The 'Should You Believe In The Trinity?' Magazine

'Should You Believe In The Trinity?' Magazine Exposed

The 'Should You Believe In The Trinity' magazine is perhaps the most deceptive magazine ever published by the WatchTower. It was published in 1989 by the Jehovah's Witnesses and was read by many millions of people. It was very popular, was studied by all Jehovah's Witnesses, was shared with people out in 'field service', and was considered the ultimate proof against the Trinity.

Oddly, the magazine does not properly cite any references to the books they are quoting from. Which is something any professional organization would do. For example, they do not state the year, volume number, or page numbers for any of their quoted references. After investigating the matter, the reason why becomes obvious. And the reason is because they did not want anyone to actually look up the quotes for themselves.

Their deceptions and lies were exposed, and as a result, the magazine has since been discontinued. Their headquarters will not provide this - either printed or online - to anyone even if directly requested. It is one of their many coverups. This magazine proves without a doubt that this organization is run merely by a bunch of men and not by God. God's true organization would never need to resort to deception, misquotes, and blatant distortions. Below you will see some examples of how they have intentionally lied to and deceived millions with this magazine.

Question For JW's: Would God's True Organization Ever Need To Resort To Lies & Deception To Prove A Doctrine False?

"The origin of the [Trinity] is entirely pagan."
What they conveniently failed to mention is how this book denies many aspects of Christianity - even the beliefs held by Jehovah's Witnesses! This book calls many things in Christianity pagan, not just the Trinity. Here are some examples:
What kind of evil organization would resort to quoting from such a book as this?

"Beyond the Grasp of Human Reason"
This is 100% deceptive. Here is the full quote: "It is held that although the doctrine is beyond the grasp of human reason, it is, like many of the formulations of physical science, not contrary to reason, and may be apprehended (though it may not be comprehended) by the human mind."

The WatchTower intentionally took this quote out of context to deceive you. Even if they hadn't, this quote doesn't prove a thing for 3 reasons:
1. This quote does not speak for all Christianity. The Jehovah's Witnesses are experts at isolating quotes like this and having them represent all Christianity as a whole.
2. The concept of the Trinity is not hard to understand once you take the time to think about it. Please refer to the other sections on this website for more information.
3. There are certainly going to be things that can confuse us. This doesn't mean those things are false or do not exist! See 1 Cor. 15:51, 2 Peter 3:16, and 1 Timothy 3:16.

"...Trinitarians are not agreed among themselves."
They took this quote out of context. The context is talking about God's nature in general, not just the Trinity, because a few sentences later it says, "It is not possible for the human intellect to comprehend fully the divine nature.". This is another fine example of how the WatchTower isolates a statement out of context to intentionally mislead millions of readers.

"Jesuit Joseph Bracken..."
More deception from the WatchTower. See the reasons below:
1. The WatchTower left out the word "Thus" in the beginning of the quote. They did this so there is no way for the reader to know this is a continuation of a previous statement. They started the sentence off with the word "Priests" instead. By reviewing the previous context, it becomes evident that the author is talking about the complex dogma of the Trinity and not simply the Trinity in general. SEE PROOF
2. The quote goes on until a "...". Here the WatchTower removed "the Theomistic explanation of" from the quote. Again, this ties in with their deception from the previous point. The author is talking about the specifics of the Theomistic explanation of the Trinity and not the Trinity concept in general. SEE PROOF
3. The quote goes on until another "...". Here the WatchTower removed the words, "Since there was no apparent pastoral value to be gained from an explanation of the doctrine,". They deleted this entire section of the quote and started the sentence with the word "Why". Notice how they capitalize the "Why" as if it was the start of the original sentence and provide no indication there is anything missing. Again, just like with the points above, it becomes clear after reading full context that it is talking about there being little point for a pastor to explain the specifics of the Thomistic explanation of the Trinity to the common person at Church. SEE PROOF
4. The last quote starts out with "The Trinity is a matter of formal belief...". Notice how they start this off with a capital 'T' and provide no indication this is the middle of a quote? The real quote says, "But the ordinary layperson can confirm from his/her own experience the truth in Rahner's statement: the Trinity is a matter of formal belief, but it has little or no resonance in day-to-day Christian life and worship.". They deleted the first part of the sentence. They also replaced the word "resonance" with "effect". Again, just as with the points above, it is basically saying that the the specifics of the Trinity do not matter in day-to-day life for the ordinary person in Church. It is not talking about the Trinity in general. Nor is it talking about anyone other than the common person. SEE PROOF
5. Regarding the statement related to boredom, they quote this as if this is a factor in considering if something is true or not. Does this sound familiar Jehovah's Witnesses? Your meetings are extremely boring. They are filled with people fidgeting, looking at their watches, playing with their phones, and falling asleep. Yet, the WatchTower tries to use boredom here as proof the Trinity is false. If boredom was a factor in determining truth, nothing the WatchTower organization teaches would be true then. It is amazing they would even mention this.

