Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. (KJV)
Look! The virgin will become pregnant and will give birth to a son, and they will call his name Immanuel, which means, when translated, With Us Is God. (NWT)
"Behold! The virgin will conceive in [her] womb and will bear a son, and they will call His name Emmanuel" (which translated is, God with us). (GLT)
Ἰδοὺ ἡ παρθένος ἐν γαστρὶ ἕξει καὶ τέξεται υἱόν, καὶ καλέσουσιν τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἐμμανουήλ, ὅ ἐστιν μεθερμηνευόμενον Μεθ' ἡμῶν ὁ θεός. (OGB)
This New Testament scripture is further supported by a previously written Old Testament verse so there can be no doubt that this is a highly important scripture as far as its writer is concerned:
14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. (Isaiah 7)
There is little difference in the various translations as to their intended meaning. Jesus will be God. However we now need to establish if He will be one and the same as Jehovah God, the Father. The Lords’ Witnesses can demonstrate from the scriptures that Jesus was originally the angel Michael who became a god upon his sacrificial death and thereby became the true Son of Jehovah God, the Creator. This is an absolutely massive understanding that no other church (except for the Jehovah’s Witnesses who have rejected the notion for some strange reason) have any inkling of. The Lords’ Witnesses are the only church that recognises that there are two Gods to be worshipped: the Father Jehovah and His Son Michael. They are NOT the same being. Given the enormity of this understanding there is little point in my covering the details in this paper; please refer to the Lords’ Witnesses main web-site ref: http://www.biblecodeintro.com/intro26.html.
Looking at this in rather more detail, as per the True Bible Code interpretation, Jesus was not a God when he was born to Mary and, in fact, neither was he even Michael. He was born as the angel Immanuel who's spirit was replaced by Michael's in Jesus upon His baptism by John. Throughout His entire ministry he was not a god. He only became a god to be worshipped after his resurrection, in fact when he gave his angelic body to ransom Adam on 33Nisan16.
The strictly correct decoded understanding of this verse does not mean that Jesus being called Immanuel makes Him God. It means that God is with the people to whom he has sent his son. It mean the sons of Israel were still God’s true official people at the time of Jesus’ life and ministry. That is all.
For those readers interested in much more detail on the important topic of who Jesus actually was, as determined through the decoding of the relevant bible scriptures, please refer to the True Bible Code web-site at http://www.biblecodeintro.com/intro17.html.
As my readers will no doubt know by now the church of the Lords’ Witnesses does not accept the concept of the Holy Trinity. The key section on the True Bible Code (TBC) web-site covering this topic can be found at: http://www.truebiblecode.com/intro39.html.
We went away for a weekend recently with some Christian friends of ours. The husband of the other couple believes in the Trinity for the perfectly good reason that he thinks that is what the bible tells him. In this respect he sent me a web-site link claiming the Trinitarian belief to be biblically based. I see it as my mission to help our friend with that false understanding by re-interpreting some of the scriptures that he and other Christians see as biblical evidence of the reality of the Trinity. I am really taking the risk here that my own views may be compromised but in the eternal search for truth is that really a risk at all?
Unfortunately that video is no longer available due to the account having been closed; I leave the reader to ponder over that. Meanwhile I hope that my following analysis of the scriptures that were quoted in that video to support the trinitarian argument will nonetheless prove my position on what the bible has to say on whether God is a Trinity or not.
Interestingly, since I first wrote this paper, it would seem that there was a massive sea change in the understanding of the author of that You Tube video before he deleted his account. Maybe we can understand why now! It would appear that he has now accepted that Jesus and Jehovah are indeed two separate Gods. This is wonderful news. He still does not understand that Jesus was the Archangel Michael but then very few Christians do. So the bulk of the original paper refers to the scriptural quotes made in the original video. My observations on these are still valid so I have retained them, although they were no longer part of the later version of the referenced video.
So to work: The first general item to consider is the accuracy of the translations that were used in the Trinitarian video. These were from the King James Version of the bible. To this end I reproduce four different versions of the bible text for each set of bible verses that are presented by the video. The point here is to identify the best translation in each case if it is the translation that may be the root cause of any misunderstanding of the scriptures under study. The English translations used throughout are the King James Version (KJV), The New World Translation of the Watchtower Society (NWT) and Green’s Literal Translation (GLT). In case we need to refer to the original Greek or Hebrew scriptures I also provide Hebrew texts for the Old Testament scriptures from the Hebrew Old Testament web-site (HOT) and the Greek texts for the New Testament scriptures from The Online Greek Bible (OGB). For more information on the various biblical translations available please refer to the TBC web-site at: http://www.truebiblecode.com/intro4.html. Let us now look at the detail of the scriptures presented as evidence in the video of the reality of the Holy Trinity.
The video only refers to verse 30. This is another difficult example requiring one to look at several other verses in John 10:
30 I and [my] Father are one.
33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
38 But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father [is] in me, and I in him. (John 10, KJV)
30 I and the Father are one.
33 The Jews answered him: We are stoning you, not for a fine work, but for blasphemy, even because you, although being a man, make yourself a god.
34 Jesus answered them: Is it not written in your Law, 'I said: You are gods'?
35 If he called 'gods' those against whom the word of God came, and yet the Scripture cannot be nullified,
38 But if I am doing them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, in order that you may come to know and may continue knowing that the Father is in union with me and I am in union with the Father. (John 10, NWT)
30 I and the Father are One!
33 The Jews answered Him, saying, We do not stone You concerning a good work, but concerning blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself God.
34 Jesus answered them, Has it not been written in your Law, "I said, you are gods"? [Psa. 82:6]
35 If He called those gods with whom the Word of God was, and the Scripture cannot be broken,
38 But if I do, even if you do not believe Me, believe the works, that you may perceive and may believe that the Father [is] in Me, and I in Him. (John 10, GLT)
30 ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἕν ἐσμεν.
33 ἀπεκρίθησαν αὐτῷ οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι, Περὶ καλοῦ ἔργου οὐ λιθάζομέν σε ἀλλὰ περὶ βλασφημίας, καὶ ὅτι σὺ ἄνθρωπος ὢν ποιεῖς σεαυτὸν θεόν.
