is a delimiter. The next portion clarifies, for kings and all who are in authority. What is Paul limiting here? What are kings and those in authority?

Kings and those in authority, these are categories (kinds) of men. We see Paul use this form of speaking in the other pastoral letters, specifically, in a similar passage in Titus, chapter two. Paul speaks of older men (v.2), older women (v.3), younger women (v.4), young men (v.6), bondslaves (vv. 9,10), and rulers and authorities (3:1) the passage of chapter two climaxes at verse eleven where Paul gives the reason for the passage in verse eleven, “For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men...” We see this generic usage of the term “all men” being used quite a bit by Paul, Titus 3:2, “...to malign no one, to be peaceable, gentle, showing every consideration for all men.” and this is especially true where Luke is writing an account of Paul's commissioning in Acts 22:15, “For you will be a witness for Him to all men of what you have seen and heard.” With the non-Calvinistic interpretation of “all men” this is a false prophecy. Paul understood what was meant by this, he knew that this didn't mean that he would witness of Christ to every single individual human being on the planet, even those who were dead (all means all and that all that all means right?) Instead he would have understood this to have meant all kinds, categories, be that races, statuses, etc of men. Luke even accounts of when Paul was accused of preaching to all men everywhere in Acts 21:28.

As I noted in my article on John 3:16, “Unfortunately, we're a very individualistic culture, so we think in these terms...The New Testament comes over to us from the East, where they think in terms of community, nationality, family, your basic social corporate constructs.”

So to impose a Western North American concept upon Scripture is anachronistic. Early eastern Jews could use the term “world” or “all men” interchangeably and not mean every single individual, they thought in terms of groups. This is evident in two other of Paul's letters, Colossians 3:11, “A renewal in which there is no distinction between Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and freeman, but Christ is all, and in all.” and Galatians 3:28, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

So, a broad look at the contexts of Paul's usage of the term “all men” generically. A dynamic equivalent would be “mankind”.

So in the context of 1 Timothy 2, when we see such phrases as “who desires all men to be saved “ and “ Himself as a ransom for all” if we are consistent in our exegesis we see that Paul's usage of this specific term here is consistent with his usage in other passages.

The surrounding context to this letter is that the church at this time was under persecution so it would make sense that Paul is exhorting the church to pray for the kings and rulers. Even those who are using their authority to persecute the church can be saved, as Paul knew this personally.

Another issue with this passage when Arminians or non-Calvinists is that they forget the following passages. Verse 5 starts with the word “for” (γὰρ, a post positive) introducing a contingent clause, such as, “because of”, hence a connection to the previous verses which lead to a specific point from verses three and four, thus the explanation being in five and six. Verses four and five exhort Timothy to pray for kings and those in authority, why? Because there Jesus is our Savior and He is the only way, and without this knowledge, no one can be saved, hence Paul's comment, “ For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus...” bringing the discussion right into the middle of the topic of the atonement and Jesus' high priestly role as eternal intercessor, according to the order of Melchizedek priesthood (Heb. 6:20).

The nature of Jesus' intercessory prayer is limited in its nature. Just notice Jesus' own comments of his high priestly intercessory prayer as recorded in John 17:9-12,

"I ask on their behalf; I do not ask on behalf of the world, but of those whom You have given Me; for they are Yours; and all things that are Mine are Yours, and Yours are Mine; and I have been glorified in them. 'I am no longer in the world; and yet they themselves are in the world, and I come to You Holy Father, keep them in Your name, the name which You have given Me, that they may be one even as We are. 'While I was with them, I was keeping them in Your name which You have given Me; and I guarded them and not one of them perished but the son of perdition, so that the Scripture would be fulfilled....'”

Jesus makes intercession for only believers, Paul then finishes his remarks in verse 6, “mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, (v.6)who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time.” Who are the all of verse six? They're the ones that Paul was just talking about, they're “all” those whom Jesus is making intercession for. Unless, we dare make the argument that Jesus died for everybody on earth, He is therefore interceding on behalf of all those who have ever existed, hence God is failing at His own intercession every time a person rejects His work by their all-power free will, therefore not in control, therefore can we truly call Him God? There is no way we could understand 1 Tim 2 this way otherwise, this would then completely contradict the whole argument of Hebrews 7-10.

o when we look at 1 Timothy 2 and Titus 2:11, we can recognize that “all men” has merely a generic significance not specific. In these two passages especially it would be pleading to assert that Paul actually had a specific people in mind in these passages. Unless you want to claim universalism, but that is another issue entirely. Christ's death and intercession are for those whom the Father has given him, this is echoed earlier in John's Gospel, in John 6:37-39 "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out. 'For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. 'This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day...” Christ's atonement is perfect, His salvation is perfect, His intercession is perfect and as John seventeen states, it is for His glory!

If one is going to argue that Paul is claiming in 1 Timothy 2:5-6 that Jesus paid a ransom for every individual on the planet 's sins, past, present, and future, then no one will be in hell, for what sins would they have to pay for? A universal atonement leads to a universal salvation.

Therefore in conclusion, the non-Calvinist is not being honest to the theme of Scripture when he isolates one text in order to proof-text his own pet traditions. Jesus is savior and He will save His bride, He will save her perfectly (Romans 8:38-39), He will then Sanctify her, Purify her, then ultimately glorify her, and in this golden chain of redemption (Romans 8:27-30) God alone will be truly glorified, hence we can say with the early Reformers, “Soli Deo Gloria”.

John 3:16 and the Whosoevers of the World~

"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life."

One of the great problems with today's Evangelical sermons is that they're more "sermonettes" than anything else. A verse is quoted and then used as a spring board for the rest of the "so-called" sermon, instead of honest exegesis.

So, let's go through this passage line by line. The whole context starts in verse one and then goes all the way through verse twenty-one. However, for time's sake I want to just focus on four verses,

Joh 3:14 "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up;
Joh 3:15 so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life.
Joh 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.
Joh 3:17 "For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.

Here's enough of the passage in order to give us a decent context. This is a Soteriological passage, but John's focus is not necessarily the ordus soludus. He is responding to Nicodemus, a Jewish leader (v.10), and/or a Pharisee (v.1). So, John is specifically responding to a misunderstanding that the Pharisees had of Salvation, and the nature of the Messiah. The Jews had a concept of the Messiah and Salvation that was purely nomistic and nationalistic. Jesus is saying, no, you have it wrong, it goes much deeper and further than that. So when looking at this passage, that has to be first and foremost kept in mind, not how and who is involved in the process, instead what is the process.

