1. 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!

Ask about Jehovah's Witnesses

Discussion in 'Religious Debates' started by WitnessofJah, Nov 11, 2004.

  1. SoulTYPE

    SoulTYPE Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    3,252
    Ratings:
    +121
    Linux I like your answer very much. It is resourceful, and In my opinion, correct. However many coins I have are all yours. So sayeth the reaper.

    Anyways, I'll pull my pants up and stop contributing to this thread.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  2. Linus

    Linus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2004
    Messages:
    1,211
    Ratings:
    +132
    SoulTYPE01, you are a very considerate and generous person. Thank you.
     
  3. SoulTYPE

    SoulTYPE Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    3,252
    Ratings:
    +121
    Not many see that side of me though..
     
  4. WitnessofJah

    WitnessofJah Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2004
    Messages:
    219
    Ratings:
    +7




    Actually, the word “Protokos”, and it’s meaning, come from the ‘Septuagint’ translation of the Bible – which was no less the first translation of the Bible ever. Deuteronomy 21:17 of the Septuagint translation word for word says: “Ruben, thou art my first-born, thou my strength, and the first of my children.” And in actual fact, the words “protótokos páses ktíseos” perfect translation is "the firstborn of all creation". Since the Septuagint is the first translation and one of the closest, it’s slightly more closer to the original version, than lets say, the NAS. :) Also, since the idea of Jesus being the “firstborn of creation” and therefore not a “God”, it conflicts with your idea of the Trinity, which is in your interests to defend. “Preeminent” was not in the original Septuagint, and in actual fact, changes the meaning altogether.







    “Him” does refer to Jesus, but you have taken it out of context to convert the meaning to make Jesus God – which he was not! :D The idea of a Trinity is a HUGE debate to be had – which I will definitely start in a new thread. In the meantime, explain to me John 14:28 -which shows clearly that Jesus and God are unequal – therefore, rendering Trinitarianism obsolete.







    “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.” – Colossians 1:15. If, according to you, that in this verse, “God” refers to Jesus, who was the “He” in this verse?







    Again, this is a conflict between to our beliefs about the Trinity. Personally, I consider the New World Translation to be good, which has been derived from the original Wescott and Hott greek translation, which is the closest to the original greek biblical scrolls as you can get, and also the translation of the Septuagint – run a search on these books – these are the closest to the originals as you can get.


    The Bible should be about what it actually says, not what you want it to say.
     
  5. cardero

    cardero Citizen Mod

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2004
    Messages:
    11,110
    Ratings:
    +1,669
    Why do Jehovah Witnesses follow THE BIBLE? Is GOD not available to everyone who desires TRUE UNDERSTANDING? Can GOD inspire and teach us today as the authors of THE BIBLE did back in the early centuries? In addition to THE BIBLE how do Jehovah Witnesses encourage their REALationship with GOD today?
     
  6. SoulTYPE

    SoulTYPE Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    3,252
    Ratings:
    +121
    That is actually a good point carrdero. As mentioned earlier in other threads, teachings and the bible may have lost a lot in tanslation over time.
     
  7. HelpMe

    HelpMe ·´sociopathic meanderer`·

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2004
    Messages:
    1,313
    Ratings:
    +61
    john 1:1 should read "In the beginning the word was, and the word was with the god, and the word was [a] god".the [a] would be properly placed as the indefinate article (lo/the) IS in the remaining greek texts.check any interleniar against this, they will show it(lo/the) in the greek text but i have found none that place it in the english translation.

    i believe that firstborn denotes preeminence, but i also believe rev3:14('...the beginning of the creation of god...') is the strongest indicator that yeshua(jesus) was the first thing made.also a passage such as john5:26(...the Father hath life in himself, even so gave he to the Son also to have life in himself...) denotes the father being responsible for yeshua(jesus)'s existance.

    as pertaining to john1:1-3 and col1:16, i believe the word 'all' must be taken into context(as it does not always pertain to the absolute sense of the word all) while considering the scriptures(bible) as a whole and looking at other uses of the word 'all'(Jer26:8[certainly jeremiah didn't also seize himself],1john2:20[nobody here thinks christians literally know all things],gen4:21[of course this doesn't mean jubal replaced yahuweh as the father of all who play the harp and pipe]).

    love

    and witness, when i have time i will respond to your response to my post, thanks.btw acts1:8 is calling believers witnesses of yeshua(jesus), not of his father yahuweh.read the surrounding text, it refers to the son.
     
