Trinity

[True Believer]

Should You Believe in the Trinity?

How Did the Trinity Doctrine Develop?

AT THIS point you might ask: 'If the Trinity is not a Biblical teaching, how did it become a doctrine of Christendom?' Many think that it was formulated at the Council of Nicaea in 325 C.E.

That is not totally correct, however. The Council of Nicaea did assert that Christ was of the same substance as God, which laid the groundwork for later Trinitarian theology. But it did not establish the Trinity, for at that council there was no mention of the holy spirit as the third person of a triune Godhead.

Constantine's Role at Nicaea


FOR many years, there had been much opposition on Biblical grounds to the developing idea that Jesus was God. To try to solve the dispute, Roman emperor Constantine summoned all bishops to Nicaea. About 300, a fraction of the total, actually attended.

Constantine was not a Christian. Supposedly, he converted later in life, but he was not baptized until he lay dying. Regarding him, Henry Chadwick says in The Early Church: "Constantine, like his father, worshipped the Unconquered Sun; . . . his conversion should not be interpreted as an inward experience of grace . . . It was a military matter. His comprehension of Christian doctrine was never very clear, but he was sure that victory in battle lay in the gift of the God of the Christians."

What role did this unbaptized emperor play at the Council of Nicaea? The Encyclopædia Britannica relates: "Constantine himself presided, actively guiding the discussions, and personally proposed . . . the crucial formula expressing the relation of Christ to God in the creed issued by the council, 'of one substance with the Father' . . . Overawed by the emperor, the bishops, with two exceptions only, signed the creed, many of them much against their inclination."

'Fourth century Trinitarianism was a deviation from early Christian teaching.' —The Encyclopedia Americana​

​

​

Hence, Constantine's role was crucial. After two months of furious religious debate, this pagan politician intervened and decided in favor of those who said that Jesus was God. But why? Certainly not because of any Biblical conviction. "Constantine had basically no understanding whatsoever of the questions that were being asked in Greek theology," says A Short History of Christian Doctrine. What he did understand was that religious division was a threat to his empire, and he wanted to solidify his domain.

None of the bishops at Nicaea promoted a Trinity, however. They decided only the nature of Jesus but not the role of the holy spirit. If a Trinity had been a clear Bible truth, should they not have proposed it at that time?

Further Development

AFTER Nicaea, debates on the subject continued for decades. Those who believed that Jesus was not equal to God even came back into favor for a time. But later Emperor Theodosius decided against them. He established the creed of the Council of Nicaea as the standard for his realm and convened the Council of Constantinople in 381 C.E. to clarify the formula.

That council agreed to place the holy spirit on the same level as God and Christ. For the first time, Christendom's Trinity began to come into focus.

Yet, even after the Council of Constantinople, the Trinity did not become a widely accepted creed. Many opposed it and thus brought on themselves violent persecution. It was only in later centuries that the Trinity was formulated into set creeds. The Encyclopedia Americana notes: "The full development of Trinitarianism took place in the West, in the Scholasticism of the Middle Ages, when an explanation was undertaken in terms of philosophy and psychology."

The Athanasian Creed



THE Trinity was defined more fully in the Athanasian Creed. Athanasius was a clergyman who supported Constantine at Nicaea. The creed that bears his name declares: "We worship one God in Trinity . . . The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God; and yet they are not three gods, but one God."

Well-informed scholars agree, however, that Athanasius did not compose this creed. The New Encyclopædia Britannica comments: "The creed was unknown to the Eastern Church until the 12th century. Since the 17th century, scholars have generally agreed that the Athanasian Creed was not written by Athanasius (died 373) but was probably composed in southern France during the 5th century. . . . The creed's influence seems to have been primarily in southern France and Spain in the 6th and 7th centuries. It was used in the liturgy of the church in Germany in the 9th century and somewhat later in Rome."

So it took centuries from the time of Christ for the Trinity to become widely accepted in Christendom. And in all of this, what guided the decisions? Was it the Word of God, or was it clerical and political considerations? In Origin and Evolution of Religion, E. W. Hopkins answers: "The final orthodox definition of the trinity was largely a matter of church politics."

