• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Trinity: Was Athanasius Scripturally Right?

SLPCCC

Active Member
I am not here to defend Jehovah's Witnesses.


I don't believe you. It seems like I'm exposing the JWs with my researching here and you guys are cringing in your chairs trying to get me to leave and threatening to leave. It wasn't my intention really. It started with me just trying to see where Athanasius got this idea that the bible teaches the Trinity and what scripture he may have used. Go back and read. I didn't believe in the Trinity either until hearing from you and reading the "Can you Believe in the Trinity" book. The fact that you can ignore facts raised other questions on how the JWs think. It's amazing. Thanks to you guys I'm learning a whole lot here.
 

SLPCCC

Active Member
You said you hope to see it when you die. And I quoted from the Bible, which shows Jesus telling the Pharisees that the kingdom of God was in their midst. Instead of discussing that, again, you switch the subject. That tells me something about you. So if you want to discuss the Athanasian trinity doctrine, ok. If you're willing to stick to reasonableness. Otherwise, start another subject thread.

What subject do you want me to start another thread on?
 

SLPCCC

Active Member
You said you hope to see it when you die. And I quoted from the Bible, which shows Jesus telling the Pharisees that the kingdom of God was in their midst. Instead of discussing that, again, you switch the subject. That tells me something about you. So if you want to discuss the Athanasian trinity doctrine, ok. If you're willing to stick to reasonableness. Otherwise, start another subject thread.

Maybe I'll start a new thread on, Why are "Ex-JWS no longer JWs?"

I'm sure you guys would flip. LOL
 

SLPCCC

Active Member
Pro 18 17 Cross examine.jpg

The Truth Will Prevail!
 

PearlSeeker

Well-Known Member
Because --
John 1:1 - In the beginning was the Word, and as many popular translations have it, the Word was WITH GOD, and the Word WAS God. OK, the Word was "with God." With God? Yes, the Word, who was God, was WITH God. And the Word was God. I, at this point in my studies, am understanding that. It is not a trinity. Doesn't depict a trinity. If the Word WAS God as many confuse that meaning somehow a trinity, and WITH God at the same time I suppose, how many Gods were there? Two? Three? One as God with God? God who was God with God?
There is simply no question in my mind now that Jesus (who was the "Word" or Logos) was a God, or depending on translation--God, if someone wants to use that translation, but he was not 'the' God he was with. It is so simple. Sooo simple once one has the right understanding.
Also @Deeje

I understand all this. I'm not defending Trinity doctrine. I just see something aking to Trinity in GofJohn (and Paul). It's clearly not a simple monotheism (Creator and creation, God and world). An intermediary is added (the God-Word (God) -creation). It's a subordinate divine pair - a Greek version of monotheism. Later Holy Spirit was added as the third member (also in GofJohn and baptism formula) and we have a subordinate trio later equalized into Trinity.

John's and Paul's Jesus as incarnated Logos is also questionable because it is not in the other three canonical gospels and nowhere it is documented Jesus himself teaching it.
 
Last edited:

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Also @Deeje

I understand all this. I'm not defending Trinity doctrine. I just see something aking to Trinity in GofJohn (and Paul). It's clearly not a simple monotheism (Creator and creation, God and world). An intermediary is added (the God-Word (God) -creation). It's a subordinate divine pair - a Greek version of monotheism. Later Holy Spirit was added as the third member (also in GofJohn and baptism formula) and we have a subordinate trio later equalized into Trinity.

John's and Paul's Jesus as incarnated Logos is also questionable because it is not in the other three canonical gospels and nowhere it is documented Jesus himself teaching it.
I believe John was correct. Everything except the Word or Logos came about by and for the Word. Or Jesus as we normally relate to him. The Word came about because he was God's Son, or first creation. I can't even figure how God is there without beginning, I can't figure how the stupendous universe came about no matter what scientists say, my mind only tells me it's beyond my understanding. I believe and accept what the Bible says. I am glad I know it and that I study it. Everything else came about because of the Word. It took a long time for things to happen. I won't go any further now.
 

SLPCCC

Active Member
Also @Deeje

John's and Paul's Jesus as incarnated Logos is also questionable because it is not in the other three canonical gospels and nowhere it is documented Jesus himself teaching it.

While it is true that the word “Trinity” is not in the Bible, this does not mean that it is not a Biblical concept. The word “omniscient” is not in the Bible; yet, one would not deny the fact that God is omniscient (all-knowing) simply because the word is not in the Bible. Indeed, the concept of God’s omniscience can be found throughout the Old and New Testaments, and the same can be said about the doctrine of the Trinity.
 

