Jump to content
The World News Media

Early Christians Believed in the Trinity


Cos
Message added by admin

Please consider starting new topics rather than adding to this enormous one. You can link back on your new topic to this one if need be and/or tag users as needed.  Thank you for the interesting discussion.  

Recommended Posts

  • Member
On 5/14/2017 at 5:04 AM, Cos said:
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?

Not at all. Hope you don't mind this style of interspersing comments between each of your paragraphs. This way I'm sure I don't miss anything you said.

On 5/14/2017 at 5:04 AM, Cos said:

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; 

In the case of Origen, I think it's more meaningful to speak of two branches of "Origenism" precisely because he was extremely well-respected as a scholar on the one hand and therefore many who followed tried to follow even his more "radical" ideas. They were radical, at least, by later standards as they developed. On the other hand, his great body of work was "protected" by re-interpreting and highlighting the more conservative ideas that agreed with later standards as they developed. Most of these conservative persons "forgave" him for his lack of understanding, but this didn't sit well with the fact that he still had the reputation as the only REAL scholar the church ever had for the next 200-300 years. It's for this reason that, well after the Nicaean Council of 325, Origen finally had to be denounced. (It took until 533!!) And this was in spite of the fact that he had been protected by the 4th century Latin translator of "De Principiis" so that the most important things he said about the Trinity, to Latin readers at least, had been edited and changed to Nicaean beliefs. The translator did his work immediately after the council of Nicaea.

We know this because the translator admitted it very clearly. Also, this was at a time when hardly anyone was speaking Greek anymore. Which is why we have actually lost most of Origen's original Greek writing of De Principiis and we only know it completely through the edited Latin source. You may already be aware of this, but since it has a direct effect on most of the quotes you offered, I'll provide some material on the translator, Rufinus.

A Note on the Status of Origen's "De Principiis" in English Author(s): Ronnie J. Rombs Source: Vigiliae Christianae, Vol. 61, No. 1 (Feb., 2007), pp. 21-29

Origen's text survives through the Latin translation of Rufinus, aversion that Koetschau fundamentally distrusted: Rufinus had admittedly expurgated Origen's text and could not, accordingly, be trusted. (p.21) . . . Greek fragments and Origenistic material-that is to say, passages that were not direct quotations of De principiis, nor even directly Origen's-were inserted into Koetschau's text based upon presumed doctrinal parallels between those fragments and Origen's 'authentic' thought. We cannot reconstruct the Greek text; what we have inherited for better or worse is Rufinus's Latin translation of Peri archon . . . (p.21)

By Rufinus's own admission3 Koetschau was convinced that Rufinus had seriously distorted Origen's text. Rufinus explains in the preface to his translation, "Wherever I have found in his books anything contrary to the reverent statements made by [Origen] about the Trinity in other places, I have either omitted it as a corrupt and interpolated passage, or reproduced it in a form that agrees with the doctrine which I have often found him affirming elsewhere."4 The comparison of Rufinus's translation with fragments and material attributed to Origen in Jerome's letters, the emperor Justinian's letter to Mennas,5 and the Anathemas against Origen from the Second Council of Constantinople suggested that Rufinus's emendations were so great that much of Origen's authentic doctrine had been excised completely or else greatly obscured in the De principiis. The distrust of Rufinus's text was substantial enough that Butterworth could describe Rufinus's text as "a garbled version of Origen's work"; for Rufinus was "willing to alter the text, or to omit portions of it, on no evidence whatever, and for no purpose except to conciliate the prejudices of his readers and to give greater authority to his translation."6 (p.22)

Some of these same admissions about the "Trinity" quotes from Origen are expanded upon in the following additional sources, which I will quote from (for other purposes) later in the post:

Why Does Origen Refer to the Trinitarian Authorship of Scripture in Book 4 of "Peri Archon?" Author(s): P. Martens Source: Vigiliae Christianae, Vol. 60, No. 1 (Feb., 2006), pp. 1-8

Does Origen Have a Trinitarian Doctrine of the Holy Spirit? Author(s): Kilian McDonnell Source: Gregorianum, Vol. 75, No. 1 (1994), pp. 5-35

DID ORIGEN APPLY THE WORD HOMOOUSIOS TO THE SON? Author(s): M. J. Edwards Source: The Journal of Theological Studies, NEW SERIES, Vol. 49, No. 2 (OCTOBER 1998), pp. 658-670

The Holy Spirit as Agent, not Activity: Origen's Argument with Modalism and its Afterlife in Didymus, Eunomius, and Gregory of Nazianzus Author(s): Andrew Radde-Gallwitz Source: Vigiliae Christianae, Vol. 65, No. 3 (2011), pp. 227-248

ORIGEN AS TRINITARIAN Author(s): Charles W. Lowry Source: The Journal of Theological Studies, Vol. 37, No. 147 (JULY, 1936), pp. 225-240

On 5/14/2017 at 5:04 AM, Cos said:

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.

