Evacuated

Very interesting and thorough analysis and I agree with the substance of the argument. Did you have this already prepared? Thanks for putting it together anyway. The only issue for me is that there is a potential for a confused implication that Arianism predates Arius and that it is somehow reflected in John's gospel. There has to be a better way of expressing this. I wouldn't want to give the impression that the understanding of Jesus role and nature is an idea developed from Scripture. For me, it is a truth presented clearly in Scripture when originally written, but subsequently obscured and buried by apostate teachers, with attempts by some, such as Arius, to restore the suspected original over the years with varying degrees of success, in the face of continued opposition. It is rather in the way an old master's work (say a portrait of his son) may have been painted over by later artists, obscuring the original from view with many layers of paint and later appearing as something sub-standard and very different from the original. "Experts" may have attempted to clear from the original portrait the obstruction, layers, and tarnish with partial success over the years, and may indeed manage on occasion to enable a glimpse of aspects of the original work beneath what is currently viewed. This to me illustrates how teachers may have tried to remove layers of false doctorine obscuring Bible truth. Arius appears to me to be one who has made such an attempt with partial success. But his view is only of his time. He was only revealing (partially) something which was already there, and to associate his name with the original teaching inappropriately is to do injustice to the Master.

Did you look at the Bible he uses?

Is that a different looking Bible he has?

Suppose if it smells like a fish...............

is that the view of the Brothers? Have you asked the Society for this?

Which is not the direct purpose of this or any other text in Holy Scripture. Yes ...that would sound a bit weird to me. I mean, vocalising that we are praying in his name would seem to establish that he is a Mighty God already as there is no other that could serve in this capacity. Probably we are free to say all sorts of things in prayer that might be quite true, but that some among us might not yet be able to bear. So those who are strong should bear the weaknesses of those who might not be, and thus fulfil the law of the Christ. After all, there could be a rather unpleasant come uppance for those who cause the little ones to stumble, could there not?

Presumably a reference to the letter writing campaign to Russia. I think this was done for the benefit of the Russian brothers wasn't it? I wasn't looking for any pay back this end myself.

Without trawling, I seem to remember more modern day experiences of pioneers, even colporteurs, going in to new territories without established congregations, and securing lodging through those favourably disposed in order to have a base to work from. At this stage in countries where the work is well established, many of us can walk from home to our witnessing territories and so do not require the same level of hospitality. . However, we still travel to seldom-worked areas for preaching campaigns on ocassion, and this may well be accompanied by hospitality that is shown, not only by brothers and sisters, but also by some who are at least favourable to our work. There are doubtless other examples that could be cited. A stable base from which to work in any preaching territory assignment is much appreciated and greatly facilitates the activity. .

It is important to read on in this Reasoning Book quotation to get the full picture of what is meant here in that there would be no confusion in Thomas' mind regarding Jesus position relative to his father Jehovah despite this designation. Indeed Jesus can be referred to in this manner, and most certainly is at Isaiah 9:7 which is far more explicit in describing Jesus' post-resurrection mightiness. However, to say (as @JWInsider did) that "not every JW would agree" needs qualification too, as the role of Jesus as "Mighty God" as described by Isaiah is a comon topic of discussion amongst Jehovah's Witnesses. Any dissenting on the use of this term would (in my experience) be very few and far between.

Oh you misunderstand (again). Sorry for not making myself clear. I was not taught what the Trinity is as a Roman Catholic. It was dictated to me, in the worst possible sense of that word. I was given tractates, such as the portion of the Athanasian creed I posted earlier, and told to memorise and recite them on pain of detention or even corporal punishment. In fact, writing out the Creed in full numerous times was itself utilised on occasion as a punishment! It wasn't possible to be taught what it was describing, because no one seemed to know what it was. Admittedly (by proponents), this is a difficult but fundamental concept within Christianity, and also is, historically, a controversial doctrine. I was puzzled by the fact that non-acceptance of the teaching seemed to incite a violent reaction in those who professed belief in it. However, I found out fairly early on that many Christians admit they don't understand it, many more Christians don't understand it but think they do, and in fact, although they'd be horrified to hear it, many Christians sometimes behave as if they believe in three Gods and at other times as if they believe in one. Given that, it is little wonder that no one was able to actually teach the Trinity as such. Of course when I came across statements asserting that the Trinity, for example, "reveals that God can be seen only as a spiritual experience whose mystery inspires awe and cannot be understood logically", I knew I was on a loser. However, I felt reassured when I found out that what I felt was unintelligible gobbledegook actually appeared so to others, so my intelligence was not at fault, neither was I alone in that view. So I hope that clears up any misunderstanding about whether I was actually taught the Trinity while being raised Roman Catholic… A difficult but fundamental concept within Christianity

