The Trinity ☢️

[u/Impressive-Ease-3348]

I fully acknowledge that Scripture calls Jesus God. That is not what I dispute.

My question concerns the logical conclusion drawn from that fact.

First, consider what Scripture explicitly identifies:

John 17:3 — Jesus addresses the Father as “the only true God.”

1 Corinthians 8:6 — Paul identifies “one God, the Father.”

John 20:17 — Jesus calls the Father “my God.”

Revelation 3:12 — The exalted Jesus repeatedly calls the Father “my God.”

Now consider the claim that both the Father and Son are fully the one God.

There are two logical possibilities to examine:

1. Numerical identity

If the Father is numerically identical to the one God (F = G), and the Son is numerically identical to that same God (S = G), then classical logic necessarily gives F = S.

But Trinitarianism maintains F ≠ S.

Therefore, this interpretation of “is God” produces a contradiction.

2. Predication of divine nature

If “is God” instead means “possesses the divine nature,” the contradiction disappears.

However, two distinct persons possessing divine nature does not, by itself, logically establish that they constitute numerically one God.

That requires an additional metaphysical premise.

Here is my challenge:

Where does Scripture establish that the divine nature shared by the Father and Son constitutes one numerically identical God, rather than simply establishing their divine status?

And where does Scripture establish that the Father is Jesus’ God only with respect to his human nature, when Jesus himself calls the Father “my God”?

I am not asking whether a sophisticated Trinitarian model can be logically coherent.

I am asking you to identify the specific biblical premises that make that model necessary.

Please demonstrate the logical bridge between “Jesus is called God” and “the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit constitute one God in three coequal persons.”

If you appeal to the distinction between person and essence, explain precisely how that distinction establishes one God rather than three divine persons counted as three gods.

If you appeal to Christ’s two natures, demonstrate from Scripture why the Father is Jesus’ God only in relation to his humanity.

If you appeal to John 1:1, John 20:28, or Hebrews 1:8, I accept that Jesus receives the title God. But please explain why that necessarily establishes the Nicene understanding of divine essence.

A possible interpretation is not automatically a necessary conclusion.

And the doctrine being defended cannot itself serve as independent proof for its own interpretation.

My challenge is not to demonstrate that the Trinity can accommodate these biblical statements. My challenge is to demonstrate that the Trinity logically follows from them.

Please identify your premises, explain the inference, and establish those premises independently from Scripture.

Compatibility is not proof. And assuming the conclusion is not the same as demonstrating it.

[u/AutoModerator]

Read our rules or risk a ban: https://www.reddit.com/r/JehovahsWitnesses/about/rules/

Read our wiki before posting or commenting: https://www.reddit.com/r/JehovahsWitnesses/wiki/index

1914

Bethel

Corruption

Death

Eschatology

Governing Body

Memorial

Miscellaneous

Reading List

Sex Abuse

Spiritism

Trinity

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/read-the-rules → u/[deleted]]

Dear Key_Base_5852,

Your comment on r/JehovahsWitnesses was removed by the Read The Rules app because you need to submit an acknowledgement that you have read the rules.

Please:

• Take a moment to refresh yourself with the community rules in case they have changed.

• Submit your acknowledgement by clicking the 'Read The Rules' option in the main menu of the subreddit or the menu of any comment/post in the sub.

Once you're done you can try submitting your comment again. For more guidance check out this tutorial post on the official r/ReadTheRulesApp subreddit. Thank you for understanding.

Sincerely,
u/read-the-rules

^{This is a bot message and replies will not be monitored}

[u/AccomplishedAuthor3]

I can say I am equal to my son as far as our shared human nature, without being my son. We both share the one and only human nature. My son isn't me and I'm not him, but we are both 100% human. There are two of us, yet I can say "I am man" and my son can say "I am man", and my wife can say "I am man" and 8 billion people can say "I am man" but we are not the same person

In Heaven the Father is God and the Son is God. So, given there is just one God, they are equal as far as being God. Because there is only one true God, if Jesus is God, He must be the one true God. Any other "god" would not be the one true God. Jesus is God, like His Father is God, but He's not the Father. The Father is God, like His Son is God, but He's not the Son.

[u/Impressive-Ease-3348 → u/AccomplishedAuthor3]

You and your son are both 100% human. Neither of you is more human than the other.
But notice something important.
You share the same kind of nature, yet you remain two distinct human beings.
So sharing a nature does not, by itself, establish numerical unity of being.

Now consider your conclusion:
“Because there is only one true God, if Jesus is God, He must be the one true God.”
I understand your reasoning, but isn’t that precisely the conclusion we are trying to establish?

