Let there be light

*** UPDATE ***

This blog contains a link to the Watchtower’s (WT’s) own website,
which I’d provided in case readers wanted to go & verify
the various ‘snapshots’ I’ve used throughout this blog,
showing what the WT’s “Should you believe in the Trinity?” booklet says.
But just today (7-29-2013), I’ve learned the Watchtower has apparently removed
that booklet from their website entirely, thus rendering the link in this blog useless.

To understand why the WT is in the process of making their booklet disappear…
you need only read the rest of this blog
(or any of the many other sites on the net that pertain to this subject).

If you’re interested, please consider reading the following article—

At one time or another,
most of us have experienced having the ‘Jehovah’s Witnesses’ knock on our front door…
And awhile ago, a couple came to my door, here in beautiful Homer, Alaska.

After chatting for about twenty minutes, they presented me with a booklet put out by their parent Organization, the ‘Watchtower’… The booklet they gave me was titled: “Should you believe in the Trinity?” (hereafter referred to as SYBITT, & available on-line at— http://www.watchtower.org/e/ti/index.htm) I also accepted their offer to return the following weekend, to discuss matters further.

A few nights later, I finally got around to reading the SYBITT booklet…
And I must say it was……… interesting.

As indicated by the title, this booklet essentially condemns the mainstream Christian doctrine of the ‘Trinity’… which basically teaches that while there is only ‘one God‘, He is understood to have been revealed in the written word (i.e. the Bible) as being composed of ‘Father,’ ‘Son,’ & ‘Spirit’ (thus, ‘3 persons‘).

The Watchtower (WT) however, condemns this doctrine as being both incomprehensible & unbiblical. They view Trinitarian doctrine as a heresy & point to how it wasn’t formally adopted until several centuries after the time of Christ. They insist that the earliest followers of Christ had no such belief in a ‘Trinity’… or even anything close.

I was well aware that JWs deny Trinitarian beliefs, so none of this surprised me.
What did surprise me though, is that the SYBITT booklet proceeded to try & support the WT’s position, by pointing readers to—

The above statement is actually a photographic ‘snapshot’ taken straight from chapter 3 of the WT’s on-line SYBITT article, and it shows the text exactly as it appears there. All of the other WT references that are shown throughout this article, are likewise photographic ‘snapshots‘… taken straight from the Watchtower’s website.

As you can see in the above snapshot,, the WT points out that “The Ante-Nicene Fathers (ANF) were acknowledged to have been leading religious teachers in the early centuries.”

And I couldn’t agree more with the WT’s statement that
“What they taught is of interest.”

Having read many of the ante-Nicene Father’s writings for myself (some years ago), I would have to add that the writings of these men should be quite trustworthy too, as some of them traced their beliefs right back to the apostles who personally knew Christ.

Luckily for us, the writings of the ANF are widely & freely available on-line these days, including both the digitized text & photocopies of the pages. And best of all, the digitized text is ‘searchable’, which makes it very easy to check the facts.

So… below are some ‘snapshots’ that I’ve made from the writings of the ANF (with key points/words ‘highlighted’ by me). And just like the snapshots of WT statements… the following ANF statements are actually photographic images of the text… exactly as it appears on the page. All of these ANF snapshots are from the very same six men & very same writings the SYBITT booklet refers to. If you like, you can easily verify these ANF snapshots yourself, simply by going to— http://www.ccel.org (or any of the countless other places on the web where the writings of the ANF are avail.)

It’s always worth checking the facts…
So let’s take the SYBITT article’s advice, and see—
“What the Ante-Nicene Fathers taught.”

Let’s start with…
JUSTIN MARTYR

According to the WT’s SYBITT article—And JW doctrine teaches that—
…before Jesus came to earth as ‘Son’, he was actually the ‘archangel Michael.’
…as a ‘created being/angel’… Jesus/Michael didn’t exist at all… until God ‘created’ him.
…as a ‘created being/angel’… Jesus/Michael obviously cannot be God.
……as a ‘created being/angel’… Jesus/Michael is certainly ‘inferior’ to God.

