Evacuated

I missed this part of your earlier post. You do realize that 5 of the books you list ......  
Role of Theology and Bias in Bible Translation  Jesus God or the Son of God Trinitys Weak Links Revealed Concepts of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit  Chronicles of the Unholy Fathers ... were written by JWs?
As a general point about your list, I suggest you go through each book and each of your favorite claims in those books and consider:
"Before trusting it, ask: (1) Who published this material? What are the author’s credentials? (2) Why was this published? What motivated the writer? Is there any bias? (3) Where did the author get the information? Does he supply sources that can be checked? (4) Is the information current?" - Watchtower, 8/15/2011, p.4
Many of the older works which allege various pagan connections to Christian beliefs and practices (especially if targeting the Catholic church), are derived from Hislop's book.
You may find this thread helpful as a case in point of how poor sources and ideas can be recycled and perpetuated so that one thinks a piece of information has been independently verified by lots of different people, when actually it traces back to just one author.
Then you'll be able to weed out the dodgy research and use that which is more solidly grounded.  

Wikipedia says the following about Arianism: Arian teachings were first attributed to Arius (c. AD 256–336), a Christian presbyter in Alexandria, Egypt.
But note that Origen was born in the late 2nd century and did most of his language and theological work in the early 3rd century. Of him, Wikipedia says: "Origen. . .  184/185 – 253/254),[1] was a Greek scholar, ascetic,[2] and early Christian theologian who was born and spent the first half of his career in Alexandria. "
Personally, I trace the fundamentals of Arianism to the gospel of John. I think that Anti-Arianism probably was raised to a high pitch based on the public arguments between Arius and Homoousians leading up to a decision by council at Nicaea in 325 CE.
It turns out that the earlier manuscripts of John were more Arian than the later manuscripts. Just look at John 1:18
(John 1:18) No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is at the Father’s side is the one who has explained Him. (NWT)
(John 1:18) No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. (KJV)
You might think that JWs would have preferred that this verse had read "only-begotten Son" instead of "only-begotten God." You might also think that Trinitarians in the 4th century had no reason to tamper with an expression like "only-begotten God" and would have no reason to change it to "only-begotten Son."
Yet that is exactly where the evidence leads. The manuscripts split here on this reading going all the way back to the major Bible mss of the 4th century. I won't take the time to explain the whole footnote here from the NWT Reference Bible, but the main symbols to be concerned with are: Alpha, A, B, C, and in this case P75 and P66.
(NWT footnote on John 1:18) “The only-begotten god,” P75אc; P66א*BC*, “only-begotten god”; ACcItVgSyc,h, “the only-begotten Son.”
The P66  refers to Papyrus Bodmer 2, Gr., c. 200 C.E., Geneva, G.S. (Note the date!)
The P75 refers to Papyrus Bodmer 14, 15, Gr., c. 200 C.E., Geneva, G.S.  (Note the date!)
The Aleph refers to the Sinaiticus:
א (ʼAleph)   Codex Sinaiticus, Gr., fourth cent. C.E., British Museum, H.S., G.S.
The B refers to the Codex Vaticanus:    
Vatican ms 1209, Gr., fourth cent. C.E., Vatican City, Rome, H.S., G.S.
But notice that "only-begotten Son" appears first in the 5th century:
A       Codex Alexandrinus, Gr., fifth cent. C.E., British Museum, H.S., G.S.
 
