Early Christians Believed in the Trinity

[Ann O'Maly]

12 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

If the "Dagon Pope's Hat" thing can be DISPROVED somehow ... THAT I would be interested in.

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

Quote

Daguna (deity)

A grain god from the eastern Mediterranean, also known as Dagon or Dagan.

@TrueTomHarley said:

Quote

Close enough.

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.

 

[Ann O'Maly]

10 hours ago, bruceq said:

 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?

What was your list trying to prove, specifically? If any of them perpetuated the idea that the pope wears a Dagon Fish hat, they will be derivative of Hislop's work. 

Even though the Org has quietly dropped Hislop as a source to cite, echoes of his ideas still reverberate among JWs and other fundie groups today. I've lost count of how many times on here and jw-archive he's been referenced as an authority. 

10 hours ago, bruceq said:

How do you define your Trinity then and where is it in YOUR Bible?

The Trinity doctrine is scripturally problematic, but so is the neo-Arian view. It all hangs on whether Jesus is part of the created order or as divine in nature as the Father is. Each view has serious theological and philosophical implications which mean certain scripture texts have to be reinterpreted or explained away.

[Evacuated]

9 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I'm personally convinced that Arianism does indeed date to a time prior to the birth of Arius.

Very interesting and thorough analysis and I agree with the substance of the argument. Did you have this already prepared? Thanks for putting it together anyway.

The only issue for me is that there is a potential for a confused implication that Arianism predates Arius and that it is somehow reflected in John's gospel. There has to be a better way of expressing this. I wouldn't want to give the impression that the understanding of Jesus role and nature is an idea developed from Scripture. For me, it is a truth presented clearly in Scripture when originally written, but subsequently obscured and buried by apostate teachers, with attempts by some, such as Arius, to restore the suspected original over the years with varying degrees of success, in the face of continued opposition.

It is rather in the way an old master's work (say a portrait of his son) may have been painted over by later artists, obscuring the original from view with many layers of paint and later appearing as something sub-standard and very different from the original.

"Experts" may have attempted to clear from the original portrait the obstruction, layers, and tarnish with  partial success over the years, and may indeed manage on occasion to enable a glimpse of aspects of the original work beneath what is currently viewed.

This to me illustrates how teachers may have tried to remove layers of false doctorine obscuring Bible truth.

Arius appears to me to be one who has made such an attempt with partial success. But his view is only of his time. He was only revealing (partially) something which was already there, and to associate his name with the original teaching inappropriately is to do injustice to the Master.

[bruceq]

1 hour ago, Ann O'Maly said:

What was your list trying to prove, specifically? If any of them perpetuated the idea that the pope wears a Dagon Fish hat, they will be derivative of Hislop's work. 

Even though the Org has quietly dropped Hislop as a source to cite, echoes of his ideas still reverberate among JWs and other fundie groups today. I've lost count of how many times on here and jw-archive he's been referenced as an authority. 

The Trinity doctrine is scripturally problematic, but so is the neo-Arian view. It all hangs on whether Jesus is part of the created order or as divine in nature as the Father is. Each view has serious theological and philosophical implications which mean certain scripture texts have to be reinterpreted or explained away.

{The Dagon thing came from James I never even mentioned that. My argument was with any form of Idolatry such as the fish symbol Cos uses after every statement instead of a period. A symbol for something in writing is known as a hieroglyph and then the thread emerged into something fishy about the clothes the Pope wears lol. I could care less about that although a picture is worth a thousand words - Pope and Pharoah's hats} 

Here is a quote from another member to answer you :"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. "

Hislop was from about 150 years ago so of course it will not be entirely accurate but there is hundreds as seen in my list of recent publications about the pagan origins of many of the things in Christendom and NONE of those books were written by Jehovah's Witnesses.

{Do you believe Christmas also has pagan origins? Thats rhetorical because I am trying not to get off topic.}

Yes I agree the Trinity is a problem for you since it is not in the Bible.  I know my God, He is no mystery,  so his identity is not a problem for me.

"3 This means everlasting life, their coming to know you, the only true God, and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ." John 17:3 

"And they will no longer teach each one his neighbor and each one his brother, saying, ‘Know Jehovah!’+ for they will all know me, from the least to the greatest of them,”+ declares Jehovah." Jer. 31:34

[Ann O'Maly]

26 minutes ago, bruceq said:

{The Dagon thing came from James I never even mentioned that.

Oh right. My bad.

Quote

My argument was with any form of Idolatry such as the fish symbol Cos uses after every statement instead of a period.

You were in a lather over an emoticon? 

46 minutes ago, bruceq said:

{Do you believe Christmas also has pagan origins?

It originated in early Christian liturgical practices But yes, a discussion for another time.

53 minutes ago, bruceq said:

Yes I agree the Trinity is a problem for you since it is not in the Bible.

