Skip to content

God is not triune – the Devil's great lie. Part 3

This is the third of a three part article by Rich Owen,
minister at City Evangelical Church, Leeds.


In the first post, we saw how the creation was a magnificent preach. It’s pinnacle moment was in the creation of a uniquely vivid image and witness to the Divine Life, Man and Woman. A loving community of persons, ordered, relational, loving and *echad* in union.

Then we saw how Satan moved in to destroy that witness. His plan to seize power was to break this image. Corrupt the Doctrine of God and it all falls down into his greedy hands.

So today we will reflect on this:  The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devils work.

Jesus is the dazzling, glorious and eternal image of the Invisible God. He is the Lord, the Living Word, the eternal expression of the Father, the Anointed One. So how does he pulverise Satan’s head?

The Angel of the Lord who ascends and descends in heaven’s fire, the Living Rock upon whom and in whom all creation holds together, this time descends as baby.

He sums up the human race into himself, assuming, owning, taking responsibility for humanity’s sinful self-love. He came from the Father’s side and became incarnate of the virgin Mary, fully divine, fully human so that as an Adam, He could live a human life from beginning to end in total devotion to his Father and in totally ecstatic (that is, out from Himself) love, a love for the poisoned race of Adam.

Satan even presented him with his master plan. Do what Adam did. Take your lead from another, one who is not your head… me. Take my lead and serve yourself. Become like me, a needy monad. A power hungry, glory seeking parasite and give yourself what YOU want.

But He destroyed the Devils work. He continued to love, He continued to do his Father’s will. He continued to pour himself out even to death, delighting even in that moment in his Father and with joy in His great heart as He considered His eternal inheritance! A Bride. A new Eve!

He wasn’t going to betray who He is. After His resurrection, He carried on. At His Father’s command, He breathed out His Spirit onto the old Adam so that it could be joined to the new. The loving Two sent out the Third. And they gave out the Third. The Living God went forth and multiplied!

The Father gives us the Son. The Son gives us the Father. The Father and the Son give us the Spirit and the Spirit gives us to the Father, in the Son.

He set His love upon the unlovely, so that the unlovely could be made lovely in Him.

So lets draw some points for rumination:

  • The Trinity is the gospel. God’s triune life is good news for a monadic, image-of-Satan world.
  • The life of God is love - other centred, generously giving love
  • Satan wants you to believe God is not loving, and not Triune. That’s all.

So perhaps you might want to ruminate in the following direction. Knowing is not enough. Live it:

  • Are you Trinitarian?  I don’t mean in theory, but in practice. Do you read, preach and speak as a Trinitarian? Reading the OT as a Trinitarian will minister to your soul and give such freshness and light to your study as you never had before. Remember – God didn’t suddenly declare his Trinitarian nature 2000 years ago in Bethlehem. He declared it when He spoke in Genesis 1.
  • Do you give yourself in love to others? If you are married do you serve, love and cherish, *know* and delight in your spouse?  Whether married or not, do you give yourself to those who are not like you – in church and where you live and work? Do you go out of yourself, seeking to beatify and serve the really nasty people? The “chavs”, the office weirdo? Do you do the unglamorous jobs at church *because* there is no glory for *you* – putting the chairs out, washing the cups, cleaning the loos?

Know and live the Trinitarian life. Image Him – be who you ARE.

53 thoughts on “God is not triune – the Devil's great lie. Part 3

  1. Nick M-S

    Thanks so much for this, Rich, I really enjoyed reading it - it really warms the heart.

    Thank you, Jesus, for your love!

  2. Rich Owen

    Thanks for the encouragement, Nick. Glory to Jesus indeed!

    Hey, next time you've got a Rugby outreach thing going on, I've got a mate who might be able to help (Rugby League that is). He's busy but passionate about Jesus and quite good at Rugby too :-)


  3. Glen

    Dear fromthesunrise,

    I have some questions for you.

    Why are you anonymous?

    Why is there nothing personal either here in your comment or on your blog? Why do you give nothing of yourself?

    Why the caps lock?

    You are by no means the first unitarian to comment on my blog. But every single unitarian has done what you've done - hit-and-run. Why is that?

    Why don't you engage personally and deal with what's been written?

    I fear you resemble your god. Impersonal. Anonymous. Busy.

    But there's a way to save your soul. Come to the living God who is intensely personal and knowable and who is full of grace. But it will mean ditching your unitarian god and coming afresh to Jesus - allowing Him to shape your thinking from the bottom up.

    I'll do you a deal - I will leave your comment up for the next 24 hours. If in that time you decide to actually read this article and engage with it, good. If not I'll delete it.

    Best wishes,

  4. Glen

    Dear fromthesunrising,

    Again, you show yourself to be very like your god. You don't really engage with others you just drop information down into our midst from on high.

    But the living LORD Jesus comes into our midst to engage us on our level. If you knew Him you would be saved from your watchtower nonsense which is ruining you. Jesus is the One you need to deal with. As 1 John 5:20 says "He is the true God and eternal life."

    I am deleting your comments. If you want to engage with what is written here, that's fine. If not I will ban your IP address.

