- This topic has 18,300 replies, 268 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 3 months ago by
.
- Posts
WJ, don't take all the fun out of it, OK?
Ha….I think if we quite arguing that one side isn't wrong……the board would grow silent. And quite frankly, I haven't had this much fun debating scripture in a long time.
Quote (Not3in1 @ April 20 2007,07:45) TimV, Be careful. Fine sounding arguments should not be your ruler that guides you to truth…..
Colossians 2:4
I tell you this so that no one may deceive you by fine-sounding arguments.
Quite so not3,
You could lose all the debates here and still be speaking the truth.
You could win new proselytes here and just make them more fit for gehenna.Quote (Not3in1 @ April 20 2007,07:45) TimV, Be careful. Fine sounding arguments should not be your ruler that guides you to truth…..
Colossians 2:4
I tell you this so that no one may deceive you by fine-sounding arguments.
Fear not, I said that in spite of the excellent arguments, a higher power is leading me to the truth.
I depend on that higher power.You must admit though, hearing arguments from both sides, from people who are gifted in giving those arguments is invigorating to the mind. I have seen both Tim2 and WorshippingJesus give good arguments. Not just paste a bunch of scriptures and leave a person trying to figure out what their intentions were.
T8, Nick, David and even you, Not 3in1, have done well arguing your sides as well. As for me, I am a simple man without the skills to express myself as well as others. So occasionally I stick my foot in my mouth. God knows what I mean, even if I don't make myself clear to you guys.
Tim
Tim
Tim
Tim
Quote (TimothyVI @ April 20 2007,08:22) Quote (Not3in1 @ April 20 2007,07:45) TimV, Be careful. Fine sounding arguments should not be your ruler that guides you to truth…..
Colossians 2:4
I tell you this so that no one may deceive you by fine-sounding arguments.
Fear not, I said that in spite of the excellent arguments, a higher power is leading me to the truth.
I depend on that higher power.You must admit though, hearing arguments from both sides, from people who are gifted in giving those arguments is invigorating to the mind. I have seen both Tim2 and WorshippingJesus give good arguments. Not just paste a bunch of scriptures and leave a person trying to figure out what their intentions were.
T8, Nick, David and even you, Not 3in1, have done well arguing your sides as well. As for me, I am a simple man without the skills to express myself as well as others. So occasionally I stick my foot in my mouth. God knows what I mean, even if I don't make myself clear to you guys.
Tim
Tim
Tim
Tim
As you can see, I apparently stutter when I type as well.
TimTimV, you crack me up. Yes, I would agree that hearing all the arguments really is stirring. I'm glad that everyone is here – including YOU. The good Lord knows I am not the scholar that many are here – but I have learned by participating, and I encourage you to do more of that. We need everyone!
Quote (Tim2 @ April 20 2007,07:17) Not 3in1, I know it isn't pleasant to be rebuked for heresy, but is what God commands His people to do. See how the false prophets are rebuked in Lamentations 2:14, “They have not exposed your iniquity, so as to restore you from captivity.” This isn't a case of holier than thou. Everyone, you, me, Nick, needs to be rebuked for their sin, or we will die. Proverbs 27:5: better is open rebuke than love that is concealed. What do you think would have been better for the people of Nineveh, for Jonah to have told them to repent, or to have had a kind dialogue with them about their choice of god and wished them well?
Jesus' message is the same for all of us: repent or perish.
Tim
Hi Tim2,
If you are so unsure of your doctrines yourself
why on earth would you demand others repent and accept them?Romans 8:1
Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free fromthe law of sin and death.God does not condem me because of Christ. YOU shouldn't condem others either. By the same measure you are using to judge, SO SHALL YOU BE JUDGED. It's one thing for you to judge me, it's quite another for you to say that GOD judges me. I do believe you are going to be in some trouble for this, Tim2. I'd take a look at your own heart and see if there be any offensive way in YOU before you start slinging your condemnation onto others.
Hi Tim2,
You say
” I wrote “pretty clear” in order to reach out to the unbelievers, that they might at least agree with this, and in time see the truth in all its clarity, not because the text isn't clear, but because their sin makes it unclear. “When will you desist from finding sin in others?
