Nana Fofana

You're ignorance of science is breathtaking!

Actually he did, especially on how he was able to tread with ease in that debate with a guy who hates JWs so much he can't sleep at night. Plus I purposely left out more to what was said after that claim and the verses it was pertaining to. The JW did bring interesting points and what the bible says, in addition, the reason he isn't a JW anymore because with what he knows he wanted to start his own religion almost. However, he is pretty critical on defending JWs, hence his position as a JW apologist, especially with what he even said in his own words about John 1:1 or any claim that Jesus is God.
For the JW was speaking about Angels showing obeisance to Jesus, and what the word really means. For the Son is higher than the angels and for that reason the Angels bow down to him. So what is said is true, do spirit creatures receive worship? Because God made it so for he makes it evident he has put Jesus in a superior position.
Well this is the debate, I think it would interest you, the first time I seen it is when the Muslims brought it up to prove there is literally 2 factions of Christianity:
Monotheistic Christianity vs Trinitarianism
 
Also 2 other videos from a guy who is neutral with some Christians, even though he is a Christian himself on this same topic of Jesus and Worship:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IC-ju6wxH_c
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XESkf_QrSig
 
As for Unitarians, quote:
 

Sorry but I think how such kind of appointment was  done by Jesus in 1 century to apostles and other spiritual men. :)) So why would  he repeat that again in 19 century. Because he said to apostles how he is with them in all times and periods till the end. This is CONTINUATION. :))

If you didn't understand my explanation then I was either wrong or I did a lousy job explaining, or something somewhere in between. I looked back through about 10 pages, and didn't find the content from COJ that you quoted. Perhaps you can tell me where it was, or how far back in this thread you think it was. I'll be happy to look at it again. As I recall, you had brought up some scriptures from Jeremiah that might have been "addressed" to me and I know I hadn't responded to all of them yet.
Does "o.i." mean "on the Internet"? In Google there's a trick that lets you "subtract" out searches that contain an emphasis on a certain term. For example, I just searched on "587 607 Gentile Times" and got mostly pages that mentioned Jonsson due to the key words. Then I redid the search as "587 607 Gentile Times -Jonsson" and most of those pages were no longer on the first two pages. Some were, especially those that spelled Jonsson wrong, but at least it gave me a new set. Also, if you've looked up Jonsson before, and you're logged in, Google skews the links to include pages and subjects you have looked at before. The best way to get new and interesting material however is to leave out the words that tie it back to jw.org and discussions about JWs. How about the following Google searches:
"Neo-Babylonian chronology and artifacts" [or "artefacts"] "cuneiform tablets that help to date Nebuchadnezzar" "site:wikipedia.org Nabonidus and Cyrus" "Jeremiah and Babylonian hegenomy" Not saying you didn't already try these things already, but there are just so many options and variables to choose from.

I've seen a different kind of sloppiness from you - and it affects your integrity.     You have made wild statements on this forum that were unfounded, such as, only Juda were returned back to their homeland etc... which is an important mistake and affects the outcome to the understanding of the subject  607 BCE. 
I bet you had the same sloppiness when you investigated that "extremely logical" arguments made by Dawkins.  I am honest when I say - I have never met a Dawkins-disciple which has thought Darwinism through properly - they just take his 'expert' religion and follow it like a slave. As I have said before - these theories or other philosophies take the place of religion because one cannot believe in "nothing".
I asked you a question before to see how committed you are to your religion. It is a 'blind faith' if it is not based on proper science..... even if most atheist professors and their disciples adhere to its "theories" and profess it as reality and fascistically do not tolerate any opposition in the universities.
I am not going to argue this with you because you are committed to your 'faith' but if there is anything that is truthful in you, you will admit that the bone record is scant.  It seems that nature made no mistakes at all - almost like a perfect god- most species appeared perfectly formed and every organ working together in perfect synchronization....no mistakes- perfect selections - almost like a theoretical god.   There is no record of  mistakes...and one would expect millions if we look at the number of different species around and the changes that were ongoing. 
What scientists cannot answer - and they know this because it is rarely talked about...... is that the different tissues and organs (liver, eyes etc.) developed over millions of years when the earth had " goldilocks" conditions..... long-term stable conditions for perfect selections... And yet, the complex sexual organs had to develop very quickly so the mammal can survive.  What is more many mammals have such different sexual organs as to boggle the mind!  Read up about it - it will stun you! Many are totally different to other organs.  
Evolution takes the easies path to survive...... why randomly develop separate sexual organs that function totally differently? .... when it is easier to have everything in one individual?  What boggles the mind is that these organs developed totally separately by ...... chance...... and yet the one has sperm and the other eggs... and the shape of them is different and yet fits perfectly....and they can only reproduce when they are in the same area!   Unthinking random selections that by chance happen to be totally different but happen to work perfectly together...and happen to develop in close proximity -    theoretical god or miracles?   
And if you try to argue that nature could "cut and paste" the DNA language program - and add a little here and there to make up for the differences - then we need an intelligent programmer don't we - one who will cut and past just the right DNA sequence?  
Mathematics is also a 'language' which describes phenomena which cannot be described in other languages..... it depends on how the "tool" is utilized and helps to sift out ideas which are illogical..... but is it  'absolute' truth?  Some treat math as a substitute god. Many theories for which we have calculations cannot be proven because humans are mortal and history has proven that we often make mistakes in our calculations/assumptions - and then one theory is replaced by another....
 