    May you know the true God and eternal life - Jesus Christ the eternal Son of God,

    in Him

  5. fromthesunrising


    why ask for my identity/ is it important more or the truth in the bible/ just scan the bible verses that i have presented to you and my article about john 1;1. it seems easy for you to say i am in the wrong path, yet you ignore by yourself the truth i presented to you which are in line with the bible. i am not showing myself as god but what i represent is for truth and for jehovah.

  6. fromthesunrising

    you can think whatever what you want to think but as for me i am just sharing the truth which i have learned... i don't even think i am a god but what i think is i can be one who can share truth with other people...

  7. Glen

    Hi fromthesunrising,

    I'm not saying that you think you are a god. Given your beliefs, I know that you would never think that. What I'm saying is that the god you believe in is not the living God. The god you believe in is not the Father of Jesus, known in the divine Son through the Spirit. Your god is different to that.

    Your god is anonymous, impersonal and works-based. Your god doesn't come among us and engage with us on our level but merely sends us information from on high.

    And I was simply saying that your comments have been exactly the same. Anonymous, impersonal, busy. You haven't engaged with anything we're saying on the blog you've just given us a lot of impersonal information for us to submit to.

    I pray that you will renounce your false god and turn to the LORD Jesus Christ.

    in Him,

  8. fromthesunrising

    Jehovah is the only true God. Since JW present biblical truths therefore it is undeniable also that JW is in truth. Actually, Revelation 3:12 which said by Jesus in heaven that he has God and at 3:21 that he sits by his father's side. How do you understand that?

  9. Rich Owen

    Hi fromthesunrising

    Please engage with the posts - this is Glen's point. You don't engage, you just dump stuff and demand a response. Like your god.

    I will engage, because my God does engage personally and I'll do it like Jesus does - giving my reply in question form:

    Being the son of your father doesn't make you less human than him does it?

    In Jesus, The LORD God of Israel


  10. fromthesunrising

    I am just sharing the truth. Nothing impersonal. Let the truth be heard. In fact aren't all types of people can read your blog. There would be pro and cons. I am here to express my beliefs about the truth so what's wrong with that. Isn't the title seems the topic that commentator should talk about? Again I am here to share the truth. Colossians 3:1 and the other verses that are the same with it speaks that Jesus sits at the right side of God? How would you view that? And Daniel 7:9; 13, who is the son of man appearing near to the One of Ancient Days? There are two persons described. It could be none other than Jehovah and Jesus. Verse 14 proves it is really Jesus because he have rulership given by his Father.

  11. Si Hollett

    "I am just sharing the truth. Nothing impersonal." but just sharing the truth, and not yourself also is impersonal. However, you engage and get a bit less like a monadic god in this post though - you share a bit of yourself, you engage in the conversation - perhaps because you are beginning to realise that there are two people in the Godhead.

    "There are two persons described." Yes indeed - we're totally with you on that, but why does this deny the Trinity - surely it blows out of the water a Unitarian god, unless you have two of them? You've shown that there are two powers in heaven - this blog has a few posts on that topic, I suggest you give them a look.

  12. fromthesunrising

    My identity is not important anyway. What is important is the biblical truth I am presenting. Psalms 2;6 -12 speaks about Jesus as appointed king by God. psalms 110;1 - 7 still speaks about Jesus and Jehovah. Jesus as the promised king appointed by GOD. Lastly, this verse gives a clear distinction of the two;

    1 Corinthians 15;25 - 28


  13. Glen

    Dear fromthesunrising,

    I don't think you really understand what we mean when we speak of the trinity. Judging from your comments here it seems like you've never been exposed to what the church of Jesus Christ has been saying for millennia. And I find that very sad.

    Of course the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are distinct Persons. How could anyone read the bible and conclude any different.

    But also... of course they are all worthy of the title LORD. Again the bible is clear on this point again and again.

    And... of course there is only one God.

    This *is* the doctrine of the trinity. God *is* Father, Son and Holy Spirit bound together in loving unity. The one God *is* the unity of these distinct Persons.

    Only the doctrine of the trinity makes sense of Scripture. And only the doctrine of the trinity makes sense of a gracious gospel in which God (the Spirit) unites me to God (the Son)'s own human obedience offered in my name to God (the Father). Only the trinity guarantees that I am wrapped up safe in God.

    I don't think you have understood what it is you are so loudly rejecting. Perhaps listen to this sermon for more...

  14. fromthesunrising

    Trinity speaks of Triune God. Three God is One. The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. They say Jesus is God. That God became god-man on earth. But Trinity is not Biblically stated. Acts 7:55-56 states that Stephen saw Jesus at the right hand of God and that he was filled with the holy spirit. From these, we can clearly see that the presence of the three are at the same time being separate on each other. John 1:2 speaks that Jesus is with God. John 17:5 speaks the glory that Jesus had with his Father before the world created. Revelation 3:21 also speaks that Jesus is sitting on the throne beside his Father's side. Again, there are lots of Biblical verses that shows their presence at the same time. Being separate persons. Daniel 7:13, 14 again to repeat speaks the separateness of God the Father and the son AT THE SAME TIME. I suggest you read this link and the related links on this article of mine.

  15. Rich Owen


    You don't understand the Trinity. From your posts here I think you think Trinitarians are modalists. You keep showing the there are distinct persons in the God-head, as if to say that this should be a problem for us, but it's not. You think that Trinitarianism is the same as modalism.

