The Trinity: Was Athanasius Scripturally Right?

[YoursTrue]

I'm actually learning as I go. I'll make my final decision on the trinity when I complete my research. I'm not attached to any religion or organization so I'm not being influenced in any direction but I'm relying on the Holy Spirit. I would like to attend a church but there's not many where I live. For now, I'm following where the research leads me.

There are negative things said about many religions and people. Yet God has the final say. You will also find those that believe Martin Luther is burning in hell. I do not believe he is. I believe Martin Luther will be resurrected to a far better earth than that which we see now, and he will hopefully be happy. I look forward to meeting others, many others, who will enjoy life forever on a new earth filled with righteousness. Revelation 21:1-5. Remember, Jesus was the "Way."

 

[PearlSeeker]

They did not adopt the trinity from anything they read in the Bible but from paganism

You can't just associate any pagan divine trio with Trinity. You prove no influence. Just similarity.

Trinity is based on certain interpretation of Messiah and creative Wisdom (in the Bible), influenced by Greek concept of intermediary between God and world. - - > Logos in Gospel of John.

 

[SLPCCC]

Look familiar? Did you know that these existed?

ptures.

Did you know these existed?




The symbol of the Watchtower, clearly portrayed on the cover of their magazines, is of pagan origin too as this statue of Artemis of the Ephesians shows.

WTS makes a really big thing about the cross having pagan roots and other things as you demonstrated. Why not consider their own symbolism? It's hypocritical to be sensitive in one area and be completely insensitive in another that pertains to you. The wedding rings also have pagan origins. I'm sure many JW point out the cross a person is wearing around their neck while ignoring a wedding ring on their finger and having the pagan symbol on their magazines.

 

[SLPCCC]

Now this is just bordering on the ridiculous.
It will never happen.
(Isaiah 2:2-4 tells us that Jehovah’s worship would become firmly established “in the Last Days,” and that His worshippers would “beat swords into plowshares”.... it’s happening right now..... the worship of Jehovah engenders love and peace. Galatians 5:22-23.

But to answer your question: I would leave in a heartbeat.

I found a Watchtower article that states Jehovah's Witnesses alone refrain from war. This is simply a lie.

• "Who are no part of the world and learn war no more? Again, the historical record of the 20th century testifies: only Jehovah's Witnesses." Watchtower 1992 Apr 1 p.12

Religions not engaging in War​

The best known religions for their stance against war are the historic peace churches - Society of Friends, Mennonites and Brethren. Every major Christian denomination also contains pacifist factions. Christian churches known for their stance against war include:

• Moravians (one of the very first Protestant religions dating back to the 1500's)
• Brethren (Dunkards) groups, including
  • Church of the Brethren
• Anabaptist groups, including
  • Mennonites (16th century group numbering 1.5 million)
  • Hutterites
  • Schwenkfelders
  • Bruderhof Communities
  • Amish (numbering approximately 200,000)
• Society of Friends (Quakers)
• Doukhobors - 17th century breakaway from Russian Orthodox
• Molokans - 17th century breakaway from Russian Orthodox
• Some Pentecostal groups such as the Pentecostal Charismatic Peace Fellowship
• Seven Day Adventists
• Community of Christ
• Christadelphians
• Worldwide Church of God
• Pax Christi - A Catholic peace movement
• Fellowship of Reconciliation - A group formed in 1914 to unite pacifists regardless of denomination. All major religious denominations have affiliated associations including
  • Anglican Pacifist Fellowship
  • Methodist Peace Fellowship
  • Baptist Peace Fellowship
  • Orthodox Peace Fellowship
  • Lutheran Peace Fellowship
  • Presbyterian Peace Fellowship

The Peace Churches have suffered greatly for their stance against war, with members being subjected to persecution, imprisonment and death. For example, Hutterites were subjects of persecution in America during World War 2 and when two Hutterites died in prison after refusing the military draft many Hutterite colonies moved to Canada.

