The Earliest Trinity Statements

by Amazing1914 86 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Midget-Sasquatch

  Lilly I am not saying that Jesus is equal to the Father but a god

  Doesn't this sound like polytheism or henotheism to you? Maybe thats a large part of why they came up with the trinity.
• 

  lovelylil

  greendawn, I get what you are saying, thank you!
• 

  LittleToe

  Greendawn:

  A son is never "far below" a father. In fact, in due course a sole heir would inherit everything a father had.

  How do you surmount that issue?
• 

  Blueblades

  Amazing. I don't mean to make light of this subject about the Holy Spirit and all the scriptural references. However, all this talk is for those who believe that the scriptures are the inspired word of God. When I asked Ray Franz in his commentary site about whether or not the Bible is the inspired word of God or not, his response to me was, in a nutshell, that it is a leap of faith. I have posted his response in writing on this site for all to read some time ago.

  So, for those that believe all of this history and the pros and cons, each one must decide on the historical and Bibical opinions that are varied, that they have studied and researched and come to their own conclusions.

  All of us are affected on what we want to believe, scripturally or historically. I have always said in my past post's on here that there will always be two camps for and against opposing views and conclusions, this cannot be avoided.

  It's been that way ever since Jesus came on the historical scene. All the scholars are in two camps, and it will always be that way.

  As for me, I'm in the "DOUBTING THOMAS" class. Remember Jesus rewarded Thomas greatly with a personal appearance even though he doubted. So, there is hope for people like me.

  As always Amazing, I wish you noyhing but the best in all your endeavors.

  I never understood why They shut down your orignal post's under the name Amazing, and why you now use Amazing 1914.

  Blueblades, as always, I have kept an eye open for all that you have written here.
• 

  peacefulpete

  There was noone called the "Apostle John". The Peter James and John of the Gospels are historical rewrites at best. There was no 12 Apostles. They were a literary creation felt necessary through OT parallelism. Think about it while Paul speaks of going to those who appear to be pillars in a Jerusalem group of Jews that he had hoped to ally with and names Cephus as one he met (Peter reference is interpolation) he knows nothing about a directive body of 12 Apostles. He uses the word 'apostles' only in a generic sense as 'sent one'. It is my suspicion that the John of the Gospels was in fact either John the Presbyter, some pre70 Zealot or simply a popular name that was utilized to fill a literary need. Even as late as Jerome there were those that yet recognized the epistles as works by J the Presbyter not any mysterious Apostle.
• 

  Amazing1914

  Blueblades and Peacefulpete,

  Pete: What is your source for your comment? How do you explain that the remains and relics of some of the 12 apostles are held in either Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox churches to this day. I know of no serious or credible historian who has ever publish such views. Can you please expand so we can check the sources. Thanks for the comment.

  Blueblades:

  Amazing. I don't mean to make light of this subject about the Holy Spirit and all the scriptural references.

  I know you are not making light of it. I always appreciate your comments, as I know you are thoughtful and give good comments.
  

  However, all this talk is for those who believe that the scriptures are the inspired word of God. When I asked Ray Franz in his commentary site about whether or not the Bible is the inspired word of God or not, his response to me was, in a nutshell, that it is a leap of faith. I have posted his response in writing on this site for all to read some time ago.

  I agree with you, and appreciate your quote of Ray Franz. Historically, the Bible is a secondary support for Christians. The Bible was not really completely compiled and agreed upon until around 400 years after Christ. The Hebrew scrolls were there, but were not commonly available to Christians except in the Synagogues. The New Testament was not there at all. Early Christians at times may have had letters shared and hear a reading, and possibly be able to copy the letters. But, it was the ancient Catholic Church (before the East-West split in 1054 AD) that eventually collected these letters and decided upon which ones were canonical and which were not.
  

  Pope Damasus assembled the first list of books of the Bible at the Roman Council in 382 A.D. He commissioned St. Jerome to translate the original Greek and Hebrew texts into Latin, which became known as the Latin Vulgate Bible and was declared by the Church to be the only authentic and official version, in 1546.

  The DR New Testament was first published by the English College at Rheims in 1582 A.D. The DR Old Testament was first published by the English College at Douay in 1609 A.D. The first King James Version was not published until 1611. This online DRV contains all 73 books, including the seven Deutero-Canonical books (erroneously called Apocrypha by Protestants). These seven books were included in the 1611 KJV, but not in later KJV Bibles.

  The whole Douay-Rheims Bible was revised and diligently compared with the Latin Vulgate by Bishop Richard Challoner in 1749-1752 A.D. The notes included in the text were written by Dr. Challoner. [Source: http://www.drbo.org/intro.htm]

  So, it was eventually the early Catholic Church that declared the Bible inspired, based on their own criteria. The New Testament is a Catholic work, built upon Catholic criteria, and Catholic claims of inspiration. Modern Protestant denominations that get all worked up over the Bible seem to treat it as something that just popped directly out of heaven.

  Could the Bible be inspired? Yes. But, I believe that it contains inspired words of God, but that the Bible also contains errors and words of men. So, when the Apostle Paul says that "All Scripture is inspired of God" he was really speaking about the Hebrew Old Testament. The Eastern Orthodox recognizes the limitations of the Bible, and take a more pragmatic view than do modern Protestants. We must be careful when quoting the Bible to understand its limitations. The Christian faith is built far more upon tradition and Church evolution than upon Biblical developments. This is a point that completely undermines such groups as Jehovah's Witnesses who think that they have restored "truth" but in fact have done nothing more than create a fiction.
  

