Understanding the Trinity

[Dor]

Originally Posted by mee

so do you not agree that this scripture has been added to the bible ,i for one could not base my beliefs on words that are added to the bible, but i suppose it depends on weather a person is interested in the truth of Gods word or manmade doctrines i am sorry if the truth offends but that is not my fault ,i am only interested in facts, and i do not think that truth of Gods word is irrelevent

Ok mee I have to ask one simple question of you. Why does the New World Translation insert the word Jehovah in the New Testament when there are absolutely no Greek manuscripts that have it in there? Isn’t this playing with the text?

[Faithfulservant]

Originally Posted by mee

Colossians

2:9: KJ reads: "In him [Christ] dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead [Greek, the·o´te·tos] bodily." (A similar thought is conveyed by the renderings in NE, RS, JB, NAB, Dy.) However, NW reads: "It is in him that all the fullness of the divine quality dwells bodily." (AT, We, and CKW read "God’s nature," instead of "Godhead." Compare 2 Peter 1:4.)

qeovthß Theotes

deity

1. the state of being God, Godhead

Col 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily

Originally Posted by mee

Admittedly, not everyone offers the same interpretation of Colossians 2:9. But what is in agreement with the rest of the inspired letter to the Colossians? Did Christ have in himself something that is his because he is God, part of a Trinity? Or is "the fullness" that dwells in him something that became his because of the decision of someone else? Colossians 1:19 (KJ, Dy) says that all fullness dwelt in Christ because it "pleased the Father" for this to be the case. NE says it was "by God’s own choice."

Consider the immediate context of Colossians 2:9: In verse 8, readers are warned against being misled by those who advocate philosophy and human traditions. They are also told that in Christ "are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge" and are urged to "live in him" and to be "rooted and built up in him and established in the faith." (Verses 3, 6, 7) It is in him, and not in the originators or the teachers of human philosophy, that a certain precious "fulness" dwells. Was the apostle Paul there saying that the "fulness" that was in Christ made Christ God himself? Not according to Colossians 3:1, where Christ is said to be "seated at the right hand of God."—See KJ, Dy, TEV, NAB.

According to Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon, the·o´tes (the nominative form, from which the·o´te·tos is derived) means "divinity, divine nature." (Oxford, 1968, p. 792) Being truly "divinity," or of "divine nature," does not make Jesus as the Son of God coequal and coeternal with the Father, any more than the fact that all humans share "humanity" or "human nature" makes them coequal or all the same age

qei'oß Theios

1. a general name of deities or divinities as used by the Greeks
2. spoken of the only and true God, trinity
   1. of Christ
   2. Holy Spirit
   3. the Father

Acts 17:29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.


2 Peter 1:3-4 According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue: Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

qeiovthß Theiotes

1. divinity, divine nature

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

I have a suggestion.. If you need help with your greek you should attend a simplified Greek seminar.. it will do wonders especially if your counting on other peoples translations.

[Faithfulservant]

John 1:1 IN THE GREEK "and God was the Word"

The late Dr. J.R. Mantey (who is quoted out of context on pages 1158-9 of the Witnesses' own Kingdom Interlinear Translation) really says,

"A shocking mistranslation". "Obsolete and incorrect." "It is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1:1 "The Word was a god."

Dr. Mantey wrote a letter to the Watchtower Society before his death demanding a retraction. They never replied.

Where are the endorsements from known Greek Scholars for the New World Translation if it is accurate as claimed?

IN THE NEW WORLD TRANSLATION

"and the word was a god"The above rendering is contrary to all known rules of Greek grammar. Dr. B.F. Wescott (whose Greek text is used in the Kingdom Interlinear Translation) said of John 1:1

"The predicate (God) stands emphatically first, as in iv. 24. It is necessarily without the article...No idea of inferiority of nature is suggested by the form of expression, which simply affirms the true deity of the Word...in the third clause the "Word" is declared to be "God" and so included in the Godhead."

Reputable Scholars are ignored!

Examining J.W. Sources for John 1:1

"The Word was a god" N.W.T.When the New World Translation was released, the Society drew for their support of their John 1:1 translation "and the Word was a god" from three main sources continually quoted in their literature. They chose "The Johannes Greber New Testament", "The New Testament in an Improved Version" (upon the basis of Archbishop Newcome's Translation), and , finally, "The Emphatic Diaglott" by Benjamin Wilson. We will examine each one in turn.


THE JOHANNES GREBER NEW TESTAMENT

The Watchtower quotes this translation on page 5 of "The Word, Who is He? According to John"; page 489 in "Make Sure of All Things, Hold Fast to What is Fine (1965)", and "Aid to Bible Understanding" pages 1134 and 1669.