Another issue that we run into, is a misunderstanding of the terms used here, "world" and "whosoever believes". Unfortunately, we're a very individualistic culture, so we think in these terms. World must mean "every individual" and "whosoever" must mean "every individual", when this is not the case. The New Testament comes over to us from the East, where they think in terms of community, nationality, family, your basic social corporate constructs.

So first, the term "world", in Greek, κόσμος or transliterated, kosmos. The term κόσμος must be defined in the context of the passage as it has many meanings and applications, especially in Johannine literature. κόσμος in Koine (common) Greek as such vast application that this word alone covers two whole pages in Frederick, William, and Danker's "A Greek=English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed. BDAG". But on page 562, righ hand column, under section 6b, they have John 3:16 under "all humanity, especially of believers, as the object of God's love". What does this mean? Specifically the term "world" in John 3:16 has a delimiter by its context. What is the delimiter? Look at verse 17, "...but that the world might be saved through Him." The word "might" here doesn't have the conotation of of an indefinite clause, that of a "possiblity", but is instead definite, it has the conotation of "would be saved". So here's the question, will all of mankind be saved? If not, then the term world here doesn't mean every individual. What was one of the concepts that the Jews had that I mentioned earlier? Nationality. They believed that the Messiah was coming for merely Israel. Jesus is saying, no, I'm coming for not only the Jew but for the whole world. People from every tribe tongue and nation, as John calls them later in chapter ten, "the other sheep" in John 10:14-16 "I am the good shepherd, and I know My own and My own know Me, even as the Father knows Me and I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep. "I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will hear My voice; and they will become one flock with one shepherd." Who does Jesus lay down His life for? The Sheep, and the sheep only.

Secondly, the phrase, "...that whosoever believes...", going to the Greek again, πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων, or transliterated, "those who are believing, or every single one who believes". There is no term for "whosoever" in Greek. So this word, whosoever, is a translation of a phrase. Hence, "whosoever" does not mean by any means that this is a unknown people, that there is no election, or that there is somehow a universal application to it, hence meaning that everyone has a moral capacity. πᾶς, meaning all is delimited by ὁ πιστεύων, those believing. So this is speaking of a very specific group. The text is not speaking at all of who will believe, nor is is speaking at all of who has the capacity. All this is saying is, all those who believe, this group, will have eternal life. Nothing more. So when those who use John 3:16 say, "see! it says world and whosoever, therefore this has universal application and everyone has the capacity to choose to believe!" they miss the whole point and context of John, not to mention a proper exegesis.

Jehovah's Witnesses and The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society's Theology

I have been in correspondence with a young man who grew up in the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society Organization on Facebook. I thought it would be beneficial to post his questions along with the answers I have given in a Q&A fashion.

Q. Hey Mark, I feel that I have to express my deep appreciation for the help you have given me so far. I have to say one thing, I am in no way as studious as you are about this stuff. The more I read on about the more confused I get. Not only that, I still live under my parents roof and going to the meetings even confuses me more. What do I believe? Where do I go? What if this is right? Or maybe that? Not only that, I feel that for me to understand completely, I have to focus on it completely. I don't have the time or energy to juggle all these things I have going on and learn about the glory of God at the same time. Any suggestions?

A. I'm glad I can help. Really I am. I don't expect you to be as studious as I am. I do my studying so that I can benefit others. I can empathize with your frustration and confusion. Feel free to ask me questions if you want. Lets work things out. Lets start at a foundation, do you believe that the Bible is the Word of God? Do you even believe that God exists? Where would you say that you are at right now? On one hand, you will need to study. Certainty doesn't come without a price. You've got a long road ahead of you, on one hand, you can embrace this road, how? Be grateful that you're not 50 years old and going through this. Our church right now is going through those catechisms and confessions that I posted and we're taking the whole year to do so. Just ponder this verses:

Mat 6:25-33 "For this reason I say to you, do not be worried about your life, as to what you will eat or what you will drink; nor for your body, as to what you will put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing? Look at the birds of the air, that they do not sow, nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not worth much more than they? "And who of you by being worried can add a single hour to his life? "And why are you worried about clothing? Observe how the lilies of the field grow; they do not toil nor do they spin, yet I say to you that not even Solomon in all his glory clothed himself like one of these. But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which is alive today and tomorrow is thrown into the furnace, will He not much more clothe you? You of little faith! Do not worry then, saying, 'What will we eat?' or 'What will we drink?' or 'What will we wear for clothing?' For the Gentiles eagerly seek all these things; for your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things. "But seek first His kingdom and His righteousness, and all these things will be added to you. "So do not worry about tomorrow; for tomorrow will care for itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own."

Basically, take it easy bro. God is in control. It may comfort you to know, that there are many who have gone before you. Like I recommended before. Start reading the Shorter Catechism lets discuss it. When you go to meetings with your parents, write down the parts that are making you confused and lets go over it. I don't mind at all, even if there's one area that needs to be thrashed out over and over and over. Lets do it. Take care man.

Q. Guess what? I expressed my opinion today about this religion o' mine and I got yelled at by three people, my computer taken away, and my disposition has been changed and I can no longer focus. Now I have to go to the library to look up more information. Everything just got a whole lot harder. Smh. Why? Why does it have to be this way? Why won't God just do something already. My life sucks.

A. Hey man, yeah, if you're going to do that, its to be expected what happened. I don't think I would have gone about it in that way. You need to understand, even though its difficult, you're parents are just trying to look out for you. They firmly believe the Organization to be the truth, so they're looking out for you. They are wrong, but on one hand you can be grateful that at least on some level, you're parents love and care for you. Why does it have to be this way? God knew it would be the best, and that He'd get the most glory out of this situation. God is doing something, whether it is in conformity to what we want and what we'd like is another issue. I'm sure you're familiar with the verse that says, His ways are not our ways and His thoughts are not our thoughts. And, we see through a glass dimly, but soon we shall know as we are known. You're life might suck, so what? Life is not about you, its, as I've heard many times, "His-story". This is about God, not about you. You need to realize that God has been merciful and gracious to you, in that He deemed it fit for you not to be dooped by the WT. You should be greatly thankful, humbled, and excited. But I'm sure you do, you just have a lot of other emotions as well. So you have a choice, get into God's Word and start reading the Shorter Catechism, and find out what the Bible really teaches (to borrow a statement from the WT) and make the most of this time. Or you can completely waste your life and do nothing. You're going to get married some day, and have children, what legacy do you want to pass on to them? How are you going to lead them and guide them? Unfortunately [name removed], we've grown up in a culture that says life is supposed to be easy and free. And then we experience otherwise and don't know what to make of it all. When Scripture teaches that life is basically sin and misery. Why? So that we'd learn to seek Christ for sufficiency. That we'd learn to walk in His ways and think His thoughts after Him. That we'd learn to trust in Him, that no matter what happens, He's in control, and that "And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose." So I'd say that the most important thing that you should do, is discover who Jesus really is, who God really is, how He has worked in history, and do you love Him?

