reprinted from the book, Refuting Jehovah's Witnesses, by Randall Watters.
Theology is the study of the nature and character of God as revealed in his Word, the Bible. The Bible itself, however, is not a book of systematic theology; it does not always provide us with the answers we seek regarding God and his activity. The Bible provides statements regarding God and his creation, and often a person must reason on the Scriptural texts in order to determine certain truths. Christianity holds many doctrines that are derived from the Scriptures, though the Scriptures themselves may not present the complete doctrine in any one passage.
For example, the resurrection and the return of Christ are two events that are spoken of often in the gospels and the writings of Paul; but one must study ALL of the passages touching on these subjects to develop a doctrine of the resurrection, the return of Christ, etc.
Some of the cults attempt to convey the idea that they do not have any systematic doctrine, but they just believe what the Bible says. Not only is such a statement a bluff, but is easily disproved by producing the books of such groups where they categorize Scriptures according to subjects, and give brief or lengthy interpretations thereof. This method of categorization as well as their interpretations constitutes their theology. An organization or religion that poses as Christian cannot escape having a developed theology.
The New Testament contains the foundation for all Christian doctrine. It clarifies teachings in the Old Testament that were previously vague or hard to understand. The purpose of the Law of Moses is explained, as well as its fulfillment in Christ. While the Old Testament had foretold the coming of the Messiah, the New Testament explains the fulfillment of the messianic passages. The identity of Christ and the redemption he brought are revealed. Much of the shadowy teachings of the Old Testament are further developed in the New Testament. As the saying goes, the New (New Testament) is in the Old (Old Testament) concealed, the Old is in the New revealed.
The final books of the New Testament (such as Hebrews, Jude, Revelation and the epistles of John) develop doctrine even further, so as to protect against false ideas that would eventually undermine the faith that was "once delivered to the saints." (Jude 3) Through the centuries since then, it has been necessary for the church to defend the "faith once delivered" against new or recurrent heresies.
The apostolic church held to much of the Jewish beliefs regarding God. God
was still recognized as the Father of Abraham and the covenant God named
Yahweh. Yet, there were new revelations with the coming of Christ and the
teachings of the apostles. As J.N.D. Kelly states,
Among these new revelations that had to be integrated into the monotheism of Judaism were many statements regarding the nature and identity of Christ, as well as statements attributing more to the nature and work of the Holy Spirit than had been revealed in the Old Testament.
The early Christians became familiar with the ways of the Holy Spirit, at work in their hearts. Jesus had foretold that he would send the Spirit as an Advocate and Counselor to dwell in the believer, and that all three, Father, Son and Spirit, would somehow live in the believer (John 14:17, 23). Thus we have the simple theology of the apostolic church regarding the nature of God. FIRST, that the Father decreed his will in sending Christ to die for our sins (John 3:16); SECOND, that Christ becomes the focal point of worship and devotion (since he is God the Son sent by the Father (John 1:1,18; Hebrews 1:6, 8; Acts 4:12; Psalm 2:11,12; Revelation 5:13-14); and THIRD, that the Holy Spirit is the Teacher and Advocate who indwells believers (John 14:17, 26; 1 John 2:27).
In the apostolic church there was no discussion of the meaning of "nature" or "person" as we find in the later Trinitarian debates. This was a virgin faith which had not yet been tried in the crucible of rational debate. Their concentration was on the worship of Christ and living according to the Spirit of God. Such is also the simple faith of the great percentage of born again believers in the Christian churches today. Few of these concern themselves with theology per se, seeing such discussions as philosophical and irrelevant. When pressed for a definition of the nature of God, they will usually just say that God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
However, a simple faith cannot survive without providing an intellectual answer to those who challenge it. For example, the apostles found it necessary over and over to further define doctrine as a hedge against false teachers (Jude 3, 2 Peter 3:16). Paul further defines the doctrine of the bodily resurrection (1 Corinthians 15). The writer of Hebrews attacks the view that Christ is an angel or lesser being (Hebrews 1:1-14). John attacks the Gnostic idea that Jesus was not actually flesh and blood (1 & 2 John). Yet the closing period of the New Testament marked merely the beginning of false teachings that would challenge the Christian church.
