You are here:

Jehovah`s Witness/Richard is correct, Eddie...You don't understand the Trinity


Okay, I just have to jump in here on this one….

A little over 2 weeks ago, Eddie G provided us with a nice rant, because he was obviously incensed by Richard’s comments about Eddie not having an accurate understanding of the Trinity.   And now, he is obviously still deeply insulted about Richard having said that he doesn’t understand the teaching of the Trinity.

Unfortunately though, Richard was right….Eddie does not have an accurate understanding of the Trinity.  You can pick up ANY book explaining the Trinity, or Google any website which is defending and defining it, and it won’t take very long to see that fact.

But I have a question for both Eddie and Rando to answer.  I would take the usual course and just send the question to Rando, but Rando either rejects them, or babbles on and on without answering.  So, let’s just do it this way….

Eddie/Rando…Do you believe that it is acceptable Christian behavior, to twist a doctrine that you do not agree with?  Or should you correctly state what the doctrine is that you are trying to refute, even if you don’t happen to agree with it?  

I would like to know your position on that question, so we can better understand your intentions and motives.  

Because the fact of the Trinity being twisted and misrepresented by you two, is not even debatable…It happens on this forum every week.  But the question is, WHY does it happen?  There are only 2 options….Either the twisting is intentional, and thefore, a lie.  Or…You are ignorant of the doctrine.  There simply isn’t a third option to consider.  Its either that you’re lying, or you don’t understand it…You tell us which it is.

So, please state your answer to the above questions, Eddie/Rando.  Thank you.

Eddie G fancies himself as knowledgeable on many topics that he loves to talk about, but the evidence shows that he does not understand those subjects.  The cross was one of those topics, and now, so is the Trinity.  

Eddie assures us that he understands the Trinity quite well.  In fact, he says it so many times in one paragraph, that it almost seems like he is trying to convince himself that he really does know what he is talking about.  But incessant repetition, does not alter facts.

He also assured us he knew what he was talking about, when he claimed that we born again Christians worship and bow before crosses.  Although I told him several times this was not the case, he assured us that he KNEW WHAT HE WAS TALKING ABOUT.  And why was he so sure?  Because, as he said, “I work with people who believe like you do” .

But here was the problem….Eddie G didn’t know what he was talking about.  What Mr. Eddie did not tell anyone, is that he went to the BAPTIST forum here on Allexperts, and asked 2 separate Baptists, if we practice the worship of the cross.  And not one, but BOTH of them, told him we did not believe this was appropriate.

But its funny, Eddie never once mentioned in that debate, his journey over to the Baptist forum.  Nor did he correct his false statement.  Nor did he ever acknowledge his error.  I guess we can assume from this, that Eddie feels no need to correct statements that he makes, which are proven false…Especially if he has ALREADY gone on record and told us “I know what I’m talking about” .

After being shown that he in fact, did NOT know what he was talking about, did he correct himself?  No.  Instead, he continued right on, in making the false claim that born again Christians worship the cross.  

Even one of his fellow JWs got sick of him lying, and posted an “Add On” after one of his answers, telling him that he just “didn’t get it”, and kept on making the same false statement.  

Isn’t that true, Eddie?

Now, who among our readers thinks that, had the 2 Baptists on that forum AGREED with him and said that we DO worship the cross, that he would have “forgotten” to mention it?  I seriously doubt he would have neglected to tell us about that.  But when the answers he received, didn’t agree with the lies he had already told, he simply ignored it and didn’t think it was worth mentioning…or correcting.  Had they given him the answers he was wanting, the sun would not have set on that day, before he would’ve typed a post about it.

So, Eddie’s course of action is….If I get an answer that agrees with me, or that I can twist, then USE it.  But if I get an answer that shows my opponent is correct, then IGNORE it and hope no one notices.  

Well, I noticed.  

I just want the readers to know in advance, how these people are with the truth.  Truth is of no value to them, when defending “the Truth”.   