Q. Why is Jesus Lord and yet, if he and Jehovah are part of the tri-union, wouldn't they all be Lords?

A. Alrighty, here we go finally. Ok where to start? Historical context, linguistic context, cultural context, and Scriptural continuity are areas that are important to keep in mind when coming to a difficult passages or verse. So, what does it mean to say "Jesus is Lord"? Let's look at a very popular passage, Rom 10:9-10, "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; for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation."

This passage is even interpreted wrong in many Christian churches today, so I think this is a great passage to go over. It is suspected that Paul wrote the letter of Romans around A.D. 57, which would place it during the reign of Emperor Nero, possibly Claudius. Both hated Christians. As a tradition of the Emperors it was common practice for each Emperor to be declared deity. In the Greco-Roman empire, the Roman guards would carry around a portable alter and allow each citizen to light incense and proclaim "Καῖσαρ Ἰησοῦς" (Caesar is Lord) and if a Christian were to refuse to light the incense and proclaim "Κύριος Ἰησοῦς" (Jesus is Lord) this would mean death, as the Christians were viewed as subversives and against the Roman Empire. This text, therefore reaches beyond just a mere "intellectual assent" to the agreement of a mere propositional statement. To be willing to die, roots not only in the mind but heart of the believer, as well. This also demonstrates that this does not mean that a spoken affirmation of one's faith is a "work" that merits justification, but a confession such as this, does demonstrate an outward evidence of inward faith, sometimes to the believer himself.

Another two aspects are the linguistic context and Scriptural continuity. As Jehovah's Witnesses proudly cling to the name Jehovah, the Hebrew tetragrammaton (יהוה yod-hay-vuv/waw-hay), they then go into the New Testament and insert "Jehovah". This is not how you do proper translation. In between the 3rd century B.C and 132 B.C. a translation of the Old Testament was undertaken into Greek. This translation is known as the Septuagint or The Translation of the Seventy (there were more than seventy scholars that translated this, 72 if memory serves me right, but Jews rounded their numbers). This is the translation that Jesus and the apostles quoted from. When Hebrew Scholars came to יהוה they translated it, Κύριος, in the English, LORD! So for the Christian in A.D. 57 to say someone was "LORD" was the equivalent of saying "Jehovah", hence to say "Caesar is Jehovah" is blasphemy and would rather die. Thus when the Bible says, "Jesus is Lord", "Lord Jesus", "our Lord Jesus Christ", etc. it literally means, "Jesus is God".

One last cultural aspect that I should hit on. You can see the difficulty here. To say that Jesus is Jehovah to a Jehovah's Witness causes confusion because the Jehovah's Witness equates "Jehovah" with "Father" and not "God". So when the Christian says "Jesus is Jehovah" we're not saying that "Jesus is the Father". We're saying, to put it in JW terms, Jesus, the Father, and the Holy Spirit are Jehovah. Now, how does this work into the cultural aspect? Well the Christians had the same syntactical problem with the Jews. For the Jews, θεός (God) meant "the Father", so in order to not create confusion by saying that Jesus is θεός they simply used the term Κύριος (LORD) in order to convey the concept.

So no, to call Jesus Lord and to call Jehovah Lord, and to call the Holy Spirit Lord is not to say that there are three Lords. There is only one Lord.

Q. During Jesus baptism, if holy spirit was upon his and a voice from heaven said this is my son how is he God? If he was God, shouldn't he have said so to avoid mass confusion? lol (but serious question)

A. With a question like this, definitions are essential, so

Definitions:

Within the one Being that is God, there exists eternally three coequal and coeternal persons, namely, the Father, the Son' and the Holy Spirit.

One WHAT and three WHO'S; the one WHAT is the being or essence of God; the three WHO'S are the Father, Son, and Spirit.

One last definition, this is lengthy but very important as to understanding what Christians are saying. The Watchtower DOES NOT understand the doctrine of the Trinity. I have read their objections to the doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation, every once in a while they'll come up with a good question, but over all, their questions merely demonstrate a lack of understanding. So please read this all the way through.

Athanasian Creed:

Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic [notes mine: catholic meaning universal, distinct from Romanism] Faith. Which Faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled; without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the catholic Faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the Persons; nor dividing the Essence. For there is one Person of the Father; another of the Son; and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one; the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is; such is the Son; and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father uncreated; the Son uncreated; and the Holy Ghost uncreated. The Father unlimited; the Son unlimited; and the Holy Ghost unlimited. The Father eternal; the Son eternal; and the Holy Ghost eternal. And yet they are not three eternals; but one eternal. As also there are not three uncreated; nor three infinites, but one uncreated; and one infinite. So likewise the Father is Almighty; the Son Almighty; and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet they are not three Almighties; but one Almighty. So the Father is God; the Son is God; and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not three Gods; but one God. So likewise the Father is Lord; the Son Lord; and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not three Lords; but one Lord. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity; to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord; So are we forbidden by the Catholic Religion; to say, There are three Gods, or three Lords. The Father is made of none; neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created; but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten; but proceeding. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is before, or after another; none is greater, or less than another. But the whole three Persons are coeternal, and coequal. So that in all things, as aforesaid; the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity, is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved, let him thus think of the Trinity.

Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation; that he also believe faithfully the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess; that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man; God, of the Essence of the Father; begotten before the worlds; and Man, of the Essence of his Mother, born in the world. Perfect God; and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead; and inferior to the Father as touching his Manhood. Who although he is God and Man; yet he is not two, but one Christ. One; not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh; but by assumption of the Manhood into God. One altogether; not by confusion of Essence; but by unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man; so God and Man is one Christ; Who suffered for our salvation; descended into hell; rose again the third day from the dead. He ascended into heaven, he sitteth on the right hand of the God the Father Almighty, from whence he will come to judge the quick and the dead. At whose coming all men will rise again with their bodies; And shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting; and they that have done evil, into everlasting fire. This is the Catholic Faith; which except a man believe truly and firmly, he cannot be saved.