34 ἀπεκρίθη αὐτοῖς [ὁ] Ἰησοῦς, Οὐκ ἔστιν γεγραμμένον ἐν τῷ νόμῳ ὑμῶν ὅτι Ἐγὼ εἶπα, Θεοί ἐστε;
35 εἰ ἐκείνους εἶπεν θεοὺς πρὸς οὓς ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ οὐ δύναται λυθῆναι ἡ γραφή,
38 εἰ δὲ ποιῶ, κἂν ἐμοὶ μὴ πιστεύητε, τοῖς ἔργοις πιστεύετε, ἵνα γνῶτε καὶ γινώσκητε ὅτι ἐν ἐμοὶ ὁ πατὴρ κἀγὼ ἐν τῷ πατρί. (John 10, OGB)
And for completeness let us quote the verse from Psalms for the record plus the following two. Perhaps even God only gives us partial clues to the scriptures’ true meaning for those who care to study them enough in an attempt to tease out the whole truth: Psalms 82:6-8
6 I have said, Ye [are] gods; and all of you [are] children of the most High.
7 But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.
8 Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations. (Psalms 82, KJV)
6 I myself have said, 'You are gods, And all of you are sons of the Most High.
7 Surely you will die just as men do; And like any one of the princes you will fall!'
8 Do rise up, Oh God, do judge the earth; For you yourself should take possession of all the nations. (Psalms 82, NWT)
6 I have said, You [are] gods, and all of you [are] sons of the Most High.
7 But you shall die as men, and fall like one of the rulers.
8 Rise, O God, judge the earth; for You shall inherit in all the nations. (Psalms 82, GLT)
6 אני-אמרתי אלהים אתם ובני עליון כלכם
7 אכן כאדם תמותון וכאחד השרים תפלו
8 קומה אלהים שפטה הארץ כי-אתה תנחל בכל-הגוים (Psalms 82, HOT)
Now I would be the first to admit that John 10:30 taken alone would have to be taken as unequivocal evidence that the Father and the Son are one and the same. However since I understand otherwise I need to explain what I believe this verse is telling us. If we fast forward to verse 38 as quoted above it again talks about Jesus being ‘in the Father’ and vice versa. This is in the same language as we have seen previously in John 14:10-11. Again I believe John 10:30 is demonstrating the intimacy of the relationship between Father and Son rather than meaning they are one and the same spirit. One might argue that this intimacy of a relationship is demonstrated elsewhere in scripture:
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. (Matthew 19, KJV)
This reference to a man and his wife is demonstrating the intimate relationship that exists between the two and that, in God’s Law, they are treated as a single unit. This does not make them a single spirit however. They are two individual spirits intimately bound by love and God’s Law. Such is the relationship between Jehovah God the Creator and His created Son Jesus aka Michael.The LW understanding that Jesus became the second divine being created by Jehovah God is also amplified by John 10:34-5 and the verses from Psalm 82 (notably verse 6). These are confirming that the sons of Jehovah God will become gods in their own right. They clearly are not all Jehovah God the Father. Is Jesus here not telling the Jews that He is one of that assembly of prospective gods, albeit the first to live and die as a man prior to His resurrection as a god? Jesus was the first example of a created being becoming divine and describing what the ultimate birthright of all mankind can become given enough time to acquire a sin-free nature.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (KJV)
In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. (NWT)
In [the] beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (GLT)
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. (OGB)
This verse again comes into the questioning of the precision of the translation. The key here is the use of the definite article τὸν in the Greek text. It is used for the first iteration of θεόν ’God’ but not for the second. So the NWT translation provides the most accurate meaning for the original Greek. Jesus, the Word, was a god but not THE God Jehovah, the Creator.
At the start of this exercise I wondered whether I might be persuaded that there was indeed a valid argument to be made in favour of the Trinitarian position. Having carried out the above additional research into the subject I find myself even more persuaded by the Lords’ Witnesses’ argument that Jesus is the second but created God. He is the true and currently only divine son of His Father Jehovah. Without the LW argumentation it is understandable that devout Christians might be persuaded otherwise. I am afraid that whilst reading the scriptures is a wonderful way to spend one’s time, the only truly correct way to understand them is through careful, detailed, painstaking and fully synchronised study of them if one wishes to tease the true meaning from God’s Word. Since the Lords Witnesses are the only Christian church with this understanding of the two Gods, I become more convinced with every passing day that I am a member of the Fourth and Last and only True Christian Church. Amen
Date of Publication of Addendum 2: 30th October 2017
Date of Publication of Addendum 3: 11th December 2017
Date of Publication of Addendum 4: 3rd April 2019
51 And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven.
52 And they worshipped him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy: (Luke 24, KJV)
51 As he was blessing them he was parted from them and began to be borne up to heaven.
52 And they did obeisance to him and returned to Jerusalem with great joy. (Luke 24, NWT)
51 And it happened as He blessed them, He withdrew from them and was carried into Heaven.
52 And worshiping Him, they returned to Jerusalem with great joy, (Luke 24, GLT)
51 καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν τῷ εὐλογεῖν αὐτὸν αὐτοὺς διέστη ἀπ' αὐτῶν καὶ ἀνεφέρετο εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν.
52 καὶ αὐτοὶ προσκυνήσαντες αὐτὸν ὑπέστρεψαν εἰς Ἰερουσαλὴμ μετὰ χαρᾶς μεγάλης, (Luke 24, OGB)
The same non-Trinitarian argument can again be used as for Matthew 28:9 above. However just two verses earlier in Luke 24:49 we find:
And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high. (KJV)
And, look! I am sending forth upon you that which is promised by my Father. You, though, abide in the city until you become clothed with power from on high. (NWT)
And, behold, I send forth the promise of My Father on you. But you sit in the city of Jerusalem until you are clothed with power from on high. (GLT)
καὶ [ἰδοὺ] ἐγὼ ἀποστέλλω τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν τοῦ πατρός μου ἐφ' ὑμᾶς: ὑμεῖς δὲ καθίσατε ἐν τῇ πόλει ἕως οὗ ἐνδύσησθε ἐξ ὕψους δύναμιν. (OGB)
As we have seen elsewhere previously in this paper why on earth would Jesus portray Himself as a ‘mere’ messenger from Jehovah if He were indeed the Father Himself?
