Posts by aqwsed12345

171

Alteration of Revelation 3:14 in the 4th century to support the emerging Trinity doctrine

by slimboyfat in

in an earlier thread another poster asserted that there is no evidence that revelation 3:14 played a part in the 4th controversy that led to the trinity doctrine.

this was claimed as evidence that the description of jesus as “the beginning of the creation of god” in the verse was not understood to mean that jesus was god’s first creation.

the scholarly greek–english lexicon of the new testament & other early christian literature 3e (2001) by bauer, arndt, gingrich, and danker, in its latest edition states that “first creation” is indeed the probable meaning of the greek phrase.

aqwsed12345

The Watchtower Society's interpretation of Colossians 1:15-20 relies on several problematic assumptions about the Greek text, context, and theology of the passage. Below is a detailed refutation of their key points, focusing on linguistic, contextual, and theological inaccuracies.

1. The Translation of “All Things” and the Addition of “Other”

JW Claim:

The inclusion of "other" in Colossians 1:16-17 is justified because the Greek word panta (all things) can contextually mean "all other things," as shown in various New Testament examples.

Refutation:

While it is true that pas/panta *can* sometimes imply "all kinds of" or "all other," this meaning is determined entirely by context. In Colossians 1:16-17, there is no contextual justification for inserting "other" because the phrase explicitly includes “heavenly and earthly things, visible and invisible,” leaving no room for Christ to be categorized as a part of creation. The text states that "all things" (ta panta) were created through Him (di’ autou) and for Him (eis auton), which positions Christ as the Creator, not part of creation.

Jehovah’s Witnesses assume that Jesus is part of creation and then insert "other" to make the text conform to their theology. This is circular reasoning and unsupported by the Greek text itself. If “other” were truly part of the Greek nuance, why is it absent in virtually all Bible translations aside from the NWT?

Even though the NWT uses brackets around "other" to acknowledge its interpolation, the inclusion reflects theological bias rather than linguistic necessity. Major translations avoid this because the context does not demand it. Greek scholars (e.g., A.T. Robertson, Daniel Wallace) affirm that pas in Colossians 1 refers to the entirety of creation apart from Christ.

2. The Meaning of “Firstborn” (Πρωτότοκος) in Colossians 1:15

JW Claim:

The term "firstborn" (prōtotokos) indicates that Christ is part of creation, as the "first-created being."

Refutation:

The term prōtotokos does not mean "first-created" (prōtoktistos). The absence of prōtoktistos is significant because Paul could have used it if he intended to convey that meaning. Prōtotokos emphasizes preeminence and supremacy, not temporal sequence. This is evident in other biblical usages. Psalm 89:27: David is called the "firstborn," even though he was the youngest son of Jesse. The term signifies rank and authority, not chronology. Exodus 4:22: Israel is called God’s "firstborn," denoting their chosen status among nations, not their literal birth order.

The subsequent verses clarify the meaning of prōtotokos. Verse 16 states, "By Him all things were created," emphasizing Christ's role as Creator. Verse 17 declares, "He is before all things," reinforcing His eternal preexistence and supremacy over creation. The genitive construction ("of all creation") is best understood as a genitive of subordination, meaning Christ is supreme over all creation, not part of it.

3. The Use of “Beginning” (Ἀρχή) in Revelation 3:14

JW Claim:

The term "arche" in Revelation 3:14 means "beginning" in the sense of the first created being, not "source" or "origin."

Refutation:

Arche has a broad semantic range, including "beginning," "origin," "ruler," or "source." Context determines its specific meaning. In Revelation 3:14, "the beginning of God’s creation" (hē archē tēs ktiseōs tou Theou) is better translated as "the source of God’s creation." This interpretation aligns with Colossians 1:16, where Christ is depicted as the Creator.

The consistent New Testament portrayal of Christ as the Creator (e.g., John 1:3, Colossians 1:16-17, Hebrews 1:2) contradicts the idea that He is part of creation. Revelation 3:14 must be interpreted in harmony with these texts, making "origin" or "source" the most contextually appropriate meaning.

4. Jesus as Mediator in Creation

JW Claim:

Christ is the "intermediate agent" of creation, while God the Father is the ultimate Creator.

Refutation:

The use of dia (through) with the genitive case does not imply that Christ is merely an intermediary. It often denotes the active agency of a person involved in the action. In Colossians 1:16, the phrase "all things were created through Him" (di’ autou) emphasizes Christ's active role as Creator, not a passive instrument.

While God the Father is the ultimate source of creation (1 Corinthians 8:6), Christ is described as the agent through whom all things were made. This does not diminish Christ’s divinity but underscores the cooperative work of the Trinity in creation.

By relegating Christ to the role of a subordinate or created being, the JW interpretation undermines the biblical witness to His divinity (John 1:1, John 20:28, Philippians 2:6). The New Testament consistently presents Christ as coequal with the Father, sharing in the divine essence.

