SLPCCC
Active Member
What do you think about the Watchtower publications misquoting sources?
-
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?
- Thread starter SLPCCC
- Start date
What do you think about the Watchtower publications misquoting sources?
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
The quote you provided actually showed me without doubt that many religious people have it wrong about the trinity, have been doing so for centuries, are making up their own stories. I do hope you find a church agreeable to you. It is clear to me there are not three persons all equal to the other and each one said to be God. Nothing you have said proves otherwise.
SLPCCC
Active Member
I pray for you. As true Christians, we have to demonstrate love toward you people.
SLPCCC
Active Member
You are not answering my question so I'll put in simply. What do you think about their lies?
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
I am answering your question. The quote you provided that said that neither Jesus nor Paul spoke about any doctrine of three Godpersons each and all equal to the other and yet one God. You are avoiding the subject you brought up at the beginning, i.e., the trinity per Athanasius. If you want to believe it, go ahead. If not, that's up to you. Nothing you have said convinces me in any way that God is a trinity, no matter what you say about Jehovah's Witnesses. At this point, I bid you a good day and hope you find a church that you can agreeably attend in person or on the internet.
SLPCCC
Active Member
The Holy Spirit is called God
I just learned that the Holy Spirit is called God at Acts 5: 3, 4
- But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thy heart to lie to the Holy Spirit, and to keep back [part] of the price of the land?
4 While it remained, did it not remain thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thy power? How is it that thou hast conceived this thing in thy heart? thou has not lied unto men, but unto God.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
@SLPCCC it seems unlikely that you are willing at this point to discuss what the Bible says in reference to the Athanasian doctrine as you started this thread, as if to say that God is three persons, always existing without a beginning of each and all. You divert to other issues as if that solves the problem of whether the trinity, as delineated by Athanasius and others, is true. Instead of sticking to a subject, you divert. It would be better, if you are sincere in figuring whether the trinity is true for a discussion if you would stay on one subject.
SLPCCC
Active Member
Who really is the faithful and discreet slave?
The Jehovah's Witnesses don't believe in the Trinity and won't even question the dishonesty of their publication because of a group of men called faithful and discreet slave class or Governing Body.
- Matthew 24:45-47 "Who really is the faithful and discreet slave whom his master appointed over his domestics, to give them their food at the proper time? Happy is that slave if his master on arriving finds him doing so. Truly I say to YOU, He will appoint him over all his belongings."
The parable has been misused by Watchtower to establish its own authority and through dishonest methods disprove the Trinity.
The Governing Body
The Watchtower claims to structure its leadership hierarchy after a model set by a first century, Christian governing body. However, the term "governing body" does not appear in the New Testament. Neither does the concept of a small, centralised group of leaders.
Last edited:
I think you can, especially when you consider that out of the three main Abrahamic faiths, Jews do not have a trinity, and Islam does not have a trinity....only Christendom (created later than first century Christianity) teaches that God is not "one" but "three". If Paganism has three, then I think we can see a clear adoption here....as clear as other 'adoptions' such as the cross, immortality of the soul, hellfire, and the celebrations of Christmas and Easter. None of these are based on scripture but are grafted in by spurious translation or adopted traditions.
Where did the trinity come from? If it is not directly stated in the Bible, i.e. there is no direct statement from either God or Jesus that there are three equal and co-eternal parts to God....then where did the idea come from? Isn't it obvious? It was, after all, foretold that Christianity would become apostate.....and what greater apostasy can there be than to change the very nature of God?
Calling Jesus "The Word" (Logos) means essentially that he was God's spokesman as the "mediator" appointed by the Father so that communication with God could continue after the fall in Eden. He was in this position from the beginning of man's defection. Any time God spoke to sinful humans, it was by means of his Logos.
According to the Athanasian Creed, there are three divine Persons (the Father, the Son, the Holy Ghost), each said to be eternal, each said to be almighty, none greater or less than another, each said to be God, and yet together being but one God. Other statements of the dogma emphasize that these three “Persons” are not separate and distinct individuals but are three modes in which the divine essence exists. But this is NOT a Bible teaching.
Genesis 4:25-26 says (Tanakh)
"25 And Adam knew his wife again, and she bore a son, and she named him Seth, for God has given me other seed, instead of Abel, for Cain slew him.
26 And to Seth also to him a son was born, and he named him Enosh; then it became common to call by the name of the Lord. "
The Targum of Palestine comments on verse 26....saying: “That was the generation in whose days they began to err, and to make themselves idols, and surnamed their idols by the name of the word of the Lord.”