Apostasy Foretold


THIS disreputable history of the Trinity fits in with what Jesus and his apostles foretold would follow their time. They said that there would be an apostasy, a deviation, a falling away from true worship until Christ's return, when true worship would be restored before God's day of destruction of this system of things.



"The Triad of the Great Gods"

Many centuries before the time of Christ, there were triads, or trinities, of gods in ancient Babylonia and Assyria. The French "Larousse Encyclopedia of Mythology" notes one such triad in that Mesopotamian area: "The universe was divided into three regions each of which became the domain of a god. Anu's share was the sky. The earth was given to Enlil. Ea became the ruler of the waters. Together they constituted the triad of the Great Gods."

Regarding that "day," the apostle Paul said: "It will not come unless the apostasy comes first and the man of lawlessness gets revealed." (2 Thessalonians 2:3, 7) Later, he foretold: "When I have gone fierce wolves will invade you and will have no mercy on the flock. Even from your own ranks there will be men coming forward with a travesty of the truth on their lips to induce the disciples to follow them." (Acts 20:29, 30, JB) Other disciples of Jesus also wrote of this apostasy with its 'lawless' clergy class.—See, for example, 2 Peter 2:1; 1 John 4:1-3; Jude 3, 4.

Paul also wrote: "The time is sure to come when, far from being content with sound teaching, people will be avid for the latest novelty and collect themselves a whole series of teachers according to their own tastes; and then, instead of listening to the truth, they will turn to myths."—2 Timothy 4:3, 4, JB.

Jesus himself explained what was behind this falling away from true worship. He said that he had sowed good seeds but that the enemy, Satan, would oversow the field with weeds. So along with the first blades of wheat, the weeds appeared also. Thus, a deviation from pure Christianity was to be expected until the harvest, when Christ would set matters right. (Matthew 13:24-43) The Encyclopedia Americana comments: "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." Where, then, did this deviation originate?—1 Timothy 1:6.

What Influenced It


THROUGHOUT the ancient world, as far back as Babylonia, the worship of pagan gods grouped in threes, or triads, was common. That influence was also prevalent in Egypt, Greece, and Rome in the centuries before, during, and after Christ. And after the death of the apostles, such pagan beliefs began to invade Christianity.

Historian Will Durant observed: "Christianity did not destroy paganism; it adopted it. . . . From Egypt came the ideas of a divine trinity." And in the book Egyptian Religion, Siegfried Morenz notes: "The trinity was a major preoccupation of Egyptian theologians . . . Three gods are combined and treated as a single being, addressed in the singular. In this way the spiritual force of Egyptian religion shows a direct link with Christian theology."



Thus, in Alexandria, Egypt, churchmen of the late third and early fourth centuries, such as Athanasius, reflected this influence as they formulated ideas that led to the Trinity. Their own influence spread, so that Morenz considers "Alexandrian theology as the intermediary between the Egyptian religious heritage and Christianity."

In the preface to Edward Gibbon's History of Christianity, we read: "If Paganism was conquered by Christianity, it is equally true that Christianity was corrupted by Paganism. The pure Deism of the first Christians . . . was changed, by the Church of Rome, into the incomprehensible dogma of the trinity. Many of the pagan tenets, invented by the Egyptians and idealized by Plato, were retained as being worthy of belief."

A Dictionary of Religious Knowledge notes that many say that the Trinity "is a corruption borrowed from the heathen religions, and ingrafted on the Christian faith." And The Paganism in Our Christianity declares: "The origin of the [Trinity] is entirely pagan." ​

That is why, in the Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics, James Hastings wrote: "In Indian religion, e.g., we meet with the trinitarian group of Brahma, Siva, and Visnu; and in Egyptian religion with the trinitarian group of Osiris, Isis, and Horus . . . Nor is it only in historical religions that we find God viewed as a Trinity. One recalls in particular the Neo-Platonic view of the Supreme or Ultimate Reality," which is "triadically represented."

What does the Greek philosopher Plato have to do with the Trinity? See next post.

 

[True Believer]

Platonism


PLATO, it is thought, lived from 428 to 347 before Christ. While he did not teach the Trinity in its present form, his philosophies paved the way for it. Later, philosophical movements that included triadic beliefs sprang up, and these were influenced by Plato's ideas of God and nature.

