Bible writers teach monotheism and identify the Father as the one God

[Dan_Parker]

“Every single doctrine we teach was taught by Bible writers in context, in at least its basic form.” - Dan

REALLY?

" ’ Let all the angels of God worship him’ [that must include Michael, the chief angel, hence Michael is not the Son of God]. " WATCHTOWER 11/1879, p. 48

“to worship Christ in any form cannot be wrong.” WATCHTOWER 3/1880. p.83

“And although we are nowhere instructed to make petitions to him, it evidently could not be improper to do so; for such a course is nowhere prohibited, and the disciples worshipped him.” WATCHTOWER 5/15/1892, p. 1410

“Yes, we believe our Lord Jesus while on earth was really worshipped, and properly so. While he was not the God, Jehovah, he was a god.” WATCHTOWER 7/15/1898 p. 2337

“All creatures in heaven and earth shall worship Jesus as he worships the Father.” WATCHTOWER 8/15/1941 p. 252

title of subsection: “Christ to Be Worshipped” MAKE SURE '53. P.85

Now for the change in beliefs.

“No distinct worship is to be rendered to Jesus Christ, now glorified in heaven.” - WATCHTOWER 1/1/1954, p.31

“Do not erroneously conclude that Christians are to worship Christ. That is not what the Bible taught.” WATCHTOWER 7/15/1959, p.421

“. . . it is unscriptural for worshippers of the living and true God to render worship to the Son of God, Jesus Christ.” WATCHTOWER 11/1/1964 p.671

So what’s on the JW menu today, Dan, to worship or not to worship? Whatever answer you have for us, please cite the biblical chapter and verse and the JW commentator giving us his/her oral tradition on the matter and settle this question once and for all.

Dan:
You are objecting to our interpretation of who Michael and Christ are, but it is indisputable that they are literal characters in the bible. That being said, this is not something we dogmatically teach. It is a minor detail. It is a stretch to consider it a doctrine at all.

Also, none of those arguments are based on merely tradition. They are based on honest interpretations (or misinterpretations) of the teachings of bible writers.

As for the early 1879-1880 articles, they were not authored by Russell, but by someone who later parted company with him. There were a few other things in the early days like that. Some things are open to interpretation, but remember the context of this challenge. You asked about tradition.

I just checked my copy of the reprints and verified the initials J.H.P. – Patton and Russell parted ways for the following reasons:
*** jv chap. 28 p. 620 Testing and Sifting From Within ***
Two years later, Paton, who was then serving as a traveling representative of the Watch Tower, also began to turn away, thereafter publishing a book (his second one entitled Day Dawn) in which he rejected belief in Adam’s fall into sin and consequently the need for a redeemer. He reasoned that the Lord himself was an imperfect man who by his life simply showed others how to crucify their sinful propensities.

We don’t represent the WT to be free from error or claim inspiration. We seek to learn and advance our knowledge of the bible through study. That means that from time to time we need to make adjustments in our understanding.

 

[LionHeart777]

Dan,

Is the NT Canon a “doctrinal issue”?
Reply With Quote

Dan, sorry for being “smart.”

I think maybe I didn’t make myself clear…my point was that you do indeed rely on sources outside of the Bible…you must in order to have the 27 NT books.

note: this is a similar argument used before me by Madrid, whom I cite as a source–

“During the cross-examination he asked me to furnish an example of infallible, binding, divine revelation outside of Scripture. I picked up my Bible and dropped it on the table between us. ‘Here it is, Mr. White–the canon of the New Testament.’ I reminded him that there is no inspired table of contents in Scripture to tell us which books belong to the Bible and which don’t. That information comes to us from outside Scripture.”(catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9310fea2.asp) (accessed 9/ 10/ 09)

 

[Tomster]

Dan:
You are objecting to our interpretation of who Michael and Christ are, but it is indisputable that they are literal characters in the bible. That being said, this is not something we dogmatically teach. It is a minor detail. It is a stretch to consider it a doctrine at all.

