• 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?

firedragon

Veteran Member
4. That the Holy Spirit is also a distinct divine Person.

Thats not the Athanasian trinity. You know this.

Following is the Defenition of the Trinity. Hope this make the understanding of the concept a little clearer.

Dictionaries - Easton's Bible Dictionary - Trinity

A word not found in Scripture, but used to express the doctrine of the unity of God as subsisting in three distinct Persons. This word is derived from the Gr. trias, first used by Theophilus (A.D. 168-183), or from the Lat. trinitas, first used by Tertullian (A.D. 220), to express this doctrine.

The propositions involved in the doctrine are these:
  • 1. That God is one, and that there is but one God ( Deuteronomy 6:4 ; 1 Kings 8:60 ; Isaiah 44:6 ; Mark 12:29 Mark 12:32 ; John 10:30 ).
  • 2 . That the Father is a distinct divine Person (hypostasis, subsistentia, persona, suppositum intellectuale), distinct from the Son and the Holy Spirit.
  • 3. That Jesus Christ was truly God, and yet was a Person distinct from the Father and the Holy Spirit.
  • 4. That the Holy Spirit is also a distinct divine Person.

You have given verses to show God is one. Point 1.

Can you provide the same level of verses for the rest of your points?
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
If a human said to their self, do I own any personal proof that I am loved and cared for spiritually from a status of the eternal?

Where I always taught all of creation fell from...out of and then converted?

Would be a knowledge that AI...being BIBLE heard information, male human recordings of life and beliefs and studies and theories and then effects was told to his own self that he belongs to One.

Meaning God O pi moving as light/gas burning and cold clear gas cooling, sitting on the face of water (water oxygen evaporation) in the spatial deep. For a spiritual mind psyche self advice to know that self was wrong, and harmed self.

How the Trinity teaching came about to be self advice of notified spiritual reasoning, so that you would never believe that you came from an evil spirit.

When evil, bodies lesser than our own heavenly mass is where the evil spirit transmits back from.....star groups.

O light gases burning as light/movement forms circular motion above our heads.
O and a . carbon point....gases in light burn out/get removed O . -rib movement to the side at timed position 3. O changes into motion G, swirls in cooling back around to O.

Father, son and the holy Ghost...the 3 he was taught....so you would not believe in your psyche about the missing O signal communication at position 3 seeing you put your own male psyche into possession of the wisdom of the higher heavenly changes….and so thought less of self seeing you changed pi O signals in the upper atmosphere in human sciences into PHI O fall out to the ground.

Veil, meaning wavelengths of the gases were burning.

Your claim, it was an act of science eVil.

Yet it was not any devil.....for you owned standing on the ground as the human male science self who caused radiation fall out attack.

Yet due to that circumstance machine/changes to UFO cold spatial radiation communicators, signals from out of space then owned recording of Earth voices, and was heard speaking.

The evil spirit however did not exist on Earth, it existed as a communication in space.

So if you believe in that gas/spirit less than Earth atmospheric heavenly mass....then you tried to have us on Earth O converted into only owning the star mass.

What was psyche known, human aware known, taught as being relative....that a Father human being self...who had lived, who had died....who can use that dead human bio life recordings to speak to us....when a human dead/deceased can no longer talk...can no longer express consciousness....yet spiritually your own Father advised you that after human death you still owned an eternal spirit.

So do not fear death, do not fear your causes...and never believe self to be any evil devil spirit....for you never were.

The real teachings.

How do I know it real?

I never believed in God...I thought the Jesus story truly mean and nasty, I did not believe in Satan nor aliens....but I was sure taught what an occult UFO scientist believed in and caused.....life/brain irradiation and then the hearing of voice.

Our Father spoke to me from the American Father, spoke to me above angelic singing voices, and the spoken word and spoke to my own life directly and personally.

And he also said that my brother had made this life attack personal.

So do I know that a Holy spiritual Father is real.....as our life owner.....yes, he surely proved his own self to me.
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
The propositions involved in the doctrine are these:
  • 1. That God is one, and that there is but one God ( Deuteronomy 6:4 ; 1 Kings 8:60 ; Isaiah 44:6 ; Mark 12:29 Mark 12:32 ; John 10:30 ).
  • 2 . That the Father is a distinct divine Person (hypostasis, subsistentia, persona, suppositum intellectuale), distinct from the Son and the Holy Spirit.
  • 3. That Jesus Christ was truly God, and yet was a Person distinct from the Father and the Holy Spirit.
  • 4. That the Holy Spirit is also a distinct divine Person.