Catholic theologian Hans Kung observes in his book..."
It's amazing how the WatchTower resorts to using Muslims to prove the Trinity false. As if the Islam religion is not false itself. What the WatchTower doesn't tell you is that Muslims reject many other things other than the Trinity. Below are some examples taken from the same book:
Additional points for JW's to consider:
1. Notice how the WatchTower uses being "unable to make any significant headway" with Muslims as a reason the Trinity should not be believed in. Agreeing with Muslims and finding common ground with Muslims are not factors when determining if something is true or not.
2. The WatchTower organization resorted to using Muslims to prove the Trinity false. The Muslims reject many teachings of the Jehovah's Witnesses too. Would it be fair to use Muslims as evidence that WatchTower doctrine is false too? No, but your organization uses this same faulty logic.
3. The Catholic they are quoting does not represent all Christianity. Would it be fair to quote some elder as if he represented the entire Jehovah's Witness religion? No, but your organization does this very thing!

"The Trinity is a mystery..."
This reference is deceptive. Here is why:
1. Even Jehovah's name would not be known without revelation. For example, see Exodus 6:2-4 where it says that Jehovah appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, but he never revealed his name to them. Another example is in Matthew 16:17 where it says that the Father revealed something to Simon. Also, the identity of Jesus as being the Son of God was revealed to his disciples. So God revealing information is nothing new!
2. There are certainly mysteries in the Bible. See 1 Cor. 15:15, 2 Peter 3:16, and 1 Timothy 3:16.
3. If being mysterious is a basis for whether or not something is true, the JW doctrines would also not be true. For example, can an average Jehovah's Witness explain how the WatchTower calculated the 607 BCE date? How about the ever-changing 1914 significance? These are teachings that your organization has been changing since the beginning. Since God did not come right out and state these dates in the Bible, but kept them a mystery, they must not be true then, right?
4. Your organization once again has not stated the whole context truthfully. Notice how they remove parts of this quote and replace it with "..."? Well, this is because they are intentionally hiding information from you. The author believes in the Trinity. There is a whole section there which shows how the trinity is actually revealed in the Bible.

1 Corinthians 14:33
This is more deception from the WatchTower. Here is why:
1. They cut the verse in half and only quote the first half of the verse. They left out the 2nd half because it clearly shows it has nothing to do with the subject. You could make the Bible say anything you want by quoting partial verses.
2. They chose the Revised Standard Version here. Why? Because it is a translation that translates this as "confusion" and not "disorder". Their own translation uses the word "disorder", as many others do, but they didn't use it because they specifically want you to see the word "confusion" so they can tie it in with the thought of the Trinity being confusing. If the point they were trying to make was about another subject, they would have quoted from their own Bible no problem. So they pick and choose when to quote from other Bibles depending on when it is convenient for them. At the same time, they give off the impression that they are acting scholarly and professional by using other versions.
3. This is a great example of how the WatchTower organization isolates single verses in an attempt to defend their position. They are expert cherry pickers! They said "confusing mystery" and then quoted this verse and then said "doctrine about himself", referring to God's nature. Read the prior context of 1 Corinthians 14 and you will clearly see how this has NOTHING to do with something being confusing or God's nature at all. It is talking about orderly worship in the church.

