Anna

Yes it is enjoyable to learn the truth. We just have to make sure that when it comes to truth that we do not get our info from a biased source. It seems that some things you have pasted were from people or groups who are very negative to Jehovah's Witnesses. If you had lived in the First Century would you ask the Jews who were responsible for killing Jesus and who hated his followers for info on the Christians? Of course not you would ask the Christians not some other group. If you want to know about Catholics then ask a Catholic. Same with any other group or religion especially since the true religion would be hated everywhere. Notice the principle of this Scripture :"But we think it proper to HEAR FROM YOU what your thoughts are, for truly as regards this sect, we know that it is SPOKEN AGAINST everywhere." Acts 28:22. 
   Jehovah's Witnesses are "spoken against everywhere". A religion that is NOT "orthodox" according to the majority would be considered a "cult" or "sect" obviously a derogatory term as noted in this Scripture. Satan is "misleading the ENTIRE inhabited earth"{ Rev. 12:9} so the vast majority of religions would be mislead as well not just a small minority religion. Since the Trinity is the "central doctrine" of Christendom and the majority are being mislead then logic dictates that perhaps many other teachings of Christendom are also false. So please keep searching and if you have questions then ask one of Jehovah's Witnesses in person if you can as well as visit their website. May Jehovah be with your search for Truth. 
{And please remember that this is the Internet and not everyone here is a faithful and loyal Witness or faithful and loyal at all even if they pretend to be, that is why it is good to seek out the Witnesses in your own area where you live and not rely on bloggers for the right perspectives.}

You can always start another thread if one gets enormous.
I doubt you caused any real angst for anyone. Anyone who shares an internet forum or even responds to a youtube video will be well prepared for just about anything. I had hoped you would share what caused you to make such a big decision about religion recently.
I've seen several who decide to leave the Witnesses and not to come back. They take various paths, often immersing themselves in a lot of study and research to be sure they made the right decision. Sometimes, depending on their motives, they are able to offer something valuable in a kind of "exit interview." I think people would be surprised at all the things that were changed for the better, specifically because an "infamous GB apostate" once decided to write a book about his experiences.
So if you have any constructive criticism, I think it would be welcomed. From what I could gather from these last several posts, it was a lot of different things that piled up at once and crowded out the ability to see light at the end of the tunnel, as it were.
The reason I put it this way to you is not because I think my way of looking at doctrines is so much better, but because I think you showed exactly the right motive when your frustration with doctrinal discussion led you to see Christianity more in terms of 'what sort of persons we ought to be.'
As you might have gathered from other posts, I believe we have the Trinity right, hell/soul/torment right, new heavens and new paradise earth right, neutrality/war right, preaching activity, etc., etc., etc. And I've seen many dozens of positive adjustments in my lifetime. But I also think we have several things wrong, and probably need more adjustments even on the things we have right.
I could list all the things I think we might have wrong in one single place, and this might seem overwhelming, but I prefer to deal with the evidence for one thing at a time. And this is easier on others, too.
I hope you feel welcome if you continue to contribute here, or wherever else you decide.

Not many people do this. I like it. Micah goes up a few notches in my book. [No, not THAT book, you old hag of a Librarian...sheesh! And why don't you mind your own business about how long a thread is? Those trashy romance novels you read all day aren't exactly short, are they?]
It's how I try to operate, as well. Make the best case you can. But there comes a point where you throw it all in God's lap; he knows if he is a trinity or not.
Sometimes people disagree. I can live with that. 

Who doesn't?
Besides, you know full well that beheading is no more than an auxiliary point, nowhere presented as the main reason. These days (thankfully) it recedes even more as a factor when the subject is discussed.
(just in case you are on to something, though, I haven't taken a nap since I read your words)

If it falls down here, there is little point in arguing on any other basis. No need to sledgehammer this little nut.

Typical half-baked argument. The so-called "birthday fun", no matter how twee, is imposed upon children by adults.
Children would not attach any significance to birthdays, if they even remembered them, without this practice being continually reinforced by doting adults often under the influence of commercial and media propoganda.
To say that children are then "denied fun" is like a drug dealer complaining that prohibition is denying his clients fun from using a substance he has addicted them to for his own personal gain.
Try another tack on this please!