The change was an obvious requirement after the Council of Nicaea in the 4th century. You couldn't say that Jesus was an only begotten God after Arianism was outlawed. That was the crux of Arianism. Therefore a few major manuscripts of the 4th century begin to reflect this. Even 2nd/3rd century manuscripts support the Arian teaching. Two of the most well-read early Christian writers/historians/scholars were Eusebius and Origen. Both of them believed a form of Arianism.
Note this about Origen in a respected and scholarly theological journal:
THE ORIGINS OF ARIANISM Author(s): T. E. Pollard Source: The Journal of Theological Studies, New Series, Vol. 9, No. 1 (April 1958), pp. 103- 111 Published by: Oxford University Press
Page 1 starts out:
THE ORIGINS OF ARIANISM The question of the origins of Arianism is, at the present time, still wide open. 'It is a matter of considerable doubt whether Arianism is to be traced to Antioch or to Alexandria, and also how far it is due to the teaching of Origen.'1 At the outbreak of the Arian controversy, Alexander of Alexandria connected Arius' doctrine yvith that of Paul of Samosata, that is with the Antiochene tradition,2 and this view has been accepted by B. J. Kidd.3 On the other hand, F. W. Green asserts that 'to make Paul the father of Arianism is to add insult to a man already sufficiently injured, and rather unintelligent insult'.4 F. Loofs describes Arius as belonging to 'the tradition of left-wing Origenism', and in a footnote adds that 'the connection between Arius and Paul of Samosata, emphasised by Alexander of Alexandria, the opponent of Arius, is scarcely of importance for the understanding of Arian Christology'.5 Likewise, Père Bardy asserts quite categorically that there is no connexion between the teaching of Arius and that of Paul,6 and that the roots of Arianism are to be found in Origenism.7
After reading this entire article and a couple others like it, I'm personally convinced that Arianism does indeed date to a time prior to the birth of Arius. We can see evidence of the teaching in Origen. [And some important elements of it from Paul of Samosata (200-275). It was Paul's student Lucian of Antioch who is said to have had been a major influence on Arius, per the Wikipedia article on Paul of Samosata.]
But, more importantly, the textual evidence leads us all the way back to the earliest papyri of the gospel of John.
 

I'm not addressing a particular individual on this public forum, but I would like to contribute  to the general discussion.
Seems the Trinity idea takes a number of guises. This view differs substantially from what I was taught growiing up as a Roman Catholic.
"God the Father, Jesus the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one, united in their purpose of saving man. But they're obviously three different entities. Jesus while on earth prays to His Father in heaven. Jesus was neither a ventriloquist nor a schizophrenic. He was talking to His Father, and His Father answered Him. In the gospel of John, the disciples say, "We heard the Father answer Him." Doug Batchelor (Seventh Day Adventist Pastor.)
However, it seems to reflect current thinking amongst a number of different church groups.
For me, the principle Paul refers to at 1Cor.14:9 is relevant here:
"unless you with the tongue use speech that is easily understood, how will anyone know what is being said? You will, in fact, be speaking into the air" 
The vocabulary used in explaining the doctorine of the Trinity includes words/phrases such as: 
filioque dual procession appropriation perichoresis hypostases procession The Essential (also called Immanent or Ontological) Trinity The Economic Trinity Some different opinions (referred to as heresies) include:: 
Modalism Tritheism Partialism Adoptionism Arianism The Trinity doctorine does not appear to meet Paul's criteria of being expressed in "speech that is easily understood".
Neither does it's definition appear to be something in which the inspired Holy Scriptures can be used to "set matters straight" (2Tim.3:16). In fact, apart from convoluted, out of context, and distorted attempts to twist existing texts, eventually it was deemed necessary to add a completely spurious statement into scripture at 1John 5:7 which, in the King James version of the Bible, reads: "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one". ( I don't know why the forger just didn't go the whole hog and use the word "Trinity" here). Unbelievably, this text is still relied upon by many "grass-roots" Trinitarians.
(Lovers of detail may find this discussion of interest:  https://bible.org/article/textual-problem-1-john-57-8)
Britain's good old "Aunty", the BBC, summed up the matter very simply when discussing the (not exclusive) beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses on the matter of the Trinity: 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/witnesses/beliefs/beliefs.shtml
The traditional Christian idea that God is a 'Trinity' of Father, Son and Holy Spirit is false and based on pagan ideas The doctrine of the Trinity is inconsistent with the Bible The doctrine of the Trinity contradicts what the prophets, Jesus, the apostles, and the early Christians believed and taught

Suppose if it smells like a fish...............