While the disciples saw the Father as source of all, Christ as Deity, and the Holy Spirit as the One who lives in them, the three were not called a "Trinity" in the New Testament, nor were the three always mentioned together. Only in certain passages, such as Matthew 28:19 and 2 Corinthians 13:14 do we find this triadic formula. Yet these and many other passages logically led them to the conclusion that God exists in three Persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The writings we have that are handed down from Ignatius and Irenaeus, as well as many others (to be reviewed shortly), testify to the apostles' view of the triune Deity.
Opponents of the doctrine of the Trinity (or "triunity") object that this was not the monotheistic God of the Hebrews. This is an objection which must be met with both reason and Scripture. Scripture is our final authority. If God decides to reveal something of his nature which was not clear to us before, we can either listen and readjust our thinking, or we can object and find our own rational solution in order to maintain our former view. As we have established under the headings JESUS CHRIST and HOLY SPIRIT, the Scriptures reveal Christ as God and the Spirit as a Person, yet each being different; the Spirit is not the Father, Jesus is not the Father, etc. Our choices are to  accept what the Scriptures say and develop our theology accordingly,  deny what Scripture says and reject the inspiration of the New Testament, or  reinterpret the statements of Scripture in order to retain our previous theology, or a newer, more "rational" view.
Orthodox Trinitarians have attempted to follow the first choice. Being faced with the difficulty of explaining how three Persons can be called God and yet there be only one God, they have sought to develop doctrine that does not compromise the clear teachings of Christ and the apostles. While its theology is complex, it is the most impervious to attack, as it does not deny any of the Scriptural statements concerning God, Christ and the Spirit.
Modern Judaism and the Islamic faith have chosen to reject the New Testament as inspired, since it automatically challenges their understanding of monotheism. They refuse to accept the Trinitarian view as monotheistic, in spite of its claims.
The position later taken in the fourth century by Arius (that Christ must be a created god) attempts to retain monotheism by denying true Deity to Christ, thereby denying the clear statements of the apostles. In an effort to simplify the New Testament revelation, Arians introduced a Pandora's box of difficulties, most obviously being the teaching that there are two Gods: the Father, and the lesser god Jesus, who was created as a god. In this effort to simplify the New Testament imagery, they have denied the original concept of One True God, who stands alone, and who said he never did and never will create a god alongside himself (Isaiah 43:10-11). While trying to retain monotheism, they become polytheists the very accusation Arians make at Trinitarians.
A similar teaching that developed even before the time of Arius was that of Paul of Samosata (200-275 A.D.), who attempted to resolve the identity of Christ by claiming he had no preexistence, but was a man who was adopted into godhood due to his moral excellence. This teaching is known as Dynamic Monarchianism.
Another form of Monarchianism1 which was much more popular was Modalistic Monarchianism, which actually took the other extreme, teaching that since the Father and Son were both called God (and yet One), then Jesus must have been the Father incarnate. This teaching, of course, denied the individuality of the Father and Son, and implied that the Father himself died and subsequently raised himself from the dead. Tertullian, an early Christian writer, spoke out against this popular form of Monarchianism as early as 190-200 A.D.
Both Monarchianism and Arianism were heresies which represented two extremes of rationalization, both trying to clarify the difficult New Testament passages. Both views consider Jesus as God, yet attempt to retain monotheism by either  denying the separate identity of the Father and Son (and Spirit), as in the case of Modalistic Monarchianism, or  denying the true Deity of Christ and the Spirit, making Christ a lesser or "adopted god," as in dynamic Monarchianism and Arianism. Trinitarianism, however, attempts to retain the separate identity of the Father, Son and Spirit as do the Scriptures, while maintaining the full Deity of the three as one God.
While Paul of Samosata's adoptionistic view is fairly simple, it must be noted that Arianism and Monarchian Modalism (God in three modes) are just as complicated as Trinitarianism. Those who point a finger at the Trinity as representing a "mysterious" or "pagan" approach to the identity of God are simply ignorant of the whole controversy, and fail to note the complications resulting from their own faith. Modern sects such as Jehovah's Witnesses and The Way International are Arian in theology, and feel their own approach to God is much simpler and less mysterious. However, the contradictions and theological problems introduced by Arianism make it just as difficult to understand as the Trinity; they just fail to address the contradictions!
DEVELOPMENT OF THEOLOGY IN THE FIRST THREE CENTURIES
The earliest Christian theologians were Justin Martyr (ca. 100-ca. 165), author of the First Apology and the Dialogue with Trypho the Jew; Ignatius, who wrote several epistles to the churches (ca. 110-120 A.D.) and Irenaeus (ca. 125-ca. 202), author of a five-volume work, Against Heresies, written about 180-89.