The following is taken from the Wikipedia under “nontrinitarianism”:
Main Points of Dissent
[edit] 1. The Trinity as being irrational
Criticism of the doctrine includes the argument that its “mystery” is essentially an inherent irrationality, where the persons of God are claimed to share completely a single divine substance, the “being of God”, and yet not partake of each others' identity. It is also pointed out that many polytheistic pre-Christian religions arranged many of their gods in trinities, and that this doctrine may been promoted by Church leaders to make Christendom more acceptable to surrounding cultures.2. Possible lack of Scriptural support
Critics also argue the doctrine, for a teaching described as fundamental, lacks direct scriptural support, and even some proponents of the doctrine acknowledge such direct or formal support is lacking. The New Catholic Encyclopedia, for example, says, “The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not taught [explicitly] in the [Old Testament]”[14], “The formulation 'one God in three Persons' was not solidly established [by a council]…prior to the end of the 4th century”[15], and The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia adds, “The doctrine is not explicitly taught in the New Testament”. The question, however, of why such a supposedly central doctrine to the Christian faith would never have been explicitly stated in scripture or taught in detail by Jesus himself was sufficiently important to 16th century historical figures such as Michael Servetus as to lead them to argue the question. The Geneva City Council, in accord with the judgment of the cantons of Zürich, Bern, Basel, and Schaffhausen, condemned Servetus to be burned at the stake for this, and for his opposition to infant baptism.3. Divinity of Jesus
For some, debate over the biblical basis of the doctrine tends to revolve chiefly over the question of the deity of Jesus (see Christology). Those who reject the divinity of Jesus argue among other things that Jesus rejected being called so little as good in deference to God (versus “the Father”) (Mark 10:18), disavowed omniscience as the Son, “learned obedience” (Hebrews 5:8), and referred to ascending unto “my Father, and to your Father; and to my God, and to your God” (John 20:17). They also dispute that “Elohim” denotes plurality, noting that this name in nearly all circumstances takes a singular verb and arguing that where it seems to suggest plurality, Hebrew grammar still indicates against it. They also point to statements by Jesus such as his declaration that the Father was greater than he or that he was not omniscient, in his statement that of a final day and hour not even he knew, but the Father (Mark 13:32), and to Jesus' being called the firstborn of creation (Colossians 1:15) and 'the beginning of God's creation,' (Revelation 3:14) which argues against his being eternal. In Theological Studies #26 (1965) p.545-73, Does the NT call Jesus God?, Raymond E. Brown wrote that Mark 10:18, Luke 18:19, Matthew 19:17, Mark 15:34, Matthew 27:46, John 20:17, Ephesians 1:17, 2 Corinthians 1:3, 1 Peter 1:3, John 17:3, 1 Corinthians 8:6, Ephesians 4:4-6, 1 Corinthians 12:4-6, 2 Corinthians 13:14, 1 Timothy 2:5, John 14:28, Mark 13:32, Philippians 2:5-10, 1 Corinthians 15:24-28 are “texts that seem to imply that the title God was not used for Jesus” and are “negative evidence which is often somewhat neglected in Catholic treatments of the subject.”[(Mark 10:18) “Jesus said to him: “Why do you call me good? Nobody is good, except one, God.”
(Luke 18:19) “Jesus said to him: “Why do you call me good? Nobody is good, except one, God.”
(Matthew 19:17) “He said to him: “Why do you ask me about what is good? One there is that is good. If, though, you want to enter into life, observe the commandments continually.””
(Mark 15:34) “And at the ninth hour Jesus called out with a loud voice: “Éli, Éli, láma sa·bach·tháni?” which means, when translated: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?””
(Matthew 27:46) “About the ninth hour Jesus called out with a loud voice, saying: “Éli, Éli, láma sa·bach·tháni?” that is, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?””
(John 20:17) “Jesus said to her: “Stop clinging to me. For I have not yet ascended to the Father. But be on your way to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and YOUR Father and to my God and YOUR God.’””
(2 Corinthians 1:3) “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of tender mercies and the God of all comfort,”
(1 Peter 1:3) “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, for according to his great mercy he gave us a new birth to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,”
(John 17:3) “This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ.”
(1 Corinthians 8:6) “there is actually to us one God the Father, out of whom all things are, and we for him; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are, and we through him.”
(Ephesians 4:4-6) “One body there is, and one spirit, even as YOU were called in the one hope to which YOU were called; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6 one God and Father of all [persons], who is over all and through all and in all.”
(1 Corinthians 12:4-6) “Now there are varieties of gifts, but there is the same spirit; 5 and there are varieties of ministries, and yet there is the same Lord; 6 and there are varieties of operations, and yet it is the same God who performs all the operations in all persons.”
(2 Corinthians 13:14) “The undeserved kindness of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the sharing in the holy spirit be with all of YOU.”(1 Timothy 2:5) “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, a man, Christ Jesus,”
(John 14:28) “YOU heard that I said to YOU, I am going away and I am coming [back] to YOU. If YOU loved me, YOU would rejoice that I am going my way to the Father, because the Father is greater than I am.”
(Mark 13:32) ““Concerning that day or the hour nobody knows, neither the angels in heaven nor the Son, but the Father.”
(Philippians 2:5-10) “Keep this mental attitude in YOU that was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, although he was existing in God’s form, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God. 7 No, but he emptied himself and took a slave’s form and came to be in the likeness of men. 8 More than that, when he found himself in fashion as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient as far as death, yes, death on a torture stake. 9 For this very reason also God exalted him to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every [other] name, 10 so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the ground,”
(1 Corinthians 15:24-28) “Next, the end, when he hands over the kingdom to his God and Father, when he has brought to nothing all government and all authority and power. 25 For he must rule as king until [God] has put all enemies under his feet. 26 As the last enemy, death is to be brought to nothing. 27 For [God] “subjected all things under his feet.” But when he says that ‘all things have been subjected,’ it is evident that it is with the exception of the one who subjected all things to him. 28 But when all things will have been subjected to him, then the Son himself will also subject himself to the One who subjected all things to him, that God may be all things to everyone.”