So, it’s easy to see why the WT would be eager to point out
how Justin also refers to Jesus as an ‘angel.’

But the WT’s SYBITT booklet neglects to share one very important detail with its readers…
and it’s a detail that changes everything…
Below, is a snapshot showing what Justin actually said—
Please note that Justin didn’t just refer to this “One” (i.e. Jesus) as an ‘angel’…
He refers to this “One” as “both Angel, and God“
(as well as “Lord, and man.”)

And this statement makes it absolutely obvious that
Justin did not consider Jesus to be a literal “created angel” at all.
Justin would obviously never consider any ‘created angel’ to be God.
That wouldn’t even make any sense.

So, why is the WT telling readers Justin—
“called the prehuman Jesus a created angel”?

As you can see in the snapshot above,
Justin clearly held no such view & ‘said’ no such thing!

But Justin did refer to Jesus as an ‘Angel’ in a section of his writings titled,
“Dialog with Trypho”…
So… what did Justin mean?

If you read those writings for yourself, you’ll find that Justin was simply using the term ‘angel’ (which comes from the Hebrew ‘malak’) in the accepted & generally well understood sense in which it can mean— ‘deputy’ or ‘messenger’… and describes ‘one who represents/reveals/communicates/executes God’s will.’ (see Strong’s Concordance, #4397)

Justin used that term to show Trypho how, long before He came to the world in human form as ‘Son’ & ‘man’, Jesus had been operating in His designated role as the ‘deputy’ or ‘messenger’ who ‘represents/communicates/executes God’s will’ in regard to mankind.

As Justin put it—

And it is apparent that Trypho understood Justin was using the term ‘Angel‘ in this sense…
because Trypho responded by agreeing that the ‘prehuman Jesus’—

Trypho is further shown that where ‘God’ is described in scripture as
having appeared to men, it was actually the pre-incarnate (or “prehuman”) Jesus.
You can see this below,
where Justin plainly states it was Jesus (who in the form of an “Angel”)—

In the above passages, Justin plainly states that it was “Christ“ who “appeared in a flame of fire from the bush”… spoke to Moses “in the appearance of fire”… and ultimately bestowed “mighty power” upon him.

And as proof that this “same One” (i.e. Jesus) is identified as God…
Justin points to Exodus 3:16, where Moses is told—
“Go and gather the elders of Israel together, and say to them, ‘The Lord God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, appeared to me…”
(NKJ) (emphasis mine)

Given how clearly Justin presents his case that Jesus is “both Angel, and God“…
it’s rather amazing the WT would even attempt to suggest
Justin considered Jesus to be a “created angel.”
Nothing could be further from the truth!

Again, Justin simply used the term ‘Angel’ to show Trypho that when ‘God’ is portrayed as having appeared in scripture, it is actually Jesus, acting in His appointed role as the ‘deputy’ or ‘messenger’ who ‘represents/reveals/communicates/executes God’s will.’

In ‘Old Testament’ times… He appeared as a pre-incarnate ‘Angel.’
In ‘New Testament’ times… He appears as the incarnate ‘Son.’

Justin clearly did not consider Jesus to be a literal “created angel” (like the WT does).
And if you read through Justin’s writings,
you won’t find any statement in which he “called the prehuman Jesus a created angel.”
But by all means, read/search through his writings and see for yourself.

On the contrary,
Justin’s writings make it quite apparent that he considered Jesus to be God.
Further evidence of this, can be seen below—

As you can see, Justin clearly refers to Jesus here as
“deserving to be worshipped, as God.”

Which brings us to the next issue—
According to the SYBITT booklet,
Justin “said that Jesus was inferior to God.”

It’s rather difficult to imagine that being true, considering how Justin repeatedly refers to Christ as God (as shown above). And not surprisingly, if you read/search through Justin’s writings for yourself, you’ll find no evidence that Justin ever “said that Jesus was inferior to God” in any overall sense.