  8. Linus

    Linus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2004
    Messages:
    1,211
    Ratings:
    +132
    What I'm trying to say is the actual translation of a word means nothing without an explenation of the meaning. There are Greek words that have various meanings that need to be explained in order to fully understand their translation. You have to look past the word usage and consider the meaning. Yes the literal translation of protokos is "first-born" but the meaning impied from that is preeminence and importance.

    From http://www.data-boy.net/reference/vines/index.asp

    1prototokos

    "firstborn" (from protos, "first," and tikto, "to beget"), is used of Christ as born of the Virgin Mary, Lu. 2:7; further, in His relationship to the Father, expressing His priority to, and preeminence over, creation, not in the sense of being the "first" to be born. It is used occasionally of superiority of position in the OT; see Ex. 4:22; De. 21:16,17, the prohibition being against the evil of assigning the privileged position of the "firstborn" to one born subsequently to the "first" child. The five passages in the NT relating to Christ may be set forth chronologically thus: (a) Col. 1:15, where His eternal relationship with the Father is in view, and the clause means both that He was the "Firstborn" before all creation and that He Himself produced creation (the genitive case being objective, as ver. 16 makes clear); (b) Col. 1:18; Re. 1:5, in reference to His resurrection; (c) Ro. 8:29, His position in relationship to the church; (d) Heb. 1:6, RV, His Second Advent (the RV "when He again bringeth in," puts "again" in the right place, the contrast to His First Advent, at His birth, being implied); cp. Ps. . 89:27: The word is used in the plural, in Heb. 11:28, of the firstborn sons in the families of the Egyptians, and in Ps. . 12:23, of the members of the Church. Note: With (a) cp. Joh. 1:30, "He was before me," lit., "He was first (protos) of me," i.e., "in regard to me," expressing all that is involved in His preexistence and priority.

    Starting in verse 14, the pronoun Him refers to Jesus. You can see this all the way down to verse 18 when it says that He (Jesus) is the head of the church. Would you agree that Jesus is the head of the Church? Why would "Him" all of the sudden change context, referring to God, when in verse 14 the pronoun "His" is used referring to Christ?

    Anyway, John 14:28- Jesus lowered Himself down to earth, in a human form, to sacrifice Himself for our sins. But this lowering of Himself, this coming to earth in a human form was not permanent.
    Hebrews2:9 - But we do see Him who was made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, so that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone

    Reasons Why Jesus IS God
    John 10:30- I and the Father are one.
    and John 17:21says that Jesus is in the Father and the Father is in Him.

    Also consider these 2 passages: Exodus 3:14 says "God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM"; and He said, "Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.'"

    This usage of the name "I AM" is used by Jesus Himself to indicate the He is God.
    John 8:58 - Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I AM."
    How can you deny the deity of Jesus with regards to these passages?
     
  9. WitnessofJah

    WitnessofJah Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2004
    Messages:
    219
    Ratings:
    +7
    Because the Bible is inspired of God. "All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness." - 2 Timothy 3:16.

    The Bible is a timeless masterpiece which provides good instruction for us, for our families, tells us what God hates and does not hate, gives us ethical stories, tells us about the future (prophecy), and gives us an everlasting hope. Outdated? Absolutely not. The Bible is God's words - and he gave it to us for a reason - and the reason is for us to learn from it.

    How does the Bible encourage our relationship with God? Well, talking from personal experience, the more I read the Bible - the closer I felt to him. Also, by embracing him in prayer on a regular basis, you build a closer relationship with him even further. By doing these two things and also by following his commandments, God becomes real to you, rather than just being 'a person in the heavens somewhere.'