I can't see the need to elaborate on what an avowed teacher has expressed to those he seeks to teach. Especially as this particular string takes the form of such a definite or clear expression (statement). It's like ....splitting off atoms when only an element is required. Clarifies what you meant, but still at best only an assertion. And, forgive me, as I hope @JWInsider will, I get get a sneaky, Hislopian feeling when I read postings of that nature. Now surely you know how silly this sounds? But as it has the ring of John 10:33, I'll take it as a compliment. (Compare Acts 5:43) Absolutely true! And probably never will!...... Very good question. Matt 13:24-30; 36-43. Answers this perfectly. I expect more detail will be provided by other participants as I can see other postings coming in while I write. Sure. No need to reply then. Thanks for the bounce anyway. It was enlightening.

What he said. Is it that obscure? Certainly we all need to do proper Bible study. But, I have my doubts that studying what Clement meant constitutes "proper" Bible study. Neither does the poring over ancient Jewish traditional folk-lore.. Complete oversight here I think. Didn't you already quote 1Pet.1:15-16? Surely even Clement referred to Paul's letter to the Corinthians at 47:1,2? As, it is asserted, does the notion that Clement's listing of God, Christ, and Holy Spirit supports the teaching of the Trinity. In fact, it is difficult to see how something which no one (apparently) can understand or explain logically can be called a "teaching". However, the best this line of argument appears to acheive is to equate the Trinity with the phoenix which appears to consign both to the category of...."myth". This seems uncharacteristically childish! Surely God can set the general principles by which His thoughts are ordered? I didn't think a law had been established on this element of posting structure? Pardon me if a protocol has been inadvertantly violated.

Any efforts made to deal with this despicable crime are welcome. However, it seems the amount of energy, resource, and "expertise" focused on villifying people who actually do not engage in this depravity and who, regardless of allegation, actually detest the practice, is disproportionate. I mean, I know it is difficult to get a clear picture of the problem, but stats reports of this crime incidence such as 62,939 in US 2012; 8,892 in UK 2014 indicate a problem out of control if the "tip of iceberg" theory is applied..What happens in other countries? Who really has any real "expertise", let alone the "will" sufficient to get to grips with this problem?

We had to learn and recite this: "The Catholic faith is this: that we honor one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity, neither confounding the Persons nor separating the Substance. For one is the Person of the Father, another that of the Son, another that of the Holy Ghost. But of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost the Divinity is one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, such the Holy Ghost. The Father is uncreated, the Son is uncreated, the Holy Ghost is uncreated. . . . The Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Ghost is God; . . . and yet there are not three Gods, but there is one God. . . . The Father is not made by any one, nor created, nor born. The Son is of the Father alone, not made, nor created, but born. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and the Son, not made, nor created, nor born, but proceeding."

If you really think your disagreement with my statement on "general principles" is supported by your reference to 2 Pet 3:16, then I think you are in the wrong end of the pool. Understanding how principle can be discerned in scriptural statements is a fundamental element of Bible study. My reference to Paul's words at 1 Cor 14:9 on the need for speech which is understood by the listener has validity, regardless of the immediate context in respect of inappropriate use of foreign tongues despite the Holy Spirit's empowerment. If I use language which my hearer cannot understand, then it is indeed a foreign language to them, regardless of it's origin.

No problem. Easily done.

