Why So Much Trinity Bashing?

[walt]

instead I care about whether they try to do no harm and to treat others with decency, respect, inclusion and common sense.

I care just like you do, very good point.

 

[YoursTrue]

GOD and Jesus are speaking to you now in what I’m saying to you!!!

By the way, Brian2 is doing an absolute classic deception. He is pitching his BINITY belief against the TRINITY belief and getting himself not an awful tangle.

So, to offset this, he is trying to get you to answer for trinity beliefs and putting anti-trinity to you at the same time so you are completely as confused as he is…. It’s easy to confuse others because he himself is confused.

Do not be drawn into questioning him about things you are not sure about as he will see you are unsure and use that against you as he has done in his next post to you.

He has been caught out many many times but thinks of you as new blood to suck any truth out of and spit it on the ground.

Jesus is referred to as a God (or god with a small g, since there were no small or capital letters in the original writings) but he is the son of God and Jesus acknowledged his Father as being Greater. And Jesus was given all authority for a while, and then is going to give back everything to the Father, so the Father can be everything.

 

[YoursTrue]

YHWH (Yaweh) + the Word was a god = Polytheism/Henetheism

YHWH (Yaweh) + the Word was God = Monotheism
​

Believe what the scriptures say, not what men leaders tell you. The polytheistic teaching of having a heavenly God the Father and a heavenly Mighty God goes against the clear teaching of the scriptures that there is only one God. Changing John 1:1 to fit a teaching (adding "a") should be a red flag that the change is nefarious!!

1. "I am He, And there is no god besides Me;" Deut 32:39, NASB
2. Before Me there was no God formed, And there will be none after Me. Isaiah 43:10
3. Is there any God besides Me, Or is there any other Rock? I know of none.'" Isaiah 43:10
4. "I am the LORD, and there is no other; Besides Me there is no God. Isaiah 44:8

• John 1:1 it reads, In the beginning, was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

**Just because you don't understand how Jesus and the Father is the same God doesn't mean that it's not possible and false. Nothing is impossible for God.

There is a pretty interesting discussion of the etymology of the name Jesus on wikipedia. It goes into various interpretations. Jesus (name) - Wikipedia
Nothing that I see to suggest in any case that Jesus and Yahweh (or often known to English speakers as Jehovah) are the same God. In fact, the Lord's Prayer should teach honest-hearted ones that Jesus did not think he was God. Not even equal to Him. "Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed by Thy Name. Let thy KINGDOM COME ...) He didn't say let our kingdom come, or let my kingdom come...

 

[SLPCCC]

There is a pretty interesting discussion of the etymology of the name Jesus on wikipedia. It goes into various interpretations. Jesus (name) - Wikipedia
Nothing that I see to suggest in any case that Jesus and Yahweh (or often known to English speakers as Jehovah) are the same God. In fact, the Lord's Prayer should teach honest-hearted ones that Jesus did not think he was God. Not even equal to Him. "Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed by Thy Name. Let thy KINGDOM COME ...) He didn't say let our kingdom come, or let my kingdom come...

I think we have been through this before. The Father and the Son are two different persons. We can agree on that. Yes. One of the breakdowns starts to occur when your organization changes the reading at John 1:1 from "god" to "a god" in your bible to support your teaching. This turns John 1:1 into a polytheistic or henotheistic teaching. Don't you see? How can you trust this tampering of the bible?

 

[Spice]

There is a pretty interesting discussion of the etymology of the name Jesus on wikipedia. It goes into various interpretations. Jesus (name) - Wikipedia
Nothing that I see to suggest in any case that Jesus and Yahweh (or often known to English speakers as Jehovah) are the same God. In fact, the Lord's Prayer should teach honest-hearted ones that Jesus did not think he was God. Not even equal to Him. "Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed by Thy Name. Let thy KINGDOM COME ...) He didn't say let our kingdom come, or let my kingdom come...

YHWH is the Father. In Hebrew these consonances are impossible to pronounce but represent the sound of breath. YAWH -- the breath of life, plus The Word -- the Creator's Will, does, for many, equal God. One concept is that God willed creation and blew the breath of life into it.
Jesus's Hebrew name is/was Yeshua, Joshua in English.

