He Comes With Clouds

[it'sme]

[FONT=times new roman, times new roman, times]

The WTBS, and the overwhelming majority of its followers, NEVER had the Bible so they never had sight to lose! Over time the WTBS has become more and more apostate. And Yahweh will hold them accountable. Especially those who have been shown and reject the truth in forums like this.

This is from the the book The Two Babylons




In the unity of that one Only God of the Babylonians, there were three persons, and to symbolise that doctrine of the Trinity, they employed, as the discoveries of Layard prove, the equilateral triangle, just as it is well known the Romish Church does at this day. *

* LAYARD's Babylon and Nineveh. The Egyptians also used the triangle as a symbol of their "triform divinity."
​

In both cases such a comparison is most degrading to the King Eternal, and is fitted utterly to pervert the minds of those who contemplate it, as if there was or could be any similitude between such a figure and Him who hath said, "To whom will ye liken God, and what likeness will ye compare unto Him?"
The Papacy has in some of its churches, as, for instance, in the monastery of the so-called Trinitarians of Madrid, an image of the Triune God, with three heads on one body. * The Babylonians had something of the same. Mr. Layard, in his last work, has given a specimen of such a triune divinity, worshipped in ancient Assyria. (Fig. 3) ** The accompanying cut (Fig. 4) of such another divinity, worshipped among the Pagans of Siberia, is taken from a medal in the Imperial Cabinet of St. Petersburg, and given in Parson's "Japhet." *** The three heads are differently arranged in Layard's specimen, but both alike are evidently intended to symbolise the same great truth, although all such representation of the Trinity necessarily and utterly debase the conceptions of those, among whom such images prevail, in regard to that sublime mystery of our faith. ....




[/FONT][FONT=times new roman, times new roman, times]....While this had been the original way in which Pagan idolatry had represented the Triune God, and though this kind of representation had survived to Sennacherib's time, yet there is evidence that, at a very early period, an important change had taken place in the Babylonian notions in regard to the divinity; and that the three persons had come to be, the Eternal Father, the Spirit of God incarnate in a human mother, and a Divine Son, the fruit of that incarnation.

The Two Babylons: Trinity in Unity[/FONT]

 

[Der Alte]

This is from the the book The Two Babylons
[ . . . ]....While this had been the original way in which Pagan idolatry had represented the Triune God, and though this kind of representation had survived to Sennacherib's time, [ . . . ]

Hislop was a church of England bishop and he wrote his book "To Babble On" in the 19th century as a vehement polemic against the Catholic church. There is NO, ZERO, NONE credible, verifiable, historical evidence from the time of Babylon, only quotes from other 18th and 19th century writers.

You failed to read that Hislop did NOT say the Biblical Trinity was copied from Babylon but that the Babylonian Trinity was copied from the Bible. Here is a refutation of "To Babble On" by a former staunch supporter of Hislop.

The Two Babylons
A Case Study in Poor Methodology

Ralph Woodrow

In my earlier Christian experience, certain literature fell into my hands that claimed a considerable amount of Babylonian paganism had been mixed into Christianity. [ . . . ]Much of what I encountered was based on a book called The Two Babylons by Alexander Hislop (1807–1862).

Over the years The Two Babylons has impacted the thinking of many people, ranging all the way from those in radical cults (e.g., the Jehovah’s Witnesses) to very dedicated Christians who hunger for a move by God but are concerned about anything that might quench His Spirit. Its basic premise is that the pagan religion of ancient Babylon has continued to our day disguised as the Roman Catholic Church, prophesied in the Book of Revelation as “Mystery Babylon the Great” (thus, the idea of two Babylons — one ancient and one modern). Because this book is detail[wash my mouth]ed and has a multitude of notes and references, I assumed, as did many others, it was factual. We quoted “Hislop” as an authority on paganism just as “Webster” might be quoted on word definitions.

As a young evangelist, I began to preach on the mixture of paganism with Christianity, and eventually I wrote a book based on Hislop, titled Babylon Mystery Religion (Ralph Woodrow Evangelistic Assn., 1966). In time, my book became quite popular, went through many printings, and was translated into Korean, German, Spanish, Portuguese, and several other languages. Hundreds quoted from it. Some regarded me as an authority on the subject of “pagan mixture.” Even the noted Roman Catholic writer Karl Keating said, “Its best-known proponent is Ralph Woodrow, author of Babylon Mystery Religion.”1

Many preferred my book over The Two Babylons because it was easier to read and understand. Sometimes the two books were confused with each other, and once I even had the experience of being greeted as “Reverend Hislop”! As time went on, however, I began to hear rumblings that Hislop was not a reliable historian. I heard this from a history teacher and in letters from people who heard this perspective expressed on the Bible Answer Man radio program. Even the Worldwide Church of God began to take a second look at the subject. As a result, I realized I needed to go back through Hislop’s work, my basic source, and prayerfully check it out.

As I did this, it became clear: Hislop’s “history” was often only an arbitrary piecing together of ancient myths. He claimed Nimrod was a big, ugly, deformed black man. His wife, Semiramis, was a beautiful white woman with blond hair and blue eyes. But she was a back[wash my mouth]slider known for her immoral lifestyle, the inventor of soprano singing and the originator of priestly celibacy. He said that the Baby[wash my mouth]lon[wash my mouth]ians baptized in water, believing it had virtue because Nimrod and Semiramis suffered for them in water; that Noah’s son Shem killed Nimrod; that Semiramis was killed when one of her sons cut off her head, and so on. I realized that no recognized history book substantiated these and many other claims.

The subtitle for Hislop’s book is “The Papal Worship Proved to Be the Worship of Nimrod and His Wife.” Yet when I went to refer[wash my mouth]ence works such as the Encyclopedia Britannica, The Americana, The Jewish Encyclopedia, The Catholic Encyclopedia, The Worldbook Encyclopedia – carefully reading their articles on “Nimrod” and “Semiramis” — not one said anything about Nimrod and Semiramis being husband and wife. They did not even live in the same century. Nor is there any basis for Semiramis being the mother of Tammuz. I realized these ideas were all Hislop’s inventions.

If we sought to base an argument about George Washington and his wife, we should at least start out with facts. We could show who George Washington was, that he had a wife named Martha, when they lived, and continue from there. But if no historian was certain who George Washington was, or if he even had a wife, or when they lived, this would not be a sound basis on which to prove anything. Such is the inherent weakness of Hislop’s thesis that papal worship is the worship of Nimrod and his wife.

I saw that a more direct and valid argument against errors in the Roman Catholic Church (or any other group) is the Bible itself, not ancient mythology. For ex[wash my mouth]ample, the Bible speaks of a minister being “the husband of but one wife” and that “for[wash my mouth]bid[wash my mouth]ding people to marry” is a doctrine of devils (1 Tim. 3:2; 4:3). This provides a strong[wash my mouth]er argument against priestly celibacy than trying to show that ancient priests of Semiramis castrated themselves.

While seeking to condemn the paganism of Roman Catholicism, Hislop produced his own myths. By so doing, he theorized that Nimrod, Adonis, Apollo, Attes, Baal-zebub, Bacchus, Cupid, Dagon, Hercules, Januis, Linus, Lucifer, Mars, Merodach, Mithra, Moloch, Narcissus, Oannes, Odin, Orion, Osiris, Pluto, Saturn, Teitan, Typhon, Vulcan, Wodan, and Zoroaster were all one and the same. By mixing myths, Hislop supposed that Semiramis was the wife of Nimrod and was the same as Aphrodite, Artemis, Astarte, Aurora, Bellona, Ceres, Diana, Easter, Irene, Iris, Juno, Mylitta, Proserpine, Rhea, Venus, and Vesta.

