[email]

Dear Sir,

As a Theocratic Scholar for forty-five years (Acts9:2), I have found the information on your site most interesting. However concerning the accuracy and context of the material, there is much here to discuss. I would however initially like to offer by way of this email, which shows that the most salient scriptures used to promote this doctrine actually produce the opposite:

On examination, the thesis on the Trinity has more holes than a colander.

John 1:1 according to the original Greek reads "In the beginning was the Word [Logos] and the Word was with [the] God and [a] god was the Word. A large Theta for 'the' God and a small Theta for 'a' god denotes two gods of unequal status.

John 1:2 This one [Logos] was in the beginning with God - not 'as' God.

John 1:14 The Word became 'flesh' [human] not divine.

Jesus himself confirms this when told he is good by his disciples he replied: "Only one is good, God."

John 20:28 After dying as a human Jesus was raised-up from the dead as an immortal spirit creature, a god. Hence Thomas' words "My Lord and My God." Note he did not say 'My Lord Almighty God."

Neither was Jesus a combination of the two natures, human and spirit while on earth, in other words a god-man, divine. The blending of two natures produces neither the one nor the other, but instead an imperfect, hybrid mutation which is obnoxious to the Creator and his divine arrangement. Also, if Jesus as the Trinitarians claim, was God, then as Almighty God is immortal and therefore cannot die in any way shape or form, then Jesus could never have been put to death.

I look forward to your reply on this.
_________________
The above presented views do not necessarily represent any specific individual, registered on this forum or otherwise.
Who is "email"?

[grand_puba]

I believe these are the articles in reference:

• The Deity of Jesus
  
• The Triune Nature of the Godhead

_________________
Have you read the Rules?

[SimplyAStudent]

Thank you for your post to "In Search Of Truth" re: the Trinity. Like you, I, too, try to be a student of the Lord's word and am always seeking for His truth to guide my every footstep. I appreciate your interest in posting an article for other truth seekers to consider.

I read with interest your statements re: the Trinity and must confess they cause me great concern. I do not believe you are representing the truth on this subject. Just as you have asked others to consider what you wrote, I simply ask you to do the same for my thoughts in this response. Please note the web site administrator did not ask me to submit this response...it is from me alone. My words only represent my beliefs and those of no one else

Based on your comments re: John 1:1, I would have to say you are most likely quoting from the New World Translation, the translation exclusively used by those who call themselves Jehovah's Witnesses. In my studies and in discussing the Bible with other men more learned than me, I have never found it to be a very reliable translation, primarily because it denies Jesus Christ His rightful place as the Messiah, the Son of God. There are other discrepancies I could go into as well, but this one will suffice. Your exegesis of Jn. 1:1 is, in your own words, "full of more holes than a colander." It is not correct. Rather, the inspired apostle John does not merely say that the Word possessed certain Divine qualities, but that He was a partaker of the very essence of being Divine. "The Word was God." But if you want to get technical with the koine Greek grammar of the New Testament, notice that the Holy Spirit did not lead John to use the adjective for "divine" (theios) as in Acts 17:29 or 2 Peter 1:3. No, John used the very word for God - a noun (theos). Your reasoning fails to answer this textual evidence that cries out for the Divine nature of Jesus Christ. He was not "a god" as you claim, but rather He is God Himself. He is not the same Divine Person as the Father...but in Him "dwells all the fulness of the godhead bodily" (Col. 2:9).

Even though John fails to use the definite article, that does not mean Jesus was "a god" as you have claimed. Many times in the New Testament definite nouns that regularly precede verbs do not have the definite article, and there is no such implication as you have made with Jn. 1:1. An example of this is 1 Jn. 4:16, where the same apostle says "God is love." It does not mean God is "a love" but that He embodies love, that He is the very essence of love. You are going to have to deal with the truth of these passages that contradict the error you have espoused.

Furthermore, the very wording of v. 14 later on in the same chapter makes your interpretation most unlikely. The same Word in v. 1 "...became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth." This one verse powerfully proclaims the Word as the only begotten Son of God. Again, Divine inspiration has thunderously refuted the uninspired opinions of a man.

Additionally, there are other passages you're going to have to wrestle with because of the erroneous claim you have made in denying Jesus His Divine identity. For one, He is said to be eternal (not a created being or "a god") by one of God's own prophets - Micah 5:2. Concerning the prophecy about where the Messiah would be born, Micah states His "...goings forth are from of old, from everlasting." That, my friend, is eternal. We know this prophecy concerns Jesus, for in Matthew 2:6 it is quoted when the chief priests and scribes tell Herod where the Child was to be found. How would you harmonize this prophetical teaching with your position?

Another passage you're going to have trouble with is Jesus' own statements in Jn. 8:24. In this verse, He states "Unless you believe that I am He, you will all likewise die in your sins." In most reliable Biblical translations, the word "He" is italicized, indicating it has been added by the translators to give meaning. Therefore, the passage really states "Unless you believe that I am, you will all likewise die in your sins." That really is the thrust of the text. And, to give further credence to this thrust, compare the actual koine Greek of Jn. 8:24 to the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament written in Alexandria, Egypt around 200 B.C. - Jesus even quoted from the Septuagint) at Exodus 3:14, where God said from the burning bush that His name was "I am" (the passage where we get the name Jehovah or Yahweh). It is exactly the same. A similar passage to Jn. 8:24 is Jn. 8:58. You're going to have do much better than you've done to get around these very strong Biblical statements that attest to Jesus' true identity as the eternal Son of God.

In my Bible, I can find at least 8 different occasions where Jesus was worshiped by man. On each occasion, He accepted or received such worship...He never refused it. If that be the case, how would we harmonize these instances with His own words to Satan in Mt. 4:8-10. If He was not to be worshiped, then He was guilty of hypocrisy and sin by receiving worship. Otherwise, He is who He claimed to be, and therefore is deserving of such worship. Please answer this dilemma to your position.