     
  10. WitnessofJah

    WitnessofJah Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2004
    Messages:
    219
    Ratings:
    +7




    Firstly, I’m not sure if you want me to respond to this post apart from the final paragraph, since you have neither asked a question and actually seem to agree with me on the most part. If I have understood wrong, let me know. :)



    Acts 1: 7,8: ”He said to them: “It does not belong to YOU to get knowledge of the times or seasons which the Father has placed in his own jurisdiction; 8 but YOU will receive power when the holy spirit arrives upon YOU, and YOU will be witnesses of me both in Jerusalem and in all Ju·de´a and Sa·mar´i·a and to the most distant part of the earth.”



    This verse was actually just before the ascension, and he clearly said in verse 7 that “the Father has placed in his own jurisdiction”. By looking at the context, when he says “father”, he clearly is not referring to himself, since it is a third person. Also, by saying that “become witnesses of me”, he by no means detracts worship away from God to himself, it is simply a command to preach in his name.
     
  11. SoulTYPE

    SoulTYPE Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    3,252
    Ratings:
    +121
    The downfall of two different opinions...

    Satan created stuff too. There.
     
  12. HelpMe

    HelpMe ·´sociopathic meanderer`·

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2004
    Messages:
    1,313
    Ratings:
    +61
    this is an argument and verse commonly taken out of context and exagerrated in meaning.if these verses equate the son with the father, then these verses equate us believers with both of them, this is truly absurd

    Joh 17:11(22):"... Father, keep them in thy name which thou hast given me, that they may be one, even as we [are]"
    Joh 17:21:"...that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, [art] in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us: that the world may believe that thou didst send me..."

    simple put, these verses prove your theory wrong, and in light of 1Jo 5:8(...and these three agree as one.) one may rightfully conclude that 'one'ness speaks of agreement.


    The greek phrase here translated as “I am” occurs many other times in the New Testament, and is often translated as “I am he” or some equivalent (“I am he”—Mark 13:6; Luke 21:8; John 13:19; 18:5, 6 and 8. “It is I”—Matt. 14:27; Mark 6:50; John 6:20. “I am the one I claim to be”—John 8:24 and 28.).The point is this: “I am” was a common way of designating oneself, and it did not mean you were claiming to be God. In order for the Trinitarian argument that Jesus’ “I am” statement in John 8:58 makes him God, his statement must be equivalent with God’s “I am” statement in Exodus 3:14. However, the two statements are very different. While the Greek phrase in John does mean “I am,” the Hebrew phrase in Exodus actually means “to be” or “to become.” In other words God is saying, “I will be what I will be.” Thus the “I am” in Exodus is actually a mistranslation of the Hebrew text, so the fact that Jesus said “I am” did not make him God.

    Here is the weblink for a website that discusses the phrase "ehyeh asher ehyeh."

    http://www.bluethread.com/ehyeh.htm

    As you will see from the website, Rashi supports the rendering as "I will be what I will be."

    The phrase is not as one dimensional as you may have been taught or as the translations you have referenced may lead you to believe.

    http://www.studylight.org/com/acc/view.cgi?book=ex&chapter=3&verse=14#Ex3_14

    And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say ... I AM hath sent me unto you. (ASV)

    "I WILL BE WHO (OR WHAT) I WILL BE." (Fields)
    "I WILL BE WHAT I WILL BE." (Tyndale Bible)

    "I AM WHO AM." (the Douay Version)

    "I AM THE BEING." (the Septuagint (LXX))

    "I AM BECAUSE I AM." (ASV's margin)

    "I WILL BE WHAT I WILL BE." (Moffatt)

    "I AM WHO I AM." (RSV)

    .........................
    Furthermore, if we look at a Bible Hebrew Dictionary , we can look up the Phrase "I AM" hayah {haw-yaw} in Hebrew and see that it Means;


    "was, come to pass, came, has been, were happened, become, pertained, better for thee

    1) to be, become, come to pass, exist, happen, fall out
    1a) to happen, fall out, occur, take place, come about, come to pass
    1b) to come about, come to pass
    2) to come into being, become
    2a) to arise, appear, come
    2b) to become
    2b1) to become
    2b3) to be instituted, be established
    3) to be
    3a) to exist, be in existence
    3b) to abide, remain, continue (with word of place or time)
    3c) to stand, lie, be in, be at, be situated (with word of locality)
    3d) to accompany, be with "

    The Phrase "I AM" hayah {haw-yaw} is Used 72 times in the Hebrew Bible by a

    number of Prophets including (David, Moses, etc...)