BTW, it was not only De Principiis that was distorted by Rufinus. Also, Jerome and Justinian, for example, quote Origen directly from the Greek in places, which allows us to see just how badly the Latin has been changed.

Origen did refer to the Trinity. And his belief was not Arianism, per se, either. But Origen didn't mean the same thing that later ANFs meant by the word Trinity. He purposely avoided ever saying that the "Holy Spirit is God." He avoided using many words that were becoming part of the vocabulary of the Trinity, at least with respect to the Son/Word/Jesus and the Holy Spirit. As the one through whom all things were created, Christ/Logos is spoken of as a "demiourgos/demi-urge" He speaks, not just of Jesus, the human being, born or created, but the Son of God, the Word being born or created. The same goes for the Holy Spirit. He spoke of the subordination of the Son and the holy spirit, such that the Father is greater than the Son, and the Son is greater than the Holy Spirit. It's true that he didn't put the beginning of the Son or Holy Spirit in human, temporal time, but he didn't do that for the other spirit creatures, either, since they exist outside of a physical realm of time, "before time" and because there must be a sense in which creation of the spiritual beings, especially the Son, always existed in some way with the Almighty. This resolved the question about the Logos having no beginning since "in the beginning the Logos was [already] with God." But Origen goes as far as to imply that the Father, therefore, was not always the Father (until there was a Son) and that he was also limited in some way as to the number of spirit creatures he could create. Origen could speak of the Word/Logos/Jesus as a second God, and still claim that there is only one God. The Holy Spirit is spoken of as a rational being, but one that is not independent.

He [Origen] adds, however, that the Holy Spirit seems to have need of the Son, to minister to Him His hypostasis, in order not only that He may exist but that He may be wise and rational and just. What is true of the Holy Spirit, the most excellent and the first in order of all that was made by the Father through Christ, is true of all other spiritual and rational beings. (Origen as Trinitarian, [referenced above], p.231)

The position of the Logos in the scale of being corresponds to His function as mediator. He is μεταξύ τηs τον άγενήτουάγενήτου και τηs των γενητών πάντων φύσεως.1 He is God, θεός,2 but secondary in rank, ό δεύτερος θεός.3 The Father alone is ό θεός 4 and God in Himself, αΰτόθεος5; ,the Logos is the image par excellence of God, but it is only the image and reflection of Him. If He did not contemplate the Father continually, He would cease to be God.'6 In relation to the being of the Father, the Son is numerically distinct from Him,7 and is another than the Father in ουσία, νπόστασις, and υποκείμενου.8 He is at once the Son of the Father and a creature.9 This paradoxical conception finds expression in a favourite formula of Origen (which combines St John and Colossians), ,the only-begotten and first born of every creature10 (p.232)

It remains to consider Origen's doctrine of the Trinity as a whole and in relation to his idea of God. It is a ' trinity', a triad of beings (ousiai, hypostaseis, hypokeimena), not a triune being. These divine beings are in no sense co-equal but constitute a graduated hierarchy. The Father is the supreme God, alone uncreate and alone God in Himself. The Logos or Son of God is ' the second God ', born of the will of the Father but not in time, in rank intermediate between the highest God and all other created beings. The Holy Spirit is also God and is the third in dignity and excellence after the Father and the Son. (p.235,236)

(Note that the Word "Logos" is a second God, in rank and number. This is the issue that later Trinitarians thought they resolved by making them all one "substance" yet 3 "persons." Origen put God beyond "substance" although he spoke of "spirit" and "truth" being related to this sense of substance. This is probably not so different than the way most Witnesses would describe all three entities as of one same "substance", that substance being spirit.)

