Posts by Amazing1914

86

The Earliest Trinity Statements

by Amazing1914 in

jw
friends

[note: i am not promoting a religion, a church system, nor a set of beliefs.

i am merely reporting history as i find it.

the early, ante-nicene church fathers spent much time fighting heresies.

Amazing1914

Shazard,

... but may be there is full table/list of broshure quotes and their original contexts, references!

I don't know of any table or list. However, what I have done in my paper is to expose misquotes, or better stated, invented quotes, that the Watchtower made of the early Church Fathers. I will be posting it down the road, after I complete it and get peer review comments.

What I will say right now, is that the Society never actually quoted the early Church Fathers in the Trinity brochure, but rather, quoted an anti-trinitarian book author's opinion of what the early Church Fathers meant. They made their quotes in a way that strongly implies that they took them directly from the Church Fathers. The Society had to do this because there is absolutely no support for any of their doctrine in the early Church writings. This is why the Society never actually cites the actual reference their supposed quotes were taken. They had to conceal the source in order to make their point appear valid. Unfortunately, Jehovah's Witnesses eat this stuff up that the Society spews forth, but they never seem interested in really checking out what was written.

Jim Whitney

86

The Earliest Trinity Statements

by Amazing1914 in

jw
friends

[note: i am not promoting a religion, a church system, nor a set of beliefs.

i am merely reporting history as i find it.

the early, ante-nicene church fathers spent much time fighting heresies.

Amazing1914

Mary,

While I believe that Jesus was a good person and (possibly) the Messiah, I don't believe that he was "God" and I doubt that he ever actually told his followers that he was. I think that after he died, his followers deified him and as time went by, pretty soon they had him being God Himself. 150 AD is 120 years after Jesus died. Alot of things, opinions and reality can change in 120 years.

Mary, In my previous post on the term "Catholic Church" you also commented that the early Chirtsians would have been more like Jews in their practices.

The purpose of this post was not to presume what Jesus was or is. However, Jesus is called God in the Bible. He pissed off the Jews with his own claims. So, Jesus is responsible for what is taught about him at this very early stage of the religion. However, your thoughts that all that much could change by 150 AD is erroneous: Consider these important issues:

1. The Apostle John did not die until about the year 100. Clearly, he would have helped keep a lid on very many changes. By this time, many early Church Fathers were already writing many of their own letters, and nothing in them suggests anything like what the Watchtower believes. They believed that the Holy Spirit was a person, and in Jesus divinity.

2. The very first diciples of the Apostles, such as St. Ignatius, St. Polycarp, and their first students, such as St. Irenaeus, St. Clement, and many others, began almost right away teaching in Jesus divinity, and the person of the Holy Spirit. They also had to teach Jesus humanity, because the Gnostics, as Jeff said, tried to say that Jesus was never human.

3. People of the Mddle East have long memories, unlike the fast-paced 20th century where we are changing as fast as the whether. So, they were very slow to change. This is why the Catholic religion lasted for over 1000 years beforce the first schism.

4. What I meant by the modern Roman and Orthodox resembling the early Christians is just that, resemble. Of course the very first Christians were more like Jews, since they were also Jews. As Gentiles (mostly Greeks at first) entered the Church during the Apostles Peter and Paul's time, it makes sense that some changes would take place ... as testified to in the book of Acts. But, much of the ritual and liturgy of Judaism stayed with the Church for a long time. Some of this is still identifiable today in the Roman and Orthodox churches.

Blueblades,

I would enjoy the book you mention. Is it available in retail bookstores? Thanks.

Jeff,

At the Council of Nicea, the Bishops overwhelmingly condemned the Arians and identified the understanding that Jesus is almighty God as the teachings of the Apostles. The vote was not even close.

Oddly enough, at the time there were about 3,000 bishops invited from all over Europe and Asia Minor, Egypt, etc. The dispute was largely confined in the Eastern Church, which was annoying Constantine. Only about 320 Bishops showed up, mostly from the Eastern churches. There were more pro-Arian bishops around, but they did not show. Then, the famous vote was over 300 for the Trinity and 2 in favor of the Arian concept.

What many JWs never knew is that Arian still believed in the person of the Holy Spirit, and in sometype of divinity for Jesus. The whole debate at Nicea was really not over the Trinity, but over how it was to be defined. It was a word-smithing argument. However, the majority of bishops did not like Arian's terms because they knew it would allow for his concept that Jesus was a created being. This notion so offended the majority of bishops, that they finally decided on a definition that would preclude Arian's concepts in any form. What I found most revealing is how their final draft of the Trinity matched so closely what had been taught since the time of Christ.

XBEHERE,

Thanks. Yes, my next post will show some of the ways in which the Society was dishonest in their Trinity brochure. I recall when this brochure was released, it was touted as the wave of the future to combat apostates. Yet, it is so bad, that they would have been better off writing comical fiction.

Thanks, Jim Whitney

21

When your door bell rings, do you still think it might be the elders?

by JH in

jw
friends

.

i live in an apartment building, and i just heard the door bells ringing here and there, which automatically made me think that it could be the jw's.... when someone is at the door here, knocking or ringing, i'm always fearful that it will be them....

Amazing1914

I have been out of the organization since April 1992. The JWs no longer stop at my door. In fact, I never see them in my neighborhood. When the doorbell rings, it is usually a local politician during election time, college kids selling books, or contractors wanting to to do something to the property. Even the Avon lady does not come around.

Jim

86

The Earliest Trinity Statements

by Amazing1914 in

jw
friends

[note: i am not promoting a religion, a church system, nor a set of beliefs.

i am merely reporting history as i find it.

the early, ante-nicene church fathers spent much time fighting heresies.

Amazing1914

Lovelylil,

My paper will have a number of scriptures, but is focused on the person of the Holy Spirit. Although, I will deal somewhat with the divinity of Jesus and the Trinity as a necessary consequence of the paper.

I have a ton of material, which could be made into a book. But, I don't want to go that far right now. However, I suppose that I can next post some more on the Holy Spirit. Some of it will be scripture, and some of it can be some grammar errors, and some of it logical errors made by the WTS.

Some examples of Watchtower folly: The claim of "personification" by the Society to explain away the pronouns "He, Him, or His" with reference to the Holy Spirit are without any basis. Personification is rarely used outside the poetic books of the Bible. Also, it is unlikely that all of the Christian Bible writers would have employed this writing style suddenly when it came to the Holy Spirit. In an attempt to cover its rear, the Society also claims that the pronouns "He, Him, and His" are used for grammatical agreement. However, since Holy Spirit is a neuter term, then Greek grammar would require neuter pronouns, like "It." The Society had to use such deception because they had to attack the person of the Holy Spirit as not even being a person. Even Arius of the "Arian heresy fame" did not stoop to depersonalizing the Holy Spirit.

Inquirer,

Hmmm, still no quote before 150 AD that there is a belief in the trinity. :) ... Even if there was people believing in the trinity in the first century, Paul was aware of people preaching "another Jesus." :(

Your assertion that there is no quote before 150 AD is meaningless. All of the evidence throughout the Christian world, from Rome to Alexandria, Egypt, throughout Asia Minor show that the early Father fought against heresies that attacked the divinity of Jesus ... not the other way around. There is no evidence of any Ante-Nicene Father preaching anything that resembles the Arian heresy or anything that resembles Watchtower nonsense about Jesus nature. The Trinity was well understood prior to 150 AD, but the term "Trinity" was not yet coined. Much the same as the term "Theocratic" was not around. It is nothing more than a functional term. The early Fathers dealt with both the economic Trinity and the Ontological Trinity. Yet, the Watchtower cleverly sidesteps this distinction and they focus only on the Council of Nicea in 325 AD. Every wonder why?

Jim Whitney

86

The Earliest Trinity Statements

by Amazing1914 in

jw
friends

[note: i am not promoting a religion, a church system, nor a set of beliefs.

i am merely reporting history as i find it.

the early, ante-nicene church fathers spent much time fighting heresies.

Amazing1914

[Note: I am not promoting a religion, a church system, nor a set of beliefs. I am merely reporting history as I find it.] The early, Ante-Nicene Church Fathers spent much time fighting heresies. Their writings are recognized by all Christian denominations. Even the Watchtower Society accepts them, but they dishonestly do not quote the portions which hurt their non-Trinitarian doctrine. Later on I will post material which shows how the Watchtower Trinity brochure, "Should You Believe in the Trinity?" used deception and dishonest practices. Year 150 AD, Polycarp of Smyrna, a student of the Apostle John said this regarding the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit: "I praise you for all things, I bless you, I glorify you, along with the everlasting and heavenly Jesus Christ, your beloved Son, with whom, to you and the Holy Spirit, be glory both now and to all coming ages. Amen" (Martyrdom of Polycarp 14). It is fascinating to note how Polycarp is glorifying Jesus (who he says is everlasting) along with the Father, and the Holy Spirit. Though the word "Trinity" was not used, clearly, Polycarp, as a first generation Christian appears to believe in the concept. Year 160 AD, Mathetes "[The Father] sent the Word that he might be manifested to the world . . . This is he who was from the beginning, who appeared as if new, and was found old . . . This is he who, being from everlasting, is today called the Son" (Letter to Diognetus 11). Mathetes, like Polycarp, declares Jesus to be "from everlasting" an expression that means he has no beginning, and thus part of God. Year 170 AD, Tatian the Syrian "We are not playing the fool, you Greeks, nor do we talk nonsense, when we report that God was born in the form of a man" (Address to the Greeks 21). Year 177 AD, Melito of Sardis "It is no way necessary in dealing with persons of intelligence to adduce the actions of Christ after his baptism as proof that his soul and his body, his human nature, were like ours, real and not phantasmal. The activities of Christ after his baptism, and especially his miracles, gave indication and assurance to the world of the deity hidden in his flesh. Being God and likewise perfect man, he gave positive indications of his two natures: of his deity, by the miracles during the three years following after his baptism, of his humanity, in the thirty years which came before his baptism, during which, by reason of his condition according to the flesh, he concealed the signs of his deity, although he was the true God existing before the ages" (Fragment in Anastasius of Sinai's The Guide 13). Year 180 AD, Irenaeus, student of Polycarp: "His own hands. For with Him were always present the Word and Wisdom, the Son and the Spirit, by whom and in whom, freely and spontaneously, He made all things, to whom also He speaks, saying, "Let Us make man after Our image and likeness; " [Gen. 1:26]" (Against Heresies 4:20:1). Note: So, now we see the "Spirit" introduced as always with God as is Jesus. The Fathers mostly dealt with Jesus divinity because he was the most attacked by various heresies. Year 180 AD, Irenaeus "Proofs From The Apostolic Writings, That Jesus Christ Was One And The Same, The Only Begotten Son Of God, Perfect God And Perfect Man ." (Against Heresies, Book III, ch. 16, Chapter Title) Now, we have St. Clement of Alexandria. He was Bishop of the Church founded by the Bible writer, St. Mark. St. Clement was a contemporary of Irenaeus, specifically detailed the Trinity formula, and used the word Trinity in the year 190 AD. This predates the Council of Nicea by 135 years, and is only about 90 years after the Apostle John and St. Ignatius death. This is hardly enough time for a false doctrine to take over the early church. Year 190 AD, Clement Of Alexandria [note: Clement NEVER calls Jesus a creature.] "There was then, a Word importing an unbeginning eternity; as also the Word itself, that is, the Son of God, who being, by equality of substance, one with the Father, is eternal and uncreated." (Fragments, Part I, section III) Year 190 AD, Clement Of Alexandria "I understand nothing else than the Holy Trinity to be meant; for the third is the Holy Spirit, and the Son is the second, by whom all things were made according to the will of the Father." (Stromata, Book V, ch. 14) Year 190 AD, Clement Of Alexandria "When [John] says: 'What was from the beginning [1 John 1:1],' he touches upon the generation without beginning of the Son, who is co-equal with the Father. 'Was,' therefore, is indicative of an eternity without a beginning, just as the Word Himself, that is the Son, being one with the Father in regard to equality of substance, is eternal and uncreated. That the word always existed is signified by the saying: 'In the beginning was the Word' [John 1:1]." (fragment in Eusebius History, Bk 6 Ch 14; Jurgens, p. 188) Then there is St. Justin Martyr, who likewise detailed the divinity of Jesus in no uncertain terms in his fight against heresies, as most all the early Church Fathers did. I have literally dozens of cases where he was explicitly clear, and like St. Irenaeus and others spoke of the Holy Spirit as a person. The historical evidence is that the early Christians believed in what we would call the Trinity, and it was non-Trinitarian forces that were constantly developing weird new ideas to influence the Church, but they all eventually failed. Again, this clear teaching being taught by 170 to 190 AD is too soon after the death of the Apostle John and the first disiples, such as St. Ignatius, St. Polycarp, and St. Irenaeus, for a generalized apostasy to have allowed such a doctrine to be fully developed. It seems to me that the Watchtower Society got yet another one wrong again. Jim Whitney

51

First mention of the Catholic Church

by Amazing1914 in

jw
friends

as i am completing a paper for brci, i found something quite interesting.

the very first mention of the "catholic church" was made in the year 107, in st. ignatius letter to the smyrnaeans.

st. ignatius was bishop of antioch for forty-years, being appointed by the apostle peter.

Amazing1914

Sheepish,

The New Testament Bible, as we know it, did not exist for the first 400 years of church history. All they had was tradition, word of mouth, some copies of letters and Hebrew schrolls if they attended Synagogue.

Since Ignatius was so close to the Apostle John, being his direct student, I find it rather fascinating that he would make such statements.

Also, it is rather interesting that he uses the term "Catholic Church" in the same terminology. Yes, everyone knows that the term "catholic" means universal. However, to associate that term with a specific "church" gave it a new flavor for me.

Thanks, Jim W.

51

First mention of the Catholic Church

by Amazing1914 in

jw
friends

as i am completing a paper for brci, i found something quite interesting.

the very first mention of the "catholic church" was made in the year 107, in st. ignatius letter to the smyrnaeans.

st. ignatius was bishop of antioch for forty-years, being appointed by the apostle peter.

Amazing1914

Lovelil,

I really think you know what I meant by Sound. And I meant how people can take it or read it. That is obvious by my post. I did not need any lesson on words. But thanks anyway. There really is no need to try to be more superior to others just becuase you feel you are very well educated. Many others on this forum have expressed their opinion without resorted to trying to put others down. But if you need to feel superior than so be it. I think this will be my last comment under this post because frankly, I have moved on to more interesting matters. Lilly

When people say how someone "sounds" in written form it is because they have formed a "sound" in their own mind. They also mean to say how a person is to be "taken." Often, both are the case. We all do it. However, again, nothing in my posts "sounded" or shold be "taken" in any manner other than what I posted. All other interpretations are incorrect.

I am not trying to be more "superior" as this again requires tone of voice, body langaige, and mannerisms. My point, which I have included myself if you read carefully, is that not everyone reads carefully. Some are not educated. There are things we are all not educated on.

No you are not moving on to more interesting matters ... as you have decided how I feel, and you overlay your own emotions. So, you are tyring to show that youi are pissed off. If you weren't interested you would not have commented in the first place. And if you had a valid point about my "intentions" you would have been able to "quote" what I said that supported your position. You did not because you cannot. And rather than admit an error, you want to downplay the "interest" of this thread.

I frankly have no emotional investment in this or any topic, nor any reason to want to "sound" superior, or to prove anything. I merely wanted to make a point about some early church history. All other claims are just that, someone's claim of what they think my emotions or motives are all about.

Thanks, Jim

51

First mention of the Catholic Church

by Amazing1914 in

jw
friends

as i am completing a paper for brci, i found something quite interesting.

the very first mention of the "catholic church" was made in the year 107, in st. ignatius letter to the smyrnaeans.

st. ignatius was bishop of antioch for forty-years, being appointed by the apostle peter.

Amazing1914

Lovelylil,

We all can read but words are very powerful and I don't think you realize how your words sound to others sometimes.

Written words have no sound, and cannot emit any emotional meaning or body language. Nothing in my statements have been highlighted to impute any "sound" or meaning, other than generalized claims which have no basis in fact. When we read, we automatically overlay our own emotions and assign meaning. Yes, words are powerful, but careful reading and education help prevent errors in how we react to them. My observation in many years on these forums is that there is a large segment who react with poor reading skills, poor education, and poor knowledge of history. I have been guilty of historical errors myself. [For example: Can you tell right now what emotions I have in making this response to you? Am I angry, pensive, insulted, happy, good mood, elated, or in a humorous mode?]

Power of a word: The purpose of this post was to highlight a historical fact that the term "catholic church" was coined and used by a student of the Apostle John. That is all. I made nothing more of it, other than to comment on how the modern Catholic and Orthodox (primarily Orthodox) resemble the historic church. The word "resemble" should have been enough to clue to any reader that I never intended to give support to all that is done in the Roman or Orthodox churches. Though, I am not in angst over all their traditions either, as I think much of it for Protestants (JWs included) is a false dilema.

Thanks for your comments,

Jim Whitney

51

First mention of the Catholic Church

by Amazing1914 in

jw
friends

as i am completing a paper for brci, i found something quite interesting.

the very first mention of the "catholic church" was made in the year 107, in st. ignatius letter to the smyrnaeans.

st. ignatius was bishop of antioch for forty-years, being appointed by the apostle peter.

Amazing1914

Evidently, quite a few do not read well, nor have a good understanding of history.

1. I never said one word about the Catholic Church being the true church. I merely noted that the first mention of the term was by St. Ignatius in the year 107. Of course it was a very different "church" than the Roman Catholic is today. So is about everything in life different than it was 2,000 years ago.

2. Yes, the word "Catholic" means universal, but it is a word not unique to Rome, but first used in 107. However, it is not a newer term, as some may believe it more associated with the council of Nicea in 325.

3. I never stated that the Roman Catholic Church is/was just like the early church. Rather, I suggested that there are several modern churches that resemble some of the basic teachings of the early church, such as that found in the Apostles Creed.

4. Of all the modern churches, I never stated that the Roman Catholic Church most closely resembled the early church, but rather Eastern Orthodox, of which most westerners are terribly ignorant. Much of what is mentioned about Rome is not practiced by the east.

5. I did not post this history to get into a debate over the Roman Catholic Church, but to lay a foundation to show how the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society has greatly misled people about Christian history.

6. While I affiliate with the Greek Orthodox, I am not a member of any religion or church. However, if I end up being a member of the Greek Orthodox, I have no desire to come onto JWD and pump pro-Orthodox information to try and convert anyone. My only desire would be to clear up misconceptions.

7. Lastly, according to what Lovelylil stated, "I am with Poodlehead thought that it seems you are saying in this thread that the Catholic Church is the closet to early Christianity."

Please go back and read all my earlier posts on this thread and you will see that is not the case. Then, if you are still not certain, please read what I just wrote above in items 1 thru 6.

Thanks, Jim Whitney

51

First mention of the Catholic Church

by Amazing1914 in

jw
friends

as i am completing a paper for brci, i found something quite interesting.

the very first mention of the "catholic church" was made in the year 107, in st. ignatius letter to the smyrnaeans.

st. ignatius was bishop of antioch for forty-years, being appointed by the apostle peter.

Amazing1914

Jeff,

Also, one must remember that the Church came prior to the Bible.

Amen - by about 400 years. You have an e-mail from me trough James C's group. I plan on posting the same on your talk group.

Mustang, I look forward to talking to you. I knew you were busy, and have hoped you would pop out sometime. I will send you an e-mail tomorrow.

Thanks, Jim Whitney