So when we see such things in Scripture as the baptism of Jesus, or Jesus praying to the Father, or “the Father is greater than I”, etc. this doesn't confuse us, this is the whole reason we say that there are three persons. Whether we can comprehend this or not is irrelevant....we can't comprehend God....who would have thought!?!? Christians have through out history looked at Scripture and said, I see that Scripture says that there is one God but yet there are three persons that are called God, and they are one in substance. I cannot understand this but I take God at His Word. This doesn't mean that there aren't hard questions either. There are, we're dealing with a God who said, “my ways are not your ways, my thoughts are not your thoughts...” God is much bigger than the existential rationalism of the Watchtower. I will admit at this point, that no answer concerning God, will or should ever be satisfactory. Our hunger for God, for who He is, and how He works should always enrapture us in a sense of awe and wonder. This however doesn't mean, that there isn't enough in revelation for us to come to something solid. As many a Theologian have said, the Trinity is anticipated in the Old Testament and revealed in the New Testament. However, we need to realize something else, when we see such situations as the baptism of Jesus, we have to remember a couple things. This event took place on a finite earth, observed by finite people, relayed by finite people in a finite language, describing an infinite event in finite time. Anytime something finite tries to grasp something that is infinite, there will inevitably be an essence of mystery and an element of the fact that we'll never ever completely grasp who God is and How He works in history. This means that we will never ever grasp anything exhaustively, this does not mean however, that we can't know some things truly. That which God has chosen to reveal can be known, and known absolutely however not omnisciently as this is an incommunicable attribute of God.

Another the thing the Watchtower forgets when dealing with “Christendom” is that the Bible wasn't written in a vacuum. It had a cultural, historical, and time constrained context, which means that the people who wrote the New Testament had their own problems that they were dealing with. Hence the reason that the doctrine of the Trinity isn't explicit in Scripture. It simply wasn't what the early church was dealing with at the time. They were dealing with horrible persecution, sin in the church, church structure, the nature of salvation, Judaistic misconceptions of the Messiah, etc. etc. etc. The nature and essence of God didn't climax (I need to emphasize the word climax) until the 4th century. This doesn't mean that it wasn't dealt with at all before, there are many early church fathers (anti-Nicea) that wrote on the topic of the incarnation and even the Trinity. You can even check out the documentation provided by Christy in her book “Yes You Should Believe in the Trinity” which she made available online.

I know it may seem as if I'm rambling, but as I have dealt with Jehovah's Witnesses for over five years now, I have come to realize that when dealing with Watchtower “theology” one has to start from scratch. So please bear with me. So, when we see the baptism of Jesus, the Father from “heaven” declaring, the Holy Spirit descending, and Jesus being baptized, this by no means that they're three separate individuals, nor does it mean that the Holy Spirit isn't a person, etc. There isn't anything in this specific passage that enlightens us about the nature of God, except that there are three working together in a specific event in history. So let's deal with the Watchtower and the baptism of Jesus:

After being baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove and lighting on Him, and behold, a voice out of the heavens said, "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased." Mat 3:16-17 (NASB)

After being baptized Jesus immediately came up from the water; and, look! the heavens were opened up, and he saw descending like a dove God's spirit coming upon him. Look! Also, there was a voice from the heavens that said: "This is my Son, the beloved, whom I have approved." Mat 3:16-17 (NWT)

The Watchtower then asks, “Was God saying that he was his own son, that he approved himself, that he sent himself? No, God the Creator was saying that he, as the superior was approving a lesser one, his Son Jesus, for the work ahead,” (Should You Believe in the Trinity? p.18) The Organization then makes the argument that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are mentioned together a number of times and similar, Peter, James, and John are mentioned together, hence Matthew 3:16-17 is not supporting the doctrine of the Trinity.

First thing, I want you to look at the definitions of the Trinity that I gave you. Are we claiming that the Father is the same person as the Son? Why can't the Father send the son? Jesus sent the Holy Spirit in the book of Acts? How can Jesus send an “energy beam”? How can Jesus send that which flows from and is intrinsic to Jehovah, that of a radar beam? Holy spirit, according to the WT is something that naturally expends from Jehovah, how can a mere creature be in control of that which is expended from Jehovah without being in control of Jehovah? But anyways, I digress. Christians through out history, have never used this text in and of itself as a proof for the doctrine of the Trinity. As I mentioned before, we recognize that the doctrine of the Trinity isn't expressly found in Scripture, but is found by inference. Hence we do not use merely one text, but an accumulate of texts as a whole.

Though Matthew 3:16,17 by itself doesn't prove the Trinity, it definitely supports it. It can be demonstrated theologically that the three persons mentioned in this text are the one God. Just as I demonstrated that Jesus is God in my response to your question on “Jesus is LORD”. I think I'm going to end here as this is quite lengthy and I'm running short on time. Here's a link to some articles that I think will help: http://vintage.aomin.org/General.html Dr. James R. White was never a Jehovah's Witness either. He has taught college level Church History, Greek, Hebrew, Systematic Theology, Islam, and various other courses. So I hope you enjoy his articles. Praying for you man. FYI, I'll have to respond to your question on Hebrews 1:3 tomorrow or Thursday, I apologize for that.

Q. Hey man. Today I was told that if I keep looking at "apostate" literature and keep talking to "apostates" my parents are going to abandon me. This begins me walking/riding my bike to school, same thing coming home. No allowance, no schooling after high school with any of their help. Since I have an early birthday, I'm going to have to live at a friends house while I finish up senior year of high school and knowing my parents, they would do that with no hesitation. What am I supposed to do? Where am I supposed to go? School is challenging enough already as it is! I'm definitely going to need help getting into college and I'm going to need help finishing college!! Everything I know will be gone. What to do, what to do sigh.

A. Well, if it helps anything, I'm not an apostate. I never once was a Jehovah's Witness. What I can do, is only reference stuff for you by people who I know are not apostates. That way you can tell your parents that you're not reading apostate material. LOL read the Bible, the Bible is the most contrary thing to Witness theology! I have to pay for my own college. So I wouldn't worry about that. Its a very sad thing that you're parents are choosing to shun you. But basically, you need to honor your father and mother. Stop reading apostate literature. But if what they're telling you is, be a Jehovah's Witness or you're out. Then that is a decision that has detrimental consequences on both sides. God never promised that this life would be easy. Many people have gone through much much worse then what you're experiencing. I don't say that to belittle your situation, but to merely help you gain a bit of gratefulness that it isn't worse. Imagine being a Muslim in Indonesia. First, torture, and if no consent, death to sons and daughters who convert to Christianity.