The caption below the picture in the link says approximately the following in Portuguese:
A new line of research, known as intelligent design, believes that the complexity of life and the perfection of nature proves the existence of a higher being. At the core of research in science, faith and society, newly opened by one of the largest universities in São Paulo, in partnership with American institutions, scholars discard the creation of the world by mere chance and analyze genetic codes as a kind of 'signature of God '.
Of course, "intelligent design" is actually an old line of research, not a new one. And everything else said about intelligent design here in the above quote is correct. However, these attempts to make it seem like a science are extremely flawed and nearly always end up embarrassing themselves by joining with "young earth" enthusiasts who claim the earth (and sun, for that matter) are no more than 6,000 years old. They often either deny the existence of dinosaurs, or say the fossils were placed here by God or Satan as a test of our faith, or claim that dinosaurs were alive when Adam named them, but died in the Flood.
The idea that DNA is a kind of signature of God is a good way to put it. But throwing in the idea that the NAME of God might be found in DNA is completely fake. By whatever methods anyone can tell you that the name YHWH is in DNA, those same methods will also be able to prove that the name Satan, Lucifer, Beelzebul, Devil, Hezekiah, Lincoln, Trump, Hitler, Jesus, Putin, Petunia, Sally, etc., are found just as easily -- because anything can be done with numbers. People will see what they want to see. (A little like 99% of all the so-called Biblical chronology predictions that have gone on for the last 1,000 years.)

Absolutely!
"waiting on Jehovah" can unfortunately become a rather patronising and cliched expression due to it's inappropriate use and application (by some) to doing.... "nothing!".
Although the phrase as such does not exactly appear in the Scriptures, the idea expressed at James 5:7-8 certainly captures the principle of patiently and humbly awaiting Jehovah's time to put an end to the oppression and injustice lowly ones experience when unfairly treated by those with the upper hand in this current unjust system of things. I mean, no man can depose Satan the Devil as "ruler of the world"
Similarly, both Jeremiah and Micah use the phrase "waiting attitude". In the case of Jeremiah, when contemplating the sad end of unfaithful Jerusalem, there was the prospect of restoration in Jehovah's due time. Something Jeremiah would not actually see in his lifetime, although he did escape the destruction of Jerusalem with his life, thanks to Jehovah's protection. 
Micah, of course experienced some measure of relief in surviving through the rule of unfaithful king Ahaz into a far better environment under faithful King Hezekiah's rule, but still awaited Jehovah's time for the fulfillment of his prophetic words in, for example, Mic.4:1-4.
With the words related to "wait" appearing in Scripture over 180 times, there is ample basis for understanding what it means to "wait", what it is we should be "waiting for", and the correct attitude to display whilst "waiting".
One scripture which contradicts the erroneous application of the principle of "waiting on Jehovah" is contained in Pro.3:27:
"Do not withhold good from those to whom you should give it if it is within your power to help."
In harmony with the prophetic warning in 1Tim 3:1-5, the insidious plague of child abuse has infected every institution amongst humankind, including the family. For decent, honest people, this is an affront to basic human morality.  For those who love Jehovah, it is an unthinkable and henious crime against God Himself, and an inexcusable betrayal of trust toward victims.
Despite this, it's seemingly inexorable march continues, aided by internet, base criminality, incompetence and, extraordinarily, by the inability of many decent folk to accept that humans can be that evil.
The willingness of responsible ones among Jehovah's Witnesses to adjust procedural instructions in the face of criticism from worldly authorities and lay persons alike, (by no small means aided by the vitriolic poison of apostate slander), gives the lie to the view that such matters should "wait on Jehovah" for resolution.
Could you quote a source for factual detail if you are not at liberty to provide the information yourself?
Quite true in principal. But... all these dead people named as alleged examples.....Just tedious.
Isn't there anything that can be proved???
 
 

It seems this subject has such an emotive element that there is often a tendency to "shoot from the hip" in responses from all sides.
For example: 
Is this referring to those who criticize JW procedure in handling cases of child abuse? Surely not thought through if so?
In medieval times, plague was known as the “Black Death” and resulted in millions of Europeans dying. Indeed, the incidence of this virulent disease in recent times seems minimal by comparison......at face value.