So, is this what you believe?
Because bullet points 2 & 3 do not agree with what You were stating.

In quoting Isaiah 9:6-7, You made a point of calling Jesus, “Eternal Father“ as though Jesus was the Father. And, quoting John 20:28, You were doing the same thing: again, making Jesus the Father.

But according to the definition, they are distinct.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Isn't it the Governing Body who rules over the JW? Where in the bible does it mention Governing Body? Where do the apostles say that the Governing Body is valid?
Words change, also meanings, don't they? We are talking about Hebrews 1:8, John 14:28, and the Trinity doctrine, aren't we? (The "throne.") Now I appreciate that you're interested in this, so let's try to stick to the subject.
At John 14:28, where Jesus said the Father is greater than I am but -- one would have to add interpretation in to that statement in order to insert it in the trinity doctrine. John 14:28 -- "the Father is GREATER than I am." There is more to say about Hebrews 1:8, and I see we're getting quite deep, at least I am, and for inquirers I think we should, but it can require a detailed discussion. And, since scholars themselves have disagreed, I guess each one will have to decide what he goes with or accepts.
One commentary (Meyer's New Testament Commentary) says this in part about the wording, or translation at Hebrews 1:8::
"it has been thought by Grimm (Theol. Literaturbl. to the Darmstadt Allg. Kirch.-Zeit. 1857, No. 29, p. 662) and Ewald (das Sendschr. and. Hebr. p. 55), ought not to be explained in the sense of a vocative. According to Grimm, the words are to be taken in the acceptation: “Thy throne, i.e. the foundation of Thy throne, is God;” according to Ewald, they say that “the throne of the Messiah for everlasting ages is God Himself, so that where He reigns, there God Himself is virtually ever present.” (That from Meyer's New Testament Commentary)
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
This doesn't mean "most Christians have killed," as you said.


This doesn't mean "most Christians have killed," as you said.


This doesn't mean "most Christians have killed," as you said.

You see what you want to see, and you put it out there as truth. This is the MO of your ilk.
Am I being ambiguous somehow, or are you just not following me?

Let me be clear: “most Christian denominations have killed”!
And most christian denominations are trinitarian.

What is my ilk? Truth tellers?
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
You put a lot for me to read and study. It'll take me a while so I'll start with the above.
You asked for scripture and I gave it to you.....

You believe that Jesus is Michael due to inferences that you see but not because it says so word for word. Isn't there a double standard?
No, I see it as one party pushing an unscriptural "doctrine" as if it cannot be wrong, but having no scriptural backing for this doctrine to begin with. How does such an important doctrine show up over 300 years after Jesus died, to become the very foundational doctrine of the whole of Christendom? !

We have no "doctrine" concerning the evidence pointing to Michael the name of being the son of God in heaven. Having it as a "belief" and not a doctrine means it is open to question and not in any way altering our view that Jesus was not God incarnate....the rest of scripture does that nicely.

The word Trinity is not in the bible either but people who believe in it see inferences being mentioned in it.

If Jesus was God Almighty, then surely he would have come out and said it directly? It is such an important part of being a Christian...knowing who you are giving your worship to ....and who you are praying to.....Jesus knew, and so do we. We have no doubts about who God is and who Jesus was on earth and who he is right now in heaven.

BTW The name Jehovah is not in the bible either. It's man-made. No one really knows God's name.

We have no doctrine about that either. We know that God's name in Hebrew is represented by the letters YHWH. As the Jews made it a practice not to utter the divine name, its pronunciation was lost....but whether we use Yahweh or Jehovah (as it is pronounced in English) matters little to a God who speaks all languages. There is no "J" in Hebrew. so if we are going to be pedantic about God's name spelled with a "J" instead of a "Y" then we will need to change the name of every Bible character whose name starts with a "J". Most of which incorporate the divine name in their meaning. So please don't start that conversation....

