JW JW: Jehovah's witnesses theology- pagan trinity, Jesus and Michael, inspiration and other topics

lucaspa

Legend
Oct 22, 2002
14,569
416
New York
✟32,309.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
Why do you say "pagan trinity"? The formulators of Trinity were working very much within the Jewish tradition. True, because they spoke Greek, they used Greek words in describing Trinitarian Christology, but the concept preserves the strict monotheism of Judaism.

In contrast, JW Christology separates Jesus from God. The J-W website is somewhat ambiguous about the relationship of Jesus to God: http://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/jehovah-witness-beliefs/; " So we do not worship Jesus, as we do not believe that he is Almighty God."

This is clearer: http://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/believe-in-jesus/; http://www.jw.org/en/publications/books/good-news-from-god/who-is-jesus-christ/

"Unlike any other human, Jesus lived in heaven as a spirit person before he was born on earth. (John 8:23) He was God’s first creation, and he helped in the creation of all other things. He is the only one created directly by Jehovah"

By being a "spirit person", is Jesus divine? Genesis 1-3 is very clear that only God created. But J-W says Jesus "helped"; that would seem to imply divine power. And, of course, there is the immortality to consider. So, whether or not being "his Son" makes Jesus divine is left unanswered:
"This strong bond of unity, however, does not make God and his Son, Jesus, indistinguishable from each other. They are two individuals. Each one has his own distinct personality. " http://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/wp20090901/way-jesus-and-father-one/

This belief is a derivative of Arianism. Arianism is a pagan idea: from Eastern philosophy. I can see why the J-W website obfuscates the relationship of Jesus and God. If Jesus as "his Son" is also divine, that gives 2 gods, which is very much a "pagan" idea. OTOH, having a completely non-divine human (even as spirit) contradicts too much of scripture.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wgw
Upvote 0

ChetSinger

Well-Known Member
Apr 18, 2006
3,518
650
✟124,958.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
The divinity of the Word of the Lord seems pretty clear to me. Consider this account of the confusion of languages at Babel from Targum Pseudo-Jonathan:
And the Lord said to the seventy angels which stand before Him, Come, we will descend and will there commingle their language, that a man shall not understand the speech of his neighbour. And the Word of the Lord was revealed against the city, and with Him seventy angels, having reference to seventy nations, each having its own language, and thence the writing of its own hand: and He dispersed them from thence upon the face of all the earth into seventy languages.

Or this, from Deuteronomy:
But the custom of (other) nations is to carry their gods upon their shoulders, that they may seem to be nigh them; but they cannot hear with their ears, (be they nigh or) be they afar off; but the Word of the Lord sitteth upon His throne high and lifted up, and heareth our prayer what time we pray before Him and make our petitions.

The "Word of the Lord" sits on his throne and hears our prayers and our petitions? Eh, that's a divine figure, not an angel. And these are Jewish writings, not Christian ones.

Given this kind of Jewish thinking, it's no surprise to me that Jesus, the Word of God, was considered divine by early Christians. It just fits in.
 
Upvote 0

FutureAndAHope

Just me
Supporter
Aug 30, 2008
6,362
2,910
Australia
Visit site
✟733,159.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I am curious as to your sources that the trinity was within early church fathers, and/or Jewish tradition.

I have my own opinions, but I wish to see yours.

The doctrine of the trinity was with the early church Fathers, I have a link to a document that explains the trinity from a biblical perspective, it includes a reference from one of the church fathers, see http://www.futureandahope.net/trinity.php
 
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,342
26,787
Pacific Northwest
✟728,236.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
I use turtullian as a source for the idea of "three in one."

Tertullian was the first to coin the Latin trinitas to describe this. Though St. Theophilus of Antioch had used the term trias earlier than Tertullian to speak of God, His Word, and His Wisdom.