This little table can be seen in the context of this comment regarding the first decade of the century:   In the United States, 57 persons were reported to have the disease, of which seven died. Worldwide, 21,725 persons were affected with 1,612 deaths, for a case-fatality rate of 7.4%. (National Center for Biotechnology Information). 
In the context of the comment made earlier, regarding diminishing concern regarding plague, this quote from Wikipedia should serve to modify this remark: 
Third Plague Pandemic is the designation of a major bubonic plague pandemic that began in Yunnan province in China in 1855.[1] This episode of bubonic plague spread to all inhabited continents, and ultimately more than 12 million people died in India and China, with 10 million people killed in India alone.[2] According to the World Health Organization, the pandemic was considered active until 1959, when worldwide casualties dropped to 200 per year.
The comment on diminishing "worry" regarding plague seems to have been presented as a parallel to counter the view of @bruceq that the crime of "child abuse" would escalate as an indication of us being in "the last days". The facts indicate that severe and devastating incidence of plague is not limited to the 13th-17th century. Further research on professional views of this disease highlight concerns regarding anti-biotic resistance, travel based ease of transmission, social conditions exacerbating spread (deprivation induced hygeine factors etc). Only the stretched resources of finance, the dedication of medical professionals working at the limits of current scientific defences hold back the tide of plague in the modern world. (In my opinion, of course)
So, for those who believe Jesus prophecy on end times in Matt 24; Mark 13; Luke 21 (as well as the symbolic ride of Revelation 6's four horseman) to have significance for the period since 1914, there is little basis for minimising concern regarding plague from both an eschatological or medical perspective. Therefore, on that basis, to conclude that:
appears to be a highly suspect comparison. And actually strikes me as likely to reflect a highly Ameri/Eurocentric view, as does the whole child abuse debate.
At best, it appears to me that institutional handling of this crime may well be improved by state intervention in policy formulation in those countries strongly influenced by N/W European culture (and I include N America and Australa/N Zealand in that).
But who knows what has gone on, and continues to occur, in Eurasia, Asia, Africa, S America, M/Eastern etc areas? What basis is there for thinking that the rather pathetic, horse-bolted efforts of some countries of a very similar Western-influenced culture will have any effect on entrenched and historic practice and attitudes in areas of far greater population density?
No. I am afraid that on the basis of this argument,  I cannot agree with the suggestion that abuse of children in all it's unacceptable guises will diminish as this system continues to blunder to it's inevitable end. Ps.72:12-14.  
Length of posts seeming to be an important criteria here, I will cease (for now) at this point. 

I suspect that it really is much worse in other religions. I have already seen people who take the data that comes out of the Australian studies to try to show that it must be about 10 to 50 times worse, as a ratio, among Jehovah's Witnesses as it is among Catholics. I think this interpretation of the numbers is ludicrous. I found it to be a useful point when you pointed out that the numbers among JWs may refer to both "higher ups" AND the "rank and file," while the numbers from the Catholic Church refer mostly to "higher ups."
I was trying to find a way of saying that it was not all four "higher ups" at the London Branch who had been accused. You might have already been aware of the news when three of the persons with the highest responsibilities at the Branch were dismissed at the same time, and I did not want to cast aspersions against all of them. But you have put me in the awkward position of thinking I should defend the truthfulness of what I said. In Australia not only does the list include circuit overseers, and a former district overseer, but the accused included a person who had been a former Australian Branch overseer himself. One of the very cases that we listened to testimony about in the ARC was a case where the accused was one of these at the top of the Australian Branch organization.
So I mention the parallels as a way of showing the seriousness, even though all of us have the desire to protect the reputation of the Organization. I think it's just as dangerous to minimize the cases as it is to exaggerate them.
With respect to the Interview you mentioned, it's hard to imagine this in any institution, but there really are parallels even if we are not trying to equate our problems with Catholic problems. Although I am not speaking of child abuse, exactly, there have been cases of collusion among some accused of wife-swapping, two or more elders who all committed fornication with the same young sister, and in at least one of these cases, more than one of the accused Witnesses ended up being friends with each other, and supposedly had used this friendship to cover for each other. Something related to this has been claimed for a couple of Australian congregations and three California congregations.
I can't claim direct knowledge of those things that I just mentioned in the last paragraph, but I can claim almost direct knowledge, or at least knowledge that came to me from a member of the GB, whom I worked for. At the time there were about 16 active members of the Governing Body, and one had been accused of homosexual tendencies (Chitty), while two others had been accused of multiple child abuse instances (Greenlees and Jaracz). Another was a 80+-year GB member (Fred Franz) who had made it a longstanding practice to meet with more than a dozen naked and semi-naked 19-year olds in the sauna (steam room), who came there to listen to his Bible discussions for up to two hours every Wednesday night. Two of those GB members were dismissed from Bethel, the other two remained at Bethel until they died. I mention all of these because it reflects on 25% of the highest organizational leadership at the time. We know that it's often those with a measure of authority who use their position to manipulate the situation allowing for the crimes and the cover-up of their crimes.
So, unfortunately, I cannot accept some of the excuses about needing to slap down those who see problematic parallels. Finding the parallels with other institutions might even be a way to find more solutions that have seemed to work in some of these other institutions. I don't think it matters who is better or worse, it matters that we find more ways to help the situation, help the victims, and keep the organization clean. Making the organization appear cleaner is not the same as truly working to make it clean. I'm a firm believer in facing the issue head on as the fastest way to clean it up.