Nonetheless… as scripture itself points out (in Jn. 6:38), it is true that Jesus “never did anything” except what His Father “willed Him to do and say.” And some (like the WT & its followers) take this as evidence that Jesus is somehow less than equal, or ‘inferior’ to His Father.

So how do we make sense of this?
If Jesus only does what His Father ‘wills Him to do and say’…
how can He possibly be considered “equal”?

The answer is actually pretty simple…
It all comes down to the fact that the ANF writers understood an aspect of all this that many people today are sadly unaware of…
The ANF writers understood the difference between ‘nature‘ & ‘position‘.
I’ll attempt to illustrate the point—

Here on earth, virtually everyone accepts that a son & his father both share the exact same basic ‘nature’— the ‘nature’ of ‘humanity.’ A son inherits that ‘nature’ from his father, simply by virtue of being a ‘son.’

Now… perhaps that child will grow up, become a billionaire, & amass more power & authority than his father ever dreamed of. Or… perhaps that child will grow up & choose to remain under his father’s authority, by say, choosing to remain in the family business.
Either way, we now come to the real point, which is that those issues are completely separate from one’s ‘nature.’ Those issues actually only have to do with one’s ‘position‘ in life.

Whether you find yourself in a ‘position’ of great power & authority… or have next to none— either way, you are still considered to be of the same ‘nature & substance’ as your father.

Unfortunately, many people fail to understand & apply this concept in regards to Jesus.

But Justin & other early writers recognized & understood the difference between ‘nature’ & ‘position.’ They understood that just as an earthly son inherits the ‘nature & substance’ of ‘humanity’ from his father… Jesus had inherited the ‘nature & substance‘ of ‘Deity’ from His Father, simply by virtue of being the ‘Son’ of God. Thus, Justin & other early writers considered it perfectly reasonable to speak of the Son of God as being ‘fully God’ by ‘nature.’ But at the same time, they also recognized that as the ‘Son,’ Jesus is ‘second’ in ‘position‘ & operates only under His Father’s authority. Again though— being in ‘second position’ doesn’t erase the fact that Jesus is still ‘by nature’ considered to be ‘Deity’ & thus ‘fully God.’

So… here’s the bottom line—

Did Justin really call “the prehuman Jesus a created angel?”
(like the WT’s SYBITT article suggests)
No.
While Justin did refer to the pre-incarnate Jesus as an “Angel”…
he also stated quite clearly that the “One” he spoke of was “both Angel and God.”
And that statement makes it rather obvious that the “Angel” Justin spoke of,
was no literal ‘created angel.’

Did Justin really say that “Jesus was inferior to God” in any overall sense,
like the WT’s SYBITT article suggests?
No.
On the contrary…
Justin’s writings clearly described Jesus as
“deserving to be worshipped, as God and as Christ.”

Like other early writers,
Justin recognized & taught that Jesus was fully ‘Deity,’ & thus fully ‘God’ by ‘nature‘…
while acknowledging (like the other early writers)
that as the ‘Son,’ Jesus is ‘second’ in ‘position‘
& operates only under His Father’s authority.

So… what happened here?
Did the Watchtower somehow misunderstand everything Justin wrote?

In any case, one thing’s for sure—
Justin’s reference to Jesus as an ‘Angel’ does not support WT doctrine.
And Justin certainly never “called the prehuman Jesus a created angel.”
(like the SYBITT booklet says)

Next up…
IRENAEUS

According to the SYBITT article—

The fact that Irenaeus believed “the prehuman Jesus had a separate existence from God” is no real news… Many Christians understand that the “prehuman (or pre-incarnate) Jesus” is referred to as ‘the Word’ in scripture, & is considered to be a “separate” entity.

Now… as far the supposed ‘inferiority’ of Jesus goes—
If Irenaeus had really “showed that Jesus is not equal to the “One true and only God”
(like the SYBITT booklet says)…
why would he have referred to Jesus as God?
Clearly, he did.—

As you can see, Irenaeus (referring to Jesus) states that “He is God,”
and even emphasizes the point, by saying—

Irenaeus then presents even more evidence that
Jesus should rightly be regarded as being God
(along with the Father) by saying—

The above is a quote of John 1:1, & is a passage that all JW’s are intimately acquainted with… This is because the proper interpretation of this passage is hotly disputed between the WT and mainstream Christianity. You can see the reason for the dispute below—

Mainstream Christianity’s (‘New King James’) version—	Watchtower’s own ‘New World Translation’ version—
Jn. 1:1 “In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”	Jn. 1:1 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.”