Jesus was referring to the preaching about a specific phase of the Kingdom preaching before the "axe came down" on the current representation of God's kingdom, those who thought they were protected just by being part of the Jewish nation. So Jesus was referring to how the disciples would not even make it through the circuit of the cities of Israel before this phase of the Son of Man's "coming" to execute judgment was complete - before 70 C.E.
(Matthew 3:9-12) 9 Do not presume to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I say to you that God is able to raise up children for Abraham from these stones. 10 The ax is already lying at the root of the trees. Every tree, then, that does not produce fine fruit is to be cut down and thrown into the fire. 11 I, for my part, baptize you with water because of your repentance, but the one coming after me is stronger than I am, whose sandals I am not worthy to take off. That one will baptize you with holy spirit and with fire. 12 His winnowing shovel is in his hand, and he will clean up his threshing floor completely and will gather his wheat into the storehouse, but the chaff he will burn up with fire that cannot be put out.”
(Matthew 10:23) 23 When they persecute you in one city, flee to another; for truly I say to you, you will by no means complete the circuit of the cities of Israel until the Son of man arrives.
These cities all had a similar social structure. You could walk into a city and state your case and what you wanted to do and word would get around to everyone. If someone was interested they would invite you in to discuss it further. If no one was interested, the disciples could shake the dust off their feet and move on to the next city. But Jesus knew that there would be enough interest in his message so that there would be enough hospitality. So they needn't worry about anything. Enough people would be inviting them in and feeding them and giving them a place to stay, that they wouldn't even finish their work before the "end" of that particular phase of Kingdom preaching.
(Luke 10:8-11) 8 “Also, wherever you enter into a city and they receive you, eat what is set before you 9 and cure the sick ones in it and tell them: ‘The Kingdom of God has come near to you.’ 10 But wherever you enter into a city and they do not receive you, go out into its main streets and say: 11 ‘We wipe off against you even the dust that sticks to our feet from your city. Nevertheless, know this, that the Kingdom of God has come near.’
Our Christianity should be flexible and adaptive to meet changing social conditions. Paul worked in different types of cities, and he said that:
(1 Corinthians 9:20-23) 20 To the Jews I became as a Jew in order to gain Jews; to those under law I became as under law, though I myself am not under law, in order to gain those under law. . . . I have become all things to people of all sorts, so that I might by all possible means save some. 23 But I do all things for the sake of the good news, in order to share it with others.
The way we announce our intent to study with people in their homes and tell them about the good news is not the same as when we could make an announcement at the city gate and people would spread the word for us. Today we can go to as many houses as possible, and then come back to those who are willing to have us in their homes.
The type of hospitality that Melinda and Eoin have spoken about still happens, as was pointed out. And there are certain types of cities and social structures in the world where the preaching work takes on the same flavor as Jesus instructed the evangelizers in Luke.
In London in 1611 under King James, there was no city square or single public forum to announce yourself, and there was absolutely no guarantee of hospitality. So the translators evidently thought that Greek terms like "κατ᾽ οἶκον" (by houses) was a match to the idea of  "ἐξ οἰκίας εἰς οἰκίαν" (from house to house) even though it produced an apparent contradiction to Jesus' instruction. Although it might be better to translate the Greek expressions at Acts 20:20 and Acts 5:42 with the term "in their houses" or "at home" it is still a distinct possibility that the expression could mean "from house to house" as it does when the context implies it. The better translation of Acts 5:42, is found in some more modern translations:
Acts 5:42 Revised Standard Version (RSV) And every day in the temple and at home they did not cease teaching and preaching Jesus as the Christ.
But Acts 8:3 in the same translation, for the same Greek expression, says:
"But Saul was ravaging the church, and entering house after house, he dragged off men and women and committed them to prison." (Acts 8:3, RSV)
Although the KJV is inconsistent in using "house-to-house" for these expressions, it translates "κατ᾽ οἶκον" (by houses) as "from house to house" in one place where the NWT doesn't.
And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, (Acts 2:46, KJV)
In that place, even though it is the same expression, "κατ᾽ οἶκον," [where the NWT usually translates "from house to house."] the NWT uses another expression this time:
(Acts 2:46) 46 And day after day they were in constant attendance in the temple with a united purpose, and they took their meals in different homes and shared their food with great rejoicing and sincerity of heart,
Paul evidently did not go from "house to house" to do any initial preaching --it was his usual practice to go into the local synagogue or an open agora or forum-- but he did teach in people's homes, and met the believers in their homes.  But if he had preached from house to house, we know that it would have been because of the different social structure in the places he went. It would not have contradicted Jesus' instruction in Luke 10.
 