And it is important to remember just how Origen was seen at the time, vs. how he was seen after the Council of 325 CE:

In this sense there is a profound justice and necessity in the eventual condemnation of Origen by the Church, however deplorable the spirit in which it seems to have been done when far lesser men and poorer Christians united in execrating his memory. (p.238)

He was condemned at the Second Council of Constantinople in 553."

And lastly from this particular source, we also have another source for the previously stated conclusion that Arius was a left-wing Origenist, while another view, unsupported in reality, made him a "Nicene before Nicea."

The relation of these to Origenism and to Arius, ' a left-wing Origenist', is in no way questioned. They then turn to the other side of this many-sided' theologian and exhibit him in the role of a Nicene before Nicea, . . .  and the upholder either explicitly or implicitly of the homoousion. The resulting patent contradiction is either explained away by ingenious reasoning or simply left to be accepted. (p.239)

So what was said above was intended to give a more rounded view of what Origen himself meant by Trinity. It should allow a response to the individual quotes to go more quickly.

On 5/14/2017 at 5:04 AM, Cos said:
“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)

The second of these is merely a mention of the triad as a matter of convenience in that all three entities are of the same purpose. Origen even used Acts 4:32 to explain one way (by analogy) in which they were of equal purpose: (Acts 4:32) "Moreover, the multitude of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and not even one of them would say that any of the things he possessed was his own, but they had all things in common. . ."

The first quote is exactly the type of adjustment made by Rufinus. Another example from the article called "Did Origen Apply the Word Homoousias to the Son?" [referenced above] says:

Rufinus is a far more likely suspect, as he began translating Origen after the triumph of the Athanasian party, which upheld the homoousion as an article of faith. Moreover, he himself admits that his method in translating is to omit, expand or simplify those statements which might otherwise be misconstrued as heresies by readers of his day. He had therefore both the motive and the means to decorate Origen with a spurious orthodoxy. (p.661)

Origen, however, is more generally accused of the opposite heresy, of saying that the Son not only depends for his existence on the Father, but also that his relation to the Father is that of a creature to its Creator. His own vocabulary seemed to allow both 'coming-to-be' and 'creation' within the Trinity, and for this he was repeated condemned. (p.663)

On 5/14/2017 at 5:04 AM, Cos said:

“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).

Origen's use of the word Trinity was evidently much less common than originally supposed, but in any case was merely a convenient way of speaking of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, not the doctrine as defined later.

On 5/14/2017 at 5:04 AM, Cos said:

“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).

Yes. All things originate with God. And the Word was God. Origen speaks of the creation of the Word by God, and even speaks of the Holy Spirit as a creation by the Word, since all things came to be made through the Word.

On 5/14/2017 at 5:04 AM, Cos said:

“…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).

Origen was rarely vague, like some others of the ANF writers. But more than once he sets up this particular idea as a question (of how the Son came to be both created and already coexisting with God in the beginning).

On 5/14/2017 at 5:04 AM, Cos said:

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.


Due to the length here, I will have to continue my response onto another post. As I type, I see that the editing window is slowing down and not keeping up, so that I have to keep typing things two or three times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Views 14.1k
  • Replies 215
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

In Haiti, even today .. the population is 85% Catholic, and believe in the Trinity, as an institution (individual results may vary ...) AND 85% or so of THAT group also practice Voodoo and worship the

But not by First Century Christians taught by Jesus you know the ones in the New Testament. They used the BIBLE. The Bible, every single book in it, was written by Jews and Jews do not believe in God

Very good point. After all if the Trinity was in the Bible in the first place then NO ONE would have tried to put it there by a forgery. Which of course proves it is not in the Bible. {Yet that is not

Posted Images

  • Member
20 hours ago, bruceq said:

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.

I like this. The scoundrels will always try to muddy the waters in hopes you will eventually say "Ah, the hell with it - let them have it their way!" The answer is as Bill Clinton said: KISS (keep it simple, stupid.)

I also like the observation I read in a Watchtower somewhere: 'The scriptures that can be used to refute the trinity were not written for that purpose.' I like to focus on what they were written for. 

I won't spend much time with trinitarians. If possible, they are more persistent than apostates in arguing. They will not give up and many of them make provisions in their wills for someone to take over in the event they should drop. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
15 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

I like this. The scoundrels will always try to muddy the waters in hopes you will eventually say "Ah, the hell with it - let them have it their way!" The answer is as Bill Clinton said: KISS (keep it simple, stupid.)