As formulaic Trinitarianism was chiefly the result of Christological debates in the 4th century, it is somewhat relevant to point out the Christological views expressed by even the earliest fathers, such as St. Ignatius' rather explicit statements in calling Christ God. Such statements are not in and of themselves definitively Trinitarian or Proto-Trinitarian, as both Sabellians and Arians also called Jesus God. It is, however, rather sufficient in addressing the high Christological tradition out from which Trinitarianism was articulated; not out of a vacuum, but a continuum that goes back to St. Paul and the Logos language in the Johanine literature through the Apostolic Fathers of the 2nd century and the more fuller articulations of the 4th century in response to the Christological controversies raised by the Sabellians and the Arians.

In all of this Tertullian (and Theophilus) are really only examples and instances within this continuum of theological thought. They aren't the source nor the cause of Trinitarian thought, but examples of the Church's own wrestling with formulating the proper theological language to address that which had and was continued to be confessed down through the generations.

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0
Feb 1, 2014
94
7
53
✟15,262.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
a thread to discuss JW theology in various forms. Pagan Trinity, Jesus as Michael, Inspiration of Watchower organization literature.


Some confuse Jesus as Michael because the name Michael means He who is like God. Well the problem here is Jesus isn't LIKE God, Jesus IS God.

In the beginning was the Word (Jesus) and the Word was with God (Father/Holy Spirit) And the Word WAS GOD (not "a" god as JWs believe, the grammar doesn't allow for that and it opens JWs up to the accusation of polytheism.

John 8:58 Before Abraham was, I AM

I should have added here too that Abraham saw Jesus in Genesis 18 (confirmed by John 8:56 where Jesus said Abraham saw my day)

And Thomas called Jesus my Lord and my God. To deny this is true is basically saying Thomas took the name of God in vain before Christ. If that were the case, then why didn't Jesus rebuke him?)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

lucaspa

Legend
Oct 22, 2002
14,569
416
New York
✟32,309.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
I am curious as to your sources that the trinity was within early church fathers, and/or Jewish tradition.

I have my own opinions, but I wish to see yours.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/trinity/trinity-history.html
https://carm.org/early-trinitarian-quotes
http://www.staycatholic.com/ecf_the_trinity.htm

So we have Justin Martyr, Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus, Origen, and, as you pointed out, Tertullian. Among others. The doctrine was being formulated long before Arius forced a confrontation.

Now, Trinity cannot be found in the OT. That is not surprising. It is only with the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus that any thought of modification to simple monotheism was needed. No one thought Moses or any of the prophets was divine.

However, all early Christians thought they were saved by Christ. That raises the question: what does Christ have to be in order for me to be saved? Put another way: who/what has the power of salvation?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nikti
Upvote 0
Feb 1, 2014
94
7
53
✟15,262.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Tertullian was the first to coin the Latin trinitas to describe this. Though St. Theophilus of Antioch had used the term trias earlier than Tertullian to speak of God, His Word, and His Wisdom.

As formulaic Trinitarianism was chiefly the result of Christological debates in the 4th century, it is somewhat relevant to point out the Christological views expressed by even the earliest fathers, such as St. Ignatius' rather explicit statements in calling Christ God. Such statements are not in and of themselves definitively Trinitarian or Proto-Trinitarian, as both Sabellians and Arians also called Jesus God. It is, however, rather sufficient in addressing the high Christological tradition out from which Trinitarianism was articulated; not out of a vacuum, but a continuum that goes back to St. Paul and the Logos language in the Johanine literature through the Apostolic Fathers of the 2nd century and the more fuller articulations of the 4th century in response to the Christological controversies raised by the Sabellians and the Arians.

In all of this Tertullian (and Theophilus) are really only examples and instances within this continuum of theological thought. They aren't the source nor the cause of Trinitarian thought, but examples of the Church's own wrestling with formulating the proper theological language to address that which had and was continued to be confessed down through the generations.

-CryptoLutheran


In the beginning God (Elohim- plural) created the heaven and the earth

Now there are many who would like to dismiss this as the royal plural but the royal plural didn't exist in biblical times.

Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:

Who was God speaking to here?

