" THERE EXISTS GOLD , ALSO AN ABUNDACE OF CORALS ; BUT THE LIPS OF KNOWLEDGE ARE PRECIOUS VESSELS ." - Proverbs 20 : 15.

Greetings to you James! Yes, that is a very popular belief in our time.But did you know that this is not what was taught by Jesus and his disciples? When Jesus was teaching , here is the commandment that he said was greatest ...(Mark 12:28-30); he never claimed to be equal to God...(John14:28).So how can we say that our Creator is trinitarian?

How Is the Trinity Explained?

THE Roman Catholic Church states: "The Trinity is the term employed to signify the central doctrine of the Christian religion . . . Thus, in the words of the Athanasian Creed: 'the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God.' In this Trinity . . . the Persons are co-eternal and co-equal: all alike are uncreated and omnipotent."-The Catholic Encyclopedia.

Nearly all other churches in Christendom agree. For example, the Greek Orthodox Church also calls the Trinity "the fundamental doctrine of Christianity," even saying: "Christians are those who accept Christ as God." In the book Our Orthodox Christian Faith, the same church declares: "God is triune. . . . The Father is totally God. The Son is totally God. The Holy Spirit is totally God."

Thus, the Trinity is considered to be "one God in three Persons." Each is said to be without beginning, having existed for eternity. Each is said to be almighty, with each neither greater nor lesser than the others.

Is such reasoning hard to follow? Many sincere believers have found it to be confusing, contrary to normal reason, unlike anything in their experience. How, they ask, could the Father be God, Jesus be God, and the holy spirit be God, yet there be not three Gods but only one God?

"Beyond the Grasp of Human Reason"

THIS confusion is widespread. The Encyclopedia Americana notes that the doctrine of the Trinity is considered to be "beyond the grasp of human reason."
Many who accept the Trinity view it that same way. Monsignor Eugene Clark says: "God is one, and God is three. Since there is nothing like this in creation, we cannot understand it, but only accept it." Cardinal John O'Connor states: "We know that it is a very profound mystery, which we don't begin to understand." And Pope John Paul II speaks of "the inscrutable mystery of God the Trinity."

Thus, A Dictionary of Religious Knowledge says: "Precisely what that doctrine is, or rather precisely how it is to be explained, Trinitarians are not agreed among themselves."

We can understand, then, why the New Catholic Encyclopedia observes: "There are few teachers of Trinitarian theology in Roman Catholic seminaries who have not been badgered at one time or another by the question, 'But how does one preach the Trinity?' And if the question is symptomatic of confusion on the part of the students, perhaps it is no less symptomatic of similar confusion on the part of their professors."

The truth of that observation can be verified by going to a library and examining books that support the Trinity. Countless pages have been written attempting to explain it. Yet, after struggling through the labyrinth of confusing theological terms and explanations, investigators still come away unsatisfied.

In this regard, Jesuit Joseph Bracken observes in his book What Are They Saying About the Trinity?: "Priests who with considerable effort learned . . . the Trinity during their seminary years naturally hesitated to present it to their people from the pulpit, even on Trinity Sunday. . . . Why should one bore people with something that in the end they wouldn't properly understand anyway?" He also says: "The Trinity is a matter of formal belief, but it has little or no [effect] in day-to-day Christian life and worship." Yet, it is "the central doctrine" of the churches!

Catholic theologian Hans Küng observes in his book Christianity and the World Religions that the Trinity is one reason why the churches have been unable to make any significant headway with non-Christian peoples. He states: "Even well-informed Muslims simply cannot follow, as the Jews thus far have likewise failed to grasp, the idea of the Trinity. . . . The distinctions made by the doctrine of the Trinity between one God and three hypostases do not satisfy Muslims, who are confused, rather than enlightened, by theological terms derived from Syriac, Greek, and Latin. Muslims find it all a word game. . . . Why should anyone want to add anything to the notion of God's oneness and uniqueness that can only dilute or nullify that oneness and uniqueness?"