"What does Jehovah doing things in certain unusual ways have to do with child abuse?"
This was the thinking also of a certain other poster on a similar thread, and I hate saying this, but perhaps this kind of mentality has been the reason for non reporting and other inefficiencies regarding the handling of child sexual abuse. Yes, it is true that Jehovah should figure in our trying to solve problems, since being a JW is a way of life, but when it comes to handling of child sexual abuse, "waiting on Jehovah" and other perceived theocratic sensibilities just don't seem appropriate in this situation.

Not logical. The choice of quote may be inspired and the point made, but inclusion of a quotation does not make the work quoted from inspired. Acts 17:28 is a case in point.

Hey bro, you aren't making sense here. "non-sequitr" - it does not follow. Jude’s quote is not the only quote in the Bible from a non-biblical source. The Apostle Paul quotes Epimenides in Titus 1:12 but that does not mean we should give any additional authority to Epimenides’ writings. The same is true with Jude, verses 14-15. Jude quoting from the book of Enoch does not indicate the entire Book of Enoch is inspired, or even true. All it means is that particular verse is true. It is interesting to note that no (or at least very few) scholars believe the Book of Enoch to have truly been written by the Enoch in the Bible contrary to your assertion here. Once again, it's time to check your "facts" - however well-intentioned they may be. There is no indication whatsoever that "It is very likely that Jesus read the Book of Enoch and believed it to be scripture. It was considered scripture by many early Christians as well." (?)  To quote Wikipedia:  "It is regarded as canonical by the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church and Eritrean Orthodox Tewahedo Church, but not by any other Christian groups."
Nobody is suggesting any of what you are writing about in this last post. Of course, giving a literal interpretation of everything in the Bible doesn't make sense. Is there anyone who actually believes literal monsters are going to crawl out of the see with a giant harlot drinking wine riding them? 
Maybe the simple message of love Jesus taught doesn't need much to interpret it, even though many still seem to misunderstand it, and it is also fair to say that human "rules and traditions" shouldn't be come into play here, but that doesn't mean no interpretation of things pertaining to God's will and purposes hasn't played an important role in God's inspired word. The Bible is full of interpretations, many in the very book you often quote - the book of Daniel. Some interpretations were for immediate benefit, others for later. Now as for "unconditional love," it seems you have a romanticized ideal of what that should involve which has no basis in support either from the Bible or any other Holy Book. So you are on your own again on that one - a force of one. It is true, that Jehovah showed extraordinary love in offering the life of his son in behalf of mankind who were in effect enemies. But that didn't mean that "anything goes," or it didn't matter whether people accepted or rejected his son. It doesn't mean that God's love is so expansive that it doesn't matter how we use our freedom of choice as to good or bad, righteous or evil. With that freedom comes accountability, and even though God may show principled love to individuals even when they are imperfect, like every loving parent, there are boundaries that are for the benefit of all and are intrinsic to his standards and the outworking of his purposes. For, if, in extending "unconditional love," he tolerated wickedness without accountability, it wouldn't really be love - especially for those who may suffer because of the wickedness that this "unconditional love" might allow. "Unconditional love" is a myth that has no scriptural basis. It's not what real love is or should be. And the romantic notion that it doesn't matter what you believe or do is just that. A "pie-in-the sky" that has no solid support anywhere.
Matthew 12:31-33 "...but the blasphemy against the spirit will not be forgiven...it will not be forgiven him , no, not in this system of things nor in that to come."  1 John 5 "For this is what the love of God means, that we observe his commandments..." Deut. 30:19 "I take the heavens and the earth as witnesses against you today that I have put life and death before you, the blessing and the curse; and you must choose life so that you may live..." Genesis 2:17 "But as for the tree of the knowledge of god and bad, you must not eat from it, for in the day you eat from it you will certainly die." (If God's love was "unconditional," Adam would not have been sentenced to death and in the process, it would have made God appear to be a liar for not holding Adam accountable for his actions as he said he would. Who could ever really trust Him after something like that? Who could ever put faith in what he says?) Similarly, are we to believe without any scriptural basis whatsoever that God's "unconditional love" absolves Satan of any accountability for all the pain and suffering he has caused and would continue to cause if he were not held accountable? Even in the so-called Book of Enoch, God pronounces doom and judgments against fallen angels and the coming judgment of the wicked.(The Book of Parables). Don't fool yourself. Unconditional love is not really love at all. It is the toleration of wickedness with a nice sounding label.