Some say His angels. But that implies that we are made in the image of God and angels and angels are co-creators. Which is simply patently false.

Also the verbs and nouns here are singular in the Hebrew which doesn't work for the royal plural where everything has to be plural for the royal to be grammatically correct.

John 1:3 also says that all things were made by Jesus.

Jesus is the firstborn of all creation

Colossians 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

FIRSTBORN isn't "created". He was the firstborn Son of the Father and Holy Ghost

Most importantly is 1 John 4: 2,3

4:2 Hereby * know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

4:3
And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
What does it mean to accept Christ is come in the flesh?

It means that you have to accept Jesus is GOD come in the flesh.

Look once again at john 1

1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

1:2 The
same was in the beginning with God.

1:3 All
things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
Jesus is the WORD. The Word WAS GOD.

Now this is the passage that connects with 1 John 4

John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us,

Jesus is God come in the flesh


 
  • Like
Reactions: Nikti
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

lucaspa

Legend
Oct 22, 2002
14,569
416
New York
✟32,309.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
In the beginning God (Elohim- plural) created the heaven and the earth

Now there are many who would like to dismiss this as the royal plural but the royal plural didn't exist in biblical times.
Israel, and especially Genesis 1, is completely monotheistic. Also, God does not have a name. So, how do you designate a deity that you can't use a name for? There were 2 traditions used in the Pentateuch:
1. Yahweh. In Hebrew this is "I am" and is the answer the Burning Bush gave to Moses when he asked who he was speaking to: "I am that I am." Not a "name".
2. Use the plural for "god" when you mean the singular. Obviously a singular deity cannot have a plural "name".

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:

Who was God speaking to here?
Here, I would say the authors were thinking of the angels and other spiritual and immortal creatures. http://rabtessera.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-plural-of-majesty-we-us-use-in.html
http://www.hebrew-streams.org/works/monotheism/genesis-plurals.html

You need to look at Genesis 3:22 also http://www.apostolic-churches.net/bible/list_bcv/?book=Genesis&chapter=3. Does this verse mean Jesus too? Not likely. Also look at Genesis 6:2 and here again there are immortal beings. MANY of them.

So it is clear that there was, in ancient Israel, the concept that there were a whole class of immortal beings who lived in heaven with God. This persists to Christian thinking when Luke has the "heavenly host" appear to the shepherds when Jesus is born.

IMO, it is dangerous to retrodict later thinking into earlier texts. When the NT is written and as the early Christians view Christ as part of God, then we get John 1:1-14, Collosians 1:15 and other verses.

But the authors of Genesis 1 had no such concept. So unless you are going to say God physically wrote Genesis 1 or dictated it word for word to the human authors, we have to come up with another explanation for "Let us make ...". Simply because those authors had no idea of Jesus or of anything other than a simple, single deity. But they did have an idea of other immortal beings beside God, and the best interpretation is that God was referring to them.

Look once again at john 1

1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.


1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.

1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
Jesus is the WORD. The Word WAS GOD.

Now this is the passage that connects with 1 John 4

John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us,


Jesus is God come in the flesh
That is the standard Christian belief and you have stated an argument for it. However, just as I dislike JW's for stating their beliefs as "fact", I dislike this. You can use this text and the rational, reasonable argument as a counter to JWs presenting their beliefs as "fact", but not as "fact" yourself. There were many other Christologies in the early church, and many of them, particularly Adoptionism, have reasonable arguments and scriptural texts to support them.
 
Upvote 0

ChetSinger

Well-Known Member
Apr 18, 2006
3,518
650
✟124,958.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Israel, and especially Genesis 1, is completely monotheistic. Also, God does not have a name. So, how do you designate a deity that you can't use a name for? There were 2 traditions used in the Pentateuch:
1. Yahweh. In Hebrew this is "I am" and is the answer the Burning Bush gave to Moses when he asked who he was speaking to: "I am that I am." Not a "name".
2. Use the plural for "god" when you mean the singular. Obviously a singular deity cannot have a plural "name".
Interesting response. I'd like to share my thoughts.