"Not a God of Confusion"

HOW could such a confusing doctrine originate? The Catholic Encyclopedia claims: "A dogma so mysterious presupposes a Divine revelation." Catholic scholars Karl Rahner and Herbert Vorgrimler state in their Theological Dictionary: "The Trinity is a mystery . . . in the strict sense . . . , which could not be known without revelation, and even after revelation cannot become wholly intelligible."

However, contending that since the Trinity is such a confusing mystery, it must have come from divine revelation creates another major problem. Why? Because divine revelation itself does not allow for such a view of God: "God is not a God of confusion."-1 Corinthians 14:33, Revised Standard Version (RS).

In view of that statement, would God be responsible for a doctrine about himself that is so confusing that even Hebrew, Greek, and Latin scholars cannot really explain it?

Furthermore, do people have to be theologians 'to know the only true God and Jesus Christ whom he has sent'? (John 17:3, JB) If that were the case, why did so few of the educated Jewish religious leaders recognize Jesus as the Messiah? His faithful disciples were, instead, humble farmers, fishermen, tax collectors, housewives. Those common people were so certain of what Jesus taught about God that they could teach it to others and were even willing to die for their belief.-Matthew 15:1-9; 21:23-32, 43; 23:13-36; John 7:45-49; Acts 4:13.

source :Should You Believe in the Trinity ?
pp.5-7

kiindly check all the references.

"THE WORD WAS GOD"
John 1:1 states: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (King James Version) Later in the same chapter, the apostle John clearly shows that "the Word" is Jesus. (John 1:14) Since the Word is called God, however, some conclude that the Son and the Father must be part of the same God.

Bear in mind that this part of the Bible was originally written in Greek. Later, translators rendered the Greek text into other languages. A number of Bible translators, though, did not use the phrase "the Word was God." Why not? Based on their knowledge of Biblical Greek, those translators concluded that the phrase "the Word was God" should be translated differently. How? Here are a few examples: "The Logos [Word] was divine." (A New Translation of the Bible) "The Word was a god." (The New Testament in an Improved Version) "The Word was with God and shared his nature." (The Translator's New Testament) According to these translations, the Word is not God himself.

"The Word Was God"

AT JOHN 1:1 the King James Version reads: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Trinitarians claim that this means that "the Word" (Greek, ho lo'gos) who came to earth as Jesus Christ was Almighty God himself.

Note, however, that here again the context lays the groundwork for accurate understanding. Even the King James Version says, "The Word was with God." (Italics ours.) Someone who is "with" another person cannot be the same as that other person. In agreement with this, the Journal of Biblical Literature, edited by Jesuit Joseph A. Fitzmyer, notes that if the latter part of John 1:1 were interpreted to mean "the" God, this "would then contradict the preceding clause," which says that the Word was with God.

Notice, too, how other translations render this part of the verse:

1808: "and the word was a god." The New Testament in an Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome's New Translation: With a Corrected Text.

1864: "and a god was the word." The Emphatic Diaglott, interlinear reading, by Benjamin Wilson.

1928: "and the Word was a divine being." La Bible du Centenaire, L'Evangile selon Jean, by Maurice Goguel.

1935: "and the Word was divine." The Bible-An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed.

1946: "and of a divine kind was the Word." Das Neue Testament, by Ludwig Thimme.

1950: "and the Word was a god." New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures.

1958: "and the Word was a God." The New Testament, by James L. Tomanek.

1975: "and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word." Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz.

1978: "and godlike kind was the Logos." Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider.

At John 1:1 there are two occurrences of the Greek noun the·os' (god). The first occurrence refers to Almighty God, with whom the Word was ("and the Word [lo'gos] was with God [a form of the·os']"). This first the·os' is preceded by the word ton (the), a form of the Greek definite article that points to a distinct identity, in this case Almighty God ("and the Word was with [the] God").

On the other hand, there is no article before the second the·os' at John 1:1. So a literal translation would read, "and god was the Word." Yet we have seen that many translations render this second the·os' (a predicate noun) as "divine," "godlike," or "a god." On what authority do they do this?

The Koine Greek language had a definite article ("the"), but it did not have an indefinite article ("a" or "an"). So when a predicate noun is not preceded by the definite article, it may be indefinite, depending on the context.

