- Mar 13, 2004
- 18,941
- 1,758
- Country
- United States
- 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.
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.
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.
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.
I use turtullian as a source for the idea of "three in one."
a thread to discuss JW theology in various forms. Pagan Trinity, Jesus as Michael, Inspiration of Watchower organization literature.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/trinity/trinity-history.htmlI 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.
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
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: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.
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.htmlAnd God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:
Who was God speaking to here?
Look once again at john 1
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.
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
Interesting response. I'd like to share my thoughts.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 behold, Boaz came from Bethlehem. And he said to the reapers, “The Lord be with you!” And they answered, “The Lord bless you.”
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.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'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.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.
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.
Thank you. However, where did you pick up the specific idea of "divine council"? The scripture is much more vague than that.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.
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".I'll disagree here. I think our orthodox beliefs are on solid ground.
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.htmlIn 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.
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.
Well, I see God himself explicitly calling YHWH his name: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 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
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.Thank you. However, where did you pick up the specific idea of "divine council"? The scripture is much more vague than that.
Sure, here are some examples from Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: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.
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.
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?
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?
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
a thread to discuss JW theology in various forms. Pagan Trinity, Jesus as Michael, Inspiration of Watchower organization literature.
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/
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:Now, Trinity cannot be found in the OT.