It seems to me that YHWH is indeed a name, in that the Hebrews seem to have used it as one. For example, here's Boaz using YHWH as an everyday greeting:
And behold, Boaz came from Bethlehem. And he said to the reapers, “The Lord be with you!” And they answered, “The Lord bless you.”


Here, I would say the authors were thinking of the angels and other spiritual and immortal creatures. http://rabtessera.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-plural-of-majesty-we-us-use-in.html
http://www.hebrew-streams.org/works/monotheism/genesis-plurals.html

You need to look at Genesis 3:22 also http://www.apostolic-churches.net/bible/list_bcv/?book=Genesis&chapter=3. Does this verse mean Jesus too? Not likely. Also look at Genesis 6:2 and here again there are immortal beings. MANY of them.

So it is clear that there was, in ancient Israel, the concept that there were a whole class of immortal beings who lived in heaven with God. This persists to Christian thinking when Luke has the "heavenly host" appear to the shepherds when Jesus is born.

IMO, it is dangerous to retrodict later thinking into earlier texts. When the NT is written and as the early Christians view Christ as part of God, then we get John 1:1-14, Collosians 1:15 and other verses.

But the authors of Genesis 1 had no such concept. So unless you are going to say God physically wrote Genesis 1 or dictated it word for word to the human authors, we have to come up with another explanation for "Let us make ...". Simply because those authors had no idea of Jesus or of anything other than a simple, single deity. But they did have an idea of other immortal beings beside God, and the best interpretation is that God was referring to them.
I agree with you that Genesis 1 and Genesis 3 are likely referring to the divine council, later called the heavenly host in the NT.

That is the standard Christian belief and you have stated an argument for it. However, just as I dislike JW's for stating their beliefs as "fact", I dislike this. You can use this text and the rational, reasonable argument as a counter to JWs presenting their beliefs as "fact", but not as "fact" yourself. There were many other Christologies in the early church, and many of them, particularly Adoptionism, have reasonable arguments and scriptural texts to support them.
I'll disagree here. I think our orthodox beliefs are on solid ground. In particular, I like seeing how the divinity of the Word of the Lord in the Aramaic Targums coincides with Christian beliefs. According to Alan Segal in "Two Powers in Heaven, such beliefs were widespread and considered orthodox in Judaism until the 2nd century AD.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wgw
Upvote 0

lucaspa

Legend
Oct 22, 2002
14,569
416
New York
✟32,309.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
Interesting response. I'd like to share my thoughts.

It seems to me that YHWH is indeed a name, in that the Hebrews seem to have used it as one.

It is used as a designation, but not a "name". The competing religions around ancient Israel had many gods, and those gods had names: Marduk, Apsu, Tiamet, Horus, Ra, Osiris, Seth, Baal, etc. What a "name" does is indicate 2 individuals of the same class. For instance, you and I are both people. So we have names to indicate that lucaspa is one person and Chetsinger is a different person. But, if you have a strict monotheism and there is only one of them, what use for a name? Which is why "I am that I am" is a very telling response. What use does a singular deity have for a name? Who or what is it trying to distinguish itself from?

Look at the verse you are quoting and how "yhwh" is translated? "the Lord". That's not a "name", but a title. A name would be "Lord Bob" or "Lord Mark".

Personally, I find that God does not have a name to be an indicator that the ancient Hebrews had a true revelation. Their revelation was that a singular deity has no need of a "name".

I agree with you that Genesis 1 and Genesis 3 are likely referring to the divine council, later called the heavenly host in the NT.
Thank you. However, where did you pick up the specific idea of "divine council"? The scripture is much more vague than that.

I'll disagree here. I think our orthodox beliefs are on solid ground.
I never said that Trinity was not on solid ground. You said it yourself: "orthodox beliefs". I am drawing a distinction between "belief" and "fact". Such a distinction exists in the definition of the words. Such a distinction, in my very strong opinion, must be made lest we slide down the slope of intolerance and decide we need to punish others because they don't accept the "fact". The history of Christianity is steeped in blood because Christians forgot the distinction between "faith" and "fact".

