HollyW

Bruce, you're the one who is running away.  I shared scripture with you and you failed to even reason on it.  You throw up this really lame argument because you've got nothing else to offer.  As I've already stated, a discussion with someone who can't bring himself to reason on the scriptures is pointless.  You stick your fingers in your ears and chant your so-familiar-refrain so that you can ignore what the Bible really teaches. 
I'll be waiting for you to reason on the scripture I posted.  Until then, well, getting to know you has been an experience I could have done without.

Not atall, bruceq, I find that in the course of conversation, some folks may simply state their own beliefs and they may do so with some conviction. But are they reasonable persons who are willing to listen to another viewpoint? If so, I can share with them what the Bible says, doing so with the conviction that it will find welcome response in the hearts of lovers of truth.  However, I find you are not a reasonable nor a reasoning person, nor a lover of truth.  Therefore, my time is more profitably spent elsewhere.

Don't you see what you're doing?  Jews do not believe Jesus is the Messiah either so you've built your argument on sand and can't seem to dig yourself out.  If you ever find yourself able to reason on the scriptures, maybe then we can resume our discussion.  In the meantime, I hope your day goes well for you.

Bruceq, could you do me a great favor and quote who you're replying to?  Thanks.
There are many scriptures that prove the Trinity teaching of three persons who are the one God, but the one that has had the most impact on me personally is 1 Corinthians 12:3 "Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God says, “Jesus is accursed”; and no one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit."

Moses?  Isn't this about the early Christians?
All the Apostles, even Paul, were Jews who became Christians.  I don't know what you think is wrong about that.

But the writers were Jews who became Christians.  The Jews you speak of who reject the Trinity also don't accept Christ as Messiah, so how wise would it be to allow them to form opinions for us.

Sure they did.  The sort of Bible reading they are referring to is described in their sentence just prior to that one: "to read the Bible exclusively, either alone or in small groups at home".  And they sure didn't describe it the way you did, did they.

Hi Ann, I'm coming into this discussion a bit late (to say the least) so someone may have pointed this out already, in reply to what I bolded in your post, did you know the WTS has expressed the view that if you read just the Bible, without any WTS publications, you will believe in the Trinity?

The winning side, of course.  During WWI whose side did your church pray for?
"In accordance with the resolution of Congress of April 2nd, and with the proclamation of the president of the United States of May 11, it is suggested that the Lord's people everywhere make May 30th a day of prayer and supplication. ... As says the spirit through the Apostle Paul: "I exhort, therefore, that first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions and giving of thanks, be made for all men; for kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour." (I Timothy 2:1-3) Let there be praise and thanks-giving to God for the promised glorious outcome of the war, the breaking of the shackles of autocracy, the freeing of the captives (Isaiah 61:1) and the making of the world safe for the common people--blessings all assured by the Word of God to the people of this country and of the whole world of mankind." Watchtower 1918 Jun 1 p.174

I tried exactly what you propose, only to have the subject changed. On top of that, there cannot be an intellectual conversation when one chooses to dismiss a point without hearing it out. 

So the point remains, @Eoin Joyce, that two deities are being 'worshipped.' Therefore, those who take an Arian-esque position have to explain away why proskuneo has one connotation when applied to the Father and another one when applied to the Son.
This illustrates the kinds of difficulties the early Christian 'guardians of doctrine' had to thrash out and come to a consensus on. @bruceq's overly simplistic 'black and white' approach doesn't help.

I missed this part of your earlier post. You do realize that 5 of the books you list ......  
Role of Theology and Bias in Bible Translation  Jesus God or the Son of God Trinitys Weak Links Revealed Concepts of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit  Chronicles of the Unholy Fathers ... were written by JWs?
As a general point about your list, I suggest you go through each book and each of your favorite claims in those books and consider:
"Before trusting it, ask: (1) Who published this material? What are the author’s credentials? (2) Why was this published? What motivated the writer? Is there any bias? (3) Where did the author get the information? Does he supply sources that can be checked? (4) Is the information current?" - Watchtower, 8/15/2011, p.4
Many of the older works which allege various pagan connections to Christian beliefs and practices (especially if targeting the Catholic church), are derived from Hislop's book.
You may find this thread helpful as a case in point of how poor sources and ideas can be recycled and perpetuated so that one thinks a piece of information has been independently verified by lots of different people, when actually it traces back to just one author.
Then you'll be able to weed out the dodgy research and use that which is more solidly grounded.  

It was never proved in the first place. The connection between the pope's mitre and Dagon was a figment of Hislop's wild imagination. Nineveh was destroyed in 612 BCE so the pictures of characters wearing Fish costumes remained buried until the 19th century. The pope started wearing a mitre in medieval times, its design and shape having developed over time. Dagon wasn't even a fish-god.
http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/saao/knpp/peoplegodsplaces/index.html#letter_D
@TrueTomHarley said:
No. Not in any way, shape or fishy form 'close.'  
Anyway, this thread has so many red herrings, we could start our own kipper industry.
 

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! <><

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? <><

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. <><

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. <><

Give it up with the jw.borg thing man, if you don't know or can't explain it yourself, then don't even bother. 
Again, does a King announce himself? No
Who is the King? Jesus
Would Jesus announce Himself? No, no need to as God's trumpet and the voice of an archangel will do it for Him. 

But what DID John write? He wrote that the Jews understood that Jesus claim was that God was His father, and in the minds of the Jews it made Jesus claim a claim of divinity. no way around that one Bruceq. 

So you also believe that Jesus is a trumpet? I could see that, i mean from your way of thinking.
 
Does a King announce himself?

And isn't this the whole reason WHY the Jews were going to stone Jesus?(John 10:31-39) The claims Jesus made about Himself, through the eyes of the Jews, made Himself equal to the God of the Jews. 

By George!! I think you've got it!!!
Howdy Doody; Double Doody; Photo Doody...........they were all one and the same!!
Let's all take a break.....
 

Kinda like "coming with the voice of an archangel" and the WT looks for an archangel? 

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 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. <><