How To Deal With Jehovah’s Witnesses

From Fancied Freedom. Part 1

How to know you’re talking to a Jehovah’s Witness

It’s quite simple, actually. If you are asked whether you read the Bible, and you reply by saying, “Yes, I am Christian,” and the person kindly ignores you but proceeds to hand you literature on how to know what the Bible says, you are talking to a Jehovah’s Witness.

That was my experience today, as I got out of my car and got my son out of his car seat, and tried to make my way inside the house to eat lunch. Two women walk up to me from their parked car across the street and begin speaking with me about some home Bible studies they lead. And then the conversation continues with me receiving a “biblical” education even though I had already stated that I read the Bible. Perhaps I should’ve been more clear, maybe saying that I “religiously” read the Bible and know “exactly” what it says about suffering, sin and salvation. (Well, I don’t know it all but I know what’s necessary.)

In any event, I was completely dumbfounded the rest of the afternoon at how she just ignored the fact that I read the Bible. Did that not even matter? Usually when I meet someone and find out they are Christian, I’m really excited because we have Christ in common. However, that was not the case today, because I had nothing in common with this woman. She doesn’t know Christ – she knows a false christ as part of a false religion. Therefore, I shall pray for her, and for my response if she decides to return with more propaganda. Since I believe in a Sovereign God, I believe there are no coincidences and there could possibly be a chance to show her the true Christ.

For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. No wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. Therefore it is not surprising if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness, whose end will be according to their deeds. 2 Corinthians 11:13-15

Part 2

 

Approached by the Jehovah’s Witness again

You may remember a previous post about an impromptu meeting with two Jehovah’s Witnesses. I was approached at home as I was unloading my car. Even though I told the kind ladies that I am Christian and do read the Bible, they proceeded to hand me their literature. My husband threw it away.

So, today, as I’m in the middle of trying to feed my son lunch, a knock at the door interrupts me. Looking through the peephole, I recognize that my visitor is none other than one of the Jehovah’s Witnesses that greeted me a week ago. Hesitantly, I opened the door and our conversation began.

She asked if I read through the materials she handed me and I said I did but explained that I am born again, go to a Christian, Bible-based church and do not believe what Jehovah’s Witnesses believe (they don’t believe in the deity of Christ or His physical resurrection.) In a somewhat defensive tone, she told me that even though I am not the same religion, we have God in common and it doesn’t mean we can’t talk.

I never said we couldn’t talk – she didn’t listen to me and I explained to her that I would be glad to talk with her, that I do talk to people of other faiths. But that I profess Jesus Christ as my Savior and read my Bible and go to my church and that I do not believe what Jehovah’s Witnesses believe so I did not need her literature. Again, she said there is no reason why we can’t talk. She proceeded to show me some Bible verses (in her Bible) and asked me questions about the sinfulness of man and God’s Kingdom.

By this time, my son was screaming for his lunch so I kindly explained that I needed to go and tend to my godly duties of caring for my son and she thanked me for my time. I’m not sure if she’ll be back but I certainly need to be better prepared and maybe even ask her some questions.

Again, my explanation of my faith fell on deaf ears. It was even funnier (is that a word?) how she thought I had said I couldn’t talk to her when I actually had said I am born again and go to a Christian church. The things we “think” we hear when we’re not listening.

Need to know how to respond to a JW? Here’s a good Web site.

Jehovah’s Witnesses Videos

O Magnum Mysterium 3: Word of the Father Now in Flesh Appearing

From Sharper Iron. Read Part 1 and Part 2.

If Jesus Christ were not truly and perfectly God, He could not be our mediator. If Jesus Christ were not truly and perfectly human, He could not be our mediator. This much, Scripture makes clear. Our problem is that we have absolutely no experience with divine-human beings other than Jesus Christ. He is absolutely unique, the only one of His kind. For that reason, Christians have struggled to find words to express just who Jesus is.

With the Athanasian Creed we affirm that, as to their deity, the Father and Son are equally glorious, eternal, uncreated, incomprehensible, and almighty. Yet they are not two Gods, but one. So we confess. Nevertheless, we also confess that we do not comprehend what we affirm. While the relationship of the Father to the Son involves no logical contradiction, it is inexplicable and impenetrable to the human mind. It rises above reason. We do not understand how such a thing can be.

Already bewildered, we then encounter the full humanity of the Son. Here we discover a person who, as to His deity, is coequal, coeternal, and consubstantial with God the Father, but who, without ceasing to be fully God, also becomes fully human. We are asked to believe that a person who is equal with God is also one of us.

Not everyone agrees. Often, people reject what they cannot explain. Worse yet, they modify the truth to fit some human explanation. So they have done with the person of Christ. Some have denied His full deity. Ebionites saw Jesus as a good man, a teacher, and a prophet who kept the law. Arians explained Jesus as God’s first creation, so highly exalted above others that He could be called “a god,” but who was still not properly “God.” Adoptionists (Dynamic Monarchians) understood Jesus as a human who was elevated to divine status by some act of God.

Some have denied the distinction of the Son from the Father. The Sabellians (Modalistic Monarchians) affirmed that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were simply three modes in which God presented Himself and not actual personal distinctions. As the same man might appear as husband to his wife, as teacher to his students, and as peer to his fellows, God presented Himself at one time as Father, at another as Son, and at another as Holy Spirit. Ultimately, however, the Trinity is a mask, and God is one and only one person.

Others have denied Jesus’ complete humanity. Docetists believed that the human body of Jesus was a mere phantom projected by the divine Christ. Apollinarians taught that Jesus possessed a human body and soul, but that the place of the rational, human spirit was taken by the divine Logos (in other words, Christ was 3/3 divine but only 2/3 human). Eutychians affirmed complete divine and human natures but saw the human nature as so recessive as to be almost completely overwhelmed by the divine—rather like a drop of honey in an ocean of water. Still others have rejected the integrity of the person of Jesus Christ. Cerinthians believed that the divine Christ descended upon the human Jesus, only to abandon Him before the cross. Nestorians affirmed the full deity and full humanity of Christ but divided those two natures into two distinct persons, joined rather like Siamese twins.