Take enough names, enough stories, and enough centuries; translate from one language to another; and a careless writer of the future might pass on all kinds of misinformation. Gerald Ford, an American president, might be confused with Henry Ford, the car manufacturer. Abraham Lincoln might end up as the inventor of the automobile, the proof being that many cars had the name “Lincoln.” The maiden name of Billy Graham’s wife is Bell. She has sometimes gone by the name Ruth Bell Graham. The inventor of the telephone was Alexander Graham Bell. By mixing up names, someone might end up saying Billy Graham was the inventor of the telephone; or that he invented Graham Crackers. In fact, the inventor of Graham Crackers was Sylvester Graham. Again, similarities could be pointed out. Both men were named Graham. Both men were ministers. But the differences make a real difference: Sylvester was a Presbyterian and Billy a Baptist, and they were from different generations.

Building on similarities while ignoring differences is an unsound practice. Atheists have long used this method in an attempt to discredit Christianity altogether, citing examples of pagans who had similar beliefs about universal floods, slain and risen saviors, virgin mothers, heavenly ascensions, holy books, and so on.

As Christians, we don’t reject prayer just because pagans pray to their gods. We don’t reject water baptism just because ancient tribes plunged into water as a religious ritual. We don’t reject the Bible just because pagans believe their writings are holy or sacred.

The Bible mentions things like kneeling in prayer, raising hands, taking off shoes on holy ground, a holy mountain, a holy place in the temple, pillars in front of the temple, offering sacrifices without blemish, a sacred ark, cities of refuge, bringing forth water from a rock, laws written on stone, fire appearing on a person’s head, horses of fire, and the offering of first fruits. Yet, at one time or another, similar things were known among pagans. Does this make the Bible pagan? Of course not!

If finding a pagan parallel provides proof of paganism, the Lord Himself would be pagan. The woman called Mystery Babylon had a cup in her hand; the Lord has a cup in His hand (Ps. 75:8). Pagan kings sat on thrones and wore crowns; the Lord sits on a throne and wears a crown (Rev. 1:4; 14:14). Pagans worshiped the sun; the Lord is the “Sun of righteousness” (Mal. 4:2). Pagan gods were likened to stars; the Lord is called “the bright and Morning star” (Rev. 22:16). Pagan gods had temples dedicated to them; the Lord has a temple (Rev. 7:15). Pagans built a high tower in Babylon; the Lord is a high tower (2 Sam. 22:3). Pagans worshiped idolatrous pillars; the Lord appeared as a pillar of fire (Exod. 13: 21–22). Pagan gods were pictured with wings; the Lord is pictured with wings (Ps. 91:4).

I realized that citing a similarity does not provide proof. There must be a legitimate connection. Let’s suppose on May 10 a man was stabbed to death in Seattle. There were strong reasons for believing a certain person did it. He had motive. He was physically strong. He owned a large knife. He had a criminal record. He was known to have a violent temper and had threatened the victim in the past. All of these things would connect him to the murder, except for one thing: on May 10 he was not in Seattle; he was in Florida. So it is with the claims that are made about pagan origins. They may appear to have a connection, but on investigation, often there is no connection at all.

Because Hislop wrote in the mid-1800s, the books he refers to or quotes are now quite old. I made considerable effort to find these old books and to check Hislop’s references; books such as Layard’s Nineveh and Its Remains, Kitto’s Cyclopedia of Biblical Literature, Wilkinson’s Ancient Egyptians, as well as old editions of Pausanias, Pliny, Tacitus, Herodotus, and many more. When I checked his footnote references, in numerous cases I discovered they do not support his claims.

Hislop says, for example, that the “round” wafer used in the Roman Catholic mass came from Egyptian paganism. For this he cites a statement in Wilkinson’s Ancient Egyptians (vol. 5, 353, 365) about the use of thin round cakes on their altars. When I checked Wilkinson’s work, however, he also said the Egyptians used oval and triangular cakes; folded cakes; cakes shaped like leaves, animals, and a crocodile’s head; and so on. Hislop failed to even mention this.

While condemning round communion wafers as images of the sun-god Baal, Hislop fails to mention that the very manna given by the Lord was round. “Upon the face of the wilderness there lay a small round thing....And Moses said unto them, This is the bread which the Lord hath given you to eat” (Exod. 16:14–15, KJV, emphasis added). Round is not necessarily pagan.

Hislop taught that Tammuz (whom he says was Nimrod) was born on December 25, and this is the origin of the date on which Christmas is observed. Yet his supposed proof for this is taken out of context. Having taught that Isis and her infant son Horus were the Egyptian version of Semiramis and her son Tammuz, he cites a reference that the son of Isis was born “about the time of the winter solstice.” When we actually look up the reference he gives for this (Wilkin[wash my mouth]son’s Ancient Egyptians, vol. 4, 405), the son of Isis who was born “about the time of the winter solstice” was not Horus, her older son, but Harpocrates. The reference also explains this was a premature birth, causing him to be lame, and that the Egyptians celebrated the feast of his mother’s delivery in spring. Taken in context, this has nothing to do with a December celebration or with Christmas as it is known today.

In another appeal to Wilkinson, Hislop says that a Lent of 40 days was observed in Egypt. But when we look up the reference, Wilkinson says Egyptian fasts “lasted from seven to forty-two days, and sometimes even a longer period: during which time they abstained entirely from animal food, from herbs and vegetables, and above all from the indulgence of the passions” (Wilkinson, Ancient Egyptians, vol. 1, 278). With as much credibility, we could say they fasted 7 days, 10 days, 12 days, or 42 days. Hislop’s claim appears to have validity only because he used partial information.

If we based claims on partial information, we could even prove from the Bible there is no God: “…‘There is no God’” (Ps. 14:1). When the entire statement is read, however, it has a different meaning: “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’”

For these and many other reasons, I pulled my own book, Babylon Mystery Religion, out of print despite its popularity. This was not done because I was being threatened in any way or persecuted. This decision was made because of conviction, not compromise. While my original book did contain some valid information, I could not in good conscience continue to publish a book against pagan mixture knowing that it contained a mixture itself of misinformation about Babylonian origins.

I have since replaced this book with The Babylon Connection? a 128-page book with 60 illustrations and 400 footnote references. It is an appeal to all my brothers and sisters in Christ who feel that finding Babylonian origins for present-day customs or beliefs is of great importance. My advice, based on my own experience, is to move cautiously in this area, lest we major on minors. If there are things in our lives or churches that are indeed pagan or displeasing to the Lord, they should be dealt with, of course. But in attempting to defuse the confusion of Babylon, we must guard against creating a new “Babylon” (confusion) of our own making.

-- reviewed by Ralph Woodrow

The Two Babylons​

We have four books in our Bible written from Babylon during the Jewish captivity, Daniel, Ezekiel. Ezra, and Nehemiah. They mention the Babylonian deities but none of them say anything about a Trinity or Triad of deities.

 

[it'sme]

How come I knew you would say that. That sounds exactly like the scientists that don't like anything that disagree with what they want to hear. They are only bad scientists that believe in creation.
But in the end the science proves creation, and the bible proves the trinity false.

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.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia states: “The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.”—(1967), Vol. XIV, p. 299.

In The Encyclopedia Americana we read: “Christianity derived from Judaism and Judaism was strictly Unitarian [believing that God is one person]. The road which led from Jerusalem to Nicea was scarcely a straight one. Fourth century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching.”—(1956), Vol. XXVII, p. 294L.

Also there is no indication in the bible of anything like a trinity. It is pagan in origin, and was not even a part of Christianity until the 3rd or 4th century. This was in the time of Constantine, who was a pagan until his death, he was responsible for bringing the pagan cross into Christendom as well.

