Scripture and mention of the Trinity?

[AmbroseSJ]

It, like the Pericope Adulterae, is a late addition to the Bible, from around the 8th century or 9th century AD, not an original.

Whoa, not so fast! The Comma Johanneum is indeed disputed, and is not found in the NAB or Nova Vulgata. However, the Pericope is definitely included in both the NAB and Nova Vulgata (the official Bible of the Latin Church.) The objections to the Pericope are trivial at best, and not persuasive to most authorities (like the Catholic Church.) Beside, it isn’t relative to this discussion.

I quoted the Comma because the OP wanted Scripture mentions of the Trinity. The Comma is found in both the KJV and D/R versions of the Bible. Therefore, if the JWs wanted to start arguing about what should and should not be in the Bible, so be it! Their Bible is full of alterations and errors.

Furthermore, the Comma can be traced back much further than the 8th c. That is when it was first seen in the Vulgate, but the Latina Veteris had it back in the 4th & 5th c. that we know of, maybe even older.

Ronald Knox has a very good commentary on the Comma. His thinking is that St. John was indeed writing of the Trinity, but that it was expressed in an unusual way (The blood, the water and the Spirit.) It is an almost unintelligible verse in the current rendering. Knox thought that there was some copyist gloss that ultimately found its way into the verse, but not in a spurious way, but as a clarification. But however that may be, the Church has seen fit to remove it again in her current versions.

 

[LayingHands]

Sources? I’m a student of ecclesiatical history, and beyond some name-dropping, that post is loaded with factual errors.

Actually, I have given you everything you need to do your own research…start with Montanist, Tertullian, Montanus, Arian Baptismal Rites, Bishop Arius and the Arian Controversy…

 

[Khalid]

I know from past research, as I’ve learned (and, in the past, believed in) just about every heresy that was preached up until the seventh ecumenical council before I became an orthodox Christian, before I knew there was an actual “orthodoxy” compared to “heresy” (as I have heard my entire life, in Islam and in America, that “heresy came before orthodoxy” and that “primitive Christianity” was “very diverse”, such as that preached by Elaine Pagels, Bart Ehrman, Ahmed Deedat, John Crossan, etc.).

Starting with, as I lost my original faith, pantheism of a sort, after the fashion of Spinoza, then Deism of a sort, after the fashion of Newton (to which I returned, generally in the form of a kind of Deist Arianism, Adoptionism, or Sabellianism, generally the latter, with the Moral Influence Theory of atonement, several times on my journey). Arianism and Sabellianism have a very logical method to them, and are appealing to a rationalist mind like my own, especially when much of the liberal history would claim that Arianism was a majority religion in “early Christianity”, because they Jews never would have worshiped Jesus (not to mention the NT documents or Pliny’s epistle to Trajan), that the NT is completely unreliable and late and compiled by the “proto-orthodox” who “won” some sort of war of ideas in the 4th-5th centuries, and the Jesus Seminar, which would say that not one instance of Jesus’ claim to divinity in the NT is an original “Jesus tradition”. Adoptionism, similarly.

Docetism and Iconoclasm made Christianity seem less alien to my sensibilities, since it is claimed in the Koran that Jesus was not crucified, but Judas in his place, made to appear as Jesus, and, as everyone knows, Islamic art is the most aniconic in the world. When I came closer to orthodoxy, the Hypostatic Union, like the Trinity, seemed to me to be illogical, overly-complicated and confusing; so I bounced from monophysitism to Nestorianism (I’m surprised I didn’t make a stop at Eutychianism, but it was no more logical to my mind than the orthodox doctrine; add adoptionism in here too, if you wish, as an additional Christological heresy) before coming to the orthodox doctrine. Pseudo-Gnosticism (in all Docetic, Adoptionist, and completely Esoteric forms) seemed strong and reasonable, due to its intimate relation with the gods of the Philosophers, Platonism, Plotinism, Neo-Platonism, etc.; I even flirted with Mormonism for a bit, but try as I might, I couldn’t make myself believe their doctrines, no matter what their other-worldly promises, and eventually realized that the call of Mormonism was the call of the Serpent: to eat of this fruit, and become as Elohim is.

Note, as I was learning the history, creeds and heresies of Christianity, I went through all of those within likely a six-week period. If I have one strength, it is that of Anthony Flew: “to follow where the argument does lead”.

