Where Did the Trinity Teaching Come From?

Alter2Ego

ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:

The fabricated term "godhead" goes hand in hand with the false trinity teaching that was officially introduced into Christianity by the ROMAN Catholics, beginning in 325 C.E. at the Council of Nicaea, when about 300 Catholic bishops met. At that time, Roman Emperor Constantine--a non-Christian who was not baptized until he lay dying--presided over the Nicaea Counsel and, as stated by the Encyclopedia Britannica:

"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, [that Christ was] 'of one substance with the Father.' "

Keep in mind that Jesus died and returned to heaven in 33 C.E. and that this idea that would later evolve into the trinity officially started in 325 C.E. (almost 300 years after Jesus left the earthly scene). Also keep in mind that the ROMANS, prior to adopting Christianity as the state religion, had a long history of polytheism (worship of many gods). It was therefore a simple matter for the ROMAN Catholics to graft in various pagan false teachings. One such teaching became the "Christian" version of trinity or worship of a triune/triad (three-in-one) god.

Christendom's trinity, written in Article I of The Catholic Faith, is defined as follows:
"There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body, parts, or passions; of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness; the maker and preserver of all things both visible and indivisible. And in unity of this Godhead there be three Persons, of ONE SUBSTANCE, POWER, and ETERNITY; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost."


Although there are no scriptures in the Judeo-Christian Bible to support this false teaching, the Trinity dogma has been the central doctrine of Christian churches for centuries.

This idea of a triune god was nothing new. It might surprise some to learn that among pagan nations that did not worship the God of the Judeo-Christian Bible, there were trinity gods in existence centuries before Jesus Christ appeared on earth in the 1st Century AD, and there were pagan trinities in existence during the 1st Century while Jesus was on earth. Below are three such examples, followed by the questions for discussion.


1.In the 2nd century B.C.E. (two centuries before Christ came to the earth), Egypt had a triad of gods consisting of (1) Horus, (2) Osiris, and (3) Isis.

2. In the 2nd century B.C.E. (two centuries before Christ came to the earth), Babylon had a triad of gods consisting of (1) Ishtar, (2) Sin, and (3) Shamash.

http://http://ts2.mm.bing.net/images/thumbnail.aspx?q=4987458286586773&id=c795afa47d1a82019d4c57fa22c514bd


3. In the 1st century C.E., Palmyra, which was an ancient city in Syria, had a triune god which consisted of (1) moon god, (2) Lord of Heavens, and (3) sun god.

ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:
It is true Jesus is the WORD in that he served as Jehovah's chief spokesman. Likewise, Jesus is a god, since "god" is simply a title that describes someone who is powerful. But he is not Almighty God Jehovah. The apostle Paul made it clear that the title "god" can apply to all sorts of individuals, as noted below:

"For even though there are those who are called 'gods,' whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are MANY 'gods' and MANY 'lords,'..." (1 Corinthians 8:5)



DISCUSSION QUESTIONS:
1. Is the Trinity a Bible teaching?
2. Did Jesus Christ, the founder of Christianity teach it?
3. Did his early apostles and disciples who accompanied him teach it?
4. Where does the word "godhead" come from?
5. Does the word "trinity" appear anywhere in the Bible?

Alter2Ego

Azures wrote: »

Alter2Ego- in your post you stated "The prehuman Jesus Christ meant more to Jehovah God than any of his other created beings. This is because the prehuman Jesus was the very the first angel that was created directly and entirely by Almighty God and he was Jehovah's helper during the creating of all other things"

The Logos ( the pre human Jesus) was not an angel. He was begotten of the Father, the creator. He was Of Him.

ALTER2EGO -to- ELLIE2008:
Jesus was the very first angel created by Jehovah. The Bible clearly states that, as follows.

"He is the image of the invisible God, the FIRSTBORN of all CREATION;"
(Colossians 1:15)


Jesus was Almighty God's closest companion from that point forward. He assisted his heavenly Father in creating everything else—including the other angels, the universe, humans, etc. Below is the dictionary definition of the word "begotten," quoted verbatim.

DEFINITON OF "BEGOTTEN": "Begotten means something created something else or someone fathered a child."
http://www.yourdictionary.com/begotten

Azures wrote: »

To say he was only a created angel without free will is to diminish the whole Trinity of God.

ALTER2EGO -to- ELLIE2008:
Actually, you are the one giving the impression that being a created angel is demeaning in some way--by your use of the words "ONLY a created angel."

Not only is the heavenly Jesus second in command to Jehovah, meaning he is the most powerful and the most important of Jehovah's angels, he is God's reigning king and our redeemer from Adamic death.


