The truth is that Jesus never once referred to himself as the Creator or God—not once! Isn't that interesting? Wouldn't you think that, as the personification of the truth, if Jesus were really God Almighty that he would have just plainly said so when he walked among men? Would it be unreasonable of us to expect that of him? However, Jesus often referred to himself as God's Son. The fact is that it is only by theological alchemy and sleight-of-hand interpretations of select verses that God's son mysteriously transforms into "God the Son."

Apparently, though, Trinitarians are not aware or even concerned about the many glaring contradictions and absurdities of their precious three-in-one-god doctrine. It is no concern to them that Jesus himself worshipped a deity that he identified as his personal God and savior, and he even used the expression "my God" in reference to Jehovah. But who do you suppose God worships? Really, shouldn't we hold Trinitarians to account to explain why Jesus evidently worshipped himself? Or, is it just "God the son" that presumably worships the other fatherly third of the Trinity? Should we suppose, too, that God the Father in turn bows in worship before the son? Taking it one step further, if we are to follow Christ's example of faith, then the Trinitarian would "logically" become a narcissistic self-idolater, right?

And what about the love that exists between God and Jesus? Christ said that the Father has affection for the son and so plainly shows him all the things that he does. However, according to the popular Jesus-is-God theory, the special love between Jehovah and Jesus is completely meaningless, because if Jesus were God he would merely be indulging in self-love. 

Furthermore, if Jesus was really God Almighty, why would he go through the charade of only pretending to be inferior to God? And why would he make a ridiculous father-son comparison of a relationship he had with himself if all the segments of the supposed Trinitarian godhead were co-equal? What son was born before his father? Also, what about the fact that Jesus is a mediator between God and man? A mediator is supposed to be a third party that works to bring two estranged parties together. If Jesus is God then the scripture ought to read that God is a mediator with himself and men. That, of course, is ludicrous.

But, there are many questions like these that Trinitarians cannot begin to surmount. Hence, they are forced to cling to verses like John 1:1 and insist that there is no possible way the verse could mean anything other than Jesus is God. That is simply a lie. The NWT has valid grammatical and scriptural reasons to translate John 1:1 with the expression "a god." Here is a link to a web site that discusses some of the issues related to translating that verse.

The tragedy is that those who have been indoctrinated with the notion that Jesus is God cannot possibly hope to understand or appreciate the love of God. The truth is that the Trinity is a demonic and blasphemous teaching that originated in Babylon.

As for the Johannes Gerber issue, it is not true that Mr. Gerber was the first translator to render John 1:1 with the expression "a god." He was not. Here is a link to a web site by one of Jehovah's Witnesses that knowledgeably discusses the issue.

That means that after the general resurrection of the dead no one will have to die again because of inherited sin. From that point on, after the resurrection, death will only be the result of willful rebellion against God and not the result of inherited adamic condemnation.

According to the Scriptures, Jehovah purposes to resurrect virtually all of mankind, most of whom lived unrighteous lives. But not every resurrected person will automatically live forever. Jesus spoke about a resurrection of judgment for those who practiced vile things.

A resurrection of judgment refers to the ultimate outcome of adverse judgment for those who unappreciatively fail to respond to God's love even after their resurrection. So, back to death they must go! That will literally be the second death for them—from which they will never recover. The second death, then, is permanent non-existence. For some creatures though, like the Devil and his demons, and those who foolishly worship the image of the beast during the judgment, their first death will also be their second death—meaning they will receive no resurrection. So, the lake of fire, and the similar term "Gehenna" that Jesus used, merely symbolizes everlasting destruction.

Basically, the way we should understand Jesus' use of the word soul, in that context, is that God ultimately determines our everlasting destiny. Men can only take our life in this existence. But, because of our fear of death, Jesus was trying to get us to see the bigger picture so that we would not compromise our faith when faced with the threat of what ultimately would prove to be only a temporary death—provided we are faithful in death. Jesus intended to say that God has the power to cause a permanent death if we betray him. The point is that we should fear God and not mere mortals.

As for the souls under the altar, God used a similar expression when calling Cain to account for the murder of his brother. God said to him: "Your brother's blood is crying out to me from the ground." In other words justice demanded that God judge the murderer—Cain. So, each human life, or soul, has a certain value in God's eyes. Those martyred souls represent the value of each individual son of God that has been murdered down through the ages, for which there will be an eventual accounting made by Babylon the Great.

A God who sacrifices his own son and who has given his word that he will use his great power to reverse all the evil that has taken place certainly deserves our worship and honor.

In Revelation 22:18-19, we are given a very stern admonition against adding to or taking from, the words of this scroll. In my estimation this admonition must be applied to the entire Bible and not just to the book of Revelation…With this admonition in mind I refer you to John 1:4. My kingdom interlinear [1985] quite clearly states: "in him life was, and the life was the light of men;"

A good example of that is John 8:58. That's where most translations record Jesus as saying that "before Abraham was born, I am." That is literally what the Greek text says and the translators merely transferred that expression into English. Trinitarians, of course, have seized upon this verse in a hackneyed attempt to prove that Jesus was claiming to be Jehovah. But transliterating the Greek expression into English, as most popular versions have done, produces a grammatically incorrect and nonsensical statement. If "I am" is another name for Jehovah, as Trinitarians insist, then "I am" and Jehovah ought to be interchangeable. So, insert the name Jehovah for "I am" in that verse and you can begin to grasp the point about transliteration.

As another example of the difficulties facing translators, take Matthew 27:46, where Jesus said: "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" The Greek transliteration says: "The God of me, the God of me, with what left you down in me?" Does that expression make any sense? But should we accuse the translators of that difficult verse of adding words to the Bible? Of course not. Obviously the translator had to forget about using a word for word rendering and instead translate the thought that Jesus was expressing to God so that the reader might be able to understand as easily as if he understood the nuances of the original language.

The fact of the matter is that translating the Bible is an art. There is not an exact way that each passage must be translated in every case. Here is the way one version translated John 1:4. Here is the way the verse was translated in the Contemporary English Version.