    I had exactly the same kind of conversation with a JW on my doorstep. He thought I had a real problem because I was confessing that there were distinct persons in the God-head. I pointed out that it's not a problem for a Trinitarian, because, as the name suggests, we believe in three Persons united in love as One. Tri-unitiy. He was amazed when I said that this was what the Church has always believed.

    The real problem is for you because it is so easy to show that scripture will declare all Three Persons as divine and eternal.

    Please turn away from your un-belief and come to Jesus, the eternal, divine Son of the Father, anointed with the Spirit without measure for your salvation.


  16. fromthesunrising

    I am not saying that there are three persons in Godhead. The Godhead is the Father, the Son of God is Jesus and the holy spirit is the active force of God that he uses to do his will and to perform his will. Again, in my blogs you can find many scriptural verses that identifies the separateness of jesus and jehovah at the same time. Actually, Jesus never claims that he is the God Almighty but what he told to pharisees is that jehovah spoken to him just as what he quoted in psalms 110;1 and is reported in matthew 22;41 - 46.

    41 Now while the Pharisees were gathered together Jesus asked them: 42 “What do YOU think about the Christ? Whose son is he?” They said to him: “David’s.” 43 He said to them: “How, then, is it that David by inspiration calls him ‘Lord,’ saying, 44 ‘Jehovah said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies beneath your feet”’? 45 If, therefore, David calls him ‘Lord,’ how is he his son?” 46 And nobody was able to say a word in reply to him, nor did anyone dare from that day on to question him any further.

    From what he quoted, jesus is clearly saying in literal words that jehovah had spoken to him and promised this thing to him. how could THE LORD spoken to the Lord just as what Jesus is asking to the Pharisees. Logically, he is saying that he is a son of a person but not of David and this could only be his Father who is JEHOVAH.

  17. Si

    fromthesunrising: "Again, in my blogs you can find many scriptural verses that identifies the separateness of jesus and jehovah at the same time."

    Again, for what seems like an umpteenth time: so what? You've established that Jesus isn't the Father and we wholeheartedly agree with you there and have said so several times. We've given you pointers, explained what we believe, but you ignore that. Listen to the talk that Glen linked to, understand our beliefs, and then we can engage and have a debate rather than you saying that we should believe what we believe - that the Father is not the Son.

    What you then have done is then, in defiance of the evidence of nature, logical reasoning and - worst-of-all - scripture, is decided that sons cannot ever be of the same nature as their fathers. That Jesus being the son automatically makes him not God - my father is a human, as his son does that make me not human? No! So why do you insist on this ridiculous notion with God - that the Son is a son and therefore cannot possibly be God because he is a son.

    Because fathers beget of their own kind, any claim to be the Son of God is a claim to divinity, likewise Jesus forgiving the paralysed man, saying that "before Abraham was, I am" ('I am', of course being the name of God that Jesus gave Moses when he sent Moses out to save his people out of Egypt), various other "I am" or "Jehovah" if you want, sayings in the gospel of John. Jesus says that he is God repeatedly, and this is the source of all the plots and attacks on Jesus' live, and finally what he was condemned by the Jewish leaders for.

  18. fromthesunrising


    JW believes that Jesus is a god, having the nature and attributes of God. Hebrews 1:3 speaks that Jesus is the exact representation of Jehovah and that in Colossians 1:15 Jesus is the image of the invisible God. From these, it clearly states that Jesus is someone that possess the divinity or the nature of God but again he was never God but a god. A god who is subjected to the God, the Almighty. He never claimed that he is God but the son of God (John 10:36). Actually, the Jews is not saying that he is God but rather what they think is that he is a god. The original Greek writings of John 10:33 doesn't have article "ton" before the word "theon" indicating it is not an identity but rather a quality - someone who shows the quality of being a god. This is in comparison with John 1:1 which the word God (theon) has article showing it is the Almighty God. Thus, the correct translation as what John is showing clearly beginning in John 1:1 is that there are two separate persons - one is the God and the other one is a god. This makes John as the one who is inspired his writing by Jehovah rather than what Jews think of Jesus that he is "a god" and not the "God". That is why the right translation of John 10:33 is "a god" and not "God" just what NWT preserves it. Please see this interlinear link below.

    Who should we believe, the John's gospel or the Jews who try to stone him? Should we believe the words of Jesus or the Jews? Jesus is claiming that he is a god by explaining to the Jews that there are gods (John 10:34 - 35) which can be found in Psalms 82:6. Therefore, he is saying implicitly that he is a god and the Son of God explicitly.

  19. fromthesunrising

    Please take a look of this Bible verse: Revelation 3:14

    14 “And to the angel of the congregation in La·o·di·ce´a write: These are the things that the Amen says, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation by God,

    This proves of Colossians 1:15. Jesus called his Father as "My God" in heaven.

    Revelation 3:12


  20. Josh VB

    Hi fromthesunrising,

    I'm finding the conversation quite interesting. Just a quick clarification: When you say that Jesus is separate from Jehovah, which Jehovah are you speaking of? The Jehovah who has been seen by Abraham, Moses and many others, or the one who has never been seen?



  21. fromthesunrising

    No one has ever seen God (John 1:18). Jehovah himself said that whoever shall see him will die. What Moses and others words saying they saw Jehovah does not literally mean they saw Jehovah but rather those are angels that represent Jehovah on his behalf.