Actually this is a valid point but is also an overstatement. The word "never" exaggerates. The Roman Catholic church, as an example, has received considerable publicity over this matter, albeit with a focus on clergy crime. 
This topic provokes strong reactions wherever it is raised, not least because it seems to be one of the final frontiers of morality left in this broken system. Many Jehovah's Witnesses have little detailed knowledge of the topic from a media perspective, both because of it's extreme distastefulness as well as the aforementioned negative media bias with it's apostate links.
It is difficult to get a rational grasp on the matter, even more so on the real facts behind what appears in the media. I have found the factual element of what has been posted on this forum to be very useful along with links to information sources. The various viewpoints expressed, including those I do not share, have been enlightening. 
In field ministry recently, I met the director of a national mental health organisation. He is known for having very strong and negative views on Jehovah's Witnesses in general, and particularly in the area of handling child abuse. He is not averse to loudly disputing with Witnesses on the street, hailing facts and figures to support his views to such an extent that most cannot engage with him. The information I had gleaned from postings here was very useful, and I was able have have a fact-driven conversation with this vociferous man, with an insight into his pattern of thinking. At least the level of emotion  and speech volume was reduced, and I think that being able to engage rationally and factually was a factor in that. A position held in ignorance of facts in an emotional exchange is guaranteed to fuel an angry reaction.
Hopefully, this topic will generate a useful contribution.

I always exaggerate. 'Never' in MySpeak means 'rarely.' 'All' means 'most.'
But in this case, I hold to the never. It is membership I am speaking of. Everybody's clergy gets outed when they do wrong in this regard, but nobody's membership. It's because nobody has a clue as to what their membership is up to. Nobody feels the obligation to present to God a morally clean people, so they don't bother checking to see what members apply biblical morality and what do not. If a member gets blown in for child abuse, it's not their affair; in fact, they know nothing about it. They are not the 'middleman'  and thus cannot be called to account for whether or not they handled matters in the way deemed acceptable by abuse people today.
So with regard to members, how else are we to know an abuser's religious affiliation? Can we imagine the police or the judge will ask about it? Of course, they will not, so the only membership you will hear about is Jehovah's Witnesses. We have a 'vulnerability' in this regard, and it is vulnerability that stems from doing the right thing. If we ignored the conduct of our members, as others do, we would not have this vulnerability. We also, in time, would not have a congregation looking much different than the world in matters of morality. That is what infuriates former members who are now enemies: our attempt to do so, for many of them were once on the losing end of discipline. 
Our 'clergy' stack up pretty well with regard to abuse, and clergy is the only place where you can compare apples to apples - you can't do it with membership because no one else keeps track.
In 2007,  Watchtower settled a number of abuse cases. This statement was released to the media at that time: "For the sake of the victims in these cases, we are pleased that a settlement has been reached. Our hearts go out to all those who suffer as a result of child abuse....During the last 100 years, only eleven elders have been sued for child abuse in thirteen lawsuits filed in the US. In seven of these lawsuits against the elders, accusations against the Watchtower Society itself were dismissed by the courts. Of course one victim is one victim too many. However, the incidence of this crime among Jehovah’s Witnesses is rare..."
We have a missing puzzle piece here. We know the stats for abuse among our 'clergy.' We know the stats for abuse among the clergy of others. But when it comes to membership, we only know the stats for Jehovah's Witnesses. So as not to be comparing apples to oranges, we need to know the stats for the membership of other faiths. We will never get them because nobody keeps track. So people who know better (and many who don't) will continue to equate the membership of Jehovah's Witnesses with the clergy of other religions.
With a missing puzzle piece that will not be supplied, all we can do is extrapolate. If eleven Witness clergy were sued over 100 years, with only four of them stemming from any culpability from the organization, then I submit that the overall rate among the members will also be low. If it is seen to be high, then the overall rate among memberships elsewhere will be astronomical.  
Of course, we see that it is. Child sexual abuse everywhere is an absolutely out of control pandemic. Like nurturing a seedling plant through inclement weather, apostates promote the idea that the pedophilia problem is disproportionately a Witness problem. It is not. If stats are disproportionate, it is probably the other way, as it is with clergy.

Assuming I understand this question because it is a little confusing.
If you mean evidence of the divine name dating prior to extant manuscripts for the New Testament, then it is so abundant and in the public domain it is not worth reproducing here.
If you mean manuscripts of the New Testament earlier than what is extant, then I do not know how this could be possible, and the only answer is: as soon as they are found.