I included this one already in the earlier analysis of John 10:30 above although it is worth making a comment on this verse in its own right:
The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. (KJV)
The Jews answered him: We are stoning you, not for a fine work, but for blasphemy, even because you, although being a man, make yourself a god. (NWT)
The Jews answered Him, saying, We do not stone You concerning a good work, but concerning blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself God. (GLT)
ἀπεκρίθησαν αὐτῷ οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι, Περὶ καλοῦ ἔργου οὐ λιθάζομέν σε ἀλλὰ περὶ βλασφημίας, καὶ ὅτι σὺ ἄνθρωπος ὢν ποιεῖς σεαυτὸν θεόν. (OGB)
If this verse is being used as a justification for the existence of the Trinity then it is frankly nothing much short of laughable. The statement, that Jesus is claiming He is God, is being used in an accusative way by the Jews who are clearly not accepting Him as the promised Messiah. It seems that they misinterpreted His words in the same way that the Trinitarians do today. I am sure these Trinitarians would find all sorts of ways of discrediting anything these Jews said or did elsewhere in the scriptures but they seem prepared to take these ones’ words literally ‘as gospel’ on this particular subject. Do they therefore also interpret Satan’s lies as the truth since they appear written in the scriptures? Such is the nature of fitting the scriptures to meet ones purposes rather than searching for their true meaning!
1 Corinthians 12:3
Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and [that] no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost. (KJV)
Therefore I would have you know that nobody when speaking by God's spirit says: Jesus is accursed! and nobody can say: Jesus is Lord! except by holy spirit. (NWT)
Because of this I make known to you that no one speaking by [the] Spirit of God says, Jesus [is] a curse. And no one is able to say Jesus [is] Lord, except by [the] Holy Spirit. (GLT)
διὸ γνωρίζω ὑμῖν ὅτι οὐδεὶς ἐν πνεύματι θεοῦ λαλῶν λέγει, Ἀνάθεμα Ἰησοῦς, καὶ οὐδεὶς δύναται εἰπεῖν, Κύριος Ἰησοῦς, εἰ μὴ ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ. (OGB)
Here, no doubt, the Trinitarians would equate the description of Jesus as ‘Lord’ as His being God. Well he ain’t; he maintains the status of Lordship by being the divine son of Jehovah God the Father. The previous LW web reference should suffice as evidence.
An altar with this inscription, `To the unknown God.`
16 Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.
17 And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted. (Matthew 28, KJV)
16 However, the 11 disciples went into Galilee to the mountain where Jesus had arranged for them,
17 and when they saw him they did obeisance, but some doubted. (Matthew 28, NWT)
16 But the eleven disciples went into Galilee, to the mount where Jesus appointed them.
17 And seeing Him, they worshiped Him. But they doubted. (Matthew 28, GLT)
16 Οἱ δὲ ἕνδεκα μαθηταὶ ἐπορεύθησαν εἰς τὴν Γαλιλαίαν εἰς τὸ ὄρος οὗ ἐτάξατο αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς,
17 καὶ ἰδόντες αὐτὸν προσεκύνησαν, οἱ δὲ ἐδίστασαν. (Matthew 28, OGB)
Now this Trinitarian example is quite interesting from a couple of angles. Firstly my non-Trinitarian argument is precisely the same as it was for Matthew 28:9 above. Secondly I do not really understand why verse 16 is actually included in the Trinitarian argumentation but it is interesting that the video only quotes the first half of verse 17. Since their argument runs that the disciples would only worship one God Jehovah, I wonder how their argument would run in the analysis of the disciples doubts? Surely these ones would not have doubted a manifestation of Jehovah albeit in the guise of His Son Jesus? I know of no example in scripture where such doubts have occurred. The manifestation of a completely new second god in the form of Jesus, the creation of a second god from a seemingly dead human, however might well be the cause for some questioning? Funny this half of verse 17 was missed out by our Trinitarian friends don’t you think?
And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. (KJV)
In answer Thomas said to him: My Lord and my God! (NWT)
And Thomas answered and said to Him, My Lord and my God! (GLT)
ἀπεκρίθη Θωμᾶς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ, Ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου. (OGB)
As we have argued previously, Thomas describing Jesus as ‘my God’ is fully compatible with the Lords’ Witnesses’ understanding that Jesus was the first man/angel to become a God. But He is NOT the Creator Jehovah who is His Father. It is noteworthy that this conversation took place shortly after Christ’s resurrection as a God. Did Thomas call Jesus ‘my God’ prior to His resurrection while He was still a man? I do not think so!
Whose [are] the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ [came],], who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen. (KJV)
to whom the forefathers belong and from whom the Christ [sprang] according to the flesh: God, who is over all, [be] blessed forever. Amen. (NWT)
whose [are] the fathers, and from whom [is] the Christ according to flesh, He being God over all, blessed forever. Amen. (GLT)
ὧν οἱ πατέρες, καὶ ἐξ ὧν ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα: ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, ἀμήν. (OGB)
Now I must confess that, without the Lords’ Witnesses’ understanding that Jesus is a (second) god over all mankind and is thereby to be worshipped, this verse taken alone could easily be used to mistakenly identify the Christ as Jehovah God in the flesh. However since we do have the evidence, referenced above, that Jesus became the second god upon His sacrifice, He clearly was not God the Father. This provides the evidence to me that this book was intended for those studying it in depth and striving for its true meaning with the understanding inspired by the Holy Spirit. A casual stitching together of several verses of a convenient but poor translation will not reveal the true meaning held within the original Hebrew and Greek texts.
Jewish Lords' Witness
Image provided by www.BiblePictureGallery.com
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. (KJV)
For there has been a child born to us, there has been a son given to us; and the princely rule will come to be upon his shoulder. And his name will be called Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. (NWT)
For a Child is born; to us a Son is given; and the government is on His shoulder; and His name is called Wonderful, Counsellor, The Mighty God, The Everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. (GLT)
לםרבה המשרה ולשלום אין-קץ על-כסא דוד ועל-ממלכתו להכין אתה ולסעדה במשפט ובצדקה מעתה ועד-עולם קנאתיהוה צבאות תעשה-זאת (HOT)
Now in fairness to our Trinitarian friends this is clearly a hard one to explain as not being confirmation that Jesus and Jehovah are one and the same. However my understanding of this scripture is as follows. Regardless of which translation one chooses, the Messiah is comprehensively referred to as God, Father and Prince. Now, as discussed earlier in this paper, the Lords’ Witnesses do consider Jesus to be the second God to Jehovah so to describe him as God would be fully compatible with that understanding. The appellation ‘Father’ requires a little more consideration. If Jesus is Father then He is Father to the human race whose members He will have saved into the Kingdom. This does not of itself designate Jesus as the Father of all creation or indeed the Creator Himself. The title ‘Prince’ helps here; would Jehovah, the King of all creation, really describe Himself as a Prince? I do not think so! A Prince is the son of a King not the King himself, although He has the lineage to become a King.