The pre-human Jesus has always had free will—just like all of God angels and humans have free will. However, at no time was the pre-human Jesus ever equal to Jehovah who created him.

Proof that angels have free will is seen by the rebellion of the angel that became the Devil and Satan and by the rebellion of many other angels who joined forces with Satan, including the angels that rebelled prior to the global flood of Noah's day.

Alter2Ego

Azures wrote: »

The Logos is The Word of God.
"in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God. All things came into being through Him, and without Him not one thing came into being." ( Jn1: 1-3.)

ALTER2EGO -to- ELLIE2008:
I agree with you that as The Logos, Jesus was the Word of God—which simply means he is Jehovah's chief spokesman and chief representative.

You are basing your belief in the pagan trinity on the last portion of John 1:1 where it says "the Word was God." That is actually a translation blunder (error) that was done deliberately by Trinitarian translators who wanted to promote this falsehood. Because you have accepted the trinity dogma, you ignored the first part of John 1:1 where it clearly says, "In the BEGINNING was the Word...."


Think about it. The expression "beginning" is the first red flag. It indicates Jesus/The Word had a beginning. Almighty God Jehovah is eternal, meaning he does not have a beginning. Now, look at the middle section of John 1:1, "and the Word was WITH God...."

The expression "with" is the second red flag. If Jesus and Jehovah were the same person, that would amount to God being with himself—which makes no sense. These are two separate and distinct individuals as further explained in the very same chapter of John, which states:

"So the Word became flesh and resided among us, and we had a view of his glory, a glory such as belongs to an ONLY-BEGOTTEN SON from a father; and he was full of undeserved kindness and truth." (John 1:14)

Remember, the word "begotten" indicates a created being.

georgieporgy

"Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit." (Matt


http://www.everystudent.com/forum/trinity.html

ISAW

There is ample evidence of mention of the trinity in writings preceeding the date claimed by the OP.

He appears to be a Jehovah's witness and is ubnaware oif the errors n their own writings.

The JWs do however claim to subscribe to academic standards of honesty

  “Be very careful to be accurate in all statements you make.  Use evidence honestly.  In quotations, do not twist the meaning of a writer or speaker or use only partial quotations to give a different thought than the person intended.  (Qualified to be Ministers, p 199)”; 

“Jehovah’s Witnesses are an organization of truth.  We should want to speak the truth and be absolutely accurate in every detail at all times.  This should be so not only as regards doctrine but also in our quotations. (Theocratic Ministry School Guidebook, p 110)”;

“A word of caution.  All evidence must be used honestly.  Do not take a quotation out of context.  Make certain that what you say is exactly what the authority you are quoting had in mind to say.  (Ibid. p 155).” 

ISAW

Alter2Ego wrote: »

[
You are basing your belief in the pagan trinity on the last portion of John 1:1 where it says "the Word was God." That is actually a translation blunder (error) that was done deliberately by Trinitarian translators who wanted to promote this falsehood.

Jn.1:1 En arche en ho logos, kai ho logos en pros ton theon, kai theos en ho logos  
"In the beginning (origin) was the Word and the Word was with God (face to face -toward) and the word was God."

Dr. Julius R. Mantey (who is even recognized by the Watchtower as a Greek scholar since they quote his book on page 1158 of their Kingdom Interlinear Translation): calls the Watchtower translation of John 1:1 "A grossly misleading translation. It is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John l:1 'the Word was a god. 'But of all the scholars in the world, so far as we know, none have translated this verse as Jehovah's Witnesses have done." "I was disturbed because they (the Watchtower) had misquoted me in support of their translation. I called their attention to the fact that the whole body of the New Testament was against their view. Throughout the New Testament, Jesus is glorified and magnified--yet here they were denigrating Him and making Him into a little god of pagan concept . . .1 believe it's a terrible thing for a person to be deceived and go into eternity lost, forever lost because somebody deliberately misled him by distorting the Scripture!. . . Ninety-nine percent of the scholars of the world who know Greek and who have helped translate the Bible are in disagreement with the Jehovah's Witnesses. People who are looking for the truth ought to know what the majority of the scholars really believe. They should not allow themselves to be misled by the Jehovah's Witnesses and end up in hell." (Ron Rhodes "Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovah's Witnesses" p.103-105)
In order to present the appearance of scholarly backing for their translation of this verse, the Society had to intentionally misquote Dr. Julius R. Mantey and H.E. Dana's Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament. Both Dana and Mantey firmly held to the historic Christian belief in the Triune God as is evident throughout their Grammar. The late Dr. Mantey had on several occasions issued statements concerning the misquotation of his statements by the Witnesses, even writing a letter to the Watchtower headquarters in Brooklyn demanding references and quotes from his book to be removed from their publications. They ignored his request!