As you can see, the Watchtower’s version renders the passage with an “a” inserted in there, which makes it read entirely differently. To the JWs, Jesus is simply a secondary & rather inferior god/man/angel, who really isn’t God at all. But hey… at least it’s agreed that “the Word” refers to the ‘pre-incarnate Jesus.’ (Scripture refers to them as being essentially ‘one & the same’… in passages such as Jn. 1:14, Rev. 19:13, & elsewhere).

In any case, please note that mainstream Christianity’s interpretation of Jn. 1:1 fits perfectly with the understanding that Irenaeus (& other very early followers of Christ) expressed.

Whereas the Watchtower’s interpretation definitely does not.

If the WT’s interpretation of Jn. 1:1 is truly the more correct one,
why is there no written evidence that the early followers of Christ believed similarly?
Or for that matter,
why is there seemingly no written evidence
that the early followers of Christ believed other WT doctrines?

Bottom line—

Did Irenaeus really say that Jesus is “inferior” & “not equal to the One true and only God”?
No.
As shown in the snapshots above, Irenaeus described Jesus as He “who is God, and who was from Bethlehem.”
Irenaeus apparently had no problem with the idea of Jesus as God, because he understood (like Justin did) that Jesus is ‘fully God’ by ‘nature,’ & is simply ‘second’ in ‘position.’

Irenaeus clearly did not believe (or teach) that Jesus is “inferior” or “not equal to the One true and only God,” like the WT’s SYBITT article suggests.

Next up…
CLEMENT

According to the SYBITT article—

Since WT doctrine insists Jesus is just a created being/“creature”…
it’s easy to understand why the WT would like to be able to point to Clement
as showing the early church believed similarly.

But as you can see in the snapshots below, Clement actually—
…described “the generation without beginning of the Son.”
… described the Son as having “existed always, without beginning.”
… described Jesus as being “eternal and uncreate.”

From the above statements, it should be apparent Clement did not consider Jesus to be “a creature” (which all have a “beginning“). Further proof that Clement did not regard Jesus as just “a creature” can be seen in the following snapshot, where he describes Jesus as—

Please note, Clement describes Jesus (AKA the “Word”) here, as being—
“truly most manifest Deity“ & “equal to the Lord of the universe.”

Clement also joins with other early writers, and points to Jn. 1:1 as further evidence that “the Word (i.e the ‘pre-incarnate Jesus’) was God,” as you can see below—

Please note— Clement does not say “the Word was a god,” like the WT teaches.
Clement simply describes Jesus as “the Word who is God”…
Just like mainstream Christians do today.

Like Justin & Irenaeus, Clement understood Jesus as being “by equality of substance, one with the Father.” And thus, Clement understood Jesus to be (by ‘nature‘) ‘Deity‘ & ‘fully God.’ Likewise, Clement understood that as the ‘Son,’ Jesus is ‘second in ‘position‘ & only operates under His Father’s authority… just as Jesus Himself acknowledged. (Jn. 14:28)

Given his understanding that Jesus is considered ‘fully God‘ by ‘nature,’
but ‘second’ by ‘position,’ Clement ultimately saw no problem with saying—

Bottom line—

Did Clement really consider Jesus to literally be “a creature?”
(which all have a ‘beginning’)
No.
Clement clearly stated the Son “existed always, without beginning.”

Did Clement really say the Son/Jesus is “not equal” to the Father in any overall sense?
No.
He actually said the opposite!
He clearly referred to Jesus as being “…equal to the Lord of the universe.”

Thus, Clement’s genuine statements
are quite different from what the SYBITT booklet suggests.