John 1 is a very strong argument for the for the equation Jesus = God (1 leg of the Trinity). It's so strong that the JW translation of the Bible changes John 1:1 to "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god." emphasis mine

What I objected to was your statement after quoting John 1 of "Jesus is God come in the flesh". The distinction I am making is saying, instead, "Trinity (or Christianity) believes Jesus is God come in the flesh." Do you see the difference? The first is stated as fact. The second is clearly a belief.

Early Christianity had many Christologies (identities of Christ and his relationship to God). JW is one of those Christologies. Please note that I have never made a declaration about truth of Christology itself. If JWs want to believe that Christology then that is their business. What I started out disagreeing with was the JW claim that Trinity was a pagan idea. Trinity does not have its origins in pagan beliefs. However, JW Christology, by having 2 distinct deities (even though JWs try to disguise that belief), is a pagan belief. Please note, by saying it is pagan I am not making a statement as to the truth or falsity of JW Christology, only that it is pagan.

As I said, there were other Christologies in the early Church. One of them was Adoptionism. In brief, in Adoptionism Jesus is fully human but becomes the adopted son of God. IMHO, this Christology is also on "solid ground". Good, reasonable arguments backed by scripture can be made for it. In the end, more people were convinced by the arguments for Trinity than for Adoptionism. However, again IMHO, I think Christianity would have been OK if Adoptionism had been adopted (pun intended) as the official Christology.

In particular, I like seeing how the divinity of the Word of the Lord in the Aramaic Targums coincides with Christian beliefs. According to Alan Segal in "Two Powers in Heaven, such beliefs were widespread and considered orthodox in Judaism until the 2nd century AD.
Can you please give us an example of "the divinity of the Word of the Lord in the Aramaic Targums"? The Targums started out as translation of the Hebrew OT into Aramaic. You seem to be implying that there is a theological doctrine within the translation that is not there in the original language. You can see why I am skeptical of that; it is more likely we are dealing with an error in translation instead of a true revelation. http://www.bible-researcher.com/aramaic4.html

Or we are dealing with interpretation that should not have been there. Metzger ends his essay with a quote about the Targums and the caution we need when we approach it:
"All translations of the Bible are necessarily interpretive to some extent, but the Targums differ in that they are interpretive as a matter of policy, and often to an extent that far exceeds the bounds of translation or even paraphrase. It is perhaps against such license that Rabbi Judah (2nd century A.D.) declared with paradoxical vehemence, "He who translates a biblical verse literally is a liar, but he who elaborates on it is a blasphemer." "

So I want to be very cautious about reading Christian theology into an interpretive translation of the OT that added many elaborations.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Wgw

Pray For Brussels!
May 24, 2015
4,304
2,074
✟15,107.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Politics
UK-Conservative
Israel, and especially Genesis 1, is completely monotheistic. Also, God does not have a name. So, how do you designate a deity that you can't use a name for? There were 2 traditions used in the Pentateuch:
1. Yahweh. In Hebrew this is "I am" and is the answer the Burning Bush gave to Moses when he asked who he was speaking to: "I am that I am." Not a "name".
2. Use the plural for "god" when you mean the singular. Obviously a singular deity cannot have a plural "name".


Here, I would say the authors were thinking of the angels and other spiritual and immortal creatures. http://rabtessera.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-plural-of-majesty-we-us-use-in.html
http://www.hebrew-streams.org/works/monotheism/genesis-plurals.html

You need to look at Genesis 3:22 also http://www.apostolic-churches.net/bible/list_bcv/?book=Genesis&chapter=3. Does this verse mean Jesus too? Not likely. Also look at Genesis 6:2 and here again there are immortal beings. MANY of them.

So it is clear that there was, in ancient Israel, the concept that there were a whole class of immortal beings who lived in heaven with God. This persists to Christian thinking when Luke has the "heavenly host" appear to the shepherds when Jesus is born.

