Early Christians Believed in the Trinity

[Ann O'Maly]

28 minutes ago, bruceq said:

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.

I never suggested they did believe in the Trinity. I presented a theological conundrum that comes from proskuneo-ing two true G/gods in a monotheistic belief system. Can you see where this might be problematic, and the conclusions to be drawn from this? Trinitarians believe they have resolved this tension in the biblical text.

16 minutes ago, Eoin Joyce said:

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.

How is the difference in motivation expressed within the Greek word proskuneo?

And what the English word 'worship' means and its etymological roots are secondary to what the Greek word denotes in its biblical usage and contexts.

[bruceq]

On 5/14/2017 at 0:19 PM, Ann O'Maly said:

I never suggested they did believe in the Trinity.

I agree.  The Bible writers did not believe in a Trinity.

[Ann O'Maly]

@bruceq - Lol. You said twice that none of the books in your list were JW authored. You made a mistake; I pointed it out. You're welcome. 

[bruceq]

On 5/14/2017 at 0:23 PM, Ann O'Maly said:

@bruceq - Lol. You said twice that none of the books in your list were JW authored. You made a mistake; I pointed it out. You're welcome. 

Sorry meant Watchtower authored. Thanks for the correction. 

None of the books I listed were published by the Watchtower Society.

[Evacuated]

1 minute ago, Ann O'Maly said:

How is the difference in motivation expressed within the Greek word proskuneo?

I am no Greek scholar, but I would would hazard a guess that it would be similar to the way in which the English word "worship" contains differences in degree relative to context.

And as for the secondary aspect of the meaning of the word "worship" in English, I agree with the ranking. BUT nevertheless this is the English word chosen to render the Greek and is therefore (in the view of the translators) the nearest equivalent in meaning. I haven't seen any convincing argument otherwise .....as of yet anyway.

[Ann O'Maly]

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.

[Evacuated]

1 minute ago, Ann O'Maly said:

two deities are being 'worshipped

More than that looking at the use of the word surely.

2 minutes ago, Ann O'Maly said:

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.

Why "therefore"? The very use of the word "worship" in translation, given it's actual, attested meaning, supplies a perfectly adequate explanation in itself of how differing connotations are necessary depending on the context of the word's usage. 

[Ann O'Maly]

1 hour ago, Eoin Joyce said:

More than that looking at the use of the word surely.

I missed out the word 'true' this time. 

1 hour ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Why "therefore"? The very use of the word "worship" in translation, given it's actual, attested meaning, supplies a perfectly adequate explanation in itself of how differing connotations are necessary depending on the context of the word's usage. 

Honorific 'worship' is given to humans of higher status, true. But every instance of religious 'worship' being directed toward god(s) other than the Almighty God is condemned as idolatry, is it not? Even John's 'worship' of an angel (one of the 'gods' - Ps. 82:6) was slapped down. And so, in a monotheistic view, one can't give 'worship' to two true deities - John 17:3 - "only true God." That's the problem early Christians wrestled with.

[Evacuated]

13 minutes ago, Ann O'Maly said:

That's the problem early Christians wrestled with.

OK I can agree with you there. Thanks for clarifying. I can see that wrestling with the matter certainly amongst some post apostolic era "Christians". (Including some who still appear to be wrestling today!).

But not in the writings of those Christians who contributed to the Greek Scriptures.

[bruceq]

3 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

 @bruceq's overly simplistic 'black and white' approach doesn't help.

   Sorry but to me the Truth is simple and I try to imitate my Great Teacher 

The basic truths of God’s Word are not incomprehensible or complicated. In prayer, Jesus said: “I publicly praise you, Father, . . . because you have hidden these things from the wise and intellectual ones and have revealed them to babes.” (Matthew 11:25) Jehovah has caused his purposes to be revealed to those with sincere and humble hearts. (1 Corinthians 1:26-28) Thus, simplicity is a key feature of Bible truth.

   In forums there can be an “extravagance of speech” which could be intimidating, especially to those with limited education or ability like me. (1 Corinthians 2:1, 2) Jesus’ example shows that simple words carefully chosen can convey the truth with much power.

   It also often helps in not "debating about words" by being simple. And I am therefore trying not to be argumentative with people here. The simple statement that the Bible was written by Jews who do not believe in a Trinity I think goes much farther then debating and arguing over words. I have had tremendous success with that approach in field service over the past 40 years.