  22. Josh VB

    That's a fascinating insight. A quick couple of questions:

    Exegetically how do you come to that conclusion? Why do you go down the complicated option of saying what's said isn't what's meant, when a plain reading reveals that Jehovah has been seen many times, and many passages speak of a couple Jehovah's (Genesis 19:24) or Jehovah speaking about Jehovah in the second person (Exodus 19:24).

    Theologically, are you sure you know this Jehovah? If Jehovah can only be revealed through angels (and how much less glorious are angels to Jehovah himself!) what makes you think you have an accurate picture of God?

    How sad it would be to think that God was unable to communicate with us directly, and had to go through various intermediaries and lesser beings before we can know something about him. Will he be able to communicate with us directly in the future? Does he want to - or is he happy to keep an arms-length relationship with us?

  23. fromthesunrising

    Josh VB,

    First, Moses and others are the ones expressed that they have seen God by their eyes. But it is Jehovah himself who told that no one will ever see him and will continue to live (Exodus 33:20). 1 John 4:12 and John 6:46 speaks that no one has ever seen God. It would be a big contrast to say if Jehovah was seen by any one. John 1:18 clearly states that only the begotten son of God who is Jesus is the one who have seen the Father. What you are saying in Exodus 19:24 is not in literal sense. There are some verses in the Hebrew Scriptures that says people appear before or in front of Jehovah. Angels are messengers of God. An angel spoke to Daniel to reveal the prophecies and angel spoke to Lot when Sodom and Gomorrah were planned to destroy by Jehovah. An angel appeared to Joseph's dream to reveal the birth of Jesus through Mary. Prophets were also used by God to reveal his message to his people. Since all the Scriptures were inspired by God then it could have no contradictions. For if someone will say that Jehovah appears in the literal eyes of the people before then he himself is breaking his words and the Bible would contradict itself.

  24. Rich Owen

    fromthesunrising - really glad you have started to engage a bit more.

    Re your comment to Si on 13th March... you say:


    Where, exactly do either of those texts state, clearly in your words, that Jesus is not God but a god?

    What about a few verses on in Hebrews 1:

    "About the Son He (Jehovah) says: Your throne, O Jehovah, is for ever and ever...."

    I suppose the plain reading of that is the wrong one right?

    I've always been amused by the NWT's translation policy. I wonder *why* they don't employ that rule about definite articles normatively? Might it be because it would make the whole thing ludicrous? Might it be but that it suits a unitarian understanding if the don't? Either way, it is tacit admission that they are playing fast and loose with translation in order to make the Bible *fit* a unitarian position.

    Please, give it up. I know that we may be sharply responding to your view, but that is because we love Yahweh-Jesus. If you repent there won't be any "told you so". Not here anyway. Please - worship Jesus, the one given the highest name for all eternity - LORD. Bow the knee in love and worship now before you bow the knee in fear, for who can hide from the wrath of the Lamb?


  25. Josh VB


    Could I pick up on what you said about Exodus 19:24?

    The New World Translation puts it:
    24 However, Jehovah said to him: “Go, descend, and you must come up, you and Aaron with you; but let not the priests and the people break through to come up to Jehovah, that he may not break out upon them.”

    What bits of it are not literal, and what does the verse mean? Why does Jehovah speak about Jehovah in the second person (He is happy to use the first person elsewhere in the chapter - v9 for instance). Isn't the natural reading of the verse that there are two persons called Jehovah, one of who is acting in a mediatorial role between Jehovah and man? As I read it, I see the graciousness of Jesus who is our great high priest, bringing the people to the Father - an event which would be catastrophic without our mediator. How do you read it?

  26. fromthesunrising

    Josh Vb,

    A mediator is only possible between two parties as he is acting in the middle of the two groups. 1 Timothy 2;5 states that Jesus is the mediator of men to God. What Exodus 19;24 shows that it is Jehovah who is speaking in the second person or it could be possible that angel spoken to Moses in behalf of Jehovah. There is nothing wrong if Jehovah speaks in the second person as if he is emphasizing his name to the people. Even angels in the Bible speaks in the first person as if they are Jehovah God who is speaking to the people. Maybe I could try to send you later the verses that shows angels are speaking to the people as if they are Jehovah God.

    Rich Owen,

    I don't think Hebrews 1;8 you quote is the right translation of that. Of course, Trinitarians will use that way of translation to fit their doctrine. The NWT correctly translated it in the way it should be translated as no one can deny that it is a possible translation but a correct translation based on scriptural verses that identify Jesus as not the God Almighty but a separate person from God.


    How could God told to himself to sit at his right hand if he is Jesus also. [Hebrews 1;13]


    And that is in relation to Colossians 3;1; 1 Peter 3;22; Hebrews 10;12

    And why would Jesus would tell this if he is GOD Almighty/



    Would the two verses in John sounds not literal/ If not why did he say it/ Is he lying to the people whom he was talking with/

    Please also take a look of these verses John14;10, John 8;28 These are plain verses and has no metaphorical meaning.

  27. fromthesunrising

    Rich Owen,

    I hope you don't mind if I keep giving Scriptural verses to prove what I believe. And I would love to quote again the verses in the book of John as what said by Jesus to your question as to why Jesus is not God but a god.