This is a side question: Who are the authors of the WT. Why should I trust what they write? I don't see any references.

The Watchtower is a Bible Society stretching back to the late 1800's. Its establishment was to provide Bibles and Bible based literature to those who were keen to read and understand the Bible for themselves, rather than relying on Christendom to feed them doctrines that they were now questioning.

Christendom had kept the Bible for their clergy to feed their flocks only what they wanted them to know. It was common to feel as if this Pastor was the only one who could dispense to the flock what they needed to know, just as the Catholic clergy had done before them....but when the Bible became available to the common man, some were finding things in God's word that Christendom had failed to teach them. They were questioning their clergy who seemed to have no answers because they themselves were taught these things at their seminaries.....they were fed the same distorted scripture that Catholicism had dispensed for centuries.Things began to change....

The Watchtower was used by "The International Bible Students Association" as Jehovah's Witnesses were then known. It was the product of a group of like-minded men from various denominations of Christendom, who felt compelled to meet together to discuss and research church doctrines as they compared with the Bible. No one man was in charge of this arrangement and no one denomination was favored in these discussions, so they were not a breakaway from any particular church, but a breakaway from Christendom itself and her unscriptural doctrines. They started as a small group back then and ended up with around 8.5 million members world wide in 2020.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah's_Witnesses_by_country

They had a gifted public speaker named Charles Taze Russell, who was a spokesman for the group. He was independently wealthy and donated his money to the cause of truth, funding the printing of their first magazine originally called Zion's Watchtower. It gained a large public reading as excerpts and transcripts of Russell's talks were printed in newspapers all over the USA. It later graduated to radio as the good news spread and people liked what they heard. From there is was launched overseas as people of all nations responded to the Bible's message. Today we active in every nation on earth.

We believed that this was exactly what was foretold in Daniel ch 12 regarding the "time of the end". God was going to "cleanse, whiten and refine" his worshippers at this time and provide an "abundance of knowledge" that had been missing up until that time. (Daniel 12:4; 9-10) Many people acted on that knowledge and they too left Christendom and all their former religions behind.

The Watchtower Magazine (along with its companion AWAKE) has not missed a printing in over 100 years. It is now available online for all to read. The message they proclaim is the same...this world is doomed, and the introduction of God's Kingdom by his his Christ will rectify all that is plaguing the human race and destroying the earth itself. This is "the good news of the Kingdom" (Matthew 24:14)
https://www.jw.org/en/

By all accounts, this wonderful Kingdom is not far away......
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
The doctrine of the Trinity states that Jesus is both fully God (therefore, sinless, perfect, powerful) and fully human (born of a human mother into a human body, and "subject to every temptation as we are...") That's it. If you can't handle the apparent dichotomy, that's your issue, not the Church's. I think that the fully human Jesus needed to be fed and nurtured. I think "carpenter" is a bit of a fairy tale. I think the fully human Jesus was an itinerant rabbi. I think the fully human Jesus was killed. I also believe that the fully divine Jesus became incarnate in a human womb, that the fully divine Jesus walked among us as Emmanuel, that the fully divine Jesus was resurrected and ascended -- just as all other gods. I believe a fully human Jesus prayed to his Father God. I believe a fully divine Jesus heard the prayers of suffering and alleviated that suffering through feeding, healing, and loving.

Again, if you can't handle that, that's an issue you'll have to own. The rest of the Church is quite comfortable wrestling with the image the Trinity gives us.
Going back over your first statement there -- that the doctrine says that Jesus is both fully human and fully God already tells me (obviously not you) that something doesn't add up there as far as being equal to the other two persons.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Take your time so you can be thorough. Also, it would help if you have historical and scriptural support that can be tied in.