 

[SLPCCC]

But no one taught anything about a trinity in the early years. There is no such thing as a trinity so it’s a pointless argument to try to set a possible justification for it.

Do you think we making this up?


“WHAT THE ANTE-NICENE FATHERS TAUGHT”

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

IGNATIUS (30-107 A.D.)

• “Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which is at Ephesus, in Asia…predestinated before the beginning of time…and elected through the true passion by the will of the Father, and Jesus Christ, our God….Being the followers of God, and stirring up yourselves by the blood of God, ye have perfectly accomplished the work which was beseeming to you….There is one Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit; both made and not made; God existing in flesh; true life in death; both of Mary and of God; first possible and then impossible, — even Jesus Christ our Lord.” —The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, pp. 49, 52

Ignatius provides ample evidence that the concept of the Deity of Christ was well-known and accepted by the apostles and the early Church, and therefore cannot be of pagan origin.



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

JUSTIN MARTYR (165 A.D.)

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

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

IRENAEUS (200 A.D.)

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

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


CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA (215 A.D.)

• “…the Divine Word, He that is truly most manifest Deity, He that is made equal to the Lord of the universe; because He was His Son, and the Word was in God….I understand nothing else than the Holy Trinity to be meant; for the third is the Holy Spirit, and the Son is the second, by whom all things were made according to the will of the Father.…There was, then, a Word importing an unbeginning eternity; as also the Word itself, that is, the Son of God, who being, by equality of substance, one with the Father, is eternal and uncreate.”—The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 2, pp. 202, 468, 574

TERTULLIAN (230 A.D.)

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

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

HIPPOLYTUS (235 A.D.)

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

ORIGEN (250 A.D.)

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

 

[YoursTrue]

I think we have been through this before. The Father and the Son are two different persons. We can agree on that. Yes. One of the breakdowns starts to occur when your organization changes the reading at John 1:1 from "god" to "a god" in your bible to support your teaching. This turns John 1:1 into a polytheistic or henotheistic teaching. Don't you see? How can you trust this tampering of the bible?

I think you're getting things a little mixed up. The traditional translation is that The word was God. But that is not in all translations. That's just the top of the matter. Even if were so, however, that does not prove or show that there were three persons there, and that they were equal persons said to be one God. As you probably know anyway, there were no lower case and upper case letters in the earliest manuscripts to distinguish the words. How do you feel about that?

 

[walt]

Do you think we making this up?


“WHAT THE ANTE-NICENE FATHERS TAUGHT”

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

IGNATIUS (30-107 A.D.)

• “Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which is at Ephesus, in Asia…predestinated before the beginning of time…and elected through the true passion by the will of the Father, and Jesus Christ, our God….Being the followers of God, and stirring up yourselves by the blood of God, ye have perfectly accomplished the work which was beseeming to you….There is one Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit; both made and not made; God existing in flesh; true life in death; both of Mary and of God; first possible and then impossible, — even Jesus Christ our Lord.” —The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, pp. 49, 52

Ignatius provides ample evidence that the concept of the Deity of Christ was well-known and accepted by the apostles and the early Church, and therefore cannot be of pagan origin.



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

JUSTIN MARTYR (165 A.D.)

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

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

IRENAEUS (200 A.D.)

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

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


CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA (215 A.D.)

• “…the Divine Word, He that is truly most manifest Deity, He that is made equal to the Lord of the universe; because He was His Son, and the Word was in God….I understand nothing else than the Holy Trinity to be meant; for the third is the Holy Spirit, and the Son is the second, by whom all things were made according to the will of the Father.…There was, then, a Word importing an unbeginning eternity; as also the Word itself, that is, the Son of God, who being, by equality of substance, one with the Father, is eternal and uncreate.”—The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 2, pp. 202, 468, 574

TERTULLIAN (230 A.D.)

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

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

HIPPOLYTUS (235 A.D.)

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

ORIGEN (250 A.D.)