After the deluge of Noah’s day the Babylonized pagans did the same by referring to their false gods also by the plural form of excellence, elohim, god. (such as to the god Dagon at Judges 16:23-24 and the god Chemosh and the god Milcom at 1 Kings 11:33 and the god Baal-zebub at 2 Kings 1:2,3,16.)
In Noah’s history recording the days of Enoch, after idolatry had become practiced, the true worshipers frequently put a definite article ha before el or elohim to indicate “the true God” Jehovah, as distinct from the false gods who were also being referred to as el or elohim but not as ha-el or ha-elohim. (Genesis 5:22; 2 Kings 1:6,9)
In the Greek we see a similar situation with regard to John 1:1....i.e. the use of the definite article to identify the true God as distinct from other 'gods' (mighty ones) The Greeks had no word for a specific god who did not have a name.....so they identified the then nameless God of the Jews with the definite article (the...ho).
Reading John 1:1 in a Greek Interlinear we see the definite article in the first instance, but not in the second, indicating two separate "mighty ones" (gods) but only one is "THE God".
A cursory reading of scripture does not always reveal the truth especially when bias was used in the early English translations.....all of which were produced by trinitarians. The KJV is the worst.
Do you have a reference for that?
What makes you think we haven't examined every source to ascertain the validity of such a divisive doctrine? The scriptures are devoid of any three in one God which is acknowledged by the following......
"What is the origin of the Trinity doctrine?
The New Encyclopædia 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), Micropædia, 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 led 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 Dictionnaire 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. Lachâtre, 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 ‘person’ 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 others such as ‘essence’ and ‘substance’ were erroneously applied to God by some theologians.”—(New York, 1965), p. 899.
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?"
Trinity — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY
People WANT to believe in a triune God for some reason, but this is not the God that Jesus Christ as a 'creation' of that God, worshipped, even in heaven. (John 17:3; Revelation 3:12, 14)
Who are you praying to? Or should I say which part of God is hearing your prayers?
More digging your nose into the trough I see.....
....what else do you expect to find there but rubbish? Do you know how it is possible to lie to the holy spirit? Lets take the scriptural example you cited....but lets take it from a modern English translation...the NASB....
"But a man named Ananias, with his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property, 2 and kept back some of the price for himself, with his wife’s full knowledge, and bringing a portion of it, he laid it at the apostles’ feet. 3 But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back some of the price of the land? 4 While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not under your control? Why is it that you have conceived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.”
How did Peter know that the man and his wife had lied? Who told him? Peter, like all the other apostles had been gifted with the holy spirit, so when something was amiss, they would be informed by God's spirit that they needed to take action about something serious.
Jesus was gifted with the holy spirit at his baptism. Was Jesus now two parts of God, whilst praying to the other third who was in heaven? How silly does this doctrine have to get?
Ananias and Sapphira pretended to deposit the full amount they got for the field, but withheld some of it for themselves. They had a right to do that, but they had no right to lie about it. They lied to a man who had God's spirit.....which was tantamount to denying its power and its authority to the ones gifted with possessing it. Can you tell me how a "person" (one third of God) who is already split into three, now has the ability to spread himself between hundreds of people who all have the holy spirit? Does that make any sense to you?
firedragon
Veteran Member
I didn't say anything about the trinity. I was using this verse because it is the linguistic, same words as the verse in Matthew you quoted and made that statement "In the names of Tom, Dick, and Harry. "Name" should be plural, correct?" which you have absolutely wrongly alluded strangely. I responded to this showing your mistake in the analogy with "Its In the name of Tom, and of Dick, and of Harry", in which you don't need the apostrophe s to assist in the plurality. Its simple, common English. Your argument is absolutely false".
Okay. Let me explain. In this verse you cut and pasted from Timothy, it is the same words in the greek. Just like you made it a singular "name" and said that its all one person because of that verse, this is also using the same singular "name" or "nomoa", then says the same words "Onoma Tou and Kai tou". Same thing. Thus, using your logic this verse should also mean "God and his teaching are one which is another binity".
If you cannot understand this, I shall leave it at that.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Thats the subordination rejected by the Athanasian trinity. Its a heresy.
You “just learned”? What?
That’s being disingenuous.....
You used the same argument, back in post #346!