I have added these scriptures.]Trinitarians, and some non-Trinitarians such as the Modalists who also hold to the divinity of Jesus Christ, claim that these statements are based on the fact that Jes
us existed as the Son of God in human flesh. Thus he is both God and man, who became “lower than the angels, for our sake” (Hebrews 2:6-8, Psalm 8:4-6) and who was tempted as humans are tempted, but did not sin (Hebrews 4:14-16). Some Nontrinitarians counter the belief that the Son was limited only during his earthly life (Trinitarians believe, instead, that Christ retains full human nature even after his resurrection), by citing 1 Corinthians 11:3 (“the head of Christ [is] God” [KJV]), written after Jesus had returned to Heaven, thus placing him still in an inferior relation to the Father. Additionally, they refer to Acts 5:31 and Philippians 2:9, indicating that Jesus became exalted after ascension to Heaven, and to Hebrews 9:24, Acts 7:55, 1 Corinthians 15:24, 28, regarding Jesus as a distinct personality in Heaven, all after his ascension.4. Possible un-Biblical terminology
Christian Unitarians, Restorationists, and others question the doctrine of the Trinity because it relies on non-Biblical terminology. The term “Trinity” is not found in scripture and the number three is never associated with God in any sense other than within the Comma Johanneum. Detractors hold that the only number ascribed to God in the Bible is One and that the Trinity, literally meaning three-in-one, ascribes a threeness to God that is not Biblical.Several other examples of terms not found in the Bible include multiple “Persons” in relation to God, the terms “God the Son” and “God the Holy Spirit”, and “eternally” begotten. For instance, a basic tenet of Trinitarianism is that God is made up of three distinct Persons (hypostasis). The term hypostasis is used only one time Biblically in reference to God (Hebrews 1:3), where it states that Jesus is the express image of God's person (hypostasis). The Bible never uses the term in relation to the Holy Spirit or explicitly mentions the Son having a distinct hypostasis from the Father.
Trinitarians maintain that these ideas are implied within scripture and were necessary additions of the Nicene Era to counter the doctrine of Arianism.
5. Many scriptural citations lack the Holy Spirit
It is also argued that the vast majority of scriptures that Trinitarians offer in support of their beliefs refer to the Father and to Jesus, but not to the Holy Spirit. This suggests that the concept of the trinity was not well-established in the early Christian community.6. Whether it is truly monotheistic or not
The teaching is also pivotal to inter-religious disagreements with two of the other major faiths, Judaism and Islam; the former reject Jesus' divine mission entirely, the latter accepts Jesus as a human prophet just like Muhammad but rejects altogether the deity of Jesus. Many within Judaism and Islam also accuse Christian Trinitarians of practicing polytheism, of believing in three gods rather than just one. Islam holds that because Allah is unique and absolute (the concept of tawhid) the Trinity is impossible and has even been condemned as polytheistic. This is emphasized in the Qur'an which states “He (Allah) does not beget, nor is He begotten, And (there is) none like Him.” (Qur'an, 112:3-4)Scriptural texts cited as implying opposition
Among Bible verses cited by opponents of Trinitarianism are those that claim there is only one God, the Father. Other verses state that Jesus Christ was a man. Trinitarians explain these apparent contradictions by reference to the mystery and paradox of the Trinity itself. This is a partial list of verses implying opposition to Trinitarianism:One God
* Matthew 4:10: “Jesus said to him, 'Away from me, Satan! For it is written: “Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.”'”
* John 17:3: “Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.”
* 1Corinthians 8:5-6: “For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”), yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.”
* 1Timothy 2:5: “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus”The Son is subordinate to the Father
* Mark 13:32:”No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.”
* John 5:19: “Jesus gave them this answer: “I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does.”
* John 14:28: “You heard me say, 'I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.”
* John 17:20-23: “My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.”
* Colossians 1:15: “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.”
* 1stCorinthians 15:24-28: “Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. For he “has put everything under his feet.” Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.”Jesus is not the old testament God
* John 2:16: And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father's house an house of merchandise.
* Acts 3:13: The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus; whom ye delivered up…
* John 20:17: Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and [to] my God, and your God.
* Daniel 7:13: I saw in the night visions, and, behold, [one] like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.
* Psalms 110:1: Jehovah saith unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, Until I make thine enemies thy footstool.Ontological Differences Between “God” and Jesus
* John 17:1-3 Jesus prays to God.
* Hebrews 2:17,18 Hebrews 3:2 Jesus has faith in God.
* Acts 3:13 Jesus is a servant of God.