 

[Der Alte]

How come I knew you would say that. That sounds exactly like the scientists that don't like anything that disagree with what they want to hear. They are only bad scientists that believe in creation.
But in the end the science proves creation, and the bible proves the trinity false.

A totally empty argument which addresses nothing. You quote a few paragraphs from a 150 year old book which has NO, NONE, ZERO evidence from ancinet times and everybody is supposed to blindly accept it because all JWs do. But you reject, without even reading or commenting, an article written less than 10 years ago by someone who once also blindly accepted everything in Hislop's "To Babble On", wrote a book based on it, and later studied and found out that "To Babble On" was filled with lies and false information.

There is NOTHING you have posted or anything you could post that proves anything about the Trinity

The New Encyclopædia Britannica

The New Catholic Encyclopedia states:

In The Encyclopedia Americana

Posting the same deliberately falsified articles, which I have proved to be false several times, proves absolutely nothing about Christianity or the Trinity but it clearly shows how totally dishonest the WTBS is and reflects very negatively on the honesty and integrity of anyone who knowingly repeats this deliberately falsified information.

Also there is no indication in the bible of anything like a trinity. It is pagan in origin, and was not even a part of Christianity until the 3rd or 4th century. This was in the time of Constantine, who was a pagan until his death, he was responsible for bringing the pagan cross into Christendom as well.

Everything is this statement is totally false, not a word of truth in it! I have asked you repeatedly for evidence that any society which could have influenced Christianity which had a Trinity or a Triad of deities and you have never been able to produce any evidence. As I have said now a few times we have 4 books, Daniel, Ezekiel, Ezra, and Nehemiah, in our Bibles, which were written in Babylon during the Jewish captivity, which mention the Babylonian deities and NONE of them mention a Trinity or a Triad. If the babylonian "Trinity" qwas so prominent that it was supposedly copied by Christians 700 years later, why is ther no evidence of it in these four books written in Babylon?

The Trinity was written about by the early church 145 years before Constantine. Constantine never did or said anything about the Trinity. He was an Arian, almost the same thing as a JW. According to Eusebius and Lactantius, 2 historians who lived at the same time, Constantine was a Christian he delayed baptism because he wanted to be baptized in the Jordan, where Jesus was. But when he became ill and realized he could not go to Israel he was baptized by an Arian.

After the Council of Nicæa, he conversed more and more frequently and intimately with the bishops. his interest in Christianity grew with the years; but, as was to have been foreseen, he was sure to be led astray, for the needle lacked in the compass. He was more and more drawn over to the side of the Arians, and it was an Arian bishop who baptized him.

earlychurch.org.uk/Constantine

Constantine himself was torn between both the Arian and Trinitarian camps. As Constantine, after the Nicene council and against its conclusions, eventually recalled Arius from exile and banished Athanasius of Alexandria to Trier. Constantine himself was baptised into Christianity just before his death in May 337 by his distant relative Arianian Bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia. During Eusebius of Nicomedia's time in the Imperial court, the Eastern court and the major positions in the Eastern Church were held by Arians or Arian sympathizers.

reddit.com/r/Christianity

The scandalous "majority" vote of the Nicene Council did not really settle anything and controversy continued unabated. Within a few years the Arians had regained so much ground that Constantine found it politically expedient to change sides and Arianism was restored to favor. (This writer suspects that this sudden reversal also made for peace at home, between Constantine and his Arian wife).

bibletopics.com

Eusebius of Nicomedia remained in exile in Gaul until 328, when (according to Epiphanius) he pretended to have repented, made a confession of faith, and Constantine allowed him to return. After he returned from the exile, Eusebius began to cultivate a friendship with Constantine’s sister, Constantia. Through this friendship he began to influence Constantine. By continually pointing out the faults of the Homo’ousian leaders (the anti-Arians) he caused Constantine to change his beliefs and become pro-Arian. Consequently, Constantine deposed Athanasius at a synod in Tyre in 335 and brought back Arius from exile and reinstated him in a synod at Jerusalem in 335. Epiphanius avoided mentioning in his writings that towards the end of his life Constantine became pro-Arian. Inadvertently, Photius implied that Constantine favored the Arians: “When Constantine the Great was nearing the end of his life, he had the testament of his last wishes sealed up, and handed to Eutocius, a man who bore in his breast the poison of the Arian heresy.”

prudentialpublishing.info/

For decades after Nicea, the power of the Roman state was used against supporters of the creed adopted by the council. Constantine and his successors repeatedly intervened on the side of the Arian heretics, the deniers of Christ’s divinity.

americamagazine.org
​

As for the so-called pagan cross Constantine had nothing to do with it. I have provided historical evidence showing crosses in tombs, in Jerusalem, in the first century.

Jerusalem Burial Cave Reveals Names, Testimonies of First Christians

There are more photos at the link, above. This is what is known as credible, verifiable, historical evidence. Something followers of the WTBS will never see in any of their writings.

 

[it'sme]

Posting the same deliberately falsified articles, which I have proved to be false several times, proves absolutely nothing about Christianity or the Trinity but it clearly shows how totally dishonest the WTBS is and reflects very negatively on the honesty and integrity of anyone who knowingly repeats this deliberately falsified information.

It is really up to you to go to those sources and tell them they are wrong. And I guess you also have to take it up with Jehovah , because there is nothing in the bible about a trinity.

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.
The New Catholic Encyclopedia states: “The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.”—(1967), Vol. XIV, p. 299.
In The Encyclopedia Americana we read: “Christianity derived from Judaism and Judaism was strictly Unitarian [believing that God is one person]. The road which led from Jerusalem to Nicea was scarcely a straight one. Fourth century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching.”—(1956), Vol. XXVII, p. 294L.

Even the Catholics that believe the trinity know this and it is in their records that it is a pagan teaching. The cross also is a pagan symbol.
Also the quote from the book The Two Babylons, traces how this came from Babylon.
I do understand if you want to keep our own ideas, that can be hard to change for some. You certainly don't have to listen to me. But you should at least listen to what Jesus said. This was after he was resurrected

(John 20:17) Jesus said to her: “Stop clinging to me. For I have not yet ascended to the Father. But be on your way to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and YOUR Father and to my God and YOUR God.’”

 

[FredVB]

Hello. it'sme, you wrote:
"Hi Fred it sounds like you are shutting down our conversation. but that's
OK. If your not that's OK too.
I was only giving people a chance to decide for themselves, what they
believe. Just so that they can't say they didn't have an opportunity,
at least to hear, this good news.

There is no point in pushing something on someone if they don't want it.

I feel bad though because the really interesting information comes in
Daniel and Revelation , and you can't get what it is saying there,
without understanding , the basics, about Jehovah and Jesus, and the
other basic teachings. Sometimes when you look at other passages in the
bible it clears up the thinking about other passages and understandings.

But I do respect the provision Jehovah gave man of freedom of choice.

Anyway I enjoyed our conversation."

Who is shutting down the conversation? I certainly was not. I had made
valid points, and it could be hoped that you would acknowledge that, and
rethink your position, but that would lead to thinking of changing to some
other congregation. If you do not do that, I am still not cutting the
discussion off, and if you are not doing so, you could repond to my points
and tell me if you think there is such a thing what it is that invalidates
any of those points. I will certainly take your counter argument into
account if they are not something I already made a good argument against,
and deal with such as is called for. You have yet to make convincing
argument to persuade from the position I have been communicating. Between
the two of us, and indeed also any others taking part in this discussion,
may the Truth prevail.

Please take these things into account, they establish my position that I
would persuade you to.