The French Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel (New Universal Dictionary) says of Plato's influence: "The Platonic trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave birth to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian churches. . . . This Greek philosopher's conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all the ancient [pagan] religions."

The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge shows the influence of this Greek philosophy: "The doctrines of the Logos and the Trinity received their shape from Greek Fathers, who . . . were much influenced, directly or indirectly, by the Platonic philosophy . . . That errors and corruptions crept into the Church from this source can not be denied."

The Church of the First Three Centuries says: "The doctrine of the Trinity was of gradual and comparatively late formation; . . . it had its origin in a source entirely foreign from that of the Jewish and Christian Scriptures; . . . it grew up, and was ingrafted on Christianity, through the hands of the Platonizing Fathers."

By the end of the third century C.E., "Christianity" and the new Platonic philosophies became inseparably united. As Adolf Harnack states in Outlines of the History of Dogma, church doctrine became "firmly rooted in the soil of Hellenism [pagan Greek thought]. Thereby it became a mystery to the great majority of Christians."

The church claimed that its new doctrines were based on the Bible. But Harnack says: "In reality it legitimized in its midst the Hellenic speculation, the superstitious views and customs of pagan mystery-worship."

In the book A Statement of Reasons, Andrews Norton says of the Trinity: "We can trace the history of this doctrine, and discover its source, not in the Christian revelation, but in the Platonic philosophy . . . The Trinity is not a doctrine of Christ and his Apostles, but a fiction of the school of the later Platonists."

Thus, in the fourth century C.E., the apostasy foretold by Jesus and the apostles came into full bloom. Development of the Trinity was just one evidence of this. The apostate churches also began embracing other pagan ideas, such as hellfire, immortality of the soul, and idolatry. Spiritually speaking, Christendom had entered its foretold dark ages, dominated by a growing "man of lawlessness" clergy class.—2 Thessalonians 2:3, 7.

Hindu Trinity​

​

​

​

The book "The Symbolism of Hindu Gods and Rituals" says regarding a Hindu trinity that existed centuries before Christ: "Siva is one of the gods of the Trinity. He is said to be the god of destruction. The other two gods are Brahma, the god of creation and Vishnu, the god of maintenance. . . . To indicate that these three processes are one and the same the three gods are combined in one form."—Published by A. Parthasarathy, Bombay.



Why Did God's Prophets Not Teach It?

WHY, for thousands of years, did none of God's prophets teach his people about the Trinity? At the latest, would Jesus not use his ability as the Great Teacher to make the Trinity clear to his followers? Would God inspire hundreds of pages of Scripture and yet not use any of this instruction to teach the Trinity if it were the "central doctrine" of faith?

Are Christians to believe that centuries after Christ and after having inspired the writing of the Bible, God would back the formulation of a doctrine that was unknown to his servants for thousands of years, one that is an "inscrutable mystery" "beyond the grasp of human reason," one that admittedly had a pagan background and was "largely a matter of church politics"?

The testimony of history is clear: The Trinity teaching is a deviation from the truth, an apostatizing from it.



Copyright © 2000 Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania. All rights reserved.

 

[Der Alte]

Preaching the good news of the Kingdom is never a waste of time.
Why in fact we are commanded to do so.

And millions of people around the globe are joining the united global brotherhood in true worship of the one Almighty God Jehovah, much to Satan's consternation.

Do not put words in my mouth. I said nothing about a waste of time. But since you brought it up, it could be. Unless you can pick up a Bible written in the original languages and read and verify for yourself that every word in your favorite translation is correct. Have you done that? No you have not but I have! How do I know, you have not, because you are the one making inflammatory accusations about people who know the Biblical languages being arrogant and liars.

The tracts that you pass out may be filled with false information and in many cases they have been. False teachings gets explained away by claiming it is "New Light." Light only illuminates what is already there, light does not change black to white, up to down, yes to no. When a religious group prohibits something, then permits it, then prohibits it again, that is not "new light." That is out and out false teaching.

And OBTW my denomination is growing faster than yours. Numbers alone do not prove correct doctrine. If they did then you would have to admit that the LDS church is the true church because they are about twice as big as JW and both churches started about the same time.

 

[Der Alte]

Should You Believe in the Trinity?

How Did the Trinity Doctrine Develop?