They have also misquoted Philip B. Harner: Not only does Harner's article in the Journal of Biblical Literature not support the Watchtower's rendering of John 1:1, he emphatically argues against it!

Misquoting John L. McKenzie: Still another scholar quoted out of context by the translators of the New World Translation is John L. McKenzie. By citing McKenzie out of context and by quoting only a portion of his article, he is made to appear to teach that the Word (Jesus) is less than Jehovah because he said "the word was a divine personal being'." He is less than Jehovah. However, as apologist Robert M. Bowman correctly notes, "On the same page McKenzie calls Yahweh (Jehovah) 'a divine personal thing'; McKenzie also states that Jesus is called 'God' in both John 20:28 and Titus 2:13 and that John 1:1-18 expresses 'an identity between God and Jesus Christ.; So McKenzie's words actually argue against the Watchtower position.

The title page of the Watchtower Bible states, "Presenting a literal word-for-word translation into English under the Greek text as set out in 'The New Testament in the Original Greek--The Text Revised by Brooke Foss Westcott D.D. and Fenton John Anthony D.D. (1948 Reprint). They considered him to be scholar but he was not out of reach of their tampering.
The Watchtower misrepresented Dr. Westcott using his credentials and the reprinted Greek text of Dr. Westcott. Westcott identified the Word in John 1:1 with...No idea of inferiority of nature is suggested by the form of expression, which simply affirms the true deity of the Word... in the third clause 'the Word' is declared to be 'God' and so included in the unity of the Godhead." (The Bible Collector, July-December, 1971, p. 12).

Dr. Robert H. Countess (Univ. of Tenn. and author of an excellent critical analysis of the NWT called The Jehovah's Witnesses' New Testament): "There are 282 places in the New Testament where, according to the NWT translation principle, the NWT should have translated 'a god' but in fact they follow their own rules of 'a god' translation only 6% of the time. To be ninety-four percent unfaithful hardly commends a translation to careful readers!"

Omission of the article with "Theos" does not mean the word is "a god." If we examine the passages where the article is not used with "Theos" we see the rendering "a god" makes no sense (Mt 5:9, 6:24; Lk 1:35, 78; 2:40; Jn 1:6, 12, 13, 18; 3:2, 21; 9:16, 33; Ro 1:7, 17, 18; 1 Co 1:30; 15:10; Phil 2:11, 13; Titus 1:1). The "a god" position would have the Jehovah's Witnesses translate every instance where the article is absent. As "a god (nominative), of a god (genitive), to or for a god (dative)." But they do not! "Theou" is the genitive case of the SAME noun "Theos" which they translate as "a god" in John 1:1. But they do not change "Theou" "of God" (Jehovah), in Matthew 5:9, Luke 1:35, 78; and John 1:6. The J.W.’s are not consistent in their biblical hermeneutics they have a bias which is clearly seen throughout their bible.
Other examples-In Jn.4:24 "God is Spirit, not a spirit. In 1 Jn .4:16 "God is love, we don’t translate this a love. In 1 Jn.1:5 "God is light" he is not a light or a lesser light.

The NWT has deliberately distorted, changed, added to and taken away key Bible passages that do not agree with what they already believe.

Jehovah's Witnesses in 1969 Kingdom published their interlinear translation of the Greek Scriptures. The Watchtower has literally painted themselves in a corner with its distortion in the New World Translation of John 1:1. In their "New Kingdom Interlinear Translation" of John 1:1, they render the Greek text on the left side of the page more accurately: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was toward the God and god was the Word." However across the page in the right column, the "New World Translation" has, "In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God and the Word was A god." So they say the Greek states it this way, but we translate it another way. They subtly attempt to demote Christ to some kind of demigod, with a little g. (mighty and Jehovah the almighty). Isaiah 45:22, "For I am God and there is no other." The existing manuscripts of the New Testament were all written in capital letters (uncials) so there are no distinctions in this lettering and no reason to change to what they have in the NWT.

ISAW

Alter2Ego wrote: »

... the false trinity teaching that was officially introduced into Christianity by the ROMAN Catholics, beginning in 325 C.E. at the Council of Nicaea, when about 300 Catholic bishops met.