Johannes Greber was an ex-Catholic priest married to a wife who was a spirit-medium. He received his " translations" during seances and by other occult means. Further information may be obtained by writing the Johannes Greber Memorial Foundation, 139 Hillside Avenue, Teaneck, N.J, 07666, U.S.A. He also wrote an occult book, "Communication With the Spirit World" which the Watchtower Society also ordered.

First, the Society exposed Greber and his demonic leanings in their February 15th, 1956 Watchtower. Later, in 1961, they released their New World Translation in its entirety, using Greber for support. Then they turned right around and denied they knew his sources were demonic in the April 1st, 1983, Watchtower, page 31. Don't they read their own magazines? Every Jehovah's Witness needs to know their translation is really based on an occult one.

THE NEW TESTAMENT IN AN IMPROVED VERSION


The Watchtower quotes this translation on page 5 of "The Word, Who Is He? According to John" and the Kingdom Interlinear Translation page 1160 (1969 Edition). Archbishop Newcome, the original author of this text, was a believer in the Deity of Jesus Christ and translated John1:1 correctly. After his death, a Mr.Thos. Belsham, a Unitarian, altered Newcome's text to read, "and the Word was a god" to conform to his cult's doctrine. (See page 394 of "Manual of Biblical Bibliography"). J.W.'s loved this distortion and adopted it.


EMPHATIC DIAGLOTT

The Watchtower Society publishes this interlinear translation on their presses. Benjamin Wilson, the author, translated John 1:1 as "the LOGOS was God", but under the Greek/English side he put "a god". Mr. Wilson never studied Biblical Greek in a college but was a Christadelphian, a cult denying the Deity of Christ, and tampered with the Greek text to support his pre-conceived ideas about Christ. This is exactly what the New World Translation has also done. They adopted his distortion.

Why would the Watchtower Society choose sources that are false and even demonic for their New World Translation?

Why will not reputable scholars endorse their translation? Something is wrong!!!


TRANSLATIONS THAT CORRECTLY TEACH THAT "THE WORD WAS GOD" Douay (Catholic); Rotherham; King James Version; Jerusalem Bible; The New Life Testament; The Berkley Version; New Testament (Darby); Modern King James Version; Revised Standard Edition; American Standard Version;The New International Version; Numeric English New Testament; The New Testament in Basic English; Young's Literal Translation of the Bible; The New Testament in Modern Speech (Weymouth); The New Testament in Modern English (Montgomery); The New Testament in Modern English (Phillips); etc. (This is only a partial list).

These bibles affirm the Deity of Jesus Christ and bear witness against the scholastic dishonesty of the New World Translation.

[Faithfulservant]

Col. 2:9 English under Greek Wescott & Hort Text found in KIT (69).

"because in Him (Christ) is dwelling down all the fullness of the godship bodily"
There is a "godship" or a "godhead" or "Deity". The one God of scripture has manifested Himself as Father, Son, And Holy Spirit. "ALL THE FULLNESS OF DEITY" dwells in Christ, even in the flesh! Christ is truly God.



Col.2: 9 in the NWT

"Because it is in him that all the fullness of the divine quality dwells bodily"
The Jehovah's Witnesses cannot accept the godhead, but rather than alter their doctrine to agree with scripture, they MISTRANSLATE the word "deity" and make it "quality". The word "quality" is found nowhere in the original Greek.

[Faithfulservant]

The Watchtower has gone to great lengths to cover up the biblical teaching that Jesus is Jehovah, manifest in the flesh. In John chapter 8, Jesus told the Jews that he knew Abraham's day .They countered with the fact that He was not yet 50 years old (vs.57). Jesus then spoke a great truth.

John 8:58 IN THE GREEK

"Before Abraham to become I am"

Jesus was here quoting Exodus 3:14, taking Jehovah's divine name unto Himself.

The Greek "Ego Eimi" is in the present tense and translates "I Am".Jesus said in John 8:24,

"Unless you believe that I Am you shall die in your sins.

IN THE NEW WORLD TRANSLATION

"Before Abraham came into existence, I have been".

In the New World Translation in the footnote referring to John 8:58,1950 edition the Society claimed this phrase was in the"perfect indefinite tense". Scholars pointed out that there was NO SUCH TENSE in any language.

In 1961 the footnote read "the perfect tense". The 1971 footnote says "the perfect tense indicative". None of these are correct!

The Watchtower is also not honest in their rendering of the Greek word "in", which they translate "in union with" every time it refers to Christ's supernatural indwelling of the believer. Yet, they translate it correctly as just plain "in" if Christ's indwelling is not involved.

Is this honest scholarship? "Word for word" as promised?