SLPCCC

Active Member
John 1:1 - In the beginning was the Word, and as many popular translations have it, the Word was WITH GOD, and the Word WAS God. OK, the Word was "with God." With God? Yes, the Word, who was God, was WITH God. And the Word was God. I, at this point in my studies, am understanding that. It is not a trinity. Doesn't depict a trinity. If the Word WAS God as many confuse that meaning somehow a trinity, and WITH God at the same time I suppose, how many Gods were there? Two? Three? One as God with God? God who was God with God?
There is simply no question in my mind now that Jesus (who was the "Word" or Logos) was a God, or depending on translation--God, if someone wants to use that translation, but he was not 'the' God he was with. It is so simple. Sooo simple once one has the right understanding.

You leaving the "nature" out. The Word was God in nature. But the Word was with God in person. Think of fire on two candles. the two flames on the candles can be with each other but the flames on each candle are the same in nature and can become one flame.

THE TRINITY IS NOT MODALISM: The view that the father, son, and the holy spirit are one person.

THE TRINITY IS NOT TRITHEISM: The view that the father, son, and the holy spirit are three “gods.”

Jehovah’s Witnesses deny the Trinity doctrine and argue against the Deity of Jesus Christ based on a misconception of what the Trinity Doctrine is and what it stands for. They use the above definitions to make it into a straw man.
 
Last edited:

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
You leaving the "nature" out. The Word was God in nature. But the Word was with God in person. Think of fire on two candles. the two flames on the candles can be with each other but the flames on each candle are the same in nature and can become one flame.

THE TRINITY IS NOT MODALISM: The view that the father, son, and the holy spirit are one person.

THE TRINITY IS NOT TRITHEISM: The view that the father, son, and the holy spirit are three “gods.”

Jehovah’s Witnesses deny the Trinity doctrine and argue against the Deity of Jesus Christ based on a misconception of what the Trinity Doctrine is and what it stands for. They use the above definitions to make it into a straw man.
I do not argue against the deity of Christ. I do not equate him, however, with his God and Father.
John 20:17 - Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'"
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
I do not argue against the deity of Christ. I do not equate him, however, with his God and Father.
John 20:17 - Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'"

Thus, you contend that the Athanasian creed is not biblical.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Oh yeah.....@YoursTrue.
I know YoursTrue doesn’t believe it.

This is not about what we believe brother. I don't believe in the trinity. But that's not the topic. Also, in a thread you should address what an individual says as a point. Not what he believes in personally.

Anyway, he was making a clear point that the Athanasian creed is not biblical and that was the topic, so I just affirmed what he said in relation to the name of the thread. By asking me "when did I believe" is a straw man because I did not make a claim in the comment you replied to.

Cheers.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
Also @Deeje

I understand all this. I'm not defending Trinity doctrine. I just see something aking to Trinity in GofJohn (and Paul). It's clearly not a simple monotheism (Creator and creation, God and world).

I do not see any of it as complex unless you introduce things that are not there. By suggesting that the God of Abraham was not the "one God" mentioned in the Shema, only then does the complication begin. (Deuteronomy 6:4)

If there is "one true God" and "one Lord Jesus Christ" (John 17:3) which Jesus himself said....and the Bible always refers to them as separate individuals with one serving the other...one superior to the other, no trinity can exist unless the concept comes from outside of God's word.....there are many trinities in pagan religions, but none at all in the other Abrahamics.

Nowhere in scripture does Jesus claim to be God...not once. At no time did he elicit worship, though he accepted obeisance at times....as the firstborn son of God, he certainly qualified to receive it as second in command in God's arrangement. It is what qualified his identification as a "god" in John 1:1.

As "The Word", he was God's spokesman and existed before all other creation. (Colossians 1:15-17)

An intermediary is added (the God-Word (God) -creation). It's a subordinate divine pair - a Greek version of monotheism. Later Holy Spirit was added as the third member (also in GofJohn and baptism formula) and we have a subordinate trio later equalized into Trinity.

The intermediary was added way before Christ walked the earth.....he was already God's spokesman in heaven. Sin was a barrier between God and men, so Jesus was appointed as a "go-between" so that humans could still communicate with their Creator. The Word spoke for God in the encounter with Abraham at Mamre. One of the three angels entertained by Abraham was called "Jehovah" (Genesis 18:1-20) .....but at no time has any human personally encountered God. (John 1:18)

John's and Paul's Jesus as incarnated Logos is also questionable because it is not in the other three canonical gospels and nowhere it is documented Jesus himself teaching it.