I also like the observation I read in a Watchtower somewhere: 'The scriptures that can be used to support the trinity were not written for that purpose.' I like to focus on what they were written for. 

I won't spend much time with trinitarians. If possible, they are more persistent than apostates in arguing. They will not give up and many of them make provisions in their wills for someone to take over in the event they should drop. 

   A few weeks ago I tried this approach with someone at the door {I usually never get anyone anymore mentioning the trinity even tho I live in the Bible belt}. Anyway the first Scripture he brought up was of course Jn. 1:1 so I said "Well who wrote that Scripture. He said "John" and I said and John was a Jew and Jews do not believe in a Trinity so I am afraid you will have to find another Scripture since he would never write about or teach something he did not believe in himself. So he went to Hebrews Chp.1 and of course the same thing occurred only about Paul. He then said "Well it dosen't matter what Scripture I use then does it" Then I said "Ya thats the point, the Trinity is not in the Bible"! It is funny however to see someone act like a squirrel trying to cross a road. They usually end up pretty flat.

Anyway I actually have a return visit on him and he is now much less argumentative and wants to learn more about the Witnesses from Witnesses. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
On 5/14/2017 at 5:04 AM, Cos said:

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.

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)

 

On 5/14/2017 at 5:04 AM, Cos said:

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)

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.

On 5/14/2017 at 5:04 AM, Cos said:

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”.

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
On 5/14/2017 at 2:06 PM, Ann O'Maly said:

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

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.

 I agree with you, consider this:

  SIMPLICITY is key:

   It is true that the intent of the person performing the {Shaw-kaw} or {Proskyneo} must be taken into account. For example John who did it to the angel in Revelation obviously had the wrong intent but in some other areas such as Num. 22:31 :" Then Jehovah uncovered Baʹlaam’s eyes,+and he saw Jehovah’s angel standing in the road with a drawn sword in his hand. At once he bowed low and prostrated himself on his face." Why did not the angel here say "do not do that"? Because the angel was representing as a spokesman for God. Just like the angel who spoke for God to Moses said "I am the God of Abraham ,Issac and Jacob" at the burning bush. It was not God but an angel who actually "SAID" the "words". Acts 7:30-38. {IE : Secretary [word] and buisnessman [God} relationship}. This type of relationship is used many many times in the Bible whenever God communicates with humans for the reason "NO MAN CAN SEE GOD AT ANY TIME" John 1:18 this is why He uses angels and Jesus as His WORD and why Jesus and angels are NOT GOD since humans can and have seen them.

   This is why Jesus is called the {Logos} or WORD of God. He speaks for God as His representative or spokesman just as other angels {messengers} have done. Therefore John 1:1 can be translated either way with no argument. In other words "In the beginning was the Angel and the Angel was with God and the Angel was God {or a god}". He was God in the same sense other angels were by being the WORD or spokesman for God and he was a god by being a creature higher than humans. So there is NO reason to argue about that Scripture and have "debates about words" because docrinally it can be translated either way with no problem to Jehovah's Witnesses.

  This line of reasoning has worked for me with several Trinitarians who were hung up on passages that said Jesus was God and yet Jesus was obviously inferior since he prayed to him and was "obedient" to God. There is absolutely no reason to argue with people over "debates about words" SIMPLICITY is the KISS method that Jesus used so effectively. IMITATE JESUS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
On 5/14/2017 at 2:21 AM, ThePraeceptor said:

@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 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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
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. <><

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
1 hour ago, Cos said:

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,

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.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
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. <><

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
5 hours ago, Cos said:

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.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
9 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

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

There is ONE exception to this ... if the language is bent into a pretzel and you redefine the word.  An example of this is if you changed the definition of a cow to match that of a horse.

Assuredly they have MANY similar features, but entering a cow in the Kentucky Derby would make you a certified loser, and would be udderly ridiculous.

Betting on a cow, even with a Trifecta, is entertaining, but probability zero.

 

.

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
On 5/17/2017 at 8:17 AM, Cos said:

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…”

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.)

On 5/17/2017 at 8:17 AM, Cos said:

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”?

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)

On 5/17/2017 at 8:17 AM, Cos said:

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.

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.