 

[Riders]

In the year 367, the Christian bishop of Alexandria in Egypt, Athanasius, was the chief defender of Trinitarianism against Arianism. Some of the churches of the time were not teaching the trinity which caused problems for some of the churches. Why? How did Athanasius convince the people scripturally that the trinity was true? Some religions or nontrinitarian Christians today are growing in numbers. They use the bible to try to disprove the trinity and gain members. How is this possible? Do the scriptures teach the trinity or not?

Oneness Pentecostals are hard and strict and tend to believe they are the only ones going to heaven. But never the less my old church, I don't know if they are growing, possibly. It's oneness, they believe Jesus was a physical manifestation of God like the burning bush was. They believe Jesus as God however Jesus is just one expression of God, God manifests himself how he wants too. So it is kind of like saying God has multiple personalities and Jesus is one of them.

 

[SLPCCC]

Can you honestly say that the majority of Christendom’s churches are obedient to Jesus’ teachings . . .

I read the book your Faith and Discreet Slave class (WTS) wrote on the trinity entitled, "Should You Believe in the Trinity" I understand that they are not inspired but when they misquote, to support their view, that is simple dishonesty. For example, they semi quotes the Encyclopedia Americana. It says,

• “The Encyclopedia Americana notes that the doctrine of the Trinity is considered to be ‘beyond the grasp of human reason’.” Should You Believe in the Trinity p. 4

When you read their quote, it is supporting their argument. But the actual quote which they deliberately left out doesn't. The actual quote reads like this.

• “It is held that although the doctrine is beyond the grasp of human reason, it is, like many of the formulations of physical science, not contrary to reason, and may be apprehended

In the 1918 edition of the encyclopedia it states,

• “In the New Testament it is evident that the doctrine of a trinity in the divine nature is clearly and copiously taught” 1918 edition Encyclopedia Americana (Vol 27 p. 69)

The Faithful Slave is not being honest. It does this throughout. Here is another example, On page 6 of the Trinity book it quotes a Yale University Professor in his book ‘Origin and Evolution of Religion’ who it claims states the following,

• “To Jesus and Paul the doctrine of the trinity was apparently unknown; . . . they say nothing about it.”

The actual quote from Washburn’s book is;

• “The beginning of the doctrine of the Trinity appears already in John (c.100 AD.”) To Jesus and Paul the doctrine of the trinity was apparently unknown; at any rate they say nothing about it.”

The sentence missing "The beginning of the doctrine of the Trinity appears already in John" and the words missing and replaced by the ellipsis (…) ‘…at any rate…’ change the meaning of the quote.


How can an organization claim to be from God while being dishonest?

 

[firedragon]

Truths is a strange word brother. Is it absolute, evolving, subjective, objective or malleable? Thus its is actually very difficult to say some entity is dishonest or this is their truth.

Many theologians propagated the trinity with confidence since the Bible had a direct verse that mentions the three in the old KJV, but when the verse was discovered to be a latter development they changed the way they express their beliefs, yet the belief stayed. But would I call them dishonest because until they actually discovered older manuscripts and changed their narrative they didn't know any better? Well, I would question myself before doing that. In fact if I am to call them dishonest like that maybe I am being dishonest.

 

[SLPCCC]

The governing body are not apostles.....they do not write scripture and we do not regard it as such, so you are arguing a strawman.....they are to us "the faithful and discreet slave" appointed by the Master to "feed" his household....
Who said that the Watchtower is inspired? The Watchtower is a Bible Society that prints Bibles and Bible literature. We are not the Watchtower....we are Jehovah's Witnesses.

.

I'm sorry if I get the names mixed up. I made the correction below. When I wrote "The Watchtower (WT)" I meant the Jehovah's Witnesses and their Faithful and Discreet Slave Class as a whole. I was just trying to point out the definitions to show that if one is not inspired, they are not directed by Holy spirit according to the definition of what the word inspire means. Sometimes visuals help.

