JW's mistaken claim...

[Cos]

I was speaking with a Jehovah’s Witnesses who mistakenly alleges that at the Council of Nicaea in the 4th century AD is when belief in Christ’s Deity originated.

 

Folks, the facts are these, the NT explicitly uses the Greek term theos (“God”) in reference to Jesus Christ. Further, there was a consistent application of theos to Jesus Christ long before the 4th century AD!

 

Christian authors such as Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Melito, Athenagoras, and Irenaeus all spoke of Christ as “God.”

 

These early Christian writers demonstrate that belief in the deity of Christ did not originate in the fourth century as JW’s mistakenly claim. 

 

 What happened at Nicaea and after is a continuation of what these early Christians taught on the matter with focused emphasis on terminology and explanatory nuance to safeguard this truth from the ravages of Arianism, which, as history shows, actually was a fourth century invention! <><

[Cos]

On ‎10‎/‎25‎/‎2017 at 12:36 PM, Nana Fofana said:

I don't know why they say that,

Ms Fofana,

 

Thank you for your reply, and I’m sorry that it has taken me a long period to reply, many things have, and still do, occupy my time, but your reply was a “must respond to” which I marked in my calendar.

 

Your language is somewhat strange you use “izz” instead of “is” a few times, please explain why? You say also that in your many years of “churchgoing” you never heard anyone claim that “Jesus IS God”. Can I ask which church you attended during that time?

 

Now, the Jehovah’s Witness I spoke to said that the Trinity began to be taught (invented) in the fourth century. Try this simple test, ask one of your JW friends when they say that the Trinity “began”.

 

I noticed the Watchtower broacher on the Trinity was brought up. It is interesting that in that broacher on page seven the Watchtower conveys the idea that "the Trinity was unknown throughout biblical times and several centuries thereafter." (Emphasis mine). That statement implies a fourth century ‘invention” and that statement is incorrect! In fact many things in that Watchtower broacher are incorrect, which, I believe, explains why the Watchtower pulled it from circulation. <><

[Cos]

On ‎12‎/‎3‎/‎2017 at 12:56 PM, Nana Fofana said:

if I imagine someone  saying  "Jesus is God", I imagine them sounding like a TV evangelist, if you know what I mean. 

Ms Fofana,

 

Once again thank you for your response and for sharing a little of your background. I know what you mean about TV evangelists sometimes the way they speak can seem a little off-putting, but in general that does not mean that what they say is wrong, for its not.

 

On ‎12‎/‎3‎/‎2017 at 12:56 PM, Nana Fofana said:

"the son is the father'.  That sounded bizarre to me when I first heard it and it has gone on sounding bizarre to me  

 

Can I just say that Jesus, the Son, is not the Father! I looked up the beliefs of the United Church of Christ head office at http://www.ucc.org, and they nowhere claim to believe that “the son is the father”. I don’t know where you got this Oneness idea from, which is not the Trinity at all.

 

You mention what JW’s believe, but what you give under “definition” is not a clear representation of the Trinity, sorry. And you then go on to quote, questionably, from certain secular source.

 

The first from the Encyclopedia Britannica, which, in your quote gives the impression that the Trinity developed some 300 years after the apostles; this is NOT the case as I have stated before. Interestingly left out of this quote is a lot of information which is contrary to the innuendo of your quote, for example the Encyclopedia Britannica has, “Thus, the New Testament established the basis for the doctrine of the Trinity.” (Encyclopedia Britannica, Trinity, Vol. X, p.126 emphasis mine)

 

You know, I wonder if you actually have read the whole article from the Encyclopedia Britannica or if you just read the misleading quotes given in Watchtower publications/website?

 

Your next quote comes from the New Catholic Encyclopedia, and again the quote is very misleading. The article your quote from in this Encyclopedia concludes “it is just as clear on the opposite side that confession of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit-and hence an elemental Trinitarianism-went back to the period of Christian origins” (New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1965, Trinity Vol. 14, p299-300).

 

Not only does your selective quoting not give the full picture, it does not even investigate the primary objectiveness of the article from where the quote comes.

 

Next is the quote from The Encyclopedia Americana, this quote of yours is again misleading and projects the false impression that early Christian teaching was not Trinitarian. The Encyclopedia Americana, says under the article “Trinity Doctrine” Vol. 27, page 67, “In the New Testament it is evident that the doctrine of a trinity in the divine nature is clearly and copiously taught”.

 

Next the quote from Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel. When read in context, the Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel doesn't say that the Christian trinity is borrowed from either the Platonic or pagan trinities. All that the dictionary says it that Plato borrowed his trinity from the pagans. The dictionary suggests, which clearly indicates that it is not sure, ("appears to be" means not certain) that there is a connection between the Christian trinity and the "Platonic trinity". In other words, the dictionary is guessing!

 

And lastly you quote from John McKenzie’s Dictionary of the Bible; but your quote fails to mention that in the very same article it states, "He (Jesus) knows the Father and reveals Him. He therefore belongs to the divine level of being; and there is no question at all about the Spirit belonging to the divine level of being." (Dictionary of the Bible, John L. McKenzie, Trinity, page 899).

 

It is very deceptive to quote articles out of context and then to portray a false innuendo by those misquotes.

 

The fact that the early church spoke of the Tri-unity of God long before the fourth century shows that you JWs are wrong in your claims; and as history shows it was Arianism which was developed in the fourth century, and that Arianism was totally unknown prior to this date.

 

We have Christian writers before the fourth century, such as Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Melito, Athenagoras, and Irenaeus who all spoke of Christ as God and of the Trinity. These early Christian writers demonstrate that belief in the deity of Christ and the Trinity did not originate in the fourth century as you JW’s mistakenly claim. Here are some examples of this fact:

 

Justin Martyr 100 AD – 165 AD “…you will permit me first to recount the prophecies, which I wish to do in order TO PROVE that Christ is called BOTH GOD AND LORD OF HOSTS…” ( Dialogue with Trypho, Chpeter 36 emphasis added).

 

Hippolytus 170 AD – 235 AD writes “A man, therefore, even though he will it not, is compelled to acknowledge God the Father Almighty, and Christ Jesus the Son of God, WHO, BEING GOD, became man, to whom also the Father made all things subject, Himself excepted, and the Holy Spirit; and that these, therefore, are three.” (Against The Heresy Of One Noetus, section 8 emphasis added)

 

I could easily call up many more examples from the early church, all before the fourth century, that refute the JW claim, but because a lot of the above is taken up with showing you how the quotes you cite are deceptive in their implied innuendo, this response has already turned out quite long. The writings of the early church demonstrate clearly that Arianism (which is similar to the JW belief system) was invented in the fourth century. <><

[Shiwiii]

13 hours ago, Cos said:

You know, I wonder if you actually have read the whole article from the Encyclopedia Britannica or if you just read the misleading quotes given in Watchtower publications/website?

Ding Ding Ding Ding, I take "what we are allowed to read and what is forbidden" for three hundred Alex. 

 

13 hours ago, Cos said:

It is very deceptive to quote articles out of context and then to portray a false innuendo by those misquotes.

Hey, isn't that why the WT pulled the Trinity book in the first place? Something about the quotes used were taken out of context and those whom the WT quoted fought back? 

[Cos]

On ‎12‎/‎7‎/‎2017 at 6:56 AM, Shiwiii said:

Ding Ding Ding Ding, I take "what we are allowed to read and what is forbidden" for three hundred Alex. 

 

Hey, isn't that why the WT pulled the Trinity book in the first place? Something about the quotes used were taken out of context and those whom the WT quoted fought back? 

Hi Shiwiii,

 

Yes I believe so. The booklet became an embarrassment to the JWs because of all the false and misleading quotes. <><

[Cos]

12 hours ago, Nana Fofana said:

I agree with this part!

Ms Fofana,

 

Sadly your idea of Jesus is not only wrong it is also a fourth century invention. <><

[TrueTomHarley]

On 10/25/2017 at 12:36 AM, Nana Fofana said:

I don't know why they say that, unless you/they mean by "Christ's Deity", that "Jesus IZZ God!", which as far as I'm concerned, arose about 15 years ago, completely out of the blue, & makes no sense , and is bizarre.  My husband pays no attention to faith matters now, but like me, grew up attending 'nice' protestant churches,

I will not forget my first Bible student in the late 1970's - my grandmother who had always attended 'nice' baptist churches. She was much troubled that I was in a religion that didn't believe in the Trinity. I reviewed the doctrine and she said that she had never believed that - all she had meant was that there was a Father and a Son and a holy spirit. She had never imagined that they were the same.

[TrueTomHarley]

 

On 12/6/2017 at 4:48 AM, Cos said:

Can I just say that Jesus, the Son, is not the Father! I looked up the beliefs of the United Church of Christ head office at http://www.ucc.org, and they nowhere claim to believe that “the son is the father”. I don’t know where you got this Oneness idea from.

Well, she might have gotten it from the signs one routinely sees everywhere: "Jesus is God!"

[Srecko Sostar]

heheehe, playing with translations we have 2 possibilities  

Jesus is;

1) God

2) god

in any way he is not angel , Michael :))))

 

[Srecko Sostar]

John 1:1

       In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.      KJV

1 In the beginning was the Word,+ and the Word was with God,+ and the Word was a god.* NWT from JWorg

Why sending sad   emoticons ?

:)) be happy, translators and transcribers and copyist with bible scholars and church fathers (past and present) have problems with wording 

[Cos]

On ‎12‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 12:37 PM, TrueTomHarley said:

 

Well, she might have gotten it from the signs one routinely sees everywhere: "Jesus is God!"

Mr Harley,

 

Even that guess on your part would constitute as a poor assumption. <><

[Cos]

On ‎12‎/‎11‎/‎2017 at 6:38 AM, Nana Fofana said:

 

Ms Fofana,

 

Sorry for the lateness of this response, so many things occupy my attention of late.

 

Nana:

It is very deceptive, imo, to refer to "quoting articles out of context", as if the customary and accepted practice is not to quote anything unless 'context'   -maybe the whole article?, or maybe the whole book?, or maybe everything the author ever wrote, along with his life history, including the context of the times in which he operated?-   is included,  and then to portray a false innuendo by calling them "misquotes." 

 

Of course it depends on which side you are on whether you agree on the use of any quote, but for me if the quote is intentionally made so that it appears to say one thing when really it is saying another that then constitutes as deception, and that is not a trait of real Christianity, no matter how you try to excuse it, only false religion would stoop to that leave...sorry. Visit any good library and you will see what I mean for yourself!

 

 I didn't hear  what you say is "Oneness idea" at the UCC, and that's what I was trying to say all along!

 

Wherever you get this idea from that Jesus is the Father it is incorrect and it is not the Trinity. The Father is a person, the Son is a person, and the Holy Spirit is a person who exist as One (Matt. 28:19) that, put simply, is the Trinity. Jesus being God does not mean that Jesus is the Father, any who claim this are just as wrong as the JWs claims about Him.

 

Here is offered some New Testament basis that the trinity concept is unscriptural.-

 

You refer to Matt. 16:13-16 where Jesus is confessed to be the Son of God by Peter. Jesus’ sonship is also confessed by the disciples in Matthew 14: 33, it was also a part of Caiaphas’s question to Jesus at his trial (Matt 26: 63), and the sonship of Jesus is also the focus of a round of taunts lobbed at him while nailed to the cross (Matt. 27: 39– 43). These people all knew what being the Son of God meant!

 

Jesus is the Son of God, but what that means must be understood in the way the ancients viewed the term, not read with a modern “understand” back into the Scriptures.

 

Jesus is called "the Son of God" in a non-literal sense, since He was not procreated. In fact Christians claim that Jesus, according to the NT and the way those around him understood the term that it meant that Jesus possess the nature of God fully and completely (see for example Col. 2:9; Heb. 1:3).

 

When Jesus was condemned to death by the Jewish Sanhedrin, the Jews insisted to Pilate, “We have a law, and according to that law he must die, because he claimed to be the Son of God” (John 19:7). Prior to this, the high priest who was the president of the Jewish council, put Christ under oath, and asked Him two questions (mentioned together in Matt and Mark, but stated as proposed separately by Luke. “Are you the Christ?” (Luke 22:67) and “Are you then the Son of God? (Luke 22:70). And it was the affirmative answer of Jesus to the last of these questions, which were grounds for condemnation.

 

Keep in mind that Jesus knew the sense in which the question was asked (for He had been accused of this before, see John 5:17-18 and John 10:30-39), and He was bound to answer it honestly and truly in the sense in which He knew the high priest meant it.

 

He therefore affirmed under oath, at His trial before the council, that He was the Son of God in the high sense the phrase was meant, and for this He was condemned to death.

 

According to the Law of Moses, any person who enticed others to idolatry was to be punished with death (Deut. 13:6-8, see also Lev. 24:16). A mere creature, who should claim divine honour to himself, was guilty of this crime, and even though the Romans had taken away from the Jews the power of inflicting this punishment, they still had the right to report to the governor concerning such a person, “We have a law, and by that law He ought to die” (John 19:7). This was their decision as reported to Pilate, concerning Jesus, and if He was not entitled to this claim then their decision was just.  

 

So when we read the account in the Bible, the Jews brought two charges against Jesus, one was treason against Caesar, by making Himself a King.  To this charge Pilate asked Jesus, “Are you a king?” (John 18:37). Jesus answered in the affirmative, but so that they would not convict Him of a crime of which He was not guilty, He explained, “My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36). His reply was satisfactory to the governor, who acquitted Him of the charge (John 18:38).  

 

In the other case He not only claimed to be the Son of God, yet accompanied the claim with NO explanation. He could have said, I am the Son of God, but not in such a sense as true Deity. But he made no such explanation.

 

If Jesus was not entitled to divine honour, He knew it; and He also knew then that He deserved death for claiming it. To make the claim before the court was to be guilty of the crime. To answer as He did, on oath, if He did not mean to make the claim, was perjury. And to allow the sentence against Him to pass, without any effort to explain, was to be guilty of His own death. 

 

Yes Jesus is the Son of God. That is, true God from true God, Amen. <><