ORIGEN (c. 185 - 254 A.D.)
[here is where Origen specifically uses the term "Trinity"]

"For it is the TRINITY ALONE which exceeds every sense in which not only temporal but even ETERNAL may be understood. It is all OTHER things [i.e. not the SON, not the HOLY SPIRIT], indeed, which are OUTSIDE the TRINITY, which are to be measured by times and ages."
(The Fundamental Doctrines 4:4:1, Jurgens, volume 1, p. 199)

TERTULLIAN (c. 155 - 250 A.D) -quotes from Against Praxeas
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.toc.html

"And at the same time the mystery of the -oikonomia- is safeguarded, for the UNITY is distributed in a TRINITY [Latin trinitas]. Placed in order, the THREE are FATHER, SON, and SPIRIT. THEY are THREE, however, not in condition, but in degree [non statu sed gradu], not in substance, but in form [nec substantia sed forma], not in power, but in kind [nec potestate sed specie]; OF ONE SUBSTANCE, however, and one condition, and ONE POWER, BECAUSE HE IS ONE GOD OF WHOM THESE DEGREES AND FORMS AND KINDS ARE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN THE NAME OF THE FATHER, AND OF THE SON, AND OF THE HOLY SPIRIT."

"Keep always in mind the rule of faith which I profess and by which I bear witness that THE FATHER AND THE SON AND THE SPIRIT ARE INSEPARABLE FROM EACH OTHER, and then you will understand what is meant by it.

"Observe, now, that I say the Father is other, and the Son is other, and the Spirit is other. This statement is WRONGLY understood by every uneducated or perversely disposed individual, as if it meant diversity and implied by that diversity a SEPARATION of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

[/COLOR]DISCUSSION QUESTIONS:
1. Is the Trinity a Bible teaching?

John 20:28 In answer Thomas said to him: “My Lord and my God!”

Colossians 2:8 Look out: perhaps there may be someone who will carry YOU off as his prey through the philosophy and empty deception according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary things of the world and not according to Christ; 9 because it is in him that all the fullness of the divine quality dwells bodily

Hebrews 1:
13 But with reference to which one of the angels has he ever said: “Sit at my right hand, until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet”? 14 Are they not all spirits for public service, sent forth to minister for those who are going to inherit salvation?

John 17:5 So now you, Father, glorify me alongside yourself with the glory that I had alongside you before the world was. 10 and all my things are yours and yours are mine, and I have been glorified among them.

Isaiah 9:6 For there has been a child born to us, there has been a son given to us; and the princely rule will come to be upon his shoulder. And his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.

Isaiah 43:10 “YOU are my witnesses,” is the utterance of Jehovah, “even my servant whom I have chosen, in order that YOU may know and have faith in me, and that YOU may understand that I am the same One. Before me there was no God formed, and after me there continued to be none

John *: 58 Jesus said to them: “Most truly I say to YOU, Before Abraham came into existence, I have been.” ( mistranslation ego emi =I AM) 59 Therefore they picked up stones to hurl [them] at him; but Jesus hid and went out of the temple.

Matthew 17:21 "But this kind does not go out except by prayer and fasting" (missing verse not in NWT)
Mark 9:29 “This kind cannot come out by anything but prayer.” Even with faith they did not have the power of Jesus for instantaneous exorcism that was reserved to God but Christ did have it? How come? You could say he prayed but he isn't recorded as doing so. More importantly, fasting takes some time and he isn't recorded as fasting at this time. Why is this verse left out of Matthew in the Watchtower Bible?

John 10:30 I and the Father are one.”
31 Once more the Jews lifted up stones to stone him. 32 Jesus replied to them: “I displayed to YOU many fine works from the Father. For which of those works are YOU stoning me?” 33 The Jews answered him: “We are stoning you, not for a fine work, but for blasphemy, even because you, although being a man, make yourself a god.” 34 Jesus answered them: “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said: “YOU are gods”’? 35 If he called ‘gods’ those against whom the word of God came, and yet the Scripture cannot be nullified, 36 do YOU say to me whom the Father sanctified and dispatched into the world, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, I am God’s Son?
Why did the Jews want to stone Him? They themselves thought His purpose was the same as God’s. Verse 33 of John 10 explains that they wanted to stone Him because of blasphemy, because He claimed to be God!

In Matthew 1:23, Christ is called “Immanuel,” which means “God with us.”
When Thomas touched Jesus' wounds, after the resurrection, he exclaimed, “My Lord and my God” (John 20:28)
Thomas called Christ both his Lord and his God. And Christ did not correct him.