In Micah 5 verse 2, the prophecy about Jesus tells us
that this coming King to be born in Bethlehem is of old,
even from everlasting: But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah,
though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet
out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be
ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old,
from everlasting. I would then direct you to the Gospel
account of John, chapter 1 verses1-5, concerning the Word
(Logos in the original manuscripts) who is with God and is
God, and through whom everything is made. In the beginning
was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was
God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things
were made by him; and without him was not any thing made
that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light
of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the
darkness comprehended it not. Verse 14 in the same chapter
identifies this as Jesus. And the Word dwelt among us, and
we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of
the Father, full of grace an truth. Now bear in mind that
Scripture teaches, he was made flesh, and dwelt among us.

In Isaiah 43v10-13; 44v6-8; and45v5-8 that Yahweh alone
is God and there is no other. Ye are my witnesses, saith Yahweh, and my servant whom I
have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and
understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed,
neither
shall there be after me. I, even I am Yahweh; and
beside me there is no savior. I have declared, and have
saved, and I have shewed, when there was no strange god
among you: therefore ye are my witnesses, saith Yahweh,
that I am God. Yea, before the day was I am he; and there
is none that can deliver out of my hand: I will work, and
who will let it?Thus saith Yahweh the King of Israel, and his
redeemer Yahweh of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last;
and beside me there is no God. And who, as I, shall call,
and shall declare it, and set in order for me, since I
appointed the ancient people? and the things are coming,
and shall come, let them shew unto them. Fear ye not,
neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time,
and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there
a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any. I am Yahweh, and there is none else, there is no God
beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:
That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from
the west, that there is none beside me. I am Yahweh, and
there is none else. I form the light, and create the
darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I Yahweh do all
these things. Drop down, ye heavens, from above, and let
the skies pour down righteousness: let the earth open,
and let them bring forth salvation, and let righteousness
spring up together; I Yahweh have created it.

Logic demands if we trust the Scriptures that if Jesus,
who is the Word that became flesh, is also God, then he is
the same Yahweh. We are to trust in Jesus for our
salvation, and that goes with the fact in Scripture that
Yahweh is our only savior. There are abundant other
verses of Scripture that further this argument, but let me
direct you in particular to Hebrews 1v5-12: For to which of the angels did he ever say: "You are my
Son, today I have begotten you"? And again: "I will be to
him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son"? But when he
again brings the firstborn into the world, he says: "Let
all the angels of God worship him." And of the angels he
says: "Who makes his angels spirits, and his ministers a
flame of fire." But to the Son he says: "your throne, O
God, is forever and ever; a scepter of righteousness is
the scepter of your kingdom. You have loved righteousness
and hated lawlessness; therefore God, your God, has
anointed you with the oil of gladness more than your
companions." And: "You, Lord, in the beginning laid the
foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of
your hands. They will perish, but you remain; and they
will all grow old like a garment; like a cloak you will
fold them up, and they will be changed. But you are the
same, and your years will not fail."

Philippians 2v5-6:
Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus.
Who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery
to be equal with God. But made himself of no reputation,
taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the
likeness of men.


Colossians 1v15-17:
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over
all creation. For by him were created all things that are
in heaven and that are on the earth, visible an invisible,
whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers.
All things were created through him and for him. And he
is before all things, and in him all things consist.

Finally, consider that the one God is named the Alpha
and Omega in Revelation 1v8 Jesus is in 1v11. Also
see 21v6 and then 22v13.

Indeed, as I have been pointing out, the Lord Jesus, in his
preexistence was the Word that is with God and is God, but there
is only one God. He was the Creator of all things of creation
from nothing, and in him all things consist.

In his equality with God the Father it was not robbery to be grasped, but he humbled himself, and the Word became flesh, in the incarnation
as a human, the very image of the invisible God, and so was the one begotten Son. For to which of the angels did he ever say: "You are my Son, today I have begotten you"? And to the Son he says: "your throne, O God, is forever and ever", and he says: "Let all the angels of God worship him." Only God should be worshiped, no angel is, but the Lord Jesus is a number of times. He will always remain and his years will never fail though heavens and earth may perish. All his attributes are those of God. Do not explain all this away with an appeal to the image of personified wisdom which is created, or texts that have added a term such as "other". Bible truth should stand. If there is no argument to this, I am not seeking to end the conversation.

 

[2ducklow]

In Micah 5 verse 2, the prophecy about Jesus tells us
that this coming King to be born in Bethlehem is of old,
even from everlasting: But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah,
though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet
out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be
ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old,
from everlasting.

I beleive it means that Jesus was in God's plan in OT prophecies and even before that, not that Jesus was going forth, but that the prophecies, and plan of god was going forth a long time ago.

I would then direct you to the Gospel
account of John, chapter 1 verses1-5, concerning the Word
(Logos in the original manuscripts) who is with God and is
God, and through whom everything is made. In the beginning
was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was
God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things
were made by him; and without him was not any thing made
that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light
of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the
darkness comprehended it not. Verse 14 in the same chapter
identifies this as Jesus. And the Word dwelt among us, and
we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of
the Father, full of grace an truth. Now bear in mind that
Scripture teaches, he was made flesh, and dwelt among us.

My opinion is that "the word was god" is a personification, just as jesus is personified as a door, bread of heaven, a good shepard, a lamp, etc.
John 1.1 actually says the word was towards (pros in greek) God, and the Word was god". thus no contradiction. the way most every bible translates john 1.1 results in a contradiction, namely if the word was with God, then it can't be god, and if the word was god, then it can't be with the one it is.
The word was in the beginning with (pros) God, which means in the beginning the word or plan for man was towards God, meaning God's word, or plan for man points us towards god.

As you well know everywhere else in the bible except john 1 all christians take the word to mean the word of god, the written or oral word of God. I believe that is the same meaning for the word in john 1.

In Isaiah 43v10-13; 44v6-8; and45v5-8 that Yahweh alone
is God and there is no other. Ye are my witnesses, saith Yahweh, and my servant whom I
have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and
understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed,
neither
shall there be after me. I, even I am Yahweh; and
beside me there is no savior.(hyperbole, the bible lists other saviors besides Jesus and Yahweh. 2dl) I have declared, and have
saved, and I have shewed, when there was no strange god
among you: therefore ye are my witnesses, saith Yahweh,
that I am God. Yea, before the day was I am he; and there
is none that can deliver out of my hand: I will work, and
who will let it?Thus saith Yahweh the King of Israel, and his
redeemer Yahweh of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last;
and beside me there is no God. And who, as I, shall call,
and shall declare it, and set in order for me, since I
appointed the ancient people? and the things are coming,
and shall come, let them shew unto them. Fear ye not,
neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time,
and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there
a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any. I am Yahweh, and there is none else, there is no God
beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:
That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from
the west, that there is none beside me. I am Yahweh, and
there is none else. I form the light, and create the
darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I Yahweh do all
these things. Drop down, ye heavens, from above, and let
the skies pour down righteousness: let the earth open,
and let them bring forth salvation, and let righteousness
spring up together; I Yahweh have created it.

Logic demands if we trust the Scriptures that if Jesus,
who is the Word that became flesh, is also God, then he is
the same Yahweh.

not if one assumes that the word is the written or oral word of god as it is everywhere in the bible.

We are to trust in Jesus for our
salvation, and that goes with the fact in Scripture that
Yahweh is our only savior. There are abundant other
verses of Scripture that further this argument, but let me
direct you in particular to Hebrews 1v5-12: For to which of the angels did he ever say: "You are my
Son, today I have begotten you"? And again: "I will be to
him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son"? But when he
again brings the firstborn into the world, he says: "Let
all the angels of God worship him." And of the angels he
says: "Who makes his angels spirits, and his ministers a
flame of fire." But to the Son he says: "your throne, O
God, is forever and ever; a scepter of righteousness is
the scepter of your kingdom.

the earliest Greek manuscripts say His kingdom not your kingdom, thus the first part cannot be translated "your throne , o God,..." It has to be an exclamation, and since God would not utter the exclamation "o God" the meaning has to be "God is thy throne". Or "thy throne is God", because god or throne have to be predicate nominatives. God and throne are in the nominative case, not the vocative case, and persons or god are never addressed in the nominative or nameing case, it's always the vocative case, and the vocative case for God is thee, not theos as is in heb. 1.8.

some bibles recognise these facts and translate it differently than is commonly the way it is translated.