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

Anytime the bible uses the word [ theos = God ] and to be called [ theos = God ] by a church father is the same. Isn't this the bottom line, does Jesus and his Father both teach Jesus is the Almighty, The Most High, The Highest or the one True God? [ No they don't! ] If you know anything about the early church fathers they all had one thing a common, they called Jesus [ God = theos ] just like Paul and Barnabas in the Bible. That does not prove any of the early church fathers wrote Jesus is the Almighty. Justin Martyr as well as many others said Jesus is the angel that spoke to Moses! I have a link that reflects this from 63 comments from church fathers reliable too!

Sure with the words [ theos= God ] and the word [ worship ] It seems the early church fathers use these two words towards Jesus, but the latin vulgate and any Catholic Bible, For around 2000 years uses the word adore and bow down, most everywhere throughout Catholic Bibles, [ not the word worship ], so when you see the word worship you really don't know if they're showing respect like to a king or a or a slave's master or any Lord. Are these really good reasons to believe Jesus is the Almighty?

63 Church Father Quotes on the Angel of the Lord​

See this Blog online:

 

[YoursTrue]

@SLPCCC You might want to check this out before you keep assailing Jehovah's Witnesses:

• 1808: "and the Word was a god" – Thomas Belsham The New Testament, in an Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome's New Translation: With a Corrected Text, London.
• 1822: "and the Word was a god" – The New Testament in Greek and English (A. Kneeland, 1822.)
• 1829: "and the Word was a god" – The Monotessaron; or, The Gospel History According to the Four Evangelists (J. S. Thompson, 1829)
• 1863: "and the Word was a god" – A Literal Translation of the New Testament (Herman Heinfetter [Pseudonym of Frederick Parker], 1863)

 

[walt]

@SLPCCC You might want to check this out before you keep assailing Jehovah's Witnesses:

• 1808: "and the Word was a god" – Thomas Belsham The New Testament, in an Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome's New Translation: With a Corrected Text, London.
• 1822: "and the Word was a god" – The New Testament in Greek and English (A. Kneeland, 1822.)
• 1829: "and the Word was a god" – The Monotessaron; or, The Gospel History According to the Four Evangelists (J. S. Thompson, 1829)
• 1863: "and the Word was a god" – A Literal Translation of the New Testament (Herman Heinfetter [Pseudonym of Frederick Parker], 1863)

Diaglott John 1:1 In a beginning was the Word, and the Word was with [the] God, and a god was the Word.

This one bible writes [ the Word was with [the] God ] that reflects the words in Greek.
Most every bible says [ the word was with God ] they purposely leave out the word [ the ] that's in the Greek.
The Apostle John who wrote this verse making a distinction between the first God mentioned [ ho theos = the God ], most every bible just drops the word [ the ] Making no distinction. The Apostle John wrote [ ho theos = the God ] and [ theos = God ] John made them distinctly different!

Agreeing with the many translations that say the word was a god, the word was divine, the word was like God or God-like, the Logos was divine.

 

[blü 2]

A religious organization is man-made. The Church that Jesus established is more like a body—a grand and glorious organism of the body of Christ, composed of many different members who have been supernaturally added by the power of the Holy Spirit.

Church is an Organization​	Church is an Organism​
It would be created by men.	It would be created by the creator.
It would have a human head with some haughty title like Grand Poohbah, elders.	It would have a godhead the Lord Jesus Christ who died for the sins of the world.
It would be organized by man-made rules, regulations, by-laws, and creeds that evolve over time.	It would be living with the life-giving power that flows from the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ
You could join the organization, change organizations, or leave at any time that was convenient for you, but you will be shun.	You would have to be supernaturally added to the organism by the power of the Holy Spirit
There would be lots of organizations to account for different understandings of doctrine, different styles of worship, and different opinions about everything else	There would be only one body of Christ composed of all the members who are as different from each other as the eye, mouth, hand, and foot of the body
The members would struggle with one another for preeminence	The members would care for one another with genuine love
You could be excommunicated from an organization if you disobeyed its laws	You would be a permanent part of the organism that rejoices with each other and suffers with each other

Why would it not be clear to an onlooker which is which?