• • By Definition: Inspired = Directed by Holy Spirit

• • The Bible: Inspired = Directed by Holy Spirit = Infallible (no errors)

• • Faithful and Discreet Slave Class: Not Inspired =/ Not Directed by Holy Spirit = Fallible (their writing/teachings contain errors)

 

[SLPCCC]

Truths is a strange word brother. Is it absolute, evolving, subjective, objective or malleable? Thus its is actually very difficult to say some entity is dishonest or this is their truth.

Many theologians propagated the trinity with confidence since the Bible had a direct verse that mentions the three in the old KJV, but when the verse was discovered to be a latter development they changed the way they express their beliefs, yet the belief stayed. But would I call them dishonest because until they actually discovered older manuscripts and changed their narrative they didn't know any better? Well, I would question myself before doing that. In fact if I am to call them dishonest like that maybe I am being dishonest.

It's one thing when you unknowing know something and make an argument for or against out of ignorance. But when you know the fact but hide it to win your argument, that is dishonesty. If I'm going to quote from a source and hide part of it that doesn't support my argument, that is dishonesty.

 

[firedragon]

It's one thing when you unknowing know something and make an argument for or against out of ignorance. But when you know the fact but hide it to win your argument, that is dishonesty. If I'm going to quote from a source and hide part of it that doesn't support my argument, that is dishonesty.

Hmm. Yes I must agree with that.

 

[SLPCCC]

Ok, you said, “If there was a contradiction between the bible and what a WT magazine says, you would believe the WT magazine instead correct?”

Regarding specifics? I’ve never found one. Explanations are always supported by other Scriptures, ie., the context, and sound reasoning.

You never replied about the Comma Johannum, any thoughts?

The scripture should be left according to the original writings. I'm finding that the Jehovah's Witness' Faithful and Discreet Slave are guilty of this adding words and more to their bible. There are questions that you haven't answered. Why has the WTS added words to their bible that are not in the original Greek?

Once again here is one example,

• Col 1: 16-17 states, "for in him were all things created, in the heavens and upon the earth, things visible and things invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers; all things have been created through him, and unto him; 17 and he is before all things, and in him, all things consist."

In the WTS bible, it reads this way.

• "because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible,o whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All other things have been created through him and for him. q and by means of him all other things were made to exist,"

Why would the WT add the word "other" to their bible when it's not in the original? They are not inspired by God. This is one of many changes that they have done to their bible to support their theology.

Here is another one Heb 1:8 is a quote from Psalm 45:6,

• Psalm 45: 6 "Your throne, O God, endures forever and ever. Your royal scepter is a scepter of equity;

• Hebrews 1:8: . . . "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, and the righteous scepter is the scepter of your kingdom.

The WTS doesn't quote Psalm 45: 6 at Heb 1:8 but adds their own words

• But about the Son, he [God] says: “God is your throne forever and ever, and the scepter of your Kingdom is the scepter of uprightness.

They are not inspired. What do you say about this?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I found a Watchtower article that states Jehovah's Witnesses alone refrain from war. This is simply a lie.

• "Who are no part of the world and learn war no more? Again, the historical record of the 20th century testifies: only Jehovah's Witnesses." Watchtower 1992 Apr 1 p.12

You know, there are two parts to that question, right?


"Who are no part of the world and learn war no more?”

“No part of the world” isn’t only about refusing to go to war. It also includes politics, which has only served to divide people into countries, and to further divide them into factions within those countries!

Since John wrote “the whole world is lying in the power of the Wicked One” (1 John 5:19) and the Devil is called the “god of this system” (2 Corinthians 4:4), we refuse to promote any part, to continue its existence. (1 John 2:15-17) It would be like buying a ticket on the Titanic.
Now, we’re obedient to the laws of the respective countries we live in, of course; at Romans 13, God tells us to.....but our allegiance is to God’s Kingdom .
As the Apostles stated in Acts, “we must obey God as ruler rather than men.”

 

[Hockeycowboy]

There are questions that you haven't answered.