This is my last contribution on this subject since it has eaten too much of my time - I have an active life!
Thanks to those who were kind and supporting....   I have looked at the Bible again and its consistency regarding the main theme tells me this is the only "reality".   World conditions are also progressing as predicted since 1914  and greedy/arrogant scientists are main contributors to its problems - such as the poisons which are polluting our water resources and agricultural land, genetic engineering which is causing many sicknesses and may lead to world hunger because it is removing diversity, bombs which can destroy the earth over and over and much more...   other frightening developments.
So I will definitely not put my future in the hands of fallible men/scientists  who are the brains behind the sciences which is contributing to the destruction of earth and sea (together with governments, false religions, and the economic system of the world which cares only for profits...or power) .........and all those uninformed humans who buy into its powers. 
The world is such as mess and rolling downhill quite fast....  Soon Jehovah will "prove to be" - as the meaning of his name indicates....the nations shall have to know that I am Jehovah.
 
 

I'll use that line on @The Librarian the next time the old hen comes around.

I'll get a lot of mileage out of this one. @AlanF will pounce on every single word. And I'll paste him over each one, the opinionated oaf.
Look, we have destroyed JWI's thread and he has started another one. I messaged him that (tentatively) I would not go there. I would not have gone here except that Alan is so obnoxious that he draws people in. He's been the ruin of many a poor boy, and Lord I know I'm one. Ann and many others make parallel points on the subject, but because they are all reasonably civil, nobody feels they must do battle with them.
I have learned my lesson. (tentatively) I will not mess with JWI's other thread. (probably) @The Librarian is right. You can't destroy every thread by kicking every dog that barks at you. Not if you want to get very far. Rodney King said it best: 'people, can't we all just get along?' The Beatles said it second best: we must 'come together.'
This thread is a goner, and it will die a quick death if no fuel is heaped on. But there is yet (some) hope for JWI's new thread. Let know one trample upon it, at least not for 42 months.

This is such a strange comment, because the post has nothing to do with Trump.
Nonetheless, one cannot but notice the parallels. The President does rib his enemies all the time. It always goes over their heads and they accuse him of telling 'lies.' Is it a deliberate ploy to try to hang him with his own literal words or are they just plain stupid? Darned if I know. But they look like absolute fools when they, say (this one I'm just making up, Alan) say he lied when he called someone out for crying crocodile tears, since they know the man is not a crocodile. Or maybe they don't look like fools, because they relate only to each other, and they all think it is vital to point out that distinction. What a screwy world!
Alan is just like these yoyos. How many times has he accused me of telling a lie? He harps on it. It very obviously is not a lie (that Wolff spoke to no one of importance). Granted, it is an exaggeration. But it is very hard to believe anyone does not clearly see the remark for what it is, excepting only someone who prides himself on being dense.
He even managed to insinuate I was racist!!! Me! Lovable TTH - who is unfailing nice to all people, with minor permissible caveats, whereas he is unfailingly offensive, condescending and nasty. I mean, C'mon! Does he not remind you of those big dumb animals with horns that rams its fellows to prove who's the man? (to that extent, he does prove evolution)
As far as I am concerned, Trump v Hillary is a godsend for Christians because it brings into stark relief 2 Timothy 3:1-5 - that endless list of negative traits. It used to be if you cited it and your listener didn't agree the verse is fulfilled now more than ever, there was not much you could do about it - it is subjective. But now its fulfillment is so obvious. 
It used to be people would scream at each other till the cows come home over God/no God, or medicine/alt medicine or various other sideshows that could be ignored by the average person. But with Trump/hate Trump, almost everybody is drawn in and 2 Timothy 3 becomes the yeartext for this entire system of things.