The equal and opposite reaction was for others to affirm the unity of the person by denying the distinctiveness of the natures. Monophysites collapsed the divinity and humanity of Christ into a single nature. In principle this nature was supposed to be both divine and human, but in practice the divine so overwhelmed the human that Monophysitism became a reaffirmation of Eutychianism. A more subtle form of denying the distinction between the natures is Monothelitism, which denies that Jesus had a human will. De facto, this belief is a denial of the completeness of the human nature of Jesus.

These are not merely ancient heresies. They have had a tendency to reappear throughout church history. The Jehovah’s Witnesses are unreconstructed Arians. Mormonism applies Adoptionist principles, not only to Christ, but to all humanity. Many liberals have regarded Jesus simply as a human teacher or prophet, and contemporary biblical scholarship is witnessing a resurgence of interest in Gnostic understandings of Christ. Modalistic Monarchianism shows up in the teachings both of Witness Lee and of the so-called “Jesus Only Movement,” represented by the United Pentecostal Church. The Coptic Orthodox Church still defends Monophysitism and condemns the Council of Chalcedon as “divisive.”

Our understanding of the person of Christ has been hammered out in opposition to these heresies. Each new heretical theory forced Christians to return to the Scriptures in order to test the theory against the text. At each new controversy, Christians erected a new barrier against heresy. They were forced to say, “Scripture teaches this but not that. We may say it this way but not that way.” This process resulted in the adoption of several public summary statements, each of which was more specific than the one that preceded it.

At the end of the day, here is what we must affirm. If Jesus Christ were not true God, He could not be our savior. If Jesus Christ were not true human, He could not be our savior. If Jesus Christ were not one person, he could not be our savior. If the person of Christ were divided, then He could not be our savior. If the natures were combined or transmuted, then He could not be our savior. All of this belief is summarized and elaborated in the formula of Chalcedon.

Nothing is more important to Christianity than the incarnation of Jesus Christ. A false step here can lead us to deny the gospel and plunge us into apostasy. We learn about the old heresies so that we may confront the new ones. We confront the new ones so that we may keep the gospel pure. We aim for precision in our understanding of Jesus Christ so that we may trust Him and worship Him as He is, rather than worshiping a false Jesus whom we have manufactured in our own idolatrous hearts.

In one sense, we are indebted to the heretics. Everything that we need to know about Jesus Christ is in the text of Scripture. If we had not been challenged by the heretics, however, we never would have studied the Scriptures as they deserved to be studied. We never would have noticed the depth and texture and richness of the biblical teaching concerning the incarnation. The heretics have forced us to discover exactly what Scripture says and what it forbids us to say.

We cannot explain the incarnation. We cannot fully comprehend the notion of a theanthropic person. But we can learn to be precise in saying who He is and who He is not. We can know Him. We can trust Him. We can love Him. We can worship Him. Word of the Father, now in flesh appearing: O come, let us adore Him, Christ the Lord.

Christmas Carols Christina Rossetti (1830-1894)

Lo! Newborn Jesus
Soft and weak and small,
Wrapped in baby’s bands
By His Mother’s hands,
Lord God of all.

Lord God of Mary,
Whom His Lips caress
While He rocks to rest
On her milky breast
In helplessness.

Lord God of shepherds
Flocking through the cold.
Flocking through the dark
To the only Ark,
The only Fold.

Lord God of all things
Be they near or far,
Be they high or low;
Lord of storm and snow,
Angel and star.

Lord God of all men,—
My Lord and my God!
Thou who lovest me,
Keep me close to Thee
By staff and rod.

Lo! newborn Jesus
Loving great and small,
Love’s free Sacrifice,
Opening Arms and Eyes
To one and all.

^{This essay is by Dr. Kevin T. Bauder, president of Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN).}

How The Oneness Pentecostal Jesus Only Doctrine Was Originally Justified

Background information: my wife reports that while driving recently she was listening to a local religious call – in show on a gospel radio station. A caller, a recently saved fellow, told the pastor answering questions that he had just started attending a church whose pastor told him that he needed to be baptized in the name of Jesus only. He said that he related that information to his wife, who told him that he had to be baptized in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. The call – in show pastor told the fellow that he should not listen to his wife, but rather the pastor, that he should be baptized in the name of Jesus only. This pastor then asserted “the Name Father, Son, and Holy Spirit has no power.”

First off, the claims by the Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Jesus only folks, etc. that the original apostolic doctrines were discarded and that their group is the true church restoring the true faith … well they have been around for awhile. The first known group to make this claim were the “adoptionists”, who claimed that Jesus Christ was born a mere man (though supremely virtuous), received God’s “anointing” at baptism, and did not reach divine status until His resurrection. This doctrine originated in 190 AD, and within a few decades  its followers started claiming that their doctrine was the original doctrine first given to universally accepted by the church until it was changed when the church was led by Zephyrinus, the bishop of Rome from 198 AD to 217 AD. Fortunately there were still people around that were alive before Zephyrinus became bishop of Rome to refute their lies, and further Hippolytus was easily able to trace documents, doctrines, and teachers into the first century, which was the apostolic era itself. So the same lies that Charles Taze Russell, Joseph Smith, and the neo – gnostics like Elaine Pagels and Dan Brown are currently pushing

Second, the notion that Jesus Christ and Michael the archangel were one and the same did not originate with Ellen G. White of the Seventh Day Adventist denomination. Instead, it was first proposed in a crude form by second century figure Hermas. The source of Hermas’ confusion on this matter seems to be that put the Holy Spirit in the place of Jesus Christ in his Similitudes writings. Also in those writings he described a council of six angels, with Michael as the lead, who were called most venerable, holy, and glorious, and were also were given supreme power over the people of God, to pronounce judgment, etc.