Without trawling, I seem to remember more modern day experiences of pioneers, even colporteurs, going in to new territories without established congregations, and securing lodging through those favourably disposed in order to have a base to work from.
At this stage in countries where the work is well established, many of us can walk from home to our witnessing territories and so do not require the same level of hospitality. . However, we still travel to seldom-worked areas for preaching campaigns on ocassion, and this may well be accompanied by hospitality that is shown, not only by brothers and sisters, but also by some who are at least favourable to our work. There are doubtless other examples that could be cited.
A stable base from which to work in any preaching territory assignment is much appreciated and greatly facilitates the activity.
.

In the original post the point I was making is that Jesus can be called "God" because "the angel of the Lord" {Jehovah's angel}  was also called God but obviously according to context and harmony we all know angels are not GOD. The point I am making is GOD is merely a TITLE that can be applied to others including Jesus but that does not make them all the same person or "God".

The injunction against moving or transferring from house to house was a loving command from Jesus.  If you did your best in preparing for your guests you would wish them to show appreciation and enjoy what you gave (simple food is also enjoyable); not seeking out better opportunities (transferring) at the home of a more fortunate person so as to enjoy better or richer fare.
The context was to do with hospitality which was a very important part of living in Jesus' day and prior to that.
The following article gives some light on it.
*** it-1 pp. 1151-1152 Hospitality ***
The Guest. In ancient times the guest, while treated with the utmost courtesy and honor, was expected to observe certain amenities and requirements. For example, it was considered among the vilest of acts to partake of another man’s food and then betray him or bring harm to him. (Ps 41:9; Joh 13:18) The guest was not to presume upon his host or on the group gathered together by taking the seat of honor, or the place of prominence, but was to leave this for the host to determine. (Lu 14:7-11) Neither should he ‘wear out his welcome,’ by being at the home of his host too long or by going there too often. (Pr 25:17) It may be noted that Jesus always imparted spiritual blessings when enjoying the hospitality of his host. (Lu 5:27-39; 19:1-8) For a similar reason he told his disciples whom he sent out that when they reached a town, they should stay in the home where hospitality was extended them and not be “transferring from house to house.” They should not be thus seeking a place where the householder could provide them with more comfort, entertainment, or material things.—Lu 10:1-7; Mr 6:7-11.
 The apostle Paul, who did much traveling and who received hospitality from many of his Christian brothers, nevertheless, did not make himself a financial burden on any of them. Much of the time he worked at a secular occupation, and he set forth the law: “If anyone does not want to work, neither let him eat.” (2Th 3:7-12; 1Th 2:6) By reason of this, Paul had an answer to the charges of the so-called superfine apostles in Corinth, who accused Paul of taking advantage of the Christians in the congregation there. (2Co 11:5, 7-10) He could boast in the fact that he provided the good news to them absolutely without cost, not even taking the things he had the right to as an apostle and a minister of God.—1Co 9:11-18.
 
    Today we seek out who is deserving by making initial call, then many return visits.  In those days people used to stay in the home for some time while making disciples, as it was the custom and showing hospitality was a great privilege in the eyes of  most persons.
(Matthew 10:11, 12) “Into whatever city or village you enter, search out who in it is deserving, and stay there until you leave. 12 When you enter the house, greet the household.
   But we still have to go house to house to make the first calls. The house-to-house work is an equal opportunity work and the best way of doing it. We can credit Jesus with knowing the best way to offer that opportunity. House to house preaching is the best way of doing that work thoroughly, as shown the scriptures.
 