I agree with the comment by JWI on the speculative nature of scenarios in connection with the cities of refuge. I haven't investigated cities of refuge in a historical context simply because reliable information seems rather scant.
Apart from the setting out the provision in Exodus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, and Joshua,, there doesn't appear to be any reference to the use of the provision in the Hebrew Scriptures, like for example, the cameo appearance of Ruth with reference to the provision of "levirate" marriage.
There is a lot of what I term as higher-critical gobbledegook on the matter, but really only of some academic interest (to me). Perhaps, rather like the Sabbath Year and Jubilee provisions, there was little adherence to the legislated procedure over the years. (Compare Jer.2:34 "Even your skirts are stained with the blood of the innocent poor ones, though I did not find them in the act of breaking in")
Anyway, with regard to TTH's comment, this manslayer, self assessesed as "guiltless", has rather missed the point. Where human blood has been shed there is no "guiltlessness" as the basis for the Mosaic provision makes clear at Genesis 9:5-6. Anyone of that opinion was not thinking in harmony with Jehovah God's view of the matter of shedding human blood in any circumstance, and would be putting themselves greatly at risk of an execution of judgement without mercy.

Maybe we finally have this City of Refuge thing down pat after yesterday's study article. The way the Law had it, the accidental manslayer had to flee to one of the six cities of refuge, where his case would be heard. If the 'avenger of blood' (closest relative of the deceased) killed him before he got there, he was guiltless. He might simply have lost it. Or he might figure there wouldn't have been an accident if the fellow had been more careful or not neglected safety. (aspects of safety on the job were also considered, as in 'What can we learn from this?')   BUT some have said that he could not do otherwise. He MUST put the killer to death. It is not his prerogative to overlook or forgive, because principles greater than just a matter between two humans come into play. Still, it is hard to believe that a man, bereaved himself, would HAVE TO put to death someone, maybe a close friend or even a relative, who had accidentally taken a life.   How does the following work as a compromise? The killer MUST flee to one of the cities of refuge - that much is clear. Why couldn't the avenger of blood take his sweet time in his 'pursuit' - or even walk there with him, if he was really a close chum? Our minds are skewed by the picture in the Watchtower decades ago of the manslayer running for all he is worth with the avenger hot on his heals. Who is to say it was always (or even usually) like that?   The death was an accident. The city of refuge was a place where one might live a normal, productive and rewarding life. It was not a prison. But suppose the manslayer refused to go there, insisting he didn't have to, insisting he was 'guiltless' because he didn't mean to do what he did?   THEN he would be put to death, not just for the accidental killing itself, or even primarily, but for the greater crime of thumbing his nose at God, for it is his arrangement. Put to death BY WHO becomes secondary. Maybe the avenger of blood. But if the avenger simply couldn't find it within himself to do it, it is hard to believe there would not be a posse or something to help him out or even take it off his hands.   Of course, if the real sin is thumbing one's nose at God, the avenger would probably be incensed over THAT and would possibly 'rise to the occasion' on that count, whereas the death itself he would be willing to forgive.   Does it work?