Colossians 2:9 clearly confirms the deity of Christ when it states that in Him “all the fullness of the divine quality dwells bodily” (New World Translation). Stephen called Jesus “Lord” (Acts 7:59,60), and we are to confess Jesus as Lord (Rom. 10:9; I Cor. 12:3). “Lord” in these verses is Kurios, which is the Greek word for Jehovah in the Septuagint, the Greek version of the Old Testament. It is evident from this that Christ the Lord (kurios) is Jehovah God.

Jesus Christ has the power to forgive sins (Mark 2:5-7; Eph. 1:7), give eternal life (John 10:28; 17:2), judge the world (John 5:22, 27), and control nature (Matt. 8:26). Do any other “lesser gods” or false gods have these powers?

Jesus is worshipped by the angels (Heb. 1:6) and by man (Matt. 14:33), and yet only God is to be worshipped (Ex. 34:14). Christ Himself said that worship is due to God alone (Matt. 4:10), and yet He accepted worship. Angels are not allowed to receive worship (Rev. 19:10)
Jesus Christ is called “the mighty God” in Isaiah 9:6.
However, Jeremiah 32:18 shows that Jehovah is the mighty One. Therefore, since Christ is the mighty God (Isaiah 9:6) and Jehovah is the mighty God (Jer. 32:18), they are both God.

New World Translation adds the word “other” four times in Colossians 1:15-17, so that the passage states that Christ created “all other things,” everything except Himself. However, there is no basis for adding “other.” It certainly does not occur in the Greek manuscripts. The translators of the New World Translation admit this by putting “other” in brackets. This “translation” attempts to comply with the assumption that firstborn means first-created. But, this is not the meaning of firstborn, “the firstborn of all creation,” in verse 15. However, if this verse was teaching that Jesus Christ is the first created being made by God, the word “first-created” would have been used of Christ, not the word “firstborn.” These are two different words in the Greek, with two different meanings. “First-created” is protoktistos, and “firstborn” is prototokos. Colossians 1:15 does not use the protoktistos, “first-created.” Instead it uses prototokos, which means an heir, a begotten one, the first in rank. The teaching of Colossians 1:15 is that Christ is first in rank above all creation; He is the Heir of all things. He is prior to all creation and superior over it.
Therefore it is also wrong to add the word “other.”
There is no verse in the entire Bible that states that Christ was created by Jehovah!

Philippians 2:5-11
“Therefore also God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those who are in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord (kurios), to the glory of God the Father.”

In some cases, when reading the Hebrew Bible the Jews would substitute Adonai (my Lord) for the Tetragrammaton (the written representation of the Name of God), and they may have also substituted Kurios when reading to a Greek audience (as in the Septuagint translation). Origen refers to both practices in his commentary on Psalms (2.2).* The practice was due to the desire not to overuse the name of God. Examples of this can be seen in Philo.* In The Jewish War (7.10.1) Josephus remarked that Greek speaking Jews refused to call the emperor Kurios for they reserved that word for God

5. Does the word "trinity" appear anywhere in the Bible?

Nor does “monotheism”
Nor does “rapture” ”Bible” “omnipotent” “atheist” or "Theocracy" but they are all accepted concepts.

Alter2Ego

ISAW wrote: »

ORIGEN (c. 185 - 254 A.D.)
[here is where Origen specifically uses the term "Trinity"]


TERTULLIAN (c. 155 - 250 A.D) -quotes from Against Praxeas
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.toc.html





John 20:28 In answer Thomas said to him: “My Lord and my God!”

Colossians 2:8 Look out: perhaps there may be someone who will carry YOU off as his prey through the philosophy and empty deception according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary things of the world and not according to Christ; 9 because it is in him that all the fullness of the divine quality dwells bodily

Hebrews 1:
13 But with reference to which one of the angels has he ever said: “Sit at my right hand, until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet”? 14 Are they not all spirits for public service, sent forth to minister for those who are going to inherit salvation?

John 17:5 So now you, Father, glorify me alongside yourself with the glory that I had alongside you before the world was. 10 and all my things are yours and yours are mine, and I have been glorified among them.

Isaiah 9:6 For there has been a child born to us, there has been a son given to us; and the princely rule will come to be upon his shoulder. And his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.

Isaiah 43:10 “YOU are my witnesses,” is the utterance of Jehovah, “even my servant whom I have chosen, in order that YOU may know and have faith in me, and that YOU may understand that I am the same One. Before me there was no God formed, and after me there continued to be none

John *: 58 Jesus said to them: “Most truly I say to YOU, Before Abraham came into existence, I have been.” ( mistranslation ego emi =I AM) 59 Therefore they picked up stones to hurl [them] at him; but Jesus hid and went out of the temple.