And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him. (KJV)
And, look! Jesus met them and said: Good day! They approached and caught him by his feet and did obeisance to him. (NWT)
But as they were going to report to His disciples, behold, Jesus also met them, saying, Hail! And coming near, they seized His feet and worshiped Him. (GLT)
καὶ ἰδοὺ Ἰησοῦς ὑπήντησεν αὐταῖς λέγων, Χαίρετε. αἱ δὲ προσελθοῦσαι ἐκράτησαν αὐτοῦ τοὺς πόδας καὶ προσεκύνησαν αὐτῷ. (OGB)
If the Trinitarians are using this as an argument that Jesus’ disciples would only worship God then they are correct except that they do not understand that Jesus had become the second God after His resurrection, now being the divine Son of Jehovah His Father. Once again it is worth pointing out that this event occurred after Christ’s divine resurrection.
This section I write as a significant after-thought thanks to my dear lady wife. It is as a result of a slightly heated debate between the two of us on the matter of blasphemy against the various forms of deity. I cannot remember what provoked my outburst but I confess I exclaimed 'Jesus Christ!' in a fit of pique on some provocation or other. My wife told me not to blaspheme upon which I told her that blasphemy was not a punishable crime against our saviour. Needless to say this then started a heated debate on the subject. After spending some thought on the subject over several days, it struck me (no doubt courtesy of the Holy Spirit) that the varying degrees of punishment for blaspheming against the alleged different forms of our God may well prove to be a happy hunting ground for anyone interested in the concept of the Trinity.
So let us look at some relevant scriptures on the subject:
9 And it shall belong to Aaron and to his sons, and they shall eat it in the sanctuary, for it [is] most holy to him, from the fire offerings of Jehovah, a never ending statute.
10 And the son of an Israelite woman, and he [was] a son of an Egyptian man, went out among the sons of Israel. And the son of the woman of Israel and a man of Israel struggled together in the camp.
11 And the son of the woman of Israel blasphemed the Name, and cursed. And they brought him in to Moses; and his mother's name was Shelomith, the daughter of Dibri, of the tribe of Dan.
12 And they put him under guard, that it might be declared to them at the mouth of Jehovah.
13 And Jehovah spoke to Moses, saying,
14 Bring out the reviler to the outside of the camp. And all those who heard shall lay their hands on his head, and all the congregation shall stone him.
15 And you shall speak to the sons of Israel, saying, When any man curses his God then he shall bear his sin.
16 And he who blasphemes the name of Jehovah dying shall die. All the congregation shall certainly cast stones at him. As [to] the alien, so to a native, when he blasphemes the Name, he shall die. (Leviticus 24)
So from Leviticus we can gather that if one blasphemes the name of God The Father, Jehovah, that one will be punished into the first death. One must also assume that because of the probable state of that one's heart condition that he will descend into the second death come his judgement day.
31 Because of this, I say to you, Every sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven to men, but the blasphemy concerning the Spirit shall not be forgiven to men.
32 And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him. But whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, not in this age nor in the coming [one]. (Matthew 12)
28 Truly I say to you, All the sins will be forgiven to the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they have blasphemed;
29 but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit has no remission unto the age, but is liable to eternal judgment (Mark 3)
10 And everyone who shall say a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven Him; but the ones blaspheming against the Holy Spirit, [it] will not be forgiven. (Luke 12)
The gospels make it crystal clear that the treatment of those ones blaspheming against Jesus, The Son of Man, will be quite different from that of the Holy Spirit. All other sins being equal, it would seem that those blaspheming The Son will suffer no punishment at all, whereas those blaspheming the Holy Spirit would appear, on the face of it, to never get forgiveness (more on this in a moment). So we have no punishment for blaspeming the Son, a physical death for the blasphemer of The Father and, at the very least, a judgement straight into the second death for the duration for the blasphemer of The Holy Spirit. If these three 'beings' are all equal, as the Trinitarians would have us believe, then why is the blasphemy upon one of them not treated by the same punishment as the others? I rest my case.
One question in my mind, however, is why a blasphemy against The Holy Spirit is treated so much more severely when, according to the Lords' Witnesses' understandings, the Holy Spirit is the only non-diety of the three Trinity 'entities'. A matter which I intend to bring up with Gordon, our church president!
Now some considerable time after I wrote this original paper my Trinitarian supporting friend challenged me with the following two verses (Isaiah 44:6 and Revelation 22:13) to confirm to me that Jehovah is Jesus:
6 So says Jehovah, the King of Israel, and his Redeemer, Jehovah of Hosts: I [am] the First, and I [am] the Last; and [there is] no God except Me. (Isaiah 44 GLT)
13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the Ending, the First and the Last. (Revelation 22 GLT)
My friend’s quote to me was: ‘God Yahweh speaking in Isaiah, Jesus Christ saying the same thing in Revelation = Jesus Christ is God.’
This does appear to be the mantra churned out by numerous Trinitarian commentators in attempting to synchronise these two verses. I have to say that these people really need to read more of the bible than just quote the verses that support their argument. They might in this case, for example, like to read the very first verse of Revelation that might just give them the context of the whole Book:
1 A Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave to Him to show to His slaves things which must occur quickly. And He signified [by] sending through His angel to His slave, John, (Revelation 1 GLT)
Now as far as any logical argument could possibly be made about the Book of Revelation from the above verse here we have Jehovah God having written his message and giving it to His Son Jesus Christ to deliver. If He were a Trinity why would He need to give a letter to Himself to deliver that He had written. Clearly these are two separate persons. But then to emphasise this, just in case the reader did not fully understand the first half of this verse, we read that He (Jehovah God) sent the letter through His angel (Jesus Christ aka Michael) as the Lords’ Witnesses would maintain. So with a little further reading of the scriptures we find that the Trinitarian argument is not only completely shot to smithereens but this verse also provides definitive evidence of the correctness of the Lords' Witnesses understanding that Jesus Christ was not Jehovah God but the Archangel Michael!