Because it's certainly not clear to me.

For example, the different kinds of Christianity are so many their number can't be stated with precision, and in large part they choose to be different because they disagree with the others.

In other words, they all seem very human in their various outlooks.

 

[Soapy]

I did not say that God does not have one will. I was saying that I did not agree with your reasoning and conclusions.



Then we disagree on what the New Testament teaches. You have Jesus as either this or that, depending on the gospel etc and I have Jesus as both this and that.
Your way of doing it is like people to say that Mark knew nothing about the virgin birth because he did not mention it, or that the things that Matthew includes in the birth narrative did not happen because they are not in Luke,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, or vice versa. It's not logical thinking.



I explained the situation above and you no doubt have heard it many times before. Different versions of history include or omit different things and that does not make any of them wrong.

Heb 1:1-4

Heb 1:3 talks of the nature of Jesus in many translations.
Heb 1:1 shows that the Son was the Son at the creation.
Phil 2:6 shows Jesus equality with His Father, as does John 5:18.

Brian2, I notice you stopped short of Hebrews 1:1-4 - you missed out Hebrews 1:3:

• The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven

Jesus is the radiance of God’s glory… God is more than just Glory - Jesus is only the his radiance. That which issues the radiance is greater than (NOT EQUAL TO) the radiance that it issues. A torch is greater than the light beam it radiates.

And Jesus is seated at the right hand of the majesty (God, the ruler). He who is seated at the right hand position of the ruler is NOT EQUAL to the majesty.

And verse 4:

• So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs.

So Jesus BECAME superior to the angels… What position was Jesus in prior to becoming superior to the angels?

And Jesus, at this point, INHERITS A SUPERIOR NAME to that which he had before…

Hmmm… it seems you erred badly by posting about Hebrews 1;1-4 and then welching on its meaning!!!

The very idea of God having been the Father of Jesus shows the equality of nature.

The equality of nature only means that they AGREE with the behaviours and actions of each other. But GOD cannot be the one who ADOPTS the nature of Jesus. The Father SHOWS the Son how to behave and the Son agrees to adopt that behaviour.

• “I love the Father and do exactly what my Father has commanded me.” (John 14:31)

Jesus subdues his human nature so as to accept and obey the Will of his heavenly Father.

It is Jesus who adopts the nature of God because God taught him that it is the righteous way to behave.

But the Father is the Father and the Son is the Son and the Son always submits to the will of His Father even when a man on earth and facing torture and death.

Brian2, are you saying that it’s equality that the son submits to the Father?

Is it also equality that the Father should submit to the son?

In fact, that the Father and the son should submit to the Holy Spirit?

A = B —> B = A

• Did the Father adopt the nature of the Son?
• Did the Father teach the Son?
• Did the son choose to accept the nature of the Father?

 

[Soapy]

Jesus is referred to as a God (or god with a small g, since there were no small or capital letters in the original writings) but he is the son of God and Jesus acknowledged his Father as being Greater. And Jesus was given all authority for a while, and then is going to give back everything to the Father, so the Father can be everything.

It’s good to see truth being divulged - but always there seems to be only 95% truth.

You say Jesus is referred to as a God - but you do not understand what you are saying. The rendition seems like a JW version in disguise.

What does ‘God’ (or, as you said, ‘a god’) mean to you: Give me what you imagine is your definition of ‘GOD’ (or ‘a God’).

 

[Soapy]

Do you think we making this up?


“WHAT THE ANTE-NICENE FATHERS TAUGHT”

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

IGNATIUS (30-107 A.D.)

• “Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which is at Ephesus, in Asia…predestinated before the beginning of time…and elected through the true passion by the will of the Father, and Jesus Christ, our God….Being the followers of God, and stirring up yourselves by the blood of God, ye have perfectly accomplished the work which was beseeming to you….There is one Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit; both made and not made; God existing in flesh; true life in death; both of Mary and of God; first possible and then impossible, — even Jesus Christ our Lord.” —The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, pp. 49, 52

Ignatius provides ample evidence that the concept of the Deity of Christ was well-known and accepted by the apostles and the early Church, and therefore cannot be of pagan origin.

