Early Christians Believed in the Trinity

[Cos]

20 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Interesting quote from Clement, Dated between 80 and 140 so rather flimsy in that respect.

However, I do not see the word Trinity here, or anything that would suggest the doctrine in the list of God, Jesus, and Holy Spirit. At any rate, there is cause for general skepticism regarding anything other than a mild historical interest in this writing in view of the assertions made 25:2-5 regarding the phoenix as a testimony to the resurrection.

I find any attempt to draw a trinitarian view from 58:2 objectively to be futile although I can quite accept that anyone completely convinced in the doctorine from other sources first would see trintarian shadows in any 3-part construction. This has been presented as proof of trinity in another forum posting.

Other points you raise I will respond to separately.

Hello Mr. Joyce,

 

What’s with the different post to answer one post?  You responded to me in FOUR different post, what’s with that?

 

I will respond to your posts in one post.

 

You JW’s, or whatever Arian background you hail, when shown what the first Christians said and believed, make the ridiculous comment like “I do not see the word trinity here…”.

 

You go one and say that you “find any attempt to draw a trinitarian view from 58:2 objectively to be futile” well then please do tell me WHAT you think Clement meant?

 

Here is what he said again;

“For as God lives, and as the Lord Jesus Christ lives, and the Holy Spirit, who are the faith and the hope of the elect.... Amen.” (Letter of Clement to the Corinthians, 58:2)

 

Now you also bring up another objection, which is quite common by JWs who are unaware of history unless it is printed in the pages of that bogus magazine.

 

Why does Clement refer to the phoenix in his letter? You guys really NEED to do some proper Bible study!

 

In order to better grasp the significance of Clement’s use of the phoenix story, we need to uncover some additional background, let’s remember that the early Christians only had access to the Jewish OT.

 

Now the tale of the phoenix is actually found in the Jewish Scriptures – the book of Job.

 

Job 29:18 reads,

 

“Then I said: 'I shall die with my nest, and I shall multiply my days as the phoenix” (JPS)

 

“And I thought, 'I will pass away in my nest, and like the phoenix I shall multiply my days.” LEB

 

“Then I said, "I shall grow old as a palm trunk, and I shall multiply my days as a phoenix'.” (Bullinger Companion Bible)

 

“I said, ‘I will die with my nest, and I will live as long as a phoenix” (The Complete Jewish Bible)

 

Clement symbolic rhetoric device that the phoenix dies and its nest and returns for a length of days seems to have its origins in Scripture.

 

First let me state that the translation above is debatable, for the Hebrew word chol (or Khole) is typically translated in one of three different ways.

 

1.    Sand

2.    Phoenix (see above translation)

3.    Palm tree

 

In almost every context the Hebrew word chol means “sand”. We would expect that that would be the Jewish interpretation. Instead the rabbis unanimously render the word in Job as “phoenix”. According to the Jewish Midrashim document Genesis Bereshit Rabba it explains how Eve “gave the cattle, beasts, and birds to eat of [the forbidden fruit]. All obeyed her and ate thereof, except a certain bird named chol, as it is written, “Then I said: I shall die with my nest, and I shall multiply my days as the chol.” (Job 29:18).

 

Any good Bible commentary such as Albert Barns’ Notes on the Bible, or Kiel and Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament, or any commentary that has an extended discussion on Job 29:18 will add more depth than I can show here in this short space.

 

The Jews have always believed that Job 29:18 is speaking of the phoenix bird, in fact if you look up any Jewish translation of Job, you will see that verse 18 is translated as referring to the “phoenix” and not “sand” note how Job dies in his “nest”. This would seem to favour (US favor) the Jewish rendering, some say.

 

NOW here is the point, it is very likely that Clement who could only have access to the Jewish Scriptures, had Job 29:18 in his thoughts because he goes on after mentioning the phoenix to quote passages from Job to explain the long expected hope of the resurrection. Didn’t you see this fact?

 

Moving on quickly, yes I disagree with your idea of “general principles” because like I said, who decided what the “general principles” are? You?

 

I’ll stop now as I have other things to do, I look forward to hearing what you think Clement meant by what you call “the 3-part construction”. <><

[bruceq]

47 minutes ago, Cos said:

 

 

You JW’s, or whatever Arian background you hail, when shown what the first Christians said and believed, make the ridiculous comment like “I do not see the word trinity here…”.

 

You go one and say that you “find any attempt to draw a trinitarian view from 58:2 objectively to be futile” well then please do tell me WHAT you think Clement meant?

 

 

 

 

   So Why do you continue to go to a source OUTSIDE the Bible to try and prove your false teaching? At lease quote a source that uses the word "Trinity", not that it matters since the writers of the Bible did not believe in a Trinity. 

Whatever Clement meant or believed and wrote after the Bible was written at the time the apostasy had occurred actually proves the "Trinity" came after the Bible was written by your own admission. Try using the BIBLE so you won't look so ignorant of the facts !!!

 "I know that after my going away oppressive wolves will enter in among you  and will not treat the flock with tenderness, ³⁰  and from among you yourselves men will rise and speak twisted things to draw away the disciples after themselves." Acts 20:29,30.

[bruceq]

5 hours ago, Cos said:

 

 

 You guys really NEED to do some proper Bible study!

 ... let’s remember that the early Christians only had access to the Jewish OT.

 

 

That is correct. So why don't you do that yourself. Is the reason you don't use the Bible to prove your Trinity because you know that the writers were all Jews and Jews do not believe in a Trinity? The First Century Christian Bible writers ONLY used the Old Testament {YOUR OWN ADMISSION - "JEWISH OT"!!!!!} which was written by JEWS. Every single book in fact written by Jews.  The enemies of the Jews believed in the Trinity, such as the Egyptians and Babylonians. Now think if the Trinitarians were on the wrong side thousands of years ago what makes you think you are on the right side today when it is the BIBLE that we are suppose to get the truth from. "Your WORD is TRUTH" John 17:17 - not Church Fathers.

Of course I do not want to assume you would be with the non-trinitarian Jews at the time of the Exodus. Perhaps you would have been with your religious compatriots and would be with the fishes at the bottom of the Red Sea. Is that why you use a fish hieroglyph {Hatmehyt <><} like the Trinitarian Egyptians did who also worshiped many animals instead of the ONE TRUE GOD JEHOVAH? Deut. 6:4

"You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the WATERS BELOW." Exodus 20:4 NIV.
 

[Evacuated]

3 hours ago, Cos said:

WHAT you think Clement meant?

What he said. Is it that obscure?

3 hours ago, Cos said:

Why does Clement refer to the phoenix in his letter? You guys really NEED to do some proper Bible study!

Certainly we all need to do proper Bible study. But, I have my doubts that studying what Clement meant constitutes "proper" Bible study. Neither does the poring over ancient Jewish traditional folk-lore..

3 hours ago, Cos said:

the early Christians only had access to the Jewish OT.

Complete oversight here I think. Didn't you already quote 1Pet.1:15-16? Surely even Clement referred to Paul's letter to the Corinthians at 47:1,2?

3 hours ago, Cos said:

Clement symbolic rhetoric device that the phoenix dies and its nest and returns for a length of days seems to have its origins in Scripture.

As, it is asserted, does the notion that Clement's listing of God, Christ, and Holy Spirit supports the teaching of the Trinity.

In fact, it is difficult to see how something which no one (apparently) can understand or explain logically can be called a "teaching". However, the best this line of argument appears to acheive is to equate the Trinity with the phoenix which appears to consign both to the category of...."myth". 

3 hours ago, Cos said:

I disagree with your idea of “general principles” because like I said, who decided what the “general principles” are? You?

This seems uncharacteristically childish! Surely God can set the general principles by which His thoughts are ordered?

3 hours ago, Cos said:

What’s with the different post to answer one post?  You responded to me in FOUR different post, what’s with that?

I didn't think a law had been established on this element of posting structure? Pardon me if a protocol has been inadvertantly violated. 

[TrueTomHarley]

I should hold up my end and comment here. But the three-in-one doctrine is so obviously a crock, put to bed 100 years ago, that it is hard to work up an interest.

When you have a situation that violates common sense, such as '3 are really 1', it is not up to the common sense person to persuade that common sense holds here as well. It is up to the loon to persuade that the loony interpretation, in this case, is the correct one. 

Sometimes the loony version turns out to be true. Not everything is as meets the eye. But that does not change the fact that the burden of proof is on the loonytunes person, not the common sense person, to prove his case.

And if all they can come up with is plays upon words, in a world in which literature routinely does that, that doesn't strike me as too persuasive.

[TrueTomHarley]

On 5/10/2017 at 11:48 PM, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

A revelation of Jesus Christ, that God gave to him

For once, JTR is on to something.

[JW Insider]

6 hours ago, Cos said:

3.    Palm tree

It appears that while early LXX translations went with "phoenix" in Job, the word for "palm tree" may have been produced as a kind of "pun" on phoenix to remove the reference to a questionable bird, since the word is  φοίνικος  (phoinikos, palm)  vs.  φοῖνιξ (phoinix). So because of the similarity of the two Greek words, it's actually difficult even in the LXX to see which was an adjustment of the other. The tie-in to the nest, however, is what made the Masoretic-text rabbis stick with phoenix. (Which came first, the phoenix or the nest?) Standard LXX goes with the "palm."

There is a potential support text for the phoenix, which was depicted as a special kind of eagle:

(Psalm 103:5, NWT)  5 He satisfies you with good things all your life, So that your youth is renewed like that of an eagle.

Here's an interesting compromise by Juan de Horozco y Covarrubias, Sacra symbola, Agrigento 1601, Emblem 6: Ut vivam. In the picture attached below, the phoenix bird sits atop a pheonikos (palm) tree.

Note too that the date palm is the hieroglyph symbol of the 365-day year in Egyption semiology. In Latin, the name of the date palm is "Phoenix dactylifera." Also note that Enoch lived for 365 years. (Some commentators about the Phoenix bird put the life cycle at 1,000 years, too.)

 

[Cos]

15 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

What he said. Is it that obscure?

Certainly we all need to do proper Bible study. But, I have my doubts that studying what Clement meant constitutes "proper" Bible study. Neither does the poring over ancient Jewish traditional folk-lore..

Complete oversight here I think. Didn't you already quote 1Pet.1:15-16? Surely even Clement referred to Paul's letter to the Corinthians at 47:1,2?

As, it is asserted, does the notion that Clement's listing of God, Christ, and Holy Spirit supports the teaching of the Trinity.

In fact, it is difficult to see how something which no one (apparently) can understand or explain logically can be called a "teaching". However, the best this line of argument appears to acheive is to equate the Trinity with the phoenix which appears to consign both to the category of...."myth". 

This seems uncharacteristically childish! Surely God can set the general principles by which His thoughts are ordered?

I didn't think a law had been established on this element of posting structure? Pardon me if a protocol has been inadvertantly violated. 

Hello Mr. Joyce,

 

I asked you to explain to me what you think Clement meant, and all you can say is

 

“What he said. Is it that obscure?”

 

I’m sorry but the only thing here “obscure” is your answer. Clement meant “what he said”… well no doubt. Maybe you don't really know what he meant, or maybe you do but don't want to answer.

 

When I said that Clement only had access the Jewish OT, it is that he did not have the benefit of having the Hebrew Scriptures as we do. And as JW Insider explains, the other option, the LXX, more than likely has “phoenix” in the book of Job also.

 

Whatever you may think of the use of the phoenix in the book of Job matters not because to the Jews it is genuine, as well as biblical, and Clement was using what he had in front of him, so to speak, to present the truth of the resurrection.

 

Yes only God can set general principles…, so are you now calling yourself God? Just because you can’t grasp the vocabulary used to define the Trinity, does not make it okay to take what Paul said about tongues, out of context, and apply that to your own inability? I’m sorry to say it like this, but that is what you want to justify.

 

I get a lot of emails, so you bouncing off numerous post when only one is required, just clogs up my in box. Thank you for your understanding. <><

[Cos]

It is claimed by JWs that shortly after the death of the apostles, the early Church soon fell victim to a full-scale apostasy, and thus the writings of the early church are irrelevant.

 

When we turn to the Scriptures we see that there is to be apostasy, 2 Thess 2:3, 1 Tim. 4:1-3, 2 Tim. 4:3-4.  

 

Please note that these verses say nothing of a full apostasy of the Church. In fact we see on the other hand, Mt. 16:18-19, Mt. 28:20 and Acts 28:28 and also Isa. 59:21, that say explicitly that the Church will NEVER cease.

 

So then the question needs to be answered, namely, where were the JW's form of religion between 100 A.D. and the fourth century or even the nineteenth century? <><

[Guest]

34 minutes ago, Cos said:

So then the question needs to be answered, namely, where were the JW's form of religion between 100 A.D. and the fourth century or even the nineteenth century?

Changing the subject, are we?

I see what you are doing. After 5 pages of comments proving you wrong you just have to keep the "discussion" spinning. Please have in mind though that you are turning yourself in an internet troll or a lolcow (I haven't decided yet, your next few comments will be decisive).

Best regards!

[Evacuated]

37 minutes ago, Cos said:

Clement meant “what he said”

I can't see the need to elaborate on what an avowed teacher has expressed to those he seeks to teach. Especially as this particular string takes the form of such a definite or clear expression (statement). It's like ....splitting off atoms when only an element is required.

42 minutes ago, Cos said:

he did not have the benefit of having the Hebrew Scriptures as we do. And as JW Insider explains, the other option, the LXX, more than likely has “phoenix” in the book of Job also.

Clarifies what you meant, but still at best only an assertion. And, forgive me, as I hope @JWInsider will, I get get a sneaky, Hislopian feeling when I read postings of that nature. 

48 minutes ago, Cos said:

so are you now calling yourself God?

Now surely you know how silly this sounds? But as it has the ring of John 10:33, I'll take it as a compliment.                               (Compare Acts 5:43)   

52 minutes ago, Cos said:

can’t grasp the vocabulary used to define the Trinity

Absolutely true! And probably never will!......

46 minutes ago, Cos said:

So then the question needs to be answered, namely, where were the JW's form of religion between 100 A.D. and the fourth century or even the nineteenth century

Very good question. Matt 13:24-30; 36-43. Answers this perfectly. I expect more detail will be provided by other participants as I can see other postings coming in while I write.

59 minutes ago, Cos said:

so you bouncing off numerous post when only one is required, just clogs up my in box.

Sure. No need to reply then. Thanks for the bounce anyway. It was enlightening.  

[Cos]

3 hours ago, ThePraeceptor said:

Changing the subject, are we?

I see what you are doing. After 5 pages of comments proving you wrong you just have to keep the "discussion" spinning. Please have in mind though that you are turning yourself in an internet troll or a lolcow (I haven't decided yet, your next few comments will be decisive).

Best regards!

Hello Mr Praeceptor

 

Your assessment means absolutely next to nothing. You claim that you can see what I’m doing, as if it is something sinister. Yet all I’m doing is addressing what another member claimed. This member said;

 

“Whatever Clement meant or believed and wrote after the Bible was written at the time the apostasy had occurred actually proves the "Trinity" came after the Bible was written by your own admission.”

 

Whenever you JWs don’t like what the early Christians said, then it is because of apostasy.

 

Now you can call me whatever you like, that is up to you, labeling and calling me names does not hurt me. <><