    JOHN 10; 33-36


    Again, as I have said Jesus is saying implicitly that he is a god for there are gods also as he quoted it in Psalms 82;6 and in verse 36 just to answer the thought of the Trinitarians not the Jews because it has no article in original writings that says Jesus is making himself god/God. In this verse the JEWS are not saying he is God but a god just as what John know in relation to John 1;1-2. Jesus gave an answer to them in verses 34 and 35 saying implicitly that he is a god and that he explicitly answer the Jews that he is the Son of God in verse 36.

  28. Josh VB


    That would be great! By the way, how can you tell the difference between the Bible calling the Angel of the LORD, Jehovah because he is Jehovah, and calling him Jehovah for some other reason?

    On a related question, do you think God is wise? If Jesus is the wisdom of God, can God be wise without his wisdom?

  29. Jacky

    Well here's a riddle..

    As a wise sage once said:

    "If the son of a cow is a cow..

    then why is the son of God not God?"

    (c.f. Psalm 110; Matthew 22:41-46)

    I have a strange feeling that this debate is treading on some familiar ground that Gregory of Nyssa once wrote about. A letter called "On Not Three Gods", or something like that...

  30. Rich Owen


    Oh honestly.... if you interpret John 10 like that, yes you have to say Jesus is a god. But I very strongly recommend that you don't. Just read Psalm 82 that Jesus quotes here. If Jesus really means that he is among those called the gods, then he is also saying that he is just one of those gods who knows nothing, understands nothing, walks in darkness, defends injustice, is fond of the wicked, and is oppressive and unkind to the weak, fatherless and needy.

    No wonder you don't worship him if you think of him on that level.


  31. John B

    Hi Jacky,

    So glad that you brought up Gregory of Nyssa! The Eastern fathers, especially the Cappadocians, may be the best guides to point those JWs to, who are earnestly seeking to explore Christianity. As you note, this is an ancient debate. Gregory speaks in terms of a relational subordination within the Godhead, which may resonate with seekers from the JW.

    Gregory of Nyssa wrote:


  32. fromthesunrising

    Being god means having divine attributes and/or having power or authority. It doesn’t necessarily mean that Jesus is among the called gods in Psalms 82 but rather it shows that just as those gods before, he himself also has authority given by his Father Jehovah and possesses the divine qualities of God. That is why in 1 Corinthians 8:5 Paul mentioned that there are gods in heaven and on earth. (Read also Deuteronomy 10:17; Psalms 95:3; 96:4, 5; 97:9) Of course the gods in heaven (the angels) are those who possess the qualities of the true God. Just as Jesus is a god therefore he has divine attributes of the true God. In order a son to be called a son he must have a father that begot him and in order for a person to be a father he must have a son or daughter. A father could only be a father when he begot a son or daughter likewise a son could only be called a son when he was begotten by a father. In real life, a father was a son before because he was begotten by his father. He would never be a father if he would not beget a son. That is why an old son would only be still a son if he will not beget a son or daughter. Jesus is the Son of God because he was begotten by his Father Jehovah. The very beginning of creation of God as described in Revelation 3:14 and in connection with Colossians 1:15. Again, a father is a human that is why he’s son is a human. Since Jehovah is God and spirit therefore Jesus is also a god and a spirit and all the angels are gods and spirits (1 Corinthians 8:5). Thus, Jesus belongs to a class of gods and spirits but only Jehovah is considered as the true God (John 17:3).

    Jesus clearly stated this verse and I suggest you give a better look on these words of him.

    John 7: 16 Jesus, in turn, answered them and said: “What I teach is not mine, but belongs to him that sent me. 17 If anyone desires to do His will, he will know concerning the teaching whether it is from God or I speak of my own originality.

    If he himself the GOD, then why did he say that he do not speak on his own and that his teachings is not from himself but from the one who sent him? It is clear on his words that he never claimed to be God (Jehovah) but he always taught that his Father has sent him and that this is the one that teaches him what to say. This is in connection to his words in


    It would be a liar on part of Jesus to say these words if there is no one who instructed him what to say. What is his message all about if his plain words are not true?

  33. fromthesunrising

    Of course, Jehovah has wisdom. He created everything through his wisdom. Jesus is the wisdom of God (1 Corinthians 1:24, 30). He is the personification of Wisdom. He was first created by Jehovah – the first of all works of Jehovah (Proverbs 8:22). He was with Jehovah as a master worker (Proverb 8:30). It cannot be the literal wisdom of God in God’s mind because verse 23 states he was established or appointed that means it has founded and has beginning of existence. Jehovah has his wisdom from eternity as it is his nature from his eternal existence (Psalms 90:2). Jehovah exists in eternity with wisdom and power. Jesus was created or made from the very beginning.

  34. fromthesunrising

    Genesis 12:7 Jehovah now appeared to A´bram and said: “To your seed I am going to give this land.” After that he built an altar there to Jehovah, who had appeared to him.

    Genesis 26:2 Then Jehovah appeared to him and said: “Do not go down to Egypt. Tabernacle in the land that I designate to you.


    Exodus 33:20 And he added: “You are not able to see my face, because no man may see me and yet live.”

    According to Jehovah God and Jesus no man had seen and would see Jehovah. This proves that the one appeared to Abraham and other as well as if it is Jehovah is no other than an angel. Here there is an angel that represent as Jehovah who had spoken as he is really Jehovah.