You have loved righteousness
and hated lawlessness; therefore God, your God, has
anointed you with the oil of gladness more than your
companions." And: "You, Lord, in the beginning laid the
foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of
your hands. They will perish, but you remain; and they
will all grow old like a garment; like a cloak you will
fold them up, and they will be changed. But you are the
same, and your years will not fail."

Philippians 2v5-6:
Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus.
Who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery
to be equal with God. But made himself of no reputation,
taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the
likeness of men.

equal with doesn't mean is.
plus there is an alternate way, grammatically speaking, of translating phil. 2.6.

Colossians 1v15-17:
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over
all creation. For by him were created all things that are
in heaven and that are on the earth, visible an invisible,
whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers.
All things were created through him and for him. And he
is before all things, and in him all things consist.

Jesus is the image of god, an image of something isn't the thing it is an image of, a photograph is an image of a person but it isn't that person. Image doesn't mean is.

Finally, consider that the one God is named the Alpha
and Omega in Revelation 1v8 Jesus is in 1v11. Also
see 21v6 and then 22v13.

they are one, thus they are in accord, thus they are both the alpha and omega. Doesn't mean a man is a spirit, or Jesus is god.
Well, I responded to beaucoup stuff here, think I'll quit now.

 

[Der Alte]

It is really up to you to go to those sources and tell them they are wrong. And I guess you also have to take it up with Jehovah , because there is nothing in the bible about a trinity.

There is nothing wrong with any of the sources when they are quoted correctly, in context, NOT deliberately misquoted and quoted out-of-context as the WTBS has done. The problem is not with the Encyclopedia Britannica, Encyclopedia American, and Catholic Encylopedia but with the deliberate lies and and misrepresentations of the WTBS. I have posted the evidence before but it is apparent you would rather believe the lies of the WTBS than confirm the truth for yourself.

Even the Catholics that believe the trinity know this and it is in their records that it is a pagan teaching.

Total absolute slander and falsehood, there is NOT a shred of truth in this.

The cross also is a pagan symbol. Also the quote from the book The Two Babylons, traces how this came from Babylon.

More total absolute falsehood. "To Babble On" does NOT prove anything about anything. It too is full of lies and there is NO verifiable historical evidence it it. Even the part that you quoted does NOT say the Trinity is pagan it clearly says that the Babylonians copied and misrepresented "the Triune God." You quote something and ignore it when I show you it contradicts what you say.

[ . . . ]....While this had been the original way in which Pagan idolatry had represented the Triune God, and though this kind of representation had survived to Sennacherib's time, [ . . . ]

I want to see if you will show the honesty and integrity to read this from your own quote and admit that Hislops' book does not prove that the Trinity came from Babylon but that Hislop clearly said pagans misrepresented "the Triune God."

I do understand if you want to keep our own ideas, that can be hard to change for some. You certainly don't have to listen to me. But you should at least listen to what Jesus said. This was after he was resurrected

I do understand how you will always believe the WTBS and do and say anything to support them, no matter how much undeniable, irrefutable evidence proves that they are wrong. You simply ignore, ignore, ignore and keep repeating the same false anti-Christian rhetoric over and over and over, even when shown it is false, several times.

I have proved with evidence you cannot challenge.

Constantine was a Christian.
Constantine was an Arian.
Constantine had nothing to do with the cross or the Trinity.
The cross was used in Christian tombs in Jerusalem in the 1st century.
The book "To Babble On" proves absolutely nothing about the cross or the Trinity.
"To Babble On" is full of false information.​

 

[it'sme]

I do understand how you will always believe the WTBS and do and say anything to support them, no matter how much undeniable, irrefutable evidence proves that they are wrong. You simply ignore, ignore, ignore and keep repeating the same false anti-Christian rhetoric over and over and over, even when shown it is false, several times.

I have proved with evidence you cannot challenge.

Constantine was a Christian.
Constantine was an Arian.
Constantine had nothing to do with the cross or the Trinity.
The cross was used in Christian tombs in Jerusalem in the 1st century.
The book "To Babble On" proves absolutely nothing about the cross or the Trinity.
"To Babble On" is full of false information.​

Der Alter
Actually this is a good question. The reason is that Jehovah is using his organization , to do what any other Christian church could do , but they don't. Also it is an organization for his name. Where Christendom tried to bury his name. Also God organization does not get involved in the governments or their wars. God's organization also has uncovered all the false and pagan teachings of Christendom. And ofcource the preaching work, is also scriptural. The sacred secret is also known , Revelation is now understood and great apostasy has been uncovered. And accurate knowledge pertaining to end of this system, is known. And all the prophecies , that have come true in this time period and what governments to look for.
I am not saying we are perfect, because that is not possible, but the evidence is that what we are doing in the preaching work is not possible on our own. The parallel to Noahs day to ours, the ruining of the earth , that fact that Jesus when he came the second time, coincides with the times we are living in. And Christendom has missed all of this. And the bible says that they will.
The evidence is that there no other possibility, from the bibles stand point that this is the truth.
If you have the understanding that Christendom has, you can not understand what the bible is about. Revelation is absolutely incredible, to what we see happening around us.
I did come here to tear any of you down it was only to give you a chance to a least hear it. Because Jehovah put down all those people in Noah's day. It will be the same at Armageddon. You have to be on that 'Ark' today also. There is no resurrection for the people that die at Armageddon, because Jehovah is the one that does the destruction.
I can tell you these things but to really know what I am talking about you have to experience it. But Satan has tried his hardest to make the truth be unpopular. But that was foretold also.
Der Alter you seem to have at least taken time to look into things, but so did the Pharisees they knew the Law, but they had no idea about God, or his Son when he came. And yet they knew he was coming and expected him. But Jesus went to the people not to the religious leaders. But even then few followed Jesus, and it was his own people that turned on him.

 

[Der Alte]

Der Alter
Actually this is a good question. The reason is that Jehovah is using his organization , to do what any other Christian church could do , but they don't. [A blatantly false accusation!] Also it is an organization for his name. Where Christendom tried to bury his name. [More slander and false accusations!] Also God organization does not get involved in the governments or their wars. God's organization also has uncovered all the false and pagan teachings of Christendom. False slander. [The WTBS has exposed NOTHING!] And ofcource the preaching work, is also scriptural. The sacred secret is also known , Revelation is now understood and great apostasy has been uncovered. [Yes it has, the WTBS is the great apostasy!] And accurate knowledge pertaining to end of this system, [Unscriptural word!] is known. And all the prophecies , that have come true in this time period and what governments to look for.
I am not saying we are perfect, because that is not possible, but the evidence is that what we are doing in the preaching work is not possible on our own. The parallel to Noahs day to ours, the ruining of the earth , that fact that Jesus when he came the second time, coincides with the times we are living in. And Christendom has missed all of this. [More false accusations and slander!] And the bible says that they will.
The evidence is that there no other possibility, from the bibles stand point that this is the truth.
If you have the understanding that Christendom has, you can not understand what the bible is about. [WTBS followers cannot understand the Bible without the ever changing doctrines of the GB/FDS!] Revelation is absolutely incredible, to what we see happening around us.
I did come here to tear any of you down it was only to give you a chance to a least hear it. Because Jehovah put down all those people in Noah's day. It will be the same at Armageddon. You have to be on that 'Ark' today also. There is no resurrection for the people that die at Armageddon, because Jehovah is the one that does the destruction.
I can tell you these things but to really know what I am talking about you have to experience it. But Satan has tried his hardest to make the truth be unpopular. But that was foretold also.
Der Alter you seem to have at least taken time to look into things, but so did the Pharisees they knew the Law, but they had no idea about God, or his Son when he came. And yet they knew he was coming and expected him. But Jesus went to the people not to the religious leaders. But even then few followed Jesus, and it was his own people that turned on him.