Third, the original Jesus only oneness pentecostal, a late second – early third century figure named Noetus, who along with his followers justified their doctrines by rejecting John 1:1-18 by refusing to interpret it literally. In those days, it was a common practice to resort to an “allegorical” or “spiritual” interpretation of scripture whenever one encountered something that they did not want to believe or obey. It was most commonly used to A) discard things in scripture that did not conform to the Hellenistic mindset and B) bash Jews, which appears to have been a beloved pasttime of the early church after the Jewish Christian – Gentile Christian schism. But of course allegorizing and outright taking things out of context was also broadly used by heretics, as it was in this case. Please keep in mind that the views of Noetus actually predated the Council of Nicea by 100 years and the Council of Constantinople, where the full Trinity doctrine was adopted, by over 150 years. Despite what the oneness crowd claims, “Jesus only” and similar was not the doctrine being debated at Nicea and Constantinople, but rather Arianism, which rejected both Christianity and oneness by claiming that Jesus Christ was a created being that was not divine. The Trinity doctrine, then, was fully articulated as a response to Jehovah’s Witness – ism, not modalism, which had been rejected over 100 years earlier. Please consider that it was in response to the teachings of Noetus that Tertullian became the first to refer God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit as “Persons”, and the document in which he did so was produced in 213 AD. Not that Tertullian was an innovator, but rather built on the writings of Irenaeus, and he on other church leaders.

Oh yes, and as to the claim that the early church baptized in the name of Jesus only, the Didache (the Teachings of The Twelve Apostles), which was written as early as 140 AD, says otherwise. So do the writings of Theophilus, who was born around 115 AD and became bishop of Antioch in 169 AD.  Not coincidentally, this same Theophilus is considered the first person to use the word “Trinity.”

Source: Early Christian Doctrines by J.N.D. Kelly.

Interesting That Athanasius Is Not Studied During Black History Month

Athanasius, called “the black dwarf” by his heretic opponents, is considered by some the one who saved Christianity when Constantine converted to the Arianism heresy (very similar to what Jehovah’s Witnesses believe) and began persecuting Trinitarian Christians. In contrast to the much better known Augustine, Athanasius was never considered a great intellect. He also was not regarded as a great orator, writer, or politician. So how, then, did he prevail against the might of the Roman Empire? By remaining obedient to the example of Jesus Christ and being a humble, pious man of the people who always sacrificed (to the point of having to hide as a fugitive in the desert among the monks, with whom he was very popular and trusted and as such helped hide him from the Roman authorities), never compromised, and never sought the favor of the wealthy or powerful elites in the church or government. It is fitting that Athanasius, whose entire career was one of battle, striving, and struggle, did not live to see the victory that he strove for: the final rejection of the many various heresies and formal adoption of the Trinity formula in its present form. Instead, that battle was won by three members of his beloved monk community: Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa, and Basil shortly after his death. I believe that it is because it was not the Will of God for the man who spent his life battling an institutional imperial state church to receive validation from that same entity. Rather, Athanasius lived and died according to Acts 5:29b: We ought to obey God rather than men.

http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bio/152.html

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athanasius_of_Alexandria

ancienthistory.about.com/b/2006/05/10/athanasius.htm

The Spurious Glitter Of Pantheism

[splashcast BXXK1468QM]

Jehovah’s Witness Dies After Refusing Blood Transfusion During Childbirth

christiantoday.com/article/mother.dies.after.refusing.blood.transfusion.over.faith.fears/14391.htm

LONDON – Jehovah’s Witnesses said on Monday they are concerned for the family of a young mother who died after giving birth to twins because her faith prevented her from accepting a blood transfusion. Media reports said Emma Gough, 22, from Telford, Shropshire, gave birth to a baby boy and girl at the Royal Shrewsbury Hospital on Oct. 25.

But complications set in after she suffered severe blood loss and she died hours later. Jehovah’s Witnesses believe the Bible prohibits the accepting of blood and that it is a sin to do so. Followers are advised to make clear to hospital staff before any operation that they do not want a transfusion, and to sign a medical directive card making clear their choice. Tom Taylor, chief executive of the Shrewsbury and Telford NHS Trust, said in a statement: “We have offered our deepest condolences to the family, and our thoughts are with them at this difficult time.”

Terry Lovejoy, spokesman for Jehovah’s Witnesses in Telford, told Reuters: “We are very concerned for the family at a time of grief for them.”He said he did not want to comment further until the full facts had emerged and a hospital review had taken place. Newspapers said Gough’s husband Anthony, 24, is caring for the twins.

The State Of Christianity VI: A Messianic Jew Comments On The Church

 From Randy Weiss of Crosstalk.com, who can be reached at randy@crosstalk.org

As a Jewish believer, I have a commentary to share about Christian America. It seems to me that churches, and the Christians they house, have become a dime a dozen? The Church is to be God’s vehicle for change in this world. Christianity is to be the salt and light of a tasteless darkened world. Instead, it seems that we have been dulled by compromise and dimmed by confusion. Churches seem to exist on every corner, but those who attend often seem to have too much in common with the world.

Is this right? We preach Christ, and therefore offer hope–the most valuable commodity on earth, yet, many churchesexhibit death instead of life; darkness instead of daylight. Mausoleums of faith do not spawn life. They merely house the dead.

Undoubtedly, the true Body of Christ is alive and pure and awaiting Christ’s return but often, it seems that God’s remnant is well hidden from our culture. Lights under a bushel I guess. Even our revivals seem to proliferate without any power to penetrate. Unfortunately, when it comes to actually being engaged in revival, after all is said and done,there is still more said than done. Even revivals have been marked down to a dime a dozen. Revivals aremarketed like sporting events, promoted like rock concerts, and visited like religious shrines where celebrities are exalted and their magic charms sold to Christian consumers.

Remember, only dead things need revival. Until we realize how dead we are, we will not be poised for the change from death to life. True revival will not come until we reach the end of ourselves. If we can reach death to ourselves, we will attain life in Christ. At that point, we can be used of God. Maybe, if He chooses, God will then revive the Church in our days. But the indications suggest that secular society is winning the culture war. The world is determining the standards by which the Church should live instead of the other way around.