    The Phrase " I-AM-GOD "'Elohiym {el-o-heem'} is Used 200 times in the Bible , Never by Any Prophets .

    Furthermore , in the Gospel of John , Jesus is recorded to have said "ego eimi" _Not_ "Hayah" Two completely different words in completely different languages , but both translated in to English as "I_am"

    Why then did't Jesus also say "Hayah" (I_am) the same way God said "Hayah" ??Remember acts26:14, the messiah did speak hebrew as well.

    Therefore with a *Statement* as grand as "I_am" , Jesus (if he said it) would have said "Hayah" like God said "Hayah"

    Instead , Jesus says "ego eimi" which is not what God said .

    This proves that Jesus did Not say "I_am" like God said "I AM"

    Also , this phrase appears in Jhn, but Not in Luke , Mark , or Matthew.Why only john?if it is as monumental as you believe?why wouldn't the others record it as well?

    it is also confirmed in acts that said speaking individual of ex3:14 was a messenger(angel),

    Exo 3:2 And the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed.

    Now in verses four and six, who is identified as being in the bush?-

    Exo 3:4 And when the LORD saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses. And he said, Here am I.

    Exo 3:6 Moreover he said, *I am* the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. And Moses hid his face; for he was afraid to look upon God.

    Notice that the LORD of verse 2 is really none other than an angel. This is confirmed in the New Testament-

    Acts 7:30 And when forty years were expired, there appeared to him in the wilderness of mount Sina an *angel of the Lord* in a flame of fire in a bush.
    Acts 7:31 When Moses saw it, he wondered at the sight: and as he drew near to behold it, the voice of the Lord came unto him,


    are they not distinctly seperate beings before(Lu10:18/Joh5:20/Joh8:38"I speak the things which I have seen with my Father..."),during(Joh10:29/Joh14:28"...Father is greater than I..."), and after(rev3:12,14:1"..having his Fathers Name written in their foreheads..."{geneva/kjv/ts, apparently this verse shouldn't have the addition which makes it 'jesus's name as well}/acts7:55,56"...saw the glory of `God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of `God, and said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing on the right hand of `God...") our messiah's life?

    John 6:57


    witness of jah, i am saying that i will response to the name issue at a later time.

    --shawn
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. WitnessofJah

    WitnessofJah Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2004
    Messages:
    219
    Ratings:
    +7


    I understand where you are coming from, but if what you say is true and the Trinity doctrine is true, why are the Father and the holy spirit not also said to be the firstborn of all creation? The Bible applies this expression only to the Son. According to the customary meaning of “firstborn,” it indicates that Jesus is the eldest in God’s family of sons. Before Colossians 1:15, the expression “the firstborn of” occurs upwards of 30 times in the Bible, and in each instance that it is applied to living creatures the same meaning applies—the firstborn is part of the group. “The firstborn of Israel” is one of the sons of Israel; “the firstborn of Pharaoh” is one of Pharaoh’s family; “the firstborn of beast” are themselves animals. What, then, causes some to ascribe a different meaning to it at Colossians 1:15? Is it Bible usage or is it a belief (the Trinity) to which they already hold and for which they (Christendom) seek to prove?

    Linus, show me a scripture in which the Bible also refers to God and the Holy Spirit as a firstborn – remember, all three parts are supposedly equal, therefore it is of utmost importance that they are described the same also. And also, explain to me why Jesus is the only one described as “Protokos” and not the other 2/3 of the Trinity.



    I agree with you that “Him” refers to Jesus. However, according to you, when it says “God” also in verse 15, you say it also refers to Jesus – which does not make any grammatical sense. Jesus cannot be “Him” and “God” in the same sentence in the context that the verse puts the words in. Colossians 1: 15: “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.” Think about it, ‘(Jesus) is the image of the invisible God’, not ‘Jesus is the image of the invisible Jesus’ – these are two different people here that the verse is referring to, not one.





    Ask yourself this question: How can GOD be beneath his own creation of his angels…it’s impossible. John 17:3: “This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ.” Note that God is clearly described as the “only true God”, this by no means refers to 3 people but a single person.