* Mark 13:32 Revelation 1:1 Jesus does not know things God knows.
* John 4:22 Jesus worships God.
* Revelation 3:12 Jesus has one who is God to him.
* 1stCorinthians 15:28 Jesus is in subjection to God.
* 1stCorinthians 11:1 Jesus' head is God.
* Hebrews 5:7 Jesus has reverent submission, fear, of God.
* Acts 2:36 Jesus is given lordship by God.
* Acts 5:31 Jesus is exalted by God.
* Hebrews 5:10 Jesus is made high priest by God.
* Philippians 2:9 Jesus is given aurthority by God.
* Luke 1:32,33 Jesus is given kingship by God.
* Acts 10:42 Jesus is given judgment by God.
* Acts 2:24, Romans 10.9, 1 Cor 15:15 “God raised [Jesus] from the dead”.
* Mark 16:19, Luke 22:69, Acts 2:33, Romans 8:34 Jesus is at the right hand of God.
* 1 Tim 2:5 Jesus is the one human mediator between the one God and m
an.
* 1 Cor 15:24-28 God put everything, except Himself, under Jesus.I would like to also add this from the same source:
Theory of pagan origin and influence
Nontrinitarian Christians have long contended that the doctrine of the Trinity is a prime example of Christian borrowing from pagan sources. According to this view, a simpler idea of God was lost very early in the history of the Church, through accommodation to pagan ideas, and the “incomprehensible” doctrine of the Trinity took its place. As evidence of this process, a comparison is often drawn between the Trinity and notions of a divine triad, found in pagan religions and Hinduism. Hinduism has a triad, i.e., Trimurti.As far back as Babylonia, the worship of pagan gods grouped in threes, or triads, was common. This influence was also evident in Egypt, Greece, and Rome in the centuries before, during, and after Christ. After the death of the apostles, many nontrinitarians contend that these pagan beliefs began to invade Christianity. (First and second century Christian writings reflect a certain belief that Jesus was one with God the Father, but anti-Trinitarians contend it was at this point that the nature of the oneness evolved from pervasive coexistence to identity.)
Some find a direct link between the doctrine of the Trinity, and the Egyptian theologians of Alexandria, for example. They suggest that Alexandrian theology, with its strong emphasis on the deity of Christ, was an intermediary between the Egyptian religious heritage and Christianity.
The Church is charged with adopting these pagan tenets, invented by the Egyptians and adapted to Christian thinking by means of Greek philosophy. As evidence of this, critics of the doctrine point to the widely acknowledged synthesis of Christianity with Platonic philosophy, which is evident in Trinitarian formulas that appeared by the end of the third century. Roman Catholic doctrine became firmly rooted in the soil of Hellenism; and thus an essentially pagan idea was forcibly imposed on the churches beginning with the Constantinian period. At the same time, neo-Platonic trinities, such as that of the One, the Nous and the Soul, are not a trinity of consubstantial equals as in orthodox Christianity.
Nontrinitarians assert that Catholics must have recognized the pagan roots of the trinity, because the allegation of borrowing was raised by some disputants during the time that the Nicene doctrine was being formalized and adopted by the bishops. For example, in the 4th century Catholic Bishop Marcellus of Ancyra's writings, On the Holy Church,9 :
“Now with the heresy of the Ariomaniacs, which has corrupted the Church of God…These then teach three hypostases, just as Valentinus the heresiarch first invented in the book entitled by him 'On the Three Natures'. For he was the first to invent three hypostases and three persons of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and he is discovered to have filched this from Hermes and Plato.”
(Source: Logan A. Marcellus of Ancyra (Pseudo-Anthimus), 'On the Holy Church': Text, Translation and Commentary. Verses 8-9. Journal of Theological Studies, NS, Volume 51, Pt. 1, April 2000, p.95 ).Such a late date for a key term of Nicene Christianity, and attributed to a Gnostic, they believe, lends credibility to the charge of pagan borrowing. Marcellus was rejected by the Catholic Church for teaching a form of Sabellianism.
The early apologists, including Justin Martyr, Tertullian and Irenaeus, frequently discussed the parallels and contrasts between Christianity and the pagan and syncretic religions, and answered charges of borrowing from paganism in their apologetical writings.
[edit] Pagan basis for Trinitarianism
Many nontrinitarians have long contended that the doctrine of the Trinity is a prime example of Christianity borrowing from pagan sources[citation needed]. According to them, very early in the Church's history a simpler idea of God was lost and the incomprehensible doctrine of the Trinity took its place due to the Church's accommodation of pagan ideas. In support of this, they often compare the doctrine of the Trinity with notions of a divine triad found in ancient pagan religions and even in modern Hinduism.
Those who argue for a pagan basis note that as far back as Babylonia, the worship of pagan gods grouped in threes, or triads, was common, and that this influence was also prevalent among the Celts, in Egypt, Greece, Rome and even in ancient India where the trio of Brahma, Shiva and Vishnu were being worshiped centuries before, during, and after Jesus. The concept of the trio, the creator, the maintainer and the annihilator dates back to millennia before Christ. They allege that after the death of the apostles these pagan beliefs began to invade Christian doctrine. At the very least, they suggest that Greek philosophy brought a late influence into the creation of the doctrine. According to the Catholic Bishop Marcellus of Ancyra, On the Holy Church,9: : “Now with the heresy of the Ariomaniacs, which has corrupted the Church of God…These then teach three hypostases, just as Valentinus the heresiarch first invented in the book entitled by him 'On the Three Natures'. For he was the first to invent three hypostases and three persons of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and he is discovered to have filched this from Hermes and Plato.” (Source: Logan A. Marcellus of Ancyra (Pseudo-Anthimus), 'On the Holy Church': Text, Translation and Commentary. Verses 8-9. Journal of Theological Studies, NS, Volume 51, Pt. 1, April 2000, p.95 ). Such a late date for a key term of Nicene Christianity, and attributed to a Gnostic, they believe, lends credibility to the charge of pagan borrowing.
Some nontrinitarians find a direct link, for example, between the doctrine of the Trinity and the Egyptian theologians of Alexandria, suggesting that Alexandrian theology with its strong emphasis on the deity of Jesus served to infuse Egypt's pagan religious heritage into Christianity. They charge the Church with adopting these Egyptian tenets after adapting them to Christian thinking by means of Greek philosophy. As evidence of this, they point to the widely acknowledged synthesis of Christianity with Platonic philosophy evident in Trinitarian formulas appearing by the end of the third century. Hence, beginning with the Constantinian period, they allege, these pagan ideas were forcibly imposed on the churches as Catholic doctrine rooted firmly in the soil of Hellenism. Most groups subscribing to the theory of a Great Apostasy generally concur in this thesis.
The Comma Johanneum has been appealed to by some as an explicit statement of the Trinity; however on two accounts this is discredited. First, the authenticity of the passage is in doubt, not being found in what modern scholars regard as the “best” or oldest manuscripts; and secondly it suggests that the unity “in heaven” is one of agreement, rather than of essence – and therefore the verse does not distinguish Trinitarian belief.
Thus, while first and second century Christian writings do reflect a certain belief that Jesus was one with God the Father, Unitarian nontrinitarians contend that after that point in time the nature of that oneness evolved in the Church's hands, perhaps under the influence of other religion and philosophy, from a pervasive coexistence into a complete identity.
Other nonunitarian nontrinitarians, however, point to this passage from the Gospel of John, to support their view that Jesus was God in the Bible, “And Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!” Jesus said to him, “Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed” ” (John 20:28-29 NKJV). Since Thomas called Jesus God, Jesus' statements appear to confirm His view of the correctness of Thomas' assertion. Of course, it is equally plausible that Thomas is addressing the Lord Jesus and God the Father who raised Jesus from the dead. Raymond E. Brown
in Does the NT call Jesus God? notes on this passage: “… the contention of Theodore of Mopsuestia [c.400] that Thomas was uttering an exclamation of thanks to the Father finds few proponents today.” “Dominus et deus noster” (Our Lord and God) was a title used by the Roman Emperor Domitian.[edit] Hellenic influences on Christian thought
See also: Hellenization
Advocates of the “Hellenic origins” argument consider it well supported by primary sources. They see these sources as tracing the influence of Philo on post-Apostolic Christian philosophers – many of them ex-pagan Hellenic philosophers – who then interpreted Scripture through the Neoplatonic filter of their original beliefs and subsequently incorporated those interpretations into their theology. The early synthesis between Hellenic philosophy and early Christianity was certainly made easier by the fact that so many of the earliest apologists (such as Athenagoras and Justin Martyr) were Greek converts themselves, whose original beliefs had consisted more of philosophy than religion.
Stuart G Hall (formerly Professor of Ecclesiastical History at King's College, London) describes the subsequent process of philosophical/theological amalgamation in Doctrine and Practice in the Early Church (1991), where he writes:
The apologists began to claim that Greek culture pointed to and was consummated in the Christian message, just as the Old Testament was. This process was done most thoroughly in the synthesis of Clement of Alexandria. It can be done in several ways.You can rake through Greek literature, and find (especially in the oldest seers and poets) references to ‘God’ which are more compatible with monotheism than with polytheism (so at length Athenagoras.) You can work out a common chronology between the legends of prehistoric (Homer) Greece and the biblical record (so Theophilus.)
You can adapt a piece of pre-Christian Jewish apologetic, which claimed that Plato and other Greek philosophers got their best ideas indirectly from the teachings of Moses in the Bible, which was much earlier.
This theory combines the advantage of making out the Greeks to be plagiarists (and therefore second-rate or criminal), while claiming that they support Christianity by their arguments at least some of the time. Especially this applied to the question of God.