  So, for those that believe all of this history and the pros and cons, each one must decide on the historical and Bibical opinions that are varied, that they have studied and researched and come to their own conclusions.

  Absolutely! The reason that I associate with the Greek Orthodox (Eastern Orthodox) is because of such pragmatic views. Actually, I was raised Roman Catholic, and our views were somewhat similar. This is why Catholics do not give the Bible quite as much attention as do Protestants. There are pros and cons to this view.
  

  All of us are affected on what we want to believe, scripturally or historically. I have always said in my past post's on here that there will always be two camps for and against opposing views and conclusions, this cannot be avoided.

  Agreed. However, there are facts of history we can pin down that are not subject to any real question. It is the meaning we place on those facts that cause the divided opinions. The fact that the early Church Fathers, especially the Ante-Nicene, taught the Trinity is there for all to read. I found it fascinating, given that when I became a Jehovah's Witness, I was led to believe that the Trinity was not really taught until the 4th century. So, I am sharing these findings on JWD for everyone to consider yet another way that the Watchtower misled us.

  As for me, I'm in the "DOUBTING THOMAS" class. Remember Jesus rewarded Thomas greatly with a personal appearance even though he doubted. So, there is hope for people like me.

  I posted something on this years ago. In my own personal faith, I have recently renewed my former "Catholic" style of personal experience with God. By saying Catholic, I always included the Orthodox who are really the same faith, but they do not recognize all of the Pope's claims of authority. They hold that the authority of the Church should be with the Bishops as St. Ignatius stated, and run by ecumenical councils, the way it was prior to 1054 AD, where the Pope was a "first among equals" who led, but did not dictate.

  So, as a Catholic, the way is to hold personal beliefs, and not cram these down the throats of my fellow humans. I love and respect everyone and their differing views, from which I am challenged and learn. I have simply returned to the Catholic position that by living my faith, my humble words and example will be more powerful than by being a dogmatic s.o.b. And, in the Catholic way, it is better to realize that one can always learn and be open to change from various sources.
  

  As always Amazing, I wish you noyhing but the best in all your endeavors.

  Likewise back to you.

  I never understood why They shut down your orignal post's under the name Amazing, and why you now use Amazing 1914.

  No one "shut down" my original posts. I requested that they be temporarily pulled down during my testimony against the Watchtower. My screen name "Amazing" was restored at my request some months ago. I just haven't gotten around to using it again.

  Blueblades, as always, I have kept an eye open for all that you have written here.

  Thanks, and I likewise always appreciate your posts and comments. This is the good that we can do on good discussion boards like this one. We can share all kinds of things that help us heal from our past JW lives and Watchtower deception, and we can explore new horizons.

  Jim Whitney
• 

  peacefulpete

  The observation is not all that radical and has support from a number of researchers noting the contradictory pictures Paul and the Gospels present. check: Rudolf Bultmann (Theology of the New Testament, I, page 37)
• 

  minimus

  Very interesting thread!! After reading it, I still don't see a Bible based trinity doctrine. I acknowledge that there seems to have always been two camps regarding this issue and some scriptures seem to contradict others.
• 

  lovelylil

  Jim,

  That was a great point about the statement "all scripture is inspired" because most people do not understand that this applies to the Hebrew text. That is all they had at that time.

  I do feel, like a lot of others that the Early Christians knew what they were talking about also. A lot of information they wrote was based on what they were taught by Jesus himself. But I can understand why people don't agree with everything too. Because there was a long time period between Christ's death and the writing down of the Greek scriptures. And also, it is all second or third hand information and different people have different writing styles. So I get ALL that, but still feel that the Greek scriptures are just a valuable as the Hebrew ones. And that the majority of the information was passed on fairly accurately. This is because of the NT complete harmony with the OT.

  In Genesis we have the fall of man, kicked out of eden, and the tree of life being taking away. This is just the beginning of the story in the Bible. All the texts in between that and Revelation shows how Jehovah planned on reconciling this event and restoring everything. All of it is really a story about Jesus you could say. Because HE is the key to it all.

  In between Genesis and Revelation we have the lives of others of like faith and their experiences, and encouragement for the future, prophecies fulfilled to boost our faith, some very basic instructions for Christians and what the future will bring. which eventally brings us back to man being ransomed and restored in his relationship with God, death done away with, the restoring of the earth back to an eden, and the trees of life being available again. (Revelation 21:1-5, and chapter 22). So, you see it is one, whole, complete story. But you have to take it as you will. Each person needs to decide for himself what he believes.

  I hope this post makes sense.
• 

  Amazing1914

  Lovelylil and Minimus,

  Lovely:

  " ... but still feel that the Greek scriptures are just a valuable as the Hebrew ones."

  I agree. I started a new thread, using much of my previous post here, regarding the Bible. My Jewish family do not worship the Bible, and treat it much differently than many Protestant fundamentalists would believe possible. I likewise believe that the Holy Spirit moved the early Christian writers to pen down Christian history much the same way that he did with the Old Testment writers. But, the Holy Spirit did not control every word and comma. I think that the Bible is an important tool to enrich my faith.

  Minimus: Yes, some few in the early Church, around the 4th century did object to the Nicene Creed, not in its concept as much as in its wording. The Arians were the primary ones to promote Jesus as less than equal to the Father. Yet, the Arians did not question to person of the Holy Spirit. There is just not any real evidence of any person or group pushing a concept of God that resembles anything like the Watchtower version of God. If so, I would love to read it.

  Jim Whitney