I actually said that both neo-Arianism and Trinitarianism have their biblical problems. Do you agree that the JW concepts about the Father's and Son's natures and relationship also lead to biblical and theological conundrums?

Here's a simple example Trinitarians often beat JWs over the head with:

Do you believe that, according to the Bible, it is God alone we must worship?

Do you believe that, according to the Bible, Jesus is called G/god?

Do you believe that, according to the Bible, Jesus is to be given homage/obeisance/'worship' (all renderings of the same Greek word proskuneo)?

If you've answered 'yes' to the above questions, the conclusion must be that you pay homage/obeisance/give 'worship'/proskuneo to two divine beings. 

Let the proof-texting acrobatics begin. On your marks ... get set ... GO!

 

 

[bruceq]

1 hour ago, Ann O'Maly said:

 

I actually said that both neo-Arianism and Trinitarianism have their biblical problems. Do you agree that the JW concepts about the Father's and Son's natures and relationship also lead to biblical and theological conundrums?

 

 

 

That was answered in the previous post.

As for the other questions I noticed you said in EACH of them "according to the Bible" well your belief should be demonstrated from Scripture and since Scripture were all written by the Jews who do not believe in a Trinity then the answer is that God is not a Trinity.

"Let the proof-texting acrobatics begin. On your marks ... get set ... GO!"

Oh sorry you are still stuck at the starting line since you now have no frame of reference {The path you are racing on is gone} since the Bible was not written by Trinitarians but by Jews. 

Of course you can do what many Trinitarians like Cos did in using sources many years after the Bible was written. That would be another road to race on but I will not be on that road because I believe that only "GODS WORD is Truth" John 17:17.

[Evacuated]

45 minutes ago, Ann O'Maly said:

Do you believe that, according to the Bible, it is God alone we must worship?

I could not work through this sequence of questions unless it was established, firstly, what is meant by the term "worship"; secondly, which word(s) are translated as "worship" from the Hebrew and Greek; and thirdly, are any of these words applied exclusively to one's relationship with God.

[Ann O'Maly]

18 minutes ago, Eoin Joyce said:

I could not work through this sequence of questions unless it was established, firstly, what is meant by the term "worship"; secondly, which word(s) are translated as "worship" from the Hebrew and Greek; and thirdly, are any of these words applied exclusively to one's relationship with God.

Thank you for responding intelligently. (You usually do anyway.) But this is why I specified the Greek word involved. 

So, on the one hand ... and I don't need to cite reams of scripture texts - you'll know them already - so these are quick examples:

Luke 4:7, 8 - If you, therefore, do an act of worship (proskuneo) before me, it will all be yours.”  In reply Jesus said to him: “It is written, ‘It is Jehovah your God you must worship (proskuneo), and it is to him alone you must render sacred service.’”

Revelation 22:9 - But he tells me: “Be careful! Do not do that! I am only a fellow slave of you and of your brothers the prophets and of those observing the words of this scroll. Worship (proskuneo) God.”

But on the other hand:

Hebrews 1:6 - But when he again brings his Firstborn into the inhabited earth, he says: “And let all of God’s angels do obeisance to (KJV, worship; Gk. proskuneo) him.”

Revelation 5:13, 14 - And I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and underneath the earth and on the sea, and all the things in them, saying: “To the One sitting on the throne and to the Lamb be the blessing and the honor and the glory and the might forever and ever.” 14 The four living creatures were saying: “Amen!” and the elders fell down and worshipped (proskuneo).

Although proskuneo is applied to man and G/god(s) of all types, the fact remains that it's the 'worship' or proskuneo-ing of two true G/gods that presents theological difficulties for a monotheistic religion.

1 hour ago, bruceq said:

That was answered in the previous post.

Was it? Was that a 'no,' then - you don't see any conundrums with the JW view? Hm.

1 hour ago, bruceq said:

As for the other questions I noticed you said in EACH of them "according to the Bible" well your belief should be demonstrated from Scripture and since Scripture were all written by the Jews who do not believe in a Trinity then the answer is that God is not a Trinity.

I assumed you knew the relevant scripture texts already and, as a JW (I presume you are?), you would already hold those basic tenets.

Regarding the Bible being written by Jews so 'no Trinity,' well, as you know, the Jewish religion was established before the 'only-begotten god' (Jn. 1:18) arrived on the earthly scene, so of course the idea of 3 divine personages in one God-Being wouldn't have entered their heads. Trinitarians would argue, however, that the seeds of this new concept about God were sown in the NT, after the 'only-begotten god' (Jn. 1:18) made his appearance, did what he did, leaving the new Christian followers to make sense of it all within the thought categories of the time.