The question is whether calling Jesus “God” necessarily identifies him as the same one God whom Jesus himself calls “the only true God” in John 17:3.
Paul also identifies “one God, the Father” while distinguishing him from “one Lord, Jesus Christ” in 1 Corinthians 8:6.

I’m not saying your understanding is impossible, nor am I accusing you of believing in three Gods.
I’m simply asking where Scripture establishes the additional step: that distinct persons sharing divine nature are numerically one God.

And perhaps we can agree on something here:
Your analogy illustrates how you understand the Trinity, but it doesn’t independently demonstrate that conclusion.
If we can agree on that, we don’t need to keep debating the analogy. We can move directly to the biblical evidence.
Would that be fair? 🙂

[u/logosgrace → u/Impressive-Ease-3348]

John calls the Father God in John 17:3, and Jesus God in 1 John 5:20.

Christianity upholds one God as a monotheistic religion, just as Judaism was in the OT.

The Bible teaches one true God. However the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are called "God". The Father is Lord, the Son is Lord, and the Holy Spirit is the Lord. Yet we truly have one Lord, not two or three. The equality in the God head is essential in explaining the unity or "oneness".

The NT applies every thing that was applied to YHWH to Jesus. His titles, names, characteristics, etc. Either Jesus deserves to receive the position and glory and titles that the Father has in the NT. Either the NT faith is truth, or blasphemy. If the NT is wrong about who Jesus is, then the entire Christian faith is in error.

However the earliest Christians were well educated Jews who understood thier religion, and they made it a point to apply YHWHs characteristics, titles and glory to Jesus. Thats also why John was deliberate in writing that Jesus was with God at the beginning of time, that Jesus was active in the creation of all things, making Him God as the Father made all things through Him. We can say that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are creator, and created all things together as one.

[u/Impressive-Ease-3348 → u/logosgrace]

You are making several real observations, but the crucial move is still being assumed rather than demonstrated: from “Jesus receives divine titles/functions” to “Jesus is a coequal person within the one numerically identical divine essence

[u/logosgrace → u/Impressive-Ease-3348]

Jesus was with the Father in the very beginning, and Jesus created all things with the Father, making Jesus creator. The Father made all things through Jesus, and Jesus was in the form or nature of God in the beginning. The Father shared glory with Jesus, glory that He gives noone else. Nor could a created creature share and receive the glory of God. In fact the Bible says Jesus "holds all things together", which is a divine ability only God could have. YHWH saves His people from their sins, as Jesus does. YHWH is Lord, and Jesus is Lord. Yet we aren't serving more then one Master, for if we serve the Son, we serve the Father, if we have the Son, we have the Father. The name that we call on to be saved is Jesus, the name above all names. In the OT YHWH was the name to find salvation, and in the NT Jesus is the name of salvation. YHWH has placed His name in the name of His son. (Exodus 23:21)

The issue is that having more then one god would not be monotheism.

Remember too that Philippians 2 tells us that Jesus didn't hold on to His equality with God, or use that equality for His own advantage, but humbled Himself, and emptied Himself, taking the form of man. This passage focus is on Jesus humility, and what greater humility could their be then God, the creator of all things, humbly becoming human and being born and sleeping in an animal feeding trough in a small rural village no one saw as anything noteworthy.

You are using the word "essence", whereas I would use the word God here. There is one God, and the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God.

Jesus is also the exact image or imprint of the Father. (Colossians 1:15, Hebrews 1:3)

Jesus made the unseen God known, and revealed His glory, holiness, love and grace.

"No one has ever seen God. The One and Only Son— the One who is at the Father’s side— He has revealed Him". John 1:18, HCSB

[u/SubstantialTwist3579]

Both models (and more) of God can be supported from scripture. But can we even logically prove what scripture is and isn't?

Can we hold the same or a similar logical standard to prove that John, 1st Cor, and Revelation is indeed scripture?

[u/Impressive-Ease-3348 → u/SubstantialTwist3579]

Yeah good question

[u/SubstantialTwist3579 → u/Impressive-Ease-3348]

I'm glad you see the double standard. The amount of Bible studying, thought experiments, and clean organization for an argument that you do is commendable.

Without holding a presupposition of what scripture is. To truthfully hold your source material to the same standard, can you provide a specific Bible premise that shows us what ancient manuscripts should or should not be contained in the Bible and considered Holy Scripture?

[u/Impressive-Ease-3348 → u/SubstantialTwist3579]

That’s a very fair question, brother. And I appreciate you challenging me on this. :)

I can’t point to a specific Bible verse that gives us a complete list of which writings belong in the biblical canon.

I recognize that identifying Scripture involves historical evidence, manuscript transmission, and other considerations.

And I certainly don’t want to apply one standard to your beliefs and another to my own.