And sadly, that is what we are now witnessing with his “discussions” of the Trinity.

In the following answer, I will show WHY it is obvious that Eddie does not understand the Trinity doctrine.  I will deal with some of his own comments.  Actually, the proof he doesn’t understand it, is quite simple, as I will show….

To begin with, let’s prove beyond all doubt that Eddie has told this board that he DOES understand the Trinity teaching….

“Unfortunately, you're quite wrong.”

“I do understand the Trinitarian position! Being born and raised as a Catholic, I fully understand the Roman Catholic's Trinitarian point of view.”

(Wow…talk about “bait and switch”.)

“Having studied extensively the many facets and the many faces of the doctrine as it evolved throughout the millennia, I do understand the Trinitarian position! Having read many explanations of this doctrine throughout the years, I do indeed understand the Trinitarian position! Otherwise the questions I put out to you and to your fellow Trinitarians won't be that much challenging. I also think (as far as I'm concern) that not many people understand it well enough as I do.” “But unfortunately even with the amount of research and study that I did, I must honestly admit, it's still a confusing concept, of which (I think) even you Richard won't be able to explain clearly and satisfactorily. There's just no way even to the most learned Trinitarian. Thus they always end up admitting in the end that it's a MYSTERY. This I can be sure of.”

“In fact as I learned throughout the years from studying it, it takes a good amount of denial and "Scripture Twisting" even to admit that it's Scriptural. And one has to ignore vast amounts of scripture to make it believable. One has to also use word equivocation and mental gymnastic in order to make any sense of it. Yet even with all of these givens, it still a confusing mysterious doctrine.”

And we see Eddie, the guy who loves to talk about “bait and switch”, do that very thing himself….Again.

Notice how he lays the groundwork, by claiming the Trinity is a “mystery” (as if that has any bearing on its truthfulness), and then makes an odd assumption to explain WHY he thinks it is such….“It’s a MAN-MADE concept!” .

I quote from ole’ Eddie G:

“it still a confusing mysterious doctrine.”

Simple, because it's a MAN-MADE concept! As such, it's a highly flawed concept from its very inception.”

Eddie has a tendency to take 2 un-related points, and somehow tie them together, in order to make it appear that one proves the other.  So, from his comment above, we are to conclude that anything about God that is “mysterious” or above human understanding, is automatically proven to be “man-made”.  I believe that is what he just told us.

But does the nature of God being higher than our finite comprehension, automatically make it a “man-made concept”?  If its “man-made”, then would that not sort of imply that some “man” somewhere, invented it, and thus, UNDERSTOOD it?

But since they want to mock at the word “mystery”, as if that proves anything at all about the true or false nature of the Trinity, perhaps a Scripture is in order….

1 Timothy 3:16-  “And without controversy great is the MYSTERY of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.”

Now, do Eddie or Rando fully understand, and can they explain, the complete nature of God, and His ways?  I think not.  

Isaiah 55:8-9-  “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.

For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.”

Job 36:26-  “Behold, God is great, and we know him not, neither can the number of his years be searched out.”

His years cannot be searched out?  Can Eddie and Rando explain how it is, that Jehovah God NEVER had a beginning, and has always existed, and that there has never been a time in eternity past, that He was not in existence?  They believe this to be the case, but do they comprehend it?  I would love to see them explain it, from a completely human, and “non-mysterious” standpoint.

Psalm 145:3-  “Great is the LORD, and greatly to be praised; and his greatness is unsearchable.”

Romans 11:33-34-  “O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!

For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor?”

In fact, there are several other doctrines in the Scriptures, that are explicitly described as a “Mystery”, and all of them are true doctrines.  