Justin Martyr, Ignatius and Irenaeus affirmed the Deity of Christ, and also
wrote on issues that later became part of the church creeds. As a sampling
of statements, Justin called Jesus God:
Justin speaks of the order of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit
Apology of Justin, Chap. XIII) as well as the "eternal begetting" of
Christ (First Apology, Chap. XXII; LXIII; Dialogue with Trypho,
Chap. LXI; C; CXXVIII). Ignatius affirmed the Deity of Christ by over and
over calling him "our God" as in this instance:
Ignatius stresses the Person of the Spirit and the triune formula as well,
in refutation of the heretics:
Irenaeus, a disciple of Polycarp, who was in turn a disciple of the apostle John, testified in the same manner:
For I have shown from the scriptures, that no one of the sons of Adam is as to everything, and absolutely, called God, or named Lord. But that He is Himself in His own right, beyond all men who ever lived, God, and Lord, and King Eternal, and the Incarnate Word, proclaimed by all the prophets, the apostles, and by the Spirit Himself, may be seen by all who have attained to even a small portion of the truth. Now, the scriptures would not have testified these things of Him, if, like others, He had been a mere man. (Irenaeus Against Heresies, chapter xix.2)
Irenaeus spoke much of the Son not having been a created or lesser being in Irenaeus Against Heresies, Book II, Chap. xxviii. 68; Book II, Chap. xxx. 9.
Irenaeus spoke of the Spirit in the threefold formula and established his Personhood in Irenaeus Against Heresies, Book I, Chap. X.1,2; Book II, Chap. XIX.9; Book III, chapter VIII.3; XVII.1; Book IV, chap. XX.12; Book V, chapter VI.1; XVIII.2.
These writings appeared around 180 A.D., long before the Nicene Council, and 80 years before the first significant challenge of the Deity of Christ by Paul of Samosata in 268. Interestingly, Irenaeus testified around A.D. 150 that the church was united all over the world on the fundamental doctrines. (Irenaeus Against Heresies, Book I, Chap. x. 1,2)
Additionally, Theophilus (116-181 A.D.) was the first known writer to use the Greek word "triad" in referring to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, indicating that the usage of the word was probably common between 150-175 A.D. (Theophilus to Autolycus, Book II, Chap. XV). Athenagoras (170-180 A.D.) uses the word as well to establish the worship of Father, Son and Holy Ghost (A Plea For the Christians, Ch. X.)
Athenagoras (177 A.D.) wrote concerning the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as having the same essence (Plea For The Christians, Chap. XXIV), and explaining how the Son and Spirit proceed from the Father, declaring their "power in union and their distinction in order" (Plea, Chap. X). He speaks of Christians as being "conducted to their future life by this one thing alone, that they know God and his Logos, what is the oneness of the Son with the Father, what the communion of the Father with the Son, what is the Spirit, what is the unity of these three, the Spirit, the Son, the Father, and their distinction in unity ..." (Plea, Chap. XII)
So we see that by the end of the second century, the basis for the Nicene
Creed already existed. Calvin Beisner, in his book God in Three
Late in the second century Tertullian began writing theological treatises
against another new heresy threatening the church, that of Modalistic
Monarchians, who so stressed the unity of the Godhead (Father, Son and
Spirit) that they denied the distinctions of persons in the Trinity. One
of its variations, successive Modalism, taught that the Father became
the Son, who then became the Spirit (one person taking different modes or
roles). In response to this heresy, Tertullian championed the phrase, "three
persons, one substance," and his formulations of the doctrine of the Trinity
clearly led to the Nicene formulation over a hundred years later. Tertullian
makes his position clear:
Origen (230 A.D.) was one of the great theologians of the third century. With Origen, however, another problem emerges. He was so determined to defend the distinctions of the Persons in the Trinity that he began to teach that the unity of the Father and Son was a generic unity, not a numerical unity. In other words, they are of the same substance, but separate in Being; the Son a subordinate Being to the Father (though eternally existing). This paved the way for Arianism, which took this concept a step farther than Origen. Arius denied the eternal nature of the Son, claiming him to be a "lesser god." The implication, of course, is polytheism (more than one God).