Next up…
TERTULLIAN

According to the SYBITT article—

Virtually all mainstream Christians would agree (& even consider it obvious) that—
“The Father is different from the Son” & “he who begets is different from him who is begotten; he who sends different from him who is sent.”
So, that would seem to be a bit of a non-issue.

Now… regarding the issue of who is “greater”—
Even Jesus Himself states in scripture that “…My Father is greater than I.” (Jn.14:28)
And many people struggle to understand just what this means.

Thankfully, Tertullian explains the way in which the Father is “greater”… He begins by emphasizing that the Father, Son, & Spirit are all “inseparable from one another”—

And then explains that while “inseparable”, they are also “distinct“—

The ‘progression’ Tertullian uses in the above passage,
precisely defines the way in which the Father is “greater”—
“He who is begotten” is ‘second‘ to “He who begets.”
“He who is sent” is ‘second‘ to “He… who sends.”

In other words, Tertullian is simply joining with other early writers in acknowledging the difference between ‘nature’ & ‘position’— In ‘position,’ (as “He who begets” & “He… who sends,” the Father is indeed “greater.” But in ‘nature‘ & ‘substance,’ Tertullian definitely considered both Father & Son (& Spirit) to be “inseparable.”

Proof that Tertullian understood the Son to be nothing less than ‘fully God‘ (by ‘nature’ & ‘substance’) can be seen below, where he joins with other early writers in pointing to the fact that the early followers of Christ viewed John 1:1 as proof that “the Word (AKA Jesus) was God“—

Further proof that Tertullian considered Jesus to be ‘fully God’ (by nature), can be seen in how he joins with other early writers in pointing out that the name/title “Almighty God“ can rightly be applied to Him—

Tertullian’s statements here, stand in complete denial of WT doctrine, which insists & teaches that only ‘the Father’ can be referred to as “Almighty.” According to the WT, while Jesus may on occasion be referred to as a ‘mighty god’ (note the little ‘g’), he should never be regarded or referred to, as “Almighty.” But as you can see, Tertullian & other early Christians would have disagreed.

In any case, the real meaning of how Tertullian used the term “greater” should now be obvious— Tertullian’s use of that term was simply an acknowledgment that as the Son, Jesus is ‘second in position‘ to the Father. But there is no doubt that Tertullian still considered Jesus to be ‘fully God’ by ‘nature.’ As shown, Tertullian described the Son as being “Almighty God”… right along with the Father. And thus, Tertullian’s beliefs & writings are miles away from agreeing with, or supporting, WT doctrine.

Now… let’s take a look at Tertullian’s statement that—
“There was a time when the Son was not…”

Those words come from a section of his writings titled “Against Hermogenes,”
where Tertullian (speaking of God) says—
“There was… a time when neither sin existed with Him, nor the Son.”

The SYBITT booklet presents these words in a way that suggests Tertullian would support WT doctrine, which insists that the Son/Jesus literally ‘didn’t exist‘…until He was ‘created’ by God (the Father).

But considering how Tertullian wrote of how “the Word (i.e the pre-incarnate Son/Jesus) was God” & “is God of God” & how ‘the Son’/Jesus can even rightly be regarded as “God Almighty“… it seems rather obvious that Tertullian wouldn’t have written, or said, there was a time when the Son literally ‘didn’t exist.’

So, just what does Tertullian’s statement that
“There was a time when the Son was not…” mean then?

It all becomes clear if you just read his debate with Hermogenes for yourself… If you do, you’ll find that Tertullian was engaged in showing how certain titles don’t apply, until the appropriate conditions ‘exist’…

Tertullian gives several examples, showing—
God is not described as being “Lord” in scripture…
until something existed for Him to be ‘Lord’ over.
God is not described as “Judge” in scripture…
until ‘sin’ existed for Him to ‘judge.’
God is not described as “Father” in scripture…
until He sent forth His ‘Son.’
See for yourself—

In other words, Tertullian was simply making the point that—
“there was a time” when the ‘Son’ didn’t ‘exist’ AS THE ‘SON‘.
And as the above snapshot shows (& Tertullian’s words state),
God likewise ‘didn’t exist’ as ‘Father’ until He sent forth His ‘Son’.