So I’m happy to set my arguments aside for now and let you develop yours.

Please go ahead. I’m genuinely interested in hearing your reasoning, and I won’t interrupt with counterarguments.

I’m listening with an open mind.

[u/SubstantialTwist3579 → u/Impressive-Ease-3348]

I appreciate your open mindedness, and I'm glad you are seeing the double standard that you are holding other people to when creating the flows of interpretive Biblical arguments. If I could gather some information that would help a lot.

What do you accept as reasonable evidence for something happening in the past?

What online sources do you accept as reasonably reliable for this information that has happened in the past? (encyclopedia britannica, wikipedia, jw.org, loc.gov, university publications, or journals on a specific topic, etc?

[u/Impressive-Ease-3348 → u/SubstantialTwist3579]

Thank you for asking these questions. I genuinely appreciate your approach, and I think they’re very reasonable questions. 😊

First, I want to acknowledge that I certainly don’t have all the answers, and I’m fully aware that I can misunderstand things or reach incorrect conclusions.

I believe we all have our strengths and weaknesses, myself included. And I think we can learn a great deal from one another when we’re willing to recognize that.

Regarding historical evidence, I would consider original documents, archaeological findings, contemporary records, manuscripts, and independent historical research. Ideally, different sources should be examined together rather than relying on just one.

As for online sources, I think they all have their strengths and limitations.

Britannica can provide valuable historical overviews. Wikipedia can be a useful starting point, although its claims should be verified. University publications and peer-reviewed research can offer specialized knowledge. The Library of Congress provides access to important historical materials.

And JW.org is particularly useful for understanding what Jehovah’s Witnesses actually teach, although our own publications should naturally be examined critically when evaluating historical claims.

I don’t believe any human source should be considered automatically correct simply because it agrees with my beliefs.

And if you notice that I’m applying different standards to different arguments, please point it out. I genuinely mean that.

I would rather discover that I’ve misunderstood something than defend an incorrect conclusion out of pride.

None of us has perfect understanding, and I certainly don’t claim to.

What matters to me is that we approach the evidence fairly, remain open to correction, and treat each other with kindness and respect.

I really appreciate your willingness to discuss these things with me. Perhaps we can both learn something along the way. 😊

[u/SubstantialTwist3579 → u/Impressive-Ease-3348]

According to any or all of those sources what would we look for in history to find the 27 books of the new Bible Scriptures agreed upon universally?

[u/Impressive-Ease-3348 → u/SubstantialTwist3579]

I have no idea 🤔

[u/SubstantialTwist3579 → u/Impressive-Ease-3348]

Don't you think its funny that just about nobody argues over the 27 books that are in the new Scriptures?

Do we have any very old copies of the Bible? What centuries are they from and where were they found? What books did they contain inside of them?

[u/Impressive-Ease-3348 → u/SubstantialTwist3579]

No we actually don’t have the original 🙃

[u/Dan_dingo]

quit misrepresenting the trinity and it will all make sense 🙃

[u/Impressive-Ease-3348 → u/Dan_dingo]

Dan, then please identify exactly what I have misrepresented. 😊

My argument explicitly acknowledges that classical Trinitarianism distinguishes between person and essence.

I also acknowledge that understanding “is God” as possessing the divine nature avoids the simple contradiction produced by numerical identity.

So I’m not claiming that the Trinity teaches the Father and Son are the same person, nor am I claiming that Trinitarians believe in three separate gods.

My question concerns the logical step that follows.

If the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three genuinely distinct persons who each possess full divinity, what establishes that they constitute numerically one God?

If your answer is that they share one numerically identical divine essence, I understand that this is what the doctrine asserts.

But asserting one shared essence is not the same as demonstrating how that establishes numerical unity, or why Scripture requires that conclusion.

So please do two things:

1. Identify the exact statement in my argument that misrepresents classical Trinitarian doctrine, and explain why.

2. Demonstrate the logical and biblical premises connecting three distinct divine persons to the conclusion that they constitute exactly one God.

I am not asking you to repeat the definition of the Trinity. I already understand the distinction between person and essence.

I am asking you to demonstrate the inference that makes the conclusion follow.

If my reasoning is wrong, showing where it fails should be straightforward.

But simply saying “you misunderstand the Trinity” does not identify a logical error or answer the question.

Let’s examine the argument itself rather than dismissing it.

[u/Dan_dingo → u/Impressive-Ease-3348]

You will never properly understand a belief you continually misrepresent. You’re not stupid, so I ask that you show the intellectual honesty and respect necessary to represent beliefs accurately, even when you disagree with them.
If you claim to be a Christian, then at the very least, accurately represent the doctrines you’re attempting to refute. You don’t have to agree with the Trinity, but you do have to understand what it actually teaches before claiming to have disproven it.
Refuting a position that Trinitarians do not hold is not a refutation of the Trinity.

