Understanding the Trinity - Page 4

Quahom1 · 04-23-2005, 07:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by InLove

Thank you for the welcome, Q. Yes, I agree--there are many analogies that could be used to help. I look forward to learning and sharing much more. This is my first day, and Truthseeker was the first person who welcomed me here. I wanted very much to join in somewhere, and so I followed the postings and replied to my first greeting. I assure you, I come in peace and plan to visit many places here so I may learn and at times join in. I am in no hurry.

Thanks again,
InLove

Yes...so have I...thank you InLove. The star is bright tonight.

v/r

Q

mee · 04-23-2005, 09:15 AM

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

Faithfulservant · 04-23-2005, 10:04 AM

lol I prefer to believe what the Spirit reveals to me while I study the word than a scoffer. I dont need to read any outside source to support my beliefs.. I get it directly from the word of God. I have posted this verse elsewhere..

1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.

Not a Word.. THE WORD.. and these three are ONE.

Abogado del Diablo · 04-23-2005, 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by InLove

So the Christian who talks about the Trinity is talking about God as Father, God as Son, and God as Holy Spirit--working in different capacities according to what God sees is appropriate and needed by His children.

In that sense, all religions of the world are collectively "monotheistic" (though some don't think of "theos" the way others do).

God or Brahman or Tao (or whatever you want to call the concept) manifests in as many ways as there are people to manifest to.

mee · 04-23-2005, 12:06 PM

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

Abogado del Diablo · 04-23-2005, 12:19 PM

Quote:

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

Interesting to note that the early Church condemned as a heretic a key church father who attempted to reconcile this idea prior to the Fourth Century because his ealier Christology (Jesus was subordinate to the Father in the Godhead, essentially) disagreed with the one the Church settled on centuries later. Ironically, the early Church branded this extremely influential early church father a heretic despite being more than happy to rely on the writings of this same heretical church father when the need arose. The heretic?

Origen.

mee · 04-23-2005, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Faithfulservant

lol I prefer to believe what the Spirit reveals to me while I study the word than a scoffer. I dont need to read any outside source to support my beliefs.. I get it directly from the word of God. I have posted this verse elsewhere..

1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.

Not a Word.. THE WORD.. and these three are ONE.

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

Conscience · 04-23-2005, 04:46 PM

Forget the "J.W.'s guide to refuting the trinity" for a second. Put that book down, and pick up the Bible - the word of God. Study that, and you'll know that God revealed himself as a triune God.

You never answered me though. Why would God give all the glory and praise due to him, over to a "supposed angel?"

mee · 04-23-2005, 07:41 PM

notice from my post that there are lots of bible translaters that realize that it is wrong to include and add on to the bible ,passages that should not be there. this is nothing to do with JW ....translations such as these RS.NE.TEV.JB.NAB.leave out the trinitarian passage,why ,because it doesnt belong there

Quahom1 · 04-23-2005, 09:40 PM

Two young "Christians" arguing over points of contention in front of God and country, is like two young Bucks standing off over rutting rights that belong to the established stag observing from the hill top...irrelevent...

Q

mee · 04-23-2005, 10:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Two young "Christians" arguing over points of contention in front of God and country, is like two young Bucks standing off over rutting rights that belong to the established stag observing from the hill top...irrelevent...

Q

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

Faithfulservant · 04-23-2005, 11:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Two young "Christians" arguing over points of contention in front of God and country, is like two young Bucks standing off over rutting rights that belong to the established stag observing from the hill top...irrelevent...

Q

I really appreciate you Q

How apt that analogy was to the real situation.

Faithfulservant · 04-23-2005, 11:24 PM

Quote:

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

Col 2:8 Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ. 9 For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily; 10 and you are complete in Him, who is the head of all principality and power.

I can cut and paste too

Faithfulservant · 04-23-2005, 11:26 PM

Quote:

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

You missed Q's point totally..

mee · 04-24-2005, 07:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Faithfulservant

Col 2:8 Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ. 9 For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily; 10 and you are complete in Him, who is the head of all principality and power.

I can cut and paste too

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.)

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