Those ‘roles & titles’ didn’t apply to either party,
until the relationship of ‘Father’ & ‘Son’ had been established.

But please note—Although “there was… a time” when the Father had not yet sent ‘the Word’ (i.e. the pre-incarnate Jesus) forth as the Son (& thus, no ‘Son’ yet ‘existed’)… this certainly doesn’t mean that the ‘Word’ (i.e. the pre-incarnate Jesus) literally ‘didn’t exist’ prior to being sent forth!

Proof of this, is coming up next, as we look at Tertullian’s statement that,
“Before all things, God was alone“—

The above words come from a document titled “Against Praxeas.”
And as you can see, Tertullian does indeed say there was a time when “God was alone.”

But please note— in the very same statement, Tertullian adds—
“Yet even not then was He alone.”

Tertullian then goes on to say—

So… contrary to what the WT’s SYBITT booklet suggests,
Tertullian’s writings actually show—
“even… before the creation of the universe God was not alone.”

This is because ‘the Word’
(i.e. the pre-incarnate Son/Jesus)
existed right along with (and as) God.
Just as Jn. 1:1 says.

Given the fact that Tertullian’s statements that “God was alone” & “Yet even not then was He alone” both appear in the very same paragraph…it is hard to imagine how the WT could have missed the fact that Tertullian’s writings ultimately show ” God was not alone.”

In any case, perhaps the ultimate proof Tertullian didn’t believe there was ever a time when the Son literally ‘didn’t exist’… is that he apparently believed in, and taught, ‘Trinitarian’ doctrine—

From the above, it would seem Tertullian was familiar with the concept of the Trinity. And it’s interesting to note that Tertullian apparently considered the ‘Spirit’ to be a ‘person’… as opposed to the WT’s insistence that the Spirit is just a ‘force’… much like electricity. Obviously, the WT is free to believe whatever they wish, but one has to wonder why they have never been able to show any genuine written evidence that the early followers of Christ likewise viewed the ‘Spirit’ as just a ‘force.’ Or, for that matter, show any genuine evidence that the early church viewed Jesus as a ‘created angel’… etc, etc.

As you can see, all the genuine early written evidence seems to deny WT doctrine.

In any case, Tertullian’s writings leave little doubt that the basic concept of the Trinity was both known, & taught, very early on. Below, are a couple more snapshots from his many writings, in which he more fully explains the concept—

Bottom line—

Has the SYBITT booklet represented Tertullian’s writings & beliefs fairly & accurately?
No.
Tertullian described the Son as being “God of God”…
& made it crystal clear that he understood the Son to be ‘fully God‘ by ‘nature’,,,
& simply ‘second in position’ to the Father.

Tertullian’s statement that “there was a time when the Son was not” was never intended to be taken as indicating any literal ‘lack of existence’ on the Son’s part…

And contrary to what the WT’s SYBITT booklet suggests,
Tertullian did not simply say— “before all things, God was alone.”
In the very same statement, he pointed out— “… even not then was He alone.”

As Tertullian showed, this is because even before anything was ‘created’—
“the Word (i.e. the pre-incarnate Son) was with God, and the Word was God.”

Tertullian’s genuine statements are thus very different
from what the WT’s SYBITT booklet has suggested.

Next up…
HIPPOLYTUS

According to the SYBITT article—

Here, no doubt eager to provide evidence for their doctrine that Jesus is simply a ‘created being’, the WT again points to the fact that an early writer wrote of a time when God existed “alone”… And indeed, Hippolytus did make such a statement—

But once again…
it seems the WT has chosen not to fully share what this early writer actually said.
Please note, the full statement says—
“He, while existing alone, yet existed in plurality.”

It’s easy to see why the WT wouldn’t wish to share Hippolytus’ full statement here…
The full statement clearly opposes WT doctrine!