I have now had a further bullet from my Trinity believing friend as follows, and I quote:
‘Since the fall of man (Genesis 3:21-23), the only way to be made right with God has been the blood of an innocent sacrifice (Leviticus 9:2; Numbers 28:19; Deuteronomy 15:21; Hebrews 9:22).
Jesus was the final, perfect sacrifice that satisfied forever God's wrath against sin (Hebrews 10:14). His divine nature made Him fit for the work of Redeemer; His human body allowed Him to shed the blood necessary to redeem. No human being with a sin nature could pay such a debt. No one else could meet the requirements to become the sacrifice for the sins of the whole world (Matthew 26:28; 1 John 2:2).
If Jesus were merely a good man as some claim, then He had a sin nature and was not perfect. In that case, His death and resurrection would have no power to save anyone. Because Jesus was God in the flesh, He alone could pay the debt we owed to God. His victory over death and the grave won the victory for everyone who puts their trust in Him (John 1:12; 1 Corinthians 15:3-4, 17).’
I have no issue with the material in the first paragraph of the above quote. Sacrifice has always been required under the Law for the remission of sin. My issues start with the second paragraph. As ever the Trinitarians just select the individual verses that they would like to think prove their point without any consideration of the scriptures that surround their selection. So instead of merely quoting Hebrews 10:14 why do we not have a look at a much larger slice of Hebrews chapter 10. Unusually it is probably best for me to provide commentary on a verse by verse basis as necessary for the debate:
5 For this reason, coming into the world, He says, "Sacrifice and offering You did not desire, but You prepared a body for Me.
Here Christ is talking to Jehovah about the physical human body He (second person!) made for Jesus. Well these are either two entirely separate persons or God is clearly schizophrenic and talking to Himself! This verse only makes sense if one accepts the LW understanding that Jesus was in fact the Archangel Michael who came down to earth courtesy of the human body that Jehovah God prepared for Him.
6 You did not delight in burnt offerings and [sacrifices] concerning sins."
7 "Then I said, Lo, I come, [in the] heading of the Book it was written concerning Me, to do Your will, O God." [LXX-Psa. 39:7 -9; MT-Psa. 40:6 -8]
8 Above, saying, "You did not desire nor were pleased [with] sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and [sacrifices] concerning sins," (which are offered according to the Law),
9 then He said, "Lo, I come to do Your will, O God." He takes away the first in order that He may set up the second;
In the above verse He, Jesus, is confirming to His God, Jehovah, that He had come to do Jehovah’s will by sacrificing Himself and thereby removing the Old Covenant of sacrifice under the Law and replacing it with the New Covenant of faith in the saving grace of Christ through His own sacrificial offering. How can one person do a second person’s will and both together be one person? If Jesus was Jehovah He would be doing ‘My will’ and not likely to be referring to Himself as ‘O God’ now would He?
10 by which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
11 And indeed every priest stands day by day ministering, and often offering the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins.
12 But He, offering but one sacrifice for sins, "sat down" in perpetuity "[at the] right [hand]" of God,
How can Jehovah sit at His own right hand? And why say ‘in perpetuity’ since Jehovah God is already in perpetuity. But for Jehovah to offer His right hand position to the Archangel Michael in perpetuity, as a result of His sacrifice as Jesus in the flesh, makes perfect sense.
13 from then on expecting "until His enemies are placed [as] a footstool" of His feet. [Psa. 110:1]
Here the quote from Psalms 110 as referenced in Green’s translation is very telling and well worth examining:
1 [A Psalm of David.] A declaration of Jehovah to my Lord: Sit at My right hand, until I place Your enemies [as] Your footstool. (Psalms 110 GLT)
1 לדוד מזמור נאם יהוה לאדני שב לימיני עד-אשית איביך הדם לרגליך (Psalms 110 HOT)
Here Jehovah, יהוה, is clearly telling Jesus/Michael/Paul’s Lord, לאדני, to sit at His (Jehovah’s) right hand while He, Jehovah, sorts out His (Jesus’s) enemies. We are clearly talking about two different parties here. Frankly, from scriptures such as this, the Trinitarian argument looks entirely farcical and contrived (which is the case of course!),
14 For by one offering He has perfected in perpetuity the ones being sanctified.
15 And the Holy Spirit witnesses to us also. For after having said before,
16 "This [is] the covenant which I will covenant to them after those days, says [the] Lord: Giving My Laws on their hearts, and I will write them on their minds;"
17 also [He adds], "I will not at all still remember their sins" and their lawlessnesses. [MT-Jer. 31:33, 34]
18 But where remission of these [is], there [is] no longer offering concerning sins.
19 Therefore, brothers, having confidence for the entering of the [Holy of] Holies by the blood of Jesus,
20 which He consecrated for us, a new and living way through the veil; that is, His flesh;
21 and [having] a Great Priest over the house of God, (Hebrews 10 GLT)
Is this final quoted verse from Hebrews 10 telling us that Jehovah is a priest? The Trinitarians obviously think so! I do not!!
Continuing on with the second quoted paragraph I certainly would agree with the comments that Jesus needed to be a perfect sacrifice and, indeed, the Lords’ Witnesses have the understanding that Michael was a perfect sin-free created angel. However He was not made divine until after He had made His sacrifice and not before. It was at His ascension that He was granted divinity by His Father Jehovah. Now our friend references Matthew 26 but, as usual, let us have a look at a couple more verses around that one quoted:
27 And taking the cup, and giving thanks, He gave to them, saying, Drink all of it.
28 For this is My blood of the New Covenant which concerning many is being poured out for remission of sins.
29 But I say to you, I will not at all drink of this fruit of the vine after this until that day when I drink it new with you in the kingdom of My Father. (Matthew 26 GLT)
So, once again, we find in verse 29 that Jesus refers to His Father Jehovah’s kingdom. Are we again looking at a schizophrenic God? I do not think so. Why did He not define the kingdom as His own? If Jesus was in fact Jehovah Himself why did He not identify Himself as such to His disciples?