Besides distorting scriptures on the Deity of Christ, the Society has attempted to reduce Christ to a creature rather than the Creator. In the NWT, . note the addition of the word "other" four times in Colossians 1:16 & 17, reducing Jesus from Creator to a creature. The Society tried to claim that Jesus was only a "master worker" helping with creation, but Jehovah says He was all alone during creation. (Isaiah. 44:24).



What about "new light"? Another scripture Jehovah's Witnesses avoid is Acts 20:28. Their NWT has added words to the text, but it really says, "GOD PURCHASED THE CHURCH WITH HIS OWN BLOOD"-

[Faithfulservant]

THE NEW AMERICAN STANDARD VERSION

"And those who were in the boat worshipped Him saying, "You are certainly God's Son".
There are numerous other references to the worship of Jesus Christ, among them Matthew 28:9,

"And behold Jesus met them and greeted them. And they took hold of His feet and worshipped Him".

JESUS NEVER REFUSED PERSONAL WORSHIP!!

THE NEW WORLD TRANSLATION

"Then those in the boat did obeisance to him saying, "You are really God's Son"

Every other reference to Jesus being worshipped is likewise rendered "did obeisance".

The Society deliberately used a little-known word for "worship" to avoid saying directly that Jesus was worshipped. They teach their members that "obeisance" is just a gesture of respect. Dictionaries say it's "worship".

TAMPERING WITH THE GREEK AGAIN!


The Greek word for worship, "PROSKUNEO", is translated as "worship" for Jehovah 22 times in the New World Translation.

The SAME WORD applied to Jesus is translated "obeisance", "reverence", and "homage".

Is this honest scholarship, or did the Society again distort the Word of God to agree with their doctrine?

I have Just posted several instances where the bible was changed or tampered with by the Watchtower organization.. So I refuse to allow your claims that the bible was tampered with by others to discredit other peoples beliefs in what the bible says when it does not agree with your belief system without being answered in like form.

[Faithfulservant]

Originally Posted by mee

The New Encyclopædia Britannica says: "Neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord’ (Deut. 6:4). . . . The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies. . . . By the end of the 4th century . . . the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since."—(1976), Micropædia, Vol. X, p. 126

I found a new tactic used by the Watchtower. of the use of "............", by the Watchtower, to omit those phrases which make the quote complete and understandable, and at the same time mislead the reader Into thinking that the person quoted agrees with the Watchtower. This quote continues on right after the ones shown above, without so much as a paragraph separating it, and as usual, this quote is not finished,

The article posted by Mee actually goes on at some length to support the Trinity, and actually concludes with these words:
'Thus, the New Testament established the basis for the doctrine of the Trinity


LOL tricky...

I would also like to point out to the Jehovah's Witnesses that the word "Theocracy" is not found in the Bible, but is constantly found in their publications and in their speech. "But" they protest " it is merely good word describing the Bible concept of government by God" To which we reply, "Exactly " And the word "Trinity" is a good word describing the Bible concept of the Only True God manifesting Himself in three Persons, and therefore the three are the One, True Almighty God . It is certainly permissible to use words not in the Bible to describe Bible concepts.

[Dor]

Originally Posted by mee

The New Encyclopædia Britannica says: "Neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord’ (Deut. 6:4). . . . The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies. . . . By the end of the 4th century . . . the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since."—(1976), Micropædia, Vol. X, p. 126

Actually I thought it might be good to let everyone see the whole article.

"Trinity, the doctrine of God taught by Christianity that asserts that God is one in essence but three in "person," Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: "Hear, 0 Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord" (Deut. 6:4). The earliest Christians, however, had to cope with the implications of the coming of Jesus Christ and of the presence and power of God among them-i.e., the Holy Spirit, whose coming was connected with the celebration of the Pentecost. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were associated in such New Testament passages as the Great Commission: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them mi the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Matt. 28:19); and in the apostolic benediction: "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all" (II Cor. 13:14). Thus, the New Testament established the basis for the doctrine of the Trinity.The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies. Initially, both the requirements of monotheism inherited from the Old Testament and the implications of the need to interpret the biblical teaching to Greco-Roman paganism seemed to demand that the divine in Christ as the Word, or Logos, be interpreted as subordinate to the Supreme Being. An alternative solution was to interpret Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three modes of the self-disclosure of the one God but not as distinct within the being of God itself. The first tendency recognized the distinctness among the three, but at the cost of their equality and hence of their unity (subordinationism); the second came to terms with their unity, but at the cost of their distinctness 'as "persons" (modalism). It was not until the 4th century that the distinctness of the three and their unity were brought together in a single orthodox doctrine of one essence and three persons. The Council of Nicaea in 325 stated the crucial formula for that doctrine in its confession that the Son is "of the same essence [homoousios] as the Father," even though it said very little about the Holy Spirit. Over the next half century, Athanasius defended and refined the Nicene formula, and, by the end of the 4th century, under the leadership of Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus (the Cappadocian Fathers), the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since." (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1979, Trinity, Vol. X, p.126)

If you are going to use the Enclclopedia Britannica to argue against the Trinity I guess it would be pertinent to leave "Thus, the New Testament established the basis for the doctrine of the Trinity." out of your quote.