Despite his inconsistency, Origen defended the Father and Son being of equal nature, as well as the Personhood of the Spirit. He said that "nothing in the Trinity can be called greater or less." Unfortunately, his neoplatonic philosophy often influenced his theology. This appeared in his writings in the form of allegories (fanciful types and antitypes) of the Scriptures.
Up until Origen, the doctrine of the Trinity substantially represented what is found in the New Testament. New words had been introduced, such as "Trinity," "person" and "substance" to clarify the doctrine.
The third main heresy to develop following on the heels of Gnosticism and Monarchianism was Arianism, which began to surface in its rudimentary form at a synod in 268 A.D., originating from Paul of Samosata. The Antiochine school of theologians to which he belonged rejected the equality of substance of Father and Son, believing the Son to be created; only the Father exists eternally. Lucian was the first Antiochine teacher of this view, and Arius was a pupil of his. Arius later voiced his view at a teaching session in 318 A.D., and after days of debate was banned from the Alexandrian churches.
THE NICENE COUNCIL
Arius succeeded in influencing a number of his fellow bishops, and the
controversy grew. Emperor Constantine, who had converted to Christianity,
was asked to help resolve the issue. Constantine was probably less interested
in theology than he was in maintaining the unity of the church, but he was
asked by both sides to hold the Council (held in Nicea in 325 A.D.).
talked with representatives from both sides of the controversy beforehand.
During the Council, the followers of Arius presented a creed of their own,
which was rejected by most of the bishops as being heretical. Arius left
the council, while Eusebius of Nicomedia remained to represent Arius'
A creed representing orthodoxy was drawn up by Eusebius of Caesarea and won
general approval by most of the council. The Creed reads:
Athanasius, a prominent bishop, tells the story that the creed was not specific enough, and the Arians present actually sat and winked back and forth with each other, acknowledging that they could interpret the wording of the creed to fit their own views, and still appear orthodox. While Athanasius and others would have preferred to draw up a more specific creed, Constantine stepped in and ratified it, adding the Greek word homoousios (of the same essence) to the creed, meaning that the Father and the Son must be of the same essence. Such definitive wording was meant to prevent the Arians from reinterpreting it. While the Arians would agree to general Trinitarian statements, they would not agree to the Father and the Son being of the same substance, so this addition to the creed blocked the Arians out.
Arius' theology was just a further development on the "adoptionist" view
of Paul of Samosata. He differs from Paul in his belief that Jesus was the
preexistent Logos, which Paul denied. Harold O.J. Brown comments on the views
Athanasius made three main points in his refutation of the Arian doctrine,
as J.N.D. Kelly points out:
At the Nicene Council, the Deity and Personality of the Spirit were upheld
as well. Phillip Schaff describes their arguments:
The decades following the Council at Nicea saw a twist of events, as Arius gained influence once more in the empire, and Constantine was later won over to his side, even banning Athanasius in 335. But by 362 the tables were again reversed, and orthodoxy was once again established. The later Councils of Constantinople and Chalcedon further ratified the Nicene Creed, providing the church with a theological standard as a test of faith and a protection against heresy.
Admittedly, it is often confusing to talk with Christians regarding the Trinity, as few know anything about the history of this doctrine. Many Trinitarians are not aware that they themselves actually hold a Modalistic (and heretical) concept of God; the most common theological error among those who consider themselves orthodox. When asked to explain the Trinity, they sometimes sound as if they are saying that Christ and the Father are the same Person, denying the distinction between the two. This is usually the result of poor teaching in the churches.
Refuting Jehovah's Witnesses
JW: THE WORD "TRINITY" IS NOT IN THE BIBLE.
Neither are the words "Bible" or "organization" in the Bible, as well as terms like "ministerial servants," "Circuit Assemblies," "Theocratic Ministry School," etc. as used by the WT. This is shallow reasoning designed to throw the Christian off guard. If it can be proved that the Bible teaches a certain truth, then "naming" that truth does not make it unscriptural, just because the word is not in the Bible.
The question should be asked, is the particular teaching in the Bible, even if in a rudimentary form?
JW: THE TRINITY IS BORROWED FROM THE PAGANS.