According to the name game mentioned earlier, world revival seems to be happening for the Moslems. Many
will agree that they have assumed the prestigious title of the fastest growing religion on earth. That is why
around the globe, you are more likely to run into a little Mohammed than anyone else. I mean no disrespect
when I say this. The Moslems are doing a better job of spreading their gospel than the Church. On a per person basis, I think I can safely say that even the Mormons and the Jehovah’s Witnesses have more missionaries and soul-winners – or losers, depending on your perspective – than mainline Christian denominations.

Why is that? Do the cults have more truth? Of course not. Do false religions deserve more adherents because they are more committed than Christians? I hope not. Do they have more power from their master than we do from ours? Our God is Lord of all so there can be no more powerful force anywhere. Do they have more love for their falsehoods than we have for God’s truth? God forbid, but could it be? Let me submit a radical idea for your consideration. I think that the people of God have been infected with greed, lust, pride, and all manner of
deception and evil. Sin is in the camp of God’s people today, and surely, judgment is coming. Listen
friend, the Church must share God’s love with whores and whoremongers, but we must stop ordaining them to
leadership, and allowing them to remain in positions of authority and influence when discovered.

The Church must be a beacon of love and tolerance to adulterers and sodomites, but we cannot allow them to remain hidden behind our pulpits or stumblingblocks on our deacon boards. Yes, we are saved by faith from every form of evil behavior, but not to return to that evil behavior as dogs to vomit. I rejoice in the fact that
grace does free us from our past, and I understand that we cannot attain God’s love through merit. It is
clear that with Paul, we must ?conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law?
(Rom. 3:28). But that doesn’t allow us to break the law and exalt sin. Paul rightly asked and answered the
rhetorical question, ?Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law?
(Rom. 3:31). OK, now I want to give you another of my opinions.

I will shock many of my friends, and delight some of my enemies, but I want to talk about homosexuality. I’m not into gay-bashing! I don’t think we should discriminate against homosexuals. If the truth be known, it seems rather unchristian. One time, I was at a conference of Christian radicals where they were passing out bumper stickers with the ghostbuster symbol saying “No Homos.” Personally, I found it to be a bit distasteful. One of the participants was bragging about his exploits at a gay parade where he snuck around plastering his
bumperstickers on nearby cars. Of course, we should stand for righteousness but evangelism carries a higher
call than unwanted bumper stickers.

Now please don’t misinterpret what I am saying. I don’t want homosexuals running boy scout camps, coaching 7th grade sports programs, or supplying soap to the gym showers, but they have the right to earn a living and not be harassed for their uninformed choices. They’re pagans, what can you expect of a pagan? Here is the real question? Is homosexuality more disgraceful than other sexual sins? Personally, I reject the contrived hierarchy of sexual sins that some Christians have fabricated. The fornicator is not better than the
adulterer. And the adulterer does not have a higher status than the sodomite or the lesbian. Someday, they
will all live together. They will all inhabit the pit of Hell if not redeemed. Is it right to present the homosexual as a worse pervert than any other pervert? Who can say that it is less sinful for a Christian man to sleep with a woman to whom he is not married than it is for an unchristian man to sleep with another man? That is silly. The number of shattered lives among children from marriages broken by adultery outrank the broken lives of offspring from homosexual unions? NO! I don’t have statistics. But I think you can take my word for that one.

I have a friend who likes to say that “Idiots beget idiots.” Well, at leasthomosexuals don’t beget much. Sexual sin, be it adultery or homosexuality is damnable, unless Christ comes to the rescue. Adultery depreciates God’s plan for the family. It destroys the lives of husbands,wives, and the children wrecked by loose zippers and short dresses.

How To Evangelize A Jehovah’s Witness

Note this very common argument used by a Jehovah’s Witness user delt01 on Youtube where I found this video to defend his false beliefs is the same that I get from ONENESS PENTECOSTALS (and Mormons) all the time:

“The divinity of Christ, and whether it’s the archangel who was born as Jesus, is just beyond human understanding. Arguing about it is pointless, and just leads to conflicts and fighting. I seriously doubt you will be cast off from God for lacking the ability to understand, much less burn in a hell of fire and suffering for all eternity. There. Everyone happy?”

Who Do Jehovah’s Witnesses Say Jesus Christ Is?

From My Jehovah’s Witness Video on Youtube created by billphillips.wordpress.com

How To Prove Jesus Christ’s Deity To A Jehovah’s Witness (Or Anyone Else)

From Proving to Jehovah’s Witnesses that Jesus is God from billphillips.wordpress.com

The Jehovah’s Witnesses have completely changed the Bible with their New World Translation. They are desperate to show that Jesus is not God. There is a long list of Scriptures that prove that Jesus is one with God, but the Jehovah’s Witnesses have done their best to edit those out of their bible. The following list works even with their bible.

Name	Applied to Jehovah	Applied to Jesus
Alpha and Omega	Revelation 1:8	Revelation 22:13
Lord of Lords	Deuteronomy  10:17	Revelation 17:14
First and Last	Isaiah 44:6	Revelation 1:17-18, 22:13
King	Isaiah 43:15	Revelation 17:14
Owner	Jeremiah 3:14	Jude 4
Husband	Hosea 2:16	Revelation 21:9
Savior	Isaiah 43:11	Luke 2:11
Judge	Genesis 18:25	2 Timothy 4:8

The Jehovah’s Witnesses have some other problems as well. In trying to demote Jesus to being lower than God, they say He’s a lesser god, but a god nonetheless (their version of John 1:1 says, “the Word was a god”). In this, they become polytheists, which I’m sure they don’t want to be, and it’s completely contradictory to even their bible.

They also say that Jesus is Michael the archangel. There are zero verses that would indicate this, and there are only a handful of verses that refer to Michael. They’ve been knocking on my door about once a month for the last few months, and I asked the last pair of ladies for their reason for believing that Jesus is Michael the archangel. They quoted Jude 9, “But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not dare to bring a slanderous accusation against him, but said, “The Lord rebuke you!” I just told them that that verse doesn’t even say anything about Jesus.