Also, none of those arguments are based on merely tradition. They are based on honest interpretations (or misinterpretations) of the teachings of bible writers.

As for the early 1879-1880 articles, they were not authored by Russell, but by someone who later parted company with him. There were a few other things in the early days like that. Some things are open to interpretation, but remember the context of this challenge. You asked about tradition.

I just checked my copy of the reprints and verified the initials J.H.P. – Patton and Russell parted ways for the following reasons:
*** jv chap. 28 p. 620 Testing and Sifting From Within ***
Two years later, Paton, who was then serving as a traveling representative of the Watch Tower, also began to turn away, thereafter publishing a book (his second one entitled Day Dawn) in which he rejected belief in Adam’s fall into sin and consequently the need for a redeemer. He reasoned that the Lord himself was an imperfect man who by his life simply showed others how to crucify their sinful propensities.

We don’t represent the WT to be free from error or claim inspiration. We seek to learn and advance our knowledge of the bible through study. That means that from time to time we need to make adjustments in our understanding.

Dan,

Well then, if JW’s are not sure about these things allow me to help you out.

Let’s consider, first of all, passages from the Gospels. In the gospels all three divine persons are mentioned in an emphatic way on four momentious occasions.

At the Annunciation the angel Gabriel declared unto Mary, “The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee, and therefore also the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.” (Luke 1:35) Here, clearly, we have an unmistakable distinction of subsisting individuals. That the “Most High” refers to God the Father is obvious from a comparison with verse 32, where we read of the Son, “He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Most High.” Now the Father is necessarily distinct from His own Son, and from the Holy Spirit, who is carrying out the work of the Most High. So, too, the Son and the Holt Spirit are really distinct from each other, since, as can be shown, the latter proceeds from the former.

Furthermore, each of the three Person, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, subsists in a rational nature, namely, the divine nature itself. That this divine nature is common to all three Persons is seen from a cursory consideration of the text. The divinity of the Father, “the Most High”, is beyond question: as to the second Person of the Trinity, the term “Son of God” is here used in its strictly literal sense to express true, real, sonship in such a way that the Son is of the same divine nature as the Father: the divinity of the Holy Spirit is revealed both in the miraculous work which he performs, and in the fact that he is described as "the power of the “Most High,” in the same manner that Christ is said to be “the Son of the Most High.”

In this text, then, we have set before us both the reality of distinction between three subsisting individuals, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and also their real community in the divine nature. In other words, we see that there are three Divine Persons.

cont.

 

[Tomster]

Dan,

Again we have a striking manifestation of the Trinity of divine Persons at the baptism of Christ in the Jordon by John the Baptist, as recorded in St. Matthew’s Gospel, where it is written: “And Jesus being baptised, forthwith came out of the water: and lo, the heavens were opened to him: and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and coming upon him. And behold a voice from heaven saying: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” (Luke 3:16-17). We have here an external manifestation of the three persons as distinct. The Father speaks from the heavens, the Son rises up out of the water, and the Holy Spirit appears in the form of a dove. Here, at least, it would seem , that all possibility of “confounding the persons” is precluded.

In this solemn incident at the beginning of our Blessed Lord’s public minstry we have more than a hint or inkling as to the community of the divine nature in all three persons. We cannot reasonably doubt that the “Spirit of God” is consubstantial with the Father, “the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal.” As to the divinity of the Son who, it has been objected, in this incident occupies a subordinate role, especially in that he has been baptised by John, it has been pointed out by many Scripture commentators that the full force of the words spoken from heaven is somewhat weakened in our English ttranslations, which ignore the significance of the definite article before the word Son, in the Greek original. What the voice proclaimed was: “This is “the” Son “par excellence”, mine, the beloved, in whom I am well pleased”; in other words, we have here a proclamation of the divinity of the Son, of his consubstantiality with the Father.

cont.