(Acts 10:41, 42) . . .. 42 Also, he ordered us to preach to the people and to give a thorough witness that this is the one decreed by God to be judge of the living and the dead. . .
(Acts 5:42) 42 And every day in the temple and from house to house they continued without letup teaching and declaring the good news about the Christ, Jesus.
 
 

Just quoting the "Reasoning" book. Page 213 :"Does Thomas’ exclamation at John 20:28 prove that Jesus is truly God? John 20:28 (RS) reads: “Thomas answered him, ‘My Lord and my God!’” There is no objection to referring to Jesus as “God,” if this is what Thomas had in mind"
I would love to stay on topic of the Trinity in the Bible but COS will not give any Scriptures in the Bible. Sorry about the fish thingy but I was bored. 

I'm not addressing a particular individual on this public forum, but I would like to contribute  to the general discussion.
Seems the Trinity idea takes a number of guises. This view differs substantially from what I was taught growiing up as a Roman Catholic.
"God the Father, Jesus the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one, united in their purpose of saving man. But they're obviously three different entities. Jesus while on earth prays to His Father in heaven. Jesus was neither a ventriloquist nor a schizophrenic. He was talking to His Father, and His Father answered Him. In the gospel of John, the disciples say, "We heard the Father answer Him." Doug Batchelor (Seventh Day Adventist Pastor.)
However, it seems to reflect current thinking amongst a number of different church groups.
For me, the principle Paul refers to at 1Cor.14:9 is relevant here:
"unless you with the tongue use speech that is easily understood, how will anyone know what is being said? You will, in fact, be speaking into the air" 
The vocabulary used in explaining the doctorine of the Trinity includes words/phrases such as: 
filioque dual procession appropriation perichoresis hypostases procession The Essential (also called Immanent or Ontological) Trinity The Economic Trinity Some different opinions (referred to as heresies) include:: 
Modalism Tritheism Partialism Adoptionism Arianism The Trinity doctorine does not appear to meet Paul's criteria of being expressed in "speech that is easily understood".
Neither does it's definition appear to be something in which the inspired Holy Scriptures can be used to "set matters straight" (2Tim.3:16). In fact, apart from convoluted, out of context, and distorted attempts to twist existing texts, eventually it was deemed necessary to add a completely spurious statement into scripture at 1John 5:7 which, in the King James version of the Bible, reads: "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one". ( I don't know why the forger just didn't go the whole hog and use the word "Trinity" here). Unbelievably, this text is still relied upon by many "grass-roots" Trinitarians.
(Lovers of detail may find this discussion of interest:  https://bible.org/article/textual-problem-1-john-57-8)
Britain's good old "Aunty", the BBC, summed up the matter very simply when discussing the (not exclusive) beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses on the matter of the Trinity: 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/witnesses/beliefs/beliefs.shtml
The traditional Christian idea that God is a 'Trinity' of Father, Son and Holy Spirit is false and based on pagan ideas The doctrine of the Trinity is inconsistent with the Bible The doctrine of the Trinity contradicts what the prophets, Jesus, the apostles, and the early Christians believed and taught

What he said. Is it that obscure?
Certainly we all need to do proper Bible study. But, I have my doubts that studying what Clement meant constitutes "proper" Bible study. Neither does the poring over ancient Jewish traditional folk-lore..
Complete oversight here I think. Didn't you already quote 1Pet.1:15-16? Surely even Clement referred to Paul's letter to the Corinthians at 47:1,2?
As, it is asserted, does the notion that Clement's listing of God, Christ, and Holy Spirit supports the teaching of the Trinity.
In fact, it is difficult to see how something which no one (apparently) can understand or explain logically can be called a "teaching". However, the best this line of argument appears to acheive is to equate the Trinity with the phoenix which appears to consign both to the category of...."myth". 
This seems uncharacteristically childish! Surely God can set the general principles by which His thoughts are ordered?
I didn't think a law had been established on this element of posting structure? Pardon me if a protocol has been inadvertantly violated. 

By George!! I think you've got it!!!
Howdy Doody; Double Doody; Photo Doody...........they were all one and the same!!
Let's all take a break.....
 