 

[LayingHands]

I know from past research, as I’ve learned (and, in the past, believed in) just about every heresy that was preached up until the seventh ecumenical council before I became an orthodox Christian, before I knew there was an actual “orthodoxy” compared to “heresy” (as I have heard my entire life, in Islam and in America, that “heresy came before orthodoxy” and that “primitive Christianity” was “very diverse”, such as that preached by Elaine Pagels, Bart Ehrman, Ahmed Deedat, John Crossan, etc.).

Starting with, as I lost my original faith, pantheism of a sort, after the fashion of Spinoza, then Deism of a sort, after the fashion of Newton (to which I returned, generally in the form of a kind of Deist Arianism, Adoptionism, or Sabellianism, generally the latter, with the Moral Influence Theory of atonement, several times on my journey). Arianism and Sabellianism have a very logical method to them, and are appealing to a rationalist mind like my own, especially when much of the liberal history would claim that Arianism was a majority religion in “early Christianity”, because they Jews never would have worshiped Jesus (not to mention the NT documents or Pliny’s epistle to Trajan), that the NT is completely unreliable and late and compiled by the “proto-orthodox” who “won” some sort of war of ideas in the 4th-5th centuries, and the Jesus Seminar, which would say that not one instance of Jesus’ claim to divinity in the NT is an original “Jesus tradition”. Adoptionism, similarly.

Docetism and Iconoclasm made Christianity seem less alien to my sensibilities, since it is claimed in the Koran that Jesus was not crucified, but Judas in his place, made to appear as Jesus, and, as everyone knows, Islamic art is the most aniconic in the world. When I came closer to orthodoxy, the Hypostatic Union, like the Trinity, seemed to me to be illogical, overly-complicated and confusing; so I bounced from monophysitism to Nestorianism (I’m surprised I didn’t make a stop at Eutychianism, but it was no more logical to my mind than the orthodox doctrine; add adoptionism in here too, if you wish, as an additional Christological heresy) before coming to the orthodox doctrine. Pseudo-Gnosticism (in all Docetic, Adoptionist, and completely Esoteric forms) seemed strong and reasonable, due to its intimate relation with the gods of the Philosophers, Platonism, Plotinism, Neo-Platonism, etc.; I even flirted with Mormonism for a bit, but try as I might, I couldn’t make myself believe their doctrines, no matter what their other-worldly promises, and eventually realized that the call of Mormonism was the call of the Serpent: to eat of this fruit, and become as Elohim is.

Note, as I was learning the history, creeds and heresies of Christianity, I went through all of those within likely a six-week period. If I have one strength, it is that of Anthony Flew: “to follow where the argument does lead”.

Here is your homework for Christian History of the late 1st Century, early 2nd Century, Tertullian and the RCC…study Tertullian’s “De Carne Christi”, “De Resurrectiona Carnis” (this one has the creeds and clarification for his argument about the Trinitarian 3 heads and 1 substance (Montanist), for his created latin term, of the “Trinity”, and finally read his last work, “Adversus Praxlam”. As a Montanist, Tertullian believed some of their beliefs, but, reviled others, like woman ordination within the RCC…

 

[Regardless]

I am sorry guys - but you are kinda wasting your time.

You know any JW who ever passed his baptism questions can show you dozens of scriptures where Jesus and his apostles talked of him as separate or subject to his father. All totally contradicting the trinity.

The best you can muster is a handful that only mention two people (I counted 6 worth mentioning in all the posts so far) or texts that are widely disputed as poor translation or probably added later to try and support the Trinity.

The best were John 10:30 (which would be explained simply by comparing John 17:21,22)
and
John 1:1 (which contradicts itself unless you acknowledge that two different words were used for God in greek here)

Do you seriously think any literate Jehovah’s Witness will be convinced the trinity is in the Bible by that? Your two best scriptures don’t even mention three people!

Even your own encyclopedia admits the belief didn’t develop until centuries after the apostles were gone.