And there are questions from me that you haven’t answered.
Questions from several pages ago, like about the “ Firstborn/preeminent” question, from post #93....
Previously, in explaining ‘first-born’, you said:
“At (Psalm 89:20-27). God states, “I have found David My servant. With My holy oil I have anointed him…I also shall make him My firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth, David was not the firstborn of his family. In fact, he was the last one born. David is called the firstborn, "the highest of the kings of the earth." Firstborn is a title of preeminence. Jesus is the highest of the kings of the earth.”

Then I wrote:
“I don’t agree, but let’s go with that view, in the context of Colossians 1.... put preeminence there.

Jesus is ‘preeminent of all creation.’

That still makes him part of the creation. Just the highest one.

(David was still a King. Get that?)”

Do you get that?

(And this ultimately answers your question...adding “other” there, neither detracts nor adds.... it simply agrees with Biblical context. Jesus couldn’t have helped in the creation of himself, could he? It’s a given.)

 

[SLPCCC]

And there are questions from me that you haven’t answered.
Questions from several pages ago, like about the “ Firstborn/preeminent” question, from post #93....
Previously, in explaining ‘first-born’, you said:
“At (Psalm 89:20-27). God states, “I have found David My servant. With My holy oil I have anointed him…I also shall make him My firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth, David was not the firstborn of his family. In fact, he was the last one born. David is called the firstborn, "the highest of the kings of the earth." Firstborn is a title of preeminence. Jesus is the highest of the kings of the earth.”

Then I wrote:
“I don’t agree, but let’s go with that view, in the context of Colossians 1.... put preeminence there.

Jesus is ‘preeminent of all creation.’

That still makes him part of the creation. Just the highest one.

(David was still a King. Get that?)”

Do you get that?

(And this ultimately answers your question...adding “other” there, neither detracts nor adds.... it simply agrees with Biblical context. Jesus couldn’t have helped in the creation of himself, could he? It’s a given.)

You have to try to understand that there is only one of me. There seems to be a few of you (JWs). I can't answer all of the questions thrown at me constantly because I have another life here where I live and I'm trying to multitask. If I don't get to your question (s) it's not because I'm avoiding you, it's because there's a lot I have to read on here, do research on what is being said, do my own research, analyze, etc, etc. Have some understanding. Maybe you are retired. I don't know, but I'm not.

Now the part on Jesus is ‘preeminent of all creation.’ I get that. But the point that was being said was that Jesus is the firstborn meaning the first one created. I'm saying you can't go by the words firstborn to mean the first one created because firstborn has other meanings in the scripture such as preeminent.

With Col 1: 16-17 no one has the right to add or take away from the scriptures regardless. Adding "other" is changing the meaning to favor the JW argument. Leave the scripture as they were written. If you need to change scripture to support your theology, what does that make you? A cult.

BTW if a question is not answer just ask again.

 

[SLPCCC]

The Faithful and Discreet Slave​

I've been doing research on the faithful and discreet slave mentioned in the bible by Jesus. This parable does not seem to be a prophecy like the JWs say it to be to support their belief. I could be wrong. I'm studying the scripture on it and will post my understanding when I'm done.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

You have to try to understand that there is only one of me. There seems to be a few of you (JWs). I can't answer all of the questions thrown at me constantly because I have another life here where I live and I'm trying to multitask. If I don't get to your question (s) it's not because I'm avoiding you, it's because there's a lot I have to read on here, do research on what is being said, do my own research, analyze, etc, etc. Have some understanding. Maybe you are retired. I don't know, but I'm not.

Now the part on Jesus is ‘preeminent of all creation.’ I get that. But the point that was being said was that Jesus is the firstborn meaning the first one created. I'm saying you can't go by the words firstborn to mean the first one created because firstborn has other meanings in the scripture such as preeminent.