1.  The casting away of Israel, the grafting in of the Gentiles, and the future restoration of Israel, is called a “mystery”.  (Romans 11:25)

2.  The very Gospel of Jesus Christ, is called a “mystery”. (Romans 16:25-26)

3.  The wisdom of God, as contrasted to the finite “wisdom” of man, is called a “mystery” (1 Corinthians 2:5-7).

4.  The rapture, and the glorification of the bodies of the resurrected saints, is called a “mystery” (1 Corinthians 15:51-52)

5.  The very will of God Himself, in adopting us into His family, is a “mystery” (Ephesians 1:4-9)

6.  The union of husband and wife, as it parallels Christ’s union with His Church, is a “mystery” (Ephesians 5:32).  

Interesting point…If the union between Christ and His Church is a “mystery”, then why do they feel its such an issue, if the union between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, would be referred to as such?

7.  Christ’s indwelling of us, is a “mystery” (Colossians 1:25-28)

8.  God Himself is a "mystery" (Colossians 2:2-3).  

But wait!  Didn’t Rando and Eddie mock the notion of God being a “mystery”?  They have inadvertently mocked the Bible itself, in so doing.

Now Gentlemen, please tell us again, just what is the problem with the word “mystery’, as it pertains to the deep truths of God’s Word?  I would like some further clarification on that, since you especially, Eddie, seem to be guilty of yet another logical fallacy, by implying that something being a “mystery”, is directly due to its being a man-made “sham”.

Would you say the “mysteries” listed above, are man-made “shams”?

Also, I read a comment from Mr. Eddie, and I truly wonder if he has any clue what he actually said here.  He writes….

“Unless he uses the usual unsatisfactory "shut-up" Trinitarian defense, that God is a "MYSTERY", then there's NO clear and satisfactory way of explaining what Richard said.”

What does he mean by “shut up” Trinitarian defense, that God is a MYSTERY” ?

Interestingly enough, ALL of the passages I listed above, teaching a BIBLICAL doctrine, contain the word “mystery” , which comes from the root word “mysterion“ , which comes from the root word “muo” , which interestingly enough, means literally ….

"to shut the mouth."

Ed, isn’t it sort of funny how things like that work out?

Then, Eddie proceeds to set himself up as the judge of all of us who are content to simply BELIEVE all the statements of Scripture, and accept God as He has revealed Himself, by stating….

“And those who support it and especially those who promote it will bear a very heavy responsibility for teaching it. Hence, they will pay dearly - with their own lives - as this very flawed doctrine not only hides the truth from people about God but makes a mockery of the Living God Jehovah and His son Jesus Christ.”

And this coming from the same guy who thinks that Jesus is Michael the Archangel, in direct opposition to the first chapter of Hebrews, and in the absence of ANY single Scripture in the Bible.  He also believes Jesus is a creation, despite clear passages that Jesus is eternal.  Furthermore, he believes that Jesus Christ is not even the Mediator for most of mankind, and he wants to talk about “making a mockery” of Jesus Christ, and endangering people’s hope of eternal life?

Tell you what, Guys….Let’s just do a little experiment.  We will gather all the Scriptures which state that Jesus is God, and you guys gather the Scriptures that state He is Michael the Archangel, and we will see which way the scales tip on that one.  I think we have a great deal more support for our side on the Person of Jesus Christ, than what you guys will be able to come up with.

So, how about it?  You present the “evidence” for Jesus being a created angel, and we present the evidence for Him being God?  

EDDIE:  “And as one who is aware of these facts, I take my responsibility very seriously to expose the lies of this detestable concept and by extension those who promote it. And as long as you or your fellow Trinitarians continue to promote your Trinity ideas here in the JW Experts Forum, I'll be here to assist my fellow brothers and sisters to keep the light shining bright on it.

So, why did you leave the board, then?  Because DW thought you were a fake?  So what??  Ice up, Son….

And on a side note, Rando and Eddie talk about the Trinity 100-1 more times than any of us do.  It was only because of THEIR constant lies and misrepresentations about it, that our responses were prompted.  So again, Eddie's little noble promise to "expose" us for "continuing to promote it", was basically a bunch of emotional nothing.  They are the ones hung up on it.  However, we are not going to just sit back and let them lie about it, and tell them world the "understand it", when they are completely clueless, either.

