New Evidence for Jehovah's Witnesses that the WBTS Misquotes Sources?

Question

An "Awake!" article titled "Who is the Only True God?" (linked to a recent Watchtower article refuting the Trinity) states the following:

"Where did this complex Trinity teaching originate? The Christian Century, in its May 20-27, 1998, issue, quotes a pastor who acknowledges that the Trinity is “a teaching of the church rather than a teaching of Jesus.” Even though the Trinity is not a teaching of Jesus, is it consistent with what he taught?"

To confirm this quote, I personally contacted The Christian Century Magazine. Its response after viewing the above quote was: "Attached you will find a copy of the article from which the quote has been taken, out of context from the whole of the article." After reading the article, I agree. Here are the major points from the article, including the paragraph the WBTS quoted from:

(continued)

"For those Christians who live their lives within the liturgical year, and for those preachers who are disciplined by the common lectionary, this is the only day of the year that calls us to ponder a teaching of the church rather than a teaching of Jesus. … It seems to me that instead of explaining how three things are really one thing, we must try to do what the doctrine of the Trinity was originally formulated to do: give words to the faith. … The early Christians, living in a hostile world, needed to put some definitive language to what they believed Christ had revealed to them. For the sake of unity they needed a common language, a common confession. In our hostile world, our witness demands the same thing.”

It’s plain the article’s author doesn’t acknowledge the Trinity to be a man-made doctrine at all. Instead, she explains the Trinity is our way of putting into human words what the Bible does, in fact, teach! JWs, you will surely disagree with the conclusion, but it’s plain the WBTS has pulled this “damning” quote completely out of context.

If anyone doubts I’ve accurately quoted from the article, I’d be happy to email it to you.

Responses and comments?

TRK, it's an indisputable, inescapable FACT that the disciples of the Apostles affirmed the fact that Jesus and the Spirit are both God. So while the word "trinity" wasn't taught, the CONCEPT clearly was. The emphasis of the article is this: the doctrine was taught by Jesus and the Apostles, but in such a fashion that the Church struggled with the fullness of the meaning of these teachings. The author (who is female, by the way) NEVER states the Trinity is a manufactured doctrine, as suggested by the WBTS.

"Misplaced Mother," I do, in fact, speak English. And I'd wager that my IQ, while completely irrelevent to the issue of salvation, is higher than your own. The fact that I can properly understand what was written -- and you cannot -- is evidence of that fact.

Answer 1

As information reaches critical mass about their false teachings, They will grab at anything....It is a dying religion and hopelully
god will put it to rest, soon.

Answer 2

How ridiculous and foolish!

Whether or not you believe in a "trinity" the fact remains that this quote actually said:

"this is the only day of the year that calls us to ponder a teaching of the church rather than a teaching of Jesus"

That was the only point they were trying to make. That was not "out of context". It was exactly what was written and meant. It did not make any difference whether the writer may believe in the trinity and didn't like the thought was used.

The fact remains that there is NO scriptural support for the "trinity" doctrine of men. This teaching was added 400 years AFTER Jesus died by a political/clergy group making an expedient decision to please the Roman authorities.

Answer 3

English must be a second language for you. I see the sentence quoted appropriately. The pastor continues with some "mumbo jumbo" about the early Christians. How early? 300 C.E.? By that time apostasy was running rampant.

Also, I see several comments using the "we" to indicate a trinity God. Dah! The angels were already created before the earth and man, and I'm sure they helped Jehovah and the Word during the creations. That's who he was talking too, all the rest of the spiritual creatures in heaven!

Not to offend anyone, but we need to post our I.Q.'s along with our comments!

Answer 4

We have only had printing gear in the last couple of hundred years or so, and since then, we have been able to reproduce anything from then on with accuracy. Anything at all before that has been hear say and the story teller would make his own changes and ad his own twist to make the story more exciting. Goliath was 6' according to one teller but the next would have made it more exciting by possibly making that 10' None of you can say this was right or that was, as history has been interfered with that much, it is mostly fiction that is slightly based on fact.

Answer 5

I'm sorry Suzanne, but the subject of the article seems to be speaking of "a teaching of the Church rather than a teaching of Jesus." it then goes on to speak about the Trinity teaching. I don't see that this is a misquote at all. We all know that the Trinity is a teaching of the church, which did not start until 400 years after Jesus died. What teaching of the church do you think this pastor was referring to when he said "a teaching of the Church rather than a teaching of Jesus"?

Answer 6

I, a Christian Witness of Jehovah, wish to thank you Suzanne for posting the original quote. From that it can clearly be seen that the Watchtower publication did NOT misquote it; that the article does in fact confirm that this pastor said of the trinity dogma that the Trinity is “a teaching of the church rather than a teaching of Jesus.”