The doctrine of the Trinity had nothing to do with the pagan teachings of
other religions. The idea of three Persons, Father, Son and Spirit, are
in the Scriptures themselves, as Harold Brown comments:
It was only in the later centuries when the Catholic church began to borrow
from pagan imagery of Trinities of Gods (to substantiate the worship of Mary)
that this type of corruption comes into the picture. Alexander Hislop,
of this later corruption of the doctrine of the Trinity in his book, The
Two Babylons, is referred to often by Jehovah's Witnesses in their efforts to discredit
the Trinity. What they fail to notice is that Hislop himself believes in
the Nicene Trinity! Note his statement:
JW: JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES REPRESENT THE "FAITH ONCE DELIVERED TO THE SAINTS", AS OPPOSED TO TRINITARIANISM, WHICH WAS INTRODUCED IN 325 A.D.
The "faith once delivered" included the worship of Christ as God and recognition of the indwelling Person of the Spirit, also called the Counselor and Teacher of the faithful. Rather than representing the faith of the early disciples, the current teachings of the WT have no precedent in history; though a similar doctrine appears in the teachings of Arius in 318 A.D. All of the historical evidence from the decades before Arius reveals an implicit belief in the Trinity by the whole Church, though not systematized into a formal doctrine. The WT cannot even claim the church fathers such as Irenaeus, Ignatius, etc. as their ancestors. In fact, they will refer favorably to none, since none of their doctrines agree with or even resemble the WT teachings. They do not offer any suggestions as to who were the "Jehovah's Witnesses" of the first two centuries, or even later. The WT is therefore historically bankrupt.
Though for a hundred years the WT claimed Arius as their ancestor, listing him as one of the seven "messengers" to the church (along with their founder, C.T. Russell [The Finished Mystery, Karatol Edition of 1918, p. 64]), they recently abandoned this claim due to further "light" on the subject. Their only response at present is to back up into a corner and deny having any "Christology," claiming to hold a simple faith, and stating they are not Arians (presumably because, they say, Arius believed in the Spirit as a Person). They "simply believe what the early Christians taught, and do not involve themselves in any theological definitions"! (WT, 9/1/84, p. 27; also 8/1/84 p. 24) The WT ignores the fact that you can go back to their early publications and find out that they have changed their theology over the years in regards to Christ, the church, the Devil, and so on. For instance, in 1879 they denied that Christ could be Michael the Archangel! Note:
Today they say that Jesus IS Michael the Archangel. Whether they choose to call it "Christology" or not, Jehovah's Witnesses have refined their doctrines about Christ many times.
The main study articles in the 9/1/84 WT, p. 27 and the 8/1/84 WT p. 24 attempt to contrast the "simple layman's faith" of Jehovah's Witnesses with the "complicated, mysterious Trinity," saying that Christians worship an unknown God. That this is absurd can be demonstrated by studying what the WT has taught regarding Christ over the years. They cannot escape having a "Christology" nor can they portray their doctrine as any less complicated than the Trinity this is simply an effort to sway their followers against the truth. The most noticeable aspects of the four articles on the Trinity (2/1/84, 8/1/84, 8/15/84 and 9/1/84 issues of the WT) is the usual strawman effect, where they misrepresent what Christians believe, and then proceed to "shoot down" this "straw man." The most obvious of these is the use of no less than five pictures of three headed gods which are supposed to represent the God of Christendom. It is pure nonsense to believe that Christendom teaches its followers to accept a three-headed god. God does not have a "head." (It is the Witnesses that claim God has a body, not Christians! See Aid To Bible Understanding, p.247, pp.4) Orthodox Christianity teaches that God is a Spirit, and as such, has no visible or material form or shape. Moreover, he is omnipresent and far transcending the WT god.
The further clarification of a doctrine does not make it wrong, if such additional clarifications do not alter its meaning. In the case of the Nicene Creed of 325 A.D., it was necessary (according to both parties in the dispute) to clarify (or, further elaborate on) the Deity and nature of the Son. The clarification of Christ's nature would reaffirm the efficacy of Christ's ransom sacrifice. Arius had come teaching a new doctrine that Christ is a creature. But if Christ is a creature, his opponent Athanasius argued, he can no more atone for sins than did the animal sacrifices. God did not set up a creature as a mediator, nor does he ask us to worship creatures; yet he commands the angels to worship Christ (Hebrews 1:6). At the outcome of this council, the Nicene Creed was adopted in order to reinforce passages such as the words of Paul in Col. 2:9:
The Scriptures plainly call Christ God, as in John 1:1 (the Word was God), and this was not even disputed in 325 A.D. The point is thisIf we can prove that the apostles and the early Christians believed that Christ was God incarnate and the Holy Spirit was a Person, then the early church is justified in further clarifying the nature of Christ and the Holy Spirit by adoption of the Nicene Creed.