I agree with all of the scriptures above but I don't see how they change the interpretation of other scriptures.
If God put everything at Jesus' feet, it surely shows (me) that God--the God of Jesus--is GREATER than he, Jesus, is. Yes, the God of Jesus, gave him great power and authority in time. That again tells me the two are not equal, but that what Jesus said at John 14:28 ("The Father is greater than I am.") is true, and will be true, forever. The love that Jesus showed for the Father is thrilling and wonderful.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
One verse -- one verse in the entire bible where the term kolasin aionion is used, and you take it, run with it, and create doctrine out of it. Matthew 25 isn't about the individual's eternal disposition, but about what's going to happen to Israel, due to the absolute corruption of her theocracy. You're lifting it out of context and applying it to texts that have nothing to do with it.
The Bible talks about eternal punishment. And eternal life. What do you mean by applying that to, "what's going to happen to Israel, due to the absolute corruption of her theocracy?"
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
I'm aware that Professor Bart Ehrman of Religious Studies says that Matthew, Mark, and Luke do not teach anything about Jesus being God. The early churches did not have the bible. Some churches only had 1 or two of the synoptic gospels if any. Not having all of the scriptures together caused problems. We see this in Paul's writings. For example, Ebionites did not follow Paul but followed James. Many of the poor jews did not know how to read. So they were going by what they were being told. So, to answer your question, No. The synoptic gospels by themselves do not teach the trinity as far as I know.
The synagogues had and still have the scriptures up until Malachi. Now Jesus came, lived among the Jews, read from the Scriptures in the synagogue.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
The nature of sin is separation from God.
Therefore -- since you say that nature ofr sin is separation from God, that means -- (I leave the rest open for your answer.)
So do you believe Adam and Eve sinned?
 
Last edited:

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
You put a few things up that seem questionable. I'll start with Jesus being Michael the Archangel.
Please use scriptural support to support this claim. Where in the bible is Jesus called Michael the Archangel??? And what does this have to do with the topic (trinity)???

Please try to use the bible. For example, I used the scripture of Isaiah to show that Jesus was called God. Please show where Jesus is called Michael.
I'd like to mention, since I'm reading your question, that Isaiah 9 says "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given, and the government will be upon His shoulders. And He will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. 7Of the increase of His government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish and sustain it with justice and righteousness from that time and forevermore. The zeal of the LORD of Hosts will accomplish this."
You see, in reference to your question about who Michael is, I hope you figure the connection to an extent. If not, please let me know. Thank you.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
That still doesn't constitute "most of that group" killing. Most Christians have never killed anyone.
Would you say the majority of those going to war in countries like Germany, England, France, Italy, Poland, Russia, were not claiming to be Christian?
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Following is the Defenition of the Trinity. Hope this make the understanding of the concept a little clearer.

Dictionaries - Easton's Bible Dictionary - Trinity

A word not found in Scripture, but used to express the doctrine of the unity of God as subsisting in three distinct Persons. This word is derived from the Gr. trias, first used by Theophilus (A.D. 168-183), or from the Lat. trinitas, first used by Tertullian (A.D. 220), to express this doctrine.

The propositions involved in the doctrine are these:
  • 1. That God is one, and that there is but one God ( Deuteronomy 6:4 ; 1 Kings 8:60 ; Isaiah 44:6 ; Mark 12:29 Mark 12:32 ; John 10:30 ).
  • 2 . That the Father is a distinct divine Person (hypostasis, subsistentia, persona, suppositum intellectuale), distinct from the Son and the Holy Spirit.
  • 3. That Jesus Christ was truly God, and yet was a Person distinct from the Father and the Holy Spirit.
  • 4. That the Holy Spirit is also a distinct divine Person.
Thank you. Looking up more about Jesus' statement at John 5:19, 20, I found the following commentary very interesting, I'd like to know what you think:
Regarding John 5:19 -
"the Son can do nothing of himself—that is, apart from and in rivalry of the Father, as they supposed. The meaning is, "The Son can have no separate interest or action from the Father."
for what things,—On the contrary, "whatever the Father doeth that same doeth the Son,"
likewise—"in the like manner." What claim to absolute equality with the Father could exceed this: not only to do "the same things," but to do them as the Father does them?"

While this does not show to me "absolute equality with the Father" as in consubstantiation or the doctrine of the Trinity, it does show (to me) the love and faithfulness the Son has for the Father. No wonder so many hated him when he said this. In fact, the more I think about it, it is not reasonable to think that God himself was born in the flesh in the body of Jesus.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
Isn't it the Governing Body who rules over the JW? Where in the bible does it mention Governing Body? Where do the apostles say that the Governing Body is valid?