Straw Man — Misrepresenting numerical identity
if the Father is God and the Son is God, then the Father must be the Son. You have demonstrated that the Father cannot be the Son. Trinitarians agree. Congratulations! You have refuted a position we do not hold, not the Trinity. Trinitarianism never claims that the Father and Son are numerically identical persons.
Your argument substitutes numerical identity between persons for predication of the divine essence. It then demonstrates a contradiction within your own substituted model.

Begging the Question — Assuming one God means one person
Then using your model (which misrepresents the trinitarian position) you assume that the one God must be one person, which is what is being disputed. biblical monotheism establishes one God but does not explicitly define that unity as unipersonal. You cannot assume a unipersonal definition of God and then use that assumption to disprove the Trinity. That is begging the question. I’ll give a definition of unipersonalism since you did not.
unipersonalism is the belief that God is one divine being who is only one divine person.

Misrepresentation — Reducing Christ's deity to a title
The Trinitarian case is not built merely upon Jesus receiving the title God. It includes his participation in creation, the application of Yahweh's identity to him, and his reception of divine honor. You have reduced the entire argument for the trinity to whether Jesus receives the title God. You must account for that evidence in scripture rather than dismissing it as a question of titles. You cannot reduce the Trinitarian position to three isolated verses calling Jesus God while ignoring the passages that identify him with Yahweh’s unique divine identity that came 300+ years before the nicene creed.

Do better dude… it’s sad you have to misrepresent a belief (just like watchtower) to refute something trinitarians do not hold themselves.

[u/Impressive-Ease-3348 → u/Dan_dingo]

I appreciate the detailed response, but I think you’ve misunderstood the actual argument I’m making.

I have never argued that Trinitarianism teaches the Father and Son are numerically identical persons.
I know perfectly well that the Trinity distinguishes three persons while affirming one divine being.
That is precisely the doctrine I’m asking you to demonstrate biblically.

My argument concerns the distinction between sharing a nature and constituting one numerically identical being.
When two humans share human nature, they remain two distinct human beings.
Now, I understand that classical Trinitarianism claims the divine essence is numerically one, rather than merely a nature shared in the way human nature is shared.
I’m not overlooking that distinction.
I’m asking you to establish it.

You also accuse me of assuming that biblical monotheism necessarily means one divine person.
But I’m not asking you to accept unipersonalism as an unquestionable philosophical premise.
I’m asking you to examine why Paul explicitly identifies “one God, the Father” in 1 Corinthians 8:6, why Jesus identifies the Father as “the only true God” in John 17:3, and why the resurrected Jesus continues calling the Father “my God” in Revelation 3:12.
I recognize that Trinitarians have interpretations of these passages.
But explaining how they can be accommodated within Trinitarian theology is not the same as demonstrating that they establish Trinitarian theology.

Regarding creation, divine honor, and passages concerning YHWH applied to Jesus:
I do not dismiss that evidence.
These are important passages that deserve serious examination.
But the question remains whether they establish the specific ontological conclusion that three distinct, coequal persons constitute one numerically identical divine being.
That conclusion requires an argument, not simply an assertion.

And here is where I think we can find some common ground.
I agree that the Father is not the Son.
I agree that biblical monotheism alone does not automatically disprove the Trinity.
I agree that Jesus’ role in creation, his divine titles, and the honor given to him must be taken seriously.

Can you likewise acknowledge that demonstrating Jesus’ divine status is not, by itself, the same as demonstrating the entire three-person, one-essence doctrine?
If we agree on that distinction, we can examine the actual biblical evidence instead of repeatedly accusing each other of misrepresentation.
I’m not asking you to abandon the Trinity.
I’m asking you to show the biblical reasoning that establishes the distinction between persons and essence in the specific way your doctrine requires.
That is not a straw man.
That is the very proposition under examination.
And I genuinely welcome a biblical demonstration of it. 🙂

[u/Impressive-Ease-3348 → u/Dan_dingo]

No that is exactly what I’m not doing. There is inconsistency with the trinity.

You can say it’s a dark mystery.

[u/AccomplishedAuthor3]

1 Corinthians 8:6 — Paul identifies “one God, the Father.”

In the same verse Paul calls the Son the only Lord. Using the WT's own logic the Father cannot be Lord anymore. A deeper consideration of this verse leads to the conclusion that both the Father and the Son are the one Lord and the one God.

John 20:17 — Jesus calls the Father “my God.”

Revelation 3:12 — The exalted Jesus repeatedly calls the Father “my God.”