The Journal of Biblical Literature says that expressions "with an anarthrous [no article] predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning." As the Journal notes, this indicates that the lo'gos can be likened to a god. It also says of John 1:1: "The qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun [the·os'] cannot be regarded as definite."

So John 1:1 highlights the quality of the Word, that he was "divine," "godlike," "a god," but not Almighty God. This harmonizes with the rest of the Bible, which shows that Jesus, here called "the Word" in his role as God's Spokesman, was an obedient subordinate sent to earth by his Superior, Almighty God.

There are many other Bible verses in which almost all translators in other languages consistently insert the article "a" when translating Greek sentences with the same structure. For example, at Mark 6:49, when the disciples saw Jesus walking on water, the King James Version says: "They supposed it had been a spirit." In the Koine Greek, there is no "a" before "spirit." But almost all translations in other languages add an "a" in order to make the rendering fit the context. In the same way, since John 1:1 shows that the Word was with God, he could not be God but was "a god," or "divine."

Joseph Henry Thayer, a theologian and scholar who worked on the American Standard Version, stated simply: "The Logos was divine, not the divine Being himself." And Jesuit John L. McKenzie wrote in his Dictionary of the Bible: "Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated . . . 'the word was a divine being.'"

Violating a Rule?

SOME claim, however, that such renderings violate a rule of Koine Greek grammar published by Greek scholar E. C. Colwell back in 1933. He asserted that in Greek a predicate noun "has the [definite] article when it follows the verb; it does not have the [definite] article when it precedes the verb." By this he meant that a predicate noun preceding the verb should be understood as though it did have the definite article ("the") in front of it. At John 1:1 the second noun (the·os'), the predicate, precedes the verb-"and [the·os'] was the Word." So, Colwell claimed, John 1:1 should read "and [the] God was the Word."

But consider just two examples found at John 8:44. There Jesus says of the Devil: "That one was a manslayer" and "he is a liar." Just as at John 1:1, the predicate nouns ("manslayer" and "liar") precede the verbs ("was" and "is") in the Greek. There is no indefinite article in front of either noun because there was no indefinite article in Koine Greek. But most translations insert the word "a" because Greek grammar and the context require it.-See also Mark 11:32; John 4:19; 6:70; 9:17; 10:1; 12:6.

Colwell had to acknowledge this regarding the predicate noun, for he said: "It is indefinite ["a" or "an"] in this position only when the context demands it." So even he admits that when the context requires it, translators may insert an indefinite article in front of the noun in this type of sentence structure.

Does the context require an indefinite article at John 1:1? Yes, for the testimony of the entire Bible is that Jesus is not Almighty God. Thus, not Colwell's questionable rule of grammar, but context should guide the translator in such cases. And it is apparent from the many translations that insert the indefinite article "a" at John 1:1 and in other places that many scholars disagree with such an artificial rule, and so does God's Word.

No Conflict

DOES saying that Jesus Christ is "a god" conflict with the Bible's teaching that there is only one God? No, for at times the Bible employs that term to refer to mighty creatures. Psalm 8:5 reads: "You also proceeded to make him [man] a little less than godlike ones [Hebrew, 'elo·him']," that is, angels. In Jesus' defense against the charge of the Jews, that he claimed to be God, he noted that "the Law uses the word gods of those to whom the word of God was addressed," that is, human judges. (John 10:34, 35, JB; Psalm 82:1-6) Even Satan is called "the god of this system of things" at 2 Corinthians 4:4.

Jesus has a position far higher than angels, imperfect men, or Satan. Since these are referred to as "gods," mighty ones, surely Jesus can be and is "a god." Because of his unique position in relation to Jehovah, Jesus is a "Mighty God."-John 1:1; Isaiah 9:6.

But does not "Mighty God" with its capital letters indicate that Jesus is in some way equal to Jehovah God? Not at all. Isaiah merely prophesied this to be one of four names that Jesus would be called, and in the English language such names are capitalized. Still, even though Jesus was called "Mighty," there can be only one who is "Almighty." To call Jehovah God "Almighty" would have little significance unless there existed others who were also called gods but who occupied a lesser or inferior position.