Mat 10:34-39 "Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. "For I came to SET A MAN AGAINST HIS FATHER, AND A DAUGHTER AGAINST HER MOTHER, AND A DAUGHTER-IN-LAW AGAINST HER MOTHER-IN-LAW; and A MAN'S ENEMIES WILL BE THE MEMBERS OF HIS HOUSEHOLD. "He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. "And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. "He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it.

This passage isn't talking about believers taking up a sword to kill those who don't accept what we believe. This is the natural outcome of the effects of the Gospel, it hardens some and breaks others. John, speaking to Christians stated in 15:18-19, "If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you.

Those who are Christians are so, not because its easy or because it promises health, wealth, and prosperity. They're Christians because it is true, God is true, and He deemed it proper to choose us out of this world for a people unto Himself. 1Jn 4:19 "We love, because He first loved us." God is in control. He knew long before you were even born what He had planned for you, and we in turn trust Him. As He promised through Scripture, "Rom 8:28 And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose." So, you need to ask yourself if you love God, and if you truly love God, then He is working all things together for good for you. Paul picks up this idea and develops it in 2 Corinthians 1:2-7, "Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort, who comforts us in all our affliction so that we will be able to comfort those who are in any affliction with the comfort with which we ourselves are comforted by God. For just as the sufferings of Christ are ours in abundance, so also our comfort is abundant through Christ. But if we are afflicted, it is for your comfort and salvation; or if we are comforted, it is for your comfort, which is effective in the patient enduring of the same sufferings which we also suffer; and our hope for you is firmly grounded, knowing that as you are sharers of our sufferings, so also you are sharers of our comfort."

Christians go through various difficulties, trials, and tribulations for many reasons. One, so that we can comfort others who are as well going through them. So, you need to know man, that if you're going to be a follower of Christ its not going to be easy by any stretch. We were not created for our own, we were created as a part of His story. We are all a part of a much larger picture, that of a Redemptive history. Well, I need to end here as I need to keep working on your answer to your previous questions. I might need until tomorrow to finish it. Its already been a very quick day. Take care man and seek and love God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.

Q. Is hell the common grave?

A. Are you still reading the Shorter Catechism? If so, how's that going? If you forgot about it, then try to keep trudging through that, you don't have to do it fast, take your time. When it comes to hell, I can't see how it could be "the common grave". There are too many description of Hades, Gehenna, Sheol, that are described as conscience suffering and torment. The error that the Watchtower makes, is that they break the words down into their meanings in and of themselves. You just can't do that. Words not only have a meaning in and of themselves, but they also have a cultural aspect to them. You ask such questions as, "What would the Greek have understood by the word "Hades" in the 1st century". This will be a poor example, but here it goes... its like when someone today says, "That's so wicked." If you want the meaning of the word wicked for the 21st century, and you go to the average dictionary, it will say something along the lines of "intrinsic evil" or something like that. But a person five hundred years from now is trying to understand the literature of this time and can't figure out why when something amazing happens people are calling it evil. What were all these people? Stoics? And then he finds out after 50 years of study that the youth back in the late 1900's started using "wicked" to mean "nifty, cool, awesome, amazing, etc".

So I said all of that to demonstrate that you can't just break a word down by just one avenue. Within etymology there are multiple things you must take into consideration: context: context of culture, context of history, context within the sentence, etc.

For the best example of the Watchtower's poor myopic word arguments read their arguments for "torture stake" in R.S.

While I still have a little time, let me deal with the argument "If God is a God of love then how could he send people to hell for all eternity".

There are many ways I could deal with this, and it wouldn't be hard to write a short book on this, but I'm going to give the short answer.

This question is often laden with varying postmodern presuppositions. Also, there are some fundamental assertions that are implied here. This question is loaded. First off, culturally, there is an important presupposition that needs to be recognized as false. The ultimate ethic of our day is hurting someone. You can do anything you want today, and as long as it doesn't hurt someone, its ok. Hence true love would never hurt someone. (off topic side note: this artly why we don't discipline our children anymore) The second error is, in logical fallacies, what is called a category mistake. The question is inherently flawed as it confuses categories. Whether people are sent to hell or not doesn't deal directly with the attribute of "love" but with the attribute of God's "Justice and Holiness". That's why you never hear the objection, "If God is truly a God of Justice then how can He send guilty people to heaven?" This question is a much better objection to Christianity. This objection is actually much more difficult to answer as it deals with the heart of Scripture in a very profound nature. But in our culture today, we have all been taught that we are inherently good and deserve the best, so I won't go to Hell, God loves everyone, I mean look at me, I'm amazing, I'll make a great addition to God's kingdom....

Biblically, we've all sinned and are evil. We deserve hell. We do not go to hell because we rejected Jesus. We go to hell because we have offended a perfect, holy, just, and righteous God who must punish sin. Another fundamental problem within all of this, is, the understanding of the nature of man. Since we think that we're all basically good, when someone is sent to hell, we picture them begging and pleading God to let them out. That they're begging for forgiveness, that they're repenting, and screaming "why me?" However, this is not the picture that the New Testament draws of the condition of man in hell. The picture that is drawn several times uses the phrase, "with weeping and gnashing of teeth". We automatically assume this is a weeping of repentance, but we forget that there is the part of gnashing of teeth connected to it, we don't understand what it means because we're blinded by our own culture and traditions. The phrase cannot be dichotomized, the two go together. The phrase carries a very very deep connotation of rebellion and hatred. There is no one in hell that wants to get out and be with God. There is no one repenting. The reason hell is eternal is because they don't stop sinning, they become more and more evil. They grow in their rebellion against God. The only way they would be willing to go to heaven is if they could rip God off of His throne have Him executed and then replace Him as King.

One of the guys that I listen to has said, "the only difference between you and Hitler, is the Grace of God." God is actively restraining the wickedness of man. Just for kicks, think about this, what would our country be like if there were no laws and no one to uphold those laws?