AT THIS point you might ask: 'If the Trinity is not a Biblical teaching, how did it become a doctrine of Christendom?' Many think that it was formulated at the Council of Nicaea in 325 C.E.

That is not totally correct, however. The Council of Nicaea did assert that Christ was of the same substance as God, which laid the groundwork for later Trinitarian theology. But it did not establish the Trinity, for at that council there was no mention of the holy spirit as the third person of a triune Godhead.

Constantine's Role at Nicaea. . .

This entire tract is a piece of vile, filthy, garbage, I would use stronger language but this is a Christian forum. The tract is full of lies, half truths, misquotes, and out-of-context quotes. I will only address a few of the quotes, in these posts. Anyone who would close their eyes and quote such vile garbage, without bothering to verify it for themselves, just because their church published it, is walking in total darkness.

At the link below the complete tract is quoted in the left hand column, and the truth in the right hand column, with links to the complete sources. This side by side comparison shows how the JW have deliberately misquoted, twisted, and even made up false information, fanatically trying to support their false doctrine.

How Did the Trinity Doctrine Develop?
At this point you might ask: 'If the Trinity is not a Biblical teaching, how did it become a doctrine of Christendom?' Many think that it was formulated at the Council of Nicaea in 325 C.E.

That is not totally correct, however. The Council of Nicaea did assert that Christ was of the same substance as God, which laid the groundwork for later Trinitarian theology. But it did not establish the Trinity, for at that council there was no mention of the holy spirit as the third person of a triune Godhead.

Response:

The deception is how the Watchtower is using the word Trinity. They are defining "trinity" as the developed 4th century doctrines 1. "that Christ was of the same substance as God" and 2. "holy spirit as the third person of a triune Godhead" were neither in the Bible or in the Nicene creed. But even here the Watchtower is lying to you. For the Nicene creed says:

"We believe in one God ... And in one lord, Jesus Christ, ... And in the Holy Spirit." This clearly depicts the Holy Spirit as a person, just as Mt 28:19 does. The Nicene creed also says that the Son was made of the same stuff as the father and condemned anyone who would teach otherwise: "Church anathematizes those who say: there was when he was not; and before being born he was not; or that he came to be from things that are not; or that the Son of God is from a different hypostasis or ousia or mutable or changeable." (Nicene creed 325 AD)​

​

​

Constantine's Role at Nicaea
Constantine was not a Christian. Supposedly, he converted later in life, but he was not baptized until he lay dying.

Response:

Jehovah's Witnesses falsely portray Constantine as a pagan sun worshipper who had no faith in Christ and was practically the sole author of the Nicene creed. They paint the Nicene council as being run by a pagan with "no understanding" of Christian doctrine and then imply that Constantine drafted the final Nicene text and used his power to banish only those who opposed.

In fact, a true review of Constantine’s life, will convince the honest seeker that he was as righteous and anti-pagan as any "good" Old Testament King of Judah in the Bible. Constantine delaying his baptism till his dead, is no different from JW's delaying their baptisms for a year, in light of the fact the New Testament Christians were always baptized immediately for the remission of sins. Acts 2:38; 16:33. But in fact, it was the custom of the day for civil leaders to delay their baptisms till the end of their lives. Yes it was wrong, but so is the current practice for JW's delaying their baptisms for a year! Yet notice what Henry Chadwick said in the same book as the Watchtower quotes next: "He was not baptized until he lay dying in 337, but this implies no doubt about his Christian belief. It was common at this time (and continued so until about A.D. 400) to postpone baptism to the end of one's life, especially if one's duty as an official included torture and execution of criminals. Part of the reason for postponement lay in the seriousness with which the responsibilities of baptism were taken." Britannica says, "Constantine had hoped to be baptized in the River Jordan, but perhaps because of the lack of opportunity to do so together no doubt with the reflection that his office necessarily involved responsibility for actions hardly compatible with the baptized state delayed the ceremony until the end of his life. (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1979, Constantine the Great, Vol. 5, p.71) This sheds a whole new light on why Constantine delayed his baptism!​

​

​

The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge shows the influence of this Greek philosophy: "The doctrines of the Logos and the Trinity received their shape from Greek Fathers, who . . . were much influenced, directly or indirectly, by the Platonic philosophy . . . That errors and corruptions crept into the Church from this source can not be denied."