 

[Khalid]

John 1:1 doesn’t use two different words for God. It uses two declensions of the same noun: we have no equivalent in English, but the Romance languages are scattered with them. It’s kind of like adding an s to the end of a word to indicate plural in English, or apostrophe-s to indicate possession. John 1:1 in the Greek literally says, “what God was Word was”, or, better, “everything that God was, the Word was”, or “what God was, the Word was”. JWs make a big bally-hoo about the fact that there’s no definite article before the last mention of God (so it just says “God” instead of “the God”), but, just like in modern English, John didn’t have to say “the” every time he said “God” to make it clear he was talking about the One God in Three Hypostases. He was writing for Jews, not Pagans, and didn’t put the indefinite article there, or pluralize it. He wasn’t speaking of “a god”, or “gods”.

Jesus preached to the “spirits in prison”, yet JWs deny the immortal soul.
John in Revelation speaks of a literal Hell, “tormented with fire and sulfur, and the smoke of their torment goes up forever, and they have no rest, day or night”, yet deny Hell and the immortal soul. Luke 16:23-24, in the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man, the dead Rich Man begs for mercy from the fire that is tormenting him.

John 8:58: “Before Abraham was, I AM”; Hebrews 1:5-13; God commands the angels to worship the Son; if Jesus was a creature, or just a high-ranking angel - still a creature - God commanded blasphemy. Acts 7:59, Stephen sees Jesus and prays to him as he is martyred: according to the JWs, Stephen was an idolater and blasphemer. Further, Stephen prays to Jesus while filled with the Holy Spirit (7:55).

John 20:28, Jesus says, “My Lord and my God” (Gk “the Lord of me and the God of me”); Jesus does not correct him, and this is after the resurrection, so either Jesus/Michael allows one of his disciples to blaspheme and worship an idol, or Jesus is God and JWs are wrong; if Jesus was not God, but didn’t rebuke Thomas for calling him such, Jesus himself was a blasphemer.

Isa 44:24 and Heb 3:4: God alone created the Universe. Heb 1:10: Jesus created the Universe.

Isaiah 43:10 “Before me no God was formed, nor shall there be any after me”: how does this square with the Word being “a god”? Again, self-contradiction.

1 Cor 12:11 says the Holy Spirit “wills”, which is something only a person has - will. A force, like electricity, doesn’t have a will. The Holy Spirit can be lied to, and lying to the Holy Spirit is lying to God. (Acts 5:3), can be blasphemed against (which is the only unforgivable sin; electricity can not be blasphemed), speak (10:19-20), testify (John 15:26), hear (16:13-15; the Holy Spirit is called a “he” a dozen times in this chapter), know the future (Acts 21:11), teach (John 14:26), pray and intercede (Romans 8:26), call (Acts 13:2), and be grieved (Ephesians 4:30). All of the world was through him by the Son and the Father (Gen 1:2).

A force can not do these things. Only a person can.

I can also proof-text the physical resurrection of Jesus, but I’m tired of flipping through my Bible and referencing everything, which is an exhausting act.

Jehovah’s Witnesses are the poorest exegetes I’ve ever seen, after Mormons, who needed to write not just one extra book, but three extra books, to get their theology straight, and even after writing those three extra books, had to ignore half of what’s in them in favor of new interpretations. However, if anything, Jehovah’s Witnesses do preach their false gospel with absolute devotion and fire (something we could learn from), and, from the ones I’ve seen, many are scholarly in their own way (although subjugating as a slave all of their selective scholarship to their dogmata).

It’s sad, but like Sabellianism (modern: Unitarianism, Islam) and Gnosticism (modern: Scientology, New Age, Spiritism), Arianism (modern: WTS/JWs) never dies. The only problem is that traditional Arianism is much, much more believable than Millenial Dawnist (JW) Michael-Incarnationism.

Dear JW: do you have any care to explain to me the dozens of prophecies that the Presidents and Governing Bodies and Faithful and Discreet Servants have issued, which have one and all failed, some being quietly changed in new printings?

 

[Khalid]

According to history (Pliny to Trajan), Christians were worshiping Jesus as God during Trajan’s reign (began 98 AD), before the death of the last apostle. So much for a great apostasy.