Your last statement also needs to be addressed. You state, "Neither was Jesus a combination of the two natures, human and spirit while on earth, in other words a god-man, divine. The blending of two natures produces neither the one nor the other, but instead an imperfect, hybrid mutation which is obnoxious to the Creator and his divine arrangement." You are missing the very point the Bible makes about God's redemptive plan to save man from his sin. It is not impossible for God to be both Divine and human, just as it is not impossible for you to fulfill two roles in your life. For example, if you are married, did you cease being a son to your mother and your father the day you took on a wife? If you are a father, did you cease being a husband the day your first child was born? Is it possible to carry out both roles simultaneously? Of course it is. Likewise, Jesus became flesh to disarm the powers of the devil and defeat him by living sinlessly on earth. This is the very point to the first chapters of Hebrews. Both "roles" of Christ – His Divinity and His humanity – are portrayed.

If my words seem a bit strong, I mean them to be because there is nothing more central or core to the teaching of the Bible than whether or not Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. If He is not, He is a liar because He said He claimed to be Divine (Jn. 8:24). We all may as well burn our Bibles and take up any and all carnal pursuits and fulfill every lust of the flesh, for nothing else matters. If, however, He is as He claimed, you, I, and everyone else is going to have to come to grips with it and deal with it. For my part, I believe He is who He claimed to be and I have rested my complete hope on this one fact that makes all the rest of God's word meaningful and full of purpose for my life. What say you to this?

My hope for you is the same one for me...a continual search for Divine truth with an willing heart and an open Bible.

[email]

Thank you again for getting back to me, I seem to have caused quite a stir on the internet. But then so did the followers of Jesus when all of a sudden they hit the population with the Truth of God's Word in opposition to that which was being taught by the orthodox fraternity.

Concerning the Translation regarding John 1:1. This Scripture is of course well-documented and the quote I use is from Vatican Manuscript 1209 in the Vatican Library [word for word with the Greek Text]. I was an avid believer in the trinity many years ago until I became a Theocratic student whereby I was schooled not into what different churches and other movements were teaching but only in what the Bible itself taught.

This of course is not the only Translation I use as you will see by the list:

• KJV King James Version YLT Young's Literal Translation ED Emphatic Diaglott
  
• ASV American Standard Version AMP Amplified Bible NLT New Living Translation
  
• KJ21 21st Century King James Version CEV Contemporary English Version
  
• NASB New American Standard Version NWT New World Translation
  
• DARBY Darby Translation MSG The Message

You have mentioned an interesting scripture which speaks of Jesus as the only begotten, I would like to insert an extract here from my article on the Trinity due to the fact that many people today are still unaware of what 'only begotten' means.

Athanasius' comment that the Word was begotten not created; is a clever twist set to deceive those who lack insight and understanding. That which is begotten, is still created. While on the other hand, that which is created is not necessarily begotten of the original source. "Only-begotten, means to be created and fashioned personally by the true Father; Almighty God. In this way, the Word became the first-born of all creation. After this, everything else was then created by the only-begotten-one; according his Father's instructions. This is confirmed in the following: "He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation; 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. Also, he is before all [other] things and by means of him all [other] things were made to exist." (Colossians 1:15-17 NWT KJ21 ASV AMP NLT) Indeed, as he has been created in the image of God [just like man]; how therefore can he be God? Also, as he is the first-born of all creation; how therefore could Almighty God create himself?"

You mention of God's redemptive plan is actually the 'Key' to the whole of the Bible, unfortunately very few understand what it is. Because of the scripture which tells us that Christ came to save sinners, the majority take this as the answer to God's Plan. The actual Truth is that this is merely a generalization of a more intricate purpose which Almighty God has planned for the whole of the human race, which is why Jesus spoke of the Good News of the 'second chance'.

There are two separate classes mentioned in the scriptures, the first class chosen 'Before the founding of the World' (Ephesians 1:4) and the second class chosen 'From the founding of the World' (Matthew 25:34). The churches of Christendom have no knowledge of this at all and understand even less. The first class receive immortality in the heavens while the second class like us, will receive everlasting life on the earth.

The fact that you have raised the scripture which confirms that Jesus is the 'only-begotten' son of God actually proves that he is indeed the 'firstborn of creation' and the only creature ever to be fashioned by God's hand alone. Almighty God however is from everlasting to everlasting [no beginning and no end].

On the John 1:1 scripture, I thought you might like to examine the following:

Xenophon's Anabasis corresponds with what is stated in John 1:1. Instead of translating John 1:1 and the word was deity, this Grammar could have translated it, and the word was a god.

In the sentence" and the word was a god" the copulative verb "was" and the expression "a god" form the predicate of the sentence. In the original Greek there is no definite article ho (the) before theos' (god), and it is presumptuous to say that such a definite article is to be understood so that the sentence should therefore be translated "and the Word was God." That would mean that the Word was the God with whom the Word was said to be. This is unreasonable; for how can the Word be with the God and at the same time be that same God?

The proposition "And the word was a god" is a convertible one. That is, we can properly read it: "A god was the word." Or, "the word was a god." Both are equally true.

This claim to render the sentence in John 1:1 "and the word was a god." we find in an early publication which also reads that way, namely, The New Testament, in an Improved Version, upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome's New Translation: with a Corrected Text, printed in London, 1808. It renders John 1:1: "The Word was in the beginning, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god."

This material is completely in context with the rest of the scriptures which when examined we find that there are three specific gods named in the Bible and each one has a different status:

• Almighty God the Creator (Exodus 6:3)
  
• The Mighty God and Prince of Peace (Isaiah 9:6)
  
• The god of this World System, Satan (2Corinthians 4:4)

Regarding the fact that the Word is created in the image of God [which to my mind proves that he therefore could not be God] he also posses the qualities of God. This is being used by the Trinitarians as proof that he is God. However, if this is so, then they have a problem because man is also created in God's image with the same qualities. Does this make us all God?

Jesus said: "My Father is in me just as I am in him," again the Trinitarians use this as proof of their claim. However, if we take the whole scripture in context: "My Father is in me just as I am in him, and I am in you just as you are in me." On the basis of the Trinity, suddenly we have 144,003. The context of course is the same as in Jesus' words: "I and my Father are one [In purpose].

"If you have seen me, you have seen the Father." The Viceroy of India many years ago was berated by the reception committee of India who were indignant that they had not been visited by Queen Victoria herself, to which the Viceroy replied: "If you have seen me, you have seen the Queen." This term has been used for centuries in the context just presented.