My father was in one of the assembly dramas back in 1967. Brother Glass had worked out this "play" with the Gilead students and produced the one-hour skit that was recorded by him and the Gilead students and a couple of other Bethelites with good voices (especially from the other primary instructors: Maxwell Friend, Harold Jackson, Karl Adams, Bert Schroeder). I remember that we attended two assemblies that year because of the drama. I was baptized at the first one.
Those dramas had just started in '66 (Aachan and the theft of contra-"ban" at Ai) and that year they had learned that subtle gestures don't show up well in large stadium audiences, so they taught everyone to over-gesture (and gesticulate) so hard that everyone was karate-chopping the air with every syllable so you knew who was speaking.
But the only thing I remember from the content was that it was used to show that everyone should stay in the protection of Jehovah's arrangement for security (the organization) or they would die. That we are all blood-guilty even if just "accidentally" so, through the sin of Adam, and that we must remain until the "high priest dies" but that he already died in 33 CE, so we are no longer bloodguilty, but we need to stay put anyway.
Of course, that wasn't the whole story, but it definitely was NOT mined for treasures or gems the way that more recent discussions have done (including yesterday's WT study).
I was also thinking that it highlighted safety issues, and it also did something else that isn't mentioned anywhere as far as I know. It's not just to provide a cooling-off period for the avenger who would be tempted to avenge potentially innocent manslaughter ("innocent" in the sense of unintentional). It's also a loving provision for the families who would have to continue to live and work next to the person responsible for such trauma and pain. Defending honor has developed into some terrible practices around the world, including Hatfield and McCoy style feuds that can go on for a century or more. I saw the play Hamilton last year which means I know even less about U.S. History now than I did before, but it showed a facet of dueling that I wasn't aware of, wherein, persons could use it for personal revenge, or purposely arrange to "miss" so as to forgive.
Last year, I spent several days over the course of a week at the British Museum and asked if I could find information on other nations that were known to have sanctuary cities or cities of refuge. The answer was surprising, and got to read one of the recent books they had from David P. Wright and a couple articles in the JBL, including Jeffrey Stackert. 
Why Does Deuteronomy Legislate Cities of Refuge? Asylum in the Covenant Collection (Exodus 21:12-14) and Deuteronomy (19:1-13) Author(s): Jeffrey Stackert Source: Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 125, No. 1 (Spring, 2006), pp. 23-49 The book by Wright would be very controversial for most of us.

Perhaps... or maybe God's holy spirit caused him to move into action to form the organization.
Note that God is now using this organization to accomplish his will on earth.
The organization's official website can be accessed in hundreds of languages: https://www.jw.org
Matt. 24:14 - And this good news of the Kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come.

The truths below do NOT change...
The new teachings do not change the Bible's Message (the Good News):
 
Ps. 37:39 - The righteous will possess the earth, And they will live forever on it.
 
Ps. 37:34 - Hope in Jehovah and follow his way,
And he will exalt you to take possession of the earth.
When the wicked are done away with, you will see it.

Not denying anything.
Unitarian theology is Socinian/semi-Socinianism, vastly different from Arianism, thus making us not Arian or Semi-Arian. There is a huge difference. Plus in the past, the Polish Reformation separated from the Calvinist. Plus core beliefs and principles of a group doesn't make them 100% Arian or for what Arius had taught. Most Unitarian opponents do not even know what Socinian even is.
That being said,  the Jehovah's Witnesses are often referred to as "modern-day Arians" or they are sometimes referred to as "Half/Semi-Arians", usually by their opponents and or those who do not like them. There are some similarities in theology and doctrine, the Witnesses differ from Arians, examples being: saying that the Son can fully know the Father (something which Arius himself denied), denial of personality to the Holy Spirit (Arians believe the Holy Spirit had a mind of it's own, and a personality, so to speak). The original Arians prayed to Jesus and he alone while Jehovah's Witnesses pray to God, with the mediator being Jesus Christ, hence, no one goes to the Father expect through me, John 14:6 - Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
The verse that tells us Jesus is the mediator, 1 Timothy 2:5 - "For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus,"
Other groups which oppose the belief in the Trinity are not necessarily Arian. The Iglesia ni Cristo, Christadelphians, Seventh-Day Adventist and others. Unitarians themselves are typically Socinian in Christology and not Arian. Binitarians believe that God is two persons, the Father and the Son, but they believe that the Holy Spirit is not a person.
Once again, there are difference, unless you can name a true Arian church that not only deny Trinity, but prays to Jesus, believes that the Holy Spirit is indeed a person, and that Jesus doesn't know his own Father who is also his God, etc. (There is more difference on Arians vs Non-Arians, but I leave that up to you for research).
Anyways for me, I am not shy about understanding the beliefs of others, but beliefs that has no foundation, base, or understanding is obviously not something that originates with God.
 
Plus it is not only the 4th century you should be looking at. It is from the 2nd Century with the Early Christian Schisms (and Trinity Origins) to the 4th and onward. Luckily for you I will provide you with video links so you can better understand the council and the creeds that became a reality in those days:
 

There was a lot of talk in December of Christmas not being a Christian holiday, even by opponents of Jehovah's Witnesses. There was an interesting video I saw from a brother in Christ about this, he isn't a JW, but he, as many others brought up good points.
Another video by a Christian man, rumored to have died and or been killed  (I myself thought he perished), since he was off YouTube for a couple of years, his friends and family said he either died or went off grid and were very worried, but miraculously, he returned (very much alive and wasn't dead after all) and he sees holidays in the same light, not being Christian, and such should not be done by Christians, his channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZ2chBk4nLQ3tXdmGU5F4tw
Plus, we believe that Jesus was born, even though is unknown, around (September-October), something of that sort, I forget what they called the name of that month though, I'd have to look into what it was titled again.
 