Edit: I forgot to mention Christian Science. It combines Sabellianism-Unitarianism, Gnosticism, and Docetism, with probably even more heresies. And the award for “most historical heresy preached by a single group” goes to…

 

[Khalid]

Erratum:

John 20:28: Thomas says, “My Lord and my God” (Gk “the Lord of me and the God of me”) to Jesus; Jesus does not correct him, and this is after the resurrection, so either Jesus/Michael allows one of his disciples to blaspheme and worship an idol, or Jesus is God and JWs are wrong; if Jesus was not God, but didn’t rebuke Thomas for calling him such, Jesus himself was a blasphemer.

 

[T_More]

I am sorry guys - but you are kinda wasting your time.

You know any JW who ever passed his baptism questions can show you dozens of scriptures where Jesus and his apostles talked of him as separate or subject to his father. All totally contradicting the trinity.

Sigh. Once again, you continue to try and reinterpret what the Trinity doctrine actually teaches by introducing Modalist teaching into the definition, which is dishonest or just plain ignorant. What is it about this that you do not understand?

The best you can muster is a handful that only mention two people (I counted 6 worth mentioning in all the posts so far) or texts that are widely disputed as poor translation or probably added later to try and support the Trinity.

"Probably added later"?? Do you realize the implications of this statement my friend? How do you then know what has been “added” or what hasn’t? By whether it agrees with your religions teachings or not? Now you have to retreat from scripture and hold to what the Watchtower teaches. Think and pray about what it is that you are suggesting here. This is crucial!

The best were John 10:30 (which would be explained simply by comparing John 17:21,22)
and
John 1:1 (which contradicts itself unless you acknowledge that two different words were used for God in greek here)

Every reputable Greek scholar has shown the error of the Watchtower translation of John 1:1. This is a dead horse that has been beaten repeatedly here and you have been refuted.

Do you seriously think any literate Jehovah’s Witness will be convinced the trinity is in the Bible by that? Your two best scriptures don’t even mention three people!

Where in the bible does it show that everything we need as Christians is to be found in the bible? Where does the bible appoint itself as the sole authority that we need to settle doctrine? And in addition, where in the bible does the phrase, “Paradise Earth” appear? This is a core JW teaching, but does not appear anywhere. Why would the JW’s teach this if Christ or the Apostles or disciples never mention it in their writings?

Even your own encyclopedia admits the belief didn’t develop until centuries after the apostles were gone.

Cite the quote in full please that you’re referring to. In the meantime, does not the WTBS teach a “New Light” getting brighter doctrine?

 

[Khalid]

“There must be some way out of here!”
Said the joker to the thief:
“There’s too much confusion
I can’t get no relief.”

“No reason to get excited,” the thief, he kindly spoke:
“There are many here among us
Who feel that life is but a joke:
But you and I, we’ve been through that
And this is not our fate
So let us not speak falsely now
The hour is getting late!”
[Or, of *De Trinitate]

All along the Watchtower [Bible and Tract Society]
Princes kept the view
While all their women came and went
And the [Faithful and Discreet] servants, too.

Outside in the distance
A wildcat did growl
Two riders were approaching
The wind began to howl

 

[bmullins]

actually that quote is weak at best for it should read the spirit, the water, and the blood.
i can’t remeber the exact deatails but in a discusssion with oneness pentacostals i used this verse as you have it a more knowledgeable Catholic agreed with the oneness that this verse is in question.

The claim is that the verse in question is not in articles before the 1400’s, even though it was quoted as early as 200 AD. I don’t think it is weak, it has just been undermined heavily because of the very nature of the verse. Especially for sects such as the Jehovah’s witnesses who need this verse not to say that God is a trinity in order for their theology to stand.)

 

[fbl9]

interesting after reading the Haydock link, the CCCD bible i have reads For there are three that bear witness [in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.8 and there are three that bear witness on earth:] the spirit and the water and the blood; and these three are one
note 3
According to the evidence of many manuscripts and the majority of commentators these verses should read: " For there are three that bear witness: the Spirit, and the water and the blood; and these three are one."
The Holy See to itself the right to pass finally on the origin of the present reading.

The claim is that the verse in question is not in articles before the 1400’s, even though it was quoted as early as 200 AD. I don’t think it is weak, it has just been undermined heavily because of the very nature of the verse. Especially for sects such as the Jehovah’s witnesses who need this verse not to say that God is a trinity in order for their theology to stand.)

The above quote of mine was copied word for word from my Catholic bible.