It might seem a bit of a nit-picking excercise, which is what often comes into my mind when the term "semantics" is applied in a discussion.
However, in view of the crucial importance of understanding who Jesus is, and the determined and sustained efforts to distort the scriptural truths, I believe it is necessary to set out definitions as precisely as possible. In this case, the development of understanding relating to Jesus role and nature in Scripture has to be something that takes place in the mind of the enquirer as they discern what the Scripture actually says about him. This may require the de-construction and replacement of mistaken ideas, and also, more importantly, as stated by Jesus himself, involves the operation of God's Holy Spirit. Matt.16:13-17.
I suppose one way to illustrate this is to think of shining a light into a dark place. The illumination enables the mind to discern and make sense of what is there already.
What must NOT happen in this development is for someone to take concepts from Scripture, and then construct something over, above, and beyond what was originally written, as if the Scripture provided basic elements or building blocks that would then need elaboration and development in order to be understood. This for me is what has taken place since the Scriptures were completed, resulting in the development of concept and vocabulary that bears no relation to what was originally written. Not least in respect of the Trinity doctrine. As Cos pointed out earlier, "the uses of most of the terms were to fend off attacks by those that opposed the Trinity".
Necessarily, I would exclude the understanding of some Messianic prophecy from this definition, particularly when fulfillment is not recorded in Scripture. The actual fulfillment of prophesied, future events will always add to the understanding of a prophecy, once realised. 
 

Thank you. No I didn't have it already prepared. So far, I've always written "on the spot" and it sometimes shows when I leave out something important.
There is a better way. One of the things I left out is that our doctrine is not strictly Arian, but it is very similar. And I didn't mean to imply that Arianism is directly reflected in John's gospel. It is merely one attempted "solution" to the one-or-two-or-three-Gods issue, and it happens to be one that we agree with in more aspects than not. I believe I'll get to those differences when I get a chance to respond to Cos again.
That might be a semantic 'distinction without a distinction.' An understanding of Jesus role and nature can still be developed from Scripture even if it is a truth already presented clearly in Scripture when originally written. This would be especially true if a doctrine has been partly obscured and buried by apostate teachers.
Yes, I agree with that. It is both wrong and an anachronism to say that the original teaching of the Greek Scriptures is "Arianism." I had said that "I trace the fundamentals of Arianism to the gospel of John," and I meant this in about the same way that someone might read C.T.Russell's early Watch Tower publications and say that he could trace the fundamentals of "Russellism" to the Bible, even if he still disagreed with much of it. My main point was that the parts of Arianism that Witnesses agree with completely really are found in John's gospel, even if Arius wasn't born until perhaps 150+ years after John wrote.

Sorry but to me the Truth is simple and I try to imitate my Great Teacher 
The basic truths of God’s Word are not incomprehensible or complicated. In prayer, Jesus said: “I publicly praise you, Father, . . . because you have hidden these things from the wise and intellectual ones and have revealed them to babes.” (Matthew 11:25) Jehovah has caused his purposes to be revealed to those with sincere and humble hearts. (1 Corinthians 1:26-28) Thus, simplicity is a key feature of Bible truth.
   In forums there can be an “extravagance of speech” which could be intimidating, especially to those with limited education or ability like me. (1 Corinthians 2:1, 2) Jesus’ example shows that simple words carefully chosen can convey the truth with much power.
   It also often helps in not "debating about words" by being simple. And I am therefore trying not to be argumentative with people here. The simple statement that the Bible was written by Jews who do not believe in a Trinity I think goes much farther then debating and arguing over words. I have had tremendous success with that approach in field service over the past 40 years.
   To tell an experience when I was a teenager back in 1978 my next door neighbor was a Pentecostal Born-Again Fundamentalist who challenged me {a Jehovah's Witness} to have a debate on the Trinity. We gave each other one month to get all the info we could to defend our positions. During that time I went a little overboard {It was summer vacation and I had alot of free time} I read the ENTIRE Bible and wrote down every Scripture that would contradict the idea of a Trinity. But then I didn't stop there as I knew he would say "Well that is your Bible" so I acquired 50 different Translations and checked all of them against the Scriptures I found. Anyway after the month was over we came together and he showed me one page on paper with about 10 Scriptures. I showed him my kitchen table filled with 50 Bibles and 250 pages of 1,200 Scriptures against the Trinity. Well after he saw that do you know what he said? "Well I have faith that God is a Trinity" and didn't even want to discuss it further and his mother said he could not be my friend anymore ! 
   After that I decided to simplify my approach to Witnessing although I still have those Scriptures bound in a book entitled "Jehovah Our God Is One Jehovah". {never published as I didn't feel worthy enough to do so with my research at age 15}. Anyway reading the Bible with the intent of debating with others is not the proper way to get to "know God" as I learned by trial and error. Jn. 17:3.