In desperation, the Watchtower of 8/15/84 (p. 27) attempts to discredit the witness of the early church fathers. They point out that Tertullian believed there was a time when there was no Son (attempting to convey the idea that Christ was created, and that even Tertullian said so). What they fail to mention is that Tertullian, as did others from his time, believed that the ETERNAL WORD, a distinct Person, only became the "Son" at his incarnation (Early Christian Doctrines, p. 150).
JW: "THE THEOLOGIANS OF THE FIRST FEW CENTURIES WERE LOOKING FOR JUSTIFICATION FOR A TRIUNE GOD."
The WT is intent on conveying the idea that the early Church wanted to
in a weird, three-headed god. They will not honestly admit that the issues
in these early church councils had nothing to do with the "appearance" of
God. All of the disputes were over fine points of clarification, such as
the substance of God, His nature, and His omnipotence,
relating to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The clarifications made in these
councils did not negate Jesus' subjection to the Father, or his emptying
himself to come to earth. Rather, the councils often checked a heretical
view of Jesus, which downgraded Christ and the Father. The Bible tells us
we are to honor the Son equally with the Father. John 5:22,23 says:
JW: WHAT ABOUT ALL OF THE SOURCES THE WATCHTOWER QUOTES FROM TO "ESTABLISH" THEIR ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE TRINITY?
Regrettably, most of the WT's readers never consider three things:
1. It appears that about 80% of the sources that they quote from are Trinitarians. This begs the question: Why, if their sources are really proving the Trinity to be false, do these scholars believe in such a doctrine? The WT answers, "because they want to believe in a three headed god." Yet, who would want to believe in a three headed god? Who would not want theology to be simple? Christian scholars are freely quoted by the WT as authorities, yet ironically are considered blind because of the conclusions their scholarship leads them to.
2. Approximately 15% of their sources are secular works, such as the Encyclopedia Britannica. If Jehovah's Witnesses took the time to objectively read the entire source material that the WT quotes from, and not just the few sentences that they cite in the WT, they would be led to somewhat different conclusions than the WT's writing department draws. Unfortunately for their readers, the WT often fails to cite the page numbers of their source material, and often the books they cite from are obscure or difficult to find.
3. The final 5% of WT sources are generally Unitarians, Christadelphians, Spiritists, agnostics, and other invalid sources of Biblical truth. Although the WT does not reveal it, often such obscure sources are also denying the inspiration of the Bible as well as its inerrancy. The Governing Body always manages to find someone who agrees with them on some things; but they do not examine the credibility of such sources.
Regarding quotations of recognized sources, one must be made aware
of the WT's dishonesty. For example, the Aug. 1, 1984 WT discusses the
of the Trinity. Note the statements from the books they use. The type in
italics represents what THEY quote to prove their point. You will
notice that the statement of the author taken in its entirety would convey
a much different thought, however:
The purpose and intent of the encyclopedia is to establish that the doctrine
of the Trinity has its roots in the New Testament, which the WT hotly denies. Yet they
are not averse to misquoting to prove their point. On the same page, they
quote historian J.N.D. Kelly but fail to say which of his books they quote
from, making it virtually impossible to find the quote. But on page 23, they
quote (partially) from J.N.D. Kelly:
They continue to misrepresent Professor Kelly in the very next paragraph
(text in italics continues to represent what the WT quotes):
On page 22 of the above-mentioned WT article, the writer speaks of the
Theological Dictionary of the New Testament," yet proceeds to
On page 23 of the same article, again the Encyclopaedia Britannica
is not safe from their ravages. Their partial quote is still represented
Interestingly, the Jews bear witness to the early Christians' belief in the
Trinity. The book, Everyman's Talmud, a condensation of Jewish
as contained in the Talmud, records the following:
The Jews of Jesus' day failed to understand the New Testament revelation of Christ and the Holy Spirit for the same reason as do the Jehovah's Witnesses: they do not possess the indwelling Spirit of God, who lives in born again Christians (John 14:16,17) and teaches them the things concerning Christ and the ministry of the Spirit (John 14:26; 1 John 2:27).
1Monarchianism is the attempt to maintain the singularity of God, and is manifest in two opposite approaches; dynamic and Modalistic, as defined in the above text.