    I have two points to refute that verse: Where is the third person? (i.e. the Holy Spirit), and also look at John 17:21, 22, where he prayed to God that his disciples “in order that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in union with me and I am in union with you, that they also may be in union with us, in order that the world may believe that you sent me forth. Also, I have given them the glory that you have given me, in order that they may be one just as we are one.” Was Jesus praying that all his disciples would become a single entity? No, obviously Jesus was praying that they would be united in thought and purpose, as he and God were.—See also 1 Corinthians 1:10 to re-enforce the same point.




    ….and the rest of verse 21 goes on to say that “he may also be in union with us” (Jesus and the disciples). Does that mean that the disciples were part of the Trinity also?



    This particular argument of this verse comes down to translation used. There have been a few discrepancies regarding a few translations to this verse, which Trinitarians have seized to try and prove the beliefs. However, lets take a look at some of the other translations, and how they translate John 8:58:



    1869: “From before Abraham was, I have been.” The New Testament, by G. R. Noyes.

    1935: “I existed before Abraham was born!” The Bible—An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed.

    1965: “Before Abraham was born, I was already the one that I am.” Das Neue Testament, by Jörg Zink.

    1981: “I was alive before Abraham was born!” The Simple English Bible.

    1984: “Before Abraham came into existence, I have been.” New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures.



    The whole idea regarding this argument boils down to people saying one of Jesus’ “unique” titles was “I am”. However though, if you look at the context of Exodus 3:14 (KJ) the phrase “I AM” is used as a title for God to indicate that he really existed and would do what he promised. The Pentateuch and Haftorahs, edited by Dr. J. H. Hertz, says of the phrase: “To the Israelites in bondage, the meaning would be, ‘Although He has not yet displayed His power towards you, He will do so; He is eternal and will certainly redeem you.’ Most moderns follow Rashi [a French Bible and Talmud commentator] in rendering [Exodus 3:14] ‘I will be what I will be.’” The expression at John 8:58 is quite different from the one used at Exodus 3:14. Jesus did not use it as a name or a title but as a means of explaining his prehuman existence.

    So with that said, we now we know that Exodus 3:14 and John 8:58 are not being used in the same context and cannot be be compared to establish the Trinity.

    In conclusion, I have noticed that all the scriptures you have used to ‘prove the Trinity’ involve Jesus and God only. What happened to the Holy Spirit? The Holy Spirit, according to Trinitarian doctrines, is just as important, and as perfectly equal as the other two.
     
  14. WitnessofJah

    WitnessofJah Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2004
    Messages:
    219
    Ratings:
    +7
    Helpme, that was an excellent post. I could'nt have said it better myself. :)
     
  15. WitnessofJah

    WitnessofJah Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2004
    Messages:
    219
    Ratings:
    +7
    Linus, one more thing. The Trinity has not always been part of Biblical teaching. If you look at the origin of the Trinity, it actually dates all the way back to the Babylonian times, where the worship of pagan gods grouped in threes, or triads, was common. Eventually, Plato, the Greek philosopher also helped the nurture the concept of the Trinity. While he did not teach the Trinity in its present form, his philosophies paved the way for it. Later, philosophical movements that included triadic beliefs sprang up, and these were influenced by Plato’s ideas of God and nature. By the end of the third century C.E., “Christianity” and the new Platonic philosophies became inseparably united. In the book A Statement of Reasons, Andrews Norton says of the Trinity: “We can trace the history of this doctrine, and discover its source, not in the Christian revelation, but in the Platonic philosophy . . . The Trinity is not a doctrine of Christ and his Apostles, but a fiction of the school of the later Platonists.”


    The above is a simple summary of how modern day Trinitariansim and Christianity merged - which the Bible had nothing to do with. Linus, read up on the history of the Trinity, it really helps to put the trinitarian doctrine into perspective. A very good non-biased article with non-JW sources, and in fact, some admissions from the Catholic church itself:

    http://www.watchtower.org/library/ti/article_04.htm
     
  16. Scott1

    Scott1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,303
    Ratings:
    +950
    I only have one problem with this......... it's untrue. :)

    Early Christian writings show clearly that the Trinity was accepted as fact long before the third century.... in fact, it shows that the Trinity (although the word was not used) was known as a fact from the begining of Christianity.

