Page by Page Response
For ease of use, we formatted our response in a page by page format.  This section responds to the Watchtower publications Reasoning From the Scriptures (RFTS) pages 405 to 426 and the brochure Should you Believe in the Trinity?

Contents: Responses to Reasoning from the Scriptures
  - Reasoning from the Scriptures, p. 405-406a
  - Reasoning from the Scriptures, p. 406b-407a and pp. 380b-381a
  - Reasoning from the Scriptures, p. 407b-408a
  - Reasoning from the Scriptures, p. 408b-409a
  - Reasoning from the Scriptures, p. 409b-411a
  - Reasoning from the Scriptures, p. 411b-412a
  - Reasoning from the Scriptures, p. 412b
  - Reasoning from the Scriptures, p. 412c-413a
  - Reasoning from the Scriptures, p. 413b
  - Reasoning from the Scriptures, p. 413c-414a
  - Reasoning from the Scriptures, p. 414b
  - Reasoning from the Scriptures, p. 414c-415a
  - Reasoning from the Scriptures, p. 415b-416a
  - Reasoning from the Scriptures, p. 416b-417a
  - Reasoning from the Scriptures, p. 417b-418a
  - Reasoning from the Scriptures, p. 418b
  - Reasoning from the Scriptures, p. 418c-419a
  - Reasoning from the Scriptures, p. 419b-420a
  - Reasoning from the Scriptures, p. 420b-421a
  - Reasoning from the Scriptures, p. 421b
  - Reasoning from the Scriptures, p. 422a
  - Reasoning from the Scriptures, p. 422b-423a
  - Reasoning from the Scriptures, p. 423b-424a
  - Reasoning from the Scriptures, p. 424b
  - Reasoning from the Scriptures, p. 424c-425a
  - Reasoning from the Scriptures, p. 425b-426
 

“Neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament”

“Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.”

What is the origin of the Trinity doctrine?
    The New Encyclopedia Britannica says: "Neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: 'Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord' (Deut. 6:4)....The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies....By the end of the 4th century...the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since."—(1976), Micropaedia, Vol. X, p. 126
    The New Catholic Encyclopedia states: "The formulation 'one God in three Persons' was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century.  But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma.  Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective."—(1967), Vol. XIV, p. 299.
    In The Encyclopedia Americana we read: "Christianity derived from Judaism and Judaism was strictly Unitarian [believing that God is one person].  The road which lead from Jerusalem to Nicea was scarcely a straight one.  Fourth century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching."—(1956), Vol. XXVII, p. 294L.
    According to the Nouveau Dictionanaire Universel, "The Platonic trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave birth to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian Churches....This Greek philosopher's [Plato, fourth century B.C.E.] conception of the divine trinity...can be found in all the ancient [pagan] religions."—(Paris, 1865-1870), edited by M. Lachatre, Vol. 2, p. 1467
    John L. McKenzie, S.J., in his Dictionary of the Bible, says: "The trinity of persons within the unity of nature is defined in terms of 'persons' and 'nature' which are G[ree]k philosophical terms; actually the terms do not appear in the Bible.  The trinitarian definitions arose as the result of long controversies in which these terms and other such as 'essence' and 'substance' were erroneously applied to God by some theologians."—(New York, 1965), p. 899.

Response:

“Watchtower offers no meaningful rebuttal of any serious works on the topic nor does it quote any of these sources.”

 “A doctrine is a teaching that explains the Bible. Often times, the exact wording of a doctrine is not found in the Bible.”

 “...there is sufficient plurality within God's own speech in Genesis, the Old Testament and the Shema to allow for accepting the plurality of persons found in Trinitarian doctrine.”

“The Nicene Creed is rarely [if] ever quoted by Watchtower in all the literature that purports to refute it.”

 “The assertion by Watchtower that Nicene teachings are not to be found prior to the fourth century is completely false.”

In all of official recent Watchtower literature, the amount of material regularly used and devoted to debating Trinitarian doctrine would constitute probably around 50 pages in total. By contrast, the Christian literature devotes hundreds of books on this one topic alone.  Peter Toon, in his book Our Triune God, devotes more that 230 pages to extensive discussion on the topic.  James White devotes more than 220 pages in his book The Forgotten Trinity. These books are easily a fraction of the sum total of material to be browsed.  Christian scholars are renown for in-depth study of even the shortest passages.  In John Piper's The Justification of God, 220 pages are devoted to the exposition of Romans 9:1-23 alone!  For this project, more than 125 Ante-Nicene Church books (pre-fourth century) were read and quoted with links and references to the full work provided within this site (see EARLY CHURCH EVIDENCE FOR THE TRINITY).  The reader is encouraged to read the above books for a more historically and exegetically sound study of the Trinity.