    Judges 2:1 – 4
    1 Then Jehovah’s angel went up from Gil´gal to Bo´chim and said: “I proceeded to bring YOU up out of Egypt and to bring YOU into the land about which I swore to YOUR forefathers. Furthermore, I said, ‘Never shall I break my covenant with YOU. 2 And for YOUR part, YOU must not conclude a covenant with the inhabitants of this land. Their altars YOU should pull down.’ But YOU have not listened to my voice. Why have YOU done this? 3 So I, in turn, have said, ‘I shall not drive them away from before YOU, and they must become snares to YOU, and their gods will serve as a lure to YOU.’”
    From the four verses above it shows that angel really spoke to people as they are Jehovah.

    I would not go further with this discussion. The Bible teaches clearly in plain words that Jehovah is a separate person from Jesus and that at present time they are both present (Daniel 7:13, 14; Acts 5:31; Revelation 1:1) and separate from each other. The Jehovah’s Witnesses are not for a debate but merely to encourage the people to have knowledge and enlightenment about the word of God. Sorry for this lengthy comments.

  35. fromthesunrising

    Concerning Jesus it states as

    23“From everlasting I was established,
    From the beginning, from the earliest times of the earth.

    24“When there were no depths I was brought forth,
    When there were no springs abounding with water.

    25“Before the mountains were settled,
    Before the hills I was brought forth;

    It says he was established thus set up or founded and it says he was brought forth which means he comes into existence that is from being non-existence he was brought up into existence. Hope this helps.

  36. Josh VB

    "If [Jesus] himself the GOD, then why did he say that he do not speak on his own and that his teachings is not from himself but from the one who sent him? "

    Because that would either be seens as di-theism, which we all would reject, or it would result in sects teaching that because Jesus is God, God the Father cannot be God, since there is only one God.

    From your comments you seem to have a misunderstanding of what Christians mean by the Trinity. From your perspective this puts you at a serious disadvantage in trying to win over us "tritheists" into your way of thinking (as it is, it's easy to dismiss many of your posts with a quick, "I don't believe that..."). Please first try to understand what we are saying and what we're not - this might help:

    I'm sure there will always be people here who will try to show you how we understand the Bible and point you to the LORDship of Jesus.

    I need to be off - I'm going to experience Trinitarian theology by going to chapel, enjoying relationhip with others, centred on our unity in Christ.

  37. fromthesunrising

    Josh VB,

    From your point of view regarding what Jesus said that he did no speak on his own and his teachings is not from himself but from the one who sent him, you said it would create a scene of being di-theism since God and Jesus is part of the Triune God as you always want to emphasize in Trinity doctrine. However, did you see that Jesus was answered by his Father in heaven and is reported in John 12:28 in relation also with the voice of God in heaven that Jesus also heard and John in the Jordan River when he was baptized and is reported in Matthew 3:16, 17. The reason why Jesus said that he did not speak on his own originality but what his Father told him to speak he speak it is because he is really distinct and is separate from Jehovah at all times. He is with Jehovah before he became as man (John 17:5;24; Proverbs 8:30), when he was a man (John 8:16; 29; 16:32) and when he descended in heaven (Colossians 3:1; Revelation 3:21 and among others). Also the presence of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit can be clearly perceived and seen in Matthew 3:16, 17 and Acts 7:55). These are biblical proofs of the uniqueness of the three and as not coequal. They are distinct to each other and are separate from each other. Actually, the way of Trinitarians use to prove their doctrine is to give their own explanations on some Biblical verses to support and is simply twisting the real doctrine of the Bible. If not they should also know how to explain these plain verses that the JW is presenting in order to prove the Trinity doctrine.

    John 8:28 Therefore Jesus said: “When once YOU have lifted up the Son of man, then YOU will know that I am [he], and that I do nothing of my own initiative; but just as the Father taught me I speak these things. 29 And he that sent me is with me; he did not abandon me to myself, because I always do the things pleasing to him.”

    Regarding the post link you paste regarding the word "Elohim" as a plural form of "El", I am currently making my reply post on my own blog and you can see it as soon it is posted in this link below.

  38. Josh VB

    Thanks for reading through the link I gave you and responding. Before I respond to your comment could I just clarify some terms?

    "These are biblical proofs of the uniqueness of the three and as not coequal."

    In what sense do you mean "coequal"? Using this sense of the word would you be coequal to your husband if you got married?

    (Forgive me if you're already married to a wife - I find it hard to engage with someone I know nothing about, and find I end up imagining certain things about the person without justification. In my mind you're single, female and working for Jehovah's witness in China. I'm probably wrong on all accounts, so do please correct me!).

    BTW I've been married for just under a couple years to a lovely wife called Ye Ying.

  39. fromthesunrising

    Josh VB,

    The word coequal is supposed to be link with the Father as God, the Son as God and the Holy Spirit as God. Though they are separate from each other and acting a single identity Trinitarians used to equate them as One Triune God that is the Father who is fully God becomes Jesus as fully God while fully man and that Holy Spirit is fully God. Thus Trinitarians put this trinity in a ven diagram having the center as God and connecting lines with the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit of a three circles with intersection of their being God. Thus to trinitarian it shows they are coequal but different in perspective or in facets in which I do not agree.



    The thoughts were taken and translated from another language version of Reasoning of the Scriptures, pp. 422-423. (I know people will know it.)


  40. Josh VB

    I think we may be getting somewhere. You say that the doctrine of the Trinity teaches that "the Father who is fully God becomes Jesus as fully God while fully man" and that coequality is about being the same thing. This is emphatically not what is being taught - what I think you're thinking of is Modalism, or Sabellianism, and you're right to reject that - and I hope you see that we're not teaching that.

    Coequality in the Trinitarian sense is about having an equal status. The best analogy we have in creation is the equality a husband and wife hold: there is very real difference, but in terms of worth and status we are equal - equally human in our differences. (I'd go further and suggest that without a doctrine of the Trinity we can't really grasp how things can be both equal and different: in Islamic thought the difference in the sexes is recognised but equality is lost - how does it work for Jehovah's Witnesses? Are husband and wife co-equal?) Thus the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are equally worthy of worship, praise and thanksgiving and are equally uncreated.

    You're right to point out the use of Adoney (though the difference between plural and singular forms only came from the Masoretic pointing pointing many years after they had their break with the Christians). However, Elohim is still suggestive of something, and forces the reader to enquire about what sense Elohim is plural.

    What you say about the archangel Michael is interesting, though to prove your point you would need to show that Michael was created. Clearly there are created angelic beings, but the first time an angel is mentioned in the Bible (Genesis 16) he's clearly referred to as God. In fact he is God sent from God - the same sort of language that is in John's gospel. To say that calling him a messenger (the way the NIV translates mal'ak about 40% of the time) implies he isn't divine is surely the equivalent of saying that since God is called a husband, warrior, shepherd etc he can't be divine. And I'm sure we both want to avoid such a silly reading of the text.


    Perhaps you could clarify something in your position for me. My understanding is that you believe Jehovah made Jesus (is this the right way to refer to him pre-incarnation? Is "son" a better term?") before any other work of creation - and that Jesus was the author of all the other acts of creation. Under this understanding, why did Jehovah make Jesus?

    Thanks in advance!

  41. fromthesunrising

    Josh VB,

    The word Elohim is plural in a relative sense but it does not always suggest plurality in definition but merely suggest as a superlative status of specific subject which can be differentiated or compare with the other subjects. In your words saying that the Masoretes had started to identify the singular and plural forms of noun is not a basis to disregard the suggestive meaning of the Biblical word based on its context [meaning if the context suggest a literal singular object or it suggest plurality in its superlative case in its sense]. Thus, when the forms of “adonay” is written in Hebrew Scriptures in different verses still there is a necessity to distinguish it as a plural or singular because it shows really the meaning of it based on the given context of a verse. So whenever a different form of “adonay” is being used still there is a specific meaning which carries by that form of word that is in singular or in plural meaning. However, I am not well known of the different forms of the word “adonay” which suggests plural or singular. But what it shows here like what JW is explaining that the word “Elohim” just as used in the two verses I have quoted from the links above is that it suggests a deeper meaning rather than just being its literal singular or plural in sense. If the word Elohim for God is only plural in literal sense [i.e. in the form of case of the noun] then based on the two given verses I have quoted which have the word “Elohim” must also suggest that it is literally plural in sense yet based on the context of the said verses it does not literally implies a plural form of noun grammatically speaking so the only possible way to interpret is through its lexical meaning [lexical means pertaining to the meaning of a word which are not in literal sense but in deeper meanings]. The word “Elohim” in the verses I have quoted as well as “adhoneh” of one of the form of adonay in one of the verse that JW is quoted as plural form of noun does not show plural form in literal sense but rather it suggest a lexical meaning of plurality in superlative case. Thus the word “Elohim” does not suggest literally plural in its case but being superlative in its essence just as what scholars gives its lexical meaning as “majesty” or “magnificence”.What can we see here about Masoretes? This shows that the Masorete texts of Hebrew Scriptures were exactly written based on the original writings of the Hebrew Scriptures. We know that the Masoretes (5th to 6th C.E.) were the ones who invented the standard vocalization of the Hebrew Scriptures by adding consonants on the Hebrew Scriptures which do not have consonants before. However, we could learn that even in the absence of the consonants of the original Hebrew Scriptures there is really difference in writing of the forms of noun such as for the Hebrew word for “God” in Hebrew language or writing and this is the same with the other words in English translation that have different forms of the basic word. This gives understanding for the Masoretes to classify the nouns as to singular or plural because it is necessary to do it so based on the CONTEXT of a given verse and its lexical force of meaning of a given word. Since Elohim for God which you say is plural in sense we cannot just reject that it contradicts with the meaning of word “Elohim” in the two verses I have presented above. How could a person apply a plural noun in sense yet it contradicts the same word that suggest a singular form of noun? Thus, the word Elohim suggests a lexical sense of meaning as “majesty” and “magnificence” not just being its plural in sense.

    With regards to quality of two persons just as husband and wife. I believe both are equali in status in the eyes of God. Yet it is always said in the Bible that the head of wife is his husband and that the head of Christ is Jehovah (Ephesians 5:22 – 24; 1 Corinthians 11:3). If Jesus and Jehovah have equal in status of praising then why Jesus said in John 14:28 says that Jehovah is greater than him. If they are both equal to receive in worship and praise then they won’t be a difference of who’s greater than the other one. Hebrews 12:2 and Colossians 3:1 states,


    1 If, however, YOU were raised up with the Christ, go on seeking the things above, where the Christ is seated at the right hand of God.