Quite true (although the grammar needs adjustment) .
And you don't even have to get that complicated. Gen.2:24 describes the closest human relationship between two persons possible saying "they will become one flesh",  but surely, no one understands this as meaning they will become one person.....or do they???

Hello Cos
Hopefully your grasp of scriptural detail is a little firmer than your assessment of gender.
General principles can be drawn from Biblical passages, regardless of context.
 Opposition to the Trinity does not necessarily make one a friend of the Truth.
Could you quote 1stC examples at all, other than Ignatius of Antioch whose quoted reference from his Epistle to the Magnesians, is attributed to 2nd C and appears really...insubstantial (pardon the pun): "whatsoever ye do, may prosper both in the flesh and spirit; in faith and love; in the Son, and in the Father, and in the Spirit;"

JWs already believe that God is not triune. The argument is a rhetoric device used by JWs on those they are evangelizing. But there are some Christians who have come to the conclusion, based on Scripture, that God is not a Trinity. One notable example is Patrick Navas - https://truthmattersradio.wordpress.com/tag/patrick-navas/
As I say, the doctrine was a work-in-progress. Certainly before Tertullian, the ANFs tended to be Binitarian. The whole debate centered on the divinity of Christ, his ontological relationship with and his derivation from the Father. The reason I asked was because you seemed to be asserting something without giving anything in support and I wondered what you had in mind.
 

Very good point. After all if the Trinity was in the Bible in the first place then NO ONE would have tried to put it there by a forgery. Which of course proves it is not in the Bible. {Yet that is not the only Bible Scripture found only in the King James and Catholic Douay Bibles that was added by a scribe trying to support the Trinity}.
    Interestingly there are no spurious Scriptures trying to support the Resurrection. Why? Because it is taught in the Bible. There are no spurious Scriptures trying to support Baptism. Why? Because it is taught in the Bible. Yet there are about a dozen trying to support the idea of a Trinity that are only in a couple of Translations from 1610, 1611C.E. that have been proven by scholars to be spurious!!!
    This line of reasoning can also be applied to Evolution. Back in the early 20th Century scientists discovered the "Piltdown Man" but 40 years later it was discovered to have been a forgery by a Scientist trying to prove evolution of humans. Now ponder : Why if evolution was true and a fact would someone create a forgery to prove it? If it was a fact then no one would.  There are no Scientific forgeries for other things like "gravity". So the very proponents of evolution have exposed  that false teaching just as Christendom's scribes have exposed the false doctrine of the Trinity.

That can happen too often. And some (hopefully very few) who see the current emotional vulnerability of persons abused in the past may also "abuse" them again by claiming that they will get justice for them by collecting money to be that "voice." Persons completely unrelated to Witnesses and ex-Witnesses and Catholics and ex-Catholics have already begun knocking to take advantage of persons in both groups. (Heard from a witness in Australia. The persons involved were not attorneys.)

"In America, most of us think of Jehovah’s Witnesses as that occasional Saturday nuisance" quoted by @JayWitness. (Interesting discussion by the way).
Well, here we have a paradox well known to philosphers. Can tolerance tolerate intolerance and survive? Or must the intolerant learn to tolerate the tolerant? An argument for unlimited or absolute tolerance makes no logical or Biblical sense to me. I mean, no-one should not have to tolerate tobacco smoke if they are a non-smoker.
Numbers 25:10-11 indicates a limit to tolerance from a Biblical perspective, modified later, for example, by statements such as that at Rom.12:17-19.
Christians are tolerant of the current state of affairs, as is Jehovah, but know that His tolerance has limits, and await His action as stated. Meanwhile, we are grateful where the attitude above prevails at present, but we will tolerate intolerance, opposition, and even injustice for as long as Jehovah does.
 