Matthew 17:21 "But this kind does not go out except by prayer and fasting" (missing verse not in NWT)
Mark 9:29 “This kind cannot come out by anything but prayer.” Even with faith they did not have the power of Jesus for instantaneous exorcism that was reserved to God but Christ did have it? How come? You could say he prayed but he isn't recorded as doing so. More importantly, fasting takes some time and he isn't recorded as fasting at this time. Why is this verse left out of Matthew in the Watchtower Bible?

John 10:30 I and the Father are one.”
31 Once more the Jews lifted up stones to stone him. 32 Jesus replied to them: “I displayed to YOU many fine works from the Father. For which of those works are YOU stoning me?” 33 The Jews answered him: “We are stoning you, not for a fine work, but for blasphemy, even because you, although being a man, make yourself a god.” 34 Jesus answered them: “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said: “YOU are gods”’? 35 If he called ‘gods’ those against whom the word of God came, and yet the Scripture cannot be nullified, 36 do YOU say to me whom the Father sanctified and dispatched into the world, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, I am God’s Son?
Why did the Jews want to stone Him? They themselves thought His purpose was the same as God’s. Verse 33 of John 10 explains that they wanted to stone Him because of blasphemy, because He claimed to be God!

In Matthew 1:23, Christ is called “Immanuel,” which means “God with us.”
When Thomas touched Jesus' wounds, after the resurrection, he exclaimed, “My Lord and my God” (John 20:28)
Thomas called Christ both his Lord and his God. And Christ did not correct him.

Colossians 2:9 clearly confirms the deity of Christ when it states that in Him “all the fullness of the divine quality dwells bodily” (New World Translation). Stephen called Jesus “Lord” (Acts 7:59,60), and we are to confess Jesus as Lord (Rom. 10:9; I Cor. 12:3). “Lord” in these verses is Kurios, which is the Greek word for Jehovah in the Septuagint, the Greek version of the Old Testament. It is evident from this that Christ the Lord (kurios) is Jehovah God.

Jesus Christ has the power to forgive sins (Mark 2:5-7; Eph. 1:7), give eternal life (John 10:28; 17:2), judge the world (John 5:22, 27), and control nature (Matt. 8:26). Do any other “lesser gods” or false gods have these powers?

Jesus is worshipped by the angels (Heb. 1:6) and by man (Matt. 14:33), and yet only God is to be worshipped (Ex. 34:14). Christ Himself said that worship is due to God alone (Matt. 4:10), and yet He accepted worship. Angels are not allowed to receive worship (Rev. 19:10)
Jesus Christ is called “the mighty God” in Isaiah 9:6.
However, Jeremiah 32:18 shows that Jehovah is the mighty One. Therefore, since Christ is the mighty God (Isaiah 9:6) and Jehovah is the mighty God (Jer. 32:18), they are both God.

New World Translation adds the word “other” four times in Colossians 1:15-17, so that the passage states that Christ created “all other things,” everything except Himself. However, there is no basis for adding “other.” It certainly does not occur in the Greek manuscripts. The translators of the New World Translation admit this by putting “other” in brackets. This “translation” attempts to comply with the assumption that firstborn means first-created. But, this is not the meaning of firstborn, “the firstborn of all creation,” in verse 15. However, if this verse was teaching that Jesus Christ is the first created being made by God, the word “first-created” would have been used of Christ, not the word “firstborn.” These are two different words in the Greek, with two different meanings. “First-created” is protoktistos, and “firstborn” is prototokos. Colossians 1:15 does not use the protoktistos, “first-created.” Instead it uses prototokos, which means an heir, a begotten one, the first in rank. The teaching of Colossians 1:15 is that Christ is first in rank above all creation; He is the Heir of all things. He is prior to all creation and superior over it.
Therefore it is also wrong to add the word “other.”
There is no verse in the entire Bible that states that Christ was created by Jehovah!

Philippians 2:5-11
“Therefore also God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those who are in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord (kurios), to the glory of God the Father.”

In some cases, when reading the Hebrew Bible the Jews would substitute Adonai (my Lord) for the Tetragrammaton (the written representation of the Name of God), and they may have also substituted Kurios when reading to a Greek audience (as in the Septuagint translation). Origen refers to both practices in his commentary on Psalms (2.2).* The practice was due to the desire not to overuse the name of God. Examples of this can be seen in Philo.* In The Jewish War (7.10.1) Josephus remarked that Greek speaking Jews refused to call the emperor Kurios for they reserved that word for God





Nor does “monotheism”
Nor does “rapture” ”Bible” “omnipotent” “atheist” or "Theocracy" but they are all accepted concepts.