Now, for the reasons why Eddie himself has shown us, despite his numerous protests, that he truly does not understand the Trinity teaching.  I will list the reason, and then make some comments afterward...


“That is, how could:

Jehovah1 = Jehovah God?

Jehovah2 = Jesus Christ?

Jehovah3 = nameless holy spirit?

It can't be because he already said that Jehovah is the ONLY "one being who is God". See what I mean Brother Rando?”

Simply amazing.  The guy who prides himself on being “logical” and finding “contradictions”, somehow managed to overlook his OWN glaring contradiction, on point #3, when he claims that Richard believes that “Jehovah3 is a NAMELESS Holy Spirit.”

Uh, I have a teeny little question….If the Holy Spirit is JEHOVAH #3 (not our belief, but Eddie’s statement), then how would He then still be considered NAMELESS?  Isn’t JEHOVAH a name??

But actually, this isn’t the Trinitarian belief at all.  In fact, it is a snowy day in August in the Northern Hemisphere, that a JW can actually write a discourse on the Trinity, and get all of his facts correct.  It simply doesn’t happen.  If Eddie "understood" the Trinity, he could to it.  But he can't....because he doesn't.

First off, this latest twisting of Ed’s, is in direct contrast to Richard’s clear declaration that there is ONE Jehovah….Not 3 of them.  Richard nowhere said there were 3 “Jehovahs” or “YHWH”s.  If that statement was made, then please produce it, Eddie.

Now, it needs to be mentioned on this point, that Rando has a tendency to invent conversations that never occurred.  I have seen, usually stifling a laugh, Rando continuously make the claim that he asked me to show him in the Bible a “three in one” verse.  Actually, his memory is rather short….The way the conversation REALLY went, and it took place back in 2007-2008, when ole’ Rando first joined up here, was that I asked HIM for one Scripture that identifies Jesus as Michael the Archangel.  

And here in 2014, we are STILL waiting for that Scripture.  

In fact, I can easily produce excerpts of those conversations, if need be.  So, it was actually Rando that could not provide a single Scripture, in support of his belief.  I mentioned to him the Johannine Comma, and his reaction was predictable.  Basically, in a nutshell, “(Hiss, Hiss!) That’s not in the Bible!!!! (Hiss, Hiss!!!!)  So, I calmly offered to debate him publicly on the Johannine Comma, and offered to allow both of us to present our evidence.  Rando declined, as he has declined every other offer to debate the nature of God, in a public forum.  Instead, he sits as an anonymous coward behind his keyboard, hiding from his own congregation, and telling his slanderous lies.  Most JWs are embarrassed by him.  Its no credit to Eddie, that he has chosen to associate with a proven liar.

Actually, the Trinitarian belief is the ONLY of the many understandings on the nature of God, that harmonizes ALL of the Scriptures.  The Oneness belief has no problem with the Scriptures that show Jesus to be God, but they cannot adequately explain the ones that show Him to be distinct from the Father.  The JW position has no problem with the Scriptures that show Jesus to be distinct from the Father, but when it comes to the clear passages showing Him to be God, well, you have never seen such gymnastics…twisting, dancing, and ducking the Scriptures.  In JW-Land, any Scripture that shows Jesus to be God, will either be explained away, or RE-TRANSLATED.

Fact is, though, the Trinitarian position can harmonize ALL of the Scriptures, and Richard’s definition did an excellent job of doing just that.

Another statement proving Eddie’s complete misunderstanding of the Trinity….

“Now, just because Jesus and Jehovah "share the same nature" it DOES NOT mean that Jehovah is "revealed" as Jesus as express in the "Trinity Godhead" or for that matter "revealed" as the "third" nameless person in the "Trinity Godhead".