"In America, most of us think of Jehovah’s Witnesses as that occasional Saturday nuisance" quoted by @JayWitness. (Interesting discussion by the way).
Well, here we have a paradox well known to philosphers. Can tolerance tolerate intolerance and survive? Or must the intolerant learn to tolerate the tolerant? An argument for unlimited or absolute tolerance makes no logical or Biblical sense to me. I mean, no-one should not have to tolerate tobacco smoke if they are a non-smoker.
Numbers 25:10-11 indicates a limit to tolerance from a Biblical perspective, modified later, for example, by statements such as that at Rom.12:17-19.
Christians are tolerant of the current state of affairs, as is Jehovah, but know that His tolerance has limits, and await His action as stated. Meanwhile, we are grateful where the attitude above prevails at present, but we will tolerate intolerance, opposition, and even injustice for as long as Jehovah does.
 

Love the new Notes features of JW Library App! Very helpful with personal study with adding notes and tags for references.  Definitely will be part of Family Worship night for the week.  Best part, our Notes can now be transferred and updated on variety of electronic sources.
Thanks so much!

1920 - Golden Age ABC v3.pdf

Of course. Congregation elders have been instructed that any situation where a child is at risk should be reported to the police regardless. Also, any congregation member that becomes aware of such a matter is at liberty to report the matter to the authorities regardless. Family members also have that right, congregation members or otherwise. 
This may not have always been clearly understood, but then neither has the extent of this heinous crime.
However, I do struggle with the logic that says we must put the suffering of an innocent person due to false allegations second to the protection of likely vicitms and potential future victims. Not the least factor in this is the demonstrable incompetency at times of the agencies we entrust with carrying out  "proper" investigations.
The following cases are relevant and sadly by no means isolated: 2014 David Bryant; 2015 Jay Cheshire.

Do you think I'm telling you all this? This is a public forum, not a private chatroom don't forget. However, I will address the following comments specifically to the points you have raised.
I have heard Joseph in Egypt and children in abusive situations mentioned before in parallel for various reasons by persons other than yourself. I object strongly to the general assertion or inference that the suffering of children has any value or place in anything that Jehovah is accomplishing no matter how tenuous. I find any connecting of Jehovah's name to the heinous practice of child abuse to be disgusting in the least. And that regardless of the intention. The only compensating factor, save the welcome bringing to man's harsh justice now of these miserable perpetrators (Rom.13:4), is the fact that, for those victims who survive and who are able to draw close to Jehovah, there is the prospect of Isaiah 65:17 being fulfilled: "the former things will not be called to mind, Nor will they come up into the heart".
What we mean to say and what others might draw from what we say is a very important consideration we should take prior to voicing our views publicly. Personally, I welcome the opportunity to share in a forum like this because, among other things, it trains thinking ability, enables me to test the soundness of a view, and to adjust when an error, weakness, or ambiguity is exposed. Surely that is one of the lessons contained in Proverbs 12:17: "The first to state his case seems right, until the other party comes and cross-examines him".
However I would respectfully point out the warning given at the beginning of this "Controversial Posts" section of the forum: Only enter this section if you feel strong enough spiritually to defend yourself biblically. This is an area where topics that arouse strong feelings are discussed. This means that views you may present here will be will be subject to what you might feel is rather overly rigorous scrutiny. And as this may well be by persons who do not share your faith or principle, this scrutiny could be aggressively critical, hence the entry caution.
However, many of us have been witnesses for even longer than yourself, and just because we do not agree with what you say or how perhaps you present what you  say, it does not mean we are attacking or opposing you personally. And in no way does it justify being termed in response, insultingly, as apostate!
You could welcome the opportunity to test (and improve) the incisiveness of your argumentation in the spirit of Pro.27:17 "As iron sharpens iron, so one man [woman] sharpens his [her] friend".

But not by First Century Christians taught by Jesus you know the ones in the New Testament. They used the BIBLE. The Bible, every single book in it, was written by Jews and Jews do not believe in God as a Trinity. So nobody can claim the Trinity is in the Bible if the writers did not believe in it. In fact WHO did believe in a Trinity at the time the Bible was written, say the first 5 books of Moses? It was the Egyptians the very ones who enslaved the Jews. And throughout history it was always the ENEMIES of God's people who believed in trinities : Egyptians, Babylonians, Medes, Persians, Assyrians and so forth.