I'm waiting for you to explain how any of the scriptures you listed above are proof of a 3-prong god. None of them are. But you may know something I don't know. So for starters, how about you bold the part of each verse that you want to bring to the attention of the forum, and then explain where those specific words indicate Jehovah the Father, Jesus Christ the created son of God, and the holy spirit are three "persons" combined into a single "godhead."

BTW: What point are you making when you quote ORIGEN and TERTULLIAN?

JimiTime

Alter2Ego wrote: »

I'm waiting for you to explain how any of the scriptures you listed above are proof of a 3-prong god. None of them are. But you may know something I don't know. So for starters, how about you bold the part of each verse that you want to bring to the attention of the forum, and then explain where those specific words indicate Jehovah the Father, Jesus Christ the created son of God, and the holy spirit are three "persons" combined into a single "godhead."

No, you are waiting to point out the error of the trinity doctrine. You are not here to have ANYTHING pointed out to you.

BTW: What point are you making when you quote ORIGEN and TERTULLIAN?

This is evidence of your motive. You even forgot your original question, i.e. 'Where did the trinity teaching come from?'. ISAW was pointing out where the term originated in relation to the Christian God.
The question you asked is not a real question for discussion though, but rather a deceptive introduction to soapbox your anti-trinity stance. Now, I have no issue with that stance. In fact, its a very interesting topic, but if all you are here to do is soapbox, then what value does such a discussion have?

Alter2Ego

ISAW wrote: »

Jn.1:1 En arche en ho logos, kai ho logos en pros ton theon, kai theos en ho logos
"In the beginning (origin) was the Word and the Word was with God (face to face -toward) and the word was God."

Dr. Julius R. Mantey (who is even recognized by the Watchtower as a Greek scholar since they quote his book on page 1158 of their Kingdom Interlinear Translation): calls the Watchtower translation of John 1:1 "A grossly misleading translation. It is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John l:1 'the Word was a god. 'But of all the scholars in the world, so far as we know, none have translated this verse as Jehovah's Witnesses have done."

ALTER2EGO -to- ISAW:

The slanderous statements you are quoting are too ridiculous to be believed. I will address the three most inflammatory of the lot.

Of course it's clear that you downloaded the Julius R. Mantey quotes (and the other derogatory comments) from websites owned by people with an axe to grind against Jehovah's Witnesses. These types of websites come a dime a dozen. The Internet is flooded with Jehovah's Witness haters. Having said that, I can say without hesitation that Julius Mantey's statement: "But of all the scholars in the world, so far as we know, none have translated this verse as Jehovah's Witnesses have done," is blatantly deceptive.

I found a total of 26 different Bibles and commentaries that use similar renditions of John 1:1 as the New World Translation published by Jehovah's Witnesses. Some of these translations existed centuries before Julius Mantey was born! Below are the first 9 of the 26. Keep your eyes on the highlighted dates as well as the highlighted portions of the quotations, which represent the last portion of John 1:1.

1. John Crellius, Latin form of German, 1631, "The Word of Speech was a God"

2. Reijnier Rooleeuw, 1694, "and the Word was a god"

3. Harwood, 1768, "and was himself a divine person"

4. Belsham N.T. 1809, "the Word was a god"

5. Abner Kneeland, 1822, "The Word was a God"

6. Thompson, 1829, "the Logos was a god"

7. Hermann Heinfetter, 1863, "[A]s a god the Command was"

8. Leicester Ambrose, 1879, "And the logos was a god"

9. Robert Young, 1885, (Concise Commentary) "[A]nd a God [i.e. a Divine Being] was the Word"


As you can see, the dates of the above listed translations are all before the 20th century and therefore before Julius R. Mantey was even born. Below are five translations from the early 20th century. Again, keep your eyes on the dates of publication.


11. J.N. Jannaris, 1901, "[A]nd was a god"

12. Stage, 1907, "The Word/word was itself a divine Being/being."

13. George William Horner, 1911, "[A]nd (a) God was the word"

14. Holzmann, 1926, "a God/god was the Thought/thought"

15. La Bible du Centenaire, L’Evangile selon Jean, by Maurice Goguel, 1928: "and the Word was a divine being."


I still have ten more Bible translations of John 1:1 that reflect a translation similar to the New World Translation.

Now, I challenge you to explain to this forum where Julius R. Mantey left off telling the truth and where his lies began when he said: "But of all the scholars in the world, so far as we know, none have translated this verse as Jehovah's Witnesses have done."