These are just books I have used, I do not endorse any except the BIBLE. I thought I made myself clear on that.  I find no problem researching other books then ones written by Witnesses as most of the books I listed are also quoted by  Watchtower publications. I offer these so people can check for themselves what is written within the context of the material and who wrote it. Of course there are inaccuracies in all books that are not the Bible because they are not the inspired WORD of GOD. Jn. 17:17.
These are SECULAR books. But Bible Truth is found in the Bible.
 
"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"
Very good point and should that also be done with the BIBLE? As you quoted above by that criteria JEWS WROTE THE BIBLE and JEWS do not believe in a Trinity. So no one can find it there no matter what.
(1) Who published this material? What are the author’s credentials? The Bible was written by Jews who were under inspiration from God and did not believe in a Trinity.
(2) Why was this published? What motivated the writer? Is there any bias? God the author wanted to let us know who he is {not a Trinity} and have a relationship with him. 
(3) Where did the author get the information? Does he supply sources that can be checked? Inspired by GOD. So you cannot argue with it or make the author believe something other than he really believes in.
(4) Is the information current?" - Watchtower, 8/15/2011, p.4" The Bible is for ALL ages as it comes from the "ONLY true God" Jn. 17:3

@Witness I understand "obedience to the GB/elders" to be more of a "organizational and keeping the congregation moraly clean" nature rather than what the apostle Paul was talking about in context which was: they had a clear command from God, and men were telling them to stop. I have not known the GB to ask us to break any commandment from God. If they did, then obviously  we would want to obey God rather than them.

Wow, this thread has grown so fast I hardly have time to keep up with it! Very good reading though and some good reasoning. What I have found though when it comes to arguing with Trinitarians about the Trinity....it leads absolutely nowhere....mainly because the Trinity is such a fundamental and "sacred" idea to them that denying it is tantamount to blasphemy. To them it's almost like if an atheist tried to convince us Witnesses that there is no God.
What I find fascinating is that pretty much everything surrounding the birth of the Trinity, or the official definition of it, or the definition of the substance of the Christ in relation to God etc. is based on human philosophies and not the simple and pure language of the scriptures.  Jesus’ disciples in the 1st Century clearly understood  Jesus to be  the son of God and a separate being from him. The simple statements that the Bible makes about the Father, his son and the holy spirit were later twisted into an incomprehensible pretzel, which as Eoin points out, needs an equally incomprehensible vocabulary and explanations which actually don’t explain anything and so ironically end up being called a “mystery” for simplicity sake.
Just the other day in service we got to talking to a man who brought up the argument that Jesus could not have been a created being because if he was, he could not have atoned for our sins. That he had to be God himself to make the sacrifice valid. Where do they get that idea from? Doesn’t  Paul in 1 Cor 45-47 explain it quite well: “So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living person.”  The last Adam became a life-giving spirit...... The first man is from the earth and made of dust; the second man is from heaven”. In fact, why did the 2nd Century “church fathers” have the need to define the substance of Jesus when as the apostle Paul says “If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual one”. All they had to do is simply understand that when Jesus was first created he had a spiritual body, then when he was transferred into the womb of Mary he had a physical body and when he was resurrected he became a spirit being again.
It's interesting that the church fathers didn't seem to refer to the scriptures much but rather to Greek and other philosophical ideas to determine the substance of the Christ. They preferred going beyond what was written.

To who?  John Fox? Russell Warren? Micah Ong? ........... 
But .....who is inviting them? Who is selecting them? Who is assisting them in their earthy course? Who is blessing their activity in harmony with His will? Who is the Head of their congregation? Who is judging them to be faithful? Who resurrrects them to heavenly life? Who reveals their actual number? Who stands with them in vision when the number is revealed? Whose names are written on their foreheads at that time?
Well, I don't see the names John Fox, Russell Warren, Micah Ong, or indeed any other human name figuring in the answers to the questions above so...............adding up the numbers is best  left to those qualified to do so.