    The Didache

    "After the foregoing instructions, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [running] water. . . . If you have neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" (Didache 7:1 [A.D. 70]).



    Ignatius of Antioch

    "[T]o the Church at Ephesus in Asia . . . chosen through true suffering by the will of the Father in Jesus Christ our God" (Letter to the Ephesians 1 [A.D. 110]).

    "For our God, Jesus Christ, was conceived by Mary in accord with God’s plan: of the seed of David, it is true, but also of the Holy Spirit" (ibid., 18:2).



    Justin Martyr

    "We will prove that we worship him reasonably; for we have learned that he is the Son of the true God himself, that he holds a second place, and the Spirit of prophecy a third. For this they accuse us of madness, saying that we attribute to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all things; but they are ignorant of the mystery which lies therein" (First Apology 13:5–6 [A.D. 151]).



    Theophilus of Antioch

    "It is the attribute of God, of the most high and almighty and of the living God, not only to be everywhere, but also to see and hear all; for he can in no way be contained in a place. . . . The three days before the luminaries were created are types of the Trinity: God, his Word, and his Wisdom" (To Autolycus 2:15 [A.D. 181]).



    Irenaeus

    "For the Church, although dispersed throughout the whole world even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and from their disciples the faith in one God, the Father Almighty . . . and in one Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became flesh for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit" (Against Heresies 1:10:1 [A.D. 189]).



    Tertullian

    "We do indeed believe that there is only one God, but we believe that under this dispensation, or, as we say, oikonomia, there is also a Son of this one only God, his Word, who proceeded from him and through whom all things were made and without whom nothing was made. . . . We believe he was sent down by the Father, in accord with his own promise, the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, the sanctifier of the faith of those who believe in the Father and the Son, and in the Holy Spirit. . . . This rule of faith has been present since the beginning of the gospel, before even the earlier heretics" (Against Praxeas 2 [A.D. 216]).

    "And at the same time the mystery of the oikonomia is safeguarded, for the unity is distributed in a Trinity. Placed in order, the three are the Father, Son, and Spirit. They are three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in being, but in form; not in power, but in kind; of one being, however, and one condition and one power, because he is one God of whom degrees and forms and kinds are taken into account in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" (ibid.).

    "Keep always in mind the rule of faith which I profess and by which I bear witness that the Father and the Son and the Spirit are inseparable from each other, and then you will understand what is meant by it. Observe now that I say the Father is other [distinct], the Son is other, and the Spirit is other. This statement is wrongly understood by every uneducated or perversely disposed individual, as if it meant diversity and implied by that diversity a separation of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" (ibid., 9).

    "Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent persons, who are yet distinct one from another. These three are, one essence, not one person, as it is said, ‘I and my Father are one’ [John 10:30], in respect of unity of being not singularity of number" (ibid., 25).



    Origen

    "For we do not hold that which the heretics imagine: that some part of the being of God was converted into the Son, or that the Son was procreated by the Father from non-existent substances, that is, from a being outside himself, so that there was a time when he [the Son] did not exist" (The Fundamental Doctrines 4:4:1 [A.D. 225]).

    "No, rejecting every suggestion of corporeality, we hold that the Word and the Wisdom was begotten out of the invisible and incorporeal God, without anything corporal being acted upon . . . the expression which we employ, however that there was never a time when he did not exist is to be taken with a certain allowance. For these very words ‘when’ and ‘never’ are terms of temporal significance, while whatever is said of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, is to be understood as transcending all time, all ages" (ibid.).

    "For it is the Trinity alone which exceeds every sense in which not only temporal but even eternal may be understood. It is all other things, indeed, which are outside the Trinity, which are to be measured by time and ages" (ibid.).




    When one looks at history looking for the truth... it is as plain as the nose on your face....

    .... when you look at it trying to justify a 20th century teaching, it's easy to "miss" such clear evidence.

    Believe in the Trinity on don't... I'm not trying to convince you of it is a fact, but it was most certainly believed for the past 2,000 years by the People of God.