IMO, it is dangerous to retrodict later thinking into earlier texts. When the NT is written and as the early Christians view Christ as part of God, then we get John 1:1-14, Collosians 1:15 and other verses.

But the authors of Genesis 1 had no such concept. So unless you are going to say God physically wrote Genesis 1 or dictated it word for word to the human authors, we have to come up with another explanation for "Let us make ...". Simply because those authors had no idea of Jesus or of anything other than a simple, single deity. But they did have an idea of other immortal beings beside God, and the best interpretation is that God was referring to them.


That is the standard Christian belief and you have stated an argument for it. However, just as I dislike JW's for stating their beliefs as "fact", I dislike this. You can use this text and the rational, reasonable argument as a counter to JWs presenting their beliefs as "fact", but not as "fact" yourself. There were many other Christologies in the early church, and many of them, particularly Adoptionism, have reasonable arguments and scriptural texts to support them.

In fact, and not according to mere subjective belief, there are no reasonable arguments in support of adoptionism, Arianism or other non-Trinitarian theological models, that one can incoke without rejecting or altering canonical scripture. It is worth noting that, as the canon was still fluid, a great number of early heresies simply rejected scripture they found to be inconvenient, or introduced various pseudepigraphical forgeries.

As an aside, I left the UMC in part owing to the relative lack of conviction among some progressive Methodist elders that the canonical scripture according to the Athanasian canon attests to the divinity of our Lord, and the consubstantiality of the Holy Trinity, a dogmatic and kerygmatic regression or degenration which I believe John Wesley, an ardent and orthodox Trinitarian, would have found abhorrent.

Interestingly, Arius, being the sly devil that he was, tried to sidestep John 1:1-14 and argue the idea of a created logos ala Philo on the basis of other texts, but was defeated on those points by St. Athanasius, et al; the compelling weight of John 1 then simply added to the complete destruction of his vile heresy.
 
Upvote 0

ChetSinger

Well-Known Member
Apr 18, 2006
3,518
650
✟124,958.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
It is used as a designation, but not a "name". The competing religions around ancient Israel had many gods, and those gods had names: Marduk, Apsu, Tiamet, Horus, Ra, Osiris, Seth, Baal, etc. What a "name" does is indicate 2 individuals of the same class. For instance, you and I are both people. So we have names to indicate that lucaspa is one person and Chetsinger is a different person. But, if you have a strict monotheism and there is only one of them, what use for a name? Which is why "I am that I am" is a very telling response. What use does a singular deity have for a name? Who or what is it trying to distinguish itself from?

Look at the verse you are quoting and how "yhwh" is translated? "the Lord". That's not a "name", but a title. A name would be "Lord Bob" or "Lord Mark".

Personally, I find that God does not have a name to be an indicator that the ancient Hebrews had a true revelation. Their revelation was that a singular deity has no need of a "name".
Well, I see God himself explicitly calling YHWH his name:
I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as God Almighty, but by my name YHWH I did not make myself known to them. - Exodus 6:3

To me, that verse overrides any argument to the contrary.

Thank you. However, where did you pick up the specific idea of "divine council"? The scripture is much more vague than that.
The "divine council" is a term used by scholars to describe the Hebrew heavenly host. The term itself appears in the ESV and RSV translations of Psalms 82:1.

Here's a scholarly introduction to it: http://www.thedivinecouncil.com/

Can you please give us an example of "the divinity of the Word of the Lord in the Aramaic Targums"? The Targums started out as translation of the Hebrew OT into Aramaic. You seem to be implying that there is a theological doctrine within the translation that is not there in the original language. You can see why I am skeptical of that; it is more likely we are dealing with an error in translation instead of a true revelation. http://www.bible-researcher.com/aramaic4.html