 

[Tomster]

Dan,

When our Blessed Saviour was taking leave of his disciples after the Last Supper, he said to them: "I will ask the Father and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you forever, the Spirit of truth whom the worls cannot receive . . . " (John 14:16). In this passage the real distinction of Persons is evident. No person asks himself for anything, nor does a person ever send himself on a mission. The language used by Christ on this august occasion is at once unintelligible and unjustifiable unless the thre divine Persons are really distinct. Our Blessed Saviour asks for “another” Paraclete. The word Paraclete means literally “one who is called in beside” to assist in some way. It has been variously translated as counsellor, consoler, comforter, advocate, guide, friend; but the word is so rich in meaning that it would need a sentence at least to plumb its depths. Christ himself gives us the key to its expansive meaning when he speaks of “another” Paraclete. He himself had been a Paraclete to the disciples. He is about to leave them. He asks the Father to send someone to take his place, to discharge his divine office, to be another Paraclete. If the divinity of Christ is once admitted, it is impossible to deny the divinity of the Spirit of Truth who was to be another Paraclete.

cont.

 

[Tomster]

Dan,

Both the distinction of persons and the unity of the divine nature are emphasised in the well known passage of St. Matthew’s Gospel in which Christ’s fianl commission to his Apostles is recorded: “Going, therefore, teach ye all nations; baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” (Matthew 28:19).

The three distinct names, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, in accordance with common usage, indicate three distinct persons, that is, three subsisting beings of a rational nature each complete in its own individuality in such a way as to preclude the possibility of any identification or confusion of one with another. The distinction of persons is stressed in the Greek by the presence of the definite article before each name, “the” Father, “the” Son, “the” Holy Spirit; it would be contrary to Greek usage thus to repeat the definite article before mere attributes of one and the same subject,.

The divinity of each of the three Persons is equally clear. For he in whose name baptism unto the remission of sins is administered must needs be God, and this baptism is to be administered in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. The Vulgate reading in nomine, which we translate “in the name of,” indicates the one by whose power or authority the sacrament is administered; while a literal rendering of the Greek words would be “unto the name of,” indicating rather, the one to whose honor and worship the recipient of the sacrament is consecrated. In either case divinity is clearly implied, divinity undivided, and possesed equally by all three Persons. This interpretation is confirmed by a comparison of the text before us with 1 Corinthians 1:13 where St. Paul indignantly asks the Corinthians, “were you baptised in the name of Paul?” Here both the Latin and the Greek expressions for “in the name of” are the same as in St. Matthew’s text, and St. Paul’s meaning is abundantly clear, namely, “Is St. Paul the author of your baptism?” It is as though he said to them, “Why extol me, or Peter, or Apollo, or any mere mortal as the source of grace?” In other words, “Is Paul God?”

Lest we lose ourselves in the maze of material at our disposal, I decided to set forth the chief texts which treat of all three Persons of the Trinity taken together.

If you wish, we can consider the more important texts concerning the different Persons of the Trinity taken separately.

I sincerely hope this presentation has helped you. :compcoff:

 

[Dan_Parker]

Dan,

Well then, if JW’s are not sure about these things allow me to help you out.

Let’s consider, first of all, passages from the Gospels. In the gospels all three divine persons are mentioned in an emphatic way on four momentious occasions.

At the Annunciation the angel Gabriel declared unto Mary, “The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee, and therefore also the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.” (Luke 1:35) Here, clearly, we have an unmistakable distinction of subsisting individuals. That the “Most High” refers to God the Father is obvious from a comparison with verse 32, where we read of the Son, “He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Most High.” Now the Father is necessarily distinct from His own Son, and from the Holy Spirit, who is carrying out the work of the Most High. So, too, the Son and the Holt Spirit are really distinct from each other, since, as can be shown, the latter proceeds from the former.