Philo himself had been influenced by Plato’s Timaeus, in which he called the logos “the image of God” and “the second God”. Many Trinitarians today are emphatic in their insistence that John's gospel deliberately makes use of the term “logos” (Example: Greek word #3056 in Strong's) because (according to them) he was fully aware of its Philonic meaning, and expected his readers to understand this. Some Trinitarians even go so far as to say that John himself was responsible for using the term in a new and especially religious way.
Philo's work reveals his dependence upon the Hellenic view that God Himself could not be directly responsible for the creation – for how could a perfect being produce an imperfect world, or the mutable derive from the immutable? The Greek solution was to propose the existence of a secondary divine being – the Demiurge – which, although tremendously powerful in its own right, was a little lower than God Himself (being neither perfect nor immutable in the absolute sense), and could therefore be safely associated with the creative process. To the Greeks, this arrangement was both a logical and philosophical necessity, and Philo – following his Hellenic inclinations – emphasises it strongly in De Opificio:
The Absolute Being, the Father, who had begotten all things, gave an especial grace to the Archangel and First-born Logos (Word), that standing between, He might sever the creature from the Creator. The same is ever the Intercessor for the dying mortal before the immortal God, and the Ambassador and the Ruler to the subject. He is neither without beginning of days, as God is, nor is He begotten, as we are, but is something between these extremes, being connected with both.
Here, then, was a concept which would bridge the gap between Greek philosophy and the Christian Scriptures, allowing the Hellenic philosopher-theologians to understand Christianity in the context of their own cosmological views. Instead of abandoning their philosophical preconceptions, they were able to import them into their new religion. It is therefore easy to understand the attractiveness of the Philonic model among Greek converts to Christianity.
The idea was warmly received by Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen and Arius (to name but a few), who successfully developed it over several centuries.
To quote again from Hall's Doctrine and Practice in the Early Church:
Justin’s ‘creed’, as we saw, spoke of a transcendent God and Father, of his Son (with the angels), and of the Spirit of prophecy. This triple confession is in line with what we know of the baptismal formula.
But when we look at the theology of the apologists, we find that generally their thought is ‘binitarian’ rather than ‘Trinitarian’: it speaks of God and his Word, rather than of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The term ‘Trinity’ was not yet in use in the Church.
Theophilus is the first to use the Greek word for Trinity (trias, triad), when he takes the first three days of creation as signifying the trinity of ‘God and his Word and his Wisdom’ (To Autolycus 2.15), and Tertullian soon after 200 was using the Latin trinitas of God.
If we suppose that the baptismal confession and central Christian belief was in a threefold form, we have to account for the binitarian thought of Justin and those like him. The most obvious explanation is that their apologetic is directed towards Greek thought. They began from what appeared to be common ground.
Among the Greeks, a familiar notion was the thought of an utterly transcendent, perfect, unmoving God, and of a second, mediating, active being responsible for the created order, whether as its superior governor or as its immanent soul.
Such a theology was being propounded, for instance, by the Platonist Albinos in Asia Minor at the same time that Justin was himself there, before he moved to Rome.
Quite apart from any philosophical reasons (which were certainly influential in their own right), the church preserved the Philonic writings because Eusebius of Caesarea labeled the monastic ascetic groups of Therapeutae and Therapeutrides – described in Philo's De Vita Contemplativa – as Christians (which they were not.) Eusebius also promoted the legend that Philo met Peter in Rome, while Jerome (345-420 CE) even lists him as a church Father. None of this was true, but in time (via church tradition) it came to be accepted as historical fact. Thus, through a series of pious frauds, Philo's work was eventually elevated to the level of honorary orthodoxy.
One standard reference for the “pagan origins” hypothesis is Alexander Hislop's The Two Babylons. It is charged that the book is poorly researched and badly written while being well referenced and powerfully presented. Critics contend the book contains a multitude of errors easily overlooked by the untrained eye, and say its popularity among nontrinitarians is a result of uncritical acceptance. A critique of the Hislop hypothesis (written from a non-trinitarian perspective) is available here.
Nick and Not3,
This forum is about discussing the truth of God. Since we don't all agree that means some of us believe lies. That's sin, and sin so powerful that it turns your supposed faith into belief in a false Jesus, one who isn't God and who therefore will be of no benefit of you. If I let you continue in error without warning you that you will go to hell for it, I wouldn't be doing God's will, would I? If you see sin in me, I would hope that you would tell me about it so I could repent. Everyone sent from God in the Bible rebuked the people for their sins, from Moses to Jude.
Tim
Hi Tim2,
Repent.
You hold hard to words not spoken by Jesus.
Did deeper and lay your foundation on the true rockQuote (Tim2 @ April 20 2007,15:10) Nick and Not3, This forum is about discussing the truth of God. Since we don't all agree that means some of us believe lies. That's sin, and sin so powerful that it turns your supposed faith into belief in a false Jesus, one who isn't God and who therefore will be of no benefit of you. If I let you continue in error without warning you that you will go to hell for it, I wouldn't be doing God's will, would I? If you see sin in me, I would hope that you would tell me about it so I could repent. Everyone sent from God in the Bible rebuked the people for their sins, from Moses to Jude.