[Faithfulservant]

Originally Posted by mee

Supporters of the Trinity say that it is founded not only on religious tradition but also on the Bible. Critics of the doctrine say that it is not a Bible teaching, one history source even declaring: "The origin of the [Trinity] is entirely pagan."—The Paganism in Our Christianity

Considering the source.. Arthur Weigall who wrote The Pagainism in Our Christianity.. trashes ALL of Christianity.. Here is a list of his attacks on Christianity..

1. The Twelve Disciples Derived From Zodiac: p25
2. The 27 books of the New Testament Canon is invalid: p37
3. The name Mary is of pagan origin: p41
4. The virgin birth is of pagan origin: p44,47,60
5. The early life of Jesus is totally unknown: p49
6. Jesus born in a stable and wrapped in swaddling clothing is of pagan origin: p52
7. Miracles of Jesus are of pagan origin: p58
8. Jesus' 40 day temptation in wilderness is of pagan origin: p61
9. Earthquake at cross is false: p62
10. Jesus Crucifixion was a Jewish human sacrifice of pagan origin: p69,76
11. Jesus Side Pierced is of pagan origin: p83,84
12. Jesus never actually died, two angels were only men: p93,94
13. Ascension is of pagan origin: p100
14. Jesus suffering to save us is of pagan origin: p106
15. Jesus decent into Hades is of pagan origin: p113
16. Jesus "hung on a tree" is of pagan origin: p118
17. Jesus the "Rock of salvation" is of pagan origin: p129
18. Jesus the "slain Lamb of God" is of pagan origin: p131,132
19. "Washed in the Blood of the lamb" is of pagan origin: p132
20. Baptism and the Lord's Supper are both of pagan origin: p134, p146,147
21. Phrase "Soldiers of Christ" is of pagan origin: p135
22. Jesus as "the Shepherd" is of pagan origin: p136
23. Lords Supper is of pagan origin" p146,147
24. The idea of "blood atonement for sins" is of pagan origin: p152,158
25. Jesus "Begotten of God" is of pagan origin: p169
26. Incarnate Logos of Jn 1:1 is of pagan origin, The "pre-existent angel" is a 4th century concept: p172,173-175
27. The Trinity is of pagan origin: p182
28. The "Lord's Day" (Sunday) is of Pagan Origin: p209,210-211
29. Jewish Sabbath and the Sunday Lord's Day both of pagan origin: p136, p209,210-211
30. Conclusion of entire book: Almost all of Christianity is of pagan origin! p242

Weigall, is a modernist and doesn't believe the Bible is God's word. He trashes 99% of what both JW's and Trinitarians believe as from Pagan origin.

1. Weigall is one of the "Star Witnesses" of the Watchtower booklet, "Should you believe in the Trinity?" They quote Weigall in the opening section, then again, with the same quote in a later section.
2. Weigall has one argument in his book: If a Bible doctrine is found in pagan religions, then the Bible doctrine had its origin in Paganism. Jehovah's Witnesses think it is logical to use Weigall as proof that trinity is pagan because Weigall claims that trinity is found in pagan religions. Yet Weigall also finds the virgin birth, death, resurrection and ascension of Christ in pagan religions.

1. They key is that the argument that Weigall uses throughout his book , IS THE SAME for trinity and the virgin birth etc. Jehovah's Witnesses must either accept or reject the entire book as a whole.
2. All any honest Jehovah's Witness needs to be shown to trash the entire booklet's ("Should you believe in the Trinity?") credibility is this one quote by Weigall. If they can read all what Weigall says was pagan and not immediately label their own organization as dishonest on the spot, they are simply too blind to reason anything. As Jesus said: "leave them alone, they are blind guides".
3. It is utterly deceptive, dishonest and unscholarly to quote Weigall as proof that trinity is pagan, when the same book states that the JW's "begotten" theology is also pagan!
4. Just as bad that Sabbatarians will quote from Weigall to proves Sunday is pagan, when in the same sentence he states that the origin of the Sabbath is also pagan!

[Faithfulservant]

Originally Posted by mee

1

John 5:7, 8:

KJ

reads: "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one." (Dy also includes this Trinitarian passage.) However, NW does not include the words "in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth." (RS, NE, TEV, JB, NAB also leave out the Trinitarian passage.)