Since then, I’ve learned that that verse not only doesn’t indicate anything about Jesus being Michael the archangel, but it in fact proves that Jesus is not Michael. Michael called on the Lord to rebuke the devil, but Jesus never hesitated to rebuke the devil or demons Himself (Matthew 4:10, Matthew 17:18, Luke 4:41, etc.).

I think once you’ve got them thinking, this is a good time to go through a few of the Ten Commandments (Galatians 3:24), and conclude by saying that if they don’t have a proper understanding of who Jesus is, they won’t be saved (John 8:24). Any way you look at it, Jehovah’s Witnesses are terribly deceived, and all you can do is make an attempt to correct their understanding. Hopefully it will make them think, and they’ll get saved someday.

Are Jehovah’s Witnesses Polytheists?

I know that they deny the Holy Trinity and the deity of Jesus Christ. This fellow suggests that they have even more in common with the other main pseudo – Christian cult the Mormons in that they are polytheists (though truthfully Mormons are henotheists rather than true polytheists … and in praying to Virgin Mary and the saints, does that make Catholics polytheists?). From Jehovah’s Witnesses’ Polytheism on billphillips.wordpress.com: “I questioned whether Jehovah’s Witnesses are polytheists in a previous post, and the more I’ve thought about it, the more pivotal I believe that question is. Their version of Isaiah 9:6 is pretty much the same as any accepted translation. It says that Jesus is a mighty God; I believe they will acknowledge that Jesus is a mighty God, but not God Almighty. They believe that Jehovah is God Almighty, and Jesus is a different, but nevertheless mighty God. So, apparently, they believe in two gods, making them polytheists.

There are a lot of verses that say there is only one God, so they have a huge problem here right? I believe that as they go door to door, they are often asked about John 1:1. Their standard reply (I’ve personally heard JWs say this more than once) to the objection of inserting an “a” into the verse is that a lot of translations say, “The word is a god.” (I’ve looked through about 20 different translations, some of which may or may not be any good, and I’ve never seen it translated that way.) But if there is only one God, the mistranslation seems to be a side issue. If they believed there’s only one God, even their translation of John 1:1 would be good enough to show that Jesus is that God.

The next time I get a chance to talk to a Jehovah’s Witness, I’m going to ask him or her about their polytheism. It seems like a fairly simple way to shake the person’s understanding and confidence in their religion and begin to open their eyes to the truth.”

Why Do Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, And Oneness Pentecostals Agree?

Now Amos 3:3 says “Can two walk together, except they be agreed?” Now please note below how Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Unitarian Messianic Jews, and Oneness Pentecostals all use the same lies, and they all call true Bible – believing Christians apostates. (Incidentally, Muslims claim much the same.) Since they all agree on the same points and use the same exact terminology and historical/theological distortions and outright scriptural omissions, are they all correct? Or have they all been seduced by the same lying demons? It would be one thing if Mormonism, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Unitarian Jews, and Oneness Pentecostals all had similar religions, practices, and beliefs. But they do not. Their religions, practices, and beliefs ALL WILDLY DIVERGE. THE ONLY THING THAT THEY HAVE IN COMMON IS THAT THEY ALL USE THE SAME ARGUMENTS TO DENY TRINITY AND USE THE SAME LANGUAGE TO DESCRIBE THOSE WHO BELIEVE IN IT. See below. So, you heretics, all of you rejoice that you have joined together in opposition to God’s Tri – Unity. Compliment each other on how you all are right. Join together, and respect each other’s beliefs, and be comforted in the fact that despite all of your differences, at least you all share THAT in common. There is no reason to push each other away! Come together. Sit at the same table! Break bread together, drink wine (or grape juice as it were) while you hash out your disagreements. Do not be “harsh” (as you accuse me) or “judgmental” (as you accuse me). Only God can judge, right? Well let me tell you something, all you people living in agreement of apostasy, God WILL judge, and the result of that will be your burning in the lake of fire forever. And it is my duty to warn you, and this is part of that process. Now I invite all of you to participate in this discussion, but in doing so please give a long hard thought about how you Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and unitarian “Christians” all manage to be in such agreement on so many things, and the implications of that fact.

This is the Mormon claim that the Tri – Unity of God is a lie given by Mormon VB in a comment: “A few hundred years after Christ’s departure and the death of his apostles there was a great division among the various churches and their leaders that had developed since and many Pagan traditions had snuck in to some of the various church’s beliefs. There were six years of disputation and frequent appeals to the emperor, but finally the leaders of the various groups came together at the Council at Nicea in 325 A.D. to try to come to a unity on the topic of various issues, the understanding of the nature of God among them. Various theories were put out there for review for the people to dissect and argue their points with great zeal and eventually settled on the Trinity idea. Kind of reminds me of the Senate and how they come to an agreement on an issue…you know, put in this idea and take out that idea, take a vote on it and if it doesn’t fly go after it again. There was no spiritual revelation to come to this conclusion. Just contentious rantings and then settling for this theory first, which isn’t the Trinity one as it stands today: “We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, creator of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, only begotten of the Father, that is, of the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of the same substance with the Father, by whom all things were made in heaven and in earth, carnate, was made man, suffered, rose again the third day, ascended into the heavens, and He will come to judge the living and the dead; and in the Holy Ghost. Those who say there was a time when He was not, and He was not before He was begotten, and He was made of nothing (he was created), or who say that He is of another hypostatis, or of another substance (than the Father), or that the Son of God is created, that he is mutable, or subject to change, the Catholic church anathematezes.” Then more rantings, shameful conflicts, clashes and arguments came about and this one was settled on as one of the symbols of the orthodox Christian faith: “We worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity, neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost is all one; the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost. The father uncreate, the Son uncreate, and the Holy Ghost uncreate. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost incomprehensible. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Ghost eternal. And yet there are not three eternals, but one eternal. As also there are not three incomprehensibles, nor three uncreate, but one uncreate and one incomprhensible. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God; and yet there are not three Gods, but one God.” Well that’s about as clear as mud. It is obvious they weren’t reading the apostle’s writings and applying them to their conclusion. The simple doctrine of the Christian Godhead, set forth in the New Testament is corrupted by the meaningless jargon of these creeds, and their explanations. Later there was another change made by the Church of England that says “that there is but one living and true God everlasting, without body, parts, or passions, of infinite power, wisdom and goodness.” So what part of the Trinity idea do you ascribe to or do you have your own theory? The Trinity believers are definitely stuck on the three = “one” idea and taking it literally. Mark in the New Testament says that after Jesus’ ascension that Jesus “…was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God” Mark 16:19. If the Father and Jesus are one individual (excuse me, spirit in your view), how can they be seen separately when they are together? Then we learn about what the Prophet Stephen saw and experienced in Act 7:55: “But he (Stephen), being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God.” It is clear here that all three of them (God the Father, Jesus and the Holy Ghost) are very separate from each other. They each have their individuality but share a common goal and do different things to accomplish the goal. The short description of their purposes are: The Holy Ghost’s job is to testify of God the Father and Jesus Christ. Christ’s job is to glorify his father by doing all his father asks of him and the Father’s job is to be the Father of us all. When Jesus tells the people that he would like it if “…they (the people) may be one, as we (he and the Father) are” in John 17:11, does that mean that all the believers will literally become part of the Trinity? The Trinity would then need to be called the “Infinity” if that were the case. No, he was talking about one in purpose, just as he and his father are one in purpose.”