The gospels were recorded by four different men at different times, (only two were apostles, i.e. eye witnesses to the events, but the others gleaned their information from eye witnesses) but all scripture is inspired of God.....so, if you take all four accounts, together you have a full picture of the Christ from his conception to his death...and other scripture (John's Revelation) takes us 1,000 years into the future. I do not see the Bible accounts in any way, contradictory....nor do I see the slightest hint of a trinity in any part of it.
 

SLPCCC

Active Member
Early Christians and the Trinity

It is claimed, particularly by the JWs, that the doctrine of the Trinity was not officially formulated until the fourth century and that it is of pagan origin. They claim that “from biblical times and for several centuries thereafter” it was unknown. But reading the writings of the early Christians who wrote before the fourth century shows that this isn’t true. The Ante-Nicene Fathers did uphold Trinitarian doctrine. Reading the JWs' Brochure, "Can You Believe in the Trinity", I found misquotes of the early Christian fathers that support the JWs' teachings. The following are some of the quotes but in their full quote supporting the Trinity. Athanasius must have known about these quotes.

“WHAT THE ANTE-NICENE FATHERS TAUGHT”

Ignatius was an early Christian writer. He is identified, along with his friend Polycarp, as disciples of John the Apostle. He is said to be one of the children whom Jesus Christ took in his arms and blessed. While en route to Rome, where he met his martyrdom, Ignatius wrote a series of letters.

IGNATIUS (30-107 A.D.)
  • “Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which is at Ephesus, in Asia…predestinated before the beginning of time…and elected through the true passion by the will of the Father, and Jesus Christ, our God….Being the followers of God, and stirring up yourselves by the blood of God, ye have perfectly accomplished the work which was beseeming to you….There is one Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit; both made and not made; God existing in flesh; true life in death; both of Mary and of God; first possible and then impossible, — even Jesus Christ our Lord.” —The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, pp. 49, 52
Ignatius provides ample evidence that the concept of the Deity of Christ was well-known and accepted by the apostles and the early Church, and therefore cannot be of pagan origin.



Justin Martyr, an early Christian apologist, is regarded as the foremost exponent of the Divine Word, the Logos, in the second century. The Watchtower teaches that Justin Martyr “called the prehuman Jesus a created angel. Justin Martyr actually taught that Christ is “the Angel of God” who conversed with Moses out of the burning bush and revealed Himself as the Jehovah God saying, “I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.…I AM WHO I AM.” Justin Martyr also understood the Scriptural term “first-begotten” of God to mean that Christ is of the same nature as God the Father.

JUSTIN MARTYR (165 A.D.)
  • “For at that juncture, when Moses was ordered to go down into Egypt…our Christ conversed with him under the appearance of fire from a bush….‘And the Angel of God spake to Moses, in a flame of fire out of the bush, and said, I am that I am, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob, the God of thy fathers….’…the Father of the universe has a Son; who also, being the first-begotten Word of God, is even God. And of old He appeared in the shape of fire and in the likeness of an angel to Moses and to the other prophets….in order to prove that Christ is called both God and Lord of hosts….Moreover, in the diapsalm of the forty-sixth Psalm, reference is thus made to Christ: ‘God went up with a shout….’ And Trypho said, ‘…For you utter many blasphemies, in that you seek to persuade us that this crucified man was with Moses and Aaron, and spoke to them in the pillar of the cloud…and ought to be worshipped.’…And Trypho said, ‘We have heard what you think of these matters.…For when you say that this Christ existed as God before the ages…’ ”—The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, pp. 184, 212, 213, 219


WTS claims that Irenaeus “said that the prehuman Jesus had a separate existence from God and was inferior to him. He showed that Jesus is not equal to the ‘One true and only God,’ who is ‘supreme over all, and besides whom there is no other.’ ” This assertion on the part of the Watchtower Society is deceitful because Irenaeus did not contrast Christ with the “One true and only God” but actually contrasted the true God with the lesser gods of Gnosticism. In reality, Irenaeus taught the following concerning Christ:

IRENAEUS (200 A.D.)
  • “Very properly, then, did he say, ‘In the beginning was the Word,’ for He was in the Son; ‘and the Word was with God,’ for He was the beginning; ‘and the Word was God,’ of course, for that which is begotten of God is God.”—The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, p. 328


These other quotes also support the Trinity but they are misquoted in the WTS Brochure. Notice how they support the Tinity in their full quote.


CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA (215 A.D.)
  • “…the Divine Word, He that is truly most manifest Deity, He that is made equal to the Lord of the universe; because He was His Son, and the Word was in God….I understand nothing else than the Holy Trinity to be meant; for the third is the Holy Spirit, and the Son is the second, by whom all things were made according to the will of 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 uncreate.”—The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 2, pp. 202, 468, 574

TERTULLIAN (230 A.D.)

In his writings, Tertullian was very explicit in his articulation of the doctrine of the Trinity:

  • “He is the Son of God, and is called God from unity of substance with God….so, too, that which has come forth out of God is at once God and the Son of God, and the two are one. In this way also, as He is Spirit of Spirit and God of God, He is made a second in manner of existence—in position, not in nature….and made flesh in her womb, is in His birth God and man united.…Thus does He make Him equal to Him.…I testify that the Father, and the Son, and the Spirit are inseparable from each other….they contend for the identity of the Father and Son and Spirit, that it is not by way of diversity that the Son differs from the Father, but by distribution: it is not by division that He is different, but by distinction; because the Father is not the same as the Son, since they differ one from the other in the mode of their being….when all the Scriptures attest the clear existence of, and distinction in, (the Persons of) the Trinity….In what sense, however, you ought to understand Him to be another, I have already explained, on the ground of Personality, not of Substance—in the way of distinction, not of division. But although I must everywhere hold one only substance in three coherent and inseparable (Persons)….”—The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 3, pp. 34-35, 601, 603, 606-607

HIPPOLYTUS (235 A.D.)
  • “God, subsisting alone, and having nothing contemporaneous with Himself, determined to create the world….Beside Him there was nothing; but He, while existing alone, yet existed in plurality….And thus there appeared another beside Himself. But when I say another, I do not mean that there are two Gods….Thus, then, these too, though they wish it not, fall in with the truth, and admit that one God made all things….For Christ is the God above all…..He who is over all is God; for thus He speaks boldly, ‘All things are delivered unto me of my Father.’ He who is over all, God blessed, has been born; and having been made man, He is (yet) God for ever….And well has he named Christ the Almighty.”—The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 5, pp. 227, 153, 225


ORIGEN (250 A.D.)
  • “This is most clearly pointed out by the Apostle Paul, when demonstrating that the power of the Trinity is one and the same….From which it most clearly follows that there is no difference in the Trinity, but that which is called the gift of the Spirit is made known through the Son, and operated by God the Father….Having made these declarations regarding the Unity of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit….And who else is able to save and conduct the soul of man to the God of all things, save God the Word…inasmuch as He was the Word, and was with God, and was God?”—The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 4, pp. 255, 604

Reading the early Christian writing clearly shows that the claim of the Trinity was not a fourth-century pagan creation as the WTS says. It also shows that Athanasius had the support of the early Christian writers. These early Christians not only affirmed the concepts found in the Trinity doctrine, but they actually taught the very opposite of what the JWs claims they taught.
 
Last edited:

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Thus, you contend that the Athanasian creed is not biblical.
I hope you will understand that one of the reasons I did not answer you right away is because I really didn't understand what you meant when you asked or mentioned what I contend. So I wonder what you think about the Athanasian Creed, because I'm not sure what you mean when you say 1) that you don't believe in the Trinity, and then 2) you say *I* contend that the Athanasian creed is not biblical. Like you, I don't believe that God is a Trinity. If you would like to discuss more about that perhaps we can, hopefully in a peaceful way.
Many things are said as interpretations about Jesus and the Bible that I don't agree with. Often people use scripture to bolster their contention. Again, I hope you understand that I don't always agree with these things, to be delineated perhaps later on.
For example, in the United States there is the Supreme Court. There are laws. Yet the interpretation or application of those laws can differ among the various justices. I hope that helps somewhat to explain.
 

PearlSeeker

Well-Known Member
While it is true that the word “Trinity” is not in the Bible, this does not mean that it is not a Biblical concept. The word “omniscient” is not in the Bible; yet, one would not deny the fact that God is omniscient (all-knowing) simply because the word is not in the Bible. Indeed, the concept of God’s omniscience can be found throughout the Old and New Testaments, and the same can be said about the doctrine of the Trinity.
Yes, but even the concept is not there. The pauline/johannine tradition is subordinationism and the Jesus of synoptic tradition was no prehuman cocreator.
 
Top