Just something for you to ponder over, I look forward to your reply.
_________________
The above presented views do not necessarily represent any specific individual, registered on this forum or otherwise.
Who is "email"?

[SimplyAStudent]

I also appreciate your promptness in replying to my earlier response. As
long as people maintain an open and willing heart to learn more of the truth
from God's word, only good can come from that.

I noticed in your reply that you did not comment on any of the verses I gave
you except one: Jn. 1:1. While that is indeed a good passage, I gave you
several texts to consider and comment on. You ignored all of them except
Jn. 1:1.

Before we go any further in our exchange, allow me to suggest we do the
following. Afterwards, we can discuss anything you would like relative to
the Trinity argument. However, I believe it would be prudent to nail down
the essential truth behind the argument. If we cannot come to an agreement
on that, all our exchanges would be a complete waste of time.

Please answer these questions without too much commenting. A simple "Yes"
or "no" will suffice. That way, I will get a better understanding of your
perspective.

1) Do you believe Jesus is the Christ (Messiah, Anointed One), the Son of
God?
2) If you do believe such, what does that belief and conviction do to this
position you seem to be advocating?
3) If you do not believe this, then who was He? He cannot even be labeled
"good" because He claimed to be Divine and the Son of God. Such a claim
would make Him a lunatic or a liar if in fact He was not.

My answers are:
1) Yes, most definitely, He is the Christ. He has always been with the
Father and is not a created being. He is eternal. I do not believe this
with "blind faith" but based on the evidence contained the Bible.

Questions 2 & 3 take care of themselves because of how I answered question
1.

To me, there is nothing more central or core to the teachings of the gospel
than Jesus and His identity. Either He is the Christ or He is not.

Please reply to these questions and then we can proceed from there.

[truth]

i would like to ask question to SimplyAStudent or to any with his line of thinking.
what dose the first born of creation mean?
the Common Bible: "He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation; for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or authorities-all things were created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together."-Col. 1:15-17.

[JSM17]

"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 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. Also, he is before all [other] things and by means of him all [other] things were made to exists." (Col. 1:15-17, for context. The New World Translation - Emphasis added. Note the NWT’s addition of “other” into the text four times.)

The Jehovah's Witnesses interpret the word "firstborn" here to mean "first created" because it is consistent with their theological presupposition that Jesus is a created thing. Of course, Jesus, the word become flesh (John 1:1,14) is not a created thing. But that hasn't stopped the Watchtower organization from claiming He is. Nevertheless, there is a Greek word for "first created" and it was in use at the time of Paul's writing to the Colossians. He did not use it here. The Greek for "firstborn" is proto with tikto which would give us "firstborn" and that is what we find here in Colossians 1:15. The Greek for "first created" would be proto with ktizo and it is not used here.
Second, the biblical use of the word "firstborn" is most interesting. It can mean the first born child in a family (Luke 2:7), but it can also mean "pre-eminence." In Psalm 89:20, 27 it says, "I have found David My servant; with My holy oil I have anointed him...I also shall make him My first-born" (NASB). As you can see, David, who was the last one born in his family was called the firstborn by God. This is a title of preeminence.
Third, firstborn is also a title that is transferable:

Gen. 41:51-52, "And Joseph called the name of the first-born Manasseh: For, said he, God hath made me forget all my toil, and all my father’s house. And the name of the second called he Ephraim: For God hath made me fruitful in the land of my affliction" (NASB)

Jer. 31:9, "...for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is My firstborn (NASB)."

Scripture best interprets scripture. Firstborn does not require a meaning of first created as the Jehovah's Witnesses say it means here. "Firstborn" can mean the first born person in a family and it can also be a title of preeminence which is transferable. That is obvious since Jesus is God in flesh (John 1:1,14) and is also the first born son of Mary. In addition, He is the pre-eminent one in all things. The Jehovah's Witnesses should consider this when they examine Col. 1:15. They should also abandon the Watchtower which guides them in their thinking and believing.
_________________
...in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.9 These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power...

[truth]

"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 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. Also, he is before all [other] things and by means of him all [other] things were made to exists." (Col. 1:15-17, for context. The New World Translation - Emphasis added. Note the NWT’s addition of “other” into the text four times.)


Colossians 1:15-18 (New American Standard Bible)
15He is the (A)image of the (B)invisible God, the (C)firstborn of all creation.

16For (D)by Him all things were created, (E)both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether (F)thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--(G)all things have been created through Him and for Him.

17He (H)is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.

18He is also (I)head of (J)the body, the church; and He is (K)the beginning, (L)the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything.



Colossians 1:15-18 (Amplified Bible)
15[Now] He is the [a]exact likeness of the unseen God [the visible representation of the invisible]; He is the Firstborn of all creation.

16For it was in Him that all things were created, in heaven and on earth, things seen and things unseen, whether thrones, dominions, rulers, or authorities; all things were created and exist through Him [by His service, intervention] and in and for Him.

17And He Himself existed before all things, and in Him all things consist (cohere, are held together).(A)

18He also is the Head of [His] body, the church; seeing He is the Beginning, the Firstborn from among the dead, so that He alone in everything and in every respect might occupy the chief place [stand first and be preeminent].


Colossians 1:15-18 (American Standard Version)

15 who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation;

16 for in him were all things created, in the heavens and upon the earth, things visible and things invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers; all things have been created through him, and unto him;

17 and he is before all things, and in him all things consist.

18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence
it would seem the nwt is not that unique as you make it out to be.

The Jehovah's Witnesses interpret the word "firstborn" here to mean "first created" because it is consistent with their theological presupposition that Jesus is a created thing. Of course, Jesus, the word become flesh (John 1:1,14) is not a created thing. But that hasn't stopped the Watchtower organization from claiming He is. Nevertheless, there is a Greek word for "first created" and it was in use at the time of Paul's writing to the Colossians. He did not use it here. The Greek for "firstborn" is proto with tikto which would give us "firstborn" and that is what we find here in Colossians 1:15. The Greek for "first created" would be proto with ktizo and it is not used here.
Second, the biblical use of the word "firstborn" is most interesting. It can mean the first born child in a family (Luke 2:7), but it can also mean "pre-eminence." In Psalm 89:20, 27 it says, "I have found David My servant; with My holy oil I have anointed him...I also shall make him My first-born" (NASB). As you can see, David, who was the last one born in his family was called the firstborn by God. This is a title of preeminence.
Third, firstborn is also a title that is transferable:

Gen. 41:51-52, "And Joseph called the name of the first-born Manasseh: For, said he, God hath made me forget all my toil, and all my father’s house. And the name of the second called he Ephraim: For God hath made me fruitful in the land of my affliction" (NASB)

Jer. 31:9, "...for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is My firstborn (NASB)."