Our friend then goes on to reference 1John 2:2. Oh this Trinitarian argumentation really is getting to be very boring; we need to look at the previous verse also:
1 My little children, I write these things to you so that you do not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ [the] righteous. (GLT)
1 Τεκνία μου, ταῦτα γράφω ὑμῖν ἵνα μὴ ἁμάρτητε. καὶ ἐάν τις ἁμάρτῃ, παράκλητον ἔχομεν πρὸς τὸν πατέρα, Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν δίκαιον: (OGB)
2 And [He] Himself is [the] propitiation relating to our sins, and not relating to ours only, but also relating to all the world. (1 John 2 GLT)
2 καὶ αὐτὸς ἱλασμός ἐστιν περὶ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν, οὐ περὶ τῶν ἡμετέρων δὲ μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ περὶ ὅλου τοῦ κόσμου. (1 John 2 OGB)
So the first verse here states that we have an Advocate with the Father. Notice that the Advocate is ‘with (πρὸς)’ the Father not ‘within or a part of’ the Father. Also let us have a look at the Thayer definition of the Greek word for advocate, παράκλητον, and I quote: "one who pleads another's cause before a judge, a pleader, counsel for defense, legal assistant; an advocate". If the judge is Jehovah (or the Holy Spirit) then how can this Advocate, Jesus Christ, possibly be the same person since an Advocate by definition needs to be a separate person from the judge to effect His position?
So now on to the third paragraph which is looking like it is falling right into the hands of any non-Trinitarian believer. Firstly I have already answered the statement regarding the need for a perfect sacrifice in my response to the first paragraph. So let us go to John 1 as suggested by our Trinitarian friend albeit once again looking at a couple of extra verses than he prescribed:
12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave authority to become children of God, to the ones believing into His name,
13 who were born not of blood, nor of [the] will of [the] flesh, nor of [the] will of man, but [were born] of God.
14 And the Word became flesh and tabernacled among us. And we beheld His glory, glory as of an only begotten from [the] Father, full of grace and of truth. (John 1 GLT)
So here John is telling us that Jesus is giving all those believing in His saving grace the opportunity to become true children of Jehovah God to follow in the foot-steps of Michael who became the currently ‘only begotten’ son of His Father Jehovah. ‘Begotten’ clearly demonstrates Jesus/Michael was created and therefore cannot also be the uncreated God Jehovah. The gift from God through His son Jesus is the opportunity for us all to become true sons of Jehovah, all His sons also being gods! This is why Michael is ‘The Way’, He is showing us the path to our own divinity.
I see no point in expanding upon the scriptures from 1Corinthians 15 since these do not seem to be referenced from a specifically Trinitarian perspective although I could certainly find other verses in that chapter which, once again, clearly demonstrate a non-Trinitarian meaning.
I have to say, after completing Addendum 3 on this topic, that this Trinity concept continues to look more and more ridiculous every time I look into it as far as the scriptures are concerned! I am currently sitting on yet another bullet from my friend which is now causing me some considerable anger in that it is clearly based on Roman Catholic mumbo jumbo to maintain priestly control over their congregation. This is against scripture, since the argument uses scripture for its own ungodly purposes and not to honestly discover the truth, and therefore against God so I can now only consider it as blasphemy and treat it as such. There will be no Addendum 4 on the subject since every Trinitarian argument that I have ever researched brings me ever more strongly to the Lords’ Witnesses’ understanding that Jesus was the Archangel Michael incarnate who become the first and, so far, only divine Son of Jehovah. This is the path that all faithful ones are destined to tread. Amen.
Ah well, I might have guessed that I could not resist a further provocation from my friend on the trinity issue. This was the content of a recent WhatsApp message from him and I quote:
‘1 John 5:7, KJV: "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." Quick question wots this verse about? This is to me about three persons in one, in my understanding its the Trinity.’ Unquote.
As an anti-trinitarian I have to say that at first sight this scripture bothered me, given its blatant trinitarian message. Consequently I started investigating the verse by checking out the voracity of the translation. Just look at what I found very quickly:
7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. (1 John 5 KJV)
7 Because three are those testifying; (1 John 5 ED)
This set off some interesting alarm bells as I am sure you can imagine. The Emphatic Diaglott, which is considered to be an accurate interlinear translation, missed out the entire second half of this verse. The second half being that which effectively proclaims the trinity of course! Funny that don’t you think? So my next port of call was to examine the original Greek texts and guess what I found:
7 ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες εν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ πατήρ, ὁ λόγος, καὶ τὸ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα· καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσιν (1 John 5 STE)
7 ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσὶν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες, (1 John 5 WHO)
So, it appears that we have two different versions of the (original?) Greek text that mirrors what we have seen in the two English translations that we saw above. I then had to ask myself the question as to which one of these did I consider to represent the true Word of God. The trinitarian version is from Stephanus’ Textus Receptus (1550). The shorter version of the verse is from Westcott and Hort’s Greek Text (1881) in which the oldest bible texts are preferred.
What was my conclusion? Well it is probably best if I repeat my WhatsApp response to my friend’s original message, suitably edited of course, and I quote: ‘I am very glad that you sent me that scripture yesterday because it proves beyond doubt that the trinity is a made up concept from the early roman catholic church to protect their priesthood's mysticism. When I looked at the Greek there were two different versions with and without the latter half of the verse.’ I also told him that this slam dunk would cause me to write the previously unwanted Addendum 4 to this paper.
I then thought it appropriate to remind my friend of a very clear stricture from God on the subject of man’s tampering with God’s Word, this stricture appearing both near the beginning and the end of the Good Book just in case we may have forgotten the message in between times:
2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish [ought] from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. (Deuteronomy 4 KJV)
18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and [from] the things which are written in this book. (Revelation 22 KJV)
I also suggested to him that he might find this website helpful which, I hope dear reader you will also: A Spurious Reference to the Trinity Added in 1 John 5 verses 7-8. After I wrote this paper, it was pointed out to me by our Church President, Gordon, that this particular verse had already been covered in the True Bible Code web-site at Isaac Newton's exposure of the false doctrine of the Trinity using the Jigsaw Principle. I might have guessed it was there somewhere!
I wonder if I will find the need to write an Addendum 5?
Colossians 1:15 - 17
15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. (Colossians 1, KJV)
15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation;
16 because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All [other] things have been created through him and for him.