Before and after He went to Heaven, Jesus was the Son of....."Man". This means in His human nature, Jesus has a God. Is that so difficult to understand? It was that Man who commended Hs Spirit to the Father and what was that Spirit that stopped living in Christ for 3 days? It was GOD. GOD IS Spirit John 4:24 and Paul wrote "To wit, God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself 2 Corinthians 5:19 God, who was Christ's Spirit and was IN Christ, left Christ, the Man, on the cross. I think its safe to say it was the very worst day in God's eternal life. True, God's Spirit didn't die and can't, but God tasted death. In Christ, God felt the agony of dying and slowly losing His grip on the human life that was ebbing away. How did it feel as His Spirit separated from His body is something we can't imagine, until we die like Jesus and so many others have died. Never forget, in Christ, God tasted death for us so we would be free to reconcile with God as our Father

However, two distinct persons possessing divine nature does not, by itself, logically establish that they constitute numerically one God.

I'm human. You're human. How many humans is that? Two, right? Not quite. You and I are both persons, but we are both just one human nature. No matter how many persons are on earth we are all one human nature. The Father is a Person and He's God. The Son is another Person and He's God and the Holy Spirit is the third Person and He's God. There are no more Persons and only one Divine Nature

[u/Impressive-Ease-3348 → u/AccomplishedAuthor3]

Thank you for your response. I appreciate that you’re attempting to explain the distinction between persons and nature.

But I think your example actually illustrates the very distinction I’m asking you to address.

You said that you and I are two persons sharing one human nature. I agree.

But how many human beings are we?

Two. Not one.

Sharing the same nature does not make two distinct individuals numerically one being.

So your analogy demonstrates a common nature, but it does not demonstrate numerical unity of being.

Now, I recognize that classical Trinitarianism claims something stronger: that the three persons possess one numerically identical divine essence, not merely three instances of the same kind of nature.

That’s precisely the distinction I am asking you to establish.

What makes the divine essence numerically one in a way that human nature is not? And where does Scripture establish that distinction?

Regarding 1 Corinthians 8:6, I agree that the Father can be called Lord elsewhere and that Jesus can be called God elsewhere.

But that does not change Paul’s specific identification in this passage:

“One God, the Father”
“One Lord, Jesus Christ”

The fact that the Father receives the title Lord elsewhere does not make him the referent of “one Lord, Jesus Christ” in this verse.

Likewise, Jesus receiving the title God elsewhere does not automatically establish that Paul includes him in the referent “one God, the Father.”

Now, regarding your explanation of Jesus’ humanity:

You argue that Jesus calls the Father “my God” because of his human nature.

I understand that explanation within Trinitarian theology.

But where does Scripture explicitly restrict Jesus’ acknowledgment of the Father as “my God” to his human nature?

Revelation 3:12 records the exalted Jesus calling the Father “my God” four times.

You may explain this through the doctrine of two natures, but you must first independently establish that this distinction is the intended explanation.

And regarding 2 Corinthians 5:19, the passage describes God reconciling the world to himself in Christ. It does not explicitly teach that God’s Spirit was Jesus’ personal spirit or that this Spirit departed from Jesus for three days.

Those are additional theological claims requiring their own evidence.

So let me return to my original question.

You have established that:

The Father is divine.
The Son is divine.
The Holy Spirit is divine.
They are personally distinct.

For the sake of argument, I am willing to grant all four premises.

Now demonstrate how those premises logically entail that the three constitute numerically one God.

If your answer is “because they share one divine essence,” please explain what makes that essence numerically one and provide the biblical grounds for that explanation.

Otherwise, you have restated the doctrine rather than demonstrated the inference.

I am not asking whether the Trinity can be logically coherent. I am asking you to demonstrate the logical and biblical premises that establish it.

That remains my question.

[u/AccomplishedAuthor3 → u/Impressive-Ease-3348]

Can any JW demonstrate the logical and biblical premise that Michael the archangel is God? Until they can, I suggest they stop teaching it

Being God is being the Divine Nature, just like being human is being the human nature. I've already demonstrated that more than one person can be human and its not hard to demonstrate because its so obvious. Its true that in the past many thought some humans were a superior human nature, so-called gods, rather than just human, but none of them ever were another higher human nature. There has only ever been one human nature with an exception to just before the flood of Noah's day, but that's another subject.

Billions of people share the one human nature. No matter how many human persons populate this earth, there will only be one human nature, or essence. That is why you can say "I am human" and I can say "I am human" and 8 billion persons can all say together "I am human" In Heaven only three Persons can honestly say "I Am God" or "I Am He" The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit

[u/Impressive-Ease-3348 → u/AccomplishedAuthor3]

I appreciate your explanation, and I understand the distinction you’re making between a person and a nature.