It is also important to note the sources used by Watchtower in their defense quoted above.  Research into the matter should span beyond encyclopedic excerpts especially when one considers how "rationalized" such publications are in evaluating the miraculous claims of the Bible and how many hundreds of books are available on the topic (specifically written to address the topic!).  Watchtower offers no meaningful rebuttal of any serious works on the topic nor does it quote any of these sources.  As we will quickly see, the above quotes by Watchtower are not only insufficient to mount a defense of Watchtower doctrine, they are often completely inaccurate.

I am sometimes asked by a Jehovah's Witness if I'm impressed by the amount of work done by Watchtower on the topic of the Trinity.  To the surprise of some, my response is always no.  Those who are impressed seem to come from backgrounds where they hadn't learn about the topic before.  The reason I have not been impressed by Watchtower's work on the subject has less to do with quantity but more with quality.  More often than not, I find the claims made by Watchtower to be completely erroneous or misleading.  The following statement is an excellent example of what I mean by the latter

"Neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament"

There are many doctrines not in the Bible.  A doctrine is a teaching that explains the Bible.  Often times, the exact wording of a doctrine is not found in the Bible.  For example, Jehovah Witnesses have a doctrine that states that Jesus is Michael the Archangel. This is a doctrine, not an explicit biblical teaching.  Nowhere can you find the Bible saying, "Jesus is Michael the Archangel." We could (and will) say that neither these words, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament.  Would this alone be a valid argument?  Of course not.  Doctrines are teachings bringing light to biblical matters explaining what we can understand from Scripture even if Scripture does not explicitly teach such things.  As the Watchtower doctrine of Jesus being Michael the Archangel demonstrates, exact words of a doctrine do not have to appear in the Bible for it to be true. 

We should add to our use of the Archangel example that Jesus is not an angel, as even the NWT translation demonstrates.  "For it is not to angels that he [God] has subjected the inhabited earth to come, about which we are speaking," (Heb. 2:5) but to Christ.  "For in that he subjects all things to him [Christ] [God] left nothing that is not subject to him..." (Heb. 2:8; cf. 2:5-9; 1:5, 7, 13)

Following closely after our first Watchtower quote, we read the following

...nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: 'Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord' (Deut. 6:4)

The Jewish monotheistic confession is called the Shema.  A point of interest about this confession is that the original word for "God" is Elohim which is plural and literally means "mighty ones."  The verse literally means, "The Lord our Mighty Ones is one Lord." Plural expressions used by God are quite common.  In Genesis 1:26 God says, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness..."  That "us" and "our" refers to God and not God "plus other creatures" is made evident by the fact that verse 27 says  "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him..."  I have not found any formally published Watchtower material specifically addressing Genesis 1:26-27, though a common response I hear is that the "us" and "our" God is talking to is the preincarnate Jesus or the angels.  However, it should be of interest to any Jehovah Witness that God tells those described as "us" to "make man."  If we accept that the "us" includes Jesus or the angels then we must also say that Jesus and the angels have powers like God to create (something Witnesses do not believe).  Another problem the Witness must face is the fact that the Bible clearly says that God was alone when he created the heavens and the earth.  Isaiah 44:24 reads, "I am the Lord, who has made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself." (emphasis mine) The "us" and "our" doing the creating in Genesis 1:26 must alone refer to God.  The early church had this same understanding of Genesis 1:26.  Before 230 A.D., Tertullian wrote (Against Praxeas)

SEE THIS IN ITS CONTEXT
I ask you how it is possible for a Being who is merely and absolutely One and Singular, to speak in plural phrase, saying, "Let us make man in our own image, and after our own likeness;" whereas He ought to have said, "Let me make man in my own image, and after my own likeness," as being a unique and singular Being? In the following passage, however, "Behold the man is become as one of us," He is either deceiving or amusing us in speaking plurally, if He is One only and singular. Or was it to the angels that He spoke, as the Jews interpret the passage, because these also acknowledge not the Son? Or was it because He was at once the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, that He spoke to Himself in plural terms, making Himself plural on that very account? Nay, it was because He had already His Son close at His side, as a second Person, His own Word, and a third Person also, the Spirit in the Word, that He purposely adopted the plural phrase, "Let us make;" and, "in our image;" and, "become as one of us." [emphasis added]