ISAW

Alter2Ego wrote: »

What point are you making when you quote ORIGEN and TERTULLIAN?[/COLOR][/SIZE]

that your claim about the Trinity concept originating at a church council hundreds of years after people already mentioned it in documents has to be wrong because they mentioned it BEFORE you claim it first came about in Christianity.

Alter2Ego

ISAW wrote: »

Dr. Robert H. Countess (Univ. of Tenn. and author of an excellent critical analysis of the NWT called The Jehovah's Witnesses' New Testament): "There are 282 places in the New Testament where, according to the NWT translation principle, the NWT should have translated 'a god' but in fact they follow their own rules of 'a god' translation only 6% of the time. To be ninety-four percent unfaithful hardly commends a translation to careful readers!"

ALTER2EGO -to- ISAW:

Like the other people in your original post, this person is just another Jehovah's Witness basher who is spouting off while producing no evidence to prove what he's saying. Where are the 282 scriptural quotations that prove what he is saying? I haven't seen one. Are we supposed to just take his word for it?

I challenge anyone with a King James Version or any other Bible version to read the entire New Testament and point me to these 282 places where scriptures indicate how John 1:1 should be translated to say "and the Word was God."

Suffice it to say, the average Jehovah's Witness hater could care less about evidence. They read nonsense at Internet websites where anybody can post anything, and they simply lap it up.

Alter2Ego

ISAW wrote: »

The NWT has deliberately distorted, changed, added to and taken away key Bible passages that do not agree with what they already believe.

ALTER2EGO -to- ISAW:

Where is the evidence of this? Where are the scriptural quotations from the New World Translation showing scriptures that have been "deliberately distorted, changed, added to and taken away key Bible passages"? Did the website you download that crap from give any examples?

ANSWER: Not very likely since no such evidence exists.



Think about it: If the New World Translation of the Bible (published by Jehovah's Witnesses) was as corrupted as the last quotation above would have people believe, why would I consistently quote complete verses of scriptures in my posts and identify them with Bible book, chapter, and verse?

Let me clue you in. The reason why I quote scriptures verbatim and identify the book, chapter, and verse where I got them from is because I want people to check the scriptures in their own copy of the Bible. In that way, people are able to see that my Bible version is saying the exact same thing using a different choice of words here and there.

Alter2Ego

JimiTime wrote: »

Alter2Ego wrote: »

I'm waiting for you to explain how any of the scriptures you listed above are proof of a 3-prong god. None of them are. But you may know something I don't know. So for starters, how about you bold the part of each verse that you want to bring to the attention of the forum, and then explain where those specific words indicate Jehovah the Father, Jesus Christ the created son of God, and the holy spirit are three "persons" combined into a single "godhead."

No, you are waiting to point out the error of the trinity doctrine. You are not here to have ANYTHING pointed out to you.

ALTER2EGO -to- JIMI TIME:

The person going by the screen name ISAW posted a list of scriptures that he/she claims prove the trinity is scriptural. Those are not my scriptures, they are his/hers and therefore it is ISAW's duty to defend them by pointing out to the forum why he/she believes they are proof of the dogma. Is it possible you are afraid ISAW isn't up to the task and so you will do the explaining for him/her?



If that's the case and you feel you can do a better job of it than ISAW, suppose you explain all of the scriptures that ISAW listed as his/her proof of a trinity?

Highlight the words in bold print for each of the quoted scriptures where you feel it indicates "trinity." Then explain to the forum why you believe the highlighted words indicate a trinity.


I will wait.

JimiTime wrote: »

Alter2Ego wrote: »

BTW: What point are you making when you quote ORIGEN and TERTULLIAN?

This is evidence of your motive. You even forgot your original question, i.e. 'Where did the trinity teaching come from?'. ISAW was pointing out where the term originated in relation to the Christian God.
The question you asked is not a real question for discussion though, but rather a deceptive introduction to soapbox your anti-trinity stance. Now, I have no issue with that stance. In fact, its a very interesting topic, but if all you are here to do is soapbox, then what value does such a discussion have?

I sense animosity by your tone. Why is that?

Since you know my motives for asking ISAW why he/she gave quotations from ORIGEN and TERTULLIAN, I can safely assume that you have mastered the skill of mind-reading. Tell me more about myself and my motives; won't you?

PDN

Mod Direction
Alter-Ego, instead of creating or spamming multiple threads propagating Jehovah's Witness teachings, can you please create a new thread to discuss JW teachings and confine that stuff to there.
This forum is for the discussion of Christianity in general, and it is not reasonable to expect that discussion of the doctrines of a small heterodox group should dominate the board.