On 5/17/2017 at 8:17 AM, Cos said:

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.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Popular Contributors

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • It appears to me that this is a key aspect of the 2030 initiative ideology. While the Rothschilds were indeed influential individuals who were able to sway governments, much like present-day billionaires, the true impetus for change stems from the omnipotent forces (Satan) shaping our world. In this case, there is a false God of this world. However, what drives action within a political framework? Power! What is unfolding before our eyes in today's world? The relentless struggle for power. The overwhelming tide of people rising. We cannot underestimate the direct and sinister influence of Satan in all of this. However, it is up to individuals to decide how they choose to worship God. Satanism, as a form of religion, cannot be regarded as a true religion. Consequently, just as ancient practices of child sacrifice had a place in God's world, such sacrifices would never be accepted by the True God of our universe. Despite the promising 2030 initiative for those involved, it is unfortunately disintegrating due to the actions of certain individuals in positions of authority. A recent incident serves as a glaring example, involving a conflict between peaceful Muslims and a Jewish representative that unfolded just this week. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/11/us-delegation-saudi-arabia-kippah?ref=upstract.com Saudi Arabia was among the countries that agreed to the initiative signed by approximately 179 nations in or around 1994. However, this initiative is now being undermined by the devil himself, who is sowing discord among the delegates due to the ongoing Jewish-Hamas (Palestine) conflict. Fostering antisemitism. What kind of sacrifice does Satan accept with the death of babies and children in places like Gaza, Ukraine, and other conflicts around the world, whether in the past or present, that God wouldn't? Whatever personal experiences we may have had with well-known individuals, true Christians understand that current events were foretold long ago, and nothing can prevent them from unfolding. What we are witnessing is the result of Satan's wrath upon humanity, as was predicted. A true religion will not involve itself in the politics of this world, as it is aware of the many detrimental factors associated with such engagement. It understands the true intentions of Satan for this world and wisely chooses to stay unaffected by them.
    • This idea that Satan can put Jews in power implies that God doesn't want Jews in power. But that would also imply that God only wants "Christians" including Hitler, Biden, Pol Pot, Chiang Kai-Shek, etc. 
    • @Mic Drop, I don't buy it. I watched the movie. It has all the hallmarks of the anti-semitic tropes that began to rise precipitously on social media during the last few years - pre-current-Gaza-war. And it has similarities to the same anti-semitic tropes that began to rise in Europe in the 900's to 1100's. It was back in the 500s AD/CE that many Khazars failed to take or keep land they fought for around what's now Ukraine and southern Russia. Khazars with a view to regaining power were still being driven out into the 900's. And therefore they migrated to what's now called Eastern Europe. It's also true that many of their groups converted to Judaism after settling in Eastern Europe. It's possibly also true that they could be hired as mercenaries even after their own designs on empire had dwindled.  But I think the film takes advantage of the fact that so few historical records have ever been considered reliable by the West when it comes to these regions. So it's easy to fill the vacuum with some very old antisemitic claims, fables, rumors, etc..  The mention of Eisenhower in the movie was kind of a giveaway, too. It's like, Oh NO! The United States had a Jew in power once. How on earth could THAT have happened? Could it be . . . SATAN??" Trying to tie a connection back to Babylonian Child Sacrifice Black Magick, Secret Satanism, and Baal worship has long been a trope for those who need to think that no Jews like the Rothschilds and Eisenhowers (????) etc would not have been able to get into power in otherwise "Christian" nations without help from Satan.    Does child sacrifice actually work to gain power?? Does drinking blood? Does pedophilia??? (also mentioned in the movie) Yes, it's an evil world and many people have evil ideologies based on greed and lust and ego. But how exactly does child sacrifice or pedophilia or drinking blood produce a more powerful nation or cabal of some kind? To me that's a giveaway that the authors know that the appeal will be to people who don't really care about actual historical evidence. Also, the author(s) of the video proved that they have not done much homework, but are just trying to fill that supposed knowledge gap by grasping at old paranoid and prejudicial premises. (BTW, my mother and grandmother, in 1941 and 1942, sat next to Dwight Eisenhower's mother at an assembly of Jehovah's Witnesses. The Eisenhower family had been involved in a couple of "Christian" religions and a couple of them associated with IBSA and JWs for many years.)
  • Members

  • Recent Status Updates

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      65.4k
    • Total Posts
      158.9k
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      17,670
    • Most Online
      1,592

    Newest Member
    Apolos2000
    Joined
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.