But at the final judgment when God says, "depart from me, I never knew you" man will be given over entirely to his own self, that of unbridled unyielding evil. There will be nothing holding this individual back. That is why the death of Christ had to be much more than what the Watchtower claims. When I read the argument put forward by the Watchtower, that if Christ were really God, the ransom would be too great. It just makes me shake my head in disgust. God had to redeem His people from an eternal weight of sin against an eternal God, and only incarnate deity could accomplish such a task.

Q. If people believe that Jesus is only Gods son can they too attain salvation?

(To the Witness this means that, Jesus is God's first and only Creation)

A. Well I would say, that anyone who denies that Jesus is God isn't saved in the first place, so there is no salvation to loose. John 8:24 says,

"Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins." NASB

Joh 8:24 Therefore I said to YOU, YOU will die in YOUR sins. For if YOU do not believe that I am [he], YOU will die in YOUR sins." NWT

There is so much to unpack here its ridiculous. Unfortunately, the terms used here don't come across to us as strong as they would to the Greek speaking Jews. It is such a strong reference to Christ being God, that the Watchtower had to bend over backwards to change the translation of the verse that Jesus is referring to in the NWT.

Specifically, I'm talking about the phrase that Jesus used "I Am". The "he" isn't there in the Greek, and in my personal opinion it can do a disservice to interpretation. But even then, there is a reason that they put the "He" there in the text. Who is the "he" that Jesus is referring to? How did the Jews understand Jesus when He made this comment? When one takes the whole context of John, starting with the prologue and moving through chapter ten, Jesus makes a lot of statements, to the point of climax in Chapter ten.

Jesus refers to this term "I Am" in John 8:24,58;13:19;18:5,6 for starters. However, you might find it ironic and slightly intriguing after you read all of this to notice that the Watchtower translated this phrase in verse 24 as "I Am" and the same phrase in verse 58, of the same chapter as "I have been". Same phrase in Greek, same syntactical usage, same context, etc. I wonder why?

Jesus, when talking to these Greek speaking Jews appeals back to the Septuagint's rendering of "ehyeh asher ehyeh" or in Greek "Ego Eimi". This phrase first appears in Exodus 3:14 during YHWH's appearance to Moses in the burning bush. If you read the Watchtower's rendering of this phrase and their reasons why, you'll see that they have translated (I hate to say translated as it doesn't do this term justice) "ehyeh asher ehyeh" as "I SHALL PROVE TO BE WHAT I SHALL PROVE TO BE". This is NOT a translation but a philosophical interpretation of the phrase in question. I would quickly contend that this is poor translation work. You cannot jump from a formal translation to a dynamic equivalent back to a formal translation so quickly, and expect to retain the proper meaning for the reader...at least not without a decent footnote explaining what you have done. Even then, this is a very poor interpretation of one of the names of YHWH.

In the "Torah: A Modern Commentary, pp. 404-406" and "ETZ HAYIM: Torah and Commentary, pp. 329-330" both note that the phrase in Hebrew can mean either, "I Am who I Am", "I Am what I Am", "I will be who I will be", "I will be what I will be", or even possibly, "I will be what I am" or vis-versa. These are the only literal translations you can have. They then go on to explain that this phrase has the connotation of eternal yet temporal, transcendent yet imminent, absolute/pure being, unchanging, etc. They go on to explain that this name is if not at least equal with, but the same as YHWH. It is a further revelation of YHWH to Moses. It is specific than Elohim, and more descriptive than YHWH would have been to Moses. Yes, YHWH is not the only name that YHWH claims for Himself, Ehyeh, is another.

So, when Jesus, speaking to the Pharisees, says, "unless you believe that I Am, you will be lost in your sins", the Greek speaking Jews would have understood Him to say, "unless you believe that I am God, you are not saved."

This angered the Jews and they began to argue with Jesus. Jesus then claims that He is the "I Am" again in v.58 and the Jews could take it no longer and so they picked up stones to kill Him. Why would they want to kill Him? Because the penalty for blasphemy is death, but as it says in v.59, Jesus hid and escaped out of the Temple. In chapter nine Jesus has a run in with the Pharisees again, this time it is over his healing of a blind man on the Sabbath. In conversation with these men, the Pharisees proclaim that they are disciples of Moses (v.28), Jesus knowing full well that they understood His claims to being God. The Jews continue to listen to Jesus, just waiting for the prime opportunity for a reason to kill Him. So they continue to argue with Him hoping to get Jesus to say something that was incriminating. In Ch.10, v.24, they are getting so impatient that they out right ask Him, "how long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly."

The argument climaxes: " At that time the Feast of the Dedication took place at Jerusalem; it was winter, and Jesus was walking in the temple in the portico of Solomon. The Jews then gathered around Him, and were saying to Him, "How long will You keep us in suspense? If You are the Christ, tell us plainly." Jesus answered them, "I told you, and you do not believe; the works that I do in My Father's name, these testify of Me. "But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep. "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand. "My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. "I and the Father are one."

"I and the Father are one" in Greek doesn't mean, "we are the same" it means, "we are in perfect union". So not only is Jesus claiming to be YHWH by saying that he is the "I Am" that was revealed to Moses, but He's claiming to be YHWH by saying that he is equal to Him. The Jews understood this perfectly,

Joh 10:31-33 "The Jews picked up stones again to stone Him. Jesus answered them, "I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?" The Jews answered Him, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God."

If the Jews had been mistaken, Jesus would have said, "Wait guys, you're completely misunderstanding me, I am not claiming this." but no, He accepts the charges and goes on to argue further,

John 10:37-39 "If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; but if I do them, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, so that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father."

Jesus is rephrasing all that He has claimed before, but merely clarifying it. The Jews can't take it anymore and try to try grab Him to try Him for claiming to be God. But, Jesus again eludes their attempts,

"Therefore they were seeking again to seize Him, and He eluded their grasp."

I hope that was helpful to you in answering your question and then some. Take care man.

Q. So Mark, the people who I have grown to love over the years and my family won't make it to God's new world? Because they don't believe that Jesus is God?

A. Hey bud, I really don't want to treat your question flippantly. These are real struggles that hit home, literally. As we look at Scripture, and are being lead by the Holy Spirit, and we just can't understand why something is the way it is, we pray as Paul did, "Father, help me in my unbelief". We want to scream "not fair" but at the same time there is this deep seated sense that we are all guilty, that there is no one righteous no not one. As we search through the Scriptures and yearn to grow closer to our God and renew our minds according to His thoughts, we slowly begin to say, God will you do this or do that, but not my will be done but yours. Your thoughts are not my thoughts, your ways are not my ways (Is 55)....and yet I love you and you love me, not because of who I am but because of your love for your Christ.