Regarding this Trinitarian passage, textual critic F. H. A. Scrivener wrote: "We need not hesitate to declare our conviction that the disputed words were not written by St. John: that they were originally brought into Latin copies in Africa from the margin, where they had been placed as a pious and orthodox gloss on ver. 8: that from the Latin they crept into two or three late Greek codices, and thence into the printed Greek text, a place to which they had no rightful claim."—A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament (Cambridge, 1883, third ed.), p. 654...............oh dear ,that is never right to add to the word of God

Might I sugges reading the information on this link to show Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener as not being scholarly in his presentenation of facts in his criticism of textual theories.

"To conclude: one should never trust any source uncritically—even if such be found in a prestigious journal—without personal verification of claims and references regarding source material quoted and conclusions drawn therefrom. There certainly is no need to pursue any form of continuing historical revisionism, and especially not when attempting merely to discuss the relative merits of competing textual theories. Such a "new revisionism" no one really needs nor desires."

[mee]

as you seem very interested in the watchtower,i would think it would be better for you to go to the correct source ,rather than getting bias material which has been tampered with .there are many people who are out to stop the truth of Gods wordfrom being known. but this is no surprise to JW because satan does not want the truth to be told, remember the whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one .1 john 5;19 , so rather than going to sources that only tear down the truth maybe you should look at translations that agree with JW . before becoming a JW i was also misled to believe the trinity doctrine but after a long search realized that this was not scriptural .also remember that in times past people were burned at the stake for sticking to the truth ,its no different today the aim is to stop the truth of Gods word from being told, and who does satan use, it is false religion in the form of half truths .so as this thread is about understanding the trinity it is quite clear to me that the trinity is a manmade doctrine made to look as if it is scriptual when it is nothink of the sort it is a manmade doctrine

Trinity

Definition: The central doctrine of religions of Christendom. According to the Athanasian Creed, there are three divine Persons (the Father, the Son, the Holy Ghost), each said to be eternal, each said to be almighty, none greater or less than another, each said to be God, and yet together being but one God. Other statements of the dogma emphasize that these three "Persons" are not separate and distinct individuals but are three modes in which the divine essence exists. Thus some Trinitarians emphasize their belief that Jesus Christ is God, or that Jesus and the Holy Ghost are Jehovah. Not a Bible teaching

The New Catholic Encyclopedia states: "The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective."—(1967), Vol. XIV, p. 299

In The Encyclopedia Americana we read: "Christianity derived from Judaism and Judaism was strictly Unitarian [believing that God is one person]. The road which led from Jerusalem to Nicea was scarcely a straight one. Fourth century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching."—(1956), Vol. XXVII, p. 294L.

According to the Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel, "The Platonic trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave birth to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian churches. . . . This Greek philosopher’s [Plato, fourth century B.C.E.] conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all the ancient [pagan] religions."—(Paris, 1865-1870), edited by M. Lachâtre, Vol. 2, p. 1467

Does

the Bible agree with those who teach that the Father and the Son are not separate and distinct individuals?

Matt. 26:39, RS: "Going a little farther he [Jesus Christ] fell on his face and prayed, ‘My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt.’" (If the Father and the Son were not distinct individuals, such a prayer would have been meaningless. Jesus would have been praying to himself, and his will would of necessity have been the Father’s will.)

John 8:17, 18, RS: "[Jesus answered the Jewish Pharisees:] In your law it is written that the testimony of two men is true; I bear witness to myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness to me." (So, Jesus definitely spoke of himself as being an individual separate and distinct from the Father.)

Does

the Bible teach that all who are said to be part of the Trinity are eternal, none having a beginning?

Col. 1:15, 16, RS: "He [Jesus Christ] is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation; for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth." In what sense is Jesus Christ "the first-born of all creation"? (1) Trinitarians say that "first-born" here means prime, most excellent, most distinguished; thus Christ would be understood to be, not part of creation, but the most distinguished in relation to those who were created. If that is so, and if the Trinity doctrine is true, why are the Father and the holy spirit not also said to be the firstborn of all creation? But the Bible applies this expression only to the Son. According to the customary meaning of "firstborn," it indicates that Jesus is the eldest in Jehovah’s family of sons. (2) Before Colossians 1:15, the expression "the firstborn of" occurs upwards of 30 times in the Bible, and in each instance that it is applied to living creatures the same meaning applies—the firstborn is part of the group. "The firstborn of Israel" is one of the sons of Israel; "the firstborn of Pharaoh" is one of Pharaoh’s family; "the firstborn of beast" are themselves animals. What, then, causes some to ascribe a different meaning to it at Colossians 1:15? Is it Bible usage or is it a belief to which they already hold and for which they seek proof? (3) Does Colossians 1:16, 17 (RS) exclude Jesus from having been created, when it says "in him all things were created . . . all things were created through him and for him"? The Greek word here rendered "all things" is pan´ta, an inflected form of pas. At Luke 13:2, RS renders this "all . . . other"; JB reads "any other"; NE says "anyone else." (See also Luke 21:29 in NE and Philippians 2:21 in JB.) In harmony with everything else that the Bible says regarding the Son, NW assigns the same meaning to pan´ta at Colossians 1:16, 17 so that it reads, in part, "by means of him all other things were created . . . All other things have been created through him and for him." Thus he is shown to be a created being, part of the creation produced by God.