They are a continuation of the first disciples. They were the ones who did not follow the false teachings that were being promoted by some of the early followers. In earlier times, they were simply referred to as the Bible Students. In 1931 they adopted the name "Jehovah's Witnesses." This name was derived from a number of Scriptures.

Exactly! I've said this many times myself. Long before I read anything about the 200-tablet exhibit at the BLMJ. I don't know if you noticed, but this particular exhibit of "new" tablets you have been talking about is only strengthening the same evidence that Mason and COJ and O'maly and Jeffro and AlanF and others have been pointing out for many years.
In fact all "new" archaeological evidence that comes to light, invariably continues to strengthen the general Biblical description of events and continues to weaken the claims that the Watchtower has been asking us to believe. I suspect that the frustration arising from such evidence is where the repetitions of nonsensical arguments, distractions, and temper tantrums are coming from.

The triune aspect of God is actually a Pagan belief.
Many of the Pagan Gods and Goddesses were in a triple form.
In an effort to convert the pagan nations to Christianity,
the early Christian church adopted many Pagan customs, holidays and beliefs
including promoting the Triple God concept for the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Do you mean to tell me this has all been much ado about nothing?
@Shiwiiiand his friends have been blowing up this balloon as if experiencing orgasm for months, even years. Even JTR, who now acts as though he knew it all along,  did all he could to suggest the Witness organization was the very Mecca of pedophilia. And now, it all comes to this? JW children are the safest of all?
Can it really be? I need some smart people to weigh in on this.

And this was your actual question! Was it not? You asked what does one benefit from coming to Jesus, and NOW you want to complain about the answer being about what does one gain? Do you even realize what you write sometimes? Have you been checked for multiple personalities? 
 
ignorant claims as you do not know my "brand"
 
exactly, but try telling that the the thousands who were molested by members of your "brand" only to have their abusers covered up and protected. That doesn't exactly spell learning to be nice now does it? 
What does tight pants have to do with Bible principals? Tony Morris seems to think it is of importance and biblical
Where in the Bible does blood fractions come into play? 
Where in the Bible does immunizations get banned and then allowed? 
Why can't people make their minds up on if a birthday is ok or not? Why does it have to be a threat to banish a person if they participate in Christmas? 
Why is there so much controlling going on in your "brand" ?  Was Jesus that controlling? I think not  

May people know that YOU,
whose name is Jehovah,
You alone are the Most High over all the earth. – Ps. 83:18
 
Please read this Scripture in your own Bible.
Note: the name Jehovah is in the King James Version:
           18 That men may know that thou,
                 whose name ALONE  is JEHOVAH,
                 art the MOST HIGH  over all the earth.
 
John chapter 17 is a long, heart-felt prayer that Jesus prays to Jehovah.
There is no way to conclude anything other than
Jesus is praying to his father Jehovah in this passage.
 
Here is part of the long, heart-felt prayer that Jesus prays to Jehovah in John 17.
Note especially what the man Jesus says to God at verse 5.
 
17 JESUS spoke these things,
and raising his eyes to heaven,
he said: “Father, the hour has come.
Glorify YOUR SON so that YOUR SON may glorify YOU,
2 just as YOU have given HIM authority over all flesh,
so that HE may give everlasting life to all those whom YOU have given to HIM.
 
3 THIS means EVERLASTING LIFE,
their coming to know YOU, the ONLY true GOD, [this ONLY GOD is Jehovah – Ps. 83:18]
and the one whom YOU sent, Jesus Christ.
 
4 I have glorified YOU on the earth,
having finished the work YOU have given ME to do.
 
5 So now, Father, glorify ME at your side
with the glory THAT I HAD alongside you BEFORE the WORLD was.
 
6 “I have made YOUR name manifest [that is, the name Jehovah – Ps. 83:18]
to the men whom YOU gave me out of the world.
They were YOURS, and YOU gave them to ME,
and they have observed YOUR word.
 
7 Now they have come to know that
all the things YOU gave ME are from YOU;
8 because I have given them the sayings that YOU gave ME,
and they have accepted them
and have certainly come to know
that I CAME as YOUR representative,
and they have believed that YOU SENT ME.
 