In any case, Hippolytus also joins with other early writers, and points to Jn. 1:1 as showing that “the Logos is God.” (‘Logos’ means ‘Word’ in Greek, and refers to the pre-incarnate or “prehuman” Jesus) Thus, Hippolytus is showing that “the Word (i.e. Jesus) “is God“—

Further proof that Hippolytus considered Jesus to be nothing less than God, can be seen in how he joins with Tertullian (& other writers) in pointing to scripture as proof that the title “Almighty” can rightly be applied to Christ—

Last, but not least… in his writings, Hippolytus made it clear that he was both aware of, and endorsed, the basics of Trinitarian doctrine—

Bottom line—

Were the writings of Hippolytus accurately represented in the SYBITT booklet?
No.
The SYBITT booklet omits hugely important facts,
like how Hippolytus pointed out that even while “existing alone”…
God “existed in plurality.”

Did Hippolytus really consider Jesus to have been a ‘created being’
(like the SYBITT booklet suggests)?
No.
Hippolytus wrote of how Jesus is of the same “substance” as God.
And he joined with other early writers in pointing to John 1:1 as proof that
“the Logos (i.e. Jesus/’the Word’) is God.”
Hippolytus also affirmed that the title “Almighty” could rightly be applied to Jesus.

The genuine statements of Hippolytus are thus very different
from what the SYBITT booklet presents.

Next up…
ORIGEN

According to the SYBITT article—

It’s hard to imagine how the WT came up with the above summary of Origen’s writings…
Because Origen’s writings seem to say the exact opposite!
See for yourself—

Please note— Origen condemns as “heretics“ those who say “the Son was procreated…out of things… beyond His (i.e. the Father’s) own substance.” Thus, Origen clearly considered the Son to be of the same “substance“ as his Father.

Note also, that Origen considered it heresy to suggest “the Son was procreated out of things non-existent” or that “there once was a time when He did not exist” (like the WT teaches).

And in the following snapshot,
Origen plainly describes the Son as existing “without any beginning“—

Again, Origen characterizes those who teach otherwise, as “heretics.”

Further proof that Origen considered the Son/Word/Jesus to be of the same “substance” as his Father (and thus ‘fully God’), can be seen in how he joins with other early writers in pointing to Jn. 1:1 —

Now… regarding the SYBITT booklet’s statement that Origen said…
“compared with the Father, [the Son] is a very small light”—

In reality,
no such statement can be found in Origen’s writings.
But by all means, read/search Origen’s various writings for yourself.

Perhaps the greatest evidence that Origen did not hold the views that the WT’s SYBITT booklet suggests, can be seen in the fact that Origen made some rather clear statements affirming ‘Trinitarian’ doctrine… He wrote of how—

Origen even made the point that way back in ‘old testament’ days,
a passage written by David hinted at the existence of the ‘Trinity’—

Bottom line—

Did Origen really say that “the Father and Son are two substances”?
No.
As shown above, he condemned those who teach such a thing, as “heretics.”
And he taught the opposite.

Did Origen really teach that “compared with the Father, [the Son] is a very small light”?
No.
On the contrary,
Origen described the Son as being of the very same “substance“ as His Father,
& thus ‘fully God’ by ‘nature’… although ‘second in position’ as the ‘Son’.

Now, as we wrap things up here…

It’s interesting to note that after (supposedly) showing us
“What the Ante-Nicene Fathers taught” …
the WT’s SYBITT booklet sums everything up by stating confidently—

But… if you’ve read this far,
you may realize the WT’s statement here, is once again simply not true.

Every one of the ante-Nicene writers we’ve looked at,
lived & wrote in the first couple hundred years or so after “Biblical times“…
And as shown previously, Clement, Tertullian, Hippolytus, & Origen (to name just a few)
all made statements that clearly affirmed Trinitarian concepts.

At this point, it should be apparent to any honest reader that the WT’s SYBITT booklet has failed rather spectacularly to accurately represent the writings of the six “Ante-Nicene Fathers” it pointed to… Not even one of those men had his writings represented accurately!

So… is this evidence of some incredible & statistically unlikely series of misunderstandings on the WT’s part?
Did they somehow just fail to understand everything those men wrote?
Or, is the WT simply waging a campaign of deliberate misrepresentation & deceit?