Another post which merely repeats WTBS anti-Christian rhetoric but does NOT address anything I said. You quote phony, false quotes from WTBS, over and over, evidently you expect people to read them. And when I go look up the actual quotes and clearly show you how they are false you don't read them or reply to anything I say. This post as with most of your posts is filled with false accusations and slander of Christian churches which you cannot prove!.

And once again you ignore the fact that you quoted a 150 year old book which you keep claiming proves the Trinity was of pagan origin. And I have shown you three times that the book actually says the pagans misrepresented, "the Triune God"

[ . . . ]....While this had been the original way in which Pagan idolatry had represented the Triune God, and though this kind of representation had survived to Sennacherib's time, [ . . . ]

 

[it'sme]

Another post which merely repeats WTBS anti-Christian rhetoric but does NOT address anything I said. You quote phony, false quotes from WTBS, over and over, evidently you expect people to read them. And when I go look up the actual quotes and clearly show you how they are false you don't read them or reply to anything I say. This post as with most of your posts is filled with false accusations and slander of Christian churches which you cannot prove!.

And once again you ignore the fact that you quoted a 150 year old book which you keep claiming proves the Trinity was of pagan origin. And I have shown you three times that the book actually says the pagans misrepresented, "the Triune God"

It's just that that book agrees with the bible, and also explains where the idea came from.

 

[Der Alte]

[ . . . ]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.[ . . . ]

Above is how the WTBS deliberately quotes out of context and misrepresents the Encyclopedia. Here is what the encylopedia says in context the WTBS quote in blue showing how the WTBS uses widely separated sentences as if they were talking about the same thing.

"Trinity, the doctrine of God taught by Christianity that asserts that God is one in essence but three in "person," Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. 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, 0 Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord" (Deut. 6:4). The earliest Christians, however, had to cope with the implications of the coming of Jesus Christ and of the presence and power of God among them-i.e., the Holy Spirit, whose coming was connected with the celebration of the Pentecost. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were associated in such New Testament passages as the Great Commission: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them mi the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Matt. 28:19); and in the apostolic benediction: "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all" (II Cor. 13:14). Thus, the New Testament established the basis for the doctrine of the Trinity. The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies. Initially, both the requirements of monotheism inherited from the Old Testament and the implications of the need to interpret the biblical teaching to Greco-Roman paganism seemed to demand that the divine in Christ as the Word, or Logos, be interpreted as subordinate to the Supreme Being. An alternative solution was to interpret Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three modes of the self-disclosure of the one God but not as distinct within the being of God itself. The first tendency recognized the distinctness among the three, but at the cost of their equality and hence of their unity (subordinationism); the second came to terms with their unity, but at the cost of their distinctness 'as "persons" (modalism). It was not until the 4th century that the distinctness of the three and their unity were brought together in a single orthodox doctrine of one essence and three persons. The Council of Nicaea in 325 stated the crucial formula for that doctrine in its confession that the Son is "of the same essence [homoousios] as the Father," even though it said very little about the Holy Spirit. Over the next half century, Athanasius defended and refined the Nicene formula, and, by the end of the 4th century, under the leadership of Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus (the Cappadocian Fathers), the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since." (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1979, Trinity, Vol. X, p.126)​

The New Catholic Encyclopedia states: “The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.”—(1967), Vol. XIV, p. 299.

What the Catholic Encyclopedia said in context. The WTBS quote shown in blue.

"Question of Continuity and Elemental Trinitarianism: From what has been seen thus far, the impression could arise that the Trinitarian dogma is in the last analysis a late 4th-century invention. In a sense, this is true; but it implies an extremely strict interpretation of the key words Trinitarian and dogma. Triadic Consciousness in the Primitive Revelation. The formulation "one God in three Persons" was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective; among the 2d-century Apologists, little more than a focusing of the problem as that of plurality within the unique Godhead. ... From the vocabulary and grammar of the Greek original, the intention of the hagiographer to communicate singleness of essence in three distinct Persons was easily derived. ... If it is clear on one side that the dogma of the Trinity in the stricter sense of the word was a late arrival, product of 3 centuries' reflection and debate, it is just as clear on the opposite side that confession of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit-and hence an elemental Trinitarianism-went back to the period of Christian origins. (New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1965, Trinity, p299-300)​

In The Encyclopedia Americana we read: “Christianity derived from Judaism and Judaism was strictly Unitarian [believing that God is one person]. The road which led from Jerusalem to Nicea was scarcely a straight one. Fourth century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching.”—(1956), Vol. XXVII, p. 294L.

What the WTBS claims Encyclopedia Americana said. This edition is so old, 50+ years, it is virtually impossible to verify. Here is what a more current edition says.

TRINITY, The central and characteristic Christian doctrine of God is that He exists in Three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. ("Holy Ghost" is the traditional English translation of Sanctus Spiritus and means the same as "Holy Spirit.") At the same time, the Christian church insists that God is One in "sub- stance" (Latin substantia, existence or inner essence), and thus combines in it "mystery" (a formula or conception which really transcends human understanding) the truths set forth in the Holy Scriptures. It is probably a mistake to assume that the doctrine resulted from the intrusion of Greek metaphysics or philosophy into Christian thought; for the data upon which the doctrine rests, and also its earliest attempts at formulation, are much older than the church's encounter with Greek philosophy. The earliest development of the doctrine may in fact be viewed its an attempt to preserve the balance between the various statements of Scripture, or their implications, without yielding to views which, though logical enough, would have destroyed or abandoned important areas of Christian belief. The simplest affirmation is that God is "Three in One, and One in Three," without making use of such technical terms, derived from law or philosophy, as "substance" or "person." God is Father, and the Father is God; God is Son, and the Son is God; God is Spirit, and the Spirit is God. The statement is often seen, in Latin, in early stained-glass church windows, with three circles at the corners of it triangle and an inner circle connected with each (Fig. 1). The doctrine thus graphically symbolized might perhaps better be described as that of the divine "Triunity" rather than the "Trinity." At best the terms "substance" and "person" are themselves only symbolic, and point to a mysterious reality which cannot be either literally described or mathematically formulated. Furthermore, these two terms are, in English, only the rough equivalents of their Latin originals, which had far wider connotations than the English words now possess. The term "Trinity" (Greek Trias) was first used by Theophilus of Antioch (fl. c. 180 A.D.), and provide a convenient term of reference, though it did not provide a definition. [ . . . ] Eventually, Judaism emerged from the long struggle as a religion with one and only one God, the purest monotheism in the ancient world. Such expressions as "Let us make man" (Genesis 1:26) is probably only an echo of the early Hebrew, conception of a divine court, the "company of heaven," supernatural or angelic beings surrounding God in heaven. There was no other God beside Him (Deuteronomy 32:39; Isaiah 46:9). This theistic faith is completely taken for granted in the New Testament and in the early Christian creeds. Instead of a reversion in the direction of polytheism, with a plurality of divine beings, the development of Trinitarian doctrine was guided by the same principle of divine revelation as that reflected in the Old Testament, that is, from plurality to unity. For the early Christian belief that Jesus was divine, the Son of God, and that as the risen, glorified Messiah or Lord, He was now at the right hand of God: required the use of theistic language. [ . . . ](Encyclopedia Americana, Trinity, p116)​

 

[Der Alte]

It's just that that book agrees with the bible, and also explains where the idea came from.