A final thought…
Jesus says at John 8:32 “and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

YOU WILL NOT TOLERATE ANY DISRESPECT FOR ALANF. WHO ARE YOU TO DEMAND THAT ANYONE RESPECTS WHITE TRASH, ESPECIALLY AFTER COMMENTING, BROWN TRASH?

YOU AND ANN AS THE OWNERS OF THIS SITE, HAVE NO RIGHT TO DEMAND ANYTHING FROM ANYONE. IF YOU DON’T LIKE IT TUFF.

A PERSON THAT DENIGRATE OTHERS FOR THEIR WRITING SKILLS IS THE STUPIDEST PERSON ALIVE. THE EXAMPLE I OFFERED OF HIS OWN FRIEND AND COLLEAGUE *JEFFRO* ILLUSTRATED HOW MORONIC HIS CHILDISH ATTEMPTS ARE TO IMPOSE HIS WRITING SKILLS ON ANYONE. SINCE INTELLIGENT PEOPLE, ALSO MAKE MISTAKES, YOU'RE NO BETTER THAN ANYONE.

O’MALY, ANNA, ALANF, WHICHEVER NAME THIS PERSON IS AND IS ASSOCIATED WITH YOU, HAVE GONE BEYOND HAVING TO TOLERATE THIS JERK, ACTIONS.

SO, DON’T EVER CLAIM YOUR BETTER THAN ME, JUST BECAUSE YOUR WHITE. I’M NOT A WITNESS YET, AND THE WAY IT LOOKS WITH THE FILTH HERE, I’M NOT FOR SURE I WANT TO BE ONE.

How about addressing the "Elephant in the Room"?
Bad theology produces bad results.

Consider NEWTON's track record, compared to any other natural person who has ever lived.
In anything he published, even after his death .... Newton was NEVER wrong.
Christendom, the political empire disguised as a religion, is responsible for slaughtering A HALF BILLION people, in Europe alone, in the last 1700 years .... and during World War One, killed a MILLION of their brethren on the border between Germany and France, in ONE year long battle.
Those that espouse TRINITARIAN BELIEFS KILL INNOCENT PEOPLE.
Hundreds of MILLIONS of PEOPLE.
The proof of any "philosophy" is how it works out in real life.
All else is FANTASY.
If a horse in a race is wearing a cowbell and says "MOOO!", perhaps you don't want to bet on THAT one.
 

d Here is what the recorded arguably smartest natural man who has EVER LIVED had to say about the Trinity.
If I followed the teachings of any natural man ... I would follow THIS one.
John Byl, in his article "Newton and the Trinity", paints a clear picture that Newton was non-trinitarian. Newton's published works do not contain clear statements of this nature. In his private notebooks however, some of which were not examined completely until the mid 20th century, Newton committed a significant amount of effort to criticizing the Church's trinitarian doctrines. Byl writes:
Economist John Maynard Keynes obtained a significant amount of Newton's unpublished works in 1936 due to his interest in Newton's alchemical (occult) studies. Newton wrote vastly on alchemy, which should be considered a philosophy in it's own right and not merely a proto-science. As a proto-science, it is more akin to a proto-psychology than a proto-chemistry, as is the common opinion (I'm happy to elucidate in chat or in the comments), and Newton was interested in the considerable discussion in the alchemical corpus on God, the human soul, and matter, as Newton, even in his published works, considered his work on physics to be an expression of worship toward the Creator and a revelation of his divine arcitecture. Newton is considered by many biographers to have been a deist, and not necessarily Christian, and so Newton's writings on Christianity should be considered in alchemical or deist context and not primarily in that of Christianity. Indeed, his commentary on Christian doctrine appears to be predominantly critical.
Among the previously unpublished work obtained by Keynes is a list of twelve points stated by Newton on the relation between the Father, Son, and Spirit. Chief differences of Newton's perspective in comparison with both Catholic and Protestant doctrine is that Christ is not human or endowed with a human soul (8), and that the relationship between the persons of the trinity is like that of the saints, that they are distinct beings in agreement with one another (12). In the list, Newton made an entry for a 13th point which he left blank.
Some points, esp. 5, 6, and 11, support the claim that Newton was a subordinationist, and the Roman Catholic Church and many protestant denominations strictly reject that teaching. Newton also names the Arians as having a proper notion of the Logos in point 4, while Arianism is also considered heretical by The Roman Catholic Church and many protestant denominations. Byl summarizes Newton's heretical points: