Cos

On ‎5‎/‎22‎/‎2017 at 11:30 PM, JW Insider said:

I will try to remember that for conversations with you. I have a tendency to respond with too many words, so I'm usually guessing that most people look at what I have written and just don't bother. ("too-long-didn't-read" -- tldr.) I rarely edit things down to a better size, which means that putting all my posts together would create "tldr times three" or "tldr times four." Of course, it doesn't bother me at all if no one reads what I've said, because writing out my responses in detail serves to make me think through an idea more completely, for myself, and then produces a "paper trail" for others to correct or to see if it still makes sense after I learn more. And if it's "tldr" then only those who WANT to go to the time and trouble to correct my errors will engage.

homoousia

People can pick and choose from more than one teacher. Paul of Samosata followed Origen in several ways. I see no misunderstanding.

That's one of the evidences that Rufinus sincerely thought he was doing the right thing. If he misunderstood what Origen meant in one place and it made him edit what Origen said in another place then it means we have lost out on being able to determine for ourselves the full range of Origen's ideas, or we may have lost out on our ability to see where Origen may have contradicted himself. Also, if Origen said "A" in one place and "B" in another, how do we know whether Rufinus picked the correct places to edit. Perhaps Origen would have preferred all his A's to be corrected as B's and Rufinus corrected all his B's and made them A's.

God helps us and communicates to us through the Word, his only-begotten Son, and God helps and communicates to us through the holy spirit, which was especially manifested through the work of the apostles and first-century disciples in laying the foundation of the first-century congregations. That work of the holy spirit has come down to us in the form of the inspired Bible which added the inspired Greek Scriptures to the canon of the inspired Hebrew Scriptures. The holy spirit also works in the lives of individuals so that we can give faith, love and hope a priority in our lives and conquer in our war over sin and the works of the flesh. (Galatians 5:16-26)

Therefore we do have equal faith in God, his Son, and his holy spirit. We can't have real faith in God without equal faith in all his means of help and all his means of communicating his purpose and character to us. It should therefore have been quite natural for all Christian writers to link God, his Son, and his holy spirit. It should be natural for them to be linked together in the Greek Scriptures, too.

If that "and" argument were necessarily so, he would not have needed to add "lives" before Jesus, either.

To the question as to what Clement likely meant, I would merely repeat the last two paragraphs I wrote above. They should be linked because our faith and hope is dependent on God and his direct means of working with us. Our faith and hope is not dependent on angels, organizations, material support, or even our fellow believers.

Perhaps not intentionally. His goal is to tie the current official faith of the Church to the faith handed down by the apostles. You are referring to a more formal Binitarian belief. I am referring to a time shortly after the writings of the apostles, especially John's gospel, when the primary goal was to resolve the meaning of Christ's divinity. There were several potential solutions offered, some which congealed in religions that are hardly recognizable as "Christianity" today, such as various heresies and forms of gnosticism.

Perhaps. There are two ways to look at this issue. One is that the wheat and weeds grow together throughout the history of believers. But it might never mean that there was a time when the majority of believers held correct beliefs. Jehovah's Witnesses have long held that there were believers holding to a true belief system throughout history. Only near the end, towards the time of the harvest, would the wheat and weeds become distinguishable. So JWs believe that God and Jesus have always had "Witnesses" throughout history, and that the true belief system has not ceased. Another way to look at this is that the congregation that Jesus identifies as his Witnesses is not strictly identified throughout all of history by the sum total of their belief system. It may be that it refers to all those who are motivated to allow Jesus teachings about love for God and neighbor to guide their lives, doing unto others as they would have done to themselves, and therefore they are allowing the fruits of the holy spirit to guide their lives. Outside of that, all these other doctrines are of a much lower priority.

I have already described a sense in which the three entities should be spoken of together, and I have no problem linking them in many of the ways that the ANF linked them.

Hello JW Insider,

I’m sorry that I couldn’t get back to you earlier my week has been very busy.

You say,

“Also, if Origen said "A" in one place and "B" in another, how do we know whether Rufinus picked the correct places to edit. Perhaps Origen would have preferred all his A's to be corrected as B's and Rufinus corrected all his B's and made them A's.”

Origen did not say “A” in one place and “B’ in another maybe you missed how, not only Rufinus, but also Pamphilus, mention that Origen’s work had been altered by others. So how can we know for sure? By doing what Rufinus suggests and compare these renderings to Origen’s other writings. So shall we?

 “Light without splendor is unthinkable. But if this is true, there is never a time when the Son was not the Son. He will be, however, not, as we have described the eternal light, unborn (lest we seem to introduce two principles of light), but, as it were, the splendor of the unbegotten light, with that very light as His beginning and source, born of it indeed, but there was not a time when He was not. Thus Wisdom, too, since it proceeds from God, is generated out of the divine substance itself. Under the figure of a bodily outflow, nevertheless, it, too, is thus called 'a sort of clean and pure outflow of omnipotent glory' (Wis. 7:25). Both these similes manifestly show the community of substance between Son and Father. For an outflow seems ὁμοὐσιος, i.e., of one substance with that body of which it is the outflow or exhaltation” (Origen In Hebr. frg. 24,359 emphasis mine).

Let’s notice a few things from this. When Origen says that there never was a time when the Son was not, this is in stark contrast with the later Arian principle that “there was a time when the Son was not”.

Another point is the uses of the word homoousios which you imply is a distortion of the developing language. Yet Origen here uses the word hamoousios in speaking of the Son's basic relation with the Father. Homoousios (Greek. ὁμοούσιος) means "of the same substance," "of the same essence."  Homo means "same" and ousia means "essence."  Origen is saying that the Son is of identically the same substance as the Father and thus is God just as the Father is God. For a more detailed treatment see G. L. Prestige, “God in Patristic Thought”, pp. 197-199.

You say;

“People can pick and choose from more than one teacher. Paul of Samosata followed Origen in several ways. I see no misunderstanding.”

It is interesting that Eusebius makes no mention of this and we both know Eusebius’ leanings were more towards your belief system, but I do agree “People can pick and choose from more than one teacher” but there is no confirmation of this theory in regard to Paul of Samosats,… not even from Eusebius, but then he would appear to be a charlatan because, from what you say, he does not record the specifics of church history but only a whitewashed version to “tie in” with “the current official faith”.

Even though Eusebius mentions other heresies which the church faced in the years before his own time, there is no mention of Binitarianism none at all. Why would he “intentionally” not mention this heresy? It’s because this heresy did not appear until the late fourth century. If it were a belief system BEFORE the fourth century then people like Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, and of course  Eusebius, would have referred to it, but there is nothing; just as there is no belief system that even resembles the JW form of religion being mentioned by these early church writers.

What you need to consider is this fact, the early church writers refuted all forms of heresy they do not even mention any group that resemble your type of religion because it did not exist until much later! This is fact, it’s not speculation no matter how many ways you want to “look at the issue” this fact speak volumes. <><

On ‎5‎/‎20‎/‎2017 at 11:28 PM, JW Insider said:

This was responded to already, by others. There is nothing here that we don't believe. Curious that the Holy Spirit doesn't explicity "live" and that God is separated from Jesus and the Holy Spirit, so that they not God in this context. Trinitarian doctrine is conspicuous by its absence.

Wikipedia quotes references to put it at 138-161. The line "This is taught in the gospel" is not found in all the versions and is considered a gloss. That doesn't change the idea that "God came down from heaven" which is evidently part of the original, and which I would say is worded in a way that is different from inspired scripture. God sent his Son from heaven, who had been with God "from the beginning." But this is not the same God coming down from heaven, because God was still in heaven. Jesus said that he would return to "my God" at his ascension. And of course, even after that ascension it was God who gave Jesus Christ the Revelation, which he gave to John. This was the point that JTR previously made.

I agree that it's quite possible however that somewhere between 125 and 161, some Christians explained the divinity of Christ in terms that were at least "Binitarian" but not yet Trinitarian. The nature of philosophical beliefs and syncretism with their former beliefs as Gentiles probably influenced confusion in some of them during the life and preaching of the apostles, themselves.

There is not a perfect consistency in the doctrines as they are presented by Justin Martyr around 160 (opinion) and he may have even been responsible for some of the wording we see in the "Apology of Aristides" above. Both of them use the expression "he was pierced by the Jews" for example. But I would agree that Martyr also appears "Binitarian" but not yet fully Trinitarian. I'll check into the quote from his First Apology later.

After Iranaeus, 180, and those after him, I'm not concerned that there were full Trinitarians teaching openly. But even here, as with Origen, their teachings were not always considered consistent enough to avoid condemnation.

 

Hello JW Insider,

Please don’t take this the wrong way as I am enjoying our discussion and therefore don’t mean to be rude in this, but why send three posts when only one would do, I don’t get that, it seems to be a common practice by some here.

I get a lot of emails, a lot, which I have to go through, so sending more than one reply only makes it more cumbersome to work with not to mention that it is difficult to follow your train of thought; I hope that you can understand this. If you want to quote what I say then just put in your post something like “You say, ‘such and such and such’ ” there is no need, which I can see, to respond by multiple posts.

You say in one post;

“The language had indeed developed so that Origen's seeming contradictions could now be stated with words that erased those contradictions. (In my opinion, the developing language merely hid the contradictions.)”

Can you give some examples of the “developing language” that you say “hid the contradiction”.

You then bring up Paul of Samosata, who held to the view of monarchianism, and who is also referred to as a devotee of Artemas, see Eusebius Ecclesiastical History 5 chapter 28. This just goes to show the amount of misunderstanding which abound in regard to Origen. Rufinus, at least, is straight forward in what he says; if he was “editing Origen himself” as you claim, why would he say to compare these with other portions of Origen’s writings? The kind of opinion you hold to about Rufinus, show me that you are set on the negative by calling into doubt what is said because it doesn’t sit right with you and your belief system.

After my quote from Irenaeus; “The Church … has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith in one God, the Father … in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit.” (Against Heresies)

You say

“This is what Jehovah's Witnesses believe, too. Sometimes, there is confusion because we generally avoid terms like "incarnate" but we still believe that the Word became flesh

If this is what “Jehovah’s Witnesses believe, too”, then you must put equal faith in the Holy Spirit as in the Son and the Father,  the same as Irenaeus does, do you, JW Insider, put equal faith in the Holy Spirit? Note how “this faith” is singular and is applicable to all three equally.

By the way the “and” in the quote from Clements letter to the Corinthians before “the Holy Spirit” indicates that “lives” is applicable the Him also. And yes others, or at least one other did respond to this quote, but when I ask him what he thought it meant, all he could say was “What he said” so “what he said’ is what he meant (?). I will ask you the same question, what does Clement mean when he says that the three are “the faith and hope of the elect”?

Eusebius’ “cheery picking” as you call his rendering of Ecclesiastical History, does not negate the fact that he make no mention (even any shrouded reference) that the belief system of the early church “developed” from one system (such as the binitarian belief system) to another.

In fact the binitarian belief system emerged after the Arian controversy toward the later part of the fourth century, and as a belief system it has ceased and then started over again throughout the last eighteen centuries. Remember Eusebius makes no mention of any such system.

The true belief system would not cease, so any claim to “restoration” is contrary to Scripture.

There is much more in the writings of the early church prior to Nicea that show what they believed and taught is consistent with the later creedal formula, we have only touch on a few examples I can cite more if you like. The Father the Son and the Holy Spirit were together believed upon by these first Christians.

The early church, from the first century onwards, always agreed that there were three in the Godhead, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, in complete accord with the later creeds. If one examines carefully and with all honesty the writings of the early church their language and theology bear forth their understanding of the Triune God long before and in complete harmony with the 4th century formulated creeds.

I finish off here with a quote from Ignatius;

“There are not then either three Fathers, or three Sons, or three Paracletes, but one Father, and one Son, and one Paraclete. Wherefore also the Lord, when He sent forth the apostles to make disciples of all nations, commanded them to “baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,” not unto one [person] having three names, nor into three [persons] who became incarnate, but into three possessed of equal honor.”(THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS TO THE PHILIPPIANS, chapter 2). <><

On ‎5‎/‎18‎/‎2017 at 11:49 PM, ThePraeceptor said:

Not if you understand Greek. You simply can not translate this frase like this. There is also no hint for any underlying meanings.

How exactly have you reached this understanding?

 

Here are what some Greek experts say,

“Several of the principal manuscripts and a great mass of ancient evidence support the reading μονογενὴς Θεὸς, “God only begotten.”  (Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament)

“The best old Greek manuscripts (Aleph B C L) read monogenēs theos (God only begotten) which is undoubtedly the true text.” (Robertson Word Pictures). <><

On ‎5‎/‎18‎/‎2017 at 3:47 PM, JW Insider said:

This is true, and I am aware of the more orthodox Trinitarian sounding quotes. It's not a definitive method, but I have also compared some of the scholarship with respect to Origen over time. It seems (generally) he was considered orthodox enough for his day, then was partly blamed for Arianism even before 325,  then was condemned for his views against the Trinity after 325, then found favor among more modern Trinitarians who tried to bring him back into the fold, then was scrutinized In more recent scholarship that put him back into the non-Trinitarian column, and has seen a modest attempt to synthesize his views and make them at least semi-Trinitarian. This was what I found generally, and it's probably informed by my own opinions and prejudices, too. But there are exceptions, as you have pointed out.

I did see those exceptions, because most articles that discuss Origen's Trinity references not only acknowledge these other quotes from Origen and others, but they also discuss them in great detail. Part of the process of determining truth has always included "testing" every side of a matter. But, of course,  I didn't want to get into a discussion of which scholars are better than other scholars. For me, it is sufficient to know that the arguments about Origen generally fall into two sides, and one of those two sides is closer to the truth than the other. So far, I chose a side, and you have chosen another. 

Another point to consider is not whether Rufinus was honest or not in a 4th century translation of  3rd century works, but the very fact that he was sure these books had been changed by "heretics and malevolent persons." I never assumed he was personally dishonest. What is more interesting is that in the 100-150 years since they were written, he focuses on one topic where he thinks these changes had been made. They were almost all Trinity references. That fact alone tells me that the Trinity doctrine was not resolved prior to the 4th century. I have also read Rufinus' own words about the "Falsification of the Books of Origen." It reminds me of the same fact. (Which also reminds me that a couple of the most disputed passages that ended up being generally identified as "glosses" or "forgeries" in the NT itself were on the topic of Trinity.)

I'm sure you already know that more and more scholarly works on the topic are being published all the time. From what I have seen, the majority of them agree that it developed over time.  Some of the same "Church Fathers" who helped to develop and maintain the Trinity doctrine over time also believed that Plato and Aristotle's works might have been inspired of God because they were so thankful that they provided a language and framework in which to explain the Trinity.  

I ran across a lot of that in the Origen articles, but this short page is accessible to everyone: https://blog.logos.com/2013/11/plato-christianity-church-fathers/ and includes a quote from Dean Inge that I think is very relevant to the discussion of "development." The emphasis was added on the original site.

Dean Inge, the famous professor of divinity, writes that:

“Platonism is part of the vital structure of Christian theology . . . . [If people would read Plotinus, who worked to reconcile Platonism with Scripture,] they would understand better the real continuity between the old culture and the new religion, and they might realize the utter impossibility of excising Platonism from Christianity without tearing Christianity to pieces. The Galilean Gospel, as it proceeded from the lips of Jesus, was doubtless unaffected by Greek philosophy . . . . But [early Christianity] from its very beginning was formed by a confluence of Jewish and Hellenic religious ideas.” (Emphasis added)

And, of course, for background a couple of quotes from the same site from persons who wrote prior to 325. (Eusebius also wrote after 325, of course. As I'm sure you know, he was famous for his book on "Church History" and infamous for his Arianism.) 

Eusebius of Caesarea

“[Plato is] the only Greek who has attained the porch of (Christian) truth.”

Clement of Alexandria

“. . . before the advent of the Lord, philosophy was necessary to the Greeks for righteousness. And now it becomes conducive to piety; being a kind of preparatory training to those who attain to faith . . . . For God is the cause of all good things, but of some primarily, as of the Old and New Testaments; and of others by consequence, as philosophy. Perchance, too, philosophy was given to the Greeks directly and primarily . . . . For [philosophy] was a schoolmaster to bring ‘the Hellenic mind . . . to Christ.’ Philosophy, therefore, was a preparation, paving the way for him who is perfected in Christ.” (Emphasis added)

I don't agree, but I do agree that what the first-century early church agreed upon, should be the basis for our current belief.

Jehovah's Witnesses are careful not to claim that the church ceased to exist through the intervening centuries, only that restoration was needed through long years of false doctrine. The verse that is usually used to show what you are saying is:

(Matthew 16:18) 18 Also, I say to you: You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my congregation, and the gates of the Grave will not overpower it.

But Jesus also said:

(Luke 18:8) Nevertheless, when the Son of man arrives, will he really find this faith on the earth?”

Illustrations about the wheat and the weeds, the sheep and the goats, the narrow vs the broad road, etc., have always led Witnesses to believe that the intervening centuries have been full of major falsehoods, but that Jehovah and Jesus have not judged all of Christendom in the past centuries over these doctrines. But we also believe that it's possible to compare and test various doctrines as brighter light thus helps to restore truthful, healthful teachings.

(1 Corinthians 11:18, 19) . . .. 19 For there will certainly also be sects among you, so that those of you who are approved may also become evident.

(2 Timothy 4:3, 4) 3 For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the wholesome teaching, but according to their own desires, they will surround themselves with teachers to have their ears tickled. 4 They will turn away from listening to the truth and give attention to false stories.

Hi JW Insider,

What I think is that some mistakenly judge Origen by later standards, and that is why there are is a difference of opinions. He is at the centre of debates even after his own time. The Catholic Encyclopedia gives account of the controversies over Origen, but these had nothing to do with Origen’s treatment of the Trinity, see also the Encyclopedia Britannica. Instead of choosing sides, wouldn’t you agree that there is no better way to know Origen’s thought then to go to his writings, and not speculate why one person says such and such about him, while another something else, also what must be kept in mind when reading his works is that his arguments were given to defend the faith against heresy, some seem to forget this.

You say that you “never assumed he (Rufinus) was personally dishonest” but then you call into question why he singled out “one topic…almost all Trinity references”. Rufinus says that if someone doubts then all they need do is to compare these with other portions of Origen’s writings; see again the prologue of Rufinus.

Moving on to what you say about the Trinity “developing”. Let me try to make this as clear as I can; what actually “developed” is the language used to explain the Trinity, NOT their belief system. Even the Nicene Creed under went further development in later decades, but the belief system remained.

The early Christian writers of the second and third century claimed that their understanding of the matter was taught by the apostles. Irenaeus, for example, said:

“The Church … has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith in one God, the Father … in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit.” (Against Heresies)

When we read the writings of the early church one cannot escape the consistency of what the early church believed; what they believe is even attested to by the secular Roman government in the first decade of the second century!

You bring up Eusebius who wrote the work Ecclesiastical History. Eusebius also wrote a letter after the Council of Nicea justifying its conclusions. He wrote for good reason. It was the "rule of faith" of his church, Caesarea, that was used as the basis for the Nicene Creed, and he was explaining the adaptations that the council had made. But because that letter was written so apologetically, Eusebius' adherence to an orthodox doctrine of the Trinity was questioned. You even say he was “infamous for his Arianism”.

But what we find in Eusebius’ “Ecclesiastical History” is that it abounds with quotes from those who lived before him. If the church in its earlier days had believed anything different from Nicea, OR if the belief system of the early church had developed over time no one would have known better than Eusebius. But instead of testifying any change, Eusebius defended what they believed in harmony with the Nicene creed.