17 Also, he is before all [other] things and by means of him all [other] things were made to exist, (Colossians 1, NWT)
15 who is [the] image of the invisible God, [the] First-born of all creation.
16 For all things were created in Him, the things in the heavens, and the things on the earth, the visible and the invisible; whether thrones, or lordships, or rulers, or authorities, all things have been created through Him and for Him.
17 And He is before all things, and all things have subsisted in Him. (Colossians 1, GLT)
15 ὅς ἐστιν εἰκὼν τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ἀοράτου, πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως,
16 ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη τὰ πάντα ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, τὰ ὁρατὰ καὶ τὰ ἀόρατα, εἴτε θρόνοι εἴτε κυριότητες εἴτε ἀρχαὶ εἴτε ἐξουσίαι: τὰ πάντα δι' αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν ἔκτισται,
17 καὶ αὐτός ἐστιν πρὸ πάντων καὶ τὰ πάντα ἐν αὐτῷ συνέστηκεν. (Colossians 1, OGB)
It is probably best to take these scriptures verse by verse. Now I do not understand how verse 15 from chapter 1 of Colossians can possibly cause one to think that God and Jesus are one. It clearly proves the very opposite does it not? Firstly Jesus is described as the image of God. Well so was Adam; does that not make Adam God also? Perhaps we should be considering a quadrinity??
27 And God created the man in His own image; in the image of God He created him. He created them male and female. (Genesis 1)
A mirror or a photograph can reflect the image of a person; this does not make the photograph or the mirror become that person does it? Secondly Jesus is described as the first-born of creation. Therefore He was created and thus cannot be the uncreated Creator. He is not Jehovah God! Both Jesus and Adam were created by God in His image. So the Trinitarians appear to attach much importance to a verse in scripture which actually demonstrates the very opposite of their position. This must definitely be a case of using scripture to prove their beliefs rather than being used as a basis for determining its true meaning.
Now verse 16 is much more interesting and shows the subtle variations that differences in biblical translations can make. The Trinitarian video is using the KJV version which translates both Greek words ἐν and δι' as ‘by’. Whilst I have a great deal of respect for the KJV and the work it has done over the centuries in spreading the Word of God, the GLT is a much more accurate rendering of the original Hebrew and Greek texts that we need to work with. The Greek word ἐν can only mean ‘in’. As far as I can tell I do not think that δι' can mean anything other than ‘through’. The Trinitarians appear to have seized on the KJV version in that they seem to be taking the use of the word ‘by’ to demonstrate that Jesus was the Creator. If we take the more correct GLT version, which does not use the word ‘by’ at all in this verse, it takes on a very different meaning. Whilst creation was put in place for Him and with His help, Jesus nonetheless is NOT the Creator. With verse 17 we have much the same argument since we have the Greek word ἐν once again being translated as ‘by’ rather than ‘in’ in the KJV Trinitarian version. This verse is further confirming that Jehovah God, the Creator, has given all creation over to His Son Jesus to unite and govern albeit under the Creator’s tutelage.
8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou [then], Shew us the Father?
10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.
11 Believe me that I [am] in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.
12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater [works] than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father. (John 14, KJV)
8 Philip said to him: Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.
9 Jesus said to him: Have I been with you men so long a time, and yet, Philip, you have not come to know me? He that has seen me has seen the Father [also]. How is it you say, 'Show us the Father'?
10 Do you not believe that I am in union with the Father and the Father is in union with me? The things I say to you men I do not speak of my own originality; but the Father who remains in union with me is doing his works.
11 Believe me that I am in union with the Father and the Father is in union with me; otherwise, believe on account of the works themselves.
12 Most truly I say to you, He that exercises faith in me, that one also will do the works that I do; and he will do works greater than these, because I am going my way to the Father. (John 14, NWT)
8 And Philip said to Him, Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.
9 Jesus said to him, Am I so long a time with you, and you have not known Me, Philip? The [one] seeing Me has seen the Father! And how do you say, Show us the Father?
10 Do you not believe that I [am] in the Father and the Father is in Me? The Words which I speak to you I do not speak from Myself, but the Father who abides in Me, He does the works.
11 Believe Me that I [am] in the Father, and the Father [is] in Me; but if not, believe Me because of the works themselves.
12 Indeed, I tell you truly, the [one] believing into Me, the works which I do, that one shall do also, and greater than these he will do, because I go to My Father. (John 14, GLT)
8 λέγει αὐτῷ Φίλιππος, Κύριε, δεῖξον ἡμῖν τὸν πατέρα, καὶ ἀρκεῖ ἡμῖν.
9 λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς, Τοσούτῳ χρόνῳ μεθ' ὑμῶν εἰμι καὶ οὐκ ἔγνωκάς με, Φίλιππε; ὁ ἑωρακὼς ἐμὲ ἑώρακεν τὸν πατέρα: πῶς σὺ λέγεις, Δεῖξον ἡμῖν τὸν πατέρα;
10 οὐ πιστεύεις ὅτι ἐγὼ ἐν τῷ πατρὶ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἐν ἐμοί ἐστιν; τὰ ῥήματα ἃ ἐγὼ λέγω ὑμῖν ἀπ' ἐμαυτοῦ οὐ λαλῶ: ὁ δὲ πατὴρ ἐν ἐμοὶ μένων ποιεῖ τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ.
11 πιστεύετέ μοι ὅτι ἐγὼ ἐν τῷ πατρὶ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἐν ἐμοί: εἰ δὲ μή, διὰ τὰ ἔργα αὐτὰ πιστεύετε.
12 ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, ὁ πιστεύων εἰς ἐμὲ τὰ ἔργα ἃ ἐγὼ ποιῶ κἀκεῖνος ποιήσει, καὶ μείζονα τούτων ποιήσει, ὅτι ἐγὼ πρὸς τὸν πατέρα πορεύομαι: (John 14, OGB)
While the video only quotes verses 8 and 9 I think it necessary to add verses 10, 11 and 12 also. Certainly, regardless of which translation we study, if we just look at these first two verses it looks as if Jesus is telling Philip that He is actually the Father. However the following two verses are quite telling against this notion.