Interesting quote from Clement, Dated between 80 and 140 so rather flimsy in that respect. However, I do not see the word Trinity here, or anything that would suggest the doctrine in the list of God, Jesus, and Holy Spirit. At any rate, there is cause for general skepticism regarding anything other than a mild historical interest in this writing in view of the assertions made 25:2-5 regarding the phoenix as a testimony to the resurrection. I find any attempt to draw a trinitarian view from 58:2 objectively to be futile although I can quite accept that anyone completely convinced in the doctorine from other sources first would see trintarian shadows in any 3-part construction. This has been presented as proof of trinity in another forum posting. Other points you raise I will respond to separately.

So was it just Raymond Franz that supported this view? "It will be more endurable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah on Judgment Day than for that city ." Sodom and Gomorrah were everlastingly destroyed as cities, but this would not preclude a resurrection for people of those cities" Aid to Bible Understanding 1971. p 1519

Great news! Let's hope this is a genuine report and any alleged criminals (if they are so) are flushed out, and are tried and punished for their crimes. Rom 13:4.

Do you mean something like 2Pet 2:4?

By George!! I think you've got it!!! Howdy Doody; Double Doody; Photo Doody...........they were all one and the same!! Let's all take a break.....

Quite true (although the grammar needs adjustment) . And you don't even have to get that complicated. Gen.2:24 describes the closest human relationship between two persons possible saying "they will become one flesh", but surely, no one understands this as meaning they will become one person.....or do they???

Anyone know the current state of play on these?

Hello Cos Hopefully your grasp of scriptural detail is a little firmer than your assessment of gender. General principles can be drawn from Biblical passages, regardless of context. Opposition to the Trinity does not necessarily make one a friend of the Truth. Could you quote 1stC examples at all, other than Ignatius of Antioch whose quoted reference from his Epistle to the Magnesians, is attributed to 2nd C and appears really...insubstantial (pardon the pun): "whatsoever ye do, may prosper both in the flesh and spirit; in faith and love; in the Son, and in the Father, and in the Spirit;"

I'm not addressing a particular individual on this public forum, but I would like to contribute to the general discussion. Seems the Trinity idea takes a number of guises. This view differs substantially from what I was taught growiing up as a Roman Catholic. "God the Father, Jesus the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one, united in their purpose of saving man. But they're obviously three different entities. Jesus while on earth prays to His Father in heaven. Jesus was neither a ventriloquist nor a schizophrenic. He was talking to His Father, and His Father answered Him. In the gospel of John, the disciples say, "We heard the Father answer Him." Doug Batchelor (Seventh Day Adventist Pastor.) However, it seems to reflect current thinking amongst a number of different church groups. For me, the principle Paul refers to at 1Cor.14:9 is relevant here: "unless you with the tongue use speech that is easily understood, how will anyone know what is being said? You will, in fact, be speaking into the air" The vocabulary used in explaining the doctorine of the Trinity includes words/phrases such as: filioque dual procession appropriation perichoresis hypostases procession The Essential (also called Immanent or Ontological) Trinity The Economic Trinity Some different opinions (referred to as heresies) include:: Modalism Tritheism Partialism Adoptionism Arianism The Trinity doctorine does not appear to meet Paul's criteria of being expressed in "speech that is easily understood". Neither does it's definition appear to be something in which the inspired Holy Scriptures can be used to "set matters straight" (2Tim.3:16). In fact, apart from convoluted, out of context, and distorted attempts to twist existing texts, eventually it was deemed necessary to add a completely spurious statement into scripture at 1John 5:7 which, in the King James version of the Bible, reads: "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one". ( I don't know why the forger just didn't go the whole hog and use the word "Trinity" here). Unbelievably, this text is still relied upon by many "grass-roots" Trinitarians. (Lovers of detail may find this discussion of interest: https://bible.org/article/textual-problem-1-john-57-8) Britain's good old "Aunty", the BBC, summed up the matter very simply when discussing the (not exclusive) beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses on the matter of the Trinity: http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/witnesses/beliefs/beliefs.shtml The traditional Christian idea that God is a 'Trinity' of Father, Son and Holy Spirit is false and based on pagan ideas The doctrine of the Trinity is inconsistent with the Bible The doctrine of the Trinity contradicts what the prophets, Jesus, the apostles, and the early Christians believed and taught