Reniaa, the problem here is the ambiguity of the Bibles description of God's nature. In my own research I have come to the conclusion that the Bible writers THEMSELVES were divided on the issue (they were divided on MANY issues). For example, John and Paul both explicitly believed Jesus to be both God and the Son of God, the 'Son of God' referring specifically to Jesus in the flesh. Other writers seem to make more of a distinction between the two. I could go in depth but I'm at work and I don't have my research in front of me.
You are correct in that the trinity doctrine itself did not arise untill several hundred years after Christ, however the belief that Jesus and God are one was widespread and accepted as early as the first part of the second century (look it up). Evidence shows that essentially ALL of the earliest church fathers accepted this view. (The quotes in the "Trinity" brochure were dishonestly taken out of context.)
What sealed the deal for me however, was the Old Testament prophecies and sayings that applied specifically to Jehovah. However, the NT writers took many, many, of those passages from the OT and then applied them directly to Jesus. You're going to tell us that they didn't know what they were doing when they did that? And the supposed 'confusion' that it would inevitably cause?
For example there is the passage of (I forget the exact wording) 'The one crying out from the wilderness, preparing the way for JEHOVAH'. Yet in the NT 'The One Crying Out' is described as John the Babtist who prepares the way for Jesus. There is another OT vs. that poetically describes Jehovah actually being sold for 30 pieces of silver. Then there is the "Alpha-Omega/First-Last" confusion in Revelation, where the WT cant even keep straight who is being spoken of, and uses warped resoning to differentiate the two titles. There are numerous other examples of descriptions and titles applied to God that the NT writers quoted but applied to Jesus, I can post them later but something tells me you're aware of them but choose to ignore their significance.
The funny thing is, when you look for the Societys comments on such parallels, they're silent on the matter. It's as if they'd rather have the rank-and-file unaware that they exist, than risk them seeing the obvious connections. So there's whole chunks of the Bible that the WT pretends arn't there. They focus on a core sampling of maybe 200-300 or so scriptures to support their doctrines, and beat those into the rank-and-file. (Don't believe me? Try to find the Societys comments on Luke 21:8. I think theres ONE refrence on the CD-Rom, IIRC)
The FACT is... the conclusion that Jesus is God is a logical one that comes from the Bible itself, and from an attempt to reconcile what is said about both Jesus and Jehovah. NOT from some supposed "Pagan influence". When ALL the evidence is considered (not just the WT's cherry picked and twisted "evidence"), you see the rational behind mainstream Christianity's veneration and worship of Jesus. Going by scripture, it is a logical and defensable conclusion, and certainly has more weight behind it than the WTs view.
But hey, what do I know? I don't believe either of them are God. I'm an atheist. :)
Dark