Rev. 1:1; 3:14, RS: "The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him . . . ‘And to the angel of the church in La-odicea write: "The words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning [Greek, ar·khe´] of God’s creation."’" (KJ, Dy, CC, and NW, as well as others, read similarly.) Is that rendering correct? Some take the view that what is meant is that the Son was ‘the beginner of God’s creation,’ that he was its ‘ultimate source.’ But Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon lists "beginning" as its first meaning of ar·khe´. (Oxford, 1968, p. 252) The logical conclusion is that the one being quoted at Revelation 3:14 is a creation, the first of God’s creations, that he had a beginning. Compare Proverbs 8:22, where, as many Bible commentators agree, the Son is referred to as wisdom personified. According to RS, NE, and JB, the one there speaking is said to be "created.")so other bible translators agree with the NWT so maybe if people open their hearts they will see that the NWT is not so bad after all . but rather on the truth of Gods word. so i would rather not be misled to believe a manmade doctrine such as the trinity doctrine ,because it is not from the bible ,but it is part of the apostasy that was to come

The evidence is indisputable that the dogma of the Trinity is not found in the Bible, nor is it in harmony with what the Bible teaches. It grossly misrepresents the true God. Yet, Jesus Christ said: "The hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for such the Father seeks to worship him. God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth." (John 4:23, 24, RS) Thus Jesus made it clear that those whose worship is not ‘in truth,’ not in harmony with the truth set out in God’s own Word, are not "true worshipers." To Jewish religious leaders of the first century, Jesus said: "For the sake of your tradition, you have made void the word of God. You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said: ‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’" (Matt. 15:6-9, RS) That applies with equal force to those in Christendom today who advocate human traditions in preference to the clear truths of the Bible.

[Dor]

Originally Posted by mee

(If the Father and the Son were not distinct individuals, such a prayer would have been meaningless. Jesus would have been praying to himself, and his will would of necessity have been the Father’s will.)

The Father is not the same as the Son; the Son is not the same as the Holy Spirit; and the Holy Spirit is not the same as Father. They are not three gods and not three beings. They are three distinct persons; yet, they are all the one God. The Bible says that Jesus is God in flesh, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.....and the word became flesh and dwelt among us" (John 1:1, 14) and, "For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form" (Col. 2:9). Jesus, therefore, is both God and man. Jesus is completely human, but He also has a divine nature.

Jesus said the Father was greater than He not because Jesus is not God, but because Jesus was also a man and as a man he was in a lower position. He was ". . . made for a little while lower than the angels . . ." (Heb. 2:9). Also in Phil. 2:5-8, it says that Jesus "emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men . . ."
So, Jesus was not denying that He was God. He was simply acknowledging that He was also a man and as a man, he was subject to the laws of God so that He might redeem those who were under the law; namely, sinners (Gal. 4:4-5). As a man of course he would pray to the Father cause the human side was definately below God.

Jesus (God the son) has existed from eternity with God the Father, and God the Holy Spirit. John 1:1,14 says, "In the beginning was the Word (Jesus) and the Word was with God and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God...and the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory." Jesus made reference to his pre-earth existence, "Father, glorify Me with the glory I had with thee before the world was" (John 17:5). Right now Jesus is in heaven with the Father just as He was before creation. No scripture gives us a clearer picture of who Jesus is than Phi 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. 9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: 10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;

Even when Jesus walked the earth in a human body, He was fully divine, "For in Christ all the fullness of deity dwells in bodily form" (Col 2:9). God bore witness to the fact Jesus was divine by raising Him from the dead, "Jesus was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead" (Rom 1:4).

Originally Posted by mee

The evidence is indisputable that the dogma of the Trinity is not found in the Bible, nor is it in harmony with what the Bible teaches.

Actually it is pretty clear in my KJV.

[Faithfulservant]

Umm Im actually using the sources that you've been supplying.. So whats the correct source if not the sources you yourself are using??? How are they more biased when Im quoting them.. then when you are? Have you been reading anything Ive been posting?