Personally, I tend to think the evidence suggests deliberate misrepresentation & deceit on the WT’s part—

Telling readers that Justin refers to the ‘prehuman Jesus’ as a “created angel,” while neglecting to tell them that Justin very clearly identified the ‘angel’ he spoke of as being literally “both Angel, and God“… seems very deliberate. Justin’s full statement makes it painfully obvious that his words cannot be taken as supporting WT doctrine. So, it would seem the WT deliberately chose not to share his full statement & instead, carefully edited it.

Similarly, only telling readers that Tertullian said “God was alone”…and neglecting to add that Tertullian continued on to say in the very same statement— “Yet even not then was he alone”… seems very deliberate.

And only telling readers that Hippolytus refers to God as being “alone by himself”…
while neglecting to mention that Hippolytus actually said—
“He, while existing alone, existed in plurality“…
again seems deliberate & deceptive.

I don’t think it’s an accident that the WT failed to share the full statements in these cases…
I think the WT carefully edited the words of these men, in order to give readers the impression their statements could be taken as supporting WT doctrine.

But as I’ve attempted to show in this article,
nothing could be further from the truth…
The genuine writings & statements of the ante-Nicene Fathers
do not support WT doctrine in the least!

After looking at the facts, & seeing how the WT’s SYBITT booklet failed to accurately represent the beliefs & writings of even one of the ANF writers, I’d have to say there is good reason to doubt the WT’s commitment to honesty.

My doubts about the WT’s commitment to honesty are further reinforced by the fact that there are many, many other problems with the SYBITT booklet… For example— It’s interesting that the booklet would point to someone like Historian Arthur Weigall, & use him to help condemn Trinitarian doctrine… What the WT doesn’t tell people, is that Weigall also condemns WT doctrine as having ‘pagan’ roots. Via the Loussac library in Anchorage, I’ve read Weigall for myself, and know this to be true. For the WT to use Weigall in order to attack the doctrines of ‘Christendom’, while saying nothing of how Weigall trashes WT doctrine, seems rather hypocritical, and more than a little deceptive.

Apparently, the WT considers Weigall’s views to be valid & useful…
But only as long as they are applied to someone else!

For all of these reasons…
I consider it extremely unlikely that the WT could possibly be
“God’s sole channel of truth to mankind” (as they claim).
And yes, that’s an ‘understatement’.

But ultimately…
it is up to you to judge the evidence yourself.

In closing, please note—
I have not written this article with the intention of persuading people to believe in the Trinity.
If you don’t want to believe in the ‘Trinity’… OK.
If you prefer to believe WT doctrine (or whatever else)… OK.
If you prefer to mock the whole idea of spirituality & those who believe in whatever… OK.
Or if you prefer to simply ignore the whole subject… OK.
Ultimately, I support the right of everyone to choose whatever path they wish.

But… while I support the right of people to choose whatever path they wish…
I do not believe any community benefits
from the door-to-door spreading of what appears to be deliberate deceit.

In defense of the average JW at your door however, I would like to add that the vast majority of them seem to be sincere & well-meaning people, & not out to deliberately deceive anyone. They’ve simply never checked the facts regarding what the WT teaches, & thus have no idea that they themselves have been deceived by the WT.

They believe they are genuinely fighting ‘false religion’… and have absolutely no idea that they are ensnared in false religion themselves. And sadly, many JWs never will come to understand this is the case, because the WT does everything possible to discourage them from listening to anything but WT ‘truth.’

And even if a JW somehow does come face-to-face with evidence of the WT’s deceit (whether through this article, or whatever else), most will simply dismiss it & choose to continue their affiliation with the WT, & will continue spreading its deceitful false religion. Many prefer to do that, rather than humble themselves & face the truth.

Nonetheless, I believe it’s important to at least present the truth…
Who knows?… Some may be able to receive it.
It’s worth a try.

Let there be light

A blog for those who seek spiritual truth.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses & ‘the truth.’

Image