Scripture best interprets scripture. Firstborn does not require a meaning of first created as the Jehovah's Witnesses say it means here. "Firstborn" can mean the first born person in a family and it can also be a title of preeminence which is transferable. That is obvious since Jesus is God in flesh (John 1:1,14) and is also the first born son of Mary. In addition, He is the pre-eminent one in all things. The Jehovah's Witnesses should consider this when they examine Col. 1:15. They should also abandon the Watchtower which guides them in their thinking and believing.

so let me get this strate . you dont believe that jesus had a beginning before he was born as a man, is that when you feel he came into being? do you really wish to ignore Colossians 1:15 (American Standard Version) 15 who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. find that very odd , for even in the book of Proverbs 8: 22 speaks of him ]"Jehovah himself produced me as the beginning of his way, the earliest of his achievements of long ago. 23 From time indefinite I was installed, from the start, from times earlier than the earth. 24 When there were no watery deeps I was brought forth as with labor pains, when there were no springs heavily charged with water. 25 Before the mountains themselves had been settled down, ahead of the hills, I was brought forth as with labor pains, 26 when as yet he had not made the earth and the open spaces and the first part of the dust masses of the productive land. 27 When he prepared the heavens I was there; when he decreed a circle upon the face of the watery deep, 28 when he made firm the cloud masses above, when he caused the fountains of the watery deep to be strong, 29 when he set for the sea his decree that the waters themselves should not pass beyond his order, when he decreed the foundations of the earth, 30 then I came to be beside him as a master worker, and I came to be the one he was specially fond of day by day, I being glad before him all the time, 31 being glad at the productive land of his earth, and the things I was fond of were with the sons of men.[/color]_________in deed Jesus did have a beginning________Mark 16:16-17
16 " He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.
NASU

[sledford]

[JSM17]

The WT defines God as one Person only. God = Father according to the WT. If a person were to take an unbiased look at how the Bible uses the word God, Jehovah, Almighty God, or any of the titles applied to the Father, they would clearly see that these same names and titles are applied to Jesus Christ as well. Because when we read the Scriptures in an unbiased manner we find that the word God = Deity.

The Father is called God because He possesses the divine nature. When a Christian says the Father is God, He is saying the Father is truly Deity. One who possesses the divine nature. When a Christian says Jesus is God, He is saying Jesus Christ is Deity.

This statement means Jesus Christ possesses the divine nature and is of equal substance with the Father. Hence, orthodox Christians believe not only that Jesus and the Father are two distinct Persons but we also believe in the Deity of the Father and also in the Deity of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father.

So when a JW says Jesus Christ is not God and means it in the sense that Jesus Christ is not God the Father "IDENTIFYING THE PERSON" of the Father, we stand in agreement. We agree Jesus Christ is not God the Father.

However, when a JW says Jesus Christ is not God in the sense that Jesus Christ is not Deity or truly and intrinsically does not possess the divine nature, this is heresy. Because to believe Jesus Christ is not Deity or does not possess the divine nature is to reject, ignore, or outright close your eyes to multitudes of Scriptures. I repeat MULTITUDES.

If the Bible used the word God in the limited sense the WT does they would have a case. The truth is, it does not and we are not to define God the way the WT does or any religion. We are to define the word the way God uses it in the Bible. If any open minded logically thinking person has read at least a little bit of the Bible, he would definitely know that the Scriptures emphatically call Jesus Christ God.

Now we know that Jesus and the Father are two distinct Persons. So when the Bible calls Him God, we know the New Testament is not calling Him the Father but is indeed ascribing the title of God to Jesus Christ because He does possess the divine nature.

John 1:1,2 is clearly one example of the Bible calling Jesus "God" and is totally a Trinitarian statement.

Here is a loose paraphrase insofar as my studies in the Greek, "1) In the beginning (or in the origin of time), the Word already was existing—and the Word was with (face to face as an equal with) God the Father, and the Word Himself was Deity, just as the Father is Deity. 2) He was present originally with God the Father."

John makes another very emphatic statement concerning the Deity of the Son in his first epistle, "And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us an understanding, that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life" (1John 5:20).

Concerning whether Jesus Christ is God (capital G) as the Bible and the Scriptures use the word there is no doubt (see, for instance: Gen 19:24; Ps 45:7; Isa 7:14; 9:6; Jer 23:5,6; Zech 2:10-3:2; 12:10; Matt 1:22,23; John 1:1; 5:18; 20:28; Acts 20:28; Rom 8:9; 9:5; Phil 2:5-9; Col 2:9; 1Tim 3:16; Titus 2:13; Heb 1:3,8,9; 2Pet 1:1; 1John 5:20).

We as Christians are not asking the JWs to believe anything contrary to Scripture; we would just try to persuade you to believe ALL the Scriptures and not just the ones that seem to agree with you. And we would like that you use the title "God" as the Scriptures do.

If the apostles call Him God and He himself claimed to be so, are you saying they are wrong as well as we?
_________________
...in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.9 These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power...

[JSM17]

Paradise Book

The quotes are taken from the Wathc Tower book intitled Paradise, pages 39-40 in a chapter titled, "God—Who Is He?" under the subtitle of "Is God Jesus or a Trinity?"

Paradise: Who is this wonderful God? Some persons say his name is Jesus. Others say he is a Trinity, although the word "trinity" does not appear in the Bible.

Comment: This argument holds not water for neither does the word "Theocratic."5 Just because a word is not used in the Bible does not mean the doctrine is not taught.

Paradise: According to the teaching of the Trinity, there are three Persons in one God, that is, there is "one God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit."

Comment: Amen. Three distinct Persons who are "one" (Hebrew, echod) in unity (Deut 6:4). One of the only times in the history of the WT that they have defined my belief correctly; but they quickly confuse the teaching in the mind of the reader just two sentences away. Watch!