What makes Tertullian's remark so significant at this point is that he is one of the early church fathers quoted by Watchtower as supporting their view (See Should you Believe in the Trinity? p. 7 and our response in EARLY CHURCH EVIDENCE FOR THE TRINITY).  It is, in fact, Tertullian who supports the Trinity and, as we'll see shortly, Tertullian who demonstrates that Trinitarian doctrine was not a new belief in the fourth century.  In his letter Against Praxeas, Tertullian defends the Trinity (SEE ENTIRE LETTER).  Tertullian disagrees with the Watchtower teaching that the Spirit is merely the "power" or "force" of God, referring to Him as "a third Person."

What Watchtower would like to have you believe is that there is somehow a contradiction between Trinitarian doctrine and the Shema in Deuteronomy 6:4.  On the contrary, there is sufficient plurality within God's own speech in Genesis, the Old Testament and the Shema to allow for accepting the plurality of persons found in Trinitarian doctrine.  In fact, every time "God" is found in the Old Testament, it is usually the plural word Elohim.  This means that the plural Elohim for "God" is found over 2,500 times in the Old Testament.

What about Watchtower's next claim?

The formulation 'one God in three Persons' was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.

What exactly is this fourth century "formulation" Watchtower keeps talking about.  It's popular name is the Nicene creed.  The more technically correct name for the final orthodox statement is known as the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed because it is the result of the Council of Nicea (325) and the Council of Constantinople (381).  Despite its being known as the official orthodox position on the nature of God, its teachings were nothing new to the church of its time.  "All one has to do is read second- and third-century church fathers such as Athenagorus, Tertullian, Origen or Cyprian to see immediately that Christians believed in the Trinity long before Constantine called all the Christian bishops to the first ecumenical council at Nicea in 325."[1]  The Nicene Creed is rarely [if] ever quoted by Watchtower in all the literature that purports to refute it. If it is to be the subject of heavy debate, we feel it would be helpful for the reader to at least see what it teaches.  The Nicene Creed

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.

Who, for us men for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.

And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds from the Father and the Son; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets.

And I believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

It is exactly this fourth-century teaching of which Watchtower claims, "history makes clear that the Trinity was unknown throughout Biblical times and for several centuries thereafter."[2]  On page 7 of the 1989 brochure Should you Believe in the Trinity?, Watchtower makes the most amazing claim by citing five ante-Nicene Fathers to make its case:  Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Hippolytus and Origen.  Discussed in greater detail in our EARLY CHURCH EVIDENCE FOR THE TRINITY, we are primarily concerned here to demonstrate that aspects of the Nicene Creed were taught well prior to the fourth century.  One may even so bold as to say that entire books were devoted to the defense of the Deity of Christ and explanation of the Trinity (the reader is referred to the following contained in this Web site in full length: 2nd century, Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho and early 3rd century, Tertullian, Against Praxeas).  Let us review at least three teachings of the Nicene Creed and quote exactly when and where these teaching precede the creed.

TEACHING 1
Jesus Christ is God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God.

Justin Martyr writes in the second century

"...the Father of the universe has a Son; who also, being the first-begotten Word of God, is even God."
Justin Martyr, First Apology      ...SEE THIS IN ITS CONTEXT

"Therefore these words testify explicitly that He is witnessed to by Him who established these things, as deserving to be worshipped, as God and as Christ."
Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho      ...SEE THIS IN ITS CONTEXT

"Now I have proved at length that Christ is called God."
Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho      ...SEE THIS IN ITS CONTEXT

Irenaeus, late second century writes

"He was the beginning; 'and the Word was God,' of course, for that which is begotten of God is God."
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book I      ...SEE THIS IN ITS CONTEXT

"For the Spirit designates both [of them] by the name, of God-both Him who is anointed as Son, and Him who does anoint, that is, the Father."
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book I      ...SEE THIS IN ITS CONTEXT

Clement of Alexandria, early third century

"This Word, then, the Christ, the cause of both our being at first (for He was in God) and of our well-being, this very Word has now appeared as man, He alone being both, both God and man."
Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Heathen      ...SEE THIS IN ITS CONTEXT