    Peace to you and yours,
    Scott
     
  17. WitnessofJah

    WitnessofJah Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2004
    Messages:
    219
    Ratings:
    +7
    The true trinitarian origin of the belief in the "triad" actually goes back to the Babylonian era, which is considerably further back than 2000 years ago.

    SOGFPP, the lack of Biblical proof to support Trinitarianism cannot be denied, and after all, this a HUGE doctrine that hangs only on a few verses that are not very decisive. It should be noted at the outset that most of the texts used as “proof” of the Trinity actually mention only two persons, not three; so even if the Trinitarian explanation of the texts were correct, these would not prove that the Bible teaches the Trinity. If the Trinity were to be proved true, there would be canyon-like contradictions that would render the Bible obsolete.


    SOGPFF, read the link I provided - it is very informative and factual. ;)
     
  18. HelpMe

    HelpMe ·´sociopathic meanderer`·

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2004
    Messages:
    1,313
    Ratings:
    +61
    arianism dates back further than the trinity(as it is part of the jewish culture that spawned christianity).

    aslo, in light of 1Co 10:2(and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea), one should note that being baptized into something does not make it equal to the most high, merely an adequate representation.

    love
     
  19. Scott1

    Scott1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,303
    Ratings:
    +950
    One problem with your theory.... you are under the mistaken assumption that Biblical "proof" is the litmus test for doctrine.

    Scripture and the Traditions of the 2,000 year old Christian faith are of equal importance... always have been.

    Yes... to your faith... not mine. :)
     
  20. HelpMe

    HelpMe ·´sociopathic meanderer`·

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2004
    Messages:
    1,313
    Ratings:
    +61
    The Didache claims to have been authored by the twelve apostles. While this is unlikely, the work could be a direct result of the first Apostolic Council, c.50 C.E. (Acts 15:28). Similarities to the Apostolic Decree are apparent, and the given structure of the church is quite primitive. Also, the description of the Eucharist carefully avoids mention of the "body and blood of Christ," obviously being regarded as one of the secret mysteries of eary Christianity. Most scholars agree that the work, in its earliest form, may have circulated as early as the 60's C.E., though additions and modifications may have taken place well into the third century. The work was never officially rejected by the Church, but was excluded from the canon for its lack of literary value.

    the 2 quotes from Ignatius of Antioch don't call for equality between trinity members, they merely call yeshua(jesus) god, something nobody is denying.of course to be called god, one does not have to be almighty, nor equal.(Ex7:1,john10:34,ect.)

    justins quote supports our position more than the trinity as it calls for no equality between the first(father) and second place(son), something which you are implying, without cause other than bias.

    The word Trinity was first used by Theophilus of Antioch to Autolycus. Trinity meant: God, His Word and His Wisdom (which many interpret as saying spirit, although the 'holy spirit' isn't taught to be 'god's wisdom in modern christianity). It did not mean the doctrine of the Trinity in the modern sense of the word.

    Chapter IV.-Attributes of God...Father, because he is before all things;

    this hardly plays into your version of the trinity, and i suppose this is why you failed to quote it.

    Things Theophilus DIDN'T believe:

    • He didn't believe in the equality of the Trinity. Bettenson admits that "'subordinationism'... was pre-Nicene orthodoxy." (Bettenson, The Early Christian Fathers, p. 330.) Richard Hanson gives us this: "Indeed, until Athanasius began writing, every single theologian, East and West, had postulated some form of Subordinationism. It could, about the year 300, have been described as a fixed part of catholic theology." (Hansen, R., "The Achievement of Orthodoxy in the Fourth Century AD", in Williams, ed., The Making of Orthodoxy, p. 153.)
    your Irenaeus quote also speaks of no equality between one and the other two.

    Tertullian

    "We do indeed believe that there is only one God, but we believe that under this dispensation, or, as we say, oikonomia, there is also a Son of this one only God, his Word, who proceeded from him...


    this, from your quote, hardly denotes 'jesus' as being 'from everlasting' or uncreated as is the stance of trinitarians.

    sorry, but i see no need to continue into more quotes nearing the 3rd century as the point is proven, the trinity was not accepted as doctorine by early church fathers.

    love
     
Loading...