Since when do Trinitarians claim that Jesus is the THIRD Person in the Trinity?  And since when is the Trinity “nameless”, when both Richard and myself have stated that God’s name is Jehovah/YHWH?  Why do they continue to tell this lie?

Simple…Because they have no understanding of the Trinity.  But he isn’t done yet….

“4) The Son is subject to the Father, and the Holy Spirit is subject to both the Father and the Son.

In this case I will say that any well-versed Trinitarian would disagree with his comments.

This comment proves beyond any doubt, that this guy is completely clueless, because if he knew the Trinity teaching, he would not have claimed that “any well-versed Trinitarian would disagree” with that assessment.

Indeed, since any "well-verse Trinitarians" believes that the Holy Spirit (the third nameless person in the Trinity Godhead) is co-equal with the Father and Son, thus they would disagree.”

Unfortunately, they do not understand that “subjection” does not necessarily imply inferiority of nature.  If so, I would hate to have the job of telling my wife that one.


Eddie writes…“4) While some believe in a Trinity Godhead where God is revealed as God the Father, God The Son and God The Holy Ghost in separate occasions.
Now, with all the years they have since the inception of this man-made doctrine, do you think they would have, should have figured it out already? The inconsistency, that is?

Obviously not!”

The belief stated above, that God is revealed as Father, Son, or Holy Spirit on various occasions, is not Trinitarian, but Modalistic.  

DEFINITION OF “MODALISM”-  “the doctrine that the persons of the Trinity represent only three modes or aspects of the divine revelation, not distinct and coexisting persons in the divine nature.”

Which, I believe, is what Eddie’s statement above implies.

A little more information on this teaching, can be found in the following link, which is basically a shot in the head to Eddie’s above-stated “understanding” of the Trinity doctrine.

From the link above, we see the following quote….

“Modalism states that God is a single person who, throughout biblical history, has revealed Himself in three modes, or forms. Thus, God is a single person who first manifested himself in the mode of the Father in Old Testament times. At the incarnation, the mode was the Son and after Jesus' ascension, the mode is the Holy Spirit. These modes are consecutive and never simultaneous. In other words, this view states that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit never all exist at the same time, only one after another. Modalism denies the distinctiveness of the three persons in the Trinity even though it retains the divinity of Christ.”

Proof positive, from Eddie’s own statement, that he doesn’t know the difference between the Trinity and Modalism, nor does he understand the Trinity teaching.  If he did, he would not have made the above comment that he made.  

Unless he is being intentionally dishonest, in an attempt to “muddy the waters”.  That’s the only other option.


“How can there be two almighty gods within the trinity structure folks? If there is only one Almighty God, then why is Derrick Holland listing two??”

No Trinitarian believes there are 2 “almighty gods”, as has already been proven numerous times.

“The trinity is like a three legged stool. By claiming the Father is the Son and the Son is the Father, Derrick just took one of the legs of the trinity and {{it}} comes tumbling to the ground. How is that the first and second persons are both Almighty God, but the third person of the trinity is not Almighty God? Oh, what about {the trinity being itself}, all of a sudden its' not Almighty God either? Don't the "three separate persons" owe their lives to the trinity being??

No Trinitarian claims the “Father is the Son and the Son is the Father”.  In fact, that is the opposite of what the Trinity states.
Furthermore, Trinitarians DO believe the Holy Spirit is God, in contrast to the false statement above.  To say the “three separate persons owe their lives to the Trinity being”, is such babble that you have to wonder if they guy who said it was high on dope.  The Persons don’t owe their lives to anything…They ARE the Trinity.

This was actually a vain attempt to knock over the “stool”, with a false, straw-man argument.  All because they can’t do it with the truth of God’s Word.


And a person who “understands” the Trinity, would not make that mistake.  Any person with a correct understanding of the Trinity, would immediately know that Rando’s statements about what it teaches, are completely false.  

