Jehovah`s Witness/Can you respond to this(again)?


hai DW

Here's an another rantings from Charlatan Richard:

can you respond to this? I know this'll be a laughable one to you also! So just please allow me to do this in advance(here I go): "tahahahahahahahahahahaha"


P.S.(How can the WTBTS include some of the information that which are going to be QUOTED "from" the NEW CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA, and books of other theologians, historians and other experts(who were actually not a JW) "If" they DON'T ACTUALLY BELIEVE such false teaching(s)???? hahahahahaha...(and let me add up): The "reason" why JW's don't actually "include" some of those "information", because- 1)That's what CHRISTENDOM's(the author of the information) "BELIEF"(not JW's) and so JW were there to "correct" and that's what the book(SHOULD YOU BELIEVE THE TRINITY?) was all about and why it also "MADE" ... can I continue? hahahaha I will leave you the others DW)

Hi Dave

Thanks for writing

So we have a Derrick Holland wannabe on the board I see!!

The whole thing is just laughable. You're absolutely correct to find it hilarious!!

OK let me add to what you already said

This is my reply to Richard.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<1) In case you didn't catch it, I offered a statement just a day or two ago standing behind my own beliefs.  This question clearly fed off of that and Rando's post.  I did justify my answer from scripture, and your own literature makes you look like hypocrites.  I don't have to try to do that.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

You obviously have a problem with context and making things clear.

My answer was with regard your letter that someone gave me the link too. Nowhere did I see the link to this "scriptural" justification that was supposed to have been given.

In the letter I WAS ADDRESSING this is the answer you gave:

"To answer your question, I celebrate Christ's birth which is hardly a pagan concept.  I go through no pagan rituals in the process, and we have a phenomenal time together with family."

Nowhere is there scriptural justification here.

So after spending a whole answer TRYING to make us look hypocritical you answer with this above.Which is nothing scriptural it's just a statement!!

So like all apostates/opposers you can't understand context!!

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<2) You can compare anything when they all have something in common, in this case pagan roots.  It is of course silly to compare celebrations, calendars, wedding rings, and pinatas...unless you are questioned about how you feel about doing something with pagan roots.  If you don't NECESSARILY ban something because it has pagan roots, quit bringing up the fact that something has pagan roots.  If pagan roots are a problem, then be NO part of it and ban it.  But the Watchtower picks and chooses what is important.  That's being lukewarm, and the Watchtower will be spit out of the mouth of the ruler of God's creation (Rev. 3:16).>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

You also have problems with simple explanations. Preferring instead to plow on with your already destroyed argument

What you fail to realize is that I explained why Christmas wasn't acceptable. It's to do with the fact that the pagan roots ARE STILL part of Christmas.It's a celebration of a pagan date with pagan rituals. IT STILL IS TO THIS DAY. How is that so hard to grasp??

Then you say this "If pagan roots are a problem, then be NO part of it and ban it.But the Watchtower picks and chooses what is important"  But I've already explained it easy enough for a small child to understand.

Like I said before the word is NECESSARILY . Do you not understand what NECESSARILY means??. Quite clearly with Christmas the roots are NECESSARY to ban it because it's pagan roots are still part of it to this day.Everything is taken on it's own individual merit.Just like Jehovah does. Reasonably and balanced. This is pretty simple stuff my 6 year old nephew get's it, why not you Richard??

Then you talk about being lukewarm. But what you're saying is like saying a person who's roots are in criminal activity should be not allowed in a relationship with God. Even though they are no longer are criminal.

Like all apostates/opposers you have problems with simple explanations and can't understand when your stupidity has been destroyed!! You also completely misses the point as we go on to see later.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<3) So, you believe that I twist, lie, quote out of context, that my tactics are satanic, and that BY DOING THESE THINGS, I am just another false prophet trying to shipwreck peoples faith and fighting against the holy spirit.   Please allow me point out some of the times the Watchtower has twisted, lied, and quoted out of context.  I'll even limit the discussion to just one publication..>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Yes I do believe that Richard and I demonstrated the fact. A point you seem to be skipping over.You seem to forget I haven't just said it I DEMONSTRATED IT!!