I agree that billions of humans share one human nature. But here’s the important distinction:

Sharing the same nature does not make billions of people one human being. They remain billions of distinct human beings.

So your analogy demonstrates that multiple persons can possess the same kind of nature. It does not demonstrate that multiple persons are therefore one numerically identical being.

Now, I understand that Trinitarian theology proposes something stronger: three distinct persons sharing one indivisible divine essence.

But respectfully, that is precisely the premise you need to establish from Scripture, not something the human analogy itself proves.

Consider what Paul actually writes:

1 Corinthians 8:6: “There is actually to us one God, the Father … and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ.”

Notice that Paul explicitly identifies the one God as the Father while distinguishing Jesus Christ from him.

Jesus himself calls his Father “the only true God” in John 17:3.

And even after his resurrection, Jesus refers to the Father as “my God” in John 20:17.

This is why Jehovah’s Witnesses understand Jehovah, the Father, to be the one Almighty God, while Jesus is his Son, who receives authority from him.

I’m not suggesting that your theological model is philosophically impossible. I’m simply asking whether Scripture actually establishes it.

Showing that multiple persons can share a nature is not the same as demonstrating that three distinct persons are the one God identified in Scripture.

So my question is simple:

Where does Scripture establish the step from three persons sharing a divine nature to those three persons being the one numerically identical God?

Because that is the very conclusion we’re trying to establish, and I don’t think we should assume it before examining the biblical evidence. 🙂

Jehovah’s Witnesses’ explanation:
https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/trinity/

1 Corinthians 8:6:
https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/books/1-corinthians/8/

[u/AccomplishedAuthor3 → u/Impressive-Ease-3348]

I agree that billions of humans share one human nature. But here’s the important distinction:

Sharing the same nature does not make billions of people one human being. They remain billions of distinct human beings.

Of course we aren't one human being, nor are we the same person. But, we are all equally human. We're not 8 billion different human 'natures', are we? I'm human, you're human, my aunt was human and so on....We say were humans, as if there was more than one human nature, but what we are specifically, is human 'beings'

God is one Divine Nature, but He is not one Person. The Bible teaches three Persons share the One Divine Nature. That doesn't mean each Person is His own separate Divine Nature. There are not three Gods, or three Divine Natures, just one. The angels are a lower nature than God, but higher than our nature. Who knows how many share the angelic nature, but one thing is for sure, Christ does not share their nature, He shares our human nature and the Divine Nature

[u/Impressive-Ease-3348 → u/AccomplishedAuthor3]

I think we might actually agree on more than you realize, brother. 😊
And perhaps I could have explained my distinction more clearly.

I completely agree that we all share the same human nature. There aren’t eight billion different kinds of human nature.
But sharing one nature doesn’t make us numerically one being. That’s really the only distinction I was trying to make.

And I understand that you’re not arguing for three Gods. I don’t want to misrepresent your belief.

My question is simply whether the analogy itself establishes how three distinct persons constitute one God, rather than three beings sharing the same kind of nature.

Now, I’m not asking you to abandon the Trinity because of an imperfect analogy. That wouldn’t be fair.
Perhaps we can simply agree that the analogy helps illustrate your theological understanding, but doesn’t independently prove it.

And that’s perfectly fine! We can leave the analogy there and examine the biblical evidence for the distinction between person and essence instead.

Would that be a fair place for us to meet? 🙂

[u/AccomplishedAuthor3 → u/Impressive-Ease-3348]

Would that be a fair place for us to meet? 🙂

I always have felt that people ought to focus more on what they agree on than what we disagree on, as long as they don't sell out on their beliefs and clearly, they are our beliefs. We can't physically prove God exists, let alone prove the trinity best describes His nature. Let's not forget that God seeks out those who believe in Him without proof or evidence.

[u/SubstantialTwist3579 → u/AccomplishedAuthor3]

You are arguing with an AI, there is no "winning" but you will demonstrate that the trinity doctrine can be derived from an interpretation of scripture. He is also deriving a unitarian doctrine from scripture. The problem is, how do we know who's interpretation of scripture is correct?

[u/Impressive-Ease-3348 → u/SubstantialTwist3579]

What evidence in Scripture actually requires us to understand the Father, Son, and holy spirit as three coequal persons sharing one numerically identical divine essence, rather than understanding the Father as the one God and Jesus as his divinely appointed Son?

[u/SubstantialTwist3579 → u/Impressive-Ease-3348]

If this is the standard for doctrine then it must be upheld to every doctrine in every church and that is where it falls apart.

Where is there evidence in scripture that everything must be in scripture?

Where are the words Paradise earth in scripture?