He writes in his letter to his home church;

“That he is consubstantial with the Father then simply implies, that the Son of God has no resemblance to created things, but is in every respect like the Father only who begat him; and that he is of no other substance or essence but of the Father. To which doctrine, explained in this way, it appeared right to assent, especially since we knew that some eminent bishops and learned writers among the ancients have used the term “homoousios” in their theological discourses concerning the nature of the Father and the Son”

Notice how he agrees with the use of homoousios because it was used by earlier church writers. Tertullian for example, regularly refers to the term. Eusebius was aware of this.

I would like to have a look at one of the earliest of Christian writings after the NT. In an anonymous letter to Diognetus, some say it may have been written as early as the late 80’s of the first century, though the date has been difficult to determine most scholars date it around the turn of the century. Even at this early date, however, we can see what was believed was later formulated at Nicea.

“Truly God himself … has sent from heaven and placed among men the truth and the holy and incomprehensible Word and has firmly established him in their hearts. He did not, as one might have imagined, send to men any servant, angel, ruler, or anyone of those who bear sway over earthly things … but the very Creator and Fashioner of all things—by whom he made the heavens.” (Letter to Diognetus chapter. 7)

This anonymous author was not trying to explain exactly the formulated creed but he leaves us several clues that he held the same view as that of the later creed.

Here's another one:

“He sent the Word that he might be manifested to the world … This is he who was from the beginning, who appeared as if new, and was found old, yet is ever born afresh in the hearts of the saints. This is he, who being from everlasting, is today called the Son.” (Letter to Diognetus chapter. 11)

I will continue from Clement of Rome who wrote also at the turn of the first century;

“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)

In around the year 125;

“The Christians, then, trace the beginning of their religion from Jesus the Messiah; and he is named the Son of God Most High. And it is said that God came down from heaven, and from a Hebrew virgin assumed and clothed himself with flesh;.... This is taught in the gospel” (THE APOLOGY OF ARISTIDES chapter 2)

Justin martyr in his Dialogue with Trypho, a Jew, writes;

“…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)

“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, then that He submitted to be born and become man’… And I replied to this… ‘as Son of the Maker of all things, BEING GOD, and was born a man by the Virgin’” (Dialogue with Trypho, chapter 48 emphasis added).

“Our teacher of these things is Jesus Christ, who also was born for this purpose, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judaea, in the times of Tiberius Caesar…and holding HIM IN THE SECOND PLACE, AND THE PROPHETIC SPIRIT IN THE THIRD… for they do not discern the mystery that is herein, to which, as we make it plain to you, we pray you to give heed.” (First Apology, chapter 14 emphasis added).

Irenaeus is another important witness who shows what the early Christians believed, having sat under the teaching of Polycarp who had been appointed bishop of Smyrna by the apostle John. Irenaeus was a missionary to barbarians in Gaul (modern France) who supervised several churches in and around Lyons.

"For I have shown from the scriptures, that no one of the sons of Adam is as to everything, and absolutely, called God, or named Lord. But that He is Himself in His own right, beyond all men who ever lived, God, and Lord, and King Eternal, and the Incarnate Word, proclaimed by all the prophets, the apostles, and by the Spirit Himself, may be seen by all who have attained to even a small portion of the truth. Now, the scriptures would not have testified these things of Him, if, like others, He had been a mere man.” (Against Heresies, book 3, chapter 19)

Tertillian writes “All are of One, by unity (that is) of substance; while the mystery of the dispensation is still guarded, which distributes THE UNITY INTO A TRINITY, placing in their order THE THREE PERSONS — the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit: THREE…of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power, inasmuch as He is one God, from whom these degrees and forms and aspects are reckoned, under the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. How they are susceptible of number without division, will be shown as our treatise proceeds.” (Against Praxeas chapter 2 emphasis added)

"Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent Persons, who are yet distinct One from Another. These Three are, one essence, not one Person” (Against Praxeas, chapter 25)

Hippolytus also 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)

I could go on, but this has turned out very long already, there are so many examples which show that what the early church believed is exactly what was formulated at Nicea.

It is clear that the teachings of the early Christian church are the very same teachings formulated at Nicea and the same as those taught to this day. 

Notice also how these early church writers in their works refute Heresies (the wheat against the weeds; the sheep against the goats; the narrow vs broad road). Yet nowhere do they even mention a belief system that even remotely resembles the JW form of religion, that is, until Arianism appeared in the fourth century.

Here are some more Scriptures that testify that the true belief system would NOT cease, Matt. 16:18-19; 28:20, Acts 28:28 also Isa. 59:21.

So when you claim that “Jehovah's Witnesses are careful not to claim that the church ceased to exist through the intervening centuries, only that restoration was needed through long years of false doctrine.”

If “restoration was needed” then you are indirectly claiming that your belief system, even though it is supposedly the true one, ceased?

As this is very long I just want to briefly say one more thing and that is in regard to your comment about the philosophical language used by the church to explain the trinity. When explaining something to others you use the language that they understand, you don’t use language or terminology that they are not familiar with, right?

In the Roman world there were many schools of philosophy, so it is little wonder that this is the language that the church used, some try to make an issue of this when there is nothing in it. Even though the terminology the early church writer used was indeed philosophical in origin which they admit, we have the words of one who used these philosophical terms more then most, and said “the knowledge which calls men to lead a good and blessed life derives from no other source but the very words and teaching of Christ” (Origen, On First Principles, emphasis mine).

I apologize if this response is abrupt in any way. <><

18 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

No one is disputing Jesus' divine nature. Compare (1Pet.1:4). Nevertheless, what is "begot" is most definitely,............... "begun".

More likely the term “monogenes theos” (μονογενὴς θεός - God only begotten) means Jesus uniquely is what God is.

On ‎5‎/‎16‎/‎2017 at 7:54 PM, JW Insider said:

That's quite understandable. I'm retired, don't sleep enough, and have replaced TV with Internet. Up until just a couple years ago, I wasn't able to join conversations on the net while I was working and raising a family. I should also admit that while I do have an excessive library, the items I quoted from were from an college alumni account that gives me access to a million academic journals. I didn't check if any of these are freely available to the public, but I got complaints in a previous conversation when I tried to give links that apparently only worked for me.

I should also mention that when you respond, I'm not really that interested in defending what the Arians believed or what Origen believed. My main point was that the Trinity doctrine as defined in the 4th century was developed over time, and actually "evolved" somewhat from the 2nd century through the 4th. But I would already admit that it is possible to find sources that would align Origen more closely with orthodox thinking (and by "orthodox" I mean mid-4th century). I also know that Origen is not considered the Father of Arianism by some scholars. I only mention this because I wouldn't want you to feel it's necessary to respond to the points I made, because I probably will just agree that there are other possible points of view. (e.g., Rufinus didn't really change as much of Origen's work as people have claimed; it was really Origen's students who were the father of Arianism, etc., etc.)