Paradise: Many religious organizations teach this, even though they admit it is "a mystery."

Comment: After studying the doctrine, it really is not such a mystery.

Paradise: Are such views of God correct? Well, did Jesus ever say that he was God?

Comment: Here they go! Remember, how do you define the word God??? Did Jesus ever say He was God the Father??? In agreement with the WT we would say NO; but as we have seen the WT does not use the word God the way the Bible does. Now, did Jesus ever say He was God, not in the sense that He's the Father but in the way the Bible uses the word God? Emphatically Yes! If anyone would like to have an intelligent discussion on John 8:58 please oblige me, for it was He who saw Abraham in Genesis chapter 18.

Paradise: No, he never did. Rather, in the Bible he is called "God's Son." And he said: "The Father is greater than I am." (John 10:34-36; 14:28) Also, Jesus explained that there were some things that neither he nor the angels knew but that only God knew. (Mark 13:32)

Comment: You see, here is the WT pointing out the distinction between the Persons. They are not making a case against the Deity of Christ but against MODALISM/ MONARCHIANISM which rejects the distinction between the Persons.

Paradise: Further, on one occasion Jesus prayed to God, saying: "Let, not my will, but yours take place." (Luke 22:42) If Jesus were the Almighty God, he would not have prayed to himself, would he? In fact, following Jesus' death, the Scripture says: "This Jesus God resurrected." (Acts 2:32) Thus the Almighty God and Jesus are clearly two separate persons.

Comment: As we have seen, distinguishing between the Persons does not disprove anything. The WT does this again and again and again and again in all their publications. This is truly sad for those who have been duped into believing that born again Christians believe the Father and the Son are the same Person. JWs are being deceived and they're not even aware of it.

Paradise: Even after his death and resurrection and ascension to heaven, Jesus was still not equal to his Father.—1 Corinthians 11:3; 15:28.

Comment: Here the WT is displaying it's true ignorance and misunderstanding. Let's take a peek at these two passages of Scripture they are referencing:

11:3: But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.

15:28: Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.

The WT's quotation of these passages demonstrates another misconception. The WT can not understand how someone can be subject to another and yet be equal. Let's look at the illustration from Scripture. God the Father is the head of Christ just as man is the head of the woman. I am married now for 10 years. I am the head of my household.

I hold a higher position in my household because God appointed it so. I am by virtue of my position greater than my wife. The president of the United States is by virtue of his office greater in position than you or I. He is the head of this country.

While I am greater than my wife in position and I am her head I am not BETTER than her concerning our nature. Concerning our nature, power, and authority over our household WE ARE EQUAL. We are both human and my wife is equal with me in authority and power over my two children. The president while greater in position is not better than you or I. He is a human being just like the rest of us.

The WT has not grasped this basic concept and the fact that while someone can be our head whether it be the head of the house or the head of the country they at the same time can be our equal. Yes, God the Father is the head of Christ; yet Christ is the Father’s equal concerning their nature or substance, power, and authority. The Scriptures explicitly state this in John 5:18; 10:22-39; Phil 2:6; etc. Is this starting to make sense yet???

Paradise: "But isn't Jesus called a god in the Bible?" someone may ask.

Comment: NEVER IS HE CALLED A GOD IN THE BIBLE, NOT ONCE, THIS WOULD BE THE INTRODUCTION OF POLYTHEISM. The definition of Polytheism is to place your faith in more than one god.

Paradise: This is true. Yet Satan is also called a god. (2 Corinthians 4:4)

Comment: What blasphemy, to place Satan's Creator (Col 1:17) on a par with him, how insulting to Jesus.

Paradise: At John 1:1, which refers to Jesus as "the Word," some Bible translations say: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

Comment: Actually, every single recognized Bible translation throughout the world. Only one or two corrupt ones state "a god" which breaks the laws of New Testament Greek grammar.6

Paradise: But notice, at verse 2 says that the Word was "in the beginning with God." And while men have seen Jesus, verse 18 says that "no man hath seen God at any time."

Comment: If they had quoted the rest of this verse it would have been made clear that John is referring to the Father. This is true. No man has seen God the Father at any time. Jesus even took it one step further when He stated "You have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His form" (John 5:37).

Yet throughout the Old Testament we find numerous times when God had appeared to men, spoke to men, and even ate with them (Gen 18; Exod 24:9-11; 33:11,20). The simple answer to this dilemma is that no man has seen God the Father just as John states. Who did they see??? God the Son (Isa 6:1; John 12:41).

"Then the LORD [Jehovah - on earth who had talked with Abraham] rained brimstone and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah, from the LORD [Jehovah] out of the heavens" (Gen 19:24). Two Persons called Jehovah in one verse.

Paradise: So we find that some translations of John 1 verse 1 give the correct idea of the original language when they read: "The Word was with God, and the Word was divine," or was "a god," that is, the Word was a powerful godlike one. (An American Translation) Clearly, Jesus is not Almighty God. In fact, Jesus spoke of his Father as "my God" and as "the only true God."—John 20:17; 17:3.

Comment: What the WT is failing to mention is that just as the Son calls the Father God, so does the Father call Jesus God and the true God and eternal life: Heb 1:8; 1John 5:20.
_________________
...in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.9 These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power...

[truth]

(Psalm 82:6) "I myself have said, 'YOU are gods, And all of YOU are sons of the Most High.


john 10:34 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, 36 do YOU say to me whom the Father sanctified and dispatched into the world, 'You blaspheme,' because I said, I am God's Son? 37 If I am not doing the works of my Father, do not believe me. 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."

1 Corinthians 8:5) For even though there are those who are called "gods," whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many "gods" and many "lords,"



There is no doubt in our mind that Jehovah is the God of Jesus Christ, the God that raised Jesus from the dead; the God of faithful Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the forefathers of Israel; the God of Samuel, Elijah, Isaiah, Jeremiah and the other faithful prophets; the One whom Moses confessed, David honored and Noah served; the God of the Holy Bible, whose name is Jehovah. "I am Jehovah. That is my name; and to anyone else I shall not give my own glory, neither my praise to graven images." Of him the prophet Moses wrote: "Even from time indefinite to time indefinite you are God."-Isa. 42:8; Ps. 90:2.