Ignatius, here. presents nothing called ‘Trinity’. But I know that Trinitarians cannot do Mathematics since Trinitarians continuously claim that Jesus and God make a TRINITY…

Here are some facts:

• A human is Spirit in Flesh… but BOTH ARE MADE BY GOD (‘The Father of Spirits’
• Regarding the Spirit of God (which is the Spirit of the Father) Jesus was ANOINTED with the Spirit at his baptism at the river Jordan (you know all the verses saying this!)
• From Ignatius quote : ‘By the Will of the Father ….’ You cannot have a sentence that then adds, ‘and Jesus, our God’. Such a construct shows a sentence mis-structure often seen where words are injected CLUMSILY into a sentence as it is here. Moreover ‘x and y’ does not make an ‘IT/HIM’

No! Ignatius DID NOT write that ‘The Father AND Jesus CHRIST is (are??) our God’!!

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

JUSTIN MARTYR (165 A.D.)

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

Angels are created… All things, apart from God, are created.

Where does any scripture call anyone ‘First-Begotten’?

This ante-nicene nonsense is so untrue that the only thing I can think is that it’s proponents are under a huge delusion - But scriptures does say that this would happen - SO… yeah, here it is.

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

IRENAEUS (200 A.D.)

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

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


CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA (215 A.D.)

• “…the Divine Word, He that is truly most manifest Deity, He that is made equal to the Lord of the universe; because He was His Son, and the Word was in God….I understand nothing else than the Holy Trinity to be meant; for the third is the Holy Spirit, and the Son is the second, by whom all things were made according to the will of the Father.…There was, then, a Word importing an unbeginning eternity; as also the Word itself, that is, the Son of God, who being, by equality of substance, one with the Father, is eternal and uncreate.”—The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 2, pp. 202, 468, 574

TERTULLIAN (230 A.D.)

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

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

All the above is madd up nonsense. It is a forced belief based on desperate ones as I pointed out in my own post about these early ‘deceivers’.

HIPPOLYTUS (235 A.D.)

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

ORIGEN (250 A.D.)

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

I said:

• But no one taught anything about a trinity in the early years. There is no such thing as a trinity so it’s a pointless argument to try to set a possible justification for it.

[Edit::: I meant to add: The new churches, opened up in new areas, to new converts, in different countries unknown to the original apostles… how easy it is to preach a false Jesus and a false God as a TRINITY when those new congregations already believed in the worship of three (of more) Gods - just instruct them (as the Athanasian creed dictates) to call the three deities ‘ONE GOD’ … job done!]

 

[SLPCCC]

@SLPCCC You might want to check this out before you keep assailing Jehovah's Witnesses:

• 1808: "and the Word was a god" – Thomas Belsham The New Testament, in an Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome's New Translation: With a Corrected Text, London.
• 1822: "and the Word was a god" – The New Testament in Greek and English (A. Kneeland, 1822.)
• 1829: "and the Word was a god" – The Monotessaron; or, The Gospel History According to the Four Evangelists (J. S. Thompson, 1829)
• 1863: "and the Word was a god" – A Literal Translation of the New Testament (Herman Heinfetter [Pseudonym of Frederick Parker], 1863)

Yes, there are other nontrinitarian bibles out there teaching polytheism and henotheism, but two wrongs don't make a right! Look at the deceptions. An organization should not need to use deception to support its teachings. Deceiving while teaching doctrine is a warning that something nefarious is going on behind the curtain. Let's take the teaching that's done with Proverbs 8 to support Jesus being created.

You are deceived into believing that the wisdom is Jesus. But a closer look shows that: 1) Jesus is not the woman, wisdom. 2) the speaker is wisdom personified.

Proverbs 8

• 1. Does not wisdom call out, and understanding raise her voice? 2. On the heights overlooking the road, at the crossroads she takes her stand. 3. Beside the gates to the city, at the entrances she cries out: . . . 12. I, wisdom, dwell together with prudence, and I find knowledge and discretion. . . 22. The LORD created me as His first course, before His works of old. . . 29. when He set a boundary for the sea, so that the waters would not surpass His command, when He marked out the foundations of the earth. 30. Then I was a skilled craftsman at His side, and His delightd day by day, rejoicing always in His presence.