Jesus talks about Himself being ‘in’ the Father and the Father being ‘in’ Him. Now whilst some might take this to be continuing the Trinitarian ‘evidence’ the LWs know that every word in scripture has power. So why is the Greek preposition ἐν (in) used? If the Father and the Son are one and the same why not just say that? This use of the word ‘in’ is demonstrating to us mere mortals the sheer intimacy of the spiritual relationship that exists between the divine Father and His divine Son. This is something us humans with our spirits divided from each other by our physical bodies just cannot comprehend. The best we can sense is the inspiration we receive from the Holy Spirit which appears to us as a purely one-way and esoteric form of communication.
Verse 12 then goes on to further describe this spiritual relationship by relating it to those that follow in Jesus’ path. They too will be capable of doing the works that the Christ has done. So Philip would become that capable but it does not mean that Philip was also Christ or Jehovah even. It means that he would become part of Christ’s intimate spiritual family whilst maintaining his own personal and spiritual identity. Further in verse 12 Christ states that He was ‘going to’ the Father. How could He go to the Father if He already was the Father? No He was treading the path to join with His Father.
One might conclude that the Trinitarian writer of the video had cynically selected only the two verses 8 and 9 from John 14 to ‘prove’ the Trinitarian case. It could be considered to be the deliberate ignoring of the following verses in a godless attempt to divert good Christian folk from the truth that the Father and the Son are two separate individual spirits entwined in an intimate loving and righteous relationship. This, presumably, would be in support of the false Catholic doctrine on the matter. How on Earth (or in Heaven actually) could God presume to preside over the families of mankind if He Himself did not have His own intimate family relationships to manage?
Psalms 23:1 + John 10:11
The LORD [is] my shepherd; I shall not want. (KJV)
Jehovah is my Shepherd. I shall lack nothing. (NWT)
Jehovah [is] my shepherd; I shall not lack. (GLT)
מזמור לדוד יהוה רעי לא אחסר (HOT)
I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep. (KJV)
I am the fine shepherd; the fine shepherd surrenders his soul in behalf of the sheep. (NWT)
I am the Good Shepherd! The Good Shepherd lays down His life on behalf of the sheep. (GLT)
Ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ποιμὴν ὁ καλός: ὁ ποιμὴν ὁ καλὸς τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ τίθησιν ὑπὲρ τῶν προβάτων: (OGB)
Once again only taking these two verses, which are linked between both testaments of the scriptures, it is easy to take the understanding that these two shepherds are one and the same. The Old Testament verse expressly refers to Jehovah God the Father (except in the KJV I might add!) whereas John is directly quoting Jesus in the gospel verse. However if we look further into John chapter 10 we find several verses which identify that Jesus and Jehovah are indeed NOT the same being. Nonetheless it is clear that Jesus is Jehovah’s representative on Earth with direct responsibility for the salvation of mankind under the auspices of His Father:
15 As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.
17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.
18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father. (John 10, KJV)
15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I surrender my soul in behalf of the sheep.
17 This is why the Father loves me, because I surrender my soul, in order that I may receive it again.
18 No man has taken it away from me, but I surrender it of my own initiative. I have authority to surrender it, and I have authority to receive it again. The commandment on this I received from my Father. (John 10, NWT)
15 Even as the Father knows Me, I also know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep.
17 For this reason My Father loves Me, because I lay down My life, that I may take it again
18 No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down from Myself. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it again. I received this commandment from My Father. (John 10, GLT)
15 καθὼς γινώσκει με ὁ πατὴρ κἀγὼ γινώσκω τὸν πατέρα: καὶ τὴν ψυχήν μου τίθημι ὑπὲρ τῶν προβάτων.
17 διὰ τοῦτό με ὁ πατὴρ ἀγαπᾷ ὅτι ἐγὼ τίθημι τὴν ψυχήν μου, ἵνα πάλιν λάβω αὐτήν.
18 οὐδεὶς αἴρει αὐτὴν ἀπ' ἐμοῦ, ἀλλ' ἐγὼ τίθημι αὐτὴν ἀπ' ἐμαυτοῦ. ἐξουσίαν ἔχω θεῖναι αὐτήν, καὶ ἐξουσίαν ἔχω πάλιν λαβεῖν αὐτήν: ταύτην τὴν ἐντολὴν ἔλαβον παρὰ τοῦ πατρός μου. (John 10, OGB)
Let us examine these latter three verses further. Why would Jesus say He and the Father know each other? That would be a very strange way to say they were one and the same person would it not? Why would Jesus say the Father loves Him? If He were one and the same then God would be saying He loves Himself. That does not sound very God-like; in fact we castigate mere humans for that self-indulgent tendency. God’s love is for His creation not for Himself surely! Also why did Jesus need to receive a commandment from His Father? If He were the Father He would already have the authority to do what He wanted without needing permission to be granted would He not?
37 And Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen him, and it is he that talketh with thee.
38 And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him. (John 9, KJV)
37 Jesus said to him: You have seen him and, besides, he that is speaking with you is that one.
38 Then he said: I do put faith [in him], Lord. And he did obeisance to him. (John 9, NWT)
37 And Jesus said to him, Even you have seen Him, and He speaking with you is that One.
38 And he said, I believe, Lord! And he worshiped Him. (John 9, GLT)
37 εἶπεν αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς, Καὶ ἑώρακας αὐτὸν καὶ ὁ λαλῶν μετὰ σοῦ ἐκεῖνός ἐστιν.
38 ὁ δὲ ἔφη, Πιστεύω, κύριε: καὶ προσεκύνησεν αὐτῷ. (John 9, OGB)
With all these ‘worshipping’ scriptures the same non-Trinitarian argument, once again, can be used as for Matthew 28:9 above. However, once again just four verses earlier this time, in John 9:33 we find:
33 If this man were not of God, he could do nothing. (John 9, KJV)
33 If this [man] were not from God, he could do nothing at all. (John 9, NWT)
33 If this One was not from God, He could not do anything. (John 9, GLT)
33 εἰ μὴ ἦν οὗτος παρὰ θεοῦ, οὐκ ἠδύνατο ποιεῖν οὐδέν. (John 9, OGB)
This verse uses the Greek preposition, ‘παρὰ‘, translated as ‘from’ or ‘beside’ prior to describing Jesus’ status. It is clear from this alone that Jesus is not God but closely related to Him. If He were God the Creator why does He need a preposition?