The quote you have chosen to support your argument is from an article that is almost 60 years old. I find it hard to believe that you are not aware of more recent articles. Here goes:
Questions From Readers
When John saw the “great crowd” rendering sacred service in Jehovah’s temple, in which part of the temple were they doing this?—Revelation 7:9-15.
It is reasonable to say that the great crowd worships Jehovah in one of the earthly courtyards of his great spiritual temple, specifically the one that corresponds with the outer courtyard of Solomon’s temple.
In times past, it has been said that the great crowd is in a spiritual equivalent, or an antitype, of the Court of the Gentiles that existed in Jesus’ day. However, further research has revealed at least five reasons why that is not so. First, not all features of Herod’s temple have an antitype in Jehovah’s great spiritual temple. For example, Herod’s temple had a Court of the Women and a Court of Israel. Both men and women could enter the Court of the Women, but only men were allowed into the Court of Israel. In the earthly courtyards of Jehovah’s great spiritual temple, men and women are not separated in their worship. (Galatians 3:28, 29) Hence, there is no equivalent of the Court of the Women and the Court of Israel in the spiritual temple.
Second, there was no Court of the Gentiles in the divinely provided architectural plans of Solomon’s temple or Ezekiel’s visionary temple; nor was there one in the temple rebuilt by Zerubbabel. Hence, there is no reason to suggest that a Court of the Gentiles needs to play a part in Jehovah’s great spiritual temple arrangement for worship, especially when the following point is considered.
Third, the Court of the Gentiles was built by the Edomite King Herod to glorify himself and to curry favor with Rome. Herod set about renovating Zerubbabel’s temple perhaps in 18 or 17 B.C.E. The Anchor Bible Dictionary explains: “The classical tastes of the imperial power to the West [Rome] . . . mandated a temple larger than those of comparable eastern cities.” However, the dimensions of the temple proper were already established. The dictionary explains: “While the Temple itself would have to have the same dimensions as its predecessors [Solomon’s and Zerubbabel’s], the Temple Mount was not restricted in its potential size.” Hence, Herod expanded the temple area by adding on what in modern times has been called the Court of the Gentiles. Why would a construction with such a background have an antitype in Jehovah’s spiritual temple arrangement?
Fourth, almost anyone—the blind, the lame, and uncircumcised Gentiles—could enter the Court of the Gentiles. (Matthew 21:14, 15) True, the court served a purpose for many uncircumcised Gentiles who wished to make offerings to God. And it was there that Jesus sometimes addressed the crowds and twice expelled the money changers and merchants, saying that they had dishonored the house of his Father. (Matthew 21:12, 13; John 2:14-16) Still, The Jewish Encyclopedia says: “This outer court was, strictly speaking, not a part of the Temple. Its soil was not sacred, and it might be entered by any one.”
Fifth, the Greek word (hi·e·ron’) translated “temple” that is used with reference to the Court of the Gentiles “refers to the entire complex, rather than specifically to the Temple building itself,” says A Handbook on the Gospel of Matthew, by Barclay M. Newman and Philip C. Stine. In contrast, the Greek word (na·os’) translated “temple” in John’s vision of the great crowd is more specific. In the context of the Jerusalem temple, it usually refers to the Holy of Holies, the temple building, or the temple precincts. It is sometimes rendered “sanctuary.”—Matthew 27:5, 51; Luke 1:9, 21; John 2:20.
Members of the great crowd exercise faith in Jesus’ ransom sacrifice. They are spiritually clean, having “washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.” Hence, they are declared righteous with a view to becoming friends of God and of surviving the great tribulation. (James 2:23, 25) In many ways, they are like proselytes in Israel who submitted to the Law covenant and worshiped along with the Israelites.
Of course, those proselytes did not serve in the inner courtyard, where the priests performed their duties. And members of the great crowd are not in the inner courtyard of Jehovah’s great spiritual temple, which courtyard represents the condition of perfect, righteous human sonship of the members of Jehovah’s “holy priesthood” while they are on earth. (1 Peter 2:5) But as the heavenly elder said to John, the great crowd really is in the temple, not outside the temple area in a kind of spiritual Court of the Gentiles. What a privilege that is! And how it highlights the need for each one to maintain spiritual and moral purity at all times!
 

Did you note these paragraphs?  Here are some of the websites that are not legitimate.
"Furthermore, all four of the web sites use misleading web site names and URLs in an apparent attempt to trick readers into thinking that they were visiting a legitimate news source. For instance, the first USA News web site uses the domain fox-news24.com. However, this web site is not affiliated with the real Fox News. USA Television also uses a suspicious URL: ab.cnewsgo.com. Again, this web site is not affiliated with ABC News (whose URL is abcnews.go.com), or the real USA television network. 
The URLs for Houston News and the second USA News web site are similarly deceptive. Houston News uses the domain Houstonchronicle-tv.com, though is not affiliated with the real Houston Chronicle, and the second USA News web site also had a name unrelated to its domain: states-tv.com."
Satan uses all sorts of means to deceive us.  if this story is true, our brothers will tell us about it.