I am not angry....it just frustrates me when people have scripture placed before them that shows point blank that Jesus never once claimed to be God, or part of a godhead, that you could accept that. But there is always an argument to the contrary. If you want to accept the trinity then go ahead....but know that putting another god in place of the Father is blasphemy. It is something Jesus never did. (Luke 4:5-8)
We have tried to let you know that there is way more scripture that destroys the trinity than supports it. It did not exist as a doctrine until over 300 years after Jesus died....can you explain why something that ended up as Christendom's foundational doctrine, was never taught by Jesus himself?
Have you already written us off as a cult?....by your own admission you think JW's are scary because someone said we were.....? When Jesus was here on earth, they would have accused him of being the leader of a "cult". Ask yourself what it took for his disciples to be different in amongst their own countrymen and to preach a message in opposition to the religious leaders in Judaism?
There has been so much presented to you already on this thread, but it is almost as if we have shown you nothing.
The "faithful and discreet slave" exists....the Master appointed him...."he" is part of the sign that Jesus gave to show us that it was the time for his return, and that he was "with" his disciples to "the end". The one thing he said that his disciples would do at this time was to preach about God's Kingdom in all the nations, till the "end" came.
I have asked you a couple of times now....what do you think God's Kingdom is? Christendom hasn't got a clue.....but Christ's disciples were to be out there preaching about it.....so who are they? Who else do you see talking about God's Kingdom in every nation on earth, as one united brotherhood, taking that message out to the people as Jesus commanded? I don't know of any others....do you?
SLPCCC
Active Member
More digging your nose into the trough I see.....
Are you being reasonable? Truth does not fear examination. False religions and cults do. Jehovah God is the God of truth. If an organization, religion, or cult cannot stand up under examination, it is not ‘the truth’ but rather a counterfeit. Let me ask you a question and please try to be reasonable.
Let’s say I’m a Catholic who uses crosses in my worship, and you were preaching to me about Jehovah. You tell me how wrong the cross is and that the trinity is false. I study with you and go do research on my own to find out if what you are saying is true, Acts 17:11. As I’m doing research, I find information on the web of a former Catholic who is now a Jehovah’s Witness. I read what he has to say. My priest finds out about my contact with you, the former Catholic, and says, don’t get information from that former Catholic. He is working for the devil now because he left us. Everything he is saying is lies. "So, stop digging your nose into the trough. What else do you expect to find there but rubbish" if you want to learn about the Trinity just go to our library. What should this Catholic do, listen to the priest, or continue with his research? Here’s another analogy.
Would you purchase a used car from a salesman who says to you: ‘Don’t listen to what the other dealer across the road tells you about our vehicles. He left our dealership and started his own business because he doesn’t like our policies. All he does now is steal our customers by lying about the quality of our vehicles and services’? If a car salesman told you this, wouldn’t this put a red flag in your mind that something isn’t right about this dealership? Wouldn’t you want to talk to the other dealership across the road to hear his side of what happened between him and this dealer before you make the commitment to purchase a vehicle from him?” Jehovah gave us the ability to use reason. Proverbs 18:17 says using your bible,
- The first to state his case seems right, Until the other party comes and cross-examines him.
What would you expect me to do if a Catholic priest, minster or the Jehovah’s Witnesses tells me: ‘Don’t listen to what that Ex-Catholic, Ex-minister or Ex-Jehovah’s Witnesses have to say about our religion because they are bitter about their experiences and all they do is “lie” about us’? Shouldn't that be a red flag because truth does not fear examination? If an organization or church cannot stand up under examination, it is not ‘the truth’ but rather a counterfeit and loyalty to a counterfeit is disloyalty to Jehovah God.
Cults who don't want you to find out about them use this same method on their members and converts. They tell them not to research outside the box in fear of being exposed. Even criminals do the same thing. They don't want you to hear the other side. If your religion really does that, mark them with a red flag.
Last edited:
SLPCCC
Active Member
I pray to my Father, Jesus' Father. And to my God, Jesus' God. I pray to the one who you call Jehovah, in Jesus' name. I don't need to call him Jehovah because he is my father. Just like I don't need to call my biological father by his name because he is my father. Even though other people may have my biological father's name when I call him he knows it's me by the sound of my voice. Same with the one you call Jehovah. When I call on him, father, he recognizes my voice and knows it's me and responds.
SLPCCC
Active Member
I know you haven't because first of all you put your leaders, "Governing Body" before anything including your own reason. Second, you are not allowed to question them. Even if what they say conflicts with the bible, you are not allowed to question. So, I can conclude that you haven't checked their sources.