The Bulletin of the John Rylands Library in England notes that according to Catholic theologian Karl Rahner, while the·os' is used in scriptures such as John 1:1 in reference to Christ, "in none of these instances is 'theos' used in such a manner as to identify Jesus with him who elsewhere in the New Testament figures as 'ho Theos,' that is, the Supreme God." And the Bulletin adds: "If the New Testament writers believed it vital that the faithful should confess Jesus as 'God', is the almost complete absence of just this form of confession in the New Testament explicable?"

But what about the apostle Thomas' saying, "My Lord and my God!" to Jesus at John 20:28? To Thomas, Jesus was like "a god," especially in the miraculous circumstances that prompted his exclamation. Some scholars suggest that Thomas may simply have made an emotional exclamation of astonishment, spoken to Jesus but directed to God. In either case, Thomas did not think that Jesus was Almighty God, for he and all the other apostles knew that Jesus never claimed to be God but taught that Jehovah alone is "the only true God."-John 17:3.

Again, the context helps us to understand this. A few days earlier the resurrected Jesus had told Mary Magdalene to tell the disciples: "I am ascending to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God." (John 20:17) Even though Jesus was already resurrected as a mighty spirit, Jehovah was still his God. And Jesus continued to refer to Him as such even in the last book of the Bible, after he was glorified.-Revelation 1:5, 6; 3:2, 12.

Just three verses after Thomas' exclamation, at John 20:31, the Bible further clarifies the matter by stating: "These have been written down that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God," not that he was Almighty God. And it meant "Son" in a literal way, as with a natural father and son, not as some mysterious part of a Trinity Godhead.

Must Harmonize With the Bible

IT IS claimed that several other scriptures support the Trinity. But these are similar to those discussed above in that, when carefully examined, they offer no actual support. Such texts only illustrate that when considering any claimed support for the Trinity, one must ask: Does the interpretation harmonize with the consistent teaching of the entire Bible-that Jehovah God alone is Supreme? If not, then the interpretation must be in error.

We also need to keep in mind that not even so much as one "proof text" says that God, Jesus, and the holy spirit are one in some mysterious Godhead. Not one scripture anywhere in the Bible says that all three are the same in substance, power, and eternity. The Bible is consistent in revealing Almighty God, Jehovah, as alone Supreme, Jesus as his created Son, and the holy spirit as God's active force. Instead, because of his high position among Jehovah's creatures, the Word is referred to as "a god." Here the term "god" means "mighty one."

GET MORE FACTS

Most people do not know Biblical Greek. So how can you know what the apostle John really meant? Think of this example: A schoolteacher explains a subject to his students. Afterward, the students differ on how to understand the explanation. How can the students resolve the matter? They could ask the teacher for more information. No doubt, learning additional facts would help them to understand the subject better. Similarly, to grasp the meaning of John 1:1, you can look in the Gospel of John for more information on Jesus' position. Learning additional facts on this subject will help you to draw the right conclusion.

For instance, consider what John further writes in chapter 1, verse 18: "No man has seen [Almighty] God at any time." However, humans have seen Jesus, the Son, for John says: "The Word [Jesus] was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory." (John 1:14, KJ) How, then, could the Son be part of Almighty God? John also states that the Word was "with God." But how can an individual be with someone and at the same time be that person? Moreover, as recorded at John 17:3, Jesus makes a clear distinction between himself and his heavenly Father. He calls his Father "the only true God." And toward the end of his Gospel, John sums up matters by saying: "These have been written down that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God." (John 20:31) Notice that Jesus is called, not God, but the Son of God. This additional information provided in the Gospel of John shows how John 1:1 should be understood. Jesus, the Word, is "a god" in the sense that he has a high position but is not the same as Almighty God.

CONFIRM THE FACTS

Think again about the example of the schoolteacher and the students. Imagine that some still have doubts, even after listening to the teacher's additional explanation. What could they do? They could turn to another teacher for further information on the same subject. If the second teacher confirms the explanation of the first one, the doubts of most students may be put to rest. Similarly, if you are not sure what the Bible writer John was really saying about the relationship between Jesus and Almighty God, you could turn to another Bible writer for further information. Consider what was written by Matthew, for example. Regarding the end of this system of things, he quotes Jesus as saying: "Concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father." (Matthew 24:36) How do these words confirm that Jesus is not Almighty God?