I do have a much stronger interest in what the original text of the Bible would have presented, so that some of the copyists' changes that appear to move any Bible text toward a more 4th-century Trinitarian direction will always interest me. You made some good points about John 1:18. What looks like evidence to one person is not always definitive.

As you can tell, as a Witness, I don't accept the Trinity, and we are not exactly Arian, either. Anna pointed out that a lot of the thinking and explanations that went into the Trinity doctrine (and some forms of Arianism) might not have been possible without the ideas of Plato and Aristotle. I am not interested in any of that. I'm only interested in whether or not a particular belief system will explain the entire range of Scriptures that touch on the issue of the "divinity" of Jesus Christ. I think Ann O'maly was also right in saying that there are several Bible verses that might not be covered by either neo-Arian or Trinitarian solutions. (I think the ideas about the holy spirit will fall into place when the first issue is resolved.)

Hello JW Insider,

Thanks for your further comments. I really feel now that there is no need for me to respond to the other two posts as you have encapsulated what my response was to be, and that is that there are many scholars, as you acknowledge, that hold a completely different view on Origen to those that you quoted, such as E. J. Fortman, “The Triune God” page 58, expressing that “Origen is Trinitarian in his thought…”

I also would have said that we look at the other writings of Origen which we have Greek copies of, because as Rufinus admits the alteration he made in De Principiis were because they were “corrupted in numerous places by heretics and malevolent persons” as explained in “Apologeticus, which Pamphilus wrote in defence of the works of Origen”. And these alterations that Rufinus made are consistent with what Origen said in his other works;

“If, therefore, we have found anywhere in his writings, any statement opposed to that view, which elsewhere in his works he had himself piously laid down regarding the Trinity, we have either omitted it, as being corrupt, and not the composition of Origen, or we have brought it forward agreeably to the rule which we frequently find affirmed by himself If, indeed, in his desire to pass rapidly on, he has, as speaking to persons of skill and knowledge, sometimes expressed himself obscurely, we have, in order that the passage might be clearer, added what we had read more fully stated on the same subject in his other works, keeping explanation in view, but adding nothing of our own, but simply restoring to him what was his, although occurring in other portions of his writings.” (Prologue of Rufinus)

After reading the Prologue, Rufinus’s honesty does not need to be impugned in the way stated in your quotes. What he says is credible and straightforward. There are many other examples that Origen makes regarding the Trinity in his other works that can be looked at and compared as just as Rufinus said.

In another work by Rufinus, “On the Falsification of the Books of Origen” also titled “Rufinus’s Epilogue to Pamphilus the Martyr’s Apology for Origen”; he states his arguments for why some of the passages in Origen’s work De Principiis were corrupted by those he calls “heretics and malevolent persons” I think you might find that interesting.

You say;

“My main point was that the Trinity doctrine as defined in the 4th century was developed over time, and actually "evolved" somewhat from the 2nd century through the 4th.”

It is exactly to this allegation that I want to look, if Christian’s as early as Clement, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus (just to name a few), are speaking in definite terms of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as God, how can it have “developed over time” or “evolve”?

The early church, from the first century onwards, always agreed that there were three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as God. If one examines carefully and with all honesty the writings of the early church their language and theology bear forth their understanding of the Triune God long before and in complete harmony with the fourth century formulated creeds.

We notice that from the Scriptures the testimony is that Jesus’ church would not cease at any time and then re-emerge some years later, this "restoration" claim contradicts Scripture. Yet it is this very claim that is made by all religions which were founded in the past 150 years!

I think you can see what I’m getting at.

You say in one of the other posts,

“…Origen himself, who was famous for this in his works, and he testifies to the "only begotten God" reading. Whether he ever used this particular verse, I'm not sure, but he did argue for a begotten God in the sense of a "created" Son who is called God. 

If I can just say the use of the word “begotten” does not mean “made” or “created”.

When you beget, you beget something of the same kind as yourself. A man begets human babies, a rabbit begets little rabbits a bird begets eggs which turn into little birds.

To create is to make. When you make, you make something of a different kind from yourself. A bird makes a nest, a rabbit makes a barrow a man makes a house.

As the early church writers stipulate, what God begets IS God; just as what man begets is man. What God creates is not God, just as what man creates is not man.

I’m certain that you can access more articles on this through your college alumni account which will give a more detailed description then can be done in this short space. <><

17 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Canon Green, after considering what we know of Origen outside of the view that was literally forged for him by Rufinus, is quoted in the book "Origen as Trinitarian" as follows:

Origen continues to use the same strongly ditheistic language about the Logos as Justin had done, and of the Spirit he goes so far as to say that He is a creation of the Father through the Logos. The Logos of Origen is that of contemporary Greek philosophy, the Nous of Flotinus, eternally begotten by God. Origen makes no attempt to conceal the pluralistic character of his thought.... Origen himself was no trinitarian in his more fundamental view .... The trinitarian element in Origen, which is certainly present, is due to his loyalty to the Baptismal Rule of Faith which required it without explaining it, rather than to the inner necessity of his thought.

This is not the only place where we see the claim that Origen used the terms that referred to a Trinity, not because he thought it meant the same thing to him as to others, but out of deference to others who needed to hear him use the terms. It would be like a person who joined a church and disagreed on the specific meaning of a term that the church used, but he still used the term so as not to stumble or offend others. Also, we now know that most of the places where people think that Origen used the term "Trinity" were inserted by Rufinus to replace the many places where Origen had actually spelled out terms that included "Father, Son and Holy Spirit." The term "peri triados" is written as a marginal gloss in an 11th century manuscript of Origen's Greek, where the actual text only mentions the three entities spelled out. It's as if there was a tendency to want to put words in his mouth. In fact, the actual word Origen would have used would be more like the Greek term like "triados" or "trias" which Theophilus of Antioch had used in the late 2nd century. But again, the 2nd and 3rd century triad is more of a "shorthand" and did not carry the same meaning as the word Trinity, or Latin, "trinitas," of the 4th century and beyond.