So then you quote from the trinity brochure to try and justify your actions.

So the question for you is. If you believe the WTBTS have been dishonest in their quotes and you disagree with that. Why do you hypocritically do the same thing yourself as I proved yesterday??

Now let me get on to the trinity brochure.

The fact remains The subject of the trinity brochure is HOW it can't possibly be Biblical. THAT IS THE SUBJECT all these quotes show how it's not Biblical. Let me show you seeing as you have a problem with how to teach a subject. I will explain in simple terms like I would teach a child.

When you're teaching something there is a subject involved. YOU STICK TO THE SUBJECT. You don't start randomly putting quotes here and there and cluttering up the point you are trying to make.

This is the same with the trinity brochure. The quotes we used where RELEVANT to the subject. A lot of the people who wrote them contradicted their own argument and what they themselves where trying to say.

Why would you firstly quote something irrelevant to the subject. Secondly a contradictory statement. thirdly something that would just confuse the reader and cloud the issue you where trying to make and fourthly promote false doctrine??

Let me show you. This SHOULD be real simple.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<WT quote) "trinity was a major preoccupation of Egyptian theologians. ... three gods are combined and treated as a single being, addressed in the singular. In this way the spiritual force of Egyptian religion shows a direct link with Christian theology" - Siegfried Morenz - Egyptian Religion>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

This here IMMEDIATELY shows the trinity is not biblical. This quote alone shows that.

This bit here...........

"In order to avoid any gross misunderstanding, we must at once emphasize that the substance of the Christian Trinity is of course Biblical: Father, Son and Holy Ghost. The three are mentioned alongside one another in the New Testament, probably for liturgical reasons" irrelevant because not only does it contradict the first part of the quote. It's irrelevant to the subject of the trinity brochure.

Unless you want to claim Egyptian theologians had Biblical truths. Which you probably do!!!

Now onto the next part

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<WT quote) "The doctrine of the Trinity is considered to be 'beyond the grasp of human reason.'" - Encylopedia Americana >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Again the subject of the trinity brochure is how it's not a biblical concept. It's taking things from the perspective of SCRIPTURE.

NOTHING in scripture is beyond the grasp of human reason. So automatically this quote above shows it's not a biblical concept!!

This part here...........

""It is held that although the doctrine is beyond the grasp of human reason, it is, like many of the formulations of physical science, not contrary to reason, and may be apprehended (though it may not be comprehended) by the human mind"

........ again is irrelevant to the subject of the trinity brochure!!

How does putting this whole quote in the brochure show people that nothing in the bible is beyond the grasp of human reason and therefore is not a biblical concept?? it simply doesn't it just confuses people.

Next part

<<<<<<<<<<WT quote) "And the doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not taught in the O[ld] T[estament]." - New Catholic Encyclopedia>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Maybe you'll start seeing the pattern in a minute.

Again automatically this quote shows the trinity is not a biblical concept. It does that immediately.

So this part here...............

"In many places of the OT however, expressions are used in which some of the Fathers of the Church saw references or foreshadowings of the Trinity"

.......again is irrelevant!!  Who cares what the church fathers who really exploded the great apostasy thought about these references.

How is this whole quote in keeping with the subject of the trinity brochure?? The subject being that it's not a biblical concept!!

There's a pattern emerging here.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<WT quote) "To Jesus and Paul the doctrine of the trinity was apparently unknown;...they say nothing about it." - Origin and Evolution of Religion by E. Washburn Hopkins>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Again if it's unknown to Jesus and Paul how is it possibly Biblical?? How can the trinitarians use the scriptures written by Paul and about Jesus to try and prove the trinity when it was unknown to them.

So again the first part of this quote is also.................

"Actual quote) The beginning of the doctrine of the Trinity appears already in John (c.100 AD.) To Jesus and Paul the doctrine of the trinity was apparently unknown; at any rate they say nothing about it.

............. wait for it, here it comes......IRRELEVANT TO THE SUBJECT OF THE TRINITY BROCHURE!!!!!!!!

Next quote

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<Actual quote - "The formulation 'one God in three Persons' was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the fourth century...Among the apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The trinity brochure is about the "ontological trinity" Whether there was any other sort of concept of a trinity is again irrelevant to whether there is an "ontological" trinity which is what the brochure is about!!!