 

[jochoa]

I am talking to a JW.
Please give me all scripture which proves explicitly the mystery of the Father Son and Holy Spirit as Three Persons in one God.

Please consider the following:
In order to recognize The Holy Trinity, one must first recognize that Jesus and God are of the same being(image/body). Please consider the following Scriptures:
Deuteronomy 6:4
“The Lord our God is One.”
I think - If there is no reference to multiple persons, stating, “The Lord our God…” would be redundant and purposeless considering, “Our God is One” would be sufficient. Therefore, the purpose in stating, “The Lord,” is to direct the interpreter to find alignment in the Bible of another person called Lord.

Deuteronomy 4:35
“…the Lord is God.”
Zechariah 14:9
“…the Lord will be king…on that day, the Lord will be one…”
Isaiah 9:6
“For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.”
1 Kings 8:60
“…the Lord is God, there is no other.”
Deuteronomy 4:39
“…the Lord is God in heaven above and on earth beneath…”
1 Corinthians 1:3
“…and the Lord Jesus Christ.”
John 10:30
“I and the Father are One.”
Genesis 1:26
“…in our image, after our likeness”

Then here are some other correspondences:
bible.cc/deuteronomy/4-35.htm
bible.cc/zechariah/14-9.htm
bible.cc/isaiah/9-6.htm
bible.cc/1_kings/8-60.htm
bible.cc/deuteronomy/4-39.htm
bible.cc/1_corinthians/1-3.htm
bible.cc/john/10-30.htm
bible.cc/genesis/1-26.htm
bible.cc/john/1-18.htm
bible.cc/exodus/20-5.htm
bible.cc/isaiah/3-1.htm

Then to add some Scripture to indicate the Holy Spirit as fulfillment of the Trinity:

“Go therefore and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit” (Matthew 28:19).

“The undeserved kindness of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the sharing in the holy spirit be with all of YOU” (2 Corinthians 13:14).

“One body there is, and one spirit, even as YOU were called in the one hope to which YOU were called; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6 one God and Father of all [persons], who is over all and through all and in all” (Ephesians 4:4-7)

Thanks for your time and consideration. I look forward to hearing your thoughts and sharing a simple concept to fathom this!

 

[jochoa]

Also do you have a simple analogy to give a Jehovah Witness? Thank you!
Peace, Carlan

Please consider the following conceptualization(Please note, this is my first time to present this concept, so please be gentle in critiques):

Before the beginning of creation, God somehow existed as a single living cell that could think, feel, and will, and it is of the same exact image as the Host of the Eucharist. (Please note: I can’t conceptualize how the cell came into existence, but I can assure you that there was the Word, the Word was with God, and the Word was God-John 1:2).
God thought of a highly complex and just plan to bring free-willed creations to choose to Love as He Loves, so that the creations may experience the same unbreakable peace and perfect happiness He experiences, but also so that when the creations love in union with Him, they will experience a limitless happiness.
At the fullness of time in creation, the single-cell life duplicated, and therefore there is only one exact/eternally begotten body of God. However, when the life duplicated, the mind/knowledge of the initial cell did not carry over to the second cell. Therefore, the second cell has the full divinity in body and the full humanity in mind and can have both the divine and human will, since the will proceeds from the body and mind. It was this second cell that God, the Father (the initial cell), placed into the spotless womb of the Most Holy Virgin, therefore it can be said that the second cell came down from Heaven and became Man.
Throughout the life of the second cell, He demonstrated to the world the Truly Loving Nature/The Greatest Commandments Perfected, even in the face of the hateful Crucifixion. It is this level of perfection that Jesus Christ reveals His Holy Spirit.
However, in order for the world to recognize and glorify Him, a free-willed person must perfect living in union with the Greatest Commandments and help give Him all the glory. The first person to achieve this perfection will be known as being One with the Holy Spirit of Jesus Christ. Therefore, it can be said that s/he is the Holy Spirit.

Now although there is only one Lord, one God, Jesus Christ-Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The process to achieve the goal of guiding free-willed creations to love Him as He loves requires three distinct persons to reveal this: the initial cell, the second cell, and a created cell, therefore, The Holy Trinity is justified as God because without one of the persons, the will cannot be achieved.

Thank you very much for your time, consideration, and fun-to-ponder question! I look forward to further discussion with you.

Thoughts?