Early Christians Believed in the Trinity

[TrueTomHarley]

1 hour ago, Ann O'Maly said:

 

You also do realize that concepts about triad groupings of gods are not the same as the Trinity idea, don't you?

Close enough. Evolutionists, revered everywhere today, would recognize the link in a heartbeat. You do recognize that, don't you?

1 hour ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Yeah ... a great deal of Hislop was pure fantasy

To be sure, he recanted. The Watchtower has not cited his work since, which once upon a time, could be ordered through the congregation. It's good to point out they did so, for I can imagine someone trying to insinuate that they rely on it to this day as they do the yearly text.

 

1 hour ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

but are "Guardians of the Doctrine" .. ( G.O.D.)

 

Just when he is partly redeeming himself, a little anyways, he makes yet another snotty crack at God's organization. He is like the media going after Trump, oblivious to all but the need to nail him.

1 hour ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

QUACK! [edited]

 

[JW Insider]

30 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

 

1 hour ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Yeah ... a great deal of Hislop was pure fantasy

To be sure, he recanted. The Watchtower has not cited his work since, which once upon a time, could be ordered through the congregation.

Don't remember that Hislop himself recanted, although a huge portion of his work has been debunked. But there have been persons who spent years promoting and repackaging his work, who have since apologized and recanted after realizing through more serious research that they had been duped.

The Watchtower stopped citing him directly based on some information that came to light in researching the Aid Book, which was published in 1972. The Watchtower was supposed to stop quoting him after that, but one article slipped through around Christmas in 1978. Fred Rusk was the Watchtower Editor at the time and didn't let it happen again. (The Awake! had a different editor, Colin Q., and let a couple more Hislop references get through into the mid-1980's.)

Unfortunately, Hislop's work had already seeped into some Bible commentaries, including some of  the favorite ones that the Watchtower has especially depended on from the late 1800's, and which we still quote from now and then. This has allowed some of Hislop's debunked ideas to get quoted indirectly. 

[Evacuated]

1 hour ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

If it walks like a duck, Quacks like a duck and Looks like a Duck ...

Suppose if it smells like a fish...............

[bruceq]

   I didn't realize listing my historical library was going to cause such a fuss [at least to one person]. Why did you single out just one of the hundreds of books I listed? The only book I consider to be completely true is the Bible. Why do you think I stated that none of these books were printed by the Watchtower? Because I knew some would protest which I do not care at all if you wish to be ignorant of historical items of interest. The books I listed are ALL the ones that the Watchtower has ever quoted from in the last +100 years in my library all of which I have read and studied.

  I have not only studied all the Watchtower publications in existence but all  the books ever quoted by said religion. And I have come to the conclusion that of the +2,000 religions on earth there is only ONE GOD  and therefore ONE FAITH. And since the vast majority of the religions believe in a Trinity makes it quite apparent to me that it is false since Satan is "misleading the entire earth". So the "majority" at this time would not have truth but falsehood.

   Of course the only real question is "Is the Trinity taught in the Bible?" And my response is  - How could it possibly be since the  writers were all Jews who do not believe in a Trinity and no Trinitarian for whatever reason has been able to prove by any Scripture that the Trinity even exists in the Bible...WHY is that?

 

OMALY said: You also do realize that concepts about triad groupings of gods are not the same as the Trinity idea, don't you?

   How do you define your Trinity then and where is it in YOUR Bible? I realize there are many different types and definitions of the Trinity almost as many as the number of religions in the world. But since there is only ONE God that should tell you something. LOL 

[Cos]

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! <><

[bruceq]

10 minutes ago, Cos said:

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! <><

By the way not all here are Jehovah's Witnesses so your remarks are irrelevant. So where is the Trinity in your Bible?  

 "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."

Of course but once they found out it was PAGAN they changed. What about you? If you found out that your cherished beliefs were also false as the Witnesses did are you humble enough to change?

[TrueTomHarley]

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

Don't remember that Hislop himself recanted, although a huge portion of his work has been debunked. 

For whatever it's worth, this book never interested me. Maybe it is too much focus on the trees at the risk of obscuring the forest.

Frankly, JTR's comment makes sense to me, even if not technically 'fair.' So closely do certain things resemble each other, prove that it is not true.

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, Cos said:

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.

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.

 

[Anna]

Wow, this thread has grown so fast I hardly have time to keep up with it! Very good reading though and some good reasoning. What I have found though when it comes to arguing with Trinitarians about the Trinity....it leads absolutely nowhere....mainly because the Trinity is such a fundamental and "sacred" idea to them that denying it is tantamount to blasphemy. To them it's almost like if an atheist tried to convince us Witnesses that there is no God.

What I find fascinating is that pretty much everything surrounding the birth of the Trinity, or the official definition of it, or the definition of the substance of the Christ in relation to God etc. is based on human philosophies and not the simple and pure language of the scriptures.  Jesus’ disciples in the 1st Century clearly understood  Jesus to be  the son of God and a separate being from him. The simple statements that the Bible makes about the Father, his son and the holy spirit were later twisted into an incomprehensible pretzel, which as Eoin points out, needs an equally incomprehensible vocabulary and explanations which actually don’t explain anything and so ironically end up being called a “mystery” for simplicity sake.