The presence of a governing body of older men or elders was a first century model. When the circumcision issue arose in the congregations, the Jewish Christians thought that the Gentiles should be circumcised in accord with Jewish Law. It was causing friction and division in the brotherhood so they rather than trying to settle things on a congregational level, they sent word to the elders and apostles in Jerusalem and asked for a decision on the matter that would apply in all congregations. Read Acts ch 15 and you will see how that issue was handled. We have a governing body too who see to it that unity of belief and order in the congregations are observed. There is nothing new about this arrangement. God is a God of order....it is not automatically achieved without a set of rules and someone to enforce them. How do you think Israel was governed? The Bible makes the rules....the governing body simply encourages us to obey them.

Doesn’t Christendom also do the same thing? Each congregation of any denomination has a set of teachings that are regulated by a central governing body. Any who step outside of those teachings are usually censured and brought back into line with the church’s teachings.
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
When a CHURCH organization that was based on medical Genetic science explanations said....I believe in Jesus and therefore the body of rock upon which I found this building states...never change the body of stone ever again.

And said he believed in the HOLY FATHER...not the Father of the devil....then he was correct.

To claim and by the ownership status of being wrong, on and for and due to, I therefore took an oath to protect humanity, then you did.

As a substitutive Father....seeing the human population had factually lost their own adult Fathers as males into Satanic belief and abuses.

Therefore the CHURCH first founders forbade the Satanic male orders/sciences within their walls, as a founding group of human protectors.

What they originally were founded upon.

Then the Second Coming/return of Jesus Shroud of Turin life attack....due to the same pyramid/temple trans mutation sciences being practiced.....as said, a huge male population changed into the homosexual behaviours....seeing it was the original male spiritual and healthy self who began science.

Therefore his homosexual brother mind was a cause of his owned original spiritual choices...as the fact reason of human history.

However, just because you are homosexual does not mean you were of the occult Satanic science Destroyer mentality. Many males kept their feelings secretive, and lived very loving and kind lives...seeing sex is mutual and also in private.

Flaunting human sexuality was said to be the promiscuous mind....irradiated unable to control itself...due to the chemical imbalances given to the brain mind in radiation fall out / life sacrificed attacks.

Why history needed to be reviewed in the context in which it had been expressed relating to what the occult factually is.

The exact same reasoning any human discussing God should have realized it was about science cause against the spiritual life of a human.

For it is just humans doing all of the story telling and owning the beliefs, when each and every human is only owned as a human life, in a human life, and born equally in life, as a human.

Therefore knowing that very basic fact then established, hence if you want to do a condition that is not just living as that human life.....such as science, then you instantly become involved in the status of lying/self deceit.

For no human created the Universe, or owns space to control space to tell space what to do....for what control does a human in science claim that they own?

The only answer is a machine.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
That still doesn't constitute "most of that group" killing. Most Christians have never killed anyone.
Most of the killers in the armed forces during the World Wars and earlier of the European nations were "Christian."
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
They are complicit by their tacit support for their nations governments committing politically based bloodshed.
I don't know what you mean by "tacit support" in all cases. Yes, this is a moral/ethical problem. I've studied it extensively in seminary. There used to be a notion called "just war," which supposedly was biblically-based. It's outdated now. I don't agree with it. But it's a very sticky situation when threats come along. We have to ask ourselves the question: is it better to allow tyrants, despots, and evil to overrun your land? Or is it better to take care of business? I suppose that if you were in the USA, you'd be satisfied saying "I won't fight," while letting others fight in your place so that you can continue to worship as you see fit? I suppose you'd be cool with having to learn Russian or German and being forced to salute leaders who have their boot on your neck? You see the problem? The problem is that there are evil, powerful people who have to be stood up against by somebody in order for an equitable society to be maintained. It's an unfortunate part of the human condition -- not the Christian condition.

This is alluding to the practice of homosexuality (both gay and lesbian)
No. it isn't. This is exactly why you get blowback from me. This is alluding to same-sex practices -- not homosexual practices. There's an important exegetical difference that must be taken under consideration in order to arrive at a viable theological stance. Simply saying, "God said it, I believe it, that settles it" isn't good enough. It disrespects both God and the texts, and invites dehumanization of others.
 
Top