Jesus says that the Father knows more than the Son does. If Jesus were part of Almighty God, however, he would know the same facts as his Father. So, then, the Son and the Father cannot be equal. Yet, some will say: 'Jesus had two natures. Here he speaks as a man.' But even if that were so, what about the holy spirit? If it is part of the same God as the Father, why does Jesus not say that it knows what the Father knows?

source :Should You Believe in the Trinity ?
pp.26-9

"Let US make man in OUR image": Three plural pronouns, (We, Us, Our) used 6 different times in four different passages: Gen 1:26; 3:22; 11:7; Isa 6:8. The unanimous opinion of the apostolic Fathers was that the Father was talking to Jesus."

Yes James, it was Jesus who's the Father was talking to.
Jehovah’s first creation was his “only-begotten Son” (Joh 3:16), “the beginning of the creation by God.” (Re 3:14) This one, “the firstborn of all creation,” was used by Jehovah in creating all other things, those in the heavens and those upon the earth, “the things visible and the things invisible.” (Col 1:15-17) John’s inspired testimony concerning this Son, the Word, is that “all things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence,” and the apostle identifies the Word as Jesus Christ, who had become flesh. (Joh 1:1-4, 10, 14, 17) As wisdom personified, this One is represented as saying, “Jehovah himself produced me as the beginning of his way,” and he tells of his association with God the Creator as Jehovah’s “master worker.” (Pr 8:12, 22-31) In view of the close association of Jehovah and his only-begotten Son in creative activity and because that Son is “the image of the invisible God” (Col 1:15; 2Co 4:4), it was evidently to His only-begotten Son and master worker that Jehovah spoke in saying, “Let us make man in our image.”—Ge 1:26. So it clearly shows that God alone is the Almighty , the Creator , separate and distinct from anyone else, and that Jesus , even in his prehuman existence, is also separate and distinct, a created being, subordinate to God.



"Revelation 22:3

"And there shall no longer be any curse; and the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it, and His bond-servants shall [latreuo] serve Him."



As regards Jesus Christ, he was prophetically spoken of as a sheep brought to the slaughtering and as a ewe that remains mute before her shearers. (Isa 53:7; Ac 8:32, 35; compare 1Pe 2:23.) Because of Jesus’ sacrificial role, John the Baptizer identified Jesus as “the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world,” and in the book of Revelation the Son of God is repeatedly called “the Lamb.”—Joh 1:29; Re 5:6; 6:16; 7:14, 17; 14:1; 17:14; 19:7.

James regarding on the issue that you brought up about J.Witnesses that celebrates Christmas.
(When the World Had Its Holidays)

When Jehovah’s Witnesses cast aside religious teachings that had pagan roots, they also quit sharing in many customs that were similarly tainted. But for a time, certain holidays were not given the careful scrutiny that they needed. One of these was Christmas.

This holiday was celebrated yearly even by members of the Watch Tower Society’s headquarters staff at the Bethel Home in Brooklyn, New York. For many years they had been aware that December 25 was not the correct date, but they reasoned that the date had long been popularly associated with the birth of the Savior and that doing good for others was proper on any day. However, after further investigation of the subject, the members of the Society’s headquarters staff, as well as the staffs at the Society’s branch offices in England and in Switzerland, decided to stop sharing in Christmas festivities, so no Christmas celebration was held there after 1926.

R. H. Barber, a member of the headquarters staff who made a thorough investigation of the origin of Christmas customs and the fruitage that these were yielding, presented the results in a radio broadcast. That information was also published in The Golden Age of December 12, 1928. It was a thorough exposé of the God-dishonoring roots of Christmas. Since then, the pagan roots of Christmas customs have become general public knowledge, but few people make changes in their way of life as a result. On the other hand, Jehovah’s Witnesses were willing to make needed changes in order to be more acceptable as servants of Jehovah.