Here is Oneness Pentecostal Sue:

“It is encouraging that more people are being made aware of the theology regarding the nature of the Godhead: Shema Israel Adonai Elohenu, Adonai Ehad. Some serious research into oneness theology versus trinitarian history would serve well. To deny the very essence of God by splitting Him up into three separate but distinct persons has been the nature of many false belief systems beginning in Babylon (Father, Mother & Child), Egypt (Osiris, Isis & Horus)and other Eastern religions that today have a Trinity, Hinduism (Brahma, Shiva & Vishnu) which is represented by a statue of God with three heads. Buddhism also has the doctrine of trikaya; the worship of a three-headed statue of Buddha. Is this three-headed “Christianity” any different? It’s the same polytheistic tri-God worship with different faces. Greek philosophers offered us the worship of the Archaic Triad when it was found necessary to reduce the number of their gods to three being Jupiter, Mars & Quirinus during the Roman Empire. This was later replaced by the Capitoline triad being Jupiter, Juno & Minerva. Plato was the developer of the Timaeus theory teaching that the number 3 was near diagrammatical perfections and based on this theroy furthered the concept. It was only natural in establishing Roman Catholicism that the intermarriage of polytheistic triune serving heathens would find it necessary to create a tritheistic godhead to serve as they became nominal Christians. The apostles understood that Jesus was God come in flesh (Isaiah 9:6 “….the mighty God, the everlasting Father…”) and to worship a second person in place of, or in addition to, God was to openly disregard the first commandment and the Shema.”

Unitarian Jew (who call Yeshua HaMashiach Messiah but not God) Baruch:

“Your message does not work! You know why? Because your form of writing is violent, harsh and impatient and very much not the way to tell your own beliefs to others. You judge people! The people who have a hard time to believe Yeshua was really HaShem have a point! There are lots of passages in the New Testament that tell He is not G-d. The thing is we have to believe He is the Mashiach and only Savior and that G-d is the One BEHIND Him, the One that works THROUGH Him. This means He’s not G-d in your way, He was a MAN (the NT tells this everywhere!)! There’s ONE G-d and ONE Lord and Mediator, the MAN Yeshua HaMashiach! The Trinity or Tri-Unity is from the Church and can’t be found in the NT nor Tanach. Thing is if you don’t believe that it was G-d working and speaking through the man Yeshua, there’s a problem! If you tell Yeshua was G-d, you have to admit that the Roman Church was right: there do exist G-dmurder and a Mother of G-d, G-d died on the Cross, G-d cried out to Himself ‘My G-d My G-d why have your forsaken me?’. This is blasphemy! G-d cannot die because He is a Living G-d, Eternally! His Son Yeshua died and resurrected by the Power of HaShem three days later! He was that Righteous that gave His Life for the World! Listen brother, I totally believe the Gospel and I trust the LORD Jesus Christ, Yeshua HaMashiach that He died and rose for ME and all people. There are however some texts you are citing that are not in my Bible nor in the Greek texts. For exampe 1 John 5:7 is made up later. Don’t you know that G-d told He is ONE (ECHAD)? That’s what the people have to accept rather than putting Him into boxes. People should know better. Believing that G-d is One and leaving mysteries over to Him is a better way than forcing people to believe in ‘the dogma of Trinity’. Didn’t He tell Moses to tell the people that ‘I will be that I will be’ send Him? Yes He did. This so clearly tells us not to put G-d into our own dogmatic boxes. Jesus also proclaimed the Shema (Hear O Israel, the LORD our G-d is ONE) as the first and foremost commandment. He talked about ‘My G-d and your G-d, my Father and your Father’, ‘The Father is more than I am’, ‘Why are you saying I’m good? For there’s only One that’s Good.’, etc.

I am totally aware that we need to accept the Gospel as ‘children’, but that does not mean that we do not have to study the Word. It’s not just about being guided by the Spirit of the LORD G-d alone. It’s always a combination of the Spirit and DEEDS/ACTION. Faith without works is dead according to Jacob. Did you know that everywhere where Yeshua and Paul and the others are talking about the WORD of the LORD G-d, they mean the Torah (and Prophets and Writings)? Read it, in Hebrew and find out more truths. You are actually telling me to believe your way, because if I believe like I do I will go to hell. That’s the christian way of evangelizing! I’m sorry, but you bother me with this a lot. As I started my posting I do REALLY 1000% believe that Jesus is my only Way and Savior (actually G-d is, through the man Jesus!), but some views need to be altered after such a long time in which christianity has been here, stating to be the only and superior religion!