[sledford]

[truth]

Can I ask a confirmation on what you're saying here? Are you concluding that Jesus is god with a little "g" and not God with a big "G", yes as in Jesus being equal no not equal and of the exact same nature as God the Father, Jehovah? in that he Jesus , is made of spirit stuff ,yes.tho i wonder what you mean "the same nature"
i find the idea that Jesus and Jehovah as being the same person a ridiculous idea and not backed up by Scripture at all.

[sledford]

[truth]

So what does equal mean? Jesus taught his disciples to pray: "Our Father which art in heaven, hallowed be thy name." Our heavenly Father, whose name is Jehovah, is described in the Bible as being superior to his Son. For example, Jehovah is "from everlasting to everlasting." But the Bible says that Jesus is "the firstborn of every creature." That Jehovah is greater than Jesus, Jesus himself taught when he said: "My Father is greater than I." (Matthew 6:9; Psalm 90:1, 2; Colossians 1:15; John 14:28, King James Version) Yet, the Trinity doctrine holds that the Father and the Son are "equally God."

The Father's superiority over the Son, as well as the fact that the Father is a separate person, is highlighted also in the prayers of Jesus, such as the one before his execution: "Father, if you wish, remove this cup [that is, an ignominious death] from me. Nevertheless, let, not my will, but yours take place." (Luke 22:42) If God and Jesus are "one in essence," as the Trinity doctrine says, how could Jesus' will, or wish, seem different from that of his Father?-Hebrews 5:7, 8; 9:24.

Furthermore, if Jehovah and Jesus were the same, how could one of them be aware of things of which the other was not? Jesus, for instance, said regarding the time of the world's judgment: "Concerning that day or the hour nobody knows, neither the angels in heaven nor the Son, but the Father."-Mark 13:32.

[JSM17]

The Nature of Christ
If the New Testament clearly affirms the divine nature of Jesus Christ, and yet the Lord referred to the Father as “my God,” then obviously there is no compromise of the Savior’s nature by his use of this expression.

The biblical affirmations of the divine nature of Jesus Christ are beyond dispute to any student of the scriptures who has a threshold level of interpretative ability. The following facts are evident.

First, the Old Testament unequivocally foretold the coming of the incarnate God (Isaiah 7:14; 9:6; 40:3; 44:6; Jeremiah 23:5-6; Micah 5:2; Zechariah 13:7).

Second, Christ claimed to be deity in nature (John 5:17-18;10:30), and others acknowledged him as such, even worshipping him—both angels (Hebrews 1:6), and men (Matthew 2:2; 14:33; John 20:28).

There must, therefore, be a way of harmonizing these facts with the Savior’s use of the expression “my God.”
_________________
...in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.9 These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power...

[truth]

I do dispute the fact that Jesus has the power that only a god can have, he raised the dead , removed blindness,cured
every disease, he even walked on water. the thing that i want you to under stand is that power was given to him .yes, given to him, that same power Jesus gave to the apostles and they raised the dead and cured all infirmities. did that power make them gods? no not hardly.
it is all so quite evident that Jesus worshiped the father just as he instructed us to do ,he gave all honer and glory to the father , he prayed to the father ,every thing Jesus did do was because his god wanted him to do it .
the position that he now holds is that of mediator between god and man. he does not speak as god but for god.
I would like to give some examples from different bible translations that show my point, at Jesus is not equal with God
For instance, the Revised Standard Version published in 1952 reads: "Have this mind among yourselves, which you have in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped."

The Emphatic Diaglott by Benjamin Wilson published about a hundred years ago reads: "Let this disposition be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus, who, though being in God's form, yet did not meditate a usurpation to be like God."

An American Translation published by Smith and Goodspeed reads: "Have the same attitude that Christ Jesus had. Though he possessed the nature of God, he did not grasp at equality with God."

The New Testament in an Improved Version upon the basis of Archbishop Newcome's new translation published in 1808 reads: "For let this mind be in you which was in Christ Jesus also: who, being in the form of God, did not eagerly grasp at the resemblance to God."

The Emphasised Bible by J. Rotherham reads: "The same thing esteem in yourselves which also in Christ Jesus ye esteem, who in form of God subsisting, not a thing to be seized accounted the being equal with God."

The Riverside New Testament translated by William G. Ballantine, D.D., reads: "Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not think that equality with God was some thing to be grasped."

Note that none of these translations that are here quoted says that Jesus possessed equality with God in heaven before becoming a man. He did not imitate the Devil's example, who tried to make himself like God, to be equal with God. Other modern translations can be found to support the foregoing presentation. The trouble with those translations that try to make it appear that Jesus possessed equality with God in heaven before becoming a man is that they insert the small pronoun "it" into their English translations, such as the King James Version: "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God." The pronoun "it" is not in the original Greek.

[JSM17]

I thought that the scriptures would be overlooked in the reponse, so I thought I would post them so others could see the argument. What does the scriptures say about Christ, is he GOD? Sometimes when you point scriptures out to people they like to go to other passages that have nothing to do with the topic at hand. Again here are the questions and thought that I posted prior:





First, the Old Testament unequivocally foretold the coming of the incarnate God

1. Isaiah 7:14
14 Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel.
NKJV

Immanuel, which means GOD with us! Matthew 1:23

2. Isaiah 9:6
6 For unto us a Child is born,
Unto us a Son is given;
And the government will be upon His shoulder.
And His name will be called
Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
NKJV

Please try to see this as it is and not to ignore it!

3. Isaiah 40:3
3 The voice of one crying in the wilderness:
"Prepare the way of the LORD;
Make straight in the desert A highway for our God.
NKJV

John the baptizer said that Jesus was God as well as the prophet Isaiah!

4. Zechariah 13:7-9
"Awake, O sword, against My Shepherd,
Against the Man who is My Companion,"
Says the LORD of hosts.
"Strike the Shepherd,
And the sheep will be scattered;
Then I will turn My hand against the little ones.
8 And it shall come to pass in all the land,"
Says the LORD,
"That two-thirds in it shall be cut off and die,
But one-third shall be left in it:
9 I will bring the one-third through the fire,
Will refine them as silver is refined,
And test them as gold is tested.
They will call on My name,
And I will answer them.
I will say, 'This is My people';
And each one will say, 'The LORD is my God.'"
NKJV

The prophet said “THE LORD IS MY GOD” this scripture is talking about CHRIST who according to the prophet is GOD!