Tim
Is it a sin to be decieved?David,
Thanks for the post. I think the nontrinitarians are wrong.
1. The Trinity is rational. The idea of multiple persons being one is found throughout Scripture, starting with husband and wife in Genesis 2:24. It's also stated concerning Jesus and the Father in John 10:30, and of the persons in the church and the Lord in 1 Corinthians 6:17, which is reaffirmed in Ephesians 5:32.
2. The Trinity is taught in Scripture. I've started a Trinity verses thread. But you know that the Bible affirms that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are God: John 17:3, John 1:1, Acts 5:4.
3. The divinity of Jesus is explicit. John 1:1. The verses you show relate to Jesus in his manhood, which is inferior to God.
4. The only word in the creeds not explicitly used in the Bible is substance. The meaning of substance is the meaning the Bible gives to the unity of the three persons.
5. The fact that there are fewer verses about the Spirit does not make Him less divine. Saying it once or twice is enough. Acts 5:4. 2 Corinthians 3:17.
6. The Trinity is monotheistic. The creeds explicitly say that there is one God, and this is what the term consubstantial means.
7. Those verses don't contradict the Trinity. Saying that the Father is the one God is consistent with the Trinity, for there is only one God, and each person is that God.
8. The Son is subordinate to the Father with respect to His manhood, but not His Godhead. And John 5:19 affirms the Son's equality for it states, “Whatever the Father does, the Son does also.”
9. Jesus is YHWH. Paul says as much in Romans 10:13, as does Hebrews 1:10. And of course Jesus says it in John 8:58.
10. Those aren't ontological differences at all. They just show the two persons relating to each other. The only ontological difference would be that Jesus is man as well as God, which is consisted with all those verses.
11. Many pagans believed in a trinity of gods, but this is not what the Trinity teaches. The Trinity is a Trinity of persons who are one God. This is not found anywhere else.
Tim
Tim2,
We are all sinful (even you). But I don't think pointing out sin all day is what Jesus had in mind for his followers. And gee, once you point it out, let it go already. You're behavior here has become a bit abusive, if you ask me.
Not3,
This whole discussion of the Trinity is pointing out sin. Denying God is sin. I'm abusive for telling you the truth, that if you don't believe that Jesus is God you will go to hell? Then call me abusive.
Tim
David thats very enlightening.
Especially since it is written by Non-Trinitarians.
How surprising!
Heres some more news…
Wikopedia JWs
The central theme of their preaching is God’s Kingdom with Jesus Christ as its king. The Witnesses believe that the reign of Jesus began with the Second Coming or presence of Christ. Originally, the Second Coming was believed to have occurred invisibly in 1874, but this date was later revised to 1914.
Jesus is literally the only begotten Son of God, and received his life from God. He is the only means by which to approach God in prayer, and is also the means of salvation for all worthy mankind.[81] His role as mediator of the “new covenant” is limited to those going to heaven,[82] whose number totals 144,000. The vast majority of Jehovah's Witnesses expect to live on a renewed paradise on Earth.[83] They believe that Jesus did not die on a cross but on a “torture stake”.[84] The holy spirit is not a person but is God's active force.[85] The soul is the person itself, not an immortal immaterial entity that dwells inside the body.[86] Thus, souls of deceased persons who are not immediately resurrected to heaven are considered dead, and death itself is a state of non-existence with no consciousness.One of the most outspoken critics of Jehovah's Witnesses is Raymond Franz, a former third-generation Jehovah's Witness. Franz, who served nine years on the Governing Body, uses Galatians 1:16–20 to support his claim that Paul of Tarsus did not view the apostles in Jerusalem as a governing body. He further contends that the council of Jerusalem was an isolated event, and that the creation of a central authority in Christianity was a 4th century development.[124] As well, he argues a sense of guilt is imposed on those not complying with organization arrangements for field service. Further, he contends that engaging in this formal activity became an extra-scriptural requirement placed upon those wanting to qualify for eldership. He claims in addition that an individual's spirituality is judged by the elders on this basis. Further, he is critical of the application of the phrase “house to house” (gr. “kat' oikon”) found at Acts 5:42, stating it does not require the idea of consecutive door-to-door visitation. He compares 27 Bible translations, for Acts 2:46, Acts 5:42 and Acts 20:20 showing phrases such as “at home”, “at your houses” and “in your homes” are used more often than “house to house”.[125] He also maintains that fear of being shunned and/or family break-up/loss causes people to nominally remain members rather than formally disassociate themselves. Also, Franz asserts that the judicial process itself, due to its private and nearly autonomous nature, directly contradicts the precedent found in the Bible and the organization's own teachings, and can be used in an arbitrary manner.[126]