So this last part of the quote........

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<If it is clear on the one side that the dogma of the Trinity in the stricter sense of the word was a late arrival, product of three centuries' reflection and debate, it is just as clear on the opposite side that confession of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit - and hence an elemental Trinitarianism - went back to the period of Christian origins>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

...........again is detracting from the point of the brochure and is IRRELEVANT!!!!!

It would be a bit like me trying to prove there wasn't Albanian snow leopards in Africa in Bible times. By claiming there wasn't Tazmanian snow leopards in Africa in Bible times.


<<<<<<<<<<<<WT quote) "The word Trinity is not found in the Bible . . . It did not find a place formally in the theology of the church till the 4th century.">>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Again if it wasn't formulated until the fourth century nor is it in the Bible then it's unbiblical. Who cares about this whole quote:

"Actual quote) "It must be remembered that the OT was written before the revelation of the doctrine of the Trinity was clearly given. "..."The word Trinity is not found in the Bible...It did not find a place formally in the theology of the church till the 4th century...Although Scripture does not give us a formulated doctrine of the Trinity, it contains all the elements out of which theology has constructed the doctrine"

This is just an opinion of a man who believes in the trinity. Why would you print that opinion, completely off the subject of the trinity brochure. He contradicts his own argument. He say's it doesn't come til the fourth century. Then tries to claim a new revelation at the time the great apostasy really began.

How does this help people understand it's not biblical.How is it relevant to the subject of the trinity brochure. Again it just confuses people and detracts from the subject. It's confused you Richard as we can see!!

Next quote

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<WT quote) "The New Testament writers...give us no formal or formulated doctrine of the Trinity, no explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons...Nowhere do we find any trinitarian doctrine of three distinct subjects of divine life and activity in the same Godhead." - Jesuit Fortman>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Again same thing there's no such thing as the ontological trinity in the scriptures, so this whole quote again is irrelevant.

<<<<<<<<<<<Actual quote) "the New Testament writers together they tell us there is only one God, the creator and lord of the universe, who is the Father of Jesus. They call Jesus the Son of God, Messiah, Lord, Savior, Word, Wisdom. They assign Him the divine functions of creation, salvation, judgment. Sometimes they call Him God explicitly. They do not speak as fully and clearly of the Holy Spirit as they do of the Son, but at times they coordinate Him with the Father and the Son and put Him on a level with them as far as divinity and personality are concerned. They give us in their writings a triadic ground plan and triadic formulas. They do not speak in abstract terms of nature, substance, person, relation, circumincession, mission, but they present in their own ways the ideas that are behind these terms>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

This quote doesn't support the ontological trinity which is what the subject is about!!!

Final quote

WT quote) "As far as the New Testament is concerned, one does not find in it an actual doctrine of the Trinity." - A Short History of Christian Doctrine - Bernhard Lohse

See again this quote shows there is no biblical trinity!!!

So the rest of the quote becomes??............. IRRELEVANT!!

"Actual quote) "First, it is important to note that the doctrine of the Trinity does not go back to non-Christian sources [pagan], as has sometimes been supposed in the past. There has been no lack of attempts to find the initial form of the doctrine of the Trinity in Plato, or in Hinduism, or in Parsiism. All such attempts may be regarded today as having floundered ... As far as the New Testament is concerned, one does not find in it an actual doctrine of the Trinity. This does not mean very much, however, for generally speaking the New Testament is less intent upon setting forth certain doctrines than it is upon proclaiming the kingdom of God, a kingdom that dawns in and with the person of Jesus Christ . At the same time, however, there are in the New Testament the rudiments of a concept of God that was susceptible of further development and clarification, along doctrinal lines. ... Speaking first of the person of Jesus Christ ... In other passages of the New Testament the predicate "God" is without a doubt applied to Christ"

This again has nothing to do with the subject of the trinity brochure. It just confuses the issue this is all you need to say in keeping in line with the actual subject:

""As far as the New Testament is concerned, one does not find in it an actual doctrine of the Trinity."