Just the other day in service we got to talking to a man who brought up the argument that Jesus could not have been a created being because if he was, he could not have atoned for our sins. That he had to be God himself to make the sacrifice valid. Where do they get that idea from? Doesn’t  Paul in 1 Cor 45-47 explain it quite well: “So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living person.”  The last Adam became a life-giving spirit...... The first man is from the earth and made of dust; the second man is from heaven”. In fact, why did the 2nd Century “church fathers” have the need to define the substance of Jesus when as the apostle Paul says “If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual one”. All they had to do is simply understand that when Jesus was first created he had a spiritual body, then when he was transferred into the womb of Mary he had a physical body and when he was resurrected he became a spirit being again.

It's interesting that the church fathers didn't seem to refer to the scriptures much but rather to Greek and other philosophical ideas to determine the substance of the Christ. They preferred going beyond what was written.

[Anna]

4 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Suppose if it smells like a fish...............

Quite possible, since ducks are always rummaging around in fish ponds 

[Cos]

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.

 

Hello JW insider,

 

Thank you for adding more detail to your claim, I appreciate that.

 

You make some remarks that I hope you don’t mind me commenting on?

 

I will start with some of the claims made in regard to Origen. I always question comments such as “the tradition of left-wing Origenism”. I have read the works of Origen and find that he was not “left-wing” or whatever that may imply. You say after quoting a portion of an article that make this claim; 

 

“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.”

 

I’ll quote for you some examples from Origen which run contrary to this claim. Some here don’t like when I do this and will label him to satisfy their own lack of historical understanding.

 

“From all which we learn that the person of the Holy Spirit was of such authority and dignity, that saving baptism was not complete except by the authority of the MOST EXCELLENT TRINITY OF THEM ALL, i.e., by the naming of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit…. Moreover, nothing in the Trinity can be called greater or less” (De Principiis book 1 chapter 3 emphasis mine)

“But in our desire to show the divine benefits bestowed upon us by Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, which Trinity is the fountain of all holiness” (De Principiis book 1 chapter 4)

 

“For we have pointed out in the preceding pages those questions which must be set forth in clear dogmatic propositions, as I think has been done to the best of my ability when speaking of the Trinity.” (De Principiis book 1 chapter 6).

“When the Word was made flesh can we say that it was to some extent broken up and thinned out, and can we say that it recovered from that point onward till it became again what it was at first, God the Word, the Word with the Father” (Origen, Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 1, chapter 42).

 

“…surely they ought to ask what is meant when it is said of the Son of God that He was the Word, AND GOD, and that He was in the beginning with the Father, and that all things were made by Him.” (Origen, Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 1, chapter 41 emphasis mine).

 

More can be added, but I’m sure you can see that if Arius was influenced in any way by Origen, then Arius would be a Trinitarian just as Origen was.

 

Your claim that the reading, “the only begotten Son”, is an intentional change from the alternative “the only begotten God”, this is a good theory, but, the term “the only begotten God” is found in many places as you mention [p66 p75 S B C*] to these can also be added [L 33 syr(p) cop(north)];  so it is most likely that the change is a copyist error and not intentional. “It seems to have arisen from a confusion of the contracted forms of writing Υ and Θ” (Henry Alford The Greek Testament; See also Bruce M. Metzger's; A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament page 198, and Murray J Harris; Jesus as God, pages 74-103)

 

You then claim that after the fourth century and the Council of Nicaea “You couldn't say that Jesus was an only begotten God after Arianism was outlawed” is not quite correct because some post-Nicene church writes such as Hilary Poitiers, Basil of Caesarea, Didymus, Gregory of Nyssa, Jerome, just to name a few, advocated the rendering in John 1:18 “the only begotten God”.

 

I’ll end now but I hope to hear more from you. <><

[Guest]

8 hours ago, Cos said:

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?

While being called a name caller and a hypocrite I'm also accused of the said crime for simply stating facts and warning you about the path your internet persona seemed to take?

Wow!

You must be fun at parties!

I must have been right (or not) to cause you such a big distress with a friendly (in essence) little comment.

To the point now. The "smalltalk" among persons who believe the same thing is not "changing the subject" so I have no reason not to be silent. And for your information, the subject is practicaly closed. You cannot prove Trinity FROM THE BIBLE. It is so simple. Even if you ever find an early christian stating otherwise it will be IRRELEVANT. And you know why?

Because the trinity doctrine IS NOT IN THE BIBLE.

To clarify further my argument I'll make you an example.

If I as a JW say that I believe that Darth Vader had the power to cast force lightnings doesn't mean (1) that I'm right, (2) that all JWs believe so and (3) that it IS so, since there is no canon film or book reference to it (I am refering to the canon after the Disney acquisition). Would it be logical for you or anyone else to believe otherwise if my said comment was found after 2000 years?

 

@bruceq made a fabulous work giving you scriptural and secular proof that the trinity doesn't exist and that the first christians didn't believe in such nonsense. You should read again his comments and try to respond if you think the proof he presented you is lacking. But no... you have to try again and CHANGE THE SUBJECT accusing everybody of hypocrisy, namecalling and such.

I don't know how experienced you are in internet culture but... hey you're on the internet now and behaviors like the one you are displaying are typical of internet trolls trying to start flame wars. I'm not saying you are, I'm explaining terms here, although you were the one coming to a mostly anti-trinitarian forum starting  a thread named "Early Christians Believed....etc". Stating, not asking. And you got offended by me warning you of this simple fact. (Nice!) And not only you got offended but you tried also to point out how hypocrite and "offensive" I was trying to get some measure of justice. This second behaviour is the first stage of a lolcow.

I'm trying to protect you from yourself here...

If I am wrong about all this and didn't understand right what you wrote/meant/etc I'm sorry.

Anyways...

Since you brought it up. Arius was right!

Best regards!