Criticism regarding the procedures on reporting child abuse has also occurred. The current procedure that is followed when allegations of abuse are reported is based on a strict application of the principle at Deuteronomy 19:15: “No single witness should rise up against a man respecting any error or any sin, in the case of any sin that he may commit. At the mouth of two witnesses or at the mouth of three witnesses the matter should stand good” (New World Translation). If an allegation of child abuse is made, and the alleged perpetrator denies it, the local congregational elders will investigate to see if there can be any others who can substantiate the claim. If there are none, the elders do not disfellowship the accused individual, since the accusation may have no merit. However, according to the Jehovah's Witness Office of Public Information: “Even if the elders cannot take congregational action, they are expected to report the allegation to the branch office of Jehovah's Witnesses in their country, if local privacy laws permit. In addition to making a report to the branch office, the elders may be required by law to report even uncorroborated or unsubstantiated allegations to the authorities. If so, we expect the elders to comply. Additionally, the victim may wish to report the matter to the authorities, and it is his or her absolute right to do so.”[127] In 1997 it was also stated that, “for the protection of our children, a man known to have been a child molester does not qualify for a responsible position in the congregation” (e.g. serving as elders or ministerial servants). This would be upheld even if the crime was committed years before, or prior to the person's becoming a Witness. The general policy is not premised as punishment to the offender, but seen rather, by the religion, as a means of protecting the congregation's members.[128]
Raymond Franz, a former member of the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses, has challenged the Witnesses' policies on blood transfusions, stating that their requirements are inconsistent and contradictory.[132] However, to Witnesses blood as the fluid per se is not the real issue, it is what it represents. They say that “the important thing is that respect has been shown for the sanctity of blood, regard has been shown for the principle of the sacredness of life” represented by the blood.[133][134] When the blood has been drained from an animal, the respect has been shown to God and then a person may eat the meat even though it may contain minute traces of blood.
Critics have also argued that various Witness policies and practices — including the treatment of members who dissociate themselves or who have been disfellowshipped by the congregation, limiting of external information about the group from former members, and the regulation of members' lives — limit the ability of members to exercise personal freedom. Witnesses teach that “freedom to make decisions [is] to be exercised within the boundaries of God’s laws and principles.” [135] And that “only Jehovah [is] free to set the standard of what is good and bad.”[136] However, the leadership promotes itself as the channel God uses[137] to interpret and instruct members about “what is good and bad”.
In 1971, Franz was invited to become a member of the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses, a small group of men at the second-highest organizational level. At that time, the President of the organization held all of the decision-making power. He accepted the position and spent many years travelling the world seeing the organization’s structure, workings, and practices on all levels, and overseeing the organization's activities, in many countries.
Franz states that the crossroads in his life occurred during his nine years as a Governing Body member:
“ By the end of 1979 I had arrived at my personal crossroads. I had spent nearly forty years as a full time representative, serving at every level of the organizational structure. The last fifteen years I had spent at the international headquarters, and the final nine of those as a member of the worldwide Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses. It was those final years that were the crucial period for me. Illusions there met up with reality. I have since come to appreciate the rightness of a quotation I recently read, one made by a statesman, now dead, who said:
The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie—deliberate, contrived and dishonest—but the myth—persistent, persuasive and unrealistic. ”
“ I now began to realize how large a measure of what I had based my entire adult life course on was just that, a myth—”persistent, persuasive and unrealistic.” It was not that my view towards the Bible had changed. If anything, my appreciation of it was enhanced by what I had experienced. It alone gave sense and meaning to what I saw happening, the attitudes I saw displayed, the reasonings I heard advanced, the tension and pressure I felt. The change that did come was from the realization that my way of l
ooking at the scriptures had been from such an essentially sectarian viewpoint, a trap that I thought I had been protected against. Letting the scriptures speak for themselves—without being first funneled through some fallible human agency as a “channel”—I found they became immensely more meaningful. I was frankly astonished at how much of their import I had been missing. The question was, what should I now do? [12] ”Franz gradually came to the conclusion that “the organization …was stiffening its resistance to any Scriptural correction either as to doctrinal beliefs or its methods of dealing with those who looked to it for guidance.” “I was opposed to the extremes to which [authority] was carried.” ” …I felt that the role of Christ Jesus as active Head was overshadowed and virtually eclipsed by the authoritarian conduct …of the organization.” “I could not accept that organizational interpretations, based on shifting human reasoning, could ever be made equal in authority to the actual statements found in God's unchangeable Word.” [13]
In late 1979 Franz discussed these concerns with his wife, and they decided “the advisable course for us was to terminate our activity at the international headquarters.” In doing so, Franz would be giving up a life of comfort and security, prominence and prestige, and world travel to places most people only dream about visiting. [14]
And now here is a more excellent way: Love one another!
And no, the whole discussion of the Trinity is not to point out sin, but to try to understand God better. To share beliefs and evaluate those beliefs with others.
You are an abusive Trinitarian, but I love you anyway. For what would it be credited to me if I only loved those who loved me?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