Response:

JW's mislead the reader into thinking that there are similarities between Platonism and Christianity, but no similarities between Platonism and the Watchtower religion. For example, Schaff-Herzog say in the same article: "If we Christians (or JW's) say that all things were created and ordered by God, we seem to enounce a doctrine of Plato". According the Jw logic, the watchtower borrowed the doctrine from Plato!

But it gets worse for JW's look at what the same book: There is no reason to seek for sources or types of the doctrine of the Trinity outside of Christianity or of the Bible, though in the eighteenth century efforts were made to derive the Christian dogma from Plato, and later from Brahmanism and Parseeism, or, later still, from a Babylonian triad. Even were the resemblance between the Christian Trinity and the pagan triads far greater than it is, there could be no serious question of borrowing. The development, of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity is historically clear, and its motives are equally well known, being almost exclusively due to Christological speculation."

"The doctrine of the divine Trinity is the summarized statement of the historical revelation of redemption for the Christian consciousness of God. It affirms that God is not only the ruler of the universe, but the Father of Christ, in whom he is perfectly revealed, and the source of a holy and blessed life which transforms nature and is realized in the Church. It constitutes the distinctive characteristic of Christianity as contrasted with Judaism and paganism and is a modification of Christian monotheism." (New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia, Trinity, Doctrine of the; p18) Such utter satanic deception Jehovah's Witnesses engage in!​

​

​

Jesus himself explained what was behind this falling away from true worship. He said that he had sowed good seeds but that the enemy, Satan, would oversow the field with weeds. So along with the first blades of wheat, the weeds appeared also. Thus, a deviation from pure Christianity was to be expected until the harvest, when Christ would set matters right. (Matthew 13:24-43) The Encyclopedia Americana comments: "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." Where, then, did this deviation originate?—1 Timothy 1:6.

Response:, what the Encyclopedia actually says;

At the same time, the Christian church insists that God is One in "substance" (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. (Encyclopedia Americana, Trinity, p116)

http://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-frames-start-page-SYBTT.htm
​

​

​

 

[Swart]

Not being literate in either Greek or Hebrew, I have no way of deciding for myself what idea is more accurate other than that bit of reasoning.

Chaindog

This is why LDS teach the need for personal revelation. IMO it is the only way to come to a knowledge of the truth.

Study it out in your mind. Pray to Heavenly Father in the name of Jesus Christ to help him guide you into truth. Once you think you know what is right, ask HF if it is correct. He will answer you by the power of the Holy Ghost.

As a missionary, I never told anyone to believe on my words. I always told them to ask God to reveal the answer to them.

 

[Der Alte]

This is why LDS teach the need for personal revelation. IMO it is the only way to come to a knowledge of the truth.

Study it out in your mind. Pray to Heavenly Father in the name of Jesus Christ to help him guide you into truth. Once you think you know what is right, ask HF if it is correct. He will answer you by the power of the Holy Ghost.

As a missionary, I never told anyone to believe on my words. I always told them to ask God to reveal the answer to them.

But the funny thing is when a LDS prays for and receives "personal revelation," its a miracle, it always confirms LDS doctrine, and when a JW prays for and receives "personal revelation," another miracle, it always confirms JW doctrine, etc., etc., etc.

 

[Rechtgläubig]

Exactly Der Alter.

I addressed this exact problem in post #17 of Wrigley's "looking for an article" thread. I suspect this post will soon join it and they will drift away onto page 2 unanswered.

 

[Swart]

But the funny thing is when a LDS prays for and receives "personal revelation," its a miracle, it always confirms LDS doctrine, and when a JW prays for and receives "personal revelation," another miracle, it always confirms JW doctrine, etc., etc., etc.

I was not aware that JW's advocate this. CFR on this one.

Are you mocking personal revelation? Or just the fact that LDS *could* receive personal revelation?

If I were to say I received "personal revelation" on some matter (meaning it was for me and no other), who would be the judge of that?

 

[Der Alte]

I was not aware that JW's advocate this. CFR on this one.

Are you mocking personal revelation? Or just the fact that LDS *could* receive personal revelation?