Originally Posted by mee

The New Catholic Encyclopedia states: "The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective."—(1967), Vol. XIV, p. 299

Oh but please.. post the whole thing Wait.. allow me to. Please note the blue text in which the watchtower gets their quotes from and the red text is what the watchtower does not want people to read.

"Question of Continuity and Elemental Trinitarianism: From what has been seen thus far, the impression could arise that the Trinitarian dogma is in the last analysis a late 4th-century invention. In a sense, this is true; but it implies an extremely strict interpretation of the key words Trinitarian and dogma. Triadic Consciousness in the Primitive Revelation. The formulation "one God in three Persons" was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective; among the 2d-century Apologists, little more than a focusing of the problem as that of plurality within the unique Godhead. Not before Tertullian and Origen, early in the century following, had an attempt been made to solve the problem once raised by replying to the double question: in what sense is God one, in what sense three? And even then, results had been far from decisive. It is also true that, especially in the first decades of the 20th century, an excessively cautious Roman Catholic apologetics tended to whittle down these dividing lines by demonstrating another way of saying the same thing. "One God in three Persons" was simply a restatement, a legitimately condensed and compact version of the more loosely organized NT teaching. Key texts were cited in support, particularly the well-known mandate put on the lips of Christ in Mt 28.19-"baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." From the vocabulary and grammar of the Greek original, the intention of the hagiographer to communicate singleness of essence in three distinct Persons was easily derived. In the second half of the 20th century, with serious consequences for the ecumenical dialogue, two factors have combined to effect a significant change in attitude. First, NT exegesis is now accepted as having shown that not only the verbal idiom but even the patterns of thought characteristic of the patristic and conciliar development would have been quite foreign to the mind and culture of the NT writers. As Lonergan (De Deo trino 2:7--64) has interpreted the general transcultural phenomenon, but frequently appealing to the as a particular instance, the revealed truth, while remaining the same ultimate truth and mystery, had nevertheless undergone transformation, and this, not merely in verbal or literary expression, but in concept and understanding. Second, as already suggested, a far more candid principle of doctrinal development has been incorporated and is now operative in Roman Catholic historical and systematic theology (see DOCTRINE, DEVELOPMENT OF). Another way of saying the same thing, however, is not the only oversimplified interpretation possible in this matter. If it is clear on one side that the dogma of the Trinity in the stricter sense of the word was a late arrival, product of 3 centuries' reflection and debate, it is just as clear on the opposite side that confession of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit-and hence an elemental Trinitarianism-went back to the period of Christian origins. Contemporary studies on the ancient Christian creeds have done much to bring this out. In a famous monograph, Les Premieres confessions de foi chretiennes, 0. Cullmann argued his thesis of Christocentrism as against Trinitarianism in the NT revelation. Seven years later, in a study (Early Christian Creeds 25-29) destined to become equally well-known, J. N. D. Kelly, whose companion volume on the development of Christian doctrines has been used extensively in the preceding historical survey, contested this thesis. What is of interest at the moment, aside from the fact that neither of these theologians is a Roman Catholic, is that a strictly elemental Trinitarianism is not at issue in the controversy, but presupposed by both parties. Cullmann's point is not at all that there is no inclusion of Father and Spirit in the NT, nor even that a deliberately triadic ground plan is lacking in the quasi-creedal forms incorporated by the sacred writers at least into this literature's later compositions. True, he insists that these triadic formulas are liturgical, and not to be counted among confessions of faith in the stricter sense. But the distinction does not affect elemental Trinitarianism. For Cullmann would not dispute A. W. Wainwright's neat rejoinder (The Trinity in the New Testament, 246) to the effect that the same tripartite forms, even if not strictly confessional, nevertheless demonstrate the primitive community's belief in Father, Son, and Spirit. Cullmann's point is rather that both Father and Spirit are introduced in function, so to speak, of the Son. This is what is most ancient and most prevailing. When the Father is revealed, it is as the Father of His Christ. When the Spirit is revealed, it is as the Spirit of Christ. But the center, the NT center of gravity, is first, last, and always Christ. For Cullmann, then, triadic consciousness throughout the period of origins and as reflected in the entire NT literature is and remains, on closer view, Christological. Kelly, on the other hand, does not see the need for this qualification. Strictly triadic formulas and the triadic frame of mind so clearly mark at least later NT compositions, that the exegete and the historian must recognize a quasi-independent Trinitarianism coexisting with the purer and simpler forms of NT Christology. From the way Kelly speaks, one may see suggested that elemental Trinitarianism is actually more than that. At the level of a priori requirement, the continuity and apostolic authenticity of Trinitarian doctrine would rest securely on simple triadic consciousness. It would not matter, so to speak, if a formally Trinitarian problem arose only in the late 2d or early 3d century. Wainwright (3-14, 237-267), however, asks directly after the question of fact, and concludes that three of the sacred writers-Paul and the author of Hebrews, in part; John, fully-were aware of a Trinitarian problem and at least attempted, though without formalized statement, a Trinitarian solution. The exegetical question cannot be explored here, nor the effect of Ingo Hermann's recent revival (Kyrios und Pneuma) of the problem of spirit in Paul. Where the Johannine writings are concerned, however, Wainwright argues shrewdly that the attempt to express specifically and consistently the relationship of Christ and Spirit to the Godhead is not merely the raw material for a Trinitarian problem, but actual consciousness of such a problem together with a solution that merits to be called a Trinitarian doctrine. The insight, if valid, underscores the care that should be taken to avoid a too neat and simplified view of the continuity that exists between historical development and the primitive revelation. Wainwright does not suggest, however, that John had anticipated the later problem of plurality within unity: in what sense is God one, in what sense yet three? This problem, moreover, leading to the formulation of Trinitarian doctrine in the historically stricter sense, would have been posed by, not in, John's account of relationships. (New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1965, Trinity, p299-300)