Or we are dealing with interpretation that should not have been there. Metzger ends his essay with a quote about the Targums and the caution we need when we approach it:
"All translations of the Bible are necessarily interpretive to some extent, but the Targums differ in that they are interpretive as a matter of policy, and often to an extent that far exceeds the bounds of translation or even paraphrase. It is perhaps against such license that Rabbi Judah (2nd century A.D.) declared with paradoxical vehemence, "He who translates a biblical verse literally is a liar, but he who elaborates on it is a blasphemer." "

So I want to be very cautious about reading Christian theology into an interpretive translation of the OT that added many elaborations.
Sure, here are some examples from Targum Pseudo-Jonathan:
And the Word of the Lord was revealed against the city (Babel), and with Him seventy angels, having reference to seventy nations, each having its own language, and thence the writing of its own hand: and He dispersed them from thence upon the face of all the earth into seventy languages.

but the Word of the Lord sitteth upon His throne high and lifted up, and heareth our prayer what time we pray before Him and make our petitions.

I agree with Metzger completely, of course. One of the things that makes the Targums so valuable for study is that they are not merely translations such as the Septuagint, but they include rabbinic commentary (such as I quoted above). If future historians, for example, want to learn what 20th century evangelicals believed, what should they study? The scriptures? No, they should study 20th century evangelical commentaries.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wgw
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/trinity/trinity-history.html
https://carm.org/early-trinitarian-quotes
http://www.staycatholic.com/ecf_the_trinity.htm

So we have Justin Martyr, Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus, Origen, and, as you pointed out, Tertullian. Among others. The doctrine was being formulated long before Arius forced a confrontation.

Now, Trinity cannot be found in the OT. That is not surprising. It is only with the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus that any thought of modification to simple monotheism was needed. No one thought Moses or any of the prophets was divine.

However, all early Christians thought they were saved by Christ. That raises the question: what does Christ have to be in order for me to be saved? Put another way: who/what has the power of salvation?

you are correct, trinity, in any form cannot be found in OT or NT.

but I tell the Jehovah's witness, that theocratic kingdom, theocratic society and other's cannot be found in the Bible either.

but the points of the trinity are found all over the new testament.

but I will look into your links later, thank you for the reply.

I would like your opinion on a work I found online, I will post it later too.

it seemed to trace oneness theology (somewhat in a glorified manner), and antitrinitarianism to montanisticism, and turtullian was in favor of light montanisticism later in life due to the strict lifesyle literal interpretations and what some viewed as pentecostal viewpoints. But I don't see him being antitrinitarian in any way.

so, I will post that later.

thanks again.


(later....

The writings I was telling you about was an article called:

"
A HISTORICAL RECORD OF SPEAKING IN TONGUES (GLOSSOLALIA)

by Harry A. Peyton"

Now it's not really meant to convince of tongues, rather to tell the record of it historically. it's quite interesting, but seems to come from a oneness perspective, if I am not mistaken, so some of the ideas will be biased toward oneness.

but for that matter it's quite wrong in my opinion.

See a duality is required for there to be a true statement, like "I loved my son, then killed him."

as that would be quite the schizophrenic idea if He was merely ONE.

It would be on par with arguing with oneself, winning, or losing, then killing oneself off.

which would be on par with a lunatic.

since I do not believe God a lunatic, I therefore believe in a duality at minimum.

and with a duality, I add another which seems to have scriptural support, as the spirit testifies to Christ.

so there you have a trinity.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/trinity/trinity-history.html
https://carm.org/early-trinitarian-quotes
http://www.staycatholic.com/ecf_the_trinity.htm

So we have Justin Martyr, Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus, Origen, and, as you pointed out, Tertullian. Among others. The doctrine was being formulated long before Arius forced a confrontation.

Now, Trinity cannot be found in the OT. That is not surprising. It is only with the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus that any thought of modification to simple monotheism was needed. No one thought Moses or any of the prophets was divine.

However, all early Christians thought they were saved by Christ. That raises the question: what does Christ have to be in order for me to be saved? Put another way: who/what has the power of salvation?

origen and clement were somewhat of the liberal persuasion theologically speaking.

so I tend not to use them on sourcing doctrine, just because of that perspective.

but turtullian and the others seem to be not of the liberal hermeneutical typeset. (spiritualization methods, allegorical type of hermeneutic).