"Personal revelation" is highly subjective. Have you ever had a "personal revelation," which showed any practice or belief of your church to be wrong or unscriptural? Well neither has any JW, follower of Jim Jones or David Koresh, or other non-mainline denomination.

"If I were to say I received "personal revelation" on some matter (meaning it was for me and no other), who would be the judge of that?" See previous response. Highly subjective, and I can almost guarantee your "personal revelation" on some matter (meaning it was for [you] and no other)," would not deviate one millimeter from approved LDS doctrine, and neither would a similar revelation to a JW. And since LDS and JW have different doctrines both revelations cannot be true.

You can call it mocking, or whatever you want, I am merely pointing out fact. Back to my original point. I know what the Bible says and can verify if any translation is correct or not, because I can read both Bible languages. God is not going to give me, you, or the man in the moon, a "personal revelation" which contradicts His word, and by that I mean the Old and New Testaments, not LDS wriitings.

 

[Q Logic]

True Believer Makes a Point , That My Mind Didn't Realize , That None of the Prophets

and Messengers Of God Preached Trinity ! Is That why Muslims and Jews Do Not !

Recognize Jesus as God ?

Another Thing That's Interesting That Jesus only spoke Hebrew And Aramaic , He was

only Limited to know Two Langauges ! If Jesus is God Wouldn't He know all

Languages ???

 

[Rechtgläubig]

I totally agree with you Der Alter.

 

[Q Logic]

True Believer Makes a Point , That My Mind Didn't Realize , That None of the Prophets

and Messengers Of God Preached Trinity ! Is That why Muslims and Jews Do Not !

Recognize Jesus as God ?

Another Thing That's Interesting That Jesus only spoke Hebrew And Aramaic , He was

only Limited to know Two Langauges ! If Jesus is God Wouldn't He know all

Languages ???

 

[Swart]

"Personal revelation" is highly subjective. Have you ever had a "personal revelation," which showed any practice or belief of your church to be wrong or unscriptural?

I have had personal revelation that contradicted tenets that had thought to be correct, and had to change my viewpoint somewhat.

I have received a witness from the HG in a SDA church. That surprised me and confused me at the time. Now, it is not an issue, but at the time I thought (incorrectly) it was not possible.

I have received personal revelation on matters contrary to opinions I held at the time.

I have received perosnal revelation that the Bible was the word of God.

Obviously, I have not had personal revelation that showed any particular belief of the church was in error. Is there something you would like me to ask God about?

Well neither has any JW, follower of Jim Jones or David Koresh, or other non-mainline denomination.

And this is proof of?

Highly subjective, and I can almost guarantee your "personal revelation" on some matter (meaning it was for [you] and no other)," would not deviate one millimeter from approved LDS doctrine,

Why do you make that claim? Unless you are claiming one CANNOT receive personal revelation, or that *I* have not received personal revelations.

This is the atheist argument "How do you know you are not deluding yourself?"

Either way, you are making a personal judgement on a personal matter. Simply put, you are denying my personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

and neither would a similar revelation to a JW. And since LDS and JW have different doctrines both revelations cannot be true.

Agreed. CFR where PR is a tenet of the JW.

You can call it mocking, or whatever you want,

Mocking will do.

I am merely pointing out fact.

And what *fact* is that?

Back to my original point. I know what the Bible says and can verify if any translation is correct or not, because I can read both Bible languages. God is not going to give me, you, or the man in the moon, a "personal revelation" which contradicts His word, and by that I mean the Old and New Testaments, not LDS wriitings.

Again, agreed. I have never received a revelation contrary to the word of God, only to some peoples interpretation of such.

IMO, there are only two points of view you can have on this:

1) Personal Revelation exists
2) Personal Revelation does not exist

If you believe 1) then you either stand in judgement of me and others who claim to have recieved PR, or respectively say "my experiences are different" and leave it at that. That's why its *IS* PR. It isn't for anyone else. I can't say to you, "I know, therefor believe me". It's "I know, now you can go and find out for yourself."

If you believe 2) then I believe you - and not me - to be teaching contrary to the word of God, which teaches that one may indeed receive personal answers to prayers.

 

[Swart]

Well neither has any JW, follower of Jim Jones or David Koresh, or other non-mainline denomination.

Actually, this is not true! Many people in other denominations receive a witness of the truthfulness of the restored Gospel.