Tertullian, early third century has amazingly close language to formal Trinitarian doctrine

"Thus Christ is Spirit of Spirit, and God of God, as light of light is kindled."
Tertullian, The Apology      ...SEE THIS IN ITS CONTEXT

TEACHING 2
Jesus Christ is begotten, not made

Irenaeus, late second century

"But the Son, eternally co-existing with the Father, from of old, yea, from the beginning..."
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book II      ...SEE THIS IN ITS CONTEXT

"For thou, O man, art not an uncreated being, nor didst thou always co-exist with God, as did His own Word..."
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book II      ...SEE THIS IN ITS CONTEXT

Clement of Alexandria, early third century

For when he says, "That which was from the beginning," he touches upon the generation without beginning of the Son, who is co-existent with the Father. There was; then, a Word importing an unbeginning eternity; as also the Word itself, that is, the Son of God, who being, by equality of substance, one with the Father, is eternal and uncreated.
Clement of Alexandria, Fragments      ...SEE THIS IN ITS CONTEXT

TEACHING 3
Jesus Christ is of one substance with the Father

Tertullian, early third century, has by far the most similar language to that of the Nicene Creed and Trinitarian doctrine.  (The reader is directed to read Tertullian's entire letter Against Praxeas contained in this Web site, in which Tertullian defends full Trinitarian doctrine.)

"...Unity into a Trinity, placing in their order the three Persons -- the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost: three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in substance, but in form; not in power, but in aspect; yet of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power, inasmuch as He is one God, from whom these degrees and forms and aspects are reckoned, under the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."
Tertullian, Against Praxeas      ...SEE THIS IN ITS CONTEXT

Although Tertullian is by far the clearest expositor on Trinitarian theology, aspects of Nicene doctrine are found clearly in the second century through the letters of Justin Martyr. Justin Martyr describes Christ as both God while at the same time distinct from the Father

"I shall endeavour to persuade you, that He who is said to have appeared to Abraham, and to Jacob, and to Moses, and who is called God, is distinct from Him who made all things,--numerically, I mean, not [distinct] in will."
Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho      ...SEE THIS IN ITS CONTEXT

Conclusion
The assertion by Watchtower that Nicene teachings are not to be found prior to the fourth century is completely false.  We have demonstrated this by quoting the very same church fathers Watchtower claims to use in their defense.  In fact, if one were to review the much larger response we give in EARLY CHURCH EVIDENCE FOR THE TRINITY, the reader would have complete confidence that Trinitarian beliefs predate the Nicene creed by hundreds of years.  We can with certainty predate these teachings to as soon as the early second century.

................................................................................................................................
NOTES
 
1. Roger E. Olson, The Mosaic of Christian Belief (Illinois: IVP, 2002), p. 135
2. Should you Believe in the Trinity? (Watchtower, 1989),  p. 7

Argument:

The Bible does

 

Even though, as Trinitarians acknowledge, neither the word "Trinity" nor a statement of the Trinitarian dogma is found in the Bible, are the concepts that are embodied in that dogma found there?

Does the Bible teach that the "Holy Spirit" is a person?
    Some individual text that refer to the holy spirit ("Holy Ghost," KJ) might seem to indicate personality.  For example, the holy spirit is referred to as a helper (Greek, pa·ra'kle·tos; "Comforter," KJ; "Advocate," JB, NE) that 'teaches,' 'bears witness,' speaks' and 'hears.'  (John 14:16, 17, 26; 15:26; 16:13) But other texts say that people were "filled" with holy spirit, that some were 'baptized' with it or "anointed" with it. (Luke 1:41; Matt. 3:11; Acts 10:38) These latter references to holy spirit definitely do not fit a person.  To understand what the Bible as a whole teaches, all these texts must be considered.  What is the reasonable conclusion?  That the first texts cited here employ a figure of speech personifying God's holy spirit, his active force, as the Bible also personifies wisdom, sin, death, water, and blood. (See also pages 380, 381, under the heading "Spirit.")
    The Holy Scriptures tell us the personal name of the Father—Jehovah.  They inform us that the Son is Jesus Christ.  But nowhere in the Scriptures is a personal name applied to the holy spirit.
    Acts 7:55, 56 reports that Stephan was given a vision of heaven in which he saw "Jesus standing at God's right hand."  But he made no mention of seeing the holy spirit. (See also Revelation 7:10; 22:1, 3.)
    The New Catholic Encyclopedia admits: "The majority of N[ew] T[estament] texts reveal God's spirit as something, not someone; this is especially seen in the parallelism between the spirit and the power of God." (1967, Vol. XIII, p. 575)  It also reports: "The Apologists [Greek Christian writers of the second century] spoke too haltingly of the Spirit;  with a measure of anticipation, one might say too impersonally."—Vol. XIV, p. 296