Augustine I am not sure about, but here is a link about it:

http://www.randyeverist.com/2011/03/hermeneutic-of-origen.html

I will quote them on basic things, but I personally find liberal hermeneutics offensive. so I boycott those authors in general.

I have heard origen (the father of theology), was a liberal theologian (and I mean that as far as allegorical implications in expositionary teaching).
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
In the beginning God (Elohim- plural) created the heaven and the earth

Now there are many who would like to dismiss this as the royal plural but the royal plural didn't exist in biblical times.

Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:

Who was God speaking to here?

Some say His angels. But that implies that we are made in the image of God and angels and angels are co-creators. Which is simply patently false.

Also the verbs and nouns here are singular in the Hebrew which doesn't work for the royal plural where everything has to be plural for the royal to be grammatically correct.

John 1:3 also says that all things were made by Jesus.

Jesus is the firstborn of all creation

Colossians 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

FIRSTBORN isn't "created". He was the firstborn Son of the Father and Holy Ghost

Most importantly is 1 John 4: 2,3

4:2 Hereby * know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:


4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
What does it mean to accept Christ is come in the flesh?

It means that you have to accept Jesus is GOD come in the flesh.

Look once again at john 1

1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.


1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.

1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
Jesus is the WORD. The Word WAS GOD.

Now this is the passage that connects with 1 John 4

John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us,


Jesus is God come in the flesh


you are correct, elohim is a plural rendering of God.

and the trinity was preexistent.

to believe that a being that is beyond time and space, became a trinity within a certain time is to limit that same Godhead to a secular time restriction.

God has always been a trinity.

or he never was a trinity.

if God is beyond time and space, then nothing that the incarnation did was temporary.

it was all done in eternal time of God, planned from the beginning of the universe.

it is quite confusing to asume the incarnation changed the Godhead in any manner, seeing that God specifically states "I change not."- Malachi 3:6

and seeing He doesn't even change a little, to say that He changes His Godhead in an incarnation is quite the LARGE change.
 
Upvote 0

Job8

Senior Member
Dec 1, 2014
4,634
1,801
✟21,583.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
a thread to discuss JW theology in various forms. Pagan Trinity, Jesus as Michael, Inspiration of Watchower organization literature.

Since the Jehovah's Witnesses deny the Deity of Christ, it follows that they reject the doctrine of the triune Godhead (the Trinity). And since one cannot be truly saved unless one believes that Jesus is God, they choose to forfeit salvation.

Jesus said (John 8:24): I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am [he], ye shall die in your sins. When Jesus called Himself "I AM" (the "he" is absent from the Greek, and should not have been added. Also "I am" should really be "I AM") He called Himself God. If one does not believe that He is God, then one cannot believe that Christ is both Lord and Saviour. And if one does not confess Him as Lord and Saviour, one cannot be saved. The quotation below is from the JW website:


Is God a Trinity?
The Bible’s answer
Many Christian denominations teach that God is a Trinity. However, note what the Encyclopædia Britannica states: “Neither the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament . . . The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies.”

In fact, the God of the Bible is never described as being part of a Trinity. Note these Bible passages:
“Jehovah our God is one Jehovah.”—Deuteronomy 6:4.
“You, whose name is Jehovah, you alone are the Most High over all the earth.”—Psalm 83:18.
“This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ.”—John 17:3.
“God is only one.”—Galatians 3:20.
Why do most Christian denominations say that God is a Trinity?
https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/trinity/
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wgw
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Job8

Senior Member
Dec 1, 2014
4,634
1,801
✟21,583.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Now, Trinity cannot be found in the OT.
Actually the first verse in the Bible reveals the Trinity. God = Hebrew Elohim = a uni-plural word = three Divine Persons, one God. Hence we have the following statements in Genesis 1:26 and 3:22 with "us" and "our": And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth... And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wgw
Upvote 0