Answer 7

The article still on confirms what true Christians have known all along and that is the the trinity doctrine is a teaching of the Catholic church,rather than a teaching of Jesus Christ....
Another attempt to run down Jehovah's earthly organisation thwarted!

Answer 8

Oh, yeah? I know that anything you say, Mr. K just loves. But even he has to acknowledge that the trinity is based on a Catholic creed, NOT the Bible. The trinity is based on the Athanasian Creed. The definition of the trinity is MUCH MORE than merely saying "the Father, Son, and holy spirit are God." In part, the AC says: "Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith. And the Catholic Faith is this, that we worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity. So there is One Father, not Three Fathers; one Son, not Three Sons; One Holy Ghost, not Three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is afore or after Other, None is greater or less than Another, but the whole Three Persons are Co-eternal together, and Co-equal."

"Even though the Trinity is not a teaching of Jesus, is it consistent with what he taught?" You tell me. Can you find ANYTHING that Jesus said that indicates that God is triune and that he is the second part of a trinity? Can you find a quote from Jesus where he said the Father, Son, and holy spirit are equal in ANYTHING? No, you can't. You make yourself look more foolish everytime you challenge Jehovah's Witnesses on their beliefs. When you find just ONE scripture that supports the triitarian formula, let me know.

Just in case you're interested, here are a few reference sources that acknowledge the falsehood of the trinity:


The Illustrated Bible Dictionary records: "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."

The New Catholic Encyclopedia admits that the Trinity "is not. . . directly and immediately the word of God."

The Encyclopedia of Religion And Ethics records: At first the Christian Faith was not Trinitarian. . . It was not so in the apostolic and sub-apostolic ages, as reflected in the New Testament and other early Christian writings."

L. L. Paine, professor of Ecclesiastical History acknowledged: "The Old Testament is strictly monotheistic. God is a single personal being. The idea that a trinity is to be found there . . . is utterly without foundation."

The Encyclopedia of Religion admits: "Theologians today are in agreement that the Hebrew Bible does not contain a doctrine of the Trinity."

The New Catholic Encyclopedia also admits: "The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not taught in the Old Testament."

Jesuit Edmund Fortman wrote in his book, The Triune God: ". . . There is no evidence that any sacred writer even suspected the existence of a Trinity within the Godhead. . . Even to see in the Old Testament suggestions or foreshadowings or 'veiled signs' of the trinity of persons, is to go beyond the words and intent of the sacred writers."

The Encyclopedia of Religion says: "Theologians agree that the New Testament also does not contain an explicit doctrine of the Trinity."

The New Encyclopedia Britannica reports: "Neither the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament."

The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology confirms: "The New Testament does not contain the developed doctrine of the Trinity."

Jesuit Fortman similarly states: "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."

Yale University professor E. Washburn Hopkins affirms in the Origin and Evolution of Religion: "To Jesus and Paul the doctrine of the trinity was apparently unknown; . . .they say nothing about it."

Historian Arthur Weigall records in The Paganism in Our Christianity: "Jesus Christ never mentioned such a phenomenon, and nowhere in the New Testament does the word 'Trinity' appear. The idea was only adopted by the Church three hundred years after the death of our Lord."

I hope you enjoy reading the truth about the false.

You know, if you would spend more time reading the Bible as you do in trying to look for discepencies in our publication, you just might learn something useful.

Answer 9

If this is a direct quote from the"Christian Century" how is it out of context or misquoted?

""For those Christians who live their lives within the liturgical year, and for those preachers who are disciplined by the common lectionary, this is the only day of the year that calls us to ponder a teaching of the church rather than a teaching of Jesus.""

I see the direct statement "this is the only day of the year that calls us to ponder a teaching of the church rather than a teaching of Jesus."

Why the attempt to mislead others?

Answer 10

It seems as though Christians may be "living in a hostile world", for a long time. To deny the real need of ecclesiastical tolerance and a creative edge in teaching the gospel, is to deny the actual gospel. The gospel, which itself we see only through the impressions of those who knew Christ, (or knew people who knew him) is a second hand account. Unfortunately there is no book of Christ in which he relates cathecism.

Answer 11

"A teaching of the church rather than a teaching of Jesus.”

Thank you for pointing that out...

And yes Jehovah god did say lets make man in our image! If I was standing in a room with someone and we decided to make little figurines out of play dough I would probably say that to! And if Jehovah and Jesus were one why would he have to say it at all, wouldn't Jesus have already known? I mean Who was he talking too???

Genisis 1:26 NWT

26 And God went on to say: “Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness, and let them have in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and the domestic animals and all the earth and every moving animal that is moving upon the earth.”

How was that taken out of context?