A person who “understands” it, would know the difference.  But Eddie does not. Instead, he has actually APPLAUDED Rando in his lies and misrepresentations of the Trinity.  Why would a guy who really “understands” it, do that?  

Yes, Eddie did, in his own words, imply that Rando has offered great points that “silenced” us Trinitarians, in the following comment….

“It seems to be quite all of the sudden in the Trinitarian front. What happened to the its defenders? What did you do to them? Did they somehow finally realized that their precious Triune godhead - the trinity godhead concept was and is a sham?”

Now Eddie, why would a guy who lies about our beliefs, have us "silenced" and realizing that it was a "sham"?  Why would a guy who lies, have ANY impact on our confidence in our teaching?  Doesn't common sense tell you that you NEVER refute a doctrine by lying about it?  

You just weren't thinking on that one.

Furthermore, as I pointed out in another writing to Richard, Eddie chose Rando to be the “go to” Guy.  He could have chosen ANY honest JW who tries to get the facts right, but he didn’t.  He could've chosen Brenton Hepburn, who always endeavors to be honest.  He could have chosen Carol, Pam, or even Elbert.  None of those people have shown an inclination to lie.  Instead, he chose the one person who has done nothing but lie about the Trinity for his entire 7 years in this forum.  

Now, any reasonable person would have to ask why a guy who "understands" the teaching, would do that?

Also, any reasonable person would have to ask themselves, why a man who “understands” the Trinity (as Eddie so emotionally and incessantly tries to tell us he does), would SUPPORT and lend credence to the following falsehoods posted by Rando, in regards to the Trinity.

Here are some of the various lies told by Rando about the Trinity teaching, which Eddie G agrees with….

“The Trinity Doctrine comes down to this BOLD LIE: God became a man, so that man can become God.”

Really, Eddie?  Do you agree that we Trinitarians believe that man can become God?  Apparently you do agree, since you have chosen the guy who wrote that lie, to be your main contact in this forum on the discussion of the Trinity….In which case, it is now proven beyond ALL doubt, that you do NOT “understand” our teaching.  

But if you don’t agree with his comment, then perhaps it is not Richard and I, but rather, YOU and Rando, who don’t agree with one another on what the Trinity says?

BTW, on that note, I caught yet ANOTHER contradiction in the liar Rando’s comments, that proves he cannot even keep his own lies straight, and can’t even remember what he said previously, before he lies again.

He has BEEN saying…“Here, we have Derrick Holland claiming God is a "three person god" for fourteen long years on the JWForum and Richard blew him out of the water with, "There is one being who is God. The name of this being is YHWH".

Implying that Richard and I have a different doctrine.  But he contradicts himself today, with this comment….

“ne God in three persons is not in the Bible as Richard and Derrick claim. Remember, they are on a JWForum spewing "Wormwood" from Satan, trying to deceive the Reader that they are JWExperts when they are really Impostors.”

Interesting…First, Richard and I do not agree on the Trinity, but now he says we do…LOL.

Rando cannot even keep his own lies straight.

But some more false claims regarding the Trinity, that Eddie G thinks are accurate, while assuring us he “understands” the Trinity teaching…..

“Trinitarians make the claim that Jesus is the Father himself in the Old Testament”

Really, Eddie?  Do Trinitarians REALLY claim that Jesus is the Father in the Old Testament?  Is that what you think we believe?

“The Trinitarians are so desperate, they grab any scripture with the number (three) in it and claim it explains the Trinity in explicit detail.”

Again, Eddie….Do you think that we grab any Scripture with the number 3 in it, and use it as a proof of our teaching?  Have you ever seen a Trinitarian use Genesis 6:10, Genesis 9:19, Exodus 37:18, in support of our teaching?  How about Joshua 15:14?  Perhaps Proverbs 30:18?  What about 1 Timothy 5:19?  Or what about the other 400+ instances where the number “3” is used?  Do we REALLY use those in support of our teaching?