The Illustrated Bible Dictionary
This is more deception from the WatchTower. Here is why:
1. They isolated only a portion of the quote and replaced the rest with "...". The real text says, "The word Trinity is not found in the Bible, and though used by Tertullian in the last decade of the 2nd century, it did not find a place formally in the theology of the church till the 4th century". Why did they delete a section? It is because it says the word was used in the 2nd century, which contradicts their claim that it was invented in the 4th century! Also, the key word to notice is "formally", which means it WAS taught informally prior to the 4th century. So the WatchTower simply deleted this part of the quote and replaced it with "...". SEE PROOF
2. They completely ignore context. It goes on to give proof of the Trinity in both the Old & New Testaments. SEE PROOF
3. Once again, they make it a point to show that the word 'Trinity' is not in the Bible. Many words we use are not in the Bible. The word 'Jehovah' is not even in the Bible! Proof of this is found elsewhere on this website.

New Catholic Encyclopedia
This is 100% deceptive for the following reasons:
1. They isolated only a certain section of the text. The full quote should read, "The 4th-century articulation of the triadic mystery is at least implicitly the word of God, hence part of the Christian credo. On the other hand, it is not, as already seen, directly and immediately word of God.". SEE PROOF
2. The key phrase in their quote is "directly and immediately". It is not denying that the Trinity is the word of God. Rather, it is saying it is the word of God, but just not "directly and immediately". In other words, it takes some time to realize after considering all scripture. Jehovah's Witnesses, this is exactly what you people do to formulate doctrine and it is nothing unusual. For example, does the Bible say anything "directly and immediately" about Jesus being Michael the Archangel? No, but yet you teach this because you consider multiple scriptures and try to piece them together. That is exactly what this quote is saying.
3. They ignored surrounding context. The prior context is talking about how to best preach the Trinity from a pastoral standpoint. It is in no way denying the Trinity. It also goes on to say the Trinity can be supported by "a wealth of scriptural quotation". SEE PROOF

Theophilus of Antioch
Do you notice the "...." the WatchTower used? They cut out the middle of the statement. The full quote reads, "The word [tri'as] (of which the Latin trinitas is a translation) is first found in Theophilus of Antioch about A. D. 180. He speaks of "the Trinity of God [the Father], His Word and His Wisdom" ("Ad. Autol.", 11, 15, P. G., VI, 1078). The term may, of course, have been in use before his time. Shortly afterwards it appears in its Latin form of trinitas in Tertullian.". They deleted the part which specifically mentioned the Trinity! Not only does it specifically mention the Trinity, but it shows the Trinity is not a 4th century invention, as the WatchTower claims. SEE PROOF

Encyclopedia of Religion
This is deceptive for these reasons:
1. The WatchTower knows full well that this is a dull argument. There are many things we believe in that are not mentioned in the Old Testament. For example, is the 1000 year reign mentioned in the Old Testament? What about the 144000? The only thing the WatchTower is proving is that they are biased in their reasoning.
2. There are things we believe in that are directly mentioned in the New Testament, but which are not in the Old Testament. For example, Jesus had to die and then be raised from the dead. His disciples did not understand this at the time, but only understood this later from the Old Testament. All Christians still believe Jesus died and rose from the dead even though it was not specifically mentioned in the Old Testament.
3. The Trinity IS in the Old Testament regardless of what these quotes say. For example, see Genesis 19:24 where it says Jehovah made it rain sulfur and fire from Jehovah. There are 2 Jehovah's here. By reading the previous context this can be proven too. Jehovah was physically standing before Abraham in Genesis 18:22. So the Jehovah that was on Earth called down fire from the Jehovah in heaven. Jehovah is a plural God according to Genesis. Your organization knows this and it is why both of these verses have been changed in the 2013 NWT. Another example is Isaiah 44:6 which says there are 2 Jehovah's, but yet they are both one and referred to as the 'first and the last'. Another example is Amos 4:11. Jehovah is speaking and he says "Like God's overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah".