Should You Believe In The Trinity?

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Tonight, we begin reviewing the JW work of this title.

The link can be found here (http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/2011/01/27/should-you-believe-in-the-trinity/)

The text is as follows:


Welcome everyone to Deeper Waters where we're diving into the ocean of truth. Based on recent events in my life, I'm going to be starting a new series tonight. Just last Monday, my wife and I had what I believe to be our last visit with some Jehovah's Witnesses that visited. I found it very revealing they had to leave suddenly in the middle of my reading Ephesians 2:8-9. (I mean that literally. They got up to leave as soon as I read verse 8)

One thing that they'd done prior however was to leave me a copy of "Should You Believe In The Trinity?" This book is one they hand out regularly and I considered it important to look into it further. Doing that can be difficult however as even with a Seminary library at my disposal, I could not find all the books mentioned. Some of them I was able to find on Google Books.

For this series, I'd like to do what I can to equip my fellow Christians to deal with the knock on your door. It will require you to really learn what is being said however as Jehovah's Witnesses will not do internet research on their own. As one who has been to a Kingdom Hall before, I do not hesitate to say that they practice indoctrination, and it is indoctrination of one of the strongest nature's that I have ever seen.

This series will be looking at the Witnesses based on how they do research, something I've been looking at a lot lately with the new atheists as well. What I find quite revealing is that compared to "Should You Believe In The Trinity?," the New Atheists are researchers par excellence. Those of you who have studied this pamphlet of the Jehovah's Witnesses know very well that it is one of the worst publications out there.

We will be looking at the idea that orthodox Christian beliefs came from pagans, something the Witnesses hold to. More important in that area however will not just be disestablishing the claim, but pointing out how bad the research is that is done by the Watchtower to establish this and giving better rules for research. This will also help other readers when dealing with areas I'm not discussing right now, such as the popular internet film "Zeitgeist."

We will also note styles of argumentation. For instance, the Witnesses specialize in the one-sided argument. By reading their book, you would think that Christian scholars have not considered these objections. It does not mean that there are no hard questions, but have those questions been interacted with?

I hope that this will be helpful resource as we go through and it will be one I'll want to keep on hand as well for when the Witnesses come by again. I advise caution as well in dealing with the Witnesses and make sure you know your stuff before you deal with them. The last response to do however is to slam the door in their face as that will solidify their belief that they are on the right path.

Tomorrow, we should begin.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Does it matter?

The link can be found here (http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/2011/01/28/does-the-trinity-matter/)

The text is as follows:

Welcome everyone to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. We've started looking at the doctrine of the Trinity from the Jehovah's Witnesses magazine, "Should You Believe In The Trinity?" Before I get into that, I will state on a personal note that I did get a part-time job today. Of course, my wife and I still appreciate donations that can be made through Tektonics that are tax-deductible. However, we do have some breathing room.

Now let's get to the matter at hand. The first point is one I in essence agree with the Watchtower on. It is important to know about the Trinity. If the Watchtower is right, then I say I am indeed committing blasphemy by saying Jesus is God when He is not. However, if I am right, then the Watchtower is denying who Jesus truly is and He made his identity the focus of his message and essential to salvation. There is a huge price to pay on both ends.

The Watchtower tells us that various Trinitarian concepts exist. The sad part is that they never list one other one rather than the orthodox one. I find this troublesome consider the last Witnesses that we had visit could not get my position straight. They'd give a modalist view and I'd say that's not what the Trinity is and then they'd be saying later "So you don't believe in the Trinity" and I had to correct them time and time again.

Unfortunately, I can understand them when they say many Christians they meet do give different descriptions and this is where we are falling short. Ask the average person at a church service to explain the Trinity and more likely than not, you'll get a modalist interpretation, especially if they say "It's like me being a father, a son, and a husband."

Also interesting is how the magazine says "Others say that" and then goes on to list beliefs such as Jesus pre-existing as a spirit person created by God and the Holy Spirit as God's active force and not a person. It's not hard to wonder who these others are. The Witnesses don't seem to mention "Watchtower" often, but go to their Kingdom Hall service and be amazed as you constantly hear about the "Faithful and Discrete Slave."

Why do this? Most likely so that they will seem like Christians who believe the Bible just like you and I. The method has sadly worked. Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses get a gathering from Christians at churches. The Mormon church has claimed that they baptize a Baptist church every week.

The Witnesses also say the Trinity is of pagan origin using as a source Arthur Weigall's "Paganism in our Christianity." How many of you all have heard of that name? Very few. Why is that? For one thing, it dates from 1928. Keep in mind that this magazine was written in 1989. Why did the Watchtower go back 61 years? I'm not saying because it's old, it's wrong, but when dealing with this topic, you need the latest scholarship and if it's believed by scholars, moderns will be saying it just as much.

But just taking this source, is there anything the Watchtower isn't telling us?

You bet there is. Look at some other claims and see if the Watchtower will accept these.

On page 204 they say the only document in existence written by someone who personally knew Jesus is 1 Peter.

In the chapter on the virgin birth, he argues that this was common in pagan circles and that the belief should not be included in Christian creeds.

Various other beliefs in gods played a role in shaping Christian doctrine, especially the god "Mithras."

For the sake of argument, and definitely for that as I think Weigall is entirely wrong, it could be that Weigall was correct in everything he said. The question however is why do the Witnesses write about the Trinity being pagan without taking to note everything else the same writer believes to be pagan, namely beliefs like the virgin birth.

Now of course, no scholar gets everything right. It could be he was right about the Trinity but wrong about everyone else. This wouldn't help the situation however. Why did the Watchtower just mention him as an authority without stating the reasons for his believing the Trinity are pagan. That's what we're interested in.

Now the Witnesses we dealt with said that all of that is just man's opinion anyway. To that I say that saying it is man's opinion does not mean that it is wrong. It certainly means it's not infallible. However, fallible human beings can be right. No one is completely wrong in what they believe. Someone can say it's man's opinion, but I want to know if this man's opinion is right or not.

If his authority is not to be taken seriously, then why should he be cited at all? All we have is an appeal to authority, which is not always invalid, but if we are to believe on the basis of authority, then we need to deny that most of the NT was written by people who did not know Jesus personally and that the virgin birth is pagan. Do the Witnesses want to say that?

Please note also the poor citation given here. The Witnesses go far enough to tell where the artwork throughout the book comes from. They do not tell when they cite a book what page the information is found on and many times they don't tell the author. If a book has had many editions. They do not tell that. It is almost as if they don't want you to check their sources.

Let's not be gullible with them however. I intend to hold their feet to the fire and tomorrow, we shall hopefully examine further claims.

[Jedidiah]

I do not have any scholastic answer to doubts of the Trinity. I was not raised believing in any such idea. When I came to Christ one of the first things I examined was the Trinity. I examined the Bible to show what a silly misunderstanding other Christians were holding. I came away humbled. I could not dispute the Trinity. I do not understand it, but I believe it.

[Cow Poke]

:popcorn:

Sounds great so far, AP

[eudyptes]

:popcorn:

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Beyond the grasp of human reason.

The link can be found here (http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/2011/01/31/beyond-the-grasp-of-human-reason/).

The text is as follows:


Welcome readers to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth! We're going to be continuing our look tonight at the Jehovah's Witness booklet "Should You Believe In The Trinity?" I don't see much difficulty with the section where the Trinity is defined, so let's skip to the section with the head title of our blog title tonight.

The Watchtower says there is much confusion when it comes to the Trinity and in a sense, they're right, because the church has grown lazy in explaining this doctrine. I used to follow Greg Koukl in making the joke that I have only heard one sermon in church on the topic of the Trinity, and I was the one who preached it. I have done a sermon on the Trinity before and it was certainly the first one I ever heard on it.

However, this kind of thinking is the thinking that creates several atheists in response to theology and philosophy. "There's so much confusion out there so surely no one has it right!" Now I know not all atheists think like that as some do take philosophy seriously, but a lot are saying that we need to abandon philosophy and go straight to science, which is itself a philosophical statement about what we ought to do.

Keep in mind the bad referencing that the Witnesses do. First, they say that the Encyclopedia Americana notes that the doctrine of the Trinity is to be "beyond the grasp of human reason." What edition of the encyclopedia? We don't know. What page? We don't know. Does anyone? Do you think your average Witness at the door knows where this quote can be found or has bothered to look it up?

We have then some quotes. Monsignor Eugene Clark says "God is one and God is three. Since there is nothing like this in creation, we cannot understand it, but only accept it." Then there's a quote of Cardinal John O'Connor with "We know that it is a very profound mystery, which we don't begin to understand." Finally, there's a quote of Pope John Paul II." The Watchtower says that he speaks of "The inscrutable mystery of God The Trinity."

These would be great quotes to research aside from the little problem that the Watchtower gives no references. Not even a book is mentioned where these quotes are to be found. How is it that a reader is to look up the quotes easily and check them? How indeed! Dare we say that that is exactly the point? The Watchtower does not want points to be made?

Thankfully, there are others who have tracked down the books. I do not want to think I am the first and only one to do this. Even Google Books however did not have the 1875 version that the Watchtower used. Thus, right at the start, I am wondering why a reference is used that was written 100 years ago? If the position is true, would it not be defended in even the latest scholarship?

The quote that the Watchtower has of "Precisely what that doctrine is, or rather precisely how it is to be explained, Trinitarians are not agreed among themselves."

What statements did they leave out?

Let's look at what's said on that same page.



<blockquote>The Bible represents God to us as Father Son and Holy Ghost. It represents them as equally entitled to our highest reverence affection and allegiance. It attributes to all the same divine qualities. It even uses these titles at times interchangeably. We are to accept reverently the teaching of the Scripture in respect to their relation to us and to pay them equal honor and render to them equal obedience while we leave the relation which they sustain to each other in the eternal Godhead among the unsolved and insoluble mysteries of the divine being-- the hidden things which belong unto God.</blockquote>

To be fair, Abbott does say that the idea also showed up in pagan thought, which is not necessarily fatal to the Trinitarian idea also. After all, prayer exists in pagan circles. Do we abandon that? We will be dealing with this point later on. For the moment, does anyone think any Witness really knows what is said on this same page in Abbott's book?

The Watchtower next quotes The New Catholic Encyclopedia (Again, not noting a page or year) where it says "There are few teachers of Trinitarian theology in Roman Catholic seminaries who have not been badgered at one time or another by the question 'But how does one preach the Trinity?' And if the question is symptomatic of confusion on the part of the students, perhaps it is no less symptomatic of similar confusion on the part of their professors."

To this, let the response be that this should not be surprising. How does one preach the doctrine of the eternality of God? How does one preach omnipotence? Notice in these cases that one is not questioning the doctrine but rather how to teach the doctrine. That does not prove anything about the truthfulness of the doctrine.

The Watchtower says that this can be verified by going to a library and reading through several books which will leave one unsatisfied. The paragraph as a whole is loaded language. For instance, they write of books "attempting" to explain and that one "struggles" through the "labyrinth" and how "countless pages" have been written. The Watchtower never mentions what books are researched nor does it say who these investigators are? Will it encourage the average Witness to go out and do their own independent reading on the topic apart from the Watchtower? Not a chance.

The Watchtower then says that in "What Are They Saying About The Trinity?" that "Priests who with considerable effort learned...."the Trinity during their Seminary years naturally hesitated to present it to their people from the pulpit, even on Trinity Sunday...."

Left out is in the first ellipsis is "The Thomistic explanation of." Thus, it was priests who learned that explanation and not those who learned the doctrine itself. I would also agree that the Thomistic explanation of the Trinity is very hard to understand. However, note what the Watchtower has done here. This is deliberate misrepresentation. Anyone reading the book would know what goes in the quotes and the Watchtower leaves that out. Why?

The next quote is from Hans Kung and "Christianity and the World Religions." Kung states that well-informed Muslims have a hard time with the Trinity. They do not accept it and ask why one should teach that which dilutes or nullifies the oneness of God.

Note that the Muslims would say the same thing to the Witnesses about Jesus being the Son of God. Even if the Witnesses do not believe he is fully God, the Muslims would take it as blasphemous that God would have a Son. Of course they're not going to accept the doctrine of the Trinity as Muslims! (Once they accept it, they should be Christians)

A basic reading of what Kung states should also show that he is answering a question. Of course, he will go on to answer this, but what the Watchtower has done thus far is again just dishonest on their part and misrepresenting their position. There is not a chance that this book, if it were turned into a research paper, would pass any college course whatsoever.

Tomorrow, we shall see what the Watchtower says in the next subheading.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Not a God of Confusion

The link can be found here (http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/2011/02/01/not-a-god-of-confusion/)

The text is as follows:


Welcome everyone to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. We're continuing our look today at the Jehovah's Witness booklet of "Should You Believe In The Trinity?" Our look so far has revealed that the Watchtower does not often name authors, editions, or page numbers. (Strangely enough however, they have citations for all the artwork in the pamphlet.) Tonight, we're going to look at the sub-heading of "Not A God Of Confusion."

The first point given is that a doctrine like the Trinity requires divine revelation. With this, I agree. The doctrine of the Trinity cannot be discovered by human reason alone. I do hold that there are truths that can be known about God apart from Scripture, but there are some that cannot be known. For a parallel, you can know from history that Jesus was crucified. You cannot know from studying history apart from the teaching of Scripture that he died for the sins of the world. You could not even know that as the purpose of the resurrection without the teaching of Scripture.

The main thrust in this paragraph is that God is not a God of confusion according to 1 Cor. 14:33, so surely God would not have a doctrine that is confusing.

If they want to say that that is a valid argument, then I would love to meet the Witness who thinks he's totally wrapped his head around how God is an eternal being. Of course I believe that He is, but it is a concept that while I can grasp, I can surely not apprehend. By the standard of the Watchtower, I ought to abandon that doctrine.

What is going on in the passage? There are church services getting disorderly and if men are acting out of sync with the gospel in their services, then God is not with them. This says nothing about the complexity of doctrine but is a call on how worship services are to be held. After all, Romans 11:33-36 is in the Bible and speaks of the sheer mystery of God's ways and knowledge.

The Watchtower also asks us if we have to be theologians to know the true God and Jesus Christ whom He has sent.

It's kind of like asking if to know your wife, is it really necessary that you be married to her?

Of course you have to be a theologian. Now you don't have to be a professional theologian, but I have often told my wife that you cannot avoid doing theology and philosophy. The question is will you do good theology and good philosophy or bad theology and bad philosophy or some combination thereof? The Watchtower is practically saying "This is too deep to understand and since Christ spoke to simple minds their intellects would not be able to grasp an idea like this."

Apparently, the Watchtower wants to hold to an "Ancient People Were Stupid" idea I'd expect more from the new atheists. (The way they cite 1 Cor. 14:33 is also an example of this kind of reasoning)

Yes. Many of the Jews were not trained like the elite were, but they did know their Torah and they could tell when Jesus was making an allusion to it. They lived in a society where these ideas needed to be known. The average person back then would know more about what they believed than the average person does today.

The question is not how did the religious elite not recognize the truth of the claims of Jesus, including those to be the Messiah. The trouble was not the recognition of the claims but the belief in the claims. The elites knew all too well what Jesus was claiming and he never denied that they were wrong in it. The crucifixion could have easily been prevented by saying "Sorry. You've misunderstood me." It was never said. Jesus did know the crucifixion was essential to his mission, but he would not use deception in what he said. Every word was true.

The real reason for this however is for the Watchtower to get the reader to shun academics. That is, except for in the cases where the Watchtower cites academics. In those cases, we are to trust the scholars, but as soon as you present an intellectual defense of the Christian message, you'll find that the Watchtower will quickly put down any reading of that material and say they just want to go with the Bible. (Of course, not the Bible minus their little booklets like "What Does The Bible Really Teach?"

Don't fall for it. If the Watchtower wants to have a book like this that we're reviewing claiming to use scholarly sources, then it's fair game to say they need to examine those resources for themselves. They have brought the usage of others into the field and if they want to play that game, they have no right to call "Foul!" when we do the same.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Is It Clearly A Bible Teaching?

The link can be found here (http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/2011/02/02/is-it-clearly-a-bible-teaching/)

The text is as follows:


Welcome everyone to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. We've been going through the Watchtower pamphlet lately of "Should You Believe In The Trinity?" We're finding it lacking, especially with their poor citation practices, which make it easy to tell also in the age of the internet if a web site is just lifting material from the Watchtower without bothering to look it up themselves.

In starting this section, the Watchtower tells us that if the Trinity is true, it should be clearly and consistently presented in the Bible. Unfortunately, this term is a bit vague. How is something clearly and consistently presented? Does it have to have chapter and verse? How often? How clearly must it be presented? Does it have to outright express the doctrine of the Trinity?

Kind of like it does the Watchtower doctrine of the Theocratic Kingdom?

What of other doctrines? Do we have a commandment in the Bible to gather together books and call them the New Testament? Now we can piece together from what we have that there would be a New Testament, but we receive no such command from the Lord that is explicit.

However, I do believe the Trinity is clearly taught in the New Testament and the Bible as a whole when one studies the actual text. The information is there to show that the Bible teaches that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. It also teaches that there is only one God.

The Watchtower does at least point to the authority of Scripture in this, to which there is no disagreement. The problem however is not with their doctrine of Scripture but with the hermeneutical method that they espouse. It sounds like a great idea to say that something must be clearly taught, but it depends again on what that means.

Most people don't take the time to realize that doctrine is very systematic. It is not just taking one verse here and basing your whole doctrine on that. It means taking all of the verses together and getting the information that they share and then bringing together all of that to form the doctrine.

What the Watchtower is doing is in fact stacking the deck. They are saying that if the Trinity is true, it must be presented in this way, not realizing that that is not the way Bible doctrine is presented. When the Watchtower gives their position on a doctrine such as the fate of the dead, do they go to just one verse? No. They go to numerous verses and try to pull them together. Of course, they misinterpret the verses, but that is closer to what ought to be done.

Christians should be aware of this tactic by the Watchtower. They need to realize that they need to make sure they do not agree to the wrong rules of the game which the Watchtower will often try to do. Realize that Bible teaching is rarely directly explicit but is based on a thorough understanding of the whole of Scripture.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Is the Trinity in the Bible?

The link can be found here (http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/2011/02/03/trinity-in-the-bible-2/)

The text is as follows:


Welcome everyone to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. We've lately been going through the Jehovah's Witnesses booklet called "Should You Believe In The Trinity?" We're on the topic now of if the Trinity is clearly a Bible teaching and under the heading that matches the title of this post. Let's see what the Watchtower has to say.

The first reference is from a Protestant work called "The Illustrated Bible Dictionary." Of course, no page number is cited, but the quotes in the brochure goes as follows:



The word Trinity is not found in the Bible . . . It did not find a place formally in the theology of the church till the 4th century.

Anyone interested in what they left out?



The word Trinity is not found in the Bible, and though used by Tertullian in the last decade of the 2nd century, it did not find a place formally in the theology of the church till the 4th century. It is, however, the distinctive and all-comprehensive doctrine of the Christian faith…

Now I'd have no problem as is however with saying that the word is not found in the Bible. (Much like the term "Theocratic Kingdom") I'd also have little problem with saying that it didn't become a formal term until around the fourth century, although Tertullian and others did use it prior. I am not interested in the word but in the concept.

What's the next line?



And a Catholic authority says that the Trinity "is not . . . directly and immediately [the] word of God."

The quote comes from one earlier about Seminarians having a hard time explaining the Trinity in its Thomistic interpretation. What is instead said is that the doctrine is in there implicitly which is what Trinitarians have always claimed. No one has claimed that there is chapter and verse and therefore true, although some do point to the Johannine Comma to be fair.

The next statement is that the word first appears in Theophilus in 180 A.D. and that shortly afterwards it appears in its Latin form, trinitas, in Tertullian.

I have no problem with this but I just wonder what difference it makes. Because a word is not there, it does not mean the concept that can be signified by that word is not present. We can easily coin a term later to describe something that at one time is not understood and go back and find evidence for that concept later. Absence of a word is not the same as absence of a concept.

The Watchtower points out that this does not mean that Tertullian did not teach the Trinity. I agree. We will look at Tertullian later as the Watchtower does spend some time discussing the church fathers. (Much like you can spend some money at a gumball machine however. For them, one quote is enough to prove the whole case)

My conclusion is that the Watchtower is still just stacking the deck. They do not use this standard when they teach about the theocratic kingdom. Could it be that they're actually doing something like picking and choosing? Surely not!

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Is the Trinity in the Hebrew Bible?

The link can be found here (http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/2011/02/04/testimony-of-the-hebrew-scriptures/)

The text is as follows:


Welcome to Deeper Waters, the blog where we make it our goal to dive into the ocean of truth. Lately, we've been going through a booklet by the Watchtower called "Should You Believe In The Trinity?" We are discussing the points under the heading of if it's a Bible teaching and the part tonight we'll be looking at is concerning the Hebrew Bible.

To begin with, there is a reference to the Encyclopedia of Religion? Which one? The Watchtower doesn't say. What page? Not said either. What volume? You won't find it in the booklet. Who wrote it? Don't expect that either. Hence, my position has been as one who reads books by the new atheists who have terrible research for what they do, that the Watchtower makes the new atheists look like first-rate scholars.

Anyway, the Watchtower says that the Encyclopedia admits that "Theologians today are in agreement that the Hebrew Bible does not contain a doctrine of the Trinity." To begin with, the language of admitting is loaded language already as if this was some shameful secret that will destroy the doctrine of the Trinity.

On the contrary, it does nothing of the sort. I also would agree there is no full expression of the Trinity in the Old Testament but is part of the later revelation of the New Testament. There are hints of the Trinity in there, but the doctrine is part of progressive revelation. Again, what's the problem? The only way this would seem convincing is to someone who has not been properly taught on the Trinity and believes that it has to be chapter and verse. This should be a condemnation on us in the Christian church in that we're not teaching our congregations enough.

The same situation comes up with a Catholic Encyclopedia. The quote is that the doctrine of the Trinity is not taught in the Old Testament. Okay. Neither is baptism, which the Witnesses practice. Do you have the command to have the Lord's Supper in the Old Testament? Do you have the promise of the New Testament coming?

Once again, the Watchtower does picking and choosing.

Next, the Watchtower has the following, directly quoted from their web site.


<blockquote>Similarly, in his book The Triune God, Jesuit Edmund Fortman admits: "The Old Testament . . . tells us nothing explicitly or by necessary implication of a Triune God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. . . . There is no evidence that any sacred writer even suspected the existence of a [Trinity] within the Godhead. . . . Even to see in [the "Old Testament"] suggestions or foreshadowings or 'veiled signs' of the trinity of persons, is to go beyond the words and intent of the sacred writers."—Italics ours.</blockquote>

The Watchtower leaves much out and in fact, there are numerous portions left out. A little bit of digging can bring up what was left out.


<blockquote>To the Old Testament writers God is a God of life, love, wisdom, and holiness, a God of righteousness. a God both immanent and transcendent, a God of power, glory, and majesty, the one and only God. the creator and lord of the universe. Sometimes they call Him Father, especially of Israel. They give the title 'son of God' not only to Israel collectively but also to the king. to the judges, to the upright Jew, and perhaps to the Messiah. There is no evidence that any sacred writer even suspected the existence of a divine paternity and filiation within the Godhead. They write of the word of God and regard it as revelatory and creative, as instructive and illuminative. If at times they seem to show a slight tendency to hypostatize the word of God, nowhere do they present the word of God as a personal divine being distinct from Yahweh. They write much of the wisdom of God that was 'created before all things' and is the 'worker of all things.' But to the people of the Old Testament the wisdom of God was never a person to be addressed but only a personification of an attribute or activity of Yahweh. The spirit of Yahweh is a creative force, a saving power, a spirit of judgment, a charismatic spirit, a spirit of life and of inward renewal, a prophetic spirit. Although this spirit is often described in personal terms, it seems quite clear that the sacred writers never conceived or presented this spirit as a distinct person. Many of the sacred writers spoke of a Messiah who was to be Yahweh's agent in establishing the kingdom of Yahweh in the messianic age. However, they regarded the Messiah not as a divine person but as a creature, a charismatic leader, a Davidic king. Thus the Old Testament writings about God neither express nor imply any idea of or belief in a plurality or trinity of persons within the one Godhead. Even to see in them suggestions or foreshadowings or 'veiled signs' of the trinity of persons, is to go beyond the words and intent of the sacred writers. Perhaps it can be said that some of these writings about word and wisdom and spirit did provide a climate in which plurality within the Godhead was conceivable to Jews. However, these writers definitely do give us the words that the New Testament uses to express the trinity of persons, Father, Son, Word, Wisdom, Spirit. And their way of understanding these words helps us to see how the revelation of God in the New Testament goes beyond the revelation of God in the Old Testament. (The Triune God, Edmund Fortman, p8-9)</blockquote>

Some of you might be thinking that that doesn't contain all the quotes. You're right. That's how bad the quoting is and the ellipses really do leave out much. I'm just hopeful the one example I've cited will be enough to open up the eyes of some Witnesses reading this.

Please also note that there has been no interaction with such ideas as the Angel of the Lord in the Old Testament or the passages with two persons called YHWH or how the Messiah is spoken of in terms of deity. There has been an appeal to authority only and while authority is fine, that authority is not even used right. Unfortunately, a Jehovah's Witness reading this or an innocent Christian being duped will not know about this.

Tomorrow, we shall see what they say of the Greek Scriptures.

[Brown Cat]

Nick, thanks for this informative and very helpful thread :thumb:
(Added to my subscriptions)

[ApologiaPhoenix]

It's going to be awhile before I update sadly. I've come down with the flu and the wife is making sure I get rest.

[Brown Cat]

Get well soon, Nick.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Testimony of the Greek Scriptures

The link can be found here (http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/2011/02/09/testimony-of-the-greek-scriptures/).

The text is as follows:


Welcome everyone to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. Tonight, we're looking at the Watchtower booklet "Should You Believe In The Trinity?" again. We're going to be covering the sub-heading tonight of the Testimony of the Greek Scriptures.

To begin with, the Watchtower asks if the New Testament speaks clearly of a Trinity. The problem is that for them, clearly means explicitly. Let's suppose that I gave the following facts.

Last year, I was the groom in a wedding on July 24th.

I go to sleep every night next to the same woman.

This woman now has the same last name as I do.

I wear a ring constantly on my left hand.

In all of these, I have not once said "I'm married!" but you don't need to me to. All the information that is needed to reach that conclusion has been stated. In the same way, we have these truths presented in the Bible which will come much later in this series as biblical texts are examined.

The Father has the full nature of God.

The Son has the full nature of God.

The Spirit has the full nature of God.

These three persons are distinct.

There is only one God.

That's all we need.

The next is a series of quotes from "The Triune God." What is problematic is just how much is left out in these quotes. So much is left out it could be a blog in itself. Throughout Fortman's book, he does give evidence of the doctrine of the Trinity. Of course we have no problem that the Bible does not explicitly teach the Trinity. We don't need it to no more than you needed me to explicitly say I'm married.

I challenge any Jehovah's Witness to simply go out and read Fortman's book. Also, try to look up the quotes and see what was left out.

Other citations from other works are the same. The Watchtower wants to make much that the doctrine is not explicitly taught. Again, we do not have any disagreement with this. It would probably make my job a lot easier, but the ancients did not need to everything spelled out like so many moderns do.

The next quotation is from E. Washburn Hopkins. It goes as follows:


To Jesus and Paul the doctrine of the trinity was apparently unknown; . . . they say nothing about it.

Duly noted is that right before that Hopkins says "The beginning of the doctrine of the Trinity appears already in John." Those who are skeptical can just go to page 336 of his book. It can easily be found on Google Books. On page 339, Hopkins also says the first simple Christians believed Jesus was God on Earth.

Note another statement. On page 335, Hopkins says the epiphany of Dionysus became that of Christ. Does the Watchtower agree with this?

Hopkins was not a friend of Christianity and neither was Weigall as we saw earlier who is quoted next. Of course, this does not make what they said wrong, but it is misleading on the part of the Watchtower to make no distinction between Christian and non-Christian.

The conclusion is that the New Testament does not clearly teach the doctrine. As in the case of the Old Testament, absent is any mention whatsoever of Scripture from the New Testament.

We shall continue tomorrow.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

What did Justin Martyr believe?

The link can be found here (http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/2011/02/11/justin-martyr/)

The text is as follows:


Welcome everyone to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. We've been looking at the booklet of the Jehovah's Witnesses lately called "Should You Believe In The Trinity?" We're not going to look at the heading of if the early Christians taught it as all that can be said is "More quoting out of context." Instead, I'd prefer to jump ahead to the church fathers and we're going to do a father a day starting with Justin Martyr. Keep in mind also as always, that the Watchtower tells which father said a quote, they don't tell where that quote is. Thus, we cannot even be sure if the quote is accurate.

For the reference to Jesus as an angel, this is quite simple. This is referring to Jesus as the Angel of the Lord. The Angel of the Lord is a Trinitarian Precursor in the Bible and one I believe to be the pre-incarnate Christ. I would have no problem with Jesus being created so long as that creation is not temporal.

The closest I can find however to the references in the Watchtower about the Son being a created angel "other than the God who made all things" is in the Dialogue with Trypho. I will include a link to the dialogue at the end of the blog so you can all see the source I am referencing. Interestingly, one of these is at the start of chapter Fifty. (L for those who need help with Roman Numerals) This is Trypho, Justin's opponent, speaking:


Answer me then, first, how you can show that there is another God besides the Maker of all things; and then you will show,[further], that He submitted to be born of the Virgin."

Notice immediately that Trypho's understanding of this being is that he is deity as he is another God. Trypho is seeing this as polytheism. Justin does not however deny that Jesus is fully God. Let's keep going and see some statements of Justin. In Chapter 56 (LVI) we have the following:


"I shall attempt to persuade you, since you have understood the Scriptures,[of the truth] of what I say, that there is, and that there is said to be, another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things; who is also called an Angel, because He announces to men whatsoever the Maker of all things--above whom there is no other God--wishes to announce to them."

In this, while not using full Trinitarian language, we see the seeds of the Trinity. Justin is talking about the appearance of the three men to Abraham in Genesis 18. Note what he says later in this same chapter.


"If I could not have proved to you from the Scriptures that one of those three is God, and is called Angel, because, as I already said, He brings messages to those to whom God the Maker of all things wishes[messages to be brought], then in regard to Him who appeared to Abraham on earth in human form in like manner as the two angels who came with Him, and who was God even before the creation of the world, it were reasonable for you to entertain the same belief as is entertained by the whole of your nation."

Note this, that Justin says this one is called Angel, not that He IS an angel, and that this one was God before the creation of the world.

In Chapter 57, Trypho responds with


And Trypho said, "It is possible that[the question] about the mode of eating may be thus explained:[the mode, that is to say,] in which it is written, they took and ate what had been prepared by Abraham: so that you may now proceed to explain to us how this God who appeared to Abraham, and is minister to God the Maker of all things, being born of the Virgin, became man, of like passions with all, as you said previously."

Trypho has no problem with two different persona being called God and he is understanding the early Christian claim that yes, Jesus is indeed God.

Justin says more on his identity in chapter 60:


Now assuredly, Trypho, I shall show that, in the vision of Moses, this same One alone who is called an Angel, and who is God, appeared to and communed with Moses. For the Scripture says thus:'The Angel of the Lord appeared to him in a flame of fire from the bush; and he sees that the bush bums with fire, but the bush was not consumed. And Moses said, I will turn aside and see this great sight, for the bush is not burnt. And when the Lord saw that he is turning aside to behold, the Lord called to him out of the bush.' In the same manner, therefore, in which the Scripture calls Him who appeared to Jacob in the dream an Angel, then[says] that the same Angel who appeared in the dream spoke to him, saying,'I am the God that appeared to thee when thou didst flee from the face of Esau thy brother;'and[again] says that, in the judgment which befell Sodom in the days of Abraham, the Lord had inflicted the punishment of the Lord who[dwells] in the heavens;--even so here, the Scripture, in announcing that the Angel of the Lord appeared to Moses, and in afterwards declaring him to be Lord and God, speaks of the same One, whom it declares by the many testimonies already quoted to be minister to God, who is above the world, above whom there is no other[God].

Note that he says the one who is called an angel and who is God. He is using the Angel of the Lord reference and the very reference where God reveals his divine name to Moses. Observe chapter 61:


"I shall give you another testimony, my friends," said I, "from the Scriptures, that God begat before all creatures a Beginning,[who was] a certain rational power[proceeding] from Himself, who is called by the Holy Spirit, now the Glory of the Lord, now the Son, again Wisdom, again an Angel, then God, and then Lord and Logos; and on another occasion He calls Himself Captain, when He appeared in human form to Joshua the son of Nave(Nun). For He can be called by all those names, since He ministers to the Father's will, and since He was begotten of the Father by an act of will; just as we see happening among ourselves: for when we give out some word, we beget the word; yet not by abscission, so as to lessen the word[which remains] in us, when we give it out: and just as we see also happening in the case of a fire, which is not lessened when it has kindled[another], but remains the same; and that which has been kindled by it likewise appears to exist by itself, not diminishing that from which it was kindled.

Notice all the titles that can be given to Jesus. Check also how Joshua responded to this figure when he appeared to him. Joshua knew who this was.

Note also chapter 63 with the heading "It is proved that this God was incarnate." What do we see in there?


Therefore these words testify explicitly that He is witnessed to by Him who established these things, as deserving to be worshipped, as God and as Christ.

And the start of chapter 68:


And Trypho said, "You endeavour to prove an incredible and well-nigh impossible thing;[namely], that God endured to be born and become man."

"If I undertook," said I, "to prove this by doctrines or arguments of man, you should not bear with me. But if I quote frequently Scriptures, and so many of them, referring to this point, and ask you to comprehend them, you are hard-hearted in the recognition of the mind and will of God. But if you wish to remain for ever so, I would not be injured at all; and for ever retaining the same[opinions] which I had before I met with you, I shall leave you."

This is just one work of Justin Martyr. What about others?

Chapter 63 of the First Apology:



>For they who affirm that the Son is the Father, are proved neither to have become acquainted with the Father, nor to know that the Father of the universe has a Son; who also, being the first-begotten Word of God, is even God. And of old He appeared in the shape of fire and in the likeness of an angel to Moses and to the other prophets; but now in the times of your reign, having, as we before said, become Man by a virgin, according to the counsel of the Father, for the salvation of those who believe on Him, He endured both to be set at nought and to suffer, that by dying and rising again He might conquer death.

Chapter 10 of the Fragments:


By the two birds Christ is denoted, both dead as man, and living as God. He is likened to a bird, because He is understood and declared to be from above, and from heaven. And the living bird, having been dipped in the blood of the dead one, was afterwards let go. For the living and divine Word was in the crucified and dead temple [of the body], as being a partaker of the passion, and yet impossible to God.

From Chapter 10 on the Resurrection:


But if our physician Christ, God, having rescued us from our desires, regulates our flesh with His own wise and temperate rule, it is evident that He guards it from sins because it possesses a hope of salvation, as physicians do not suffer men whom they hope to save to indulge in what pleasures they please.

Now while we don't have Nicea here yet, we do have nothing that contradicts it and much that contradicts Watchtower teaching. Most informative is the dialogue with Trypho. I recommend Witnesses to start reading the works of the Fathers without the blinders of the Watchtower and see what the early Christians really taught.

All references come from the dialogues which can be located on the following page:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/justin.html

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Irenaeus?

The link can be found here (http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/2011/02/12/irenaeus/)

The text is as follows:


Welcome everyone to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. We've been going through the Jehovah's Witness booklet of "Should You Believe In The Trinity?" Right now, we're discussing if the early Christians taught it. Tonight, we're looking at the church father Irenaeus. The following is what's found in the booklet about him:



Irenaeus, who died about 200 C.E., said that the prehuman Jesus had a separate existence from God and was inferior to him. He showed that Jesus is not equal to the "One true and only God," who is "supreme over all, and besides whom there is no other."

Thus, in about fifty words, the Watchtower wants you to think you have a full view on Irenaeus. Note once again that there is no reference given whatsoever.

Let's not do that here.

Chapter 10 of Book 1:


1. The Church, though dispersed through our the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: [She believes] in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensationsof God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His [future] manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father "to gather all things in one," and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Saviour, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, "every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess"to Him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all; that He may send "spiritual wickednesses,"and the angels who transgressed and became apostates, together with the ungodly, and unrighteous, and wicked, and profane among men, into everlasting fire; but may, in the exercise of His grace, confer immortality on the righteous, and holy, and those who have kept His commandments, and have persevered in His love, some from the beginning [of their Christian course], and others from [the date of] their repentance, and may surround them with everlasting glory.

Note the referring to Jesus as our Lord and God and also saying there is an invisible Father. Irenaeus also says that this is the belief of the church received from the apostles.

Paragraph #2 of chapter 19 of book 3.


2. For this reason [it is, said], "Who shall declare His generation? " since "He is a man, and who shall recognise Him? " But he to whom the Father which is in heaven has revealed Him, knows Him, so that he understands that He who "was not born either by the will of the flesh, or by the will of man," is the Son of man, this is Christ, the Son of the living God. For I have shown from the Scriptures, that no one of the sons of Adam is as to everything, and absolutely, called God, or named Lord. But that He is Himself in His own right, beyond all men who ever lived, God, and Lord, and King Eternal, and the Incarnate Word, proclaimed by all the prophets, the apostles, and by the Spirit Himself, may be seen by all who have attained to even a small portion of the truth. Now, the Scriptures would not have testified these things of Him, if, like others, He had been a mere man. But that He had, beyond all others, in Himself that pre-eminent birth which is from the Most High Father, and also experienced that pre-eminent generation which is from the Virgin, the divine Scriptures do in both respects testify of Him: also, that He was a man without comeliness, and liable to suffering; that He sat upon the foal of an ass; that He received for drink, vinegar and gall; that He was despised among the people, and humbled Himself even to death and that He is the holy Lord, the Wonderful, the Counsellor, the Beautiful in appearance, and the Mighty God, coming on the clouds as the Judge of all men; -all these things did the Scriptures prophesy of Him.

Notice again the strong terminology Irenaeus uses to describe Jesus and notice also his source. He's not pointing to Greek philosophy, which I do not view as evil of course, but he is pointing to Scripture.

Book 3, chapter 20, paragraph #4. Notice this excerpt:


Thus he indicates in clear terms that He is God, and that His advent was [to take place] in Bethlehem, and from Mount Effrem, which is towards the south of the inheritance, and that [He is] man. For he says, "His feet shall advance in the plains: "and this is an indication proper to man.

Book 3, chapter 21, paragraph 1:


God, then, was made man, and the Lord did Himself save us, giving us the token of the Virgin. But not as some allege, among those now presuming to expound the Scripture, [thus: ] "Behold, a young woman shall conceive, and bring forth a son,"

And in paragraph 4:


Carefully, then, has the Holy Ghost pointed out, by what has been said, His birth from a virgin, and His essence, that He is God (for the name Emmanuel indicates this). And He shows that He is a man, when He says, "Butter and honey shall He eat; "and in that He terms Him a child also, [in saying, ] "before He knows good and evil; "for these are all the tokens of a human infant. But that He "will not consent to evil, that He may choose that which is good,"-this is proper to God; that by the fact, that He shall eat butter and honey, we should not understand that He is a mere man only, nor, on the other hand, from the name Emmanuel, should suspect Him to be God without flesh.

Section 53 of fragments from the lost writings:


With regard to Christ, the law and the prophets and the evangelists have proclaimed that He was born of a virgin, that He suffered upon a beam of wood, and that He appeared from the dead; that He also ascended to the heavens, and was glorified by the Father, and is the Eternal King; that He is the perfect Intelligence, the Word of God, who was begotten before the light; that He was the Founder of the universe, along with it (light), and the Maker of man; that He is All in all: Patriarch among the patriarchs; Law in the laws; Chief Priest among priests; Ruler among kings; the Prophet among prophets; the Angel among angels; the Man among men; Son in the Father; God in God; King to all eternity. For it is He who sailed [in the ark] along with Noah, and who guided Abraham; who was bound along with Isaac, and was a Wanderer with Jacob; the Shepherd of those who are saved, and the Bridegroom of the Church; the Chief also of the cherubim, the Prince of the angelic powers; God of God; Son of the Father; Jesus Christ; King for ever and ever. Amen.

And section 54:


He is the Salvation of the lost, the Light to those dwelling in darkness, and Redemption to those who have been born; the Shepherd of the saved, and the Bridegroom of the Church; the Charioteer of the cherubim, the Leader of the angelic host; God of God; Jesus Christ our Saviour.

Once again, while we do not see full Trinitarian language, we see the doctrine forming. Do we really find what the Watchtower tells us to find? Not at all. We find several explicit statements and considering how much the Watchtower has made a big deal about explicit statements, we can be sure they'd welcome these and recant their position.

Well, maybe not, but we can pray for that can't we?

All references come from the following:

http://earlychristianwritings.com/irenaeus.html

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Clement of Alexandria

The link can be found here (http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/2011/02/13/clement-of-alexandria/)

The text is as follows:


Welcome everyone to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. We've been going through the booklet of the Watchtower, the organization of Jehovah's Witnesses, called "Should You Believe In The Trinity?" Tonight, we're going to look at what they have to say about Clement of Alexandria and compare that to what he really said.

Once again, I must remind everyone that for this statement, the Watchtower gives no references whatsoever.


Clement of Alexandria, who died about 215 C.E., called Jesus in his prehuman existence "a creature" but called God "the uncreated and imperishable and only true God." He said that the Son "is next to the only omnipotent Father" but not equal to him.

Book 1 of the Instructor, chapter 2:


Now, O you, my children, our Instructor is like His Father God, whose son He is, sinless, blameless, and with a soul devoid of passion; God in the form of man, stainless, the minister of His Father's will, the Word who is God, who is in the Father, who is at the Father's right hand, and with the form of God is God.

Chapter 3:


The Lord ministers all good and all help, both as man and as God: as God, forgiving our sins; and as man, training us not to sin. Man is therefore justly dear to God, since he is His workmanship.

Chapter 5:


By the same prophet is declared His greatness: "Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace; that He might fulfil His discipline: and of His peace there shall be no end." O the great God! O the perfect child! The Son in the Father, and the Father in the Son. And how shall not the discipline of this child be perfect, which extends to all, leading as a schoolmaster us as children who are His little ones? He has stretched forth to us those hands of His that are conspicuously worthy of trust. To this child additional testimony is borne by John, "the greatest prophet among those born of women:" Behold the Lamb of God!" For since Scripture calls the infant children lambs, it has also called Him--God the Word--who became man for our sakes, and who wished in all points to be made like to us--"the Lamb of God"--Him, namely, that is the Son of God, the child of the Father.

Chapter 7:


But our Instructor is the holy God Jesus, the Word, who is the guide of all humanity. The loving God Himself is our Instructor. Somewhere in song the Holy Spirit says with regard to Him, "He provided sufficiently for the people in the wilderness. He led him about in the thirst of summer heat in a dry land, and instructed him, and kept him as the apple of His eye, as an eagle protects her nest, and shows her fond solicitude for her young, spreads abroad her wings, takes them, and bears them on her back. The Lord alone led them, and there was no strange god with them."


Now that the Word was at once Jacob's trainer and the Instructor of humanity [appears from this]--"He asked," it is said, "His name, and said to him, Tell me what is Try name." And he said, "Why is it that thou askest My name?" For He reserved the new name for the new people--the babe; and was as yet unnamed, the Lord God not having yet become man. Yet Jacob called the name of the place, "Face of God." "For I have seen," he says, "God face to face; and my life is preserved." The face of God is the Word by whom God is manifested and made known. Then also was he named Israel, because he saw God the Lord. It was God, the Word, the Instructor, who said to him again afterwards, "Fear not to go down into Egypt." See how the Instructor follows the righteous man, and how He anoints the athlete, teaching him to trip up his antagonist.

Chapter 8:


Nothing, then, is hated by God, nor yet by the Word. For both are one--that is, God. For He has said, "In the beginning the Word was in God, and the Word was God."

Chapter 11:


The divine Instructor is trustworthy, adorned as He is with three of the fairest ornaments--knowledge, benevolence, and authority of utterance;--with knowledge, for He is the paternal wisdom: "All Wisdom is from the Lord, and with Him for evermore;"--with authority of utterance, for He is God and Creator: "For all things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made;" --and with benevolence, for He alone gave Himself a sacrifice for us: "For the good Shepherd giveth His life for the sheep; " and He has so given it. Now, benevolence is nothing but wishing to do good to one's neighbour for his sake.

Book 3, chapter 1:


For the Word Himself is the manifest mystery: God in man, and man God.

Book 3, Prayer to the Paedagogus:


Be gracious, O Instructor, to us Thy children, Father, Charioteer of Israel, Son and Father, both in One, O Lord. Grant to us who obey Thy precepts, that we may perfect the likeness of the image, and with all our power know Him who is the good God and not a harsh judge. And do Thou Thyself cause that all of us who have our conversation in Thy peace, who have been translated into Thy commonwealth, having sailed tranquilly over the billows of sin, may be wafted in calm by Thy Holy Spirit, by the ineffable wisdom, by night and day to the perfect day; and giving thanks may praise, and praising thank the Alone Father and Son, Son and Father, the Son, Instructor and Teacher, with the Holy Spirit, all in One, in whom is all, for whom all is One, for whom is eternity, whose members we all are, whose glory the aeons are; for the All-good, All-lovely, All-wise, All-just One. To whom be glory both now and for ever. Amen.

All of this has come from one of his works and should be sufficient to establish that the Watchtower has not fairly represented Clement. As we go further into this series of course, more writers wrote a lot more and there's no way we can mine it indefinitely.

However, the following is where all quotes come from:

http://earlychristianwritings.com/clement.html

If any in the Watchtower think I have handled Clement wrong, they are welcome to state their case.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Tertullian

The link can be found here (http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/2011/02/14/tertullian/)

The text is as follows:


Welcome everyone to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. We've been going through the Watchtower booklet known as "Should You Believe In The Trinity?" Right now, we're dealing with what the early church fathers said. Today, we're going to be looking at Tertullian.

Our look begins with what the Watchtower says:


Tertullian, who died about 230 C.E., taught the supremacy of God. He observed: "The Father is different from the Son (another), as he is greater; as he who begets is different from him who is begotten; he who sends, different from him who is sent." He also said: "There was a time when the Son was not. . . . Before all things, God was alone."

Both of these quotes exist. Let's look in Chapter 9 of against Praxeus for the first:


Bear always in mind that this is the rule of faith which I profess; by it I testify that the Father, and the Son, and the Spirit are inseparable from each other, and so will you know in what sense this is said. Now, observe, my assertion is that the Father is one, and the Son one, and the Spirit one, and that They are distinct from Each Other. This statement is taken in a wrong sense by every uneducated as well as every perversely disposed person, as if it predicated a diversity, in such a sense as to imply a separation among the Father, and the Son, and the Spirit. I am, moreover, obliged to say this, when (extolling the Monarchy at the expense of the Economy) they contend for the identity of the Father and Son and Spirit, that it is not by way of diversity that the Son differs from the Father, but by distribution: it is not by division that He is different, but by distinction; because the Father is not the same as the Son, since they differ one from the other in the mode of their being. For the Father is the entire substance, but the Son is a derivation and portion of the whole,x as He Himself acknowledges: "My Father is greater than I." In the Psalm His inferiority is described as being "a little lower than the angels." Thus the Father is distinct from the Son, being greater than the Son, inasmuch as He who begets is one, and He who is begotten is another; He, too, who sends is one, and He who is sent is another; and He, again, who makes is one, and He through whom the thing is made is another.

But what is this about? It is about the idea of modalism. This was the belief that the Father, Son, and Spirit were identical in person. Here is what Tertullian said in the second chapter of the same book:


Him we believe to have been sent by the Father into the Virgin, and to have been born of her -- being both Man and God, the Son of Man and the Son of God, and to have been called by the name of Jesus Christ; we believe Him to have suffered, died, and been buried, according to the Scriptures, and, after He had been raised again by the Father and taken back to heaven, to be sitting at the right hand of the Father, and that He will come to judge the quick and the dead; who sent also from heaven from the Father, according to His own promise, the Holy Ghost, the Paraclete, the sanctifier of the faith of those who believe in the Father, and in the Son, and in the Holy Ghost.[box]

And later:


[box]As if in this way also one were not All, in that All are of One, by unity (that is) of substance; while the mystery of the dispensation is still guarded, which distributes the Unity into a Trinity, placing in their order the three Persons -- the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost: three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in substance, but in form; not in power, but in aspect; yet of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power, inasmuch as He is one God, from whom these degrees and forms and aspects are reckoned, under the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. How they are susceptible of number without division, will be shown as our treatise proceeds.

Tertullian is in fact writing out a defense of the Trinity. Now there are still some ideas to be worked out, but we see the formation of the doctrine coming along. It could be that Tertullian is wrong in what he taught, but we cannot be wrong in saying that he taught it.

In fact, Tertullian even says in the third chapter that he and fellow Christians are often accused of worshiping three gods. Anyone who has dialogued with JWs knows that they often present the Trinity as if it was a triad, which seems to be the exact same idea that Tertullian was having to argue against in his day!

What about the other? It's in chapter 3 of Against Hermogenes:


He adds also another point: that as God was always God, there was never a time when God was not also Lord. But it was in no way possible for Him to be regarded as always Lord, in the same manner as He had been always God, if there had not been always, in the previous eternity, a something of which He could be regarded as evermore the Lord. So he concludes that God always had Matter co-existent with Himself as the Lord thereof. Now, this tissue of his I shall at once hasten to pull abroad. I have been willing to set it out in form to this length, for the information of those who are unacquainted with the subject, that they may know that his other arguments likewise need only be understood to be refuted. We affirm, then, that the name of God always existed with Himself and in Himself--but not eternally so the Lord. Because the condition of the one is not the same as that of the other. God is the designation of the substance itself, that is, of the Divinity; but Lord is (the name) not of substance, but of power. I maintain that the substance existed always with its own name, which is God; the title Lord was afterwards added, as the indication indeed of something accruing. For from the moment when those things began to exist, over which the power of a Lord was to act, God, by the accession of that power, both became Lord and received the name thereof. Because God is in like manner a Father, and He is also a Judge; but He has not always been Father and Judge, merely on the ground of His having always been God. For He could not have been the Father previous to the Son, nor a Judge previous to sin. There was, however, a time when neither sin existed with Him, nor the Son; the former of which was to constitute the Lord a Judge, and the latter a Father. In this way He was not Lord previous to those things of which He was to be the Lord. But He was only to become Lord at some future time: just as He became the Father by the Son, and a Judge by sin, so also did He become Lord by means of those things which He had made, in order that they might serve Him. Do I seem to you to be weaving arguments,

Tertullian is not talking about existence here but titles. The Son did not always exist as Son for Tertullian. That does not mean I agree, but let us be clear on his position. He is saying the Father is not always Lord for there was not always something for him to be Lord over, and with that I agree. This does not constitute a change in the substance of God but a change of relation.

We see Tertullian's Trinitarianism again however in response in chapter 25 of Against Praxeus:


Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent Persons, who are yet distinct One from Another. These Three are, one essence, not one Person, as it is said, "I and my Father are One," in respect of] unity of substance not singularity of number

And in Chapter 27:


But the truth is, we find that He is expressly set forth as both God and Man; the very psalm which we have quoted intimating (of the flesh), that "God became Man in the midst of it, He therefore established it by the will of the Father," -- certainly in all respects as the Son of God and the Son of Man, being God and Man, differing no doubt according to each substance in its own especial property, inasmuch as the Word is nothing else but God, and the flesh nothing else but Man. Thus does the apostle also teach respecting His two substances, saying, "who was made of the seed of David;" in which words He will be Man and Son of Man. "Who was declared to be the Son of God, according to the Spirit;" in which words He will be God, and the Word -- the Son of God. We see plainly the twofold state, which is not confounded, but conjoined in One Person -- Jesus, God and Man.

I conclude that while there are some statements that can be seen as problematic, there are many more that are much harder for the Witnesses to explain. While we may not agree with all Tertullian said in this regard, we can be sure that he would not be on the side of the Watchtower today.

All works can be found at the following:

http://earlychristianwritings.com/tertullian.html

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Hippolytus

The link can be found here (http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/2011/02/15/hippolytus/)

The text is as follows:


Welcome everyone to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. We've been going through the Watchtower booklet lately called "Should You Believe In The Trinity?" I won't deny that this has been a very enjoyable part of this for me. I am looking forward to the next time Witnesses come by and I hope some of you can put this to use and if somehow you do, by all means let me know. Tonight, we're going to look at Hippolytus. Here's what the Watchtower says about him:


Hippolytus, who died about 235 C.E., said that God is "the one God, the first and the only One, the Maker and Lord of all," who "had nothing co-eval [of equal age] with him . . . But he was One, alone by himself; who, willing it, called into being what had no being before," such as the created prehuman Jesus.

Once again, note the lack of citations. I hope readers have been able to find the quotes I've been citing. It will be especially helpful to show a Witness where in the church fathers something is said and to note that the fathers themselves do not say what they are reported to say.

I believe the reference comes from Chapter 28 of book 10:


The first and only (one God), both Creator and Lord of all, had nothing coeval with Himself; not infinite chaos, nor measureless water, nor solid earth, nor dense air, not warm fire, nor refined spirit, nor the azure canopy of the stupendous firmament. But He was One, alone in Himself. By an exercise of His will He created things that are, which antecedently had no existence, except that He willed to make them.

What is going on however is not giving us God's ontology. The Witnesses are assuming that to say God is by Himself is to assume that He is one person by Himself. Of course, a Trinitarian could say that in the beginning there was only God Himself and not have any problem whatsoever.

Chapter 29 begins this way:


Therefore this solitary and supreme Deity, by an exercise of reflection, brought forth the Logos first; not the word in the sense of being articulated by voice, but as a ratiocination of the universe, conceived and residing in the divine mind. Him alone He produced from existing things; for the Father Himself constituted existence, and the being born from Him was the cause of all things that are produced. The Logos was in the Father Himself, bearing the will of His progenitor, and not being unacquainted with the mind of the Father. For simultaneously with His procession from His Progenitor, inasmuch as He is this Progenitors first-born, He has, as a voice in Himself, the ideas conceived in the Father.

Of course, to be sure, let us look at what he says in the next paragraph of that chapter:


The Logos alone of this God is from God himself; wherefore also the Logos is God, being the substance of God. Now the world was made from nothing; wherefore it is not God; as also because this world admits of dissolution whenever the Creator so wishes it.

Note that Hippolytus makes a point here that what is created is not God, but he says the Logos is not created, therefore the Logos could be God, as he has said earlier. Indeed, this is the case explicitly made. The point is at least that Jesus is not included in the creation.

And in chapter 30 we find this:


For Christ is the God above all, and He has arranged to wash away sin from human beings, rendering regenerate the old man.

While we may not have as much, keep in mind that this is one book of Hippolytus. The earlier portion of his work was spent going over the heresies that were taught in his day. Let that be a lesson to us also to know our enemy.

We shall continue tomorrow.

All quotes came from one work which can be found here:

http://earlychristianwritings.com/text/hippolytus10.html

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Origen

The link can be found here (http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/2011/02/17/origen/)

The text is as follows:


Welcome everyone to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. We've been looking lately at the Watchtower booklet called "Should You Believe In The Trinity?" Right now, we're reviewing the church fathers. Tonight, we're going to look at Origen and to do an exhaustive look at his work would be nigh impossible. Even Jerome once asked if anyone has read all that Origen wrote.

For now, let's start with what the Watchtower says about Origen:


Origen, who died about 250 C.E., said that "the Father and Son are two substances . . . two things as to their essence," and that "compared with the Father, [the Son] is a very small light."

To begin with, Origen's view is very difficult to understand. He did hold to some opinions that would be considered unorthodox. However, we will point to some instances where he does affirm an orthodox view.

Let's look first at the sixth section of book 1 on his commentary on John:


Now the Gospels are four. These four are, as it were, the elements of the faith of the Church, out of which elements the whole world which is reconciled to God in Christ is put together; as Paul says, "God was in Christ, reconciling the world to Himself;" of which world Jesus bore the sin; for it is of the world of the Church that the word is written, "Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world." The Gospels then being four, I deem the first fruits of the Gospels to be that which you s have enjoined me to search into according to my powers, the Gospel of John, that which speaks of him whose genealogy had already been set forth, but which begins to speak of him at a point before he had any genealogy. For Matthew, writing for the Hebrews who looked for Him who was to come of the line of Abraham and of David, says: "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham." And Mark, knowing what he writes, narrates the beginning of the Gospel; we may perhaps find what he aims at in John; in the beginning the Word, God the Word. But Luke, though he says at the beginning of Acts, "The former treatise did I make about all that Jesus began to do and to teach," yet leaves to him who lay on Jesus' breast the greatest and completest discourses about Jesus. For none of these plainly declared His Godhead, as John does when he makes Him say, "I am the light of the world," "I am the way and the truth and the life," "I am the resurrection, "I am the door," "I am the good shepherd;" and in the Apocalypse, "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last." We may therefore make bold to say that the Gospels are the first fruits of all the Scriptures, but that of the Gospels that of John is the first fruits.

Chapter 26 of book 2 against Celsus:


This Jew of Celsus still accuses the disciples of Jesus of having invented these statements. saying to them: "Even although guilty of falsehood, ye have not been able to give a colour of credibility to your inventions." In answer to which we have to say, that there was an easy method of concealing these occurrences,--that, viz., of not recording them at all. For if the Gospels had not contained the accounts of these things, who could have reproached us with Jesus having spoken such words during His stay upon the earth? Celsus, indeed, did not see that it was an inconsistency for the same persons both to be deceived regarding Jesus, believing Him to be God, and the subject of prophecy, and to invent fictions about Him, knowing manifestly that these statements were false. Of a truth, therefore, they were not guilty of inventing untruths, but such were their real impressions, and they recorded them truly; or else they were guilty of falsifying the histories, and did not entertain these views, and were not deceived when they acknowledged Him to be God.

Here, Origen says that the writers of the gospels knew that Jesus claimed to be God on Earth. They did not make it up and they were not deceived when they acknowledged him as God.

Section 8 of book 1 of De Principiis:


In order, however, to arrive at a fuller understanding of the manner in which the Saviour is the figure of the person or subsistence of God, let us take an instance, which, although it does not describe the subject of which we are treating either fully or appropriately, may nevertheless be seen to be employed for this purpose only, to show that the Son of God, who was in the form of God, divesting Himself (of His glory), makes it His object, by this very divesting of Himself, to demonstrate to us the fulness of His deity.

I conclude that while Origen had views that are unorthodox, and wherever we find those we should disagree with them, he also did not hold to the position that the Watchtower thinks he does and while there could be more nuances there, I believe the Watchtower is misusing him. Again, without references, it's hard to tell.

We shall sum up this part next time.

All references can be found here:

http://earlychristianwritings.com/origen.html

[ApologiaPhoenix]

So what do we conclude on the church fathers and the Trinity?

The link can be found here (http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/2011/02/18/watchtower-and-church-fathers-conclusion/)

The text is as follows:

Welcome everyone to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. We've been looking lately at the Watchtower booklet called "Should You Believe In The Trinity?" We've spent the past few days looking at the church fathers. Of course, we could not do an exhaustive search, but I recommend the reading of the fathers for all interested. We did see the Watchtower's undocumented claims were quite contrary to what the fathers themselves taught. Tonight, we're going to give a final conclusion.

The Watchtower cites Alvan Lamson as an authority that the church did not teach the Trinity. What is left out is that Lamson was a member of the American Unitarian Association. Does this make him wrong? No. It doesn't. However, you would not know that he was a member of that group by reading their booklet. You could be thinking this is a Trinitarian who is giving embarrassing testimony that the church indeed did not teach this.

Note also how long ago Lamson lived. He died before the 1900's. Again, this does not make him wrong, but the Watchtower has a tendency to cite the oldest materials out there, probably counting on their readers to not know this. Could it be that the Watchtower has to go back this far before they find something that they believe to be scholarship that agrees with their opinion?

When doing research of this kind, with some exceptions, one needs the latest and greatest material. In history, one uses ancient material to cite primary sources, but one needs the latest scholarship that is based on the latest finds in an area. This is the same with science. I consider philosophy and theology to be different. I have no problem with reading the latest material in these areas, but there is an important distinction.

For instance, in philosophy, most of us either lean towards Plato or towards Aristotle and the whole of the debate is often more towards which school is right. While I hold to Aristotle, I do not think we can go around saying "Plato has been debunked entirely." In theology, it is the founders of the religion that are discussed and we build on their past teachings. We cannot change the teachings of Jesus for instance. We can only change our understanding of them.

What we saw repeatedly instead is that the Watchtower has only given snippets of what has been said and has done so without a documentation. Some of these quotes could not be found or maybe they exist but were found in a different translation that reads them differently. We cannot know because the Watchtower does not provide sources.

Note also that they speak of the testimony of the Scriptures and yet, not once did we see a portion of Scripture cited. To their credit, they will present some Scripture later, but one can hardly give half a page and think that in doing so, one has covered what Scripture says. The section on the Old Testament has four paragraphs and the section on the Greek has nine. By what standard can this really count as a look at the teaching of the Bible?

Tomorrow, we shall start looking at how the Watchtower says the Trinity developed.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

What about Constantine?

The link can be found here (http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/2011/02/19/constantines-role-at-nicea/)

The text is as follows:


Welcome everyone to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. We're continuing our look at the booklet of the Watchtower called "Should You Believe In The Trinity?" We're going to be going to the subheading that this post is named after. I do agree with the Watchtower at the start when they say Nicea was not to discuss the Trinity but the nature of Jesus. I think this is something Christians should be aware of. However, I have much disagreement with what they say later on.

It's not a shock that Constantine gets a lot of blame for everything. I'm not going to defend him for everything either. There is much question as to if Constantine was a Christian or not. That is irrelevant for my purposes here. This is what the Watchtower says their source, Henry Chadwick's "The Early Church" says:


"Constantine, like his father, worshipped the Unconquered Sun; . . . his conversion should not be interpreted as an inward experience of grace . . . It was a military matter. His comprehension of Christian doctrine was never very clear, but he was sure that victory in battle lay in the gift of the God of the Christians."

This book can be found through Google Books. The first quote is nowhere near the second one. I can't even find where the first one is in relation. It's that much of a difference. Looking at the second part, before that sentence Chadwick says "But if." This is a great change. He is not saying his conversion should not be interpreted as an inward experience of grace, but says, if it is not that, it is something else.

As for the claim of the Encyclopedia Britannica that Constantine presided and gave the idea of the formula to be used, I would have loved to have seen an actual church historian quoted on this. Constantine pretty much called the event and stayed out of it. He had no theological understanding and if anyone was the main speaker here, it would have been Athanasius.

Note also that Constantine was the one later who gave an order for Arius to be admitted back into the church and was himself baptized on his deathbed by an Arian, so it would not make sense for him to be their main opponent. As has been shown also, the early church did indeed teach a view that is firmly in line with what was decided by the orthodox at Nicea.

The Watchtower finally asks that if the Trinity had been a clear Bible truth, why not propose it at that time?

Probably for the same reason that they did not need to propose that Jesus came back from the dead.

The reality was that no council was ever called to deal with the teaching that Jesus is of the same substance of the Father, but to deal with the teaching that he isn't. Arius's teachings were those that were going contrary and to maintain order, the council was called so the issue could finally be debated out.

Such tactics from the Watchtower at this point are not surprising.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

After Nicea

The link can be found [url=http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/2011/02/20/further-development/]here[url]

The text is as follows:

Welcome everyone to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. We've been spending a lot of time lately looking at the Watchtower booklet called "Should You Believe In The Trinity?" We're on the section now about how the doctrine of the Trinity developed and tonight, we're going to be looking at the section called "Further Development."

The Watchtower is correct that Nicea did not end the debate. Indeed, you could often tell how the debate was doing just by looking at where Athanasius was at the time. If he was in exile, then the Arians were winning the day. Arianism has not died out of course and there were pockets of it throughout the Medieval period up to today when we have groups like the Jehovah's Witnesses, our modern-day Arians. Of course, they're not the only ones, but they're the most well-known.

The Watchtower however is leaving much out. For instance, the booklet talks briefly about the Council of Constantinople in 381. What is not mentioned at all is that the teaching of Apollinarianism was under discussion. This was the belief that Jesus did not have a human rational mind, but that the divine logos took the place of that mind. This would have called into question the full humanity of Christ. To be sure, while we should rightly condemn Arianism, we also need to realize that it is in fact just as much a heresy to deny Christ's humanity as it is to deny his deity, and implicitly many of us might do that in the church today.

The Watchtower does not mention this at all and one would think it would be important to state that about the Council. The Watchtower does say that this doctrine was further developed throughout the medieval period. With this, we have no qualm. Of course it was developed. So was our doctrine of God concerning any of his attributes. There has not been a point for instance where it has been said "Okay! Now we know about omnipotence! There's no need to study that any further!"

In fact, we should still be studying this. We should still be studying the doctrine of the Trinity further today and developing it. If our doctrine of God ever ceases to develop, and I don't mean in our personal theologies but in our theology in general, then we are in a sad case. Who are we to say we have plumbed the depths of the knowledge of God and have reached the point where we can know no more? Of course, some knowledge of God will always be beyond us, but we don't stop reaching. Sinless perfection is beyond us in this lifetime, but we don't stop reaching.

I recommend for those interested in this time period reading works like Harold O.J. Brown's book "Heresies." For those who are interested in the development of the doctrine, an excellent example of a fine work on it in the medieval period would be Augustine's "On The Trinity."

We shall continue tomorrow.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Apostasy Foretold

The link can be found here (http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/2011/02/21/apostasy-foretold/)

The text is as follows:


Welcome everyone to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth! We've been going lately through the Watchtower booklet of "Should You Believe In The Trinity?" The next section is about Athanasius whom we've already discussed. I prefer to move on ahead past that then to the section on Apostasy Foretold.

Apostasy is an important part of the Watchtower system, as it is part of the Mormon system. The Mormons talk about the great apostasy and they would see the Watchtower as part of that. The Watchtower talks about an apostasy and would see the Mormons as part of that. Christians can believe there are apostates and would see both groups as part of that, in that they are falling away from the true teaching.

For the Watchtower, this hinges on prophecy. Followers of the Watchtower should know that they don't have a good track record on prophecy. How many times has Armageddon been predicted now and been wrong? What exactly is going on with the 1914 generation? Those of us who are regularly countering cults like the Watchtower are wondering what is going to be done when those in charge of the organization pass away and there is no one left in the generation to take over.

Of course, the Watchtower assumes a futurist stance. If someone does not hold to this stance, then they will handle what the Watchtower says differently. However, let us suppose one does not. Again, there is no need to take what the Watchtower says seriously. As we have seen, the evidence is not on the side of the Watchtower, particularly when we looked at the church fathers.

The question to ask the Watchtower is to ask them how they know they're not the apostasy. Then, once can present the material that has been presented earlier in this blog to them. If they really want to be on guard against an apostasy, is it not reasonable for them to check and make sure that they are not the ones who are being apostates?

In reality, I believe that the draw is powerful for Witnesses in this area. It would be very exciting to believe that you are part of a group fulfilling prophecy and you alone have the truth no one else has because your organization is in connection with the Almighty. While prophecy is not our focus here, there are enough sources of information, online and offline, about the history the Watchtower has with prophecy and the Witness should be confronted with these.

Also, while what the Witnesses say could be consistent with what Christ teaches, that does not mean that is what Christ had in mind. I do not wish to go into eschatology, but both the preterist and futurist camps can answer this. One might want however to engage the Witnesses on eschatology and particularly when it comes to personal eschatology and get into the question of what they must do to be saved.

However, the Watchtower is sure they know where the teaching of the Trinity came from if not from the church, which is a good question. If it was so contrary and outside of Scripture, then where did it arise and why was it Arius that caused a stir and not Athanasius?

Hopefully we can start that tomorrow.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

How did the Trinity develop according to the Watchtower?

The link can be found [url=http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/2011/02/22/what-influenced-it/]here[url]

The text is as follows:


Welcome everyone to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth! We've been looking lately at the booklet of the Watchtower called "Should You Believe In The Trinity?" We're right not discussing the doctrine of the Trinity and how the Watchtower says it came to be. Let's go to what they say now.

The Watchtower goes with scholarship of a past era asserting that Christianity copied the Trinity from pagan religions. (Not letting their readers know that the same theory holds that the entire Christian story was copied from pagan religions, including beliefs that the Watchtower holds to like the virgin birth.) Let's look at some of their claims.

For instance, consider what they say Will Durant says.


"Christianity did not destroy paganism; it adopted it. . . . From Egypt came the ideas of a divine trinity."

This is one of the worst deceptions in the whole book. Fortunately, this was also one of the books I managed to find at my local library. What is horrible about this is that the Watchtower puts a period after "trinity" in this quote. There is no period. There is a comma and Durant lists beliefs of "The Last Judgment" and "reward and punishment." That the Watchtower did not use an ellipsis here is shameful and if you can get your hands on this book, show it to your Witness friends.

The next quote is from Morenz. I urge the reader to look up in Google Books the book "Egyptian Religion" and see what else he says is of Egyptian origin. The story of the rich man and Lazarus is one. Also, the association between a ship rudder and the tongue. Also, a Pauline formula on the supremacy of the creator. These can be found on page 254.

The next source is Gibbon and again, the Watchtower does not mention that Gibbon thinks other beliefs are pagan, like the virgin birth. Once again, the Watchtower is willing to embrace the opinions of scholars and show them, but they selectively show them. If they say the Trinity is pagan, well the Trinity is pagan. If they say the virgin birth is, well we need to step back some.

The reality is that this kind of idea while popular on the internet today is not seriously discussed in academic circles. Scholars of Mithraism today for instance know that Christ is not meant to be seen as a copycat of Mithras. If anything, the reverse is true. The believers of Mithraism copied from Christianity.

There are several sources one can go to to verify these points. The chief one I'd point to is that of my ministry partner, J.P. Holding, at tektonics.org. There, he has a page with copycat Messiah figures demonstrating that these are not valid copies. There's also Ronald Nash's book "The Gospel and the Greeks." Finally, Lee Strobel's book "The Case for the Real Jesus" has a short interview with Mike Licona on this topic as well as a longer one with Edwin Yamauchi. The interested reader is encouraged to go there for more information.

We shall continue tomorrow.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Platonism and the Trinity

The link can be found [url=http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/2011/02/23/platonism-and-the-trinity/]here[url].

The text is as follows:


Welcome everyone to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. We've been going through the Watchtower booklet called "Should You Believe In The Trinity?" and looking at the question of how the Trinity developed according to the Watchtower. Tonight, we're going to be looking at the influence of Plato on the Trinity.

Something consistent with the Watchtower is that they think a triad is the same as a Trinity. It's not. The triads have three separate beings, whereas in the Trinity, there is only one being who is revealed in three persons. (I find it extremely important to watch terminology when discussing the Trinity. We do not believe in three beings in one being for instance.)

The New Universal Dictionary is cited saying that the Platonic trinity appears to be what gave birth to the Christian idea. The problem is that for one, the Watchtower does not state what this Platonic trinity is. All that is asserted is that there is one. As for Plato's God, Plato says very little about him. Timaeus is the dialogue that describes him the most and he is described as a demiurge that works with pre-existing matter.

Second, the Watchtower is citing a possible connection as if it must be actual. For those of us however that like our beliefs backed by evidence, we prefer to see how you get from A to B. It would be good to ask the average Jehovah's Witness what the Trinity is in Plato and how that became the Christian Trinity.

Third, if we talk about triads, then the Watchtower is just as pagan! The Watchtower has the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as well. True, they're not a Trinity of course, but they are a triad. By the standards they cite then, they are pagan, unless they want to admit that triads are not a problem and then when they say how the Trinity differs from a triad, we don't have a problem either.

The Watchtower then says:


[box]
The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge shows the influence of this Greek philosophy: "The doctrines of the Logos and the Trinity received their shape from Greek Fathers, who . . . were much influenced, directly or indirectly, by the Platonic philosophy . . . That errors and corruptions crept into the Church from this source can not be denied."[box]

Yet when one goes to Schaff's "History of the Christian Church" one finds nothing like this. Rather, Schaff says on page 282 that the doctrine arose from a Scriptural basis. On the very next page it says "The Socinian and rationalistic opinion, that the church doctrine of the Trinity sprang from Platonism and Neo-Platonism is radically false."

Does the average follower of the Watchtower know this? Probably not. We could always say Schaff was wrong in what he said, but we cannot be wrong in that he believed what he said was true.

The next book cited is "The Church of the First Three Centuries" by Alvan Lamson. Again, what we have is an assertion and keep in mind that Lamson was a unitarian. The Watchtower does not mention this. It does not mean he is wrong, but the Watchtower shows no discrimination in sources. The same applies to Andrew Norton cited later also as he was a unitarian.

As for Harnack's quote, it comes from page 194 of Harnack's book "Outlines of the History of Dogma." Unfortunately for the Watchtower, on the page before, Harnack says that the Christian church made no compromises with pagan religion. The doctrine not understood is not the Trinity but the Logos-Christology, which the Watchtower should hold to some form of since they believe that in the beginning was the Logos. There is no doubt Greek thought played some part, but only as an aid in understanding Scripture. It did not in any way act as the source of the doctrine.

We shall conclude this section tomorrow.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Why Did God's Prophets Not Teach It?

The link can be found here (http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/2011/02/24/why-did-gods-prophets-not-teach-it/).

The text is as follows:


Welcome everyone to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. We've lately been going through the Watchtower booklet of "Should You Believe In The Trinity?" We've been going through the section on the development of the doctrine of the Trinity and tonight, we're going to look at the Watchtower question of why did God's prophets not teach it?

The Watchtower begins saying this:


WHY, for thousands of years, did none of God's prophets teach his people about the Trinity? At the latest, would Jesus not use his ability as the Great Teacher to make the Trinity clear to his followers? Would God inspire hundreds of pages of Scripture and yet not use any of this instruction to teach the Trinity if it were the "central doctrine" of faith?

You know what? These are great questions. I have some of my own to ask.

Why did God's prophets not teach that the Messiah would have to be crucified?

Why did God's prophets not teach that he would be raised from the dead?

Why did God's prophets not teach about the practice of baptism?

Why did God's prophets not teach about the New Testament church?

Why did God's prophets not teach about the New Testament?

Why did God's prophets not teach about the return of the Messiah after his leaving?

Why did God's prophets not teach about the Watchtower's 1914 generation?

We can imagine the Watchtower saying "Well these things were hinted at in the Old Testament but not explicitly taught."

Well we can say the same thing about the Trinity.

In fact, it makes sense seeing as the Watchtower misunderstands the Trinity to be polytheistic. Israel's great danger in the past was polytheism. What does the Watchtower expect? Was God supposed to say "Abraham. I am your friend. By the way, I'm also one God in three persons."

To which Abraham would say "Um. What?"

Looking on it as a whole, God's way of revealing it was best. Had he announced that he was going to come down Himself one day explicitly, then history would be quite different. Would the true followers have known Christ? Would they not have been instead trying to understand who the Son is in light of the Father instead of focusing on his ministry?

Remember, Jesus did not come to teach the Trinity. He came to bring God to the people and He did that in His own person. The Watchtower thinks that if something is to believed, it must be taught explicitly in both testaments.

That is, unless they believe it.


Are Christians to believe that centuries after Christ and after having inspired the writing of the Bible, God would back the formulation of a doctrine that was unknown to his servants for thousands of years, one that is an "inscrutable mystery" "beyond the grasp of human reason," one that admittedly had a pagan background and was "largely a matter of church politics"?

Note how much language is loaded. We've already seen that this was not centuries after the coming of Christ. The church fathers have done that. Now have we seen Scripture yet? No. To be fair however, the reason we haven't is because the Watchtower hasn't even brought forward a single verse of Scripture to make their case.

One wonders also if the Watchtower thinks they have a complete handle on God seeing as since something is a mystery, it must not be true. Is their God also fully understandable by human reason? Well that must be a small God.

And as for admittedly pagan, note the admittedly part. Ripping quotations out of context is not an admission. This is especially so in light of the fact that some who are "admitting" this are anti-trinitarians. It would be like saying I'm admitting the new atheists have terrible arguments. Of course I am. However, what does that prove? Nothing in itself. Now if Richard Dawkins said it, that would be something.

The Watchtower is ready to say that it's clear that the Trinity is a deviation. Amazingly, they did this without once looking at the Bible itself!

Well they're finally getting ready to. We'll be ready to engage them also.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

God is one, not three.

The link can be found here (http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/2011/02/26/god-is-one-not-three/).

The text is as follows:


Welcome everyone to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. We're continuing tonight our look at the Watchtower booklet of "Should You Believe In The Trinity?" Tonight, we're finally going to start getting into discussing the Bible. Let's see what the Watchtower has to say.

To begin with, the Watchtower has a little bit before their first point on God being one and not three that no one reading the Bible through would come to the concept of the Trinity.

No one, that is, except the early church.

To get to the Scriptures, the Watchtower begins quoting an authority again, L.L. Paine who says:


"The Old Testament is strictly monotheistic. God is a single personal being. The idea that a trinity is to be found there . . . is utterly without foundation."

To begin with, I as a Trinitarian agree. The Old Testament is monotheistic as is Trinitarianism. God is a single personal being. I also agree that the Trinity is not found in the Old Testament in the sense that it is explicitly taught, although I do think the seeds of the doctrine are there.

But of course, the Watchtower wants to give the impression that all Trinitarians teach that the Old Testament explicitly teaches the Trinity.

We are told that Jesus affirmed the tradition of Jews that "Hear O Israel, The Lord your God is one."

It's a good thing Trinitarians affirm that too. Does the Watchtower tell its readers that? Nope.

We are told the word "one" has no plural modifiers to indicate it refers to one individual. This does not follow. The word for one itself is a word that leaves room open for plurality. Also, one individual and one being are not necessarily the same. The term individual is to be equated with persons so that the Watchtower is wanting to stack the deck without coming out and blatantly doing so.

We are told Paul affirmed that God is one in Galatians 3:20 and 1 Cor. 8:4-6.

Okay. Are we supposed to disagree with this sometime along the way? In fact, I would begin a teaching of the Trinity by affirming that God is one.

We are then told:


Thousands of times throughout the Bible, God is spoken of as one person. When he speaks, it is as one undivided individual. The Bible could not be any clearer on this. As God states: "I am Jehovah. That is my name; and to no one else shall I give my own glory." (Isaiah 42:8) "I am Yahweh your God . . . You shall have no gods except me." (Italics ours.)—Exodus 20:2, 3, JB.

Note there are times he speaks in the plural, such as Genesis 1 and Genesis 11. That God uses terms like "me, my, I, etc." does not go against Trinitarianism. In the Trinity, the Son and the Spirit would be subsumed under the identity of the Father. An excellent reference on this would be Richard Bauckham's "God Crucified."

The Watchtower says that surely this would be made clear. We argue that it was. One wonders if the Watchtower would hold that the condemnation of homosexuality is clear for instance, but there are some who deny the Bible explicitly teaches a condemnation of homosexual practice.

However, to say that God being one goes against the Trinity is completely false since we do affirm the oneness of God. The Watchtower is mistakingly making the case that God is one means that God is one person.

The question to ask is "God is one what?"

Do try to find a verse that explicitly says one person as well.

After all, this needs to be explicitly taught.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

God is one, not three.

The link can be found here (http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/2011/02/26/god-is-one-not-three/).

The text is as follows:


Welcome everyone to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. We're continuing tonight our look at the Watchtower booklet of "Should You Believe In The Trinity?" Tonight, we're finally going to start getting into discussing the Bible. Let's see what the Watchtower has to say.

To begin with, the Watchtower has a little bit before their first point on God being one and not three that no one reading the Bible through would come to the concept of the Trinity.

No one, that is, except the early church.

To get to the Scriptures, the Watchtower begins quoting an authority again, L.L. Paine who says:


"The Old Testament is strictly monotheistic. God is a single personal being. The idea that a trinity is to be found there . . . is utterly without foundation."

To begin with, I as a Trinitarian agree. The Old Testament is monotheistic as is Trinitarianism. God is a single personal being. I also agree that the Trinity is not found in the Old Testament in the sense that it is explicitly taught, although I do think the seeds of the doctrine are there.

But of course, the Watchtower wants to give the impression that all Trinitarians teach that the Old Testament explicitly teaches the Trinity.

We are told that Jesus affirmed the tradition of Jews that "Hear O Israel, The Lord your God is one."

It's a good thing Trinitarians affirm that too. Does the Watchtower tell its readers that? Nope.

We are told the word "one" has no plural modifiers to indicate it refers to one individual. This does not follow. The word for one itself is a word that leaves room open for plurality. Also, one individual and one being are not necessarily the same. The term individual is to be equated with persons so that the Watchtower is wanting to stack the deck without coming out and blatantly doing so.

We are told Paul affirmed that God is one in Galatians 3:20 and 1 Cor. 8:4-6.

Okay. Are we supposed to disagree with this sometime along the way? In fact, I would begin a teaching of the Trinity by affirming that God is one.

We are then told:


Thousands of times throughout the Bible, God is spoken of as one person. When he speaks, it is as one undivided individual. The Bible could not be any clearer on this. As God states: "I am Jehovah. That is my name; and to no one else shall I give my own glory." (Isaiah 42:8) "I am Yahweh your God . . . You shall have no gods except me." (Italics ours.)—Exodus 20:2, 3, JB.

Note there are times he speaks in the plural, such as Genesis 1 and Genesis 11. That God uses terms like "me, my, I, etc." does not go against Trinitarianism. In the Trinity, the Son and the Spirit would be subsumed under the identity of the Father. An excellent reference on this would be Richard Bauckham's "God Crucified."

The Watchtower says that surely this would be made clear. We argue that it was. One wonders if the Watchtower would hold that the condemnation of homosexuality is clear for instance, but there are some who deny the Bible explicitly teaches a condemnation of homosexual practice.

However, to say that God being one goes against the Trinity is completely false since we do affirm the oneness of God. The Watchtower is mistakingly making the case that God is one means that God is one person.

The question to ask is "God is one what?"

Do try to find a verse that explicitly says one person as well.

After all, this needs to be explicitly taught.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Not a Plural God?

The link can be found here (http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/2011/02/27/not-a-plural-god/)

The text is as follows:


Welcome everyone to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. Lately, we've been going through the Watchtower booklet of "Should You Believe In The Trinity?" Finally, the Watchtower has got to the topic of what the Bible itself says about the doctrine. We shall continue that tonight.

Of course, the Watchtower brings out John 17:3 (Sometimes I wonder if they know there are other verses in the Bible.) which is not a problem for a Trinitarian. The Son and the Spirit would be subsumed under the identity of the Father and thus would also be included as the only true God.

The Watchtower makes a big deal about no one else being called Almighty. While I think this is an important point, it is also not a problem for Trinitarians either. Jesus would be included in the identity of the Father. That does not mean He is the Father of course, but He would have been seen as included in the divine identity.

There is also the point that plural forms are used for God in the Old Testament in his name, but the Watchtower dismisses this saying most would see it as the plural of majesty and not as teaching the Trinity. Again, what's the difficulty? I would have no problem with a plural of majesty, but it is interesting that plural nouns are used so often whereas in pagan literature, one god is not normally referred to as plural.

Also, God is referred to doing activities in the singular. Again, this is not a problem for a Trinitarian but more of a problem for those who approach it from a fully Western perspective. Since there is one God with more than one persons in that identity, there is still a singular being acting and of course the actions will be expressed in the singular.

Why would it be used for other gods? This would be an exception but would also be comparing the Elohim of Israel to a supposed Elohim outside of Israel. The Watchtower says also that this would mean that we have to be guilty of worshiping three gods and that most Trinitarian supporters reject the view that the Trinity is made up of three gods.

Most?

Could the Watchtower point to the Trinitarian supporter who says that the Trinity consists of three gods?

Also, other beings are called gods. Yes. This is not a problem. Moses could be seen as a god because he was functionally acting as a god. The Watchtower is again doing an all-or-nothing game. One wonders if we can say "Moses is called God, but that's insufficient for him to be God," if that would mean that since YHWH is called Almighty, that that's insufficient to say that He is Almighty. Is it even sufficient to show that He is God?

Again, I find the Watchtower extremely lacking. There is no interaction with other scholarship and as has been said before, "Beware the sound of one hand clapping." Unfortunately, most Witnesses only get one side of the story. Will you make sure they get the other side?

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Jesus. A Separate Creation?

The link can be found here (http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/2011/03/01/jesus-a-separate-creation/).

The text is as follows:


Welcome everyone to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. Tonight, we're continuing our look at the Watchtower booklet of "Should You Believe In The Trinity?" We're finally coming to the topic of Jesus, which when the Witnesses visit me and want to go through "What Does The Bible Really Teach?", I always want to skip ahead to the chapter on who is Jesus. Well let's see what the Watchtower says.

We agree with the Watchtower that Jesus's existence did not begin with the conception in Mary. The Watchtower says Jesus's life force was transferred to the womb of Mary. (Again, note that such terminology you don't see in the Bible. It's wrong when it's the Trinity you don't see explicitly stated, but when it comes to life force being transferred, which in this case is that of the archangel Michael, it's okay) Of course, we don't hold to such a position here.

The Watchtower asks if his existence was as a person of an eternal triune Godhead. They answer no. The Bible plainly states that Jesus in his prehuman existence was a created spirit being.

Plainly states of course meaning "We teach that and even if we don't have explicit chapter and verse, it's okay anyway because we teach it, unlike those Trinitarians."

Of course, we see Colossians 1:15 used. What the Witnesses miss is that this is a verse describing ontology and not chronology. Technically, if Jesus was the firstborn of creation, then it would really mean creation produced Jesus. What it really is doing is describing Jesus's relation to the creation. Jesus is the Lord over all of creation. I have dealt more with this objection here (http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/2009/09/28/the-firstborn/).

Of course, that's followed with Revelation 3:14. The Watchtower says John uses the word "Arche" for beginning several times and it always means a beginning. Of course, word usage is not determined by how often a word is used one way, but how it is used in the sentence it is used. In this case, it refers to the origin due to the other statements of deity in John and that John is likely using wisdom theology to show that Jesus is the means of the creation of God.

Speaking of wisdom, the Watchtower goes there immediately. They want to say Wisdom in Proverbs 8 is Jesus. Good! I agree! Unfortunately, if they really read the passage the way they intend to, they have a problem. Question to my Witness friends! When was God ever unwise? Did God create wisdom and then add wisdom to His nature? Was He an unwise God prior? Did He change to become wise even though Scripture tells us that He does not change?

More of my thoughts on that can be found here (http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/2009/01/15/proverbs-8-integral-to-the-trinity/).

In fact, the very verses they use are central to the idea of Wisdom sharing in the divine identity. In the New Testament consistently, Jesus is seen as the means for God creating and the Father is seen as the source, the creator. This is not a problem. Unknowingly, the Watchtower has actually created a wonderful Trinitarian argument.

Next time, we'll look further at some "objections" the Watchtower raises.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Jesus. A Separate Creation?

The link can be found here (http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/2011/03/01/jesus-a-separate-creation/).

The text is as follows:


Welcome everyone to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. Tonight, we're continuing our look at the Watchtower booklet of "Should You Believe In The Trinity?" We're finally coming to the topic of Jesus, which when the Witnesses visit me and want to go through "What Does The Bible Really Teach?", I always want to skip ahead to the chapter on who is Jesus. Well let's see what the Watchtower says.

We agree with the Watchtower that Jesus's existence did not begin with the conception in Mary. The Watchtower says Jesus's life force was transferred to the womb of Mary. (Again, note that such terminology you don't see in the Bible. It's wrong when it's the Trinity you don't see explicitly stated, but when it comes to life force being transferred, which in this case is that of the archangel Michael, it's okay) Of course, we don't hold to such a position here.

The Watchtower asks if his existence was as a person of an eternal triune Godhead. They answer no. The Bible plainly states that Jesus in his prehuman existence was a created spirit being.

Plainly states of course meaning "We teach that and even if we don't have explicit chapter and verse, it's okay anyway because we teach it, unlike those Trinitarians."

Of course, we see Colossians 1:15 used. What the Witnesses miss is that this is a verse describing ontology and not chronology. Technically, if Jesus was the firstborn of creation, then it would really mean creation produced Jesus. What it really is doing is describing Jesus's relation to the creation. Jesus is the Lord over all of creation. I have dealt more with this objection here (http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/2009/09/28/the-firstborn/).

Of course, that's followed with Revelation 3:14. The Watchtower says John uses the word "Arche" for beginning several times and it always means a beginning. Of course, word usage is not determined by how often a word is used one way, but how it is used in the sentence it is used. In this case, it refers to the origin due to the other statements of deity in John and that John is likely using wisdom theology to show that Jesus is the means of the creation of God.

Speaking of wisdom, the Watchtower goes there immediately. They want to say Wisdom in Proverbs 8 is Jesus. Good! I agree! Unfortunately, if they really read the passage the way they intend to, they have a problem. Question to my Witness friends! When was God ever unwise? Did God create wisdom and then add wisdom to His nature? Was He an unwise God prior? Did He change to become wise even though Scripture tells us that He does not change?

More of my thoughts on that can be found here (http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/2009/01/15/proverbs-8-integral-to-the-trinity/).

In fact, the very verses they use are central to the idea of Wisdom sharing in the divine identity. In the New Testament consistently, Jesus is seen as the means for God creating and the Father is seen as the source, the creator. This is not a problem. Unknowingly, the Watchtower has actually created a wonderful Trinitarian argument.

Next time, we'll look further at some "objections" the Watchtower raises.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Could God Be Tempted?

The link can be found here (http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/2011/03/02/could-god-be-tempted/)

The text is as follows:


Welcome everyone to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. We've lately been going through the Watchtower booklet called "Should You Believe In The Trinity?" Tonight, we're going to be looking at an argument they give to argue against Jesus's ontological equality with God and that's asking if God could be tempted.

The reality is that this kind of argument is so weak, that I almost hate having to write a blog on it. However, it has been included and so I will deal with it.

This one deals with the temptation. It's asking if it really makes sense to have the temptation narratives in there since if Jesus is God, he couldn't really be tempted. However, at this point, it is important to note that there are two kinds of temptations that exist.

Some temptations are internal. They're based pretty much entirely on evil desires we have in us. We can think evil of things that are good and think good of things that are evil. Jesus did not have this and I believe we could say that Adam and Eve did not have this as well.

Of course, that leaves a kind that Adam and Eve did succumb to and that's desires from without. This is the kind of temptation that the devil gave to Jesus. After all, the devil was an external agent to Jesus. We also know about these kinds of temptations. We can be tempted with greed easily when seeing a large sum of money or we can be tempted with lust when seeing an attractive person of the opposite sex. Think of the old cartoons where a little devil and a little angel appeared on someone's shoulders. Many of us know that little devil well.

The Witnesses ask if it would make any sense if Jesus could not have given into the temptation. Whether he could have or not is a debate within Christendom. However, at this point, it is also irrelevant. Jesus was fulfilling two different roles in this case on the path to the cross.

The first role is that of the second Adam. Jesus succeeded where Adam fell. As Adam was tempted, so was Jesus tempted. We know that Paul refers to Jesus as the second Adam as well. Since Jesus is the new man, he undergoes the testings to show that as he overcame, we can overcome as well.

The second role is that of the new Israel. Matthew 2 has Jesus coming out of Egypt, as Israel did. Matthew 3 has him being baptized, as Israel was in the Red Sea according to Paul. Matthew 4 has him in the wilderness being tempted as was Israel. Finally, Matthew 5 has him climbing the mountain, but this time instead of receiving the Law, he is giving it.

Can God be tempted? No. However, no one is saying that Jesus in his deity was tempted. They are saying that Jesus in his humanity was tempted, and he passed! What does that tell us? It tells us that as Jesus relied on God and Scripture to overcome temptation, so can we.

We continue next time.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Was The Ransom Too Much?

The link can be found here (http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/2011/03/05/how-much-was-the-ransom/)

The text is as follows:

Welcome back everyone to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. Apologies for not having blogs the past two days but I've been quite busy. Anyway, we've lately been going through the Watchtower booklet of "Should You Believe In The Trinity?" Right now, we're looking at some arguments that are raised against the Trinity. Tonight, we look at the topic of the ransom.

A problem with the Watchtower in this regards is that they assume a ransom theory of the atonement. Now there have been some who have held to such a view, but if you do not, then you won't find this argument convincing. In fact, even if you do, I'd say you shouldn't find this argument convincing. Unfortunately, many Christians haven't done any thinking on the atonement so when the Witnesses arrive, this is their first introduction to the idea and then they get a quick "refutation" of that idea.

The Watchtower points to 1 Timothy 2:5 where we are told that Christ was a corresponding ransom to us. There's only one problem. I don't see a basis anywhere for the word "corresponding" to be added. This has been something the Watchtower has been guilty of before, such as adding "other" four times in Col. 1:15-18.

The idea the Watchtower wants to present is that if Jesus was fully God, the price that was paid for the ransom would be too much and that would be unjust.

After all, we know God never blesses anyone beyond what they deserve...

The Watchtower teaches that Jesus would pay an infinite price if He was in the Godhead. I'd have no problem with that because our crime is against an infinite being. We have violated the standards of God. Now I do believe that some sins are worse than others, but I believe all sins are ultimately done against God and all of them merit us being cast out of His loving presence for all eternity.

However, I still think the worst situation here is not that the Watchtower does not understand the gravity of sin, but they don't understand the goodness of grace. If I could have you understand only one, I believe it would be grace as grace is an action of God and sin is an action of man. I think it's more important to understand God's actions than ours. Of course, we do need some understanding of what we do. A doctrine of man is quite important.

My wife and I got a real reminder of how the Watchtower does not understand grace with our last Witnesses that visited us. On the last visit they had, they got up and left right in the middle of my reading Ephesians 2:8-9. I added as they left that I found it very revealing that when the teaching of salvation by grace through faith is given, that they leave.

One other point to make. The Watchtower also asks how if Jesus was in the Godhead he could ever be lower than the angels. It is quite clear and quite amazing both. Jesus did it to show the depths that God is willing to go to reach the lost. Again, I am not surprised the Watchtower does not understand grace. When you dialogue with Witnesses, I recommend going for the salvation question as well. It's one they have a very hard time with.

We shall continue next time.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Was Jesus Considered To Be God?

The link can be found here (http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/2011/03/07/was-jesus-considered-to-be-god/)

The text is as follows:

Welcome everyone to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. We've been going through lately the Watchtower booklet "Should You Believe In The Trinity?" Thus far, our conclusion has been that the Watchtower has not given us a reason to not believe in it. This is not so much about giving evidence for the Trinity but rather answering the "arguments" as to why we shouldn't.

Today, we're going to look at the question of if Jesus was considered to be God. The Watchtower states that Son of God did not mean that Jesus was God, or as we would say, God the Son. In itself, they are correct in this. Others were also called sons of God. The question however is if Jesus was one son among many or if there was something different about him.

It is true that ones like the centurion at the cross said that Jesus was the son of God, but what would this mean? For a Roman, it would not be monotheism, but at least the recognition that Jesus was a divine being. He was no ordinary man. His death and what happened would have shown that Jesus was to be seen as a king. If we take all the events as literal, that is fine. If we take them as apocalyptic, then that does not damage the belief that Jesus is seen as a king.

The Watchtower says that Jesus was seen as the Son of God and that there is only one God. They are correct, but the problem is they are assuming unipersonalism. God is one and the Father is God therefore the Father alone is God. If by one, it means one person, then they would be correct. They have not shown that this is what it means. For Jesus, it would mean that He is the Son of the Father, not the Son of Himself as some, including atheistic critics, would say.

The Watchtower tells us that Jesus is the mediator between God and men. They tell us that a mediator must be other than the parties they represent, so Jesus could not be God. Well if that's the case, then why should I believe that he can in fact be man? By that standard, Jesus could not have been a man to be our mediator. Of course, it could be that if they are consistent with their beliefs on Jesus being Michael, they will deny the humanity of Christ, however the text itself says that there is one mediator, the MAN Christ Jesus.

A Trinitarian however can say that the mediator between the Father and men is the man Jesus Christ. He can mediate because he is both God and man. There can be no better mediator. The Son can mediate because He is not sinful humanity, though He is human, and He is not the Father, though He has ontological equality with the Father.

Thus, is there a distinction between the Father and the Son in Scripture? Absolutely. That is essential for Trinitarianism. There is a distinction between Peter and Paul in Scripture, yet both are fully human. The Watchtower is just making the assumption of unipersonalism, probably the #1 mistake critics of the Trinity make.

We shall continue next time.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Jesus distinguished from God?

The link can be found here (http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/2011/03/08/jesus-distinguished-from-god/)

The text is as follows:

Welcome everyone to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. We're going to continue our study tonight of the Watchtower booklet "Should You Believe In The Trinity?" We're right now looking at the objections that the Watchtower raises and tonight we're going to discuss how the Watchtower says Jesus is distinguished from God.

The problem the Watchtower has is similar to one addressed earlier. The Watchtower does not realize that generally in New Testament usage, God was used to refer to the Father and Lord was used to refer to Jesus Christ. One could say that God is distinguished from the Lord in the New Testament, therefore God must not be the Lord. This is fallacious, but it's the same kind of argument that the Watchtower is presenting.

Thus, we do not expect to find Jesus referred to as God explicitly many times as that would have led to confusion. Why call two persons within the same sentence God? There are other ways to say that Jesus has ontological equality with the Father and I believe that those have been done. However, this is not the place for that as we are here simply examining the arguments the Watchtower puts forward.

The Watchtower states that Paul had no problem speaking of God and Jesus as separate and cites 1 Cor. 8:6. Indeed, this is the kind of example I am speaking about. By their standard, God is separate from the Lord and therefore God cannot be said to be the Lord.

What's more problematic however is the scholarly work of Richard Bauckham in "God Crucified" where he argues persuasively that what Paul is doing in a text like this is in fact Christianizing the great Shema of Israel. Lord and God were both referred to and Paul is making a strong statement of monotheism. If Bauckham is correct, and I think he is, then Paul is not arguing against Jesus being ontologically equal with God, but is rather going to great lengths to show that Jesus fits into the divine identity.

The Watchtower also gives us John 8:17-18 which has Jesus saying that he is one witness and the Father is another. How could this be unless they were two separate entities? The irony I find in this is that this is a passage that I regularly use when I argue against modalists and point to this passage to show that Jesus and the Father are two separate persons. Indeed, this is what Jesus says. He says his Father is one witness and He is another. He does not say God.

Finally, Mark 10:18 has the rich young ruler referring to Jesus as good teacher and Jesus says "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone." The Watchtower says Jesus is denying that He is as good as God. Where is the denial? Jesus is just stating that only God is truly good. He is not saying outright that he himself is. Note also that in the ancient world, one would not answer this question saying "Yep! You'd better say I'm good!" That would be seen as trying to claim honor unjustly for oneself. Jesus gave a humble answer and left it to the man to work out the implications.

Again, I am not convinced by anything the Watchtower has said so far. It's also worth noting that so far no Trinitarians have been cited in these arguments.

We shall continue later.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

God's Submissive Servant?

The link can be found here (http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/2011/03/09/gods-submissive-servant/)

The text is as follows:

Welcome everyone to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. We've been going through lately the Watchtower booklet of "Should You Believe In The Trinity?" Currently, the Watchtower in our study is presenting arguments against the Trinity. Tonight, we're going to look at the case of Jesus being God's submissive servant.

To begin with, it's important to note that a believer in the Trinity does believe that Jesus was a submissive servant to God. Thus, if the Watchtower wants to present this as evidence prima facie that Jesus is not ontologically equal to the Father, then it falls flat with just that statement. They do want to do a bit more as they want to show why that should be a problem for Trinitarianism. Let's see if it is.

We are given a verse like John 5:19 where Jesus says he only does what he sees the Father doing. The Watchtower presents verses like this as if it would be a problem. What do they expect we think they should say if Jesus was ontologically equal to God?

"I do what I want and if the Father doesn't want to do it, I do it anyway."

"I come to teach my doctrine. What the Father teaches does not have to agree."

"I did not come to do the will of my Father. I came to do my own will."

Each of these would be highly contrary statements to both the doctrine of the Watchtower and Trinitarianism. They are not a problem for us however, nor do I think in themselves they would be one for the Watchtower. Trinitarians have never had a problem with Jesus doing the will of the Father and submitting to that perfectly in every angle. That's what he was supposed to do in the life of a perfect man.

The Watchtower asks if the one who sends is superior to the one who is sent, but there is an equivocation here. When the centurion sends his servants to Jesus to ask him to come heal his sick servant, surely the centurion was superior to the servants, but in what way? Was the centurion superior in humanity or was he higher in rank? When a wife submits to her husband in a biblical way, is she doing so because she is inferior to her husband? (I would love to have a husband and wife couple use a superiority type argument like this and then get to ask the wife how inferior she is in humanity to her husband.)

The Watchtower assumes that lower in rank means lower in nature. That does not follow. The example that we have shown demonstrate that. Now to be fair, it could mean that. God is superior to the angels and the angels are described as servants. (Note that Jesus is also described as superior) That one has to submit to another is necessary to show superiority of essence, but it is not sufficient. Because there is submission, that does not prove that there is superiority of essence.

Because the followers of Jesus viewed him as God's submissive servant, it does not rule out their viewing him as deity.

We shall continue next time.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Is God always superior?

The link can be found here (http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/2011/03/10/god-superior-at-all-times/).

The text is as follows:


Welcome everyone to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. We're through the Watchtower booklet of "Should You Believe In The Trinity? "Right now, we're discussing the objections that the Watchtower raises. Tonight's will be similar to last night's, but there are some different objections.

The idea that the Watchtower wants to show is that God is superior at all times, yet once again they are making "The Father" synonymous with God. When God says "This is my Son, the beloved, whom I have approved" the Watchtower asks if God was saying that he was His Son, sent Himself, and approved Himself.

It's a shame any Christian would fall for such a statement. I hope readers of this blog are better informed and realize that the Watchtower has presented a straw man. Are we to think none of the Trinitarians in church history noticed that the Father sent the Son?

No. It's not that God the Father sent God the Father. God the Father sent God the Son. There is no contradiction there and as we pointed out yesterday, there is nothing about superiority since it does not effect ontology, the being that one is. What the Watchtower has done is actually give a fine argument against modalism. In doing so, they're ironically making a point Trinitarians WANT to be made.

Does the giving of authority indicate superiority? Not unless every time in human history a boss has promoted someone it's been because they are superior. Would Caesar be superior to a governor by ontology? Would the centurion would be superior to the soldiers that he sent to talk to Jesus? The Watchtower consistently confuses function with essence.

The Watchtower says that Jesus told the mother of James and John that to sit at his right and left belonged to his Father, that is, God. However, here the Watchtower makes clear their misrepresentation. They have equated God with the Father so that any time you make a case for Jesus being God, they think you are saying he is the Father. If you demonstrate that Jesus is not the Father then, for a follower of the Watchtower, you demonstrate that he is not God. This only works however if God is unipersonal, which the Watchtower has yet to demonstrate.

The Watchtower returns to their straw man with Jesus praying about the cross and asking if the cup could be removed. Was Jesus praying to himself or to part of himself? No. This is confusing Jesus with the Father and confusing Jesus with the entirety of the Trinity. No Trinitarian makes these kinds of arguments, yet here the Watchtower tries to present to people that they are giving an honest impression of the Trinity.

For the sake of argument, I and other Trinitarians could be entirely wrong on what we believe. We're not, but I could say that for the sake of argument, I'd grant that. That does not mean the criticisms of the Watchtower are true. You can have bad arguments against a false position. I'm not a believer in macroevolutionary theory at the moment for instance, but I know that there are bad arguments against it that should not be used. A lot of Christians use them thinking since they're arguing against a position they believe to be false, they're serving God. God is best served by good arguments, not bad ones. If you think your arguments are good, they should be enough to make the other side at least think their position is being fairly represented.

The Watchtower also says that if Jesus was God, then Habakkuk 1:12 is wrong as it says God does not die. However, did God die? No. The human being who happens to have the same ontological nature as God died. The deity did not die however. The Bible says that the highest heavens cannot contain God in 1 Kings 8, yet when we read in the Israel wanderings, we see that God dwelt in the tabernacle. Can a tabernacle contain God? Then if so, 1 Kings 8 is wrong.

No. God's presence was made manifest in areas like the tabernacle. God was not limited to that place however. It's interesting that the idea also of John 1:14 is that Jesus tabernacled among us. When Jesus died, God did not die. (In fact, the early church argued against the idea that the Father suffered throuuh Son on the cross.) The human Jesus died, but the Son as God never suffered. The death was also not a sham. He really was dead and he gave his life to God, to which God granted that life back in a new and glorified state.

What about miracles? It's not that Jesus did miracles, but how he did them. He claimed the finger of God at work in his miracles. He claimed to do them in his name. Elijah would not have gone around saying "In my name, I command you to be healed." Jesus did. Jesus saw his miracles as the direct act of God on Earth through his person in a unique way. He was God's presence on Earth bringing about what would be the new kingdom.

It's really sad to read argumentation like that of the Watchtower and sadder still that some Christians deconvert over it. We can do better. No one should deconvert over weak argumentation like this.

We shall continue next time.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Limited Knowledge?

The link can be found here (http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/2011/03/11/limited-knowledge/).

The text is as follows:


Welcome everyone to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. We've lately been looking at the Watchtower pamphlet of "Should You Believe In The Trinity?" Tonight, we're going to be studying the topic of Jesus's limited knowledge. This is a common objection and frankly, it is the first objection I can really see as one that can legitimately trouble some people. The rest fall on bad understanding, but this one does require more knowledge to it.

Why is it that Jesus did not know the day or hour of his return? What does it mean to say that Jesus learned obedience from what he suffered? Why is it that the revelation was given to Him? These are good questions and for an effective Christology, they need to be answered.

For Christians, the answer is that indeed, Jesus did not know some things. Why? Because he came as a human and as such, he took upon himself limitations. I believe that Jesus was only given knowledge that was absolutely essential to his mission. The knowledge of when he would come again in Matthew 24, however you interpret it, was not essential and frankly, we can be thankful in some ways I'm sure that he did not tell us.

Why did Jesus learn obedience? Jesus was a human for the first time and for the first time, he experienced what it means to obey God in the space-time continuum. Of course it would be something new. Jesus had to submit to the Father as a human and in doing so, he was being what we are all supposed to be.

Why was the revelation given to him? Again, Jesus was the servant and all the knowledge he had was coming from the source. Of course, I always like to take Witnesses to Revelation 19:12 where we are introduced to the man riding on the white horse, and there's no doubt it's Jesus. What are we told? He has a name that no one knows save he himself.

Ah. Are we to assume that God the Father does not know the name? If we interpret the verse the way Jehovah's Witnesses do, then yes.

The reality is that passages like these being used indicate that more than anything, we need to be developing our Christology more and more. The reason the Witnesses have such great success is not I believe so much because of what they are doing, although we should certainly wish to have their zeal for evangelism. The reason they have such success is because of a biblical illiteracy and this is largely on the part of Christians.

What do we do? Churches ought to be trainers of their people. No. Not everyone can be an apologist. The pastor should have a basic knowledge of apologetics but even he is not necessarily to specialize in that. However, he should know someone who he can refer to who will be there to help someone. Could it actually be that it would help if every church had a member on staff who was a trained apologist?

It just might.

We shall continue later.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Jesus Continues Subordinate?

The link can be found here (http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/2011/03/14/jesus-continues-subordinate/)

The text is as follows:


Welcome back everyone to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. It's been a really busy weekend so I apologize for not having any blogs up. I hope I can get enough breathing room tomorrow that I can really catch up on them. Anyway, I am continuing of course the study into the Watchtower and their booklet of "Should You Believe In The Trinity?" Tonight, we're going to look more at the topic of Jesus continuing subordinate.

The Watchtower asks how if Jesus had been God he could have been exalted to a higher place. It's really simple. In Philippians, Jesus had himself submitted to a lower place when he took on the form of a servant. Because he was righteous as a servant, he was given a throne from which to rule. His exaltation points to the exaltation that we will have later as we will share in the glory. The victory of Christ becomes our victory.

The Watchtower says that in Hebrews, we are told that Jesus appeared before God on our behalf. They ask that if you appear in someone's presence, how can you be that person? You cannot.

To which, every Trinitarian says, "Amen."

This is again the assumption of unipersonalism that the Watchtower makes. They assume that God is one person and then state, "Jesus appeared before God, therefore Jesus is not God because Jesus is distinct from the one person of God."

But if you just say "Jesus appeared before the Father", the problem disappears. This is exactly what we say as Trinitarians.

Then, Acts 7 is referred to where Stephen is said to see two individuals and no Holy Spirit.

Although I was wondering just how one was supposed to see a Spirit. I suppose since Elisha's servant couldn't see the angels until his eyes were opened, that meant that they weren't there.

Once again, I have no problem with Acts 7, although I wonder what the Watchtower will do with it since they also make a point about verses like John 1:18 that say that no one has ever seen God. Are they saying that Stephen literally saw God in his divine vision?

In Revelation, Jesus has to take the scroll from God, therefore, says the Watchtower, Jesus is not God.

Because we all know in centuries of Christian history no one ever noticed that part.

Or could it be that the Son was being displayed as one worthy and thus the action takes place that way. Keep in mind that this is apocalyptic literature. By the standards of the Watchtower, we can suppose that Jesus is literally a lamb based on how this happens. Note that in Revelation 5 at the end, all creation worships He who sits on the throne and the Lamb. The Lamb is not included in creation.

While the Watchtower quotes a source later, they do not state where in the source their information can be found. However, in it, I simply see the same mistakes we've already dealt with. The Watchtower is making the assumption of unipersonalism. The sad reality is that Christians are swayed by this.

Don't be one of them. Don't let your neighbor be one either.

We shall continue next time.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

What is the Holy Spirit?

The link can be found here (http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/2011/03/15/an-active-force/)

The text is as follows:

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. We've been going through the Watchtower booklet of "Should You Believe In The Trinity?" We're not covering that Jesus never claimed to be God as I believe that has been sufficiently dealt with. Instead, I plan to move on to covering the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. According to the Watchtower, the Spirit is not a person but is rather God's active force.

In Genesis 1:2, the Spirit of Jehovah is to be over the surface of the waters preparing the acts of creation. Granted, this could work fine with an active force, but it could also work fine with a personal "force." What the Watchtower will have to do is to both demonstrate that there is positive evidence in Scripture that the Spirit is non-personal, and also deal with all the positive evidence that the Spirit is personal.

The Watchtower also tells us that the Spirit came upon people as a form of enlightenment. Now that's not the term I'd use, but there is really no quibble here. It was often noted in the Old Testament when the Spirit came upon someone so that they were prepared to do something unusual for God.

This also includes the recording of Scripture which the Watchtower tells us. Orthodox Christians also agree that men wrote from God as they were guided by the Holy Spirit. The Spirit moved through each writer to bring about what God wanted us to have. Again, we have total agreement with this.

The Spirit we are told also led Jesus into the wilderness after baptism which is an important point. Because God is directing someone to go somewhere, that does not mean it's all going to be a bed of roses. The Spirit is not meant to be an antidote to suffering but a relief that one has in suffering.

The Watchtower fortunately also includes Psalm 139 but has an interesting take that God's Spirit can reach anywhere. At this, I would disagree since Witnesses I know do not agree with omnipresence. It's not that God can reach everywhere but that He is everywhere in the sense that He is the cause of the existence of every place.

We find the same thing when we get to the idea of power beyond normal which the Watchtower covers next. The Watchtower asks if a divine person entered Samson and caused him to defeat the lion. If they mean in the sense of possession as in demon possession, I would not think so. If they mean the Spirit gave some of His power to Samson in some sense, then yes. Just saying that the Holy Spirit caused Samson to do this does not argue against the personhood of the Spirit.

Do we have arguments against that? Yes we do. Those are in the next section however. This post is simply to lay down some groundwork. There are areas of agreement and it's good to bring that up with the Witnesses you know. It's where there are differences that the problems emerge, and we'll cover that tomorrow.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

More on the Spirit

The link can be found here (http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/2011/03/16/more-on-the-spirit/)

The text is as follows:

Welcome back everyone to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. Tonight, we're going to finish looking at the Holy Spirit. There's just three sections remaining and I'd like to tie them all in together. Our discussion is coming from the Watchtower's "Should You Believe In The Trinity?" Thus far, we have not found much in their arguments. Let's sum up the look they have of the Holy Spirit tonight.

To begin with, we are told the writers of the Old Testament never considered the Spirit a person. Okay. I'd be willing to grant that. So what? Their doctrine was developing. The writers of the Old Testament never conceived that a new set of books would come and be called the New Testament.

They also state that it is not unusual for something to be personified. In this, they are correct. However, that does not prove that personification is taking place in the case of the Spirit. Its not enough to say "Here are some examples of personification." What must be done is to demonstrate that the descriptions of the Spirit are personifications.

The Watchtower also tells us that in 1 John 5:6-8, the Spirit, water, and blood are said to be witnesses. Blood and water aren't persons, and thus, neither is the Spirit.

Very well.

In John 5, those that testify of Jesus are Jesus Himself, the Father, John the Baptist, the miracles Jesus was doing, and the Scriptures.

So which is it Watchtower? Are miracles and the Bible persons or are the Father, Son, and John the Baptist non-persons? There is no problem putting personal and non-personal sources together.

In actuality, 1 John 5 makes great sense. Water and blood could refer to Christ's human nature, a counter to gnostic tendencies, or they could point to the baptism and crucifixion, or they could just point to the crucifixion. The Spirit meanwhile is a witness for Gnostic teachers who were making much about "spiritual claims". John would be saying that the Spirit they have is sufficient to know Jesus came in the flesh.

What about language of filling which the Watchtower says would not be used if the Spirit was a person.

Then based on Ephesians 1:23 which says Christ fills all things and Ephesians 4:10 which says Christ fills the universe, Christ is not a person.

The idea of filling is most likely meant to convey the immediate presence of God in the life of a Christian through the Holy Spirit.

When we are told the Spirit speaks, that's said to be done through humans or angels. Unfortunately, a text like Acts 13 is not dealt with in this case and it would be interesting to see the Watchtower demonstrate that that was through humans or angels.

And in fact, even if it was, so what? God can speak through humans and/or angels. What conclusion can be drawn then about the Spirit speaking through humans or angels? None whatsoever.

In commenting on Matthew 28:19, the Watchtower states that name does not mean a personal name. We agree. They state it is more like we ask someone to stop in the name of the law. We also agree. Finally, they state that the Spirit is included to show that the Spirit is from God and acts by divine will. We also agree.

If we are to say that the Spirit is impersonal however, will we not say the same of the Son? Could it be all three have divine authority because all three are fully divine?

As for neuter pronouns being used for the Spirit, this is because the word for spirit is a neuter word. Too much is made of grammar in this case, but I suggest the reader seek out those skilled in Greek grammar on this point.

As for the final point, some references would be nice. However, any Catholic source would readily state that the Bible does teach the personality of the Spirit and the deity of the Spirit. Without references, one really cannot tell. Surely it cannot be that the Watchtower wants it that way....

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Three in One?

The link can be found here (http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/2011/03/18/three-in-one/)

The text is as follows:


Welcome back everyone to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. We've lately been going through the Watchtower booklet of "Should You Believe In The Trinity?" Now, we're finally going to start going to specific Trinitarian prooftexts that can be used to support the Trinity. Some I will find weaker than others. Some I would not even use. However, let's start with three in one passages the Watchtower brings up.

The verses are 2 Corinthians 13:13-14, 1 Corinthians 12:4-6, and Matthew 28:19. I would agree that these verses in themselves do not prove the Trinity. The Watchtower makes much about whether a verse explicitly states the Trinity. I do agree that there is no verse that explicitly states the Trinity. I do not see why that is a problem however and it is up to the Watchtower to convince me that that is what must be done for any doctrine.

Matthew 28 however I consider the most important of all of these. Note that the actions are to be done in the name, singular, of the three persons. It does not mean they all share the same name in the sense the Watchtower means of Tom, Dick, and Harry. It means that they all possess the same authority. Now how is it that the Son and Spirit possess the same authority as YHWH and that they can be subsumed under His name?

One would think that for an organization that makes much of knowing what the name of God is, that they would take this much more seriously.

The Watchtower also brings up the baptism of Jesus and says that this does not prove the Trinity. Again, I agree. The Watchtower keeps forgetting that the Trinity is a cumulative case. It is a building block of the Trinity. For the Trinity to be true, there must certainly be three persons.

Reading this kind of thinking makes me think of how I can read atheistic rebuttals to the five ways of Aquinas for instance that think it's something to say "But this argument does not prove that God is triune and possesses all the omni-attributes."

At that point I just want to say "It wasn't supposed to." Neither were these verses supposed to prove the Trinity, although it is interesting how many verses there are that have all three persons mentioned as interacting together. They do not prove the Trinity, but they certainly can support it. They are what we call a necessary but not a sufficient condition.

Finally, the Watchtower says that 1 John 5:7 was added in later. With that, I agree, and I think it's a shame when Christians want to jump straight to this verse to prove the Trinity. Even if you think it's valid, you have to get into a whole other argument just to get it to be accepted. There are better texts to go to and ones that do not depend on a questionable text.

I thus conclude that the Watchtower is simply making the mistake that the new atheists also make. It is an all-or-nothing game instead of realizing that there is a cumulative case to be made.

We shall continue next time.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

I And The Father Are One

The link can be found here (http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/2011/03/19/i-and-the-father-are-one-2/)

The text is as follows:


Welcome everyone to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth! We're still going through the Watchtower booklet "Should You Believe In The Trinity?" We are finally on the part where we are discussing biblical prooftexts and tonight, we are going to look at John 10:30.

The Watchtower takes us to John 17:21-22 in response where Jesus prays that his followers would be one with Him and the Father. Was he praying that they would be one entity? Since that is the case, then surely in the instance of John 10, he is not saying that he and the Father are one entity.

This could depend on what the Watchtower means by entity, which is simply unclear. They have consistently confused the idea of the Trinity saying that the Father and the Son are not the same person and since there is a difference between the two, the Trinity must be false, a position they should know is not Trinitarianism.

Now does being one sometime refer to something other than ontological oneness? Of course. However, how are the Father and Son one? They are of the same nature. They are of a nature of love and holiness. This would include a unity of purpose, but it would also go beyond such a unity.

How are the disciples to be one? Paul tells us in Philippians. We are to be of like mind. We should all be going forward with one pursuit. We can speak of a group of men acting as one man. In this, they are in union with one another and there is no division between them.

This nature is also holiness. We are to be holy because God is holy, as we are told numerous times in Leviticus. The Son shares that holiness and love with the Father by nature. We as the followers of Christ have that by adoption. It is granted to us by the gift of grace.

The Watchtower also tells us that Jesus immediately denied this charge. He did not. The Jews knew quite well what he was claiming so he answered them from their Scripture. It is a passage of Scripture that many Christians have not understood, but when it is understood, it turns out to be a powerful argument for the deity of Christ from this passage.

Jesus points to their Scripture which they claimed came from an infallible authority and says "Does it not say in there 'ye are gods.' " Now who is it that he's talking about? In this case, it's about wicked men, wicked men who I believe were the leaders of Israel at the time. These men who were evil nevertheless in their position of leadership had a functional role as gods.

If wicked men can be functionally gods to Israel, how much more then can Jesus, the one who is the Son of God, be ontologically equal to the God of Israel? After all, if the wicked can claim a title and it be true, then the righteous can claim it and it can be true to a greater extent.

The Jews knew this full well so they sought to stone him again.

Again, the Watchtower I do not believe has made their case strongly enough here. Yes. I realize John Calvin disagreed. Even if he was right, there are many other passages. However, in this case, I will stick with what most have said.

We shall continue next time.

[Cow Poke]

AP
I don't comment a lot here, but I DO read, and enjoy your work.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Thanks CP. It's good to know it's appreciated.

[Jedidiah]

By more than CP. Keep up the good work.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Thanks Jed and CP. Remember also that what is done here is made possible by support prayerfully and financially.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

I Am.

The link can be found here (http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/2011/03/20/i-am-2/)

The text is as follows:


Welcome back everyone to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. We've been going through the Watchtower booklet of "Should You Believe In The Trinity?" At the moment, we're looking at verses that the Watchtower says Trinitarians use to back the Trinity but that the Watchtower claims doesn't work.

This one starts at John 8:58 which should be recognizable as an allusion to Exodus 3:14. The Watchtower takes us back there however and cites the opinion. Interesting that the Watchtower goes back to one person who was writing about 50 years prior to the publication of this booklet. I'm not surprised. It seems the Watchtower method is to go through history, find one person who agrees with their view, and then shout out that they have confirmation.

You can find scholars however who will argue for nearly any position. I'm not against scholarship of course, but the reality is not that you believe something because scholars say it, but you need to know why the scholars say it. Of course, if many scholars say something and especially if it's a case of something that would not be advantageous to their position, there's good reason to affirm it.

The Watchtower tells us that some translate this as "I will be." Why? Well, don't ask such questions. You won't find an answer. The Watchtower thinks it's sufficient to show that one person agrees with them. It would be good of them to give the reason why their scholar is right and why everyone who disagrees with them is wrong.

When it comes to their justification of John 8:58, we have instead a long list of translations that do not translate it as "I AM." Well if that's the game that they're playing, all anyone needs to do is go to any Bible web site themselves and count out how many translations render the verse a certain way.

In fact, I have here (http://bible.cc/john/8-58.htm) just such a collection.

The Watchtower has five translations listed. I have more. Is it the case then that I automatically win the translation war? No. Instead, we'd want to look at the reasons why scholars do translate the verse the way that they do. However, there is just such a resource that does show the verse to be read as "I Am."

And that source happens to be from the Watchtower.

It's the Kingdom-Interlinear Translation. All you have to do is if you come across the rare JW who has this, just ask them to open it up to John 8:58 and read what it says on the side of the Greek. Lo and behold, they will read that it says "I am." In this case, who am I to argue with the Watchtower?

Do I have independent reasons for believing it's translated correctly traditionally? Yes. Jesus was not speaking about how old he was. He was speaking about existence. He was around before Abraham. He was around because He always was. What was the response of the crowd? They wanted to stone him. Was he claiming to be just older than Abraham? If so, they would have simply thought him a lunatic. No. The problem was not that the Jews misunderstood Jesus. They understood him entirely. He made a divine claim and they knew the response to that was stoning.

We shall continue next time.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

The Word Was God?

The link can be found here (http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/2011/03/21/the-word-was-god/)

The text is as follows:


Welcome everyone to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. Tonight, we're going to be continuing our look at the Watchtower booklet "Should You Believe In The Trinity?" Tonight, we're going to look at the rather lengthy section that they have on "The Word was God."

Those who know about the New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses know that they translate this as "The Word was a god." Of course, I think if they do take that seriously, then they are indeed polytheists, as has been said before. On the other hand, there is a sense I could allow the translation and I would still not have a problem. It could be valid to say Jesus is a god in the way that Wisdom would be considered divine.

The Watchtower makes it a point to say that if the Word was with another person, it cannot be that other person. They quote the Journal of Biblical Literature where Jesuit Joseph A. Fitzmyer says if the latter part were rendered "the God" it would contradict the preceding clause that says the Word was with God.

The reality however is that this is exactly what Trinitarians argue! We do argue that if it said "The God" then that would mean that it was saying that Jesus was the God he was with and that he and the Father would be identical in person. The Watchtower has taken what Trinitarians argue and replaced it with a straw man. It's a fine argument against modalism, but it does nothing to Trinitarianism.

The Watchtower then goes to a long list of translators that did not translate it the way most do today. Considering my response yesterday, things have not changed. A long list of English translations that agree does not justify that translation. It could still be wrong. Yes Watchtower. Thirty million Frenchmen can indeed be wrong. After all, I can show even more translations that say otherwise. That does not mean I win the translation war.

The Watchtower tells us that there's two uses of Theos in the text. The first refers to Almighty God, which is the start of the question-begging. For them, Almighty God is one person and thus if anyone is with Almighty God, then by definition, that person cannot be Almighty God.

Now it is true that there was no indefinite article in Greek, but that does not mean that every noun that does not have the definite article before it should have "a" before it. For instance, should we read John 1:6 as saying that a man was sent from "a god." In fact, John 1:1 says "In the beginning" but there is no definite article before "beginning."

The reasoning usually given by commentators is that John 1:1 is a predicate normative. There are two nouns in the normative case and when a case as this one described shows up, the second use of the word Theos would be to describe the nature of the subject under question. In other words, God can be predicated of the Word.

Again, there is nothing new here really and the Watchtower has a case that I daresay they would have a hard time finding a scholar of Greek who would defend it.

We shall continue next time.

[Petrus Caietanus]

gee, I am going to read a lot here..
:hehe:

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Hi Petrus. I hope you're enjoying the series and remember how much your support means to Deeper Waters.

[Brown Cat]

Just now caught up. When clearing out some subscribed threads, I inadvertently got this one as well. Thanks again for your teaching, AP.

[JohnOneOne]

New World Translation - John 1:1c - "and the Word was a god."

Regarding Jehovah's Witnesses' "New World Translation" Bible and its rendering of John 1:1, it may interest you to know that, in support and explanation of their wording of this verse (especially within the third clause with "a god"), there is soon to be published a 19+ year study (as of 3/2011), a thoroughly researched reference work - an historical analysis & exhaustive annotated bibliography - it will be entitled, "What About John 1:1?"

When finally published, apart from discussing many of the other topics and scriptures often related to the man-made Trinity doctrine, you will also discover that we have collected information on about 430+ scholarly reference works (mostly Trinitarian) which, throughout the centuries, had opted to say something other than, "and the Word was God," and that, included among them are over 120 which had chosen to use "a god" within the third clause of their renderings.

As you might expect, we are very excited at the opportunity to share our findings with others.

Agape, JohnOneOne.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Oh we'll be ready. I hope something is actually produced besides what the Watchtower already has. Say. Would you like to defend their horrible usage of reference materials?

[Cow Poke]

New World Translation - John 1:1c - "and the Word was a god."

Regarding Jehovah's Witnesses' "New World Translation" Bible and its rendering of John 1:1, it may interest you to know that, in support and explanation of their wording of this verse (especially within the third clause with "a god"), there is soon to be published a 19+ year study (as of 3/2011), a thoroughly researched reference work - an historical analysis & exhaustive annotated bibliography - it will be entitled, "What About John 1:1?"

When finally published, apart from discussing many of the other topics and scriptures often related to the man-made Trinity doctrine, you will also discover that we have collected information on about 430+ scholarly reference works (mostly Trinitarian) which, throughout the centuries, had opted to say something other than, "and the Word was God," and that, included among them are over 120 which had chosen to use "a god" within the third clause of their renderings.

As you might expect, we are very excited at the opportunity to share our findings with others.

Agape, JohnOneOne.

Perhaps they'll shed some light on Charles Russell's qualifications for translating Hebrew and Greek?

[OmniSkeptical]

Perhaps, "... a God became the Word. It became in a beginning with the God. Al things, with this, were....". The problem with atheism is not just them saying there is no god, but morely them declaring God does nothing. "The fanatic was saying in his head, 'A God becomes not there.' " In General, this is typical of all subtheists.

[Cow Poke]

Agape, JohnOneOne.

Just out of curiosity, JOO, is " Some Powerful Reasoning's About the Trinity, Not So Easily Dismissed (http://www.geocities.com/goodcompanionbooks/Some_Powerful_Reasonings.html) " the name of a book or something?

"Reasoning's" is possessive, not plural, and probably needs to be changed.

[OmniSkeptical]

Just out of curiosity, JOO, is " Some Powerful Reasoning's About the Trinity, Not So Easily Dismissed (http://www.geocities.com/goodcompanionbooks/Some_Powerful_Reasonings.html) " the name of a book or something?

"Reasoning's" is possessive, not plural, and probably needs to be changed.


It is also very poor english. Participles should never be made possesive by adding 's' instead 'of'.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

No Conflict

The link can be found here (http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/2011/03/23/no-conflict/)

The text is as follows:


Welcome back everyone to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. We're nearing the end of our look at the Watchtower booklet of "Should You Believe In The Trinity?" Tonight, we're going to go past the Colwell rule section as I believe those who are experts in Greek should speak there, but I am going to take on the next section called "No Conflict."

The Watchtower asks us that if Jesus is a god, does that disagree with the biblical idea that there is only one God? To them, not at all, for there is only one God Almighty. No one else is in that position.

This doesn't work however because few of the gods in the pagan systems that were polytheistic were considered Almighty. It was not the amount of power the gods had that was at issue. YHWH would not have said "You can believe in Molech just so long as you recognize that I am Almighty. No. YHWH shared his glory with no one. (Interesting that he shares it with Jesus.)

Were angels called gods in the Bible and is satan called a god? Yes. He is. Human rulers are said to be gods as well. What kind of gods are we talking about? We are talking about functional gods and not ontological gods. These beings functioned like they were gods in a sense, but they are not gods by their being.

The Watchtower asks if Jesus is to be called Almighty based on Isaiah 9:6. No. Jesus is a "Mighty god." (Do note also that YHWH must be the same since he's called that in Isaiah 10:21) In fact, I would place a great emphasis on Jesus being called Wonderful in Isaiah 9:6. That is the title the Angel of the Lord used of Himself in Judges 13 and the Angel of the Lord I would and have argued is ontologically equal to God and an appearance of the pre-incarnate son.

What about John 20:28? The Watchtower says some scholars think Thomas could have been making an exclamation of astonishment. Who are these scholars? I could tell you if the Watchtower had told us. However, while today we may say "My God" when something happens incredible, the Jews were not nearly so flippant. What Thomas said was "The Lord of me and the God of me" and it was said to Jesus in response to Jesus's words to him.

But the Watchtower says this can't be what was meant since John 17:3 says otherwise, which I think is their favorite verse. Again, this isn't a problem. Jesus is subsumed under the identity of the one true God by being God's Wisdom. It fits in just fine with Jewish thinking.

What about John 20:17 where Jesus says "my Father and your Father and my God and your God." Note that he does not say "Our." Jesus has his relationship by nature but we have it by adoption. Are we to think Jesus was an atheist however? Not at all. Seeing as he submitted to the Father, what is the conflict in having Him say the Father is God?

Finally, we are told that these were written so that we might know that Jesus is the Son of God, and I agree, but then we are told Son is literal. It is the same as a natural father and son.

Because I know several natural relationships that come about from a virgin birth with a son having pre-existence....

We shall continue next time.

[Petrus Caietanus]

Hi Petrus. I hope you're enjoying the series and remember how much your support means to Deeper Waters.

:yes:
I am
and I will pray since I can't "pay."
:hehe:

[Petrus Caietanus]

Hi Petrus. I hope you're enjoying the series and remember how much your support means to Deeper Waters.

:yes:

I'll be praying for it.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Conclusion

The link can be found here (http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/2011/03/24/should-you-believe-in-the-trinity-conclusion/)

The text is as follows:


Welcome back everyone to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. We've been going through the Watchtower booklet of "Should You Believe In The Trinity?" and tonight, we're going to wrap things up as it looks like the Watchtower has and the arguments are all done. I don't plan to cover new information tonight, but rather to just bring closure to what I hope has been for you an enjoyable and educational series.

First off, I could grant for the sake of argument that the Trinity is false. Granting that, this booklet is still a terrible booklet. Why is that? There is no interaction with Christian arguments. Christians are cited for disagreement more than anything else. We must always remember to beware the sound of one-hand clapping.

There is also the problem then of just referencing period. The Watchtower does not tell me where I am to find the information that they provide. That makes it very hard to track down which I think is the point. Who wants people tracking down this material to see how badly it's being misquoted. I specifically suggest the reader look back to specific instances where it can be shown that misquoting and taking out of context is taking place.

This is interesting considering that credits are given even for the artwork....

Second, the argumentation just doesn't follow. Often times, the Watchtower confuses the Trinity with modalism, such as the claim that Jesus cannot be the same person as the Father. Trinitarians agree with that. The sad reality is that the reason this works on Christians a lot of times is that the Christians have not been doing their homework on the Trinity and that is because of a lazy anti-intellectualism that has grown in the church. Just worship Jesus. What matters is how you feel. Don't think about stuff. Avoid doctrine.

Third, this is a call to the church to do better. It's been said that the average JW can turn the average Christian into a doctrinal pretzel in 90 seconds or less, and that's because JWs do study more than Christians do. Now I'll grant that it's more indoctrination on their part than it is study, but they are taking their beliefs a lot more seriously than most Christians do.

We Christians need to realize that the Trinity is not just a doctrine that we say we believe and use to beat up Jehovah's Witnesses. It is foundational to us. It should provide life and joy to us. We should be in utter awe of the doctrine of the Trinity and realize the rich depths it has. I urge you to read not only about defending the Trinity, but realizing the difference that the Trinity makes.

Thus, I conclude my long project of looking at this booklet and I do hope that it has been of service. If someone uses some of this material and wins a Witness to Christ, I would absolutely love to hear about it. If it helps you also, keep in mind we are supported here by your prayers and donations. I hope you will do the former and consider at least the latter.

Tomorrow, we shall discuss something different.

[JohnOneOne]

Reply to comment by CP:

I don't believe Russell was ever a translator of either Hebrew or Greek.

Agape, JohnOneOne.

[JohnOneOne]

Just out of curiosity, JOO, is " Some Powerful Reasoning's About the Trinity, Not So Easily Dismissed (http://www.geocities.com/goodcompanionbooks/Some_Powerful_Reasonings.html) " the name of a book or something?

"Reasoning's" is possessive, not plural, and probably needs to be changed.


Thank you,...change has been made.

[JohnOneOne]

Just out of curiosity, JOO, is " Some Powerful Reasoning's About the Trinity, Not So Easily Dismissed (http://www.geocities.com/goodcompanionbooks/Some_Powerful_Reasonings.html) " the name of a book or something?

"Reasoning's" is possessive, not plural, and probably needs to be changed.


"Some Powerful Reasonings..." is just the name of a weblink,
although the forthcoming book does contain a section under that heading,
with other quotes as well.

Also, thanks much for the heads-up on the spelling,...correction has been made.

Agape, JohnOneOne.

[JohnOneOne]

It is also very poor english. Participles should never be made possesive by adding 's' instead 'of'.

Thank you for this,....correction has been made.

Agape, JohnOneOne.

[JohnOneOne]

....I hope something is actually produced besides what the Watchtower already has.....

When you examine the Good Companion Books (http://www.goodcompanionbooks.com) website, you will find a full explanation of what this work will contain.

Relative to the forthcoming work, "What About John 1:1?", if there is some missing information which you would like to know, just write your inquiry to me at
john1one@earthlink.net and I'll do my best to provide an answer.

Agape, JohnOneOne.

[Jedidiah]

John, the link no longer works. What do you have that is new?

[JohnOneOne]

John, the link no longer works. What do you have that is new?


Thanks for the notification of the problem.

I've updated all links, they should all be working now.

Agape, JohnOneOne

[Jedidiah]

Thanks for the notification of the problem.

I've updated all links, they should all be working now.

Agape, JohnOneOne

Actually the "Powerful Reasonings" site is what is this. http://goodcompanionbooks.com/Some_Powerful_Reasonings.htm

I did not finish reading it, as it seems to be pretty much the same sort of thing I have read many times before.

[Cow Poke]

Actually the "Powerful Reasonings" site is what is this. http://goodcompanionbooks.com/Some_Powerful_Reasonings.htm

I did not finish reading it, as it seems to be pretty much the same sort of thing I have read many times before.

Same ol' soup warmed over, Jed? Without the bacon?

[Jedidiah]

As I look at my post, it seems a little disrespectful. It was not so intended. My parents are JW and I have read and studied quite a lot about them. You have to go a long way to get something new for me on Jehovah's Witnesses.

[Cow Poke]

How are the bees, Jed?

[Jedidiah]

I will be getting them in a couple weeks. I did not try to winter any bees this year. I am going to try some new queens from cold northern states.

[Cow Poke]

I find that fascinating -- I never would have thought about bee colonies in Alaska.