Second, Christ claimed to be deity in nature

1. John 5:17-19
17 But Jesus answered them, "My Father has been working until now, and I have been working." 18 Therefore the Jews sought all the more to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God.
NKJV

Making Himself equal with GOD, notice that Jesus does not correct them in this thought because Jesus is GOD!

2. John 10:30
30 I and My Father are one."
NKJV

ONE NOT TWO!

3. Why do men in scripture worship HIM?
John 20:28
28 And Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!"
NKJV

Thomas knew that Jesus was GOD, not only did he worship Him he said it as plain as day!

4. Matt 14:33
33 Then those who were in the boat came and worshiped Him, saying, "Truly You are the Son of God."
NKJV

I understand that the texts says Son of God, but notice that again they worshipped Him, if God is truly the only one worthy of worship why did not Christ stop them from worship?

These passages need to be dealt with, these are not the only scriptures that continue to prove that Jesus is worthy of the title GOD and worthy of all praise anf worship!


JESUS IS GOD!
_________________
...in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.9 These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power...

[Trinity_is_ANTI_Biblical]

Hello there!
First off, I don’t like to post on these boards. Too much: “you didn’t respond to EVERY SINGLE THING I POSTED” nonsense. Points get tossed about, and the real issues are always pushed into the background. However, I figured I’d respond to the following seemingly “unanswerable questions” given us here by the resident Trinitarian(s).

Let me start by saying that technically Trinitarianism does NOT teach Jesus is GOD (without qualification). Trinitarians are guilty of redefining words to meet their preconceived theological bias. Something they accuse the “cults” of doing. It is like the pot calling the kettle black. Trinitarians SAY Jesus is God, but big deal, so do Oneness Pentecostals that teach modalism, and THEY deny Trinity. So calling Jesus God is NOT an argument for trinity. So then, when Trinitarians SAY Jesus is God, they are REDEFINING the word GOD (grk. theos) to mean “a person **of** the triune God, or a person **OF** God. So Trinitarians are guilty of redefining the word ‘theos, god,’ to mean something NO Greek lexicon grammatically defines the word as!

See, if Jesus is the Almighty ONE True God, then there can be no trinity, because Jesus is ONE PERSON, not three. Remember, God, according to Trinitarian theology, the Almighty One and ONLY True God, is 3 persons who are the ONE WHAT (The One God). Not One Person, One what (God). Yet, this 1 who 1 what God that Trinitarians DENY is EXACTLY The God Jesus taught IN the Bible, as we will develop below.

That being stated, Trinitarianism can be easily defeated from the outset, as the Bible NOWHERE CALLS Jesus, the Father or holy spirit, a person *of* God. Nor does it anywhere define The Only True God as 3 persons, Father Son and Holy Spirit. The Bible nowhere SAYS Jesus is a Person OF a Triune God, or any sort of words that create that meaning.

Trinitarianism cannot be proven from Scripture, nor can it be proven from the Grammar of the Bible. It can only “attempt” to be reasoned out, from what is called “Systematic Theology.” This, for the uninitiated, is simply two big fancy words that simply mean: “It’s our interpretation of what it is we think the Bible MEANS.” This, sad to say, is accepted over what the Bible ACTUALLY SAYS.

But now we ask, just whom DOES the Bible SAY is the Only True God? Does it SAY the Father Son and holy spirit, ARE the Only True God anywhere in scripture?? NO! Okay, so what DOES it say with regard to our question? Whom does the Bible articulate “as” The Only True God? Turn to John 17:3 and read it for yourself. Jesus here tells us that in order to “gain everlasting life” (this is what you Trinitarians would call an “essential doctrinal teaching”), we would need to know the FATHER (One person of John 17:1) as THE ONLY TRUE GOD.. AND Jesus Christ whom is sent forth FROM, or distinct FROM the ONE PERSON, the Father, whom he stated was The Only true God!

Paul, (as a second witness) also articulated the ONE God as The Father at 1Cor 8:6. Oh and before we get the typical response to this verse, YES, The Father is NOT the One Lord (or mediator) of the Christian congregation (the US to whom Paul is writing), the Son, Jesus is. 1Tim. 2:5. So Paul ALSO knew nothing about the One God being 3 whos.

Now, with this being stated, let me begin: I will put my response in RED, scriptures in black. YOUR WORDS in BLUE. You WROTE:

************************************************************************************************************************
I thought that the scriptures would be overlooked in the response, so I thought I would post them so others could see the argument. What does the scriptures say about Christ, is he GOD? Sometimes when you point scriptures out to people they like to go to other passages that have nothing to do with the topic at hand. Again here are the questions and thought that I posted prior:

The issue sir, is NOT whether or not Jesus is GOD, but rather, whether or not God is a triune being and Jesus is ONE Person therein. So basically you are attacking an argument no one is making. I would state YOU sir are the one posting scriptures. “that have nothing to do with the topic at hand,” as the topic is The Deity of Jesus AND THE TRINITY. None of the scriptures you present below, define God, the Only One True, Almighty, and Living God as a Triune Being. None. Zero. Zilch. Nadda

First, the Old Testament unequivocally foretold the coming of the incarnate God

1. Isaiah 7:14
14 Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel.
NKJV

Immanuel, which means GOD with us! Matthew 1:23

I find it quite amusing that one would take such a simple verse out of context. First this verse says NOTHING about an Incarnate God coming in the future! Have you not read Isa. 7:14? Question: “What would the birth of this son signify?” Answer from vs 14, a SIGN! And just what would that sign signify? That Jehovah God was WITH the nation of Israel. Notice from Isa 8:1-10:

“And Jehovah proceeded to say to me: “Take for yourself a large tablet and write upon it with the stylus of mortal man, ‘Ma´her-shal´al-hash-baz.’ 2 And let me have attestation for myself by faithful witnesses, U·ri´ah the priest and Zech·a·ri´ah the son of Je·ber·e·chi´ah.” Then I went near to the prophetess, and she came to be pregnant and in time gave birth to a son. Jehovah now said to me: “Call his name Ma´her-shal´al-hash-baz, 4 for before the boy will know how to call out, ‘My father!’ and ‘My mother!’ one will carry away the resources of Damascus and the spoil of Sa·mar´i·a before the king of As·syr´i·a.” And Jehovah proceeded to speak yet further to me, saying: 6 “For the reason that this people has rejected the waters of the Shi·lo´ah that are going gently, and there is exultation over Re´zin and the son of Rem·a·li´ah; 7 even therefore, look! Jehovah is bringing up against them the mighty and the many waters of the River, the king of As·syr´i·a and all his glory. And he will certainly come up over all his streambeds and go over all his banks 8 and move on through Judah. He will actually flood and pass over. Up to the neck he will reach. And the outspreading of his wings must occur to fill the breadth of your land, O Im·man´u·el! Be injurious, O YOU peoples, and be shattered to pieces; and give ear, all YOU in distant parts of the earth! Gird yourselves, and be shattered to pieces! Gird yourselves, and be shattered to pieces! 10 Plan out a scheme, and it will be broken up! Speak any word, and it will not stand, for God is with us! "


Yes, the birth of this son to the prophet, was a sign in the initial fulfillment, that Jehovah was indeed with Israel. Notice that this boys’ literal name would be “Ma´her-shal´al-hash-baz” showing that the title Immanuel (‘with us is God’), was just that, a title! What was the name (title) of the boy born of the Virgin Mary? Immanuel! What was the literal name given him? Jesus! Matt 1:21. She will give birth to a son, and you must call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.”

Yes the name Jesus means “Jehovah is Salvation.” This reminds us of John 3:16 which shows us that “GOD…. (was the one)… who loved the word so much (that he did something about it) … (and what did he do?) …..he sent his only begotten SON, in order that…”

Secondly: The meaning of a name or a title that is bestowed upon someone hardly is an identification of just WHO that person is! The name of the prophet Jehu (1Kings 16:1-4, 7, 12) means “Jehovah is he.” Now are you going to argue that Jehu WAS Jehovah? The name Isaiah means “Salvation of Jehovah.” This is the same basic meaning of the name Jesus. Are you going to argue Isaiah was Jesus just because both their names mean the same thing?

Finally, the term maiden here, is the Hebrew ‘almah. It means just that, a maiden, either one who is or may not be a virgin. This word is used, as opposed to the Hebrew word ‘BETHULAH’, which specifically means virgin. So here we see that there can and WAS an initial fulfillment of the verse in Isaiah’s day, and a greater or ANTI-TYPICAL fulfilment in the messiah, in the first century. Unless you want to be dogmatic and say the son born in the initial fulfilment in Isaiah’s day literally was God because verse 10 of Chapter 8 identifies this birth as being a sign that "God is with us!"?

I didn’t think so.

2. Isaiah 9:6
6 For unto us a Child is born,
Unto us a Son is given;
And the government will be upon His shoulder.
And His name will be called
Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
NKJV


Please try to see this as it is and not to ignore it!

Yes we see it. It is a messianic prophecy fulfilled in Jesus. He was the Child born.
He is the one of whom the government is upon his shoulders (Dan 2:44).
He is the one who’s name (title, position) will be called:
Wonderful Counselor (Funny, the LXX here reads “Angel of Grand Counsel”, showing even the Jews understood the Messiah to be an angel)
Mighty God (Yes ‘El Gibbohr’ not ‘El Shaddai.) Only Jehovah (YHWH) is called El Shaddai Gen 17:1. Jesus is NEVER called ‘El Shaddai’, even though Jehovah is ALSO called ‘El Gibbor,’ Isa 10:21, but then again angels are called Elohim (gods) in Psalms 8:5, are they not also mighty gods?
Everlasting Father: So tell us, you’re the Trinitarian here, “Is Jesus the Everlasting Father?” If so, then I guess you not have TWO Everlasting Fathers in your Trinity?
But that isn’t what Trinitarianism teaches now does it? Modalism teaches Jesus is the “Everlasting Father”… not Trinitarianism! So please do tell us just how this Jesus of yours, of whom you declare to be “second person of your Triune God” can be called the “EVERLASTING FATHER” and NOT **be*** the Father, but a separate and distinct person FROM ANOTHER called the Father?
(hint: This verse is not at all difficult for true Christians) (okay, another hint: Look up the meaning of the Hebrew word here translated “everlasting,” ‘ad’)
Prince of Peace. Yes, a Prince is a Son of a King. Jehovah is NEVER referred to as a PRINCE in the Bible. The Bible shows Jesus was MADE LORD and CHRIST (Acts 2:36) as he was also made and given to become, King of Jehovah’s kingdom. Luke 1:32

3. Isaiah 40:3
3 The voice of one crying in the wilderness:
"Prepare the way of the LORD;
Make straight in the desert A highway for our God.
NKJV

John the baptizer said that Jesus was God as well as the prophet Isaiah!

No sorry, neither John the Baptizer nor Isaiah was saying Jesus was God! Again, here we have a classic illustration of one who doesn’t bother reading what the text is saying, and seeing how it was/is to be fulfulled, but rather someone taking a verse out of context and jamming it into a preconceived theological construct. Notice:

In the initial fulfillment, the "road" of Jehovah was literally created in the wilderness that led the nation of Israel out of Babylonian captivity to Jerusalem in the year 539 b.c.e. Yes this road led to their freedom out of the enslavement from Babylon, as they made their way back to Jerusalem marking the end of the 70 years of Babylonian captivity in 537 b.c.e. (Jer 25:11). Now we ask, “was a "literal road" made in the wilderness in Jesus’ day? No! In the spring of 29 C.E., John the Baptizer started his work as a "messenger," or a "forerunner" or Jesus. He was given the assignment "to prepare the way of Jehovah." Not that Jehovah would come literally, because Jehovah did not come literally in 537 b.c.e. did he?
If we examine the record, after the road was completed that safely allowed the Jews to travel from Babylon to Jerusalem, who were the ones who technically walked on that road? Was it Jehovah himself? NO! It was the Jews! And neither would Jehovah come literally in the first century. Rather, John would prepare the nation of Israel f