Of course, once they do, they soon cease to be members of these denominations and become members of the Church of Jesus Christ.

I am one example. I know personally dozens of others.

It would be ludicrous for someone to gain a testimony of the Gospel, and then continue to remain as members of their previous congregations.

I'm expecting the cop-out reply, well they weren't *really* strong in their own faith to begin with.

 

[Swart]

I totally agree with you Der Alter.

Backslapping doesn't really add much to the discussion, don't you think?

 

[lared]

My, my. The emotions are rather frightening.

 

[jessedance]

swart;
It is my opinion that personal revelation about scripture comes from either demons or angels of God. Sometimes people get revelations from a spirit and they assume it came from God when in fact it came from a demon. and actually , I think any doctrine that any church holds that is incorrect , is either a doctrine of demons 1 tim 4;11 or doctrines of men col2:22. And actually I believe that doctrines of men are heavly influenced by demons.

 

[happyinhisgrace]

There is no phrase" God the Son" or "God the Holy Spirit" in the Bible anywhere!
God the Father is there around 12 times but never in the context of being a part of a whole of three!
Here are all of the texts found in the KJV which have "God the Father"

John 6:27
Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.
Two seperate beings
Galatians 1:1
Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead
Two seperate beings
Galatians 1:3
Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ,
Two seperate beings
Ephesians 6:23
Peace be to the brethren, and love with faith, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
Two seperate beings
Philippians 2:11
And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Two seperate beings
1 Thessalonians 1:1
Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians which is in God the Father and in the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.
Two seperate beings
2 Timothy 1:2
To Timothy, my dearly beloved son: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.
Two seperate beings
Titus 1:4
To Titus, mine own son after the common faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour.
Two seperate beings
1 Peter 1:2
Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.
Two seperate beings and the spirit but all seperate and the spirit is not here even close to being a personality
2 Peter 1:17
For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
Two seperate beings.
2 John 1:3
Grace be with you, mercy, and peace, from God the Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, in truth and love.
Two seperate beings
Jude 1:1
Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called:
And once again Two seperate beings always seperate and used together with Jesus to show the Father and Son relationship taught throughout the NT and never a third person known as the Holy Spirit

2 persons, 1 being.

 

[Swart]

swart;
It is my opinion that personal revelation about scripture comes from either demons or angels of God. Sometimes people get revelations from a spirit and they assume it came from God when in fact it came from a demon. and actually , I think any doctrine that any church holds that is incorrect , is either a doctrine of demons 1 tim 4;11 or doctrines of men col2:22. And actually I believe that doctrines of men are heavly influenced by demons.

I agree with your statements. That is why the spirits must be proven:

"Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God" - 1 John 4:2

 

[Der Alte]

True Believer Makes a Point , That My Mind Didn't Realize , That None of the Prophets
and Messengers Of God Preached Trinity ! Is That why Muslims and Jews Do Not !
Recognize Jesus as God ?
Another Thing That's Interesting That Jesus only spoke Hebrew And Aramaic , He was
only Limited to know Two Langauges ! If Jesus is God Wouldn't He know all
Languages ???

Correction TB did not make any point whatsoever. All he did was cut and paste some garbage from a JW tract. A tract that I have shown is full of lies, half-truths, misquotes, out-of-context quotes, and manufactured quotes, i.e. out and out lies.

If you think there is some relevant point in TB’s post go to the link I provided and verify the truth and let us know if everything in that tract is not proven false.

Who said Jesus only spoke Hebrew and Aramaic? If that is true how did Jesus talk to the Syrophoenician woman, the Roman soldiers, the Samaritan woman, the Greeks who came to see him, and others? Foreigners did not speak Hebrew/Aramaic, the language of a insignificant little country like Israel. Greek was the language of trade and commerce, Jesus spoke Greek, when necessary.

One example that shows Jesus spoke Greek. The words of Jesus on the cross, the gospel writer first transliterated the Aramaic, “Eloi, Eloi lama sabachthani” then he translated it into Greek. If Jesus only spoke Hebrew/Aramaic why are there only 2-3 instances where the gospel writer transliterates the Aramaic word then translates them into Greek? If Jesus only spoke Hebrew/Aramaic all four gospels would be full of Aramaic being translated into Greek.