With Col 1: 16-17 no one has the right to add or take away from the scriptures regardless. Adding "other" is changing the meaning to favor the JW argument. Leave the scripture as they were written. If you need to change scripture to support your theology, what does that make you? A cult.

BTW if a question is not answer just ask again.

Well, whether you call Jesus literally "Firstborn", or prefer it to mean 'preeminent', it still means Jesus is a created being.

If I said about someone: "He is the preeminent of all thoracic surgeons", what am I telling you? That he is a thoracic surgeon! And that he's the best!

I hope you understand that, now. Anyway you put it, Jesus is a created being.

I wish you the best, my cousin.

 

[SLPCCC]

I know of No monster which pours out his holy spirit on others _________
Besides where is God's spirit found according to Job 27:3 ___________

Job 27: 3 sounds like an idiom to me. Like the "kingdom of God is within you". Is there a kingdom really in you, no.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

You have to try to understand that there is only one of me. There seems to be a few of you (JWs). I can't answer all of the questions thrown at me constantly because I have another life here where I live and I'm trying to multitask.

Yes, I understand. (I’m surprised there aren’t more Trinitarians posting....usually there’s quite a few.)

It’s for that reason that I’m going to back out. Too much info, and it’s hard to think things through, to take it all in, rationally.

You take care.



Of course, if you have any further questions specifically for me, I’ll reply.

 

[Deeje]

Did you know these existed?

View attachment 40926

View attachment 40927
The symbol of the Watchtower, clearly portrayed on the cover of their magazines, is of pagan origin too as this statue of Artemis of the Ephesians shows.

Were the watchtowers on the city walls of Jerusalem symbols of Artemis? You are really grasping at straws now. Watchtowers were common in Bible times....it was a city's main defense, relying on the vigilance of the watchmen to warn of approaching danger. No security cameras in those days ya know.

It is clear to me that you are nosing around in a dirty trough to glean your misinformation....just remember that opposers did that to Jesus too. What is it worth? Are "ex's" always the best source of truth?
If you are so convinced that JW's do not teach the truth, then why are you going to these lengths to prove us wrong? Are we forcing our religion on you in some way?
If you have already made up your mind, do yourself a favor and write us off....we are obviously NOT what you are looking for. That's OK.

WTS makes a really big thing about the cross having pagan roots and other things as you demonstrated. Why not consider their own symbolism? It's hypocritical to be sensitive in one area and be completely insensitive in another that pertains to you.

Since the Bible never uses the word "cross" for the instrument used to put Christ to death, and the symbol itself has very grubby origins, we will not use something that celebrated the male sex organ as a fitting symbol of Christ's death.

Why was the Egyptian ankh cross a "symbol of life"? Because it represented intercourse. The loop at the top was the female organ, the cross at the bottom was the male organ. Its is not something to connect with Christ's death especially when the "stauros" is not given a configuration in the Bible. Since we are told NOT to make images of anything to use as part of our worship, we refrain from idolizing anything.

Not to mention the bizarre concept of wearing a replica of the instrument used to put someone you love to death. If Christ had been hung, would 'Christians' be wearing a little gallows around their necks perhaps with a small figure of Jesus hanging from the rope? Think about that for a moment.

The wedding rings also have pagan origins. I'm sure many JW point out the cross a person is wearing around their neck while ignoring a wedding ring on their finger and having the pagan symbol on their magazines.

Wedding rings, which are common in many cultures are not part of our worship...they symbolize marriage, which is something sanctified by God. There is no rule regarding them...some choose not to wear them. Its a choice.

A logo is not a religious symbol. Corporations use them. The Watchtower is a journal whose logo is representative of the magazine's role in our worship in this time of the end. It is a herald of the signs of the times.
The WTS is a Bible Society and a printery.

 

[YoursTrue]

@SLPCCC -
Since this is primarily a thread about the trinity, you say you haven't decided yet about the trinity, do I have this right about your thoughts? I was looking over some information about Athanasius and wonder how you understand the trinity now. Do you believe that God is a compendium of three persons? How do you see it or not see it?