Furthermore, each of the three Person, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, subsists in a rational nature, namely, the divine nature itself. That this divine nature is common to all three Persons is seen from a cursory consideration of the text. The divinity of the Father, “the Most High”, is beyond question: as to the second Person of the Trinity, the term “Son of God” is here used in its strictly literal sense to express true, real, sonship in such a way that the Son is of the same divine nature as the Father: the divinity of the Holy Spirit is revealed both in the miraculous work which he performs, and in the fact that he is described as "the power of the “Most High,” in the same manner that Christ is said to be “the Son of the Most High.”

In this text, then, we have set before us both the reality of distinction between three subsisting individuals, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and also their real community in the divine nature. In other words, we see that there are three Divine Persons.

cont.

Jehovah’s Witnesses teach that the Father does all things through the Son by means of the holy spirit. We don’ teach, as does no bible writer, that the Father and Son are the same being.

 

[Tomster]

Jehovah’s Witnesses teach that the Father does all things through the Son by means of the holy spirit. We don’ teach, as does no bible writer, that the Father and Son are the same being.

Dan,

Take your time and read over the information I gave you. It’s all in the Bible as my outline to you shows.

 

[twb1621]

…

Please allow Scripture to answer your question. Both the NAB and DR are free of error, correct?

The word of God is free of error. That doesn’t mean by the time a book gets to print there won’t be minor variations between publishers, however, as I told you previously, there is more to interpreting Biblical text than self-interpretation. What must also take into account is the latest bible prints have attempted to more closely word verse to the language forms of specific geographic regions based on where they will be commonly used.

Now, note the cross-reference for this verse provided in the NAB;

NAB Cross reference to Psalm 8 v6
Hebrews CH2: 9 but we do see Jesus “crowned with glory and honor” because he suffered death, he who “for a little while” was made “lower than the angels,” that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone. 10 For it was fitting that he, for whom and through whom all things exist, in bringing many children to glory, should make the leader to their salvation perfect through suffering.

Notice that the prophecy speaks of Jesus as being made less than “a god” and that the DR says thee are angels.

NAB Psalm 8:6 Yet you have made them little less than** a god**, crowned them with glory and honor.
DRA Psalm 8:6 Thou hast made him a little less than the angels, thou hast crowned him with glory and honour:
Again, when minor translation issues disturb you, refer to and cross reference the source books you dislike so much.
Latin Vulgate Psalm 6 minuisti (masculine gender, singular) eum paulo minus ab angelis gloria et honore coronasti eum 7 et constituisti eum super opera manuum tuarum

Latin Vulgate Psalm 6 Thou hast made him a little less than the angels, thou hast crowned him with glory and honour:

Latin Vulgate Psalms 8, v5 What is man that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man that thou visitest him? 6 Thou hast made him a little less than the angels, thou hast crowned him with glory and honour: 7 And hast set him over the works of thy hands. 8 Thou hast subjected all things under his feet, all sheep and oxen: moreover the beasts also of the fields. 9 The birds of the air, and the fishes of the sea, that pass through the paths of the sea. 10 O Lord our Lord, how admirable is thy name in all the earth!

Verified; NETS Septuagint
Psalms 6 (5) you diminished Him a little in comparison to angels.

continued…

 

[twb1621]

continued from previous post

The NJB says there is a divine assembly which includes gods:
NJB Psalm 82:1 Psalm Of Asaph God takes his stand in the divine assembly, surrounded by the gods he gives judgement.
NJB [Psalm Of Asaph] God takes his stand in the divine assembly, surrounded by the gods he gives judgment. 2. 'How much longer will you give unjust judgments and uphold the prestige of the wicked?
Psalm 82:1The Psalmists are singing praise for His defense proclaiming their God above the gods of the pagans. An interlude of stringed instruments follows after the 2nd verse.
However this is not polytheism. Men and angels can be called gods because they either have a divine origin or because they are divine representatives or both.
NJB Deuteronomy 10:17 for Yahweh your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, triumphant and terrible, free of favouritism, never to be bribed.
You really need to start cross referencing as scripture relates to scripture in interpretation.
[16] Circumcise your hearts: cf ⇒ Deut 30:6; ⇒ Jeremiah 4:4; ⇒ Romans 2:29. The “uncircumcised heart” (⇒ Lev 26:41; ⇒ Jeremiah 9:25; ⇒ Ezekiel 44:7, 9) is closed and unreceptive to divine grace and guidance, just as “uncircumcised ears” (⇒ Jeremiah 6:10) are closed to sound, and “uncircumcised lips” (⇒ Exodus 6:12, ⇒ 30) do not open well in speech.