When shown that celebrating the birth of Jesus had actually become of greater interest to people than the ransom provided by his death; that the revelry of the holiday and the spirit in which many gifts were given did not honor God; that the magi whose gift-giving was being imitated were actually demon-inspired astrologers; that parents set an example for their children in lying by what they told them about Santa Claus; that “St. Nicholas” (Santa Claus) was admittedly another name for the Devil himself; and that such festivals were, as acknowledged by Cardinal Newman in his Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, “the very instruments and appendages of demon-worship” the church had adopted—when made aware of these things, Jehovah’s Witnesses promptly and permanently stopped having any part in Christmas celebrations.


(Letting the Light Shine)

Jesus instructed his disciples to share with others the light of divine truth that they had received from him. “You are the light of the world,” he said. “Let your light shine before men.” (Matt. 5:14-16; Acts 13:47) Charles Taze Russell and his associates recognized that they had an obligation to do that.

Did they believe that they had all the answers, the full light of truth? To that question Brother Russell pointedly answered: “Certainly not; nor will we have until the ‘perfect day.’” (Prov. 4:18, KJ) Frequently they referred to their Scriptural beliefs as “present truth”—not with any idea that truth itself changes but rather with the thought that their understanding of it was progressive.

These earnest students of the Bible did not shy away from the idea that there is such a thing as truth in matters of religion. They recognized Jehovah as “the God of truth” and the Bible as his Word of truth. (Ps. 31:5; Josh. 21:45; John 17:17) They realized that there was still much that they did not know, but they did not hold back from stating with conviction what they had learned from the Bible. And when traditional religious doctrines and practices contradicted what they found to be clearly stated in God’s inspired Word, then, in imitation of Jesus Christ, they exposed the falsehood, even though this brought ridicule and hatred upon them from the clergy.—Matt. 15:3-9.

"I'm afraid I'll have to disagree with you on the Father's first creation was Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is not a creature, plain and simple. He is the Only-Begotten-Son of the Father."


So James if that's the case, how can you explain the Word at Col.1:15-17; John 3:16 and Rev.3:14?

"The vast majority of Church Fathers believed in it. the Ancient creed teach it. The bulk of Christianity down through two millennium have taught it. It's only a very small schismatic group that teach otherwise."


I do believe you James! The Bible clearly say at Matthew 7:13,14 (KJ Version) : "Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it; Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it." with that words , what could you expect?

Col. 1:15, 16: “He [Jesus Christ] is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation; for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth.” In what sense is Jesus Christ “the first-born of all creation”?

1) Trinitarians say that “first-born” here means prime, most excellent, most distinguished; thus Christ would be understood to be, not part of creation, but the most distinguished in relation to those who were created. If that is so, and if the Trinity doctrine is true, why are the Father and the holy spirit not also said to be the firstborn of all creation? But the Bible applies this expression only to the Son. According to the customary meaning of “firstborn,” it indicates that Jesus is the eldest in Jehovah’s family of sons.

2) Before Colossians 1:15, the expression “the firstborn of” occurs upwards of 30 times in the Bible, and in each instance that it is applied to living creatures the same meaning applies—the firstborn is part of the group. “The firstborn of Israel” is one of the sons of Israel; “the firstborn of Pharaoh” is one of Pharaoh’s family; “the firstborn of beast” are themselves animals. What, then, causes some to ascribe a different meaning to it at Colossians 1:15? Is it Bible usage or is it a belief to which they already hold and for which they seek proof?

3) Does Colossians 1:16, 17 exclude Jesus from having been created, when it says “in him all things were created . . . all things were created through him and for him”? The Greek word here rendered “all things” is pan′ta, an inflected form of pas. At Luke 13:2, Revised Standard Version renders this “all . . . other”; Jerusalem Bible reads “any other”; New English Bible says “anyone else.” (See also Luke 21:29 and Philippians 2:21) In harmony with everything else that the Bible says regarding the Son, New World assigns the same meaning to pan′ta at Colossians 1:16, 17 so that it reads, in part, “by means of him all other things were created . . . All other things have been created through him and for him.” Thus he is shown to be a created being, part of the creation produced by God.

We are not here to argue or debate our faith James. We are here to share the truth about Almighty God, Jehovah, and his Only-Begotten Son, Jesus Christ.

For more information, visit www.watchtower.org