May the LORD G-d Bless You Richly and you Grant the SHALOM of Mashiach Yeshua”

Now THIS is from the Jehovah’s Witness website:
“AT THIS point you might ask: ‘If the Trinity is not a Biblical teaching, how did it become a doctrine of Christendom?’ Many think that it was formulated at the Council of Nicaea in 325 C.E. That is not totally correct, however. The Council of Nicaea did assert that Christ was of the same substance as God, which laid the groundwork for later Trinitarian theology. But it did not establish the Trinity, for at that council there was no mention of the holy spirit as the third person of a triune Godhead. Constantine’s Role at Nicaea FOR many years, there had been much opposition on Biblical grounds to the developing idea that Jesus was God. To try to solve the dispute, Roman emperor Constantine summoned all bishops to Nicaea. About 300, a fraction of the total, actually attended. Constantine was not a Christian. Supposedly, he converted later in life, but he was not baptized until he lay dying. Regarding him, Henry Chadwick says in The Early Church: “Constantine, like his father, worshipped the Unconquered Sun; . . . his conversion should not be interpreted as an inward experience of grace . . . It was a military matter. His comprehension of Christian doctrine was never very clear, but he was sure that victory in battle lay in the gift of the God of the Christians.” What role did this unbaptized emperor play at the Council of Nicaea? The Encyclopædia Britannica relates: “Constantine himself presided, actively guiding the discussions, and personally proposed . . . the crucial formula expressing the relation of Christ to God in the creed issued by the council, ‘of one substance with the Father’ . . . Overawed by the emperor, the bishops, with two exceptions only, signed the creed, many of them much against their inclination.” ‘Fourth century Trinitarianism was a deviation from early Christian teaching.’ —The Encyclopedia Americana Hence, Constantine’s role was crucial. After two months of furious religious debate, this pagan politician intervened and decided in favor of those who said that Jesus was God. But why? Certainly not because of any Biblical conviction. “Constantine had basically no understanding whatsoever of the questions that were being asked in Greek theology,” says A Short History of Christian Doctrine. What he did understand was that religious division was a threat to his empire, and he wanted to solidify his domain. None of the bishops at Nicaea promoted a Trinity, however. They decided only the nature of Jesus but not the role of the holy spirit. If a Trinity had been a clear Bible truth, should they not have proposed it at that time? Further Development AFTER Nicaea, debates on the subject continued for decades. Those who believed that Jesus was not equal to God even came back into favor for a time. But later Emperor Theodosius decided against them. He established the creed of the Council of Nicaea as the standard for his realm and convened the Council of Constantinople in 381 C.E. to clarify the formula. That council agreed to place the holy spirit on the same level as God and Christ. For the first time, Christendom’s Trinity began to come into focus. Yet, even after the Council of Constantinople, the Trinity did not become a widely accepted creed. Many opposed it and thus brought on themselves violent persecution. It was only in later centuries that the Trinity was formulated into set creeds. The Encyclopedia Americana notes: “The full development of Trinitarianism took place in the West, in the Scholasticism of the Middle Ages, when an explanation was undertaken in terms of philosophy and psychology.” The Athanasian Creed Norwegian Triad Norway. Trinity (Father, Son, holy spirit), c. 13th century C.E. THE Trinity was defined more fully in the Athanasian Creed. Athanasius was a clergyman who supported Constantine at Nicaea. The creed that bears his name declares: “We worship one God in Trinity . . . The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God; and yet they are not three gods, but one God.” Well-informed scholars agree, however, that Athanasius did not compose this creed. The New Encyclopædia Britannica comments: “The creed was unknown to the Eastern Church until the 12th century. Since the 17th century, scholars have generally agreed that the Athanasian Creed was not written by Athanasius (died 373) but was probably composed in southern France during the 5th century. . . . The creed’s influence seems to have been primarily in southern France and Spain in the 6th and 7th centuries. It was used in the liturgy of the church in Germany in the 9th century and somewhat later in Rome.” So it took centuries from the time of Christ for the Trinity to become widely accepted in Christendom. And in all of this, what guided the decisions? Was it the Word of God, or was it clerical and political considerations? In Origin and Evolution of Religion, E. W. Hopkins answers: “The final orthodox definition of the trinity was largely a matter of church politics.” Apostasy Foretold THIS disreputable history of the Trinity fits in with what Jesus and his apostles foretold would follow their time. They said that there would be an apostasy, a deviation, a falling away from true worship until Christ’s return, when true worship would be restored before God’s day of destruction of this system of things. “The Triad of the Great Gods” Many centuries before the time of Christ, there were triads, or trinities, of gods in ancient Babylonia and Assyria. The French “Larousse Encyclopedia of Mythology” notes one such triad in that Mesopotamian area: “The universe was divided into three regions each of which became the domain of a god. Anu’s share was the sky. The earth was given to Enlil. Ea became the ruler of the waters. Together they constituted the triad of the Great Gods.” Regarding that “day,” the apostle Paul said: “It will not come unless the apostasy comes first and the man of lawlessness gets revealed.” (2 Thessalonians 2:3, 7) Later, he foretold: “When I have gone fierce wolves will invade you and will have no mercy on the flock. Even from your own ranks there will be men coming forward with a travesty of the truth on their lips to induce the disciples to follow them.” (Acts 20:29, 30, JB) Other disciples of Jesus also wrote of this apostasy with its ‘lawless’ clergy class.—See, for example, 2 Peter 2:1; 1 John 4:1-3; Jude 3, 4. Paul also wrote: “The time is sure to come when, far from being content with sound teaching, people will be avid for the latest novelty and collect themselves a whole series of teachers according to their own tastes; and then, instead of listening to the truth, they will turn to myths.”