Early Christians Believed in the Trinity

[bruceq]

21 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

 

bruceq mentions that he has no problem saying Jesus is God (with a capital G). Not every JW would agree,

Just quoting the "Reasoning" book. Page 213 :"Does Thomas’ exclamation at John 20:28 prove that Jesus is truly God? John 20:28 (RS) reads: “Thomas answered him, ‘My Lord and my God!’” There is no objection to referring to Jesus as “God,” if this is what Thomas had in mind"

I would love to stay on topic of the Trinity in the Bible but COS will not give any Scriptures in the Bible. Sorry about the fish thingy but I was bored. 

[bruceq]

33 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

, I wondered how the NWT in German would get around the fact that grammatically, it MUST put a capital G on god, even a "falsch Gott."

(John/Johannes 1:1, NWT German/Deutsch) Im Anfang war das WORT, und das WORT war bei GOTT, und das WORT war ein Gott.

 

Also 2 Cor. 4:4 says Satan is the "god of this world". And "God or god is preceded by the definite article "the" so according to John 1:1 Satan would also be GOD. Of course thankfully Bible translators do not go by just "grammar" but also many other things such as Bible harmony and context since everyone KNOWS Satan is not THE GOD !

[Evacuated]

3 minutes ago, bruceq said:

There is no objection to referring to Jesus as “God,” if this is what Thomas had in mind"

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.

[bruceq]

   In the original post the point I was making is that Jesus can be called "God" because "the angel of the Lord" {Jehovah's angel}  was also called God but obviously according to context and harmony we all know angels are not GOD. The point I am making is GOD is merely a TITLE that can be applied to others including Jesus but that does not make them all the same person or "God".

[TrueTomHarley]

disregard

[TrueTomHarley]

2 hours ago, bruceq said:

Sorry about the fish thingy but I was bored. 

We are having fish for dinner tonight.

[JW Insider]

On 5/9/2017 at 8:18 AM, bruceq said:

I have no problem with Jesus being called "God" with a capital "G".

 

On 5/10/2017 at 2:19 PM, bruceq said:

You seem to be  arguing that Jesus is God but where is the third person. Jehovah's Witnesses have no problem in Jesus being called God so what is your argument about?

When I said that not every Witness would agree, I mean that most of us would require a lot of context, and prefer to "nuance" our way around it, before ever just using the expression "Jesus is God" and leaving it at that. It would be a rare thing to hear a prayer at the Hall end like this:

". . . And in the name of Mighty God, Jesus, we pray. Amen!"  or even,

". . . We come to You in the name of the Word, who is a god, Jesus Christ. Amen!"

I started out a talk once with John 1:1 and gave it the emphasis that appears to be intended in the context of John 1.

". . . and the Word was with God, and the Word WAS A GOD!!!

And of course it widened a few eyes, because we almost always read it as a proof-text against the Trinity, saying ". . . and the Word with with God, and Word was AAAAY god."

John wasn't trying to point out that Jesus was only A god, as opposed to THE God. He was explaining the awesome privilege that mankind had just experienced by have a gOD in our midst, one who had spent a near eternity with the unapproachable, invisible GOD himself, and one who was therefore in the best position to explain the Father to us! John adds the following just a few sentences later:

(John 1:14,18) 14 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. . . . 18 No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is in the bosom [position] with the Father is the one that has explained him. (NWT)

In the talk, I could easily explain why I had given it the emphasis like that. But even though we might "call" Jesus "God" with a capital "G" you will find very few Witnesses who will "spell" it that way. That's why I pointed out the "pains" that the German NWT went to in order to make it different in John 1:1, even though all nouns have be to capitalized according to German grammar.

[bruceq]

Where did the Trinitarians go?

[Evacuated]

 

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

John 1:1.....

a proof-text against the Trinity

Which is not the direct purpose of this or any other text in Holy Scripture.

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

And in the name of Mighty God, Jesus, we pray

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? 

 

 

 

[Ann O'Maly]

9 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Yeah... Google "Dagon Pope's Hat" and go to "images".

 

9 hours ago, bruceq said:

For more info on the fish god of Christendom and the pagan trinity god see these books [none of which are printed by Jehovah's Witnesses]: 

Pagan Origins of Trinity and Religious Teachings from my library:

[...]

Two Babylons [Hislop] 

Uh oh!

Hislop Hokum Alert triggered!

You do know that the 'Dagon Fish' hat thing is a Hislopian fantasy, don't you?

You also do realize that concepts about triad groupings of gods are not the same as the Trinity idea, don't you?

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

The way we use language today is quite different in syntax from the way it was used thousands of years ago ... or even during the times of Shakespeare ... back then all manner of people from Aztec Shamans to Roman Emperors were considered to be "gods". 

Anybody with the power of life or death over you often considered himself to be a local "god", and demanded you address him that way, or you watched your blood squirt between your fingers as you died.

There are many "gods", and many "Lords".   English Judges are referred to as "My Lord", and there is a "House of Lords" in their parliament.

When you see something astounding, you may exclaim "Oh, My LORD!" to the air, and no one in particular, and it takes a highly disciplined person to after smashing his thumb with a hammer, to yell out "Oh, random fluctuations in the Spacetime Continuum !!!".

I have thought about getting a black robe, and a Barbara Bush wig, and walk around muttering "hurrumph!, hurrumph" and see if people will refer to me as "Lord", but I suspect they would just roll their eyes and say "Oh Lord! ... what is he up to now?".

..and then of course there is Geoffrey Jackson's proclamation before the Australian Royal Commission in case no. 26, under oath ... that the Governing Body are NOT inspired by God, but are "Guardians of the Doctrine" .. ( G.O.D.)

and not to forget that cultural Icon ... Lord Darth Vader.

.

 

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

Yeah ... a great deal of Hislop was pure fantasy ... but there is ALSO "If it walks like a duck, Quacks like a duck and Looks like a Duck ... IT'S A DUCK !"

Th Vatican is FULL of pagan statues to other gods, and thousands of things the imagry is adopted from the pagan world...

If the "Dagon Pope's Hat" thing can be DISPROVED somehow ... THAT I would be interested in.

Until then ...

QUACK!