<<<<<<<<<<Shall I stop there, or should I mention all the people who were quoted in this publication who not only stated that the Trinity was pagan, but also frequently stated that a number of WT beliefs are also pagan?>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Yes stop there because I'm getting bored with having to keep teaching you simple obvious teaching methods. Like STICK TO THE SUBJECT!!

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<This is UNDENIABLE manipulation of quotes.  So, I'll tell you what, come out and say that the Watchtower is just another false prophet trying to shipwreck peoples faith and fighting against the holy spirit because they spread half truths, twist, lies, quote out of context, miss important information, and use satanic tactics.  You do that, I'll leave the forum permanently.  Deal? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

There's only one thing UNDENIABLE here and that's the fact that you cannot understand, these things.

Context, simple explanations, teaching methods, sticking to a subject,the point of a subject and when your argument has been destroyed. My suggestion to you is don't embarrass yourself further like Derrick always does.

So rather than us shipwrecking peoples faith we're giving them faith in the Bible and away from the traditions of men. Whereas you are attempting to shipwreck their faith by your pure misunderstandings of simple things.

Why don't you leave the forum you don't belong here anyway.

Take care  

Jehovah`s Witness

All Answers

Answers by Expert:

Ask Experts


Bro DW


I have many years of experience serving Jehovah . I have known Jehovah a long time and I have known his organization . I have been privileged to see great progress not only in my own personal relationship with my God and Father but within his organization. I am an avid reader of the bible and have been gifted by my Father with the indescribable privilege of being allowed to understand his own word.


The truth is all about scripture and logic. The two go hand in hand . There is not one bible verse that cannot be understood within the realms of human reasoning. Not one!! Why would it?? The bible is God's message to his creation . His creation who he made to understand things in a specific way. God is not stupid or unwise as to leave as a message then allow us to guess what it means or who he is. 1 Tim 2:3This is fine and acceptable in the sight of our Savior, God, 4whose will is that all sorts of people should be saved and come to an accurate knowledge of truth" Notice the expression "accurate knowledge".

The bible leaves signs of true christianity there are many. Jehovah's witnesses meet every single sign. One sign is the removal of false teachings that permeated the world soon after the apostles died. Jesus foretold this and he also foretold of the restoration of pure worship in the period known as the last days. The days we are currently living in. Jesus was a master of using illustrations he used an illustration to highlight this point Matt 13: "The Kingdom of the heavens may be likened to a man who sowed fine seed in his field. 25While men were sleeping, his enemy came and oversowed weeds in among the wheat and left. 26When the stalk sprouted and produced fruit, then the weeds also appeared. 27So the slaves of the master of the house came and said to him, ‘Master, did you not sow fine seed in your field? How, then, does it have weeds?’ 28He said to them, ‘An enemy, a man, did this.’ The slaves said to him, ‘Do you want us, then, to go out and collect them?’ 29He said, ‘No, for fear that while collecting the weeds, you uproot the wheat with them. 30Let both grow together until the harvest, and in the harvest season, I will tell the reapers: First collect the weeds and bind them in bundles to burn them up; then gather the wheat into my storehouse" Why did he speak in illustrations? Matt 13:10So the disciples came and said to him: “Why do you speak to them by the use of illustrations?” 11In reply he said: “To you it is granted to understand the sacred secrets of the Kingdom of the heavens, but to them it is not granted" The kingdom of the heavens is full of sacred secrets that Jesus reveals only to his followers. This privilege is open to all who are really willing to submit to God and his Christ in action not just in words. These are the ones God is looking for. Are you really one?? If so I encourage you to let Jehovah's witnesses show you what the Bible really teaches.

False religion is disgusting to God and to his true worshippers it is likened in the Bible to a harlot Rev 17:"I will show you the judgment upon the great harlot who sits on many waters, 2with whom the kings of the earth committed fornication, whereas those who inhabit the earth were made drunk with the wine of her fornication" Whereas the bride of Christ is likened to a virgin Rev 14: 4"These are the ones who did not defile themselves with women; in fact, they are virgins" These are both used as spiritual terms here and show the importance of pure and clean worship for God's people.

Awards and Honors

©2016 All rights reserved.