    How do you understand that?

    Again with regards to the angel you are saying in Genesis 16. It was an angel from God not the God itself. Based on the Scriptures I have quoted you Jehovah did not allow himself to be seen by anyone and that in the Greek Scriptures it says that no one (man) ever see and will ever see Jehovah of which Jesus had told also. See my quoted verses from the part of the beginning of this discussion. “A friend of mine” means I have a friend who is separate from me. “A box of marbles” implies two kinds of objects that is a box and marbles. The Lamb of God implies that there is a lamb and God separate from each other.


    There are two objects spoken about the one seated on the throne and the one who is Lamb. Notice verse 17 the pronoun use is *their* - the great day of THEIR wrath has come.

    New American Standard Bible (©1995)


    17 For the great day of their wrath is come, and who shall be able to stand? – Douay-Rheims Bible (Catholic Bible)

    17 for the great day of their wrath is come; and who is able to stand? – ASV


    17 For the great day of their wrath has come, and who is able to endure it?” – ISV

    A Commentary from Gill’s Exposition from the Entire Bible goes like this:

    For the great day of his wrath is come,.... The Vulgate Latin and Syriac versions read, "of their wrath"; both of him that sits upon the throne, and of the Lamb, against the Heathen gods and Heathen persecutors, in answer to the cry of the martyrs in Revelation 6:9.
    And who shall be able to stand? against either of them, or in their presence, and so as to bear their wrath and displeasure; all which expresses guilt, shame, fear, and despair.

  42. fromthesunrising

    I mean "equality of husband and wife". I suggest you read these articles.!+Mail!+Mail

  43. Josh VB

    Thanks again for your long reply. John 14:28 is a fascinating verse isn't it? In the context (John 13:16, 15:20) Jesus is saying he's a servant - which makes sense in John's gospel, for he's always perfectly doing his father's will (the Father has never done anything without his Son). In a book so full of allusions to Isaiah (in John 12:41 Jesus has just been described as the LORD of hosts that Isaiah saw) it's a clear reference to the fact that Jesus is the servant in Isaiah. Which of course means that he's divine. In Isaiah 53:13 the servant of the LORD will be high and exalted - an indication that he is the LORD (Isaiah 2:17, 6:1, 33:10, 57:15). He's also called the "arm of the LORD" - another clear reference to divinity (Is 51:9, 52:10).

    This is of course wonderful news! The LORD of Hosts himself is our servant: Is your Jehovah able to stoop down to earth to serve us? Is he willing?

    As to the idea that Jesus could be sitting at the right hand of God I have absolutely no problem with that. The NT often seems to use the word "God" to describe God the Father and Lord to describe God the Son (though not exclusively). To therefore say the son is any less God than the father would be as foolish as saying the Father is any less Lord than the son. So we have the Son sitting next to the Father (if we use less ambiguous language). Trinitarians have no problems with this, but modalists do.

    Thanks for the help with explaining the genitive - I completely agree that we do need to think hard about it. How do you explain the genitive at the end of Acts 20:28?


    Hope you're not offended by using LORD instead of Jehovah. It's mainly a matter of what I'm used to, but then it also got me thinking that what I mean by LORD seems to be very different from what you mean by Jehovah. I love the fact that the LORD loved me and sent the LORD in the power of the Spirit of the LORD to come to earth and be born a man and die for me. Your Jehovah, I assume, seems to be a very different person. If we're talking about different people maybe it's best to use different names - and we'll continue to discuss which one is Biblical. Out of interest, how would you describe Jehovah? Do you love him? Does he love you? How does he demonstrate it? Will you be with him forever? Are you looking forward to it?

  44. fromthesunrising

    With regards to Acts 20:28, I suggest you read this link.

    The verses you quote concerning the LORD refers to Jehovah and not to Jesus. Jesus is indeed a servant and how come God would be a servant of someone? Where is in the Hebrew Scriptures that says Jehovah is a servant. Jesus is a servant of God for God is his God (1 Corinthians 11:3: John 14:28; Revelation 3:12)

    How do you understand this verse in Revelation 5:13


    Both are explicitly identify as two separate individuals by using the word "to" and "and to". How do you consider also this statement.

    "To the President and Chairman of this company" and "To the President and to the Chairman of this company."

    The first one means the President is also the Chairman. While the second sentence shows there are two persons spoken about, the President and the Chairman. This is the way spoken about Revelation 5:13 showing there are two distinct persons identified. Hope this help you and the Trinitarians see the very visible truth in the grammar structure. There are still other verses in Revelation that speaks this same thing.

  45. Jacky

    Mark 2:5-7


    Three in One, One in Three, the Trinity is a happy family.

  46. Josh VB

    Hi Fromtherisingson,

    Revelation 5:13 is one of many reasons why I'm Trinitarian and not modalist.

    But in that verse - is the One sitting on the throne happy to share for all eternity his honour and glory with the Lamb?

Leave a Reply


Twitter widget by Rimon Habib - BuddyPress Expert Developer