I know what you're going through [name removed]. Do you know roughly what percentage of feedback we get through the ministry is actually positive? Maybe 5-10%. The rest of it is vitriolic hate, rants, and ravings about how evil we are for tearing down other peoples beliefs, beliefs of people who are good people, as they say. As if our salvation were dependent upon who WE ARE... Imagine what my heart feels like... We go through all the work and study that we do, to be honest to the text of Scripture, to be honest to the teaching of the Watchtower and the First Presidency of the LDS Church and instead of, "hey good questions, I'll have to think about that and get back to you". We get "Go F@#K yourselves, you arrogant pricks!". That's encouraging!

Like I said in my response...we aren't "damned" because we don't believe such and such. We are damned because we have sinned and transgressed a Holy God. However, God is Truth, and when God saves us His Spirit leads us into truth (not perfect omniscient truth however, but that is a different topic) and when we accept a teaching like, Jesus is only the first Creation of Jehovah God, by which all other things were created. We have not bowed our knees to the one true God but a mere idol (1 Cor 8) that has been created in the minds of depraved men (2 Cor 4:4ff.) who, instead of accepting what Scripture taught, even though it was difficult to understand, they twisted it to their own destruction (2 Peter 3:16). Jesus stated plainly, that those who are truly saved are those who believe that he is YHWH. Whether I like this or not, whether it makes me feel good or not...truth is not contingent upon how I feel about it. So I accept it, and I say, God, you are Holy, you are Sovereign, and I trust in you that you will accomplish your will and your plan, and that you will be glorified in the end. Take care bro.

Q. I am in a predicament. On Thursday I am going to [name removed] to do seldom worked territory. I am supposed to preach falsehoods about what the bible teaches. I can either a. refuse to go and refuse to be part of a systematic conversion process for people to be ignorant and not know about the glory of God and be shunned 2. Try to help people just read their bibles 3 Just go along with it and try not to feel blood guilty. Any ideas on what I should do? This is really important. Something has to be done but I don't know what. I'm praying...

A. NICE!!! (I'm being sarcastic). My first inclinations, would probably be, either sit down with your Mom or your Dad, which ever one is more reasonable. Lets say its your Dad, tell him, "Dad, you and Mom know that I am going through some difficult times right now in my understanding of Scripture and my understanding of doctrine (you can use the word beliefs, just make this your own and use your own words). Tell him, "you guys know that I love you very very much and I want to be respectful and honor you both as well. But as of right now, I'd be willing to go with you, but I cannot conscientiously teach that which I am really struggling with."

From a psychological standpoint, your parents are more than likely using this trip and having you teach as a tool to psychologically immerse you in the teachings of the Watchtower, which would create in you an emotional attachment to the Watchtower, which would create more confusion and instability, thus causing you to flee to the Watchtower's teachings, as their teachings are so cut and dry, rigidly dogmatic, and have the appearance of stability. Which is why a lot of people inadvertently go into the Organization because its an escape from the bombardment of information overload, which generally creates a paralysis (deer caught in the head lights motif) and fear, and they don't know how to respond, and then comes along the door knockers (I don't mean that derogatorily) and they seem to have all the answers.

So, you need to be humble, do not argue, do not bicker, do not try and "one-up them". Basically say, I cannot teach that which I am unsure about. If they start talking over you, you can politely ask, "Dad, I don't mean this to be disrespectful, but would you teach something that you were struggling with?" If he answers you, and you don't know what to say. Just say, let me think about it, and I'll get back to you. Then you can write me and we'll go from there.

Just take it easy, don't panic. God is gracious, He is sovereign, and He knows what He is doing.

Q. These are great tips. However, what if they bring up apostasy, even though apostasy is clearly not present at all. That's what they always do and they back me up into a corner. For instance: My parents would say: Have you been going on those apostate websites again? Have you done this or that? Then it will bring up when my mom starts crying again because she thinks that I am going to die and father starts to get mad because I am causing mom's distress. Any suggestions? How do I prove that it is not apostasy that I am or at least was looking at? Man. I just don't want to be shunned or bring back the pain.

A. I understand you're thoughts. Don't lie, but at the same time don't make certain touchy issues the topic. If my parents were to say something like you just brought up. I would say something along the lines, "even if I were visiting specific sights (and no I'm not going to apostate websites) I am trying to do what Scripture teaches, and investigating all things and hold fast to that which is true (1 Thes 5:21). I don't want to accept something just because my parents are telling me to. I need to believe this for myself. And I can't teach something just because someone tells me to." If your Mom cries a lot, then talk to your Dad without your Mom there.

Q. Hey Mark. I'm back and I have more questions. 1. What else is the watchtower not being truthful about so I don't sound ignorant. 2. I'm sure that Jesus is God. However, if he is God, how did he die since God is immortal? (a point that witnesses like to run into the ground) also, how is the holy spirit part of the trinity and how would you explain to a witness that the idea of Jesus being God is not so far fetched after all. Thank you, I look forward to hearing from you.

A. 1. What else is the watchtower not being truthful about so I don't sound ignorant?

Alright, within the history of the Christian church, theologians (theologian simply means “one who studies God”) down through the ages have distinguished between what are called the “essentials” and “non-essentials”. Specifically, those doctrines or teachings with are necessary in order to claim to be a true Christian, hence saved. I think I need to clarify this point real quick.

The Watchtower loves to emphasize that knowledge is what saves/preserves us for paradise. They emphasize this so much that they wrongly translate John 17:3, “This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ.” (NWT). This is not what Christians mean when they say “the essentials of salvation”. What we're saying is that God, who is truth, will lead us into truth by His Spirit. However, this does not mean exhaustive omniscient knowledge or even perfected knowledge. This is because sin has radically effected us even to our core (Noetic effect of sin: coming from the Greek nosis meaning mind). So this is why Christians do not always agree on various things and one of the reasons there are denominations (there are others). However, this doesn't mean that we need an infallible oracle from God such as the Watchtower.

One of the great doctrines of the Reformation that was central was the doctrine of Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone). As Paul said to Timothy in 2 Timothy 3:16, “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.” Scripture is θεόπνευστος, literally God breathed, and is sufficient to prepare the man of God in all these areas. There is by Biblical standards, no need for the Watchtower.