No?  Then why do you agree with these comments, if you know them to be false misrepresentations?

“Those who believe the TRINITY, Worship the Trinity. The Trinity is made up of three Gods.”

Do Trinitarians believe in “three Gods”, Eddie?  Since you “understand” the Trinity, I know you should be able to answer that one.  Is that not the oldest lie in the book, that is told by non-Trinitarians, against our teaching?  Why do you support that lie?  If you really "understand" it, that is....

“Matter of fact, Religion has not told the truth about the only True God, Jehovah. They say Jehovah alone is not the most high, he shares his position with two other gods that are equal to him.”

This one is extremely humorous, as it begins by stating that “religion has not told the truth about God”, and then proceeds itself to not tell the truth about our views of Jehovah.  Basically, “everyone else lies, so we will too”.

But Eddie, in your “thorough understanding” of the Trinity, who do you think we say is “Most High”, besides Jehovah?  And WHO are these “2 other gods”, Who are NOT Jehovah, that we think are also “most high” along with Jehovah?  

Since you agree and endorse these comments, and still make the laughable claim that you “understand” the Trinity, then you have some explaining to do.  

Again, either you DON’T understand the Trinity, or you simply want to lie.  Which is it?  I’m sure our readers would like to know how it is, that a man who claim to be representing “the truth”, can take such liberties with it.  

Jehovah`s Witness

All Answers

Answers by Expert:

Ask Experts


Derrick Holland


I was raised in the religion known as Jehovah`s Witnesses for 13 years. Since becoming a born-again Christian, I have researched extensively this religion, especially their doctrines and their history. I can answer questions about their doctrines from the perspective of Biblical Christianity. To be clear: Jehovahs Witnesses is the religion of my upbringing, though I myself was never baptized into the religion, nor have I ever been considered as a Jehovahs Witness.


29 years of Biblical research into the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith, and how they differ from the teachings of the Watchtower.

I would advise each questioner to this forum, to carefully READ the profiles of the various volunteers. There are several such as myself, who are not practicing JWs, but will provide you with an accurate and honest answer, regarding JW teaching. If we don't know the answer, we will try to research and get it for you. There are also some excellent practicing JWs here, who also endeavor to give you a factual and honest answer, based on their point of view. I believe by getting both points of view, the questioner can weigh the evidence for themselves, and make an informed decision. Unfortunately, there are also 3 here who claim to be JWs, but do NOT give honest, or well-researched answers. They will tell you only what they want you to believe, and they often hide facts about the history of their religion, as well as print untruths about other people's beliefs. This is done in an attempt to deceive the unsuspecting reader. It can be easily seen who these 3 are, simply by reading the public posts and "answers" which they write. Their posts will normally be filled with personal attacks, and if you question them about some teaching or aspect of the Watchtower that makes them uncomfortable, they will often reject your question, question your motives for asking it, tell you that you have been reading "apostate" sites, or turn the conversation into an attack on another expert. These ones are better avoided, as there is nothing to be gained by way of positive discussion, as they are not interested in intelligent conversation, or honest dialogue. If after reading the forum, you still have any questions as to who they are, just ask me, and I will be happy to tell you. And I can also provide documentation of their willful dishonesty. One thing is for a forum where people from both sides claim to be "Christians", there should never be any willful lying. Such ones only create a distraction in the forum, and provide nothing of any real value.

High School, some college. Studies of God's Word, the Bible, and how it compares to JW theology. I have found my own personal study and experiences to be far more valuable than any formal education or training. The Bible message is clear...Salvation is ONLY through and by the shed blood of Jesus Christ, and no religious organization has a thing to do with it. While attendance at a Bible-preaching, Bible-believing church is a must for spiritual growth and fellowship, no church can grant salvation to its members. Nor is joining a particular group a prerequisite for being saved.

©2017 All rights reserved.

[an error occurred while processing this directive]