Reasoning from the Scriptures, pp. 380-381

Definition [of spirit]: The Hebrew word ru'ach and the Greek pneu'ma which are often translated "spirit," have a number of meanings.  All of them refer to that which is invisible to human sight and which gives evidence of force in motion.  The Hebrew and Greek words are used with reference to (1) wind, (2) the active life-force in earthly creatures, (3) the impelling force that issues from a person's figurative heart and that causes him to say and do things in a certain way, (4) inspired utterances originating with an invisible source, (5) spirit persons, and (6) God's active force, or holy spirit.  Several of these usages are here discussed in relation to topics that may arise in the field ministry.

What is the holy spirit?
    A comparison of Bible texts that refer to the holy spirit shows that it is spoken of as 'filling' people; they can be 'baptized' with it; and they can be "anointed" with it. (Luke 1:41; Matt. 3:11; Acts 10:38) None of these expressions would be appropriate if the holy spirit were a person.
    Jesus also referred to the holy spirit as a "helper" (Greek, pa·ra'kle·tos), and he said that this helper would "teach," "bear witness," "speak," and 'hear.' )John 14:16, 17, 26; 15:26; 16:13) It is not unusual in the Scriptures for something to be personified.  For example, wisdom is said to have "children." (Luke 7:35) Sin and death are spoken of as being kings. (Rom. 5:14, 21)  While some texts say that the spirit "spoke," other passages make clear that this was done through angels or humans.  (Acts 4:24, 25; 28:25; Matt. 10:19, 20; compare Acts 20:23 with 21:10, 11.)  At 1 John 5:6-8, not only the spirit but also "the water and the blood" are said to  'bear witness."  So, none of the expressions found in these texts in themselves prove that the holy spirit is a person.
    The correct identification of the holy spirit must fit all the scriptures that refer to that spirit.  With this viewpoint, it is logical to conclude that the holy spirit is the active force of God.  It is not a person but is a powerful force that God causes to emanate from himself to accomplish his holy will.—Ps. 104.30; 2 Pet. 1:21; Acts 4:31.

Response:

Although the Bible

It is very true that certain words can have different meanings within certain contexts.  This is known as a semantic scope of meaning. In our discussion we will look at all factors that come to bear on the word pneuma (pronounced "Peh-noo-mah") including what the early church fathers understood.  We will especially consider the opinions of Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Hippolytus and Origen because they a mentioned in the Watchtower brochure Should you Believe in the Trinity? on page 7. 

Does the manner in which the Holy Spirit is used affect whether the Spirit should be seen as a person or a "force."

Argument:

The Bible does

 

Response:

Although the Bible

Argument:

The Bible does

 

Response:

Although the Bible

Argument:

The Bible does

 

Response:

Although the Bible

Argument:

The Bible does

 

Response:

Although the Bible

Argument:

The Bible does

 

Response:

Although the Bible

Argument:

The Bible does

 

Response:

Although the Bible

Argument:

The Bible does

 

Response:

Although the Bible

Argument:

The Bible does

 

Response:

Although the Bible

Argument:

The Bible does

 

Response:

Although the Bible

Argument:

The Bible does

 

Response:

Although the Bible

Argument:

The Bible does

 

Response:

Although the Bible

Argument:

The Bible does

 

Response:

Although the Bible

Argument:

The Bible does

 

Response:

Although the Bible

Argument:

The Bible does

 

Response:

Although the Bible

Argument:

The Bible does

 

Response:

Although the Bible

Argument:

The Bible does

 

Response:

Although the Bible

Argument:

The Bible does

 

Response:

Although the Bible

Argument:

The Bible does

 

Response:

Although the Bible

Argument:

...on the whole it seems best to adopt in the first clause the rendering: God is Thy throne 

 

  RS reads: "Of the Son he says, 'Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever.'" (KJ, NE, TEV, Dy, JB, NAB have similar renderings.)  However, NW reads: "But with reference to the Son: 'God is your throne forever and ever.'" (AT, Mo, TC, By convey the same idea.)