But....this does not mean, by any stretch, that we then become rogue individualists interpreting Scripture however we please. God has given the Scriptures to the church, which is made up of individuals. In the first letter Paul wrote to Timothy, he notes “1Tim. 3:15 but in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth.” The church is who is responsible for the dispensing of God's word, in teaching and in the administration of the sacraments, not the Watchtower. So God has established the church, and through out the last two milenia, God has taken the church through various trials that has forced it to define and clarify its doctrine.

Through these definitions and clarifications we have the creeds, councils, synods and pronouncements of the church such as the (Quicumque vult) Athanasian Creed, the Creed of Nicaea, the Nicene Creed, the Canons of the Council of Orange, the Definition of Chalcedon, the Westminster Confession of Faith, the Scots Confession, The Heidelberg Catechism, Synod of Dort, etc. These then become the rule and standard by which the church follows, insofar as they are in accord with Scripture. Thus, when a new movement comes along such as the “International Bible Students” (this was the name before Rutherford changed it to Jehovah's Witnesses) and Charles Taze Russel is teaching things that are completely contrary to historic Christianity and even saying that his books, Studies in the Scriptures, were as necessary as the Bible. This causes the church to stand up and say “wait a minute”. But however, after the reformation, a movement came along called the Anabaptist Movement, which taught baptism by immersion (a practice Russell carried over). The church said basically said as Paul did concerning an issue such as this, Romans 14:5 “One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind.” So within the church, there are “essentials” and “non-essentials”, that which unites us and that which divides us, but are still Christians. But when a teaching concerns such things as the nature of Christ, the nature of Salvation, the nature of God, this is cause for declaring anathema. As one of my favorite teachers once said, “if you are right in every area of doctrine but you are wrong on who God is, you are wrong enough to loose your soul for all eternity.” Basically, if you have the wrong understanding of God, you have an idol, not God.

This was a very long way to answer your question, but I think a much needed foundation. I could have probably said a lot more, as there will need to be clarification on many points, but all this to say, that on the essentials, the Watchtower has everything wrong.

2. I'm sure that Jesus is God. However, if he is God, how did he die since God is immortal? (a point that witnesses like to run into the ground).

Yes, I am very familiar with this argument (if Jesus is God, then who was running the universe when Jesus died?) Its quite irritating because it demonstrates a lot of ignorance. First, this, first and foremost has to deal with the incarnation. This does not mean however, that the doctrine of the Trinity has nothing to do with the atonement of Christ, but merely a separate topic of Systematic Theology that must be distinguished as to have proper clarity. So, I think its necessary to post the Athanasian Creed once again, at least in part in order to demonstrate what is being taught,

“Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation; that he also believe faithfully the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess; that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man; God, of the Essence of the Father; begotten before the worlds; and Man, of the Essence of his Mother, born in the world. Perfect God; and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead; and inferior to the Father as touching his Manhood. Who although he is God and Man; yet he is not two, but one Christ. One; not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh; but by assumption of the Manhood into God. One altogether; not by confusion of Essence; but by unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man; so God and Man is one Christ...”

This portion is describing what is called in Christology (the study of Jesus), a fifty cent word, “the hypostatic union”. Jesus is fully God and fully man, not one nature, but two. So when talking about the death of Jesus, the Trinity, and the incarnation, we are not saying that the Father died, nor are we saying that the Spirit died, nor are we saying that the nature of deity of the Son died. We are saying that the Human Nature of Jesus died. The Watchtower's position presents them with a problem with the text of Scripture, in John 2:19-21, “Jesus answered them, 'Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.' The Jews then said, 'It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?' But He was speaking of the temple of His body.” What temple was Jesus talking about? Read the last phrase, “He was speaking of the temple of His body”. What did Jesus say He would do? Jesus said He, Himself would raise his own body”. If Jesus is dead, how can He resurrect Himself if Watchtower theology is correct? The disciples, including the author, John, recognized what Jesus was claiming because in verse twenty-two it says, “So when He was raised from the dead, His disciples remembered that He said this; and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had spoken.”

3. How is the holy spirit part of the Trinity?

The Scriptures say that the Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God, and yet the Bible teaches that there is only one God. Upon this basis, along with a proper understanding of Redemptive History and the Atonement of Christ in relationship to the Father and the Holy Spirit, the doctrine of the Trinity comes to fruition. Specifically, in Acts where Ananias and Sapphira bring the money from the land to Peter, chapter 5:3-4, “But Peter said, "Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back some of the price of the land? "While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not under your control? Why is it that you have conceived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God." Peter here is equating the Holy Spirit with God Himself, its a culmination of thought. The Watchtower teaches, as you know, that holy spirit is the same as a radar beam. How do you lie to a radar beam? You cannot lie to an inanimate object. What does it mean to say that so and so lied to the wind? This may sound esoteric and mystical, but it is meaningless

4. How would you explain to a witness that the idea of Jesus being God is not so far fetched after all?

Well, I'd say that apart from the merciful working of the Triune God of Scripture working in a Witness' life, they cannot and will not see it. So, first and foremost, prayer. Two, preparation, you have to prepare yourself to be able to answer questions or at least be able to point them to a source where they can find the answer for themselves. Learn to ask leading questions, not arrogantly, if they're honest questions, then they need honest well thought out answers. To quote Paul's letter to Timothy once again, 2 Timothy 2:24-26 “The Lord's bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will.” What is repentance? A turning from sin to the one true God, and in Galatians 5:20, heresy is is one of the works of the flesh (sin). Hence, being prepared in prayer, and in the proper use of Scripture, that is the means that God uses by which He exercises His saving Grace in our lives.

I hope this all helps, it was long but hopefully useful. I'll try to get to your latest question tomorrow as it is getting late and I've had a long day. Take care man!

Q. So the trinity is all characteristics of the living God Jehovah? Without the watchtowers slant on the trinity i am perplexed.

A. Weird, I was just going through all of our correspondence, and I wasn't notified of your comment here. I never saw it. Stupid facebook. Yes, the Watchtower has no clue what they're talking about when they talk about the Trinity. If anything, this proves to me that they're not the voice of Jehovah just because they misrepresent and don't understand this doctrine. If Jehovah is all knowing, then He'd know what the Christians teach well enough to debunk it. They don't understand, that the term "persons" comes from the Latin. It doesn't mean "individuals" but what we're saying is that the Triune God is better understood as, three co-eternal, co-existent, centers of self-consciousness. We're not saying that the Trinity is "three persons in in person" or "three smaller gods in one big god". The Watchtower frequently mis-portrays the teaching this way.