Yes, Jesus has wisdom, but where does it say this is Jesus?? And if Jesus is wisdom, who is prudence?? This is evidently deception!!!

 

[metis]

A religious organization is man-made. The Church that Jesus established is more like a body—a grand and glorious organism of the body of Christ, composed of many different members who have been supernaturally added by the power of the Holy Spirit.

Church is an Organization​	Church is an Organism​
It would be created by men.	It would be created by the creator.
It would have a human head with some haughty title like Grand Poohbah, elders.	It would have a godhead the Lord Jesus Christ who died for the sins of the world.
It would be organized by man-made rules, regulations, by-laws, and creeds that evolve over time.	It would be living with the life-giving power that flows from the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ
You could join the organization, change organizations, or leave at any time that was convenient for you, but you will be shun.	You would have to be supernaturally added to the organism by the power of the Holy Spirit
There would be lots of organizations to account for different understandings of doctrine, different styles of worship, and different opinions about everything else	There would be only one body of Christ composed of all the members who are as different from each other as the eye, mouth, hand, and foot of the body
The members would struggle with one another for preeminence	The members would care for one another with genuine love
You could be excommunicated from an organization if you disobeyed its laws	You would be a permanent part of the organism that rejoices with each other and suffers with each other

They still are organizations by definition, and all these organizations were created by people.

 

[Dimi95]

But you haven't addressed the question. The Trinity doctrine says God is one substance and three persons, and that results (as I've mentioned) in nonsense.

Hi @blü 2

Do you think that a family of three persons can have the same will all the time?

And when not , what would be neccessary for them to have the same will all the time?

 

[YoursTrue]

A religious organization is man-made. The Church that Jesus established is more like a body—a grand and glorious organism of the body of Christ, composed of many different members who have been supernaturally added by the power of the Holy Spirit.

Church is an Organization​	Church is an Organism​
It would be created by men.	It would be created by the creator.
It would have a human head with some haughty title like Grand Poohbah, elders.	It would have a godhead the Lord Jesus Christ who died for the sins of the world.
It would be organized by man-made rules, regulations, by-laws, and creeds that evolve over time.	It would be living with the life-giving power that flows from the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ
You could join the organization, change organizations, or leave at any time that was convenient for you, but you will be shun.	You would have to be supernaturally added to the organism by the power of the Holy Spirit
There would be lots of organizations to account for different understandings of doctrine, different styles of worship, and different opinions about everything else	There would be only one body of Christ composed of all the members who are as different from each other as the eye, mouth, hand, and foot of the body
The members would struggle with one another for preeminence	The members would care for one another with genuine love
You could be excommunicated from an organization if you disobeyed its laws	You would be a permanent part of the organism that rejoices with each other and suffers with each other

An organization, whether from God or man, has precepts and concepts and some apply rules to its content or members if there is an organized body or content. Hope you understand.

 

[YoursTrue]

Diaglott John 1:1 In a beginning was the Word, and the Word was with [the] God, and a god was the Word.

This one bible writes [ the Word was with [the] God ] that reflects the words in Greek.
Most every bible says [ the word was with God ] they purposely leave out the word [ the ] that's in the Greek.
The Apostle John who wrote this verse making a distinction between the first God mentioned [ ho theos = the God ], most every bible just drops the word [ the ] Making no distinction. The Apostle John wrote [ ho theos = the God ] and [ theos = God ] John made them distinctly different!

Agreeing with the many translations that say the word was a god, the word was divine, the word was like God or God-like, the Logos was divine.

Yes, indeed. Thank you walt.

 

[YoursTrue]

Hi @blü 2

Do you think that a family of three persons can have the same will all the time?

And when not , what would be neccessary for them to have the same will all the time?

When Jesus prayed the Our Father prayer he didn't say, Let OUR kingdom come...or let OUR will be done. No, he said let YOUR will be done. Very interesting, thanks for bringing it up in a way.