Remembering that the term "subordination" means that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, are not co-equal, we can see that the change promoted by Athanasius was somewhat revolutionary to the century of Origen and many others of his time. Note this from "Does Origen Have a Trinitarian Doctrine of the Holy Spirit?" Author: Kilian McDonnell Source: Gregorianum, Vol. 75, No. 1 (1994), pp. 5-35 :

Here he [Origen] cannot be faulted. Until 355 everyone, with the exception of Athanasius, is a subordinationist⁶. The tradition is unashamedly monarchian. . . . Gregory of Nazianzus (329-389) summed it up when he said that "Origen is the stone on which all of us were sharpened"7. Basil (ca. 330-379) and Gregory Nazianzus, as a mark of their admiration, sifted through the writings of their master to produce an Origen anthology, the Philocalia, containing many passages whose Greek text would otherwise have been lost to posterity. A close look at the selections shows that discretion was used in the choice, especially in avoiding trinitarian passages which might be interpreted as subordinationist. Basil and Gregory did not altogether avoid On First Principles, where Origen placed his most pronounced trinitarian teaching, and therefore located the focus of the debate. Perhaps even more than the other two Cappadocians, Gregory of Nyssa remained under his influence, which "seriously imperilled his reputation for orthodoxy." (p.6)

Notice that scholars generally agree that pieces of the Trinity doctrine grew over time and were not accepted in the same way until we get further and further from the Greek Scriptures (NT) themselves. The same article states:

Neither Athanasius nor Basil apply "God" to the Spirit, even though writing respectively from 138-148 and 152-162 years later, [after Origen] after considerable theological development, writing with the set purpose of establishing the Spirit's divinity. Indeed, Basil uses "tortuous circumlocutions" to avoid saying the Spirit is God. If it is true, as G.L. Prestige declares, that no Greek in explicit terms said "the Spirit is God" before Epiphanius, this would in broad terms mean until the beginning of the fifth century. (p.7)

Back to the connection between Origen and Arianism, however, the same source states:

Scholarius indicated that this ambiguity drew down on Origen's head the distinction of being called the Father of Orthodoxy and the Father of Arianism. At least Jerome, that sometime friend, was convinced that Origen had spawned the heresy of Arius . . . . (p.5)

 

It could have been a simple copyist's error. If it was a copyist's error the rules of textual analysis would favor a change from god to son, not son to god.** [See comments within the next link, and near the end of this post.] Besides, we have the testimony of the earlier manuscripts that show this. I'm not arguing for whether the "tampering" was intentional or not, only for why it would have more easily remained and gained popularity over the older reading, if that older reading was, indeed, "only begotten G/god." There is a good discussion that refers to some points made by two JW's (Greg Stafford and Rolf Furuli) at the following link. (Don't know if Greg Stafford is still a JW, but I'm pretty sure both were at the time.)

http://www.forananswer.org/John/Jn1_18.htm

There is also a reference to Origen's understanding of this verse, which shows he was looking at the term "monogenes theos" not "monogenes huios."

Origen cites of John 1:18 in Contra Celsum 2.71:  "kai monogenês ge ôn theos ...," which I would translate "the one and only [Son], being God..."  McReynolds cites this as "a clear early witness as to how one should understand the reading monogenês theos."¹⁰

^{McReynolds, by the way, was a student of Metzger.}

That's a good point. I should not have implied that they couldn't say it at all. After all, most of the existing Greek manuscripts they worked from still had "only begotten G/god" as far as I can tell. So it couldn't be avoided altogether. I really meant that you couldn't say that it meant Jesus Christ, the Word, was a begotten God after Arianism was outlawed.

There is some evidence that it already carried a different meaning to each group, and therefore it meant what they read into it. Origen himself, as indicated above, might have read it as meaning "only begotten, [who is] God." This leads to an implicit understanding of "only begotten [Son], [who is] God." If Son is already implied in the term "monogenes," then that reading pleased both groups, and it would not be a problem for either side in the Arian controversy.

**In textual criticism, there is a rule that says that if someone made a mistake and it made the text more difficult to read and understand, that it would more likely be corrected back to the correct reading in later copies and manuscripts. If it made the text easier to read and understand, then that new reading would more likely remain in later copies and manuscripts. Therefore, a difficult reading that remained in at least some later copies and manuscripts is often considered the better reading for that reason.

But we don't need to invoke that rule on its own. We also have the very careful textual criticism of Origen himself, who was famous for this in his works, and he testifies to the "only begotten God" reading. Whether he ever used this particular verse, I'm not sure, but he did argue for a begotten God in the sense of a "created" Son who is called God. 

Hello JW insider,

What a surprise I got after I sent in my post, within 36 hours I receive not one but two well detailed posts from you, that’s quite impressive, and on top of that you also must have an extensive library to boot.

If I may, I would like to respond to what you say, but I can’t do it in the same timeframe as your replys, it will take me a lot longer I’m afraid, as my family and work necessitate much of my time, so please bear with me. <><

6 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Wikipedia says the following about Arianism: Arian teachings were first attributed to Arius (c. AD 256–336), a Christian presbyter in Alexandria, Egypt.

But note that Origen was born in the late 2nd century and did most of his language and theological work in the early 3rd century. Of him, Wikipedia says: "Origen. . .  184/185 – 253/254),^[1] was a Greek scholar, ascetic,^[2] and early Christian theologian who was born and spent the first half of his career in Alexandria. "

Personally, I trace the fundamentals of Arianism to the gospel of John. I think that Anti-Arianism probably was raised to a high pitch based on the public arguments between Arius and Homoousians leading up to a decision by council at Nicaea in 325 CE.

It turns out that the earlier manuscripts of John were more Arian than the later manuscripts. Just look at John 1:18

(John 1:18) No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is at the Father’s side is the one who has explained Him. (NWT)

(John 1:18) No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. (KJV)

You might think that JWs would have preferred that this verse had read "only-begotten Son" instead of "only-begotten God." You might also think that Trinitarians in the 4th century had no reason to tamper with an expression like "only-begotten God" and would have no reason to change it to "only-begotten Son."

Yet that is exactly where the evidence leads. The manuscripts split here on this reading going all the way back to the major Bible mss of the 4th century. I won't take the time to explain the whole footnote here from the NWT Reference Bible, but the main symbols to be concerned with are: Alpha, A, B, C, and in this case P75 and P66.

(NWT footnote on John 1:18) “The only-begotten god,” P75אc; P66א*BC*, “only-begotten god”; ACcItVgSyc,h, “the only-begotten Son.”

The P66  refers to Papyrus Bodmer 2, Gr., c. 200 C.E., Geneva, G.S. (Note the date!)

The P75 refers to Papyrus Bodmer 14, 15, Gr., c. 200 C.E., Geneva, G.S.  (Note the date!)

The Aleph refers to the Sinaiticus:

א (ʼAleph)   Codex Sinaiticus, Gr., fourth cent. C.E., British Museum, H.S., G.S.

The B refers to the Codex Vaticanus:    

Vatican ms 1209, Gr., fourth cent. C.E., Vatican City, Rome, H.S., G.S.

But notice that "only-begotten Son" appears first in the 5th century:

A       Codex Alexandrinus, Gr., fifth cent. C.E., British Museum, H.S., G.S.
 