—2 Timothy 4:3, 4, JB. Jesus himself explained what was behind this falling away from true worship. He said that he had sowed good seeds but that the enemy, Satan, would oversow the field with weeds. So along with the first blades of wheat, the weeds appeared also. Thus, a deviation from pure Christianity was to be expected until the harvest, when Christ would set matters right. (Matthew 13:24-43) The Encyclopedia Americana comments: “Fourth century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching.” Where, then, did this deviation originate?—1 Timothy 1:6. What Influenced It Triune Hindu godhead India. Triune Hindu godhead, c. 7th century C.E. THROUGHOUT the ancient world, as far back as Babylonia, the worship of pagan gods grouped in threes, or triads, was common. That influence was also prevalent in Egypt, Greece, and Rome in the centuries before, during, and after Christ. And after the death of the apostles, such pagan beliefs began to invade Christianity. Historian Will Durant observed: “Christianity did not destroy paganism; it adopted it. . . . From Egypt came the ideas of a divine trinity.” And in the book Egyptian Religion, Siegfried Morenz notes: “The trinity was a major preoccupation of Egyptian theologians . . . Three gods are combined and treated as a single being, addressed in the singular. In this way the spiritual force of Egyptian religion shows a direct link with Christian theology.” French Triune godhead France. Trinity, c. 14th century C.E. (1) Thus, in Alexandria, Egypt, churchmen of the late third and early fourth centuries, such as Athanasius, reflected this influence as they formulated ideas that led to the Trinity. Their own influence spread, so that Morenz considers “Alexandrian theology as the intermediary between the Egyptian religious heritage and Christianity.” In the preface to Edward Gibbon’s History of Christianity, we read: “If Paganism was conquered by Christianity, it is equally true that Christianity was corrupted by Paganism. The pure Deism of the first Christians . . . was changed, by the Church of Rome, into the incomprehensible dogma of the trinity. Many of the pagan tenets, invented by the Egyptians and idealized by Plato, were retained as being worthy of belief.” Italian Triune godhead Italy. Trinity, c. 15th century C.E. (2) A Dictionary of Religious Knowledge notes that many say that the Trinity “is a corruption borrowed from the heathen religions, and ingrafted on the Christian faith.” And The Paganism in Our Christianity declares: “The origin of the [Trinity] is entirely pagan.” That is why, in the Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics, James Hastings wrote: “In Indian religion, e.g., we meet with the trinitarian group of Brahma, Siva, and Visnu; and in Egyptian religion with the trinitarian group of Osiris, Isis, and Horus . . . Nor is it only in historical religions that we find God viewed as a Trinity. One recalls in particular the Neo-Platonic view of the Supreme or Ultimate Reality,” which is “triadically represented.” What does the Greek philosopher Plato have to do with the Trinity Platonism PLATO, it is thought, lived from 428 to 347 before Christ. While he did not teach the Trinity in its present form, his philosophies paved the way for it. Later, philosophical movements that included triadic beliefs sprang up, and these were influenced by Plato’s ideas of God and nature. German Triune godhead Germany. Trinity, 20th century C.E.The French Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel (New Universal Dictionary) says of Plato’s influence: “The Platonic trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave birth to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian churches. . . . This Greek philosopher’s conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all the ancient [pagan] religions.” The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge shows the influence of this Greek philosophy: “The doctrines of the Logos and the Trinity received their shape from Greek Fathers, who . . . were much influenced, directly or indirectly, by the Platonic philosophy . . . That errors and corruptions crept into the Church from this source can not be denied.” The Church of the First Three Centuries says: “The doctrine of the Trinity was of gradual and comparatively late formation; . . . it had its origin in a source entirely foreign from that of the Jewish and Christian Scriptures; . . . it grew up, and was ingrafted on Christianity, through the hands of the Platonizing Fathers.” By the end of the third century C.E., “Christianity” and the new Platonic philosophies became inseparably united. As Adolf Harnack states in Outlines of the History of Dogma, church doctrine became “firmly rooted in the soil of Hellenism [pagan Greek thought]. Thereby it became a mystery to the great majority of Christians.” The church claimed that its new doctrines were based on the Bible. But Harnack says: “In reality it legitimized in its midst the Hellenic speculation, the superstitious views and customs of pagan mystery-worship.” In the book A Statement of Reasons, Andrews Norton says of the Trinity: “We can trace the history of this doctrine, and discover its source, not in the Christian revelation, but in the Platonic philosophy . . . The Trinity is not a doctrine of Christ and his Apostles, but a fiction of the school of the later Platonists.” Thus, in the fourth century C.E., the apostasy foretold by Jesus and the apostles came into full bloom. Development of the Trinity was just one evidence of this. The apostate churches also began embracing other pagan ideas, such as hellfire, immortality of the soul, and idolatry. Spiritually speaking, Christendom had entered its foretold dark ages, dominated by a growing “man of lawlessness” clergy class.—2 Thessalonians 2:3, 7. Hindu Trinity The book “The Symbolism of Hindu Gods and Rituals” says regarding a Hindu trinity that existed centuries before Christ: “Siva is one of the gods of the Trinity. He is said to be the god of destruction. The other two gods are Brahma, the god of creation and Vishnu, the god of maintenance. . . . To indicate that these three processes are one and the same the three gods are combined in one form.”—Published by A. Parthasarathy, Bombay. Why Did God’s Prophets Not Teach It? WHY, for thousands of years, did none of God’s prophets teach his people about the Trinity? At the latest, would Jesus not use his ability as the Great Teacher to make the Trinity clear to his followers? Would God inspire hundreds of pages of Scripture and yet not use any of this instruction to teach the Trinity if it were the “central doctrine” of faith?Are Christians to believe that centuries after Christ and after having inspired the writing of the Bible, God would back the formulation of a doctrine that was unknown to his servants for thousands of years, one that is an “inscrutable mystery” “beyond the grasp of human reason,” one that admittedly had a pagan background and was “largely a matter of church politics”?The testimony of history is clear: The Trinity teaching is a deviation from the truth, an apostatizing from it.”