   To tell an experience when I was a teenager back in 1978 my next door neighbor was a Pentecostal Born-Again Fundamentalist who challenged me {a Jehovah's Witness} to have a debate on the Trinity. We gave each other one month to get all the info we could to defend our positions. During that time I went a little overboard {It was summer vacation and I had alot of free time} I read the ENTIRE Bible and wrote down every Scripture that would contradict the idea of a Trinity. But then I didn't stop there as I knew he would say "Well that is your Bible" so I acquired 50 different Translations and checked all of them against the Scriptures I found. Anyway after the month was over we came together and he showed me one page on paper with about 10 Scriptures. I showed him my kitchen table filled with 50 Bibles and 250 pages of 1,200 Scriptures against the Trinity. Well after he saw that do you know what he said? "Well I have faith that God is a Trinity" and didn't even want to discuss it further and his mother said he could not be my friend anymore ! 

   After that I decided to simplify my approach to Witnessing although I still have those Scriptures bound in a book entitled "Jehovah Our God Is One Jehovah". {never published as I didn't feel worthy enough to do so with my research at age 15}. Anyway reading the Bible with the intent of debating with others is not the proper way to get to "know God" as I learned by trial and error. Jn. 17:3.

[JW Insider]

9 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

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.

Thank you. No I didn't have it already prepared. So far, I've always written "on the spot" and it sometimes shows when I leave out something important.

9 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

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.

There is a better way. One of the things I left out is that our doctrine is not strictly Arian, but it is very similar. And I didn't mean to imply that Arianism is directly reflected in John's gospel. It is merely one attempted "solution" to the one-or-two-or-three-Gods issue, and it happens to be one that we agree with in more aspects than not. I believe I'll get to those differences when I get a chance to respond to Cos again.

9 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

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.

That might be a semantic 'distinction without a distinction.' An understanding of Jesus role and nature can still be developed from Scripture even if it is a truth already presented clearly in Scripture when originally written. This would be especially true if a doctrine has been partly obscured and buried by apostate teachers.

9 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

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.

Yes, I agree with that. It is both wrong and an anachronism to say that the original teaching of the Greek Scriptures is "Arianism." I had said that "I trace the fundamentals of Arianism to the gospel of John," and I meant this in about the same way that someone might read C.T.Russell's early Watch Tower publications and say that he could trace the fundamentals of "Russellism" to the Bible, even if he still disagreed with much of it. My main point was that the parts of Arianism that Witnesses agree with completely really are found in John's gospel, even if Arius wasn't born until perhaps 150+ years after John wrote.

[Evacuated]

9 hours ago, JW Insider said:

An understanding of Jesus role and nature can still be developed from Scripture even if it is a truth already presented clearly in Scripture when originally written.

It might seem a bit of a nit-picking excercise, which is what often comes into my mind when the term "semantics" is applied in a discussion.

However, in view of the crucial importance of understanding who Jesus is, and the determined and sustained efforts to distort the scriptural truths, I believe it is necessary to set out definitions as precisely as possible. In this case, the development of understanding relating to Jesus role and nature in Scripture has to be something that takes place in the mind of the enquirer as they discern what the Scripture actually says about him. This may require the de-construction and replacement of mistaken ideas, and also, more importantly, as stated by Jesus himself, involves the operation of God's Holy Spirit. Matt.16:13-17.

I suppose one way to illustrate this is to think of shining a light into a dark place. The illumination enables the mind to discern and make sense of what is there already.

What must NOT happen in this development is for someone to take concepts from Scripture, and then construct something over, above, and beyond what was originally written, as if the Scripture provided basic elements or building blocks that would then need elaboration and development in order to be understood. This for me is what has taken place since the Scriptures were completed, resulting in the development of concept and vocabulary that bears no relation to what was originally written. Not least in respect of the Trinity doctrine. As Cos pointed out earlier, "the uses of most of the terms were to fend off attacks by those that opposed the Trinity".

Necessarily, I would exclude the understanding of some Messianic prophecy from this definition, particularly when fulfillment is not recorded in Scripture. The actual fulfillment of prophesied, future events will always add to the understanding of a prophecy, once realised.