The change was an obvious requirement after the Council of Nicaea in the 4th century. You couldn't say that Jesus was an only begotten God after Arianism was outlawed. That was the crux of Arianism. Therefore a few major manuscripts of the 4th century begin to reflect this. Even 2nd/3rd century manuscripts support the Arian teaching. Two of the most well-read early Christian writers/historians/scholars were Eusebius and Origen. Both of them believed a form of Arianism.

Note this about Origen in a respected and scholarly theological journal:

THE ORIGINS OF ARIANISM Author(s): T. E. Pollard Source: The Journal of Theological Studies, New Series, Vol. 9, No. 1 (April 1958), pp. 103- 111 Published by: Oxford University Press

Page 1 starts out:

THE ORIGINS OF ARIANISM The question of the origins of Arianism is, at the present time, still wide open. 'It is a matter of considerable doubt whether Arianism is to be traced to Antioch or to Alexandria, and also how far it is due to the teaching of Origen.'¹ At the outbreak of the Arian controversy, Alexander of Alexandria connected Arius' doctrine yvith that of Paul of Samosata, that is with the Antiochene tradition,² and this view has been accepted by B. J. Kidd.³ On the other hand, F. W. Green asserts that 'to make Paul the father of Arianism is to add insult to a man already sufficiently injured, and rather unintelligent insult'.⁴ F. Loofs describes Arius as belonging to 'the tradition of left-wing Origenism', and in a footnote adds that 'the connection between Arius and Paul of Samosata, emphasised by Alexander of Alexandria, the opponent of Arius, is scarcely of importance for the understanding of Arian Christology'.⁵ Likewise, Père Bardy asserts quite categorically that there is no connexion between the teaching of Arius and that of Paul,⁶ and that the roots of Arianism are to be found in Origenism.⁷

After reading this entire article and a couple others like it, I'm personally convinced that Arianism does indeed date to a time prior to the birth of Arius. We can see evidence of the teaching in Origen. [And some important elements of it from Paul of Samosata (200-275). It was Paul's student Lucian of Antioch who is said to have had been a major influence on Arius, per the Wikipedia article on Paul of Samosata.]

But, more importantly, the textual evidence leads us all the way back to the earliest papyri of the gospel of John.

 

To all!

I’ve never seen so much hypocrisy; I am accused of changing the subject by a name caller, when it is everyone else going off subject. But “the Praeceter” is silent on this…why?

You know when people get intimidated by the truth they resort to childish acts of trying to humiliate others by poking fun at them or insulting them, this is NOT how Christians behave…"by their fruits you would recognize them", I believe bruceq quoted this, and then there is the person who thinks his a duck…I have to scratch my head in wonder on this one?

Hypocrisy seems to be the common trait with JWs, the claim on the uses of symbols is a point in fact. JW will point the finger and make false accusations which have no bearing of truth. Yet you are the ones guilty of using pagan symbols mixed in as Christian. Charles T. Russell’s gave site…pagan! The cover of Watchtower books with the Egyptian Sun god RA emblazoned on the cover…pagan!  And the list goes on.

But I’m even more dumbfounded by the claim made that it is not “fair to say that Arians didn't appear until the 4th century”. This is historically incorrect.

The Arian belief system appeared in the fourth century and is the closest to match the JW form of religion, although Arius and JWs differ on the personality of the Holy Spirit among some minor other things.

If any form of Arian belief system were present before Arius was even born then the ANF writers, who denounced false teachings, would surely have made mention of any such group! <><

3 hours ago, Eoin Joyce 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.

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. 

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)   

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

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.

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

Hello Mr. Joyce,

Thank you for admitting that it is your own inability to grasp the vocabulary that defines the Trinity, even though it is not hard at all. I can break it down for you if you like…or you could just read what you claim you where taught while being raised Roman Catholic… it is all there with no hard words for you to get stuck on.

The early church writers discussed and rebuked many false teaching, but nowhere do they even mention anything that resembles the JW form of religion until the Arians of fourth century. Surely if Matt. 13 applied, as you claim, to a group resembling the JW religion then the ANF would have said something about them, but nothing. <><

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. <><

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? <><

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. <><

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”. <><

20 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

JWs already believe that God is not triune. The argument is a rhetoric device used by JWs on those they are evangelizing. But there are some Christians who have come to the conclusion, based on Scripture, that God is not a Trinity. One notable example is Patrick Navas - https://truthmattersradio.wordpress.com/tag/patrick-navas/

As I say, the doctrine was a work-in-progress. Certainly before Tertullian, the ANFs tended to be Binitarian. The whole debate centered on the divinity of Christ, his ontological relationship with and his derivation from the Father. The reason I asked was because you seemed to be asserting something without giving anything in support and I wondered what you had in mind.

 

Hello Ms O’Maly,

You claim that the ANF “before Tertullian” tendered to be  “Binitarian” is not quite correct, those that put this idea forward are themselves Binitarian. See my resent post to Eoin Joyce.

JWs are not the only group that reject the Trinity, there are others such as Binitarians and Unitarians. What gets me is the JW “rhetoric device” you mention is a deception if you asked me, just a ploy to stop people reading the Bible and instead read JW publications. <><

20 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Hello Cos

Hopefully your grasp of scriptural detail is a little firmer than your assessment of gender.

General principles can be drawn from Biblical passages, regardless of context.

 Opposition to the Trinity does not necessarily make one a friend of the Truth.

Could you quote 1stC examples at all, other than Ignatius of Antioch whose quoted reference from his Epistle to the Magnesians, is attributed to 2nd C and appears really...insubstantial (pardon the pun): "whatsoever ye do, may prosper both in the flesh and spirit; in faith and love; in the Son, and in the Father, and in the Spirit;"

Hello Mister Joyce,

My deepest and sincere apology on referring to you as “Ms” I meant  “Mr” all I can say is that I for some reason pressed ‘s’ instead of ‘r’. Please accept my apology.

You say, “General principles can be drawn from Biblical passages, regardless of context.” I disagree. Who decided what the “general principles” are? In fact 2 Peter 3:16 is applicable in this instance. One must be careful to not read their own ideas into Scripture that is not the intent of the author.

I had asked you to explain what you were taught on the Trinity when you were growing up a Roman catholic but you say nothing on this, so I will ask again, can you tell me what you were taught?

You ask if I can quote first century examples from the early Christians, you do know that the first century is counted from the year 1 to the year 100 AD? The second century begins from 101 to 200 and so forth. You know we are living in the 21st century don’t you? The last book of the NT was written in the early 90’s of the first century.