  Which rendering is harmonious with the context?  The preceding verses say God is speaking, not that he is being address; and the following verse uses the expression "God, thy God," showing that the one addressed is not the Most High Bod but is a worshiper of that God.  Hebrews 1:18 quotes from Psalms 45:6, which originally was addressed to a human king.  Obviously, the Bible writer of this psalm did not think that this human king was Almighty God.  Rather, Psalm 45:5, in RS, reads, "Your divine throne." (NE says, "Your throne is like God's throne." JP [verse 7]: "Thy throne given of God.")  Solomon, who was possibly the king originally addressed in  Psalm 45, was said to sit "upon Jehovah's throne." (1 Chron. 29:23, NW)  In harmony with the fact that God is the "throne," or Source and Upholder of Christ's kingship, Daniel 7:13, 14 and Luke 1:32 show that God confers such authority on him.

  Hebrews 1:8, 9 quotes from Psalms 45:6, 7, concerning which the Bible scholar B. F. Wescott states: "The LXX [Septuagint] admits of two renderings: [ho theos] can be taken as a vocative in both cases (Thy throne, O God,...therefore, O God, Thy God...) or it can be taken as the subject (or the predicate) in the first case (God is Thy throne, or Thy throne is God...), and in apposition to [ho theos sou] in the second case (Therefore God, even Thy God...)....It is scarcely possible that [Elohim] in the original can be addressed to the king.  The presumption therefore is against the belief that [ho theos] is a vocative in the LXX.  Thus on the whole it seems best to adopt in the first clause the rendering: God is Thy throne (or, Thy throne is God), that is 'Thy kingdom is founded upon God, the immovable Rock.'"—The Epistle to the Hebrews (London, 1889), pp. 25, 26.

Response:

Although the Bible

SEE THIS IN ITS CONTEXT
If you are so venturesome and harsh, reflect a while; and that you may think the better and more deliberately, listen to the psalm in which Two are described as God: "Your throne, O God, is for ever and ever; the sceptre of Your kingdom is a sceptre of righteousness. You have loved righteousness, and hated iniquity: therefore God, even Your God, has anointed You or made You His Christ."

Notice that the translation of Hebrews 1:8 by Tertullian is different from the NWT's "God is your throne forever..."  The Greek literally reads, "the throne of you (O QronoV sou), God (o QeoV), is in the ages of ages (eiV ton aiwna tou aiwnoV)." (O QronoV sou, o QeoV, eiV ton aiwna tou aiwnoV).  Greek Scholars agree is that o QeoV is in the vocative case.  In Greek there are 5 cases (roles) for a noun: nominative, genitive, dative, accusative and vocative.*  Vocative is used when a noun is used as part of a personal reference.  It expands on who is being address.  A few English counterparts would be

"May you, O King, live forever..."
"You, Mr. President, will I obey..."

In each sentence the pronoun "you" is not specific and the listener (or reader) may not understand the role of the person spoken to. A direct address recognizing the role of the subject is used in each of these sentences.  In the first sentence, the speaker is acknowledging that the "you" to whom he is referring is the King and in the second it's the President being addressed.  The vocative case in Greek is used often to emphasize the respect a speaker has for the one he's speaking to.  In the case of Hebrews, "you" (Greek sou) is God, so the speaker acknowledges who he is by adding "O God" (Greek o QeoV). 

*I'm aware that not all scholars comply with the five case system and hold to a four case one since the vocative is the same "form" as the nominative.  Others adhere to an eight case system defining case by use of a noun in a sentence rather than by form.  The concept of a vocative/direct address use of o QeoV in Hebrews 1:8 is still not debated regardless of the varying camps in the academic community and I have doubts as to whether of not it's even important to have this note.

Argument:

The Bible does

 

Response:

Although the Bible

Argument:

The Bible does

 

Response:

Although the Bible

Argument:

The Bible does

 

Response:

Although the Bible

Argument:

The Bible does

 

Response:

Although the Bible

Argument:

The Bible does

 

Response:

Although the Bible

Argument:

The Bible does

 

Response:

Although the Bible

Argument:

The Bible does

 

Response:

Although the Bible

Argument:

The Bible does