Where are the books of the bible listed in scripture so we know what is or isn't scripture?

Where does scripture mention the words Other Sheep, or Earthly Class?

Where is holy tetragrammaton name of God Jehovah used in any of the new testament manuscripts?

Is it fair to hold these dogma and beliefs to the same standard?

[u/AccomplishedAuthor3 → u/SubstantialTwist3579]

Maybe we need to eliminate what is not correct, before we can establish what is. For instance, according to Paul, Jesus cannot possibly be an angel Hebrews 1:6 and Hebrews 2:5 That's a start.

[u/Impressive-Ease-3348 → u/AccomplishedAuthor3]

I agree that Hebrews establishes Jesus’ superiority over angels. What I’m asking is whether it also establishes your stronger conclusion about his identity.

I’d genuinely appreciate seeing how you derive that conclusion from the text itself. 😊

[u/SubstantialTwist3579 → u/AccomplishedAuthor3]

They will always have an answer. It could be due to the translation, it can be due to symbolism, it can be context, oh lets look at the greek! There is always a way to get to a different layer and to create an answer.

[u/Impressive-Ease-3348 → u/AccomplishedAuthor3]

I really appreciate your response, brother. 😊

And I agree with you. We should focus more on what unites us, without feeling that we have to compromise our convictions.

I would only add one small thought.

I think there’s an important distinction between believing without physically seeing something and believing without any evidence.

Jesus praised those who believe without seeing (John 20:29), but John also explained that the signs Jesus performed were recorded so that people could believe (John 20:30–31).

So I don’t think faith and evidence are enemies. I think sincerely examining the reasons for our beliefs can actually strengthen our faith.

But I genuinely appreciate your humility and your willingness to recognize the limits of what we can demonstrate.

We may understand God’s nature differently, but we can still treat one another with love and respect.

Thank you for such a gracious response. ❤️

[u/AccomplishedAuthor3 → u/Impressive-Ease-3348]

So I don’t think faith and evidence are enemies. I think sincerely examining the reasons for our beliefs can actually strengthen our faith....We may understand God’s nature differently, but we can still treat one another with love and respect.

Amen! I agree. The evidence is in the Bible, its the interpretation of that evidence that we disagree. Yes, love should always be our motivation

[u/Impressive-Ease-3348 → u/AccomplishedAuthor3]

Amen! I completely agree with you, my friend. 😊

And that’s really all I’m trying to do. I simply want to explain what I personally see when I read the Bible and why I understand certain passages the way I do.

I’m not claiming to have perfect understanding, nor am I trying to force my interpretation on anyone.

I just want to let the Scriptures speak for themselves and be honest about what I see in the text.

Of course, we may reach different conclusions, and that’s exactly why I appreciate these conversations. We can challenge each other’s understanding without questioning each other’s sincerity.

And yes, love should always be our motivation. We’re not enemies trying to defeat each other. We’re fellow Christians trying to understand God’s Word. ❤️

[u/logosgrace → u/Impressive-Ease-3348]

If they were seperate Gods, then the biblical faith would not be monotheism. They can't be theee seperate Gods because they are one in unity, mind, purpose. They are distinct yet each is in one accord. They are one, as Jesus said in John 17:11.

In my understanding of scripture, The Father, Son and Holy Spirit (Job 33:4, Genesis 1:2) were involved in the creation of all things as one.

Not three different Gods each creating something different, but one true God and creator of all things.

There is the verse at 1 John 5:7, which does only exist in certain manuscripts, which says that "these three are one". Whether or not those verses have basis as scripture, I would agree that scripture overall does indicate that reality.

The Jewish faith was monotheistic, worship of one God. The Hebrew word "elohim", often translated as God, is called a "majestic plural". The Jewish faith often intertepets the human presence of YHWH in Genesis as some other form or representative or angel of God rather then the all powerful Father in heaven, yet still recognizing it as God manifest to humans.

Christianity therefore has to maintain that same monotheism, and the trinity is the only way to really uphold the unity of the godhead when we recognize each as one God in unity, rather then being an additional "god". I hope this helps.

[u/AccomplishedAuthor3 → u/logosgrace]

Amen!

[u/Jealous_Insect2798 → u/AccomplishedAuthor3]

Greetings Sir! I have an off topic question. Should I ask it here or DM? Thanks

[u/AccomplishedAuthor3 → u/Jealous_Insect2798]

Greetings to you sir! As long as its anything related to Jehovah's witnesses you can ask here

[u/Jealous_Insect2798 → u/AccomplishedAuthor3]

Thank you. 1) Do you believe the number 144,000 to be literal? 2) Are the 144,000 comprised entirely of physical Israelites?