How does one make sure they are not Polytheists? By making sure that they only and acknowledge and worship the one who is called not only elohim or QEOS, but the one who is identified as the one-God or only-God, the God and Father of Jesus Christ. See my post on Monotheism for Scriptural examples.

Better yet, perhaps you can explain the gospel asserting no one is to attempt interpreting the bible on their own but rather follow the teachings of the apostles. Or what the gospel refers to in the scriptural support for the Trinity. Please also explain the Pharisee and the tax collector to me. Or what self-righteousness means in this parable. Then we can go on from there with several other verses I wish to reference with you.

 

[Dan_Parker]

Dan,

Take your time and read over the information I gave you. It’s all in the Bible as my outline to you shows.

Thanks for the information. You did a good job explaining your position but did not include enough details. For example, you appear to assume that the three are one being because they are involved in the same activity.

As for the holy spirit being a person, there was not a consensus handed down from the apostles to the effect that it was a person, and this can be seen from their discussions. For example In 380 the church Father Gregory Nazianzus wrote about the different views of the Spirit:

"But of the wise men amongst ourselves, some have conceived of him as an Activity, some as a Creature, some as God; and some have been uncertain which to call Him. " (Orat 31,5; PG 36 137C)

This is just one example. How do you interpret Gregory here?

 

[Dan_Parker]

continued from previous post

The NJB says there is a divine assembly which includes gods:
NJB Psalm 82:1 Psalm Of Asaph God takes his stand in the divine assembly, surrounded by the gods he gives judgement.
NJB [Psalm Of Asaph] God takes his stand in the divine assembly, surrounded by the gods he gives judgment. 2. 'How much longer will you give unjust judgments and uphold the prestige of the wicked?
Psalm 82:1The Psalmists are singing praise for His defense proclaiming their God above the gods of the pagans. An interlude of stringed instruments follows after the 2nd verse.
However this is not polytheism. Men and angels can be called gods because they either have a divine origin or because they are divine representatives or both.
NJB Deuteronomy 10:17 for Yahweh your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, triumphant and terrible, free of favouritism, never to be bribed.
You really need to start cross referencing as scripture relates to scripture in interpretation.
[16] Circumcise your hearts: cf ⇒ Deut 30:6; ⇒ Jeremiah 4:4; ⇒ Romans 2:29. The “uncircumcised heart” (⇒ Lev 26:41; ⇒ Jeremiah 9:25; ⇒ Ezekiel 44:7, 9) is closed and unreceptive to divine grace and guidance, just as “uncircumcised ears” (⇒ Jeremiah 6:10) are closed to sound, and “uncircumcised lips” (⇒ Exodus 6:12, ⇒ 30) do not open well in speech.

How does one make sure they are not Polytheists? By making sure that they only and acknowledge and worship the one who is called not only elohim or QEOS, but the one who is identified as the one-God or only-God, the God and Father of Jesus Christ. See my post on Monotheism for Scriptural examples.

Better yet, perhaps you can explain the gospel asserting no one is to attempt interpreting the bible on their own but rather follow the teachings of the apostles. Or what the gospel refers to in the scriptural support for the Trinity. Please also explain the Pharisee and the tax collector to me. Or what self-righteousness means in this parable. Then we can go on from there with several other verses I wish to reference with you.