What parts of Hislop's "To Babble On" do you think agrees with Bible? There are parts of the Quran which agree with the Bible. Does the parts which you think, but have NOT proved, agree with the Bible justify using a book that is full of lies, and misrepresentations?

There is NOTHING in "To Babble On" which explains where anything came from. This is the fourth time! Do you ever intend to admit that Hislop's "To Babble On" does NOT prove that the Trinity was copied from Babylon or any other pagan religion. It in fact says that pagan Trinities were copied from and misrepresent "the Triune God." Hislop openly calls the Christian God, "the Triune God."

[ . . . ]....While this [three headed idols, etc] had been the original way in which Pagan idolatry had represented the Triune God, and though this kind of representation had survived to Sennacherib's time, [ . . . ]

 

[it'sme]

What parts of Hislop's "To Babble On" do you think agrees with Bible? There are parts of the Quran which agree with the Bible. Does the parts which you think, but have NOT proved, agree with the Bible justify using a book that is full of lies, and misrepresentations?

There is NOTHING in "To Babble On" which explains where anything came from. This is the fourth time! Do you ever intend to admit that Hislop's "To Babble On" does NOT prove that the Trinity was copied from Babylon or any other pagan religion. It in fact says that pagan Trinities were copied from and misrepresent "the Triune God." Hislop openly calls the Christian God, "the Triune God."

I always use the bible as the final answer. And there is nothing in the bible about a trinity or even the idea of one. What other reference books do, is that they keep some sort of record of how things happened, or when etc. For instance, prophesy in the bible can be confirmed as to have happened in other historical works.
So you can't use this material to replace what the bible teaches, but the references can help with what words mean, confirm things that happened etc.
There is material on the how and when the trinity idea came about and why it is part of Christendom today. But the bible is where the truth comes from.

 

[FredVB]

IT'SME....


Previously in this thread:


>That the Son of God was before all else does not mean at all he was (made, if you think that is implied) first before "other" creation. I have pointed out that the term "other" you find is added and not in the Greek text, or any that I can say are reliable translations. And that he is before all else, would you not say that God is before all else?
​

>Hi Fred
The firstborn is primarily the oldest son of a father (rather than the firstborn of the mother), the beginning of the father’s generative power (De 21:17); also, the initial male offspring of animals, at times designated as “firstlings.”—Ge 4:4.
From earliest times the firstborn son held an honored position in the family and was the one who succeeded to the headship of the household. He inherited a double portion of the father’s property. (De 21:17) Reuben was seated by Joseph at a meal according to his right as firstborn. (Ge 43:33)
Jehovah was never a firstborn, he is the Father, and Micheal ( Jesus )was the firstborn....

And I answered:

>Hello all.

And still:

>Thank you, Der Alter, for all that work, and posting the information about the encyclopedic quotes unreliably used by WTBS and uncritically copied. I would not otherwise know about them, although I use the Bible to make valid argument.

And to you, it'sme:

>it'sme, with due respect, you have been going in circles using the same arguments that I have been dealing with using scriptural basis and you persist without acknowledging my counter argument. You have been hung up especially with this idea that, as a human son has a beginning, so the only begotten Son of God must have a beginning, even though I have pointed out, without response from you, that all orthodox Christian teaching involving this matter is explained with the understanding that the Son of God is such by the true meaning that he is the incarnation of God as a human being. He clearly preexisted, but he was not begotten until the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us. Nothing in scripture actually says he had a beginning or was created, and I have pointed out misused scripture, such as using words added to translations not in the texts that are translated from, or using what is clearly a personification of wisdom.

>it'sme, I have also already dealt with the idea that Jesus came as an example to Satan, and to show obedience to God. That was not really it by itself, you can see my previous response. And for that purpose, it is understandable that God came for us.

>I would also say, it'sme, that you do not have a realistic chance of always coming to the truth if you will keep relying on uncritical use of what your congregation provides for you to argue with and act on. You have not shown that you will really look at the Bible and do your own thinking from that.

>I have not focused on your disagreement with the idea of trinity. But you were saying there is "not 3 entities in one. This comes from the mysteries of false religions of Babylon." I too, as Der Alter has tried to do, tell you that you have not been able to name one actual case from Babylonian or any religion that could have influenced Christianity having any instance of "3 entities in one". It has already been shown and you can see it if you look that there already is a scriptural basis for 3 in one God to start with, and so it is not a matter of pagan influence, those who believe in trinity find it based on all these passages.


You did not respond to these points, and I next found I had to answer your last message to me with your message quoted:

>Hello. it'sme, you wrote:
"Hi Fred it sounds like you are shutting down our conversation. but that's
OK. If your not that's OK too.
I was only giving people a chance to decide for themselves, what they
believe. Just so that they can't say they didn't have an opportunity,
at least to hear, this good news.

>There is no point in pushing something on someone if they don't want it.

>I feel bad though because the really interesting information comes in
Daniel and Revelation , and you can't get what it is saying there,
without understanding , the basics, about Jehovah and Jesus, and the
other basic teachings. Sometimes when you look at other passages in the
bible it clears up the thinking about other passages and understandings.

>But I do respect the provision Jehovah gave man of freedom of choice.

>Anyway I enjoyed our conversation."

>Who is shutting down the conversation? I certainly was not. I had made
valid points, and it could be hoped that you would acknowledge that, and
rethink your position, but that would lead to thinking of changing to some
other congregation. If you do not do that, I am still not cutting the
discussion off, and if you are not doing so, you could repond to my points
and tell me if you think there is such a thing what it is that invalidates
any of those points. I will certainly take your counter argument into
account if they are not something I already made a good argument against,
and deal with such as is called for. You have yet to make convincing
argument to persuade from the position I have been communicating. Between
the two of us, and indeed also any others taking part in this discussion,
may the Truth prevail.

>Please take these things into account, they establish my position that I
would persuade you to....

it'sme, sorry for all that recap, but you never responded to me again, so I show all this again, and for the life of me, I do not see how you concluded "it sounds like you are shutting down our conversation". Was it because I gave an answer to Der Alter, who posted things about the encyclopedic quotes that I could not have done, before I could send the response that would be for you? I still then addressed you, and I can only see you concluded I shut down conversation if you missed that I then addressed you. Your last message to me did not respond to my points, and I addressed you again as I show, with still no response from you, although you still respond to Der Alter. My points are valid, but are not given to cut you off, but to show you might consider what I was saying is true. I wish you would see it, and I would be there for you if you did, because I know you would need to find new fellowship, which is why I mentioned my group, and you that way would be able to have my email address. But if you are not persuaded you may still answer me and I welcome it, but frankly I would say it would seem then you are guided by what your congregation tells you, and it may be too hard to break from them if you see the Bible is saying things that are contrary.

I had answered that the issue you had that the Son could not be from everlasting but must have a beginning was answerable with the understanding that he was called son from the time of the incarnation, as it can be shown, which then does not disagree with that he is from eternity. I said I dealt with that Jesus did not only come as an example. And I said you did not show any actual case of three persons who are one god from paganism, meaning if there were any then name each of the three that are. You did not respond to these things, and my last message for you included much more from the Bible to consider for the seeing the deity of the Lord Jesus; It was responded to, in an inadequate way leaving something to desire, by someone else, to whom I will have to answer yet, but it was to you, without you responding.

 

[FredVB]

I wrote last:

>my last message ... included much more from the Bible to consider for the seeing the deity of the Lord Jesus; It was responded to, in an inadequate way leaving something to desire, by someone else, to whom I will have to answer yet ...


It will involve some length, so it will take some time for me to do.