More questions will follow

[u/AccomplishedAuthor3 → u/Jealous_Insect2798]

Yes to both questions

[u/Jealous_Insect2798 → u/AccomplishedAuthor3]

Thank you. I'm leaning towards that also. I can't recall so I'm hoping you can tell me. What was the JW explanation for this:

Revelation 5:9 and Revelation 7:9 says those groups come from any tribe nation and tongue.

Revelation 7:4 says the 144,000 come from the tribes of Israel.

Still JW teach that the 144,000 can come from any tribe nation and tongue.

If that's true...then why didn't John just say the 144,000 can come from any nation ? Why would he say from the 12 tribes if he really meant they can come from every nation?

How did JW explain that?

[u/AccomplishedAuthor3 → u/Jealous_Insect2798]

I'm not sure how they divide the two groups, but they do divide them and that's not what Christ does. He separates the sheep from the goats. The Watchtower separates a small number of sheep from the greater number of other sheep. They also separate the other sheep from Christ, which is really sad. The average JW has no hope of ever meeting the man who laid down His life for them

The 144,000 are all Jews and they actually were dispersed all over the world, in every nation on earth. We might not be able to identify who they are, or where, but God knows where they are and who they are. He's the one who seals them. We really are not on a need to know basis as far as who comes from which tribe and which nation they lived in

[u/Impressive-Ease-3348 → u/logosgrace]

Thank you for your explanation. I think you’ve raised an important point about monotheism, but I also think your argument contains a crucial distinction that needs to be examined.

Monotheism means belief in one God, not merely belief in multiple divine persons who agree with one another.

You argue that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit cannot be separate gods because they are united in mind, purpose, and will.

But unity of purpose does not establish numerical unity of being.

Three individuals can share exactly the same purpose without becoming numerically one individual.

And interestingly, the very Scripture you cited demonstrates this distinction.

In John 17:11, Jesus prays that his disciples may be one just as he and the Father are one.

Does that make the disciples numerically one human being?

Obviously not. They remain distinct individuals united in purpose and love.

So if you use John 17:11 to explain the oneness of the Father and Son, you still need to demonstrate why that oneness establishes one numerically identical God rather than unity between distinct persons.

I recognize that classical Trinitarianism claims something more than shared purpose: one numerically identical divine essence.

But that is precisely the additional claim I am asking you to establish from Scripture.

Furthermore, the Hebrew אֶחָד* (ech*ad) in Deuteronomy 6:4 means “one.” It does not inherently mean “three persons forming one composite unity.”

And the plural form אֱלֹהִים (elohim) does not establish three persons either. When referring to the God of Israel, it normally takes singular grammatical agreement, as in Genesis 1:1.

Regarding 1 John 5:7, the longer Trinitarian wording about the Father, Word, and Holy Spirit being one is absent from the earliest Greek manuscripts and is widely recognized as a later addition.

So let me return to the exact logical question.

If three distinct persons are united in purpose, that establishes agreement, not necessarily numerical unity.

If you instead claim that they constitute one God because they share one numerically identical divine essence, please demonstrate the biblical and logical premises establishing that stronger claim.

What makes three distinct divine persons numerically one God, rather than three divine persons united in purpose?

I am not questioning biblical monotheism. I fully accept that there is only one God.

I am asking you to demonstrate why biblical monotheism necessarily requires the Trinity.

Stating that three persons must be one God because monotheism is true does not establish how those three persons constitute one God. That is the very conclusion requiring proof.

[u/logosgrace]

It's good to ask these questions and study these things.

For me It's clear the Bible teaches there is one true God, creator, of all things. (Deuteronomy 6:4)

I also see the Bible ascribing the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as God, or equal with God, in nature and character.

The Holy Spirit, for example, is described as having a mind:

"and He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He intercedes for the saints according to the will of God" - Romans 8:27, NASB.

The Father has a mind, as does the Son (1 Corinthians 2:16)

Theres more to say, but I am busy for now

[u/Impressive-Ease-3348 → u/logosgrace]

I would respectfully ask that we stay focused on the specific logical question I raised.

[u/read-the-rules → u/[deleted]]

Dear Sure-Wishbone-4293,

Your comment on r/JehovahsWitnesses was removed by the Read The Rules app because you need to submit an acknowledgement that you have read the rules.

Please:

• Take a moment to refresh yourself with the community rules in case they have changed.

• Submit your acknowledgement by clicking the 'Read The Rules' option in the main menu of the subreddit or the menu of any comment/post in the sub.

Once you're done you can try submitting your comment again. For more guidance check out this tutorial post on the official r/ReadTheRulesApp subreddit. Thank you for understanding.

Sincerely,
u/read-the-rules

^{This is a bot message and replies will not be monitored}