You (well someone did, anyway) asked me how many divine beings there were. I showed that when comparing various texts, that an angel is called a god. Therefore angels are to be considered divine beings. Do you agree? If not, why not?

 

[Dan_Parker]

Dan, sorry for being “smart.”

I think maybe I didn’t make myself clear…my point was that you do indeed rely on sources outside of the Bible…you must in order to have the 27 NT books.

note: this is a similar argument used before me by Madrid, whom I cite as a source–

“During the cross-examination he asked me to furnish an example of infallible, binding, divine revelation outside of Scripture. I picked up my Bible and dropped it on the table between us. ‘Here it is, Mr. White–the canon of the New Testament.’ I reminded him that there is no inspired table of contents in Scripture to tell us which books belong to the Bible and which don’t. That information comes to us from outside Scripture.”(catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9310fea2.asp) (accessed 9/ 10/ 09)

I don’t believe I claimed that the the proof of what books make up the canon all all internal proofs. I said that God made sure only his inspired books were in the canon that both Protestants and Catholics consider inspired.

 

[Dan_Parker]

Dan,

Both the distinction of persons and the unity of the divine nature are emphasised in the well known passage of St. Matthew’s Gospel in which Christ’s fianl commission to his Apostles is recorded: “Going, therefore, teach ye all nations; baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” (Matthew 28:19).

The three distinct names, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, in accordance with common usage, indicate three distinct persons, that is, three subsisting beings of a rational nature each complete in its own individuality in such a way as to preclude the possibility of any identification or confusion of one with another. The distinction of persons is stressed in the Greek by the presence of the definite article before each name, “the” Father, “the” Son, “the” Holy Spirit; it would be contrary to Greek usage thus to repeat the definite article before mere attributes of one and the same subject,.

The divinity of each of the three Persons is equally clear. For he in whose name baptism unto the remission of sins is administered must needs be God, and this baptism is to be administered in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. The Vulgate reading in nomine, which we translate “in the name of,” indicates the one by whose power or authority the sacrament is administered; while a literal rendering of the Greek words would be “unto the name of,” indicating rather, the one to whose honor and worship the recipient of the sacrament is consecrated. In either case divinity is clearly implied, divinity undivided, and possesed equally by all three Persons. This interpretation is confirmed by a comparison of the text before us with 1 Corinthians 1:13 where St. Paul indignantly asks the Corinthians, “were you baptised in the name of Paul?” Here both the Latin and the Greek expressions for “in the name of” are the same as in St. Matthew’s text, and St. Paul’s meaning is abundantly clear, namely, “Is St. Paul the author of your baptism?” It is as though he said to them, “Why extol me, or Peter, or Apollo, or any mere mortal as the source of grace?” In other words, “Is Paul God?”

Lest we lose ourselves in the maze of material at our disposal, I decided to set forth the chief texts which treat of all three Persons of the Trinity taken together.

If you wish, we can consider the more important texts concerning the different Persons of the Trinity taken separately.

I sincerely hope this presentation has helped you. :compcoff:

Thank you for the presentation. It was very well presented. As I posted on the other part of your presentation Jehovah’s Witnesses agree that the Father does all things through the Son by means of the holy spirit. However it is only by combining the biblical texts with Pagan Religion that one can arrive at the Trinity for those accounts. I have posted a new thread on two of your Fathers who make this connection.

 

[Tomster]

Thanks for the information. You did a good job explaining your position but did not include enough details. For example, you appear to assume that the three are one being because they are involved in the same activity.

As for the holy spirit being a person, there was not a consensus handed down from the apostles to the effect that it was a person, and this can be seen from their discussions. For example In 380 the church Father Gregory Nazianzus wrote about the different views of the Spirit:

"But of the wise men amongst ourselves, some have conceived of him as an Activity, some as a Creature, some as God; and some have been uncertain which to call Him. " (Orat 31,5; PG 36 137C)

This is just one example. How do you interpret Gregory here?