[bruceq]

48 minutes ago, Ann O'Maly said:

 

Luke 4:7, 8  -

Revelation 22:9 - 

Hebrews 1:6 

Revelation 5:13, 14 -

 

 

Regarding the Bible being written by Jews so 'no Trinity,' well, as you know, the Jewish religion was established before the 'only-begotten god' (Jn. 1:18) arrived on the earthly scene, so of course the idea of 3 divine personages in one God-Being wouldn't have entered their heads. Trinitarians would argue, however, that the seeds of this new concept about God were sown in the NT, after the 'only-begotten god' (Jn. 1:18) made his appearance, did what he did, leaving the new Christian followers to make sense of it all within the thought categories of the time.

Luke 4:7, 8  - A JEW who does not believe in a Trinity

Revelation 22:9 - John was also a JEW who did not believe in a Trinity

Hebrews 1:6 - Paul was a JEW who did not believe in a Trinity

Revelation 5:13, 14 - And once again John was a JEW and not a Trinitarian

 

   Nice try but it was not just the Old Testament that was written by Jews. John was a Jew as were all the Apostles and therefore ALL the Bible Writers you QUOTED from and even Jesus was a Jew and Jews do not believe in the Trinity. So you will not find it there no matter what but PLEASE keep trying {Give us more Scriptures} as this is hilarious as you are trying to "make" a writer believe what he himself does not believe  in. 

[Evacuated]

6 minutes ago, Ann O'Maly said:

Although proskuneo is applied to man and G/god(s) of all types, the fact remains that it's the 'worship' or proskuneo-ing of two true G/gods that presents theological difficulties for a monotheistic religion.

OK. Then it appears from the cited scriptures (and admittedly above) that the term is NOT applied exclusively to one's relationship with (the) God. (That is, the true God, Jehovah).

So is the word which on occasion is translated as "worship" always rendered so?

Well it appears so in the King James version. BUT given that, it's use at Matt.18:26 alerts me to the fact that what is meant here cannot be taken at face value. The act of the servant described in this illustration does not have the same motivation as that which Satan the Devil sought from Jesus at Matt 4:9.

Also, what does the word mean in English. (And not just the generally accepted meaning).

This is interesting. Apart from the obvious,

The Cambridge Dictionary: to love, respect, and admire someone or something very much

Synonyms are listed as: reverence, revering, worshipping, veneration, venerating, adoration, adoring, -olatry,  devotion, praise, thanksgiving, praising, praying to, glorification, glorifying, glory, exaltation, exalting, extolment, extolling,  homage, respect, honour, honouring, esteem;

And googling the etymology gives us this: Old English weorthscipe ‘worthiness, acknowledgement of worth’

So altogether, it appears the word "worship" in English does not have so precise a meaning as to be limited to a religious act or attitude, and therefore it's meaning seems related to the use of the word in context.

When factoring in other associated words such as latreuo, which does have a rather exclusive application at Matt.4:10 (sacred service NWT), I am inclined to agree with the statement in Insight on The Scriptures Vol 2 under "Worship": 

"Most Hebrew and Greek words that can denote worship can also be applied to acts other than worship. However, the context determines in what way the respective words are to be understood."

On that basis, it appears (in my opinion, of course) that the question sequence cited above, albeit "a simple example Trinitarians often beat JWs over the head with" is overly simplistic and, in fact, irrelevant given a wider understanding of the word "worship".

[Ann O'Maly]

3 hours ago, bruceq said:

Hislop was from about 150 years ago so of course it will not be entirely accurate but there is hundreds as seen in my list of recent publications about the pagan origins of many of the things in Christendom and NONE of those books were written by Jehovah's Witnesses.

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.  

[bruceq]

20 minutes ago, Ann O'Maly said:

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.  

These are just books I have used, I do not endorse any except the BIBLE. I thought I made myself clear on that.  I find no problem researching other books then ones written by Witnesses as most of the books I listed are also quoted by  Watchtower publications. I offer these so people can check for themselves what is written within the context of the material and who wrote it. Of course there are inaccuracies in all books that are not the Bible because they are not the inspired WORD of GOD. Jn. 17:17.

These are SECULAR books. But Bible Truth is found in the Bible.

 

"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"

Very good point and should that also be done with the BIBLE? As you quoted above by that criteria JEWS WROTE THE BIBLE and JEWS do not believe in a Trinity. So no one can find it there no matter what.

(1) Who published this material? What are the author’s credentials? The Bible was written by Jews who were under inspiration from God and did not believe in a Trinity.

(2) Why was this published? What motivated the writer? Is there any bias? God the author wanted to let us know who he is {not a Trinity} and have a relationship with him. 

(3) Where did the author get the information? Does he supply sources that can be checked? Inspired by GOD. So you cannot argue with it or make the author believe something other than he really believes in.

(4) Is the information current?" - Watchtower, 8/15/2011, p.4" The Bible is for ALL ages as it comes from the "ONLY true God" Jn. 17:3