Originally Posted by mee

In The Encyclopedia Americana we read: "Christianity derived from Judaism and Judaism was strictly Unitarian [believing that God is one person]. The road which led from Jerusalem to Nicea was scarcely a straight one. Fourth century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching."—(1956), Vol. XXVII, p. 294L.

You forgot to add this little tidbit as well


This quote from Encyclopedia Americana, 1956 Vol. XXVII, p. 294L., is deceptive because it projects the false impression that early Christian teaching" was not Trinitarian.

"For the early Christian belief that Jesus was divine, the Son of God, and that as the risen, glorified Messiah or Lord, He was now at the right hand of God: required the use of theistic language." (Encyclopedia Americana, Trinity, p116)

The correct way to quote this source would be to say that some of the details of Trinitarian theology that 4th century Christians taught, was not as refined as the Trinitarian theology taught in the Bible. However both taught trinity, the uncreated deity of Christ and the personality of the Holy Spirit. The current theocratic organization of Jehovah's Witnesses as taught in the 20th century was not present in the Bible either, since there was no organization larger than local independent and autonomous churches.

Originally Posted by mee

According to the Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel, "The Platonic trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave birth to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian churches. . . . This Greek philosopher’s [Plato, fourth century B.C.E.] conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all the ancient [pagan] religions."—(Paris, 1865-1870), edited by M. Lachâtre, Vol. 2, p. 1467

And..

"The Platonic trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave birth to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian churches. ... This Greek philosopher's conception of the divine trinity ... can be found in all the ancient [pagan] religions."(French Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel [New Universal Dictionary], Vol. 2, p. 1467, quoted in, Should you believe the Trinity?, Watchtower publication and copied from translation in August 1, 1984 "Watchtower", p. 21)



First, Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel differentiates between the "Platonic trinity" and the "Christian trinity".

The Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel doesn't say that the Christian trinity is borrowed from either the Platonic or pagan trinities. All the dictionary says it that Plato borrowed his trinity from the pagans. The dictionary suggests, but clearly indicates it is not sure, ("appears to be" is not certain) that there is a connection between the Christian trinity and the "Platonic trinity". In other words, the dictionary is guessing

First the quote does not say that the church got the "rational for trinity" from Plato, but the "rational of the 4th century hypostases" The watchtower slides this one by in a typical slight of hand, knowing that almost no Jehovah's Witnesses will have any idea what the difference is between the "4th century three hypostases" and "Biblical/elemental trinity." (deity of Christ and personality of the Holy Spirit)

The Watchtower implies a conclusion that is not warranted. The quote STATES WITH SURETY that that one pagan (Plato) borrowed his trinity from another pagan! Then the quote GUESSES and SUGGESTS that the similarities of Christianity were borrowed from Plato.

The Watchtower deceives the reading into thinking that the Platonic trinity, pagan trinities and the Christian trinity are all the same thing. In fact there is very little parallel except for the number three!

Even worse, the same source would GUESS and SUGGEST many elements of core Watchtower doctrine were "borrowed" from Plato!

The Watchtower is creating a false dilemma in the mind of the reader by implying that the existence of similarities in pagan religions automatically means that Christians borrowed that similarity from the pagans. In utter deception, Jehovah's Witnesses know there are many similarities in Pagan religions that, using the same bad logic, could prove that the Watchtower borrowed the doctrines of the virgin birth, incarnation, blood atonement, the ascension, even the name Mary for the mother of Jesus, from the Pagans.

More to come..