Dan, it all has to do with their nature. Re-read post # 162, paragraph # 4. More tomorrow.

 

[Dan_Parker]

Dan, it all has to do with their nature. Re-read post # 162, paragraph # 4. More tomorrow.

Here is paragraph #4:
Furthermore, each of the three Person, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, subsists in a rational nature, namely, the divine nature itself. That this divine nature is common to all three Persons is seen from a cursory consideration of the text. The divinity of the Father, “the Most High”, is beyond question: as to the second Person of the Trinity, the term “Son of God” is here used in its strictly literal sense to express true, real, sonship in such a way that the Son is of the same divine nature as the Father: the divinity of the Holy Spirit is revealed both in the miraculous work which he performs, and in the fact that he is described as "the power of the “Most High,” in the same manner that Christ is said to be “the Son of the Most High.”

You are assuming what you seek to prove! But that begs the question as to why
Father Gregory Nazianzus would say that of the group of wise men that included him (although he argues against their view) that some of them believe the following:

"But of the wise men amongst ourselves, some have conceived of him as an Activity, some as a Creature, some as God; and some have been uncertain which to call Him. " (Orat 31,5; PG 36 137C)

Four views in the Church at that time?

1. An Activity
2. A Creature
3. God
4. Not sure.

And these ones had the teaching of the apostles handed down to them in an unbroken fashion?

 

[Regardless]

This has been a fascinating thread to read Dan. A bit over my head in parts.

It is faith strengthening to see how quickly all the Trinity “proof texts” can be dismissed by someone who knows how Greek works, knows history, has researched them or simply compared them in various translations.

I am a witness in NZ.
I love the logic and evidence backing up the truth. Alas, I am still very novice on Koine Greek and detailed history of Christendom. I could explain John 1:1 or give a brief summary of the philosophies and councils that led up to the trinity, but that is about my limit.
Everyday Bible reading constantly contradicts the trinity.
Otherwise one would have to firmly believe the Trinity and then start reading the Bible with that “fact” firmly in mind.

Where have you got all your info from? You know a lot of detail on this subject the WT doesn’t bog us down with. Have you studied Greek and history professionally? Or is all your knowledge on this subject from private research?

If you can recommend a good article or book for a relative beginner I would be interested. Societys publications or other.

Your brother, Regardless.

 

[Dan_Parker]

This has been a fascinating thread to read Dan. A bit over my head in parts.

It is faith strengthening to see how quickly all the Trinity “proof texts” can be dismissed by someone who knows how Greek works, knows history, has researched them or simply compared them in various translations.

I am a witness in NZ.
I love the logic and evidence backing up the truth. Alas, I am still very novice on Koine Greek and detailed history of Christendom. I could explain John 1:1 or give a brief summary of the philosophies and councils that led up to the trinity, but that is about my limit.
Everyday Bible reading constantly contradicts the trinity.
Otherwise one would have to firmly believe the Trinity and then start reading the Bible with that “fact” firmly in mind.

Where have you got all your info from? You know a lot of detail on this subject the WT doesn’t bog us down with. Have you studied Greek and history professionally? Or is all your knowledge on this subject from private research?

If you can recommend a good article or book for a relative beginner I would be interested. Societys publications or other.

Your brother, Regardless.

I sent you an email through this forum. If you don’t get it, please feel free to email me at stoixein@yahoo.com

 

[Regardless]

I sent you an email through this forum.

Excellent. I’ll talk to you that way.

Regardless

 

[twb1621]

You (well someone did, anyway) asked me how many divine beings there were. I showed that when comparing various texts, that an angel is called a god. Therefore angels are to be considered divine beings. Do you agree? If not, why not?

Divinity is reflective of its subject. An angel is divine as compared to man. Divine essence in relation to God is of itself and incomparible. But divinity refers to different attributes based on what it is related to as it is a discription man assigns to distinguish qualities or attributes of the subject.