 

[it'sme]

it'sme, sorry for all that recap, but you never responded to me again, so I show all this again, and for the life of me, I do not see how you concluded "it sounds like you are shutting down our conversation". Was it because I gave an answer to Der Alter, who posted things about the encyclopedic quotes that I could not have done, before I could send the response that would be for you? I still then addressed you, and I can only see you concluded I shut down conversation if you missed that I then addressed you. Your last message to me did not respond to my points, and I addressed you again as I show, with still no response from you, although you still respond to Der Alter. My points are valid, but are not given to cut you off, but to show you might consider what I was saying is true. I wish you would see it, and I would be there for you if you did, because I know you would need to find new fellowship, which is why I mentioned my group, and you that way would be able to have my email address. But if you are not persuaded you may still answer me and I welcome it, but frankly I would say it would seem then you are guided by what your congregation tells you, and it may be too hard to break from them if you see the Bible is saying things that are contrary.

I had answered that the issue you had that the Son could not be from everlasting but must have a beginning was answerable with the understanding that he was called son from the time of the incarnation, as it can be shown, which then does not disagree with that he is from eternity. I said I dealt with that Jesus did not only come as an example. And I said you did not show any actual case of three persons who are one god from paganism, meaning if there were any then name each of the three that are. You did not respond to these things, and my last message for you included much more from the Bible to consider for the seeing the deity of the Lord Jesus; It was responded to, in an inadequate way leaving something to desire, by someone else, to whom I will have to answer yet, but it was to you, without you responding.

OH yes your right. I think I did start something as a post to you, then ran out of time and forgot. Sorry about that. I don't mind the reminders, when I forget some thing. Then the problem is with this type of communication is the posts get buried.
I really did not mean to dismiss your post.

but frankly I would say it would seem then you are guided by what your congregation tells you, and it may be too hard to break from them if you see the Bible is saying things that are contrary.

Well first you would have to show where we are wrong.
But then do you agree with what your church or congregation believes? Do you believe that your chruch is correct, say over other Christan religions. In other words is it just your church that has the truth?

I am please to discuss any bible topic with you. I think that sometimes a doctrine or understanding that we have can be cleared up by going on different topics. The reason being is that, the bible is incredibly interlinked so that one false understanding , causes contradictions in other area's.
That is why the bible interprets itself. Or a better way to say it is that God interprets the bible for us. But we have to submit to that.
Once again Fred I apologize, for forgetting your post.

 

[FredVB]

2ducklow, excuse me for saying so, but these are lame arguments you gave.

>I beleive it means that Jesus was in God's plan in OT prophecies and even before that, not that Jesus was going forth, but that the prophecies, and plan of god was going forth a long time ago.

You believe how you will to, but scripture says "his going forth" which using a masculine pronoun is referring to a man who was coming, so it is not referring to a plan.

>My opinion is that "the word was god" is a personification, just as jesus is personified as a door, bread of heaven, a good shepard, a lamp, etc.
John 1.1 actually says the word was towards (pros in greek) God, and the Word was god". thus no contradiction. the way most every bible translates john 1.1 results in a contradiction, namely if the word was with God, then it can't be god, and if the word was god, then it can't be with the one it is.
The word was in the beginning with (pros) God, which means in the beginning the word or plan for man was towards God, meaning God's word, or plan for man points us towards god.

>As you well know everywhere else in the bible except john 1 all christians take the word to mean the word of god, the written or oral word of God. I believe that is the same meaning for the word in john 1.

The Word we are told became flesh and dwelt among us, referring to the incarnation we know as the Lord Jesus Christ. So it certainly is not the personification of a plan or such.

>no savior(hyperbole, the bible lists other saviors besides Jesus and Yahweh. 2dl)

The burden should be on you to show the examples that God names other saviors.

>Logic demands if we trust the Scriptures that if Jesus,
who is the Word that became flesh, is also God, then he is
the same Yahweh.
not if one assumes that the word is the written or oral word of god as it is everywhere in the bible.

As I said this would be a faulty assumption.

>But to the Son he says: "your throne, O
God, is forever and ever; a scepter of righteousness is
the scepter of your kingdom. the earliest Greek manuscripts say His kingdom not your kingdom, thus the first part cannot be translated "your throne , o God,..." It has to be an exclamation, and since God would not utter the exclamation "o God" the meaning has to be "God is thy throne". Or "thy throne is God", because god or throne have to be predicate nominatives. God and throne are in the nominative case, not the vocative case, and persons or god are never addressed in the nominative or nameing case, it's always the vocative case, and the vocative case for God is thee, not theos as is in heb. 1.8.

>some bibles recognise these facts and translate it differently than is commonly the way it is translated.

The problem with this interpretation is that in Hebrews this passage shows the Father addressing the Son, and why would the Father possibly be referring to just God's kingdom, and not of the Son, in speaking to him? It would be irrelevant for the context.

>equal with doesn't mean is.
plus there is an alternate way, grammatically speaking, of translating phil. 2.6

Of course it does mean so, because equal here means equality with God, and so Jesus is equal with the Father, and as there is certainly, and is here established, only one God, so the Father and the Son, each a person, are both the same God. People who reject this outright have difficulty with it, but those who conform there belief to the Bible can see that God is different then we are, and in transcendence beyond what we know, God as one being can be more than one person.

>Jesus is the image of god, an image of something isn't the thing it is an image of, a photograph is an image of a person but it isn't that person. Image doesn't mean is.

This is certainly not meant in this use in scripture. Jesus is the manifestation of God to us, as it must be so as he is equal to God.

>they are one, thus they are in accord, thus they are both the alpha and omega. Doesn't mean a man is a spirit, or Jesus is god.

You are missing the meaning of him being the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and ending of everything. This is characteristic only of God.

And then you said, "God is a spirit (jn 4:24)........... God is not a man...(Nu 23:19) A spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me (Jesus) have (Lu 24:39).....the man Christ Jesus 1 ti 2:5"

Of course, in essence by nature, God is self-existent Creator, infinite, eternal, almighty,... and not a man, but with all God's power, God could come in a human incarnation. And this argument using Jesus statement is after his resurrection, and proves he was not just a spirit, but returned as a living physical man.

 

[FredVB]

Hello, it'sme. Yes I understand and you can be excused. You wrote:

>But then do you agree with what your church or congregation believes? Do you believe that your chruch is correct, say over other Christan religions. In other words is it just your church that has the truth?

I do not have more time today to post, but I do not agree with everything taught in my congregation, ore where I have gone before it. I will only go by what the Bible teaches, although I seek to go where it is closely adhered to.

 

[it'sme]

Hello, it'sme. Yes I understand and you can be excused. You wrote:

>But then do you agree with what your church or congregation believes? Do you believe that your chruch is correct, say over other Christan religions. In other words is it just your church that has the truth?

I do not have more time today to post, but I do not agree with everything taught in my congregation, ore where I have gone before it. I will only go by what the Bible teaches, although I seek to go where it is closely adhered to.

In Jesus time there was only one way. With Noah it was only one way, and with the Jews it was only one way. The Jews even though the Pharisees were incorperating pagan ideas, the Jews as a people had nowhere else to go. When Jesus came he was the only way. That does not mean people are perfect, becasue even the apostles had differences with the understanding of what Jesus and writings ( OT) were. We know more today than they did, and the bible says at the time of the end, the knowledge will become abundant. This is the hidden knowledge or sacred secret that the bible talks about .
“To you the sacred secret [Gr., my‧ste′ri‧on] of the kingdom of God has been given, but to those outside all things occur in illustrations, in order that, though looking, they may look and yet not see, and, though hearing, they may hear and yet not get the sense of it, nor ever turn back and forgiveness be given them.”—Mr 4:11, 12; Mt 13:11-13; Lu 8:10