Anyway, at the turn of the century, that is 100 AD, a person called Clement, believed to be the Clement mentioned in Phil. 4:3, wrote a letter to the church in Corinth, in that letter he said;

“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)

The three are coordinated in this oath. This faith and hope by “the elect” (those, WHO BELIEVE the truth) is straight forward and is reliant on the three together.

Let me know if you require more proof on the Trinitarian belief of the first Christians. <><

Matt. 28:19

2 Cor. 13:14

bruceq said; "I noticed you had to go a hundred or so years after the Bible was written to find anything" 

Do you want earlier quotes? What silly comment will you then make?

Instead of making such outlandish comments why don’t you ask yourself why the Jews persecuted the disciples in the NT if they believed the same as you claim? I’m sure we’d all like to know! <><

Hello Ms Joyce,

I understand that you are “not addressing a particular individual” but as I’m the one who started this thread, and considering your comments, I wanted to reply.

Can I ask, what were you taught on the Trinity when you were growing up as a Roman catholic? I would like to know.

Please try to refrain taking Biblical passages out context. In 1 Cor. 14:9 Paul is explaining the use of tongues.

The vocabulary used to define the Trinity can seem daunting but it really is not. The uses of most of the terms were to fend off attacks by those that opposed the Trinity.

Lastly, the early Christians believed and taught the Trinity; see examples in my post to Ms Ann O’Maly. <><

Hello Ms O’Maly

Thank you for your thoughts.

Firstly you should look up Messianic Jews on the web, such as “Jews for Jesus”, and ask them whether they are “guided” and “influenced” to believe what they believe by others as you imply; I very much doubt it, but I can’t answer for them.

Secondly, can I just say your comment about what you heard “by the non-trinitarian JWs” about reading the Bible on its own is strange, for the Watchtower “warns” JW’s NOT do this.

“From time to time, there have arisen from among the ranks of Jehovah’s people those, who, like the original Satan, have adopted an independent, faultfinding attitude... They say that it is sufficient to read the Bible exclusively, either alone or in small groups at home. But, strangely, through such Bible reading, they have reverted right back to the apostate doctrines that commentators by Christendom’s clergy were teaching 100 years ago...”” (Watchtower, August 15, 1981)

And

" . . . people cannot see the Divine Plan in studying the Bible by itself . . . if he then lays them [Scripture Studies] aside and ignores them and goes to the bible alone, though he has understood his Bible for ten years, our experience shows that within two years he goes into darkness...," (Watchtower, Sept. 15, 1910, p. 298).

So basically, what they are saying to the JW’s is that if they read the Bible on its own then after a short time they will believe exactly what I believe, how revealing is that!

I don’t know what kind of “killer texts” would satisfy your query; all I can do is show what the early church has believed.

Irenaeus (120-202) "For I have shown from the scriptures, that no one of the sons of Adam is as to everything, and absolutely, called God, or named Lord. But that He is Himself in His own right, beyond all men who ever lived, God, and Lord, and King Eternal, and the Incarnate Word, proclaimed by all the prophets, the apostles, and by the Spirit Himself, may be seen by all who have attained to even a small portion of the truth. Now, the scriptures would not have testified these things of Him, if, like others, He had been a mere man.” (Against Heresies, book 3, chapter 19)

Tertullian (155-220) "Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent Persons, who are yet distinct One from Another. These Three are, one essence, not one Person” (Against Praxeas, chapter 25)

Hippolytus  (170-235) “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)

This is just a few examples of what the early Christians believed; there are many more exemplar that could be called on. <><

Hello Bruceq,

You bring up the issue of war. And that somehow this issue justifies your Arian claim. JWs proclaim “we don’t participate in war” so therefore “we” are correct. This self-righteous stance does not prove that God is not Triune.  

First of all, let’s note that under Charles T. Russell’s direction the then JWs (known as Bible Students) were “allowed” to take part in war. See Zion's Watch Tower 1898 Aug 1 p.231 and Zion's Watch Tower 1903 Apr 15 p.120,

War is one of the worst happenings that confront all of us, we can only hope for the time when war is no more. But till then we cannot ignore the continual rise of false political idealism. Consider what the world would have been like if no one had stood up to the Nazi Germany?

The Bible even says in Ecclesiastes 3:8 "[There is] a time to love and a time to hate; a time for war and a time for peace."

The Bible does not forbid engagement in warfare, and if this engagement in wars had become an unacceptable practice to the writers of the Christian Scriptures they would have stated so.

 In fact, several New Testament passages indicate acceptance.

When military officers came to John for baptism, John did not direct them to leave the service;

"Also, those in military service would ask him: "What shall we also do?" And he said to them: "Do not harass anybody or accuse anybody falsely, but be satisfied with your provisions." (Luke 3:14).

This would have been John's perfect opportunity to tell them to resign from the military, but he counseled them instead to be content with their lot in life!

At Matthew 8:5-13 Jesus did not turn the soldier away when asking to heal his manservant, rather commending him saying "I have not found anyone In Israel with such great faith" In the account at Acts 10 Cornelius was not required to step down as commander of Roman soldiers before being baptized.

I hope that this has helped you see that the JW position is unwarranted. One more thing God is on the winning side. <><

Hello Bruceq

Thank you for your comments.

It is interesting to note that when Jews convert to Christianity and read and believe the New Testament (they are known as messianic Jews) that they believe in the Triune God. Also one of the reason the Jews persecuted Christians, you know the ones in the New Testament, was because of who they claimed Jesus actually is. And do you not know that the Devil counterfeits the truth, for example, in some pagan religions they have the story of the death and resurrection of a hero figure…sound familiar, does this then mean that the NT witness to Jesus is false? To follow your line of reasoning you must conclude this? <><

Hello Mr Rook,

Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

I myself am not Roman Catholic, but I am a little surprised by your claim about the people of Haiti, may I ask where did you get your information and statistics from?

Also, there is a lot of discussion regarding Constantine’s motives towards the Nicene Council of the fourth century; the debate on this matter is wide open, but I refer to the early Christians who lived before Constantine was even born. Their belief in the Triune God is attested to by the witness of the early church.

These first Christians risked being thrown to the lions or to die by some other horrible means as “sport” for the Romans. Their testimony shows that they believed in the Triune God, long before the fourth century and Constantine!

On a side note; Constantine’s son, Constantius, attempted to mould the Christian church to follow what he believed. Richard Watson in his Biblical & Theological Dictionary explains, “Constantius,… became warmly attached to the Arian cause, as were all the court party…Constantius supported Arianism triumphantly.” And according to the Encyclopedia of Saints, Constantius “compelled the Eastern churches to embrace” Arianism. (page 146).

And to use your words; it was considered “treason against the expressed will of” Constantius “to believe otherwise” <><

The belief in the Triune God has been acknowledged by the early Christians...why do you guys claim that this is otherwise? <><