5. The Role of Context in Interpreting “All Things” (Τὰ Πάντα)

JW Claim:

The phrase ta panta ("all things") in Colossians 1:16-17 can mean "all other things," allowing for Jesus to be included in creation.

Refutation:

Colossians 1:16 explicitly states, "For in Him all things were created…all things have been created through Him and for Him." The repetition of ta panta without qualification strongly supports an all-encompassing meaning, excluding Christ from the category of created things.

John 1:3 reinforces this interpretation: "All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being." This absolute language excludes the possibility of Christ being a created being.

The consistent New Testament witness to Christ as Creator demands that ta panta in Colossians 1:16-17 be understood inclusively, encompassing all created things apart from Christ.

6. Bias in the NWT Translation

JW Claim:

The use of brackets around "other" in the NWT is honest and linguistically justified.

Refutation:

The inclusion of "other" reflects the NWT translators' theological commitment to denying Christ’s divinity. While brackets acknowledge interpolation, the addition is unnecessary and unsupported by the text. No major lexicon or grammar supports the routine addition of "other" in Colossians 1:16-17.

Greek scholars across denominational lines affirm that the text does not imply Christ is part of creation. The NWT’s rendering is a theological imposition, not a linguistic necessity.

Conclusion

The JW interpretation of Colossians 1:15-20 and related passages distorts the plain meaning of the text through unwarranted interpolations and misinterpretations. The broader context of Scripture unequivocally affirms Christ’s role as Creator and His preeminence over all creation. The Watchtower's theological agenda drives their translation choices, resulting in significant deviations from the original Greek meaning and the historical Christian understanding of Christ's divinity and eternal existence.

171

Alteration of Revelation 3:14 in the 4th century to support the emerging Trinity doctrine

by slimboyfat in

in an earlier thread another poster asserted that there is no evidence that revelation 3:14 played a part in the 4th controversy that led to the trinity doctrine.

this was claimed as evidence that the description of jesus as “the beginning of the creation of god” in the verse was not understood to mean that jesus was god’s first creation.

the scholarly greek–english lexicon of the new testament & other early christian literature 3e (2001) by bauer, arndt, gingrich, and danker, in its latest edition states that “first creation” is indeed the probable meaning of the greek phrase.

aqwsed12345

@Blotty

Credibility is not determined by personal feelings but by the accuracy, reliability, and proper use of evidence. Mainstream scholarship has been consistently cited across discussions. When disagreements with certain scholarly interpretations arise, they are addressed with alternative academic viewpoints or through logical reasoning. This is standard in academic debates. The accusation of selective citation is itself vague and unsubstantiated. If specific examples of misrepresentation exist, they must be directly addressed with evidence, not generalizations.

If the citations provided are accurate and relevant, their content should be discussed to demonstrate their implications for the argument. A blanket accusation of not reading is unproductive and does not advance the discussion. Assertions of misrepresentation must engage with the specifics of the argument rather than relying on dismissive rhetoric. If the citations are valid, their relevance to the theological and linguistic issues should be debated point by point.

This just proves my point that the plural theoi does not refer to the one true God, so the earliest manuscripts only used the Nomina Sacra when it referred to that. The omission of plural forms in a specific instance (1 Corinthians 8:5) does not invalidate the broader argument regarding nomina sacra in early Christian manuscripts. The plural gods in verse 5 are deliberately contrasted with the singular God and Lord in verse 6, where nomina sacra are applied. Nomina sacra were used as theological markers to denote sacred terms. Their absence in certain plural forms does not negate their significance in singular references to Christ and the Father, which emphasize monotheism and the divine status of Jesus. The claim that this omission is “lying” misunderstands the purpose of nomina sacra, which was to highlight central theological points rather than apply uniformly to all instances.

While "ἀρχή" (archē) can have multiple meanings, its specific use in contexts such as John 1:1 and Revelation 3:14 aligns with the notion of "origin" or "source" rather than "firstfruits." The suggestion that “firstfruits” 'negates' first-cause implications is unsupported. Even if "firstfruits" were a plausible translation, it would imply a primacy in rank or origin, consistent with Christ’s role as the agent of creation (Colossians 1:16-17).

The Hebrew term "qanah" (Proverbs 8:22) is context-dependent and can mean "acquire," "possess," or "create." In the context of divine wisdom, "possess" does not imply a temporal beginning but rather denotes ownership or intrinsic association. Early Church Fathers, including Athanasius and Augustine, understood "qanah" in Proverbs 8:22 metaphorically, referring to the eternal relationship between the Father and the Son, not a literal creation event. The broader context of Proverbs 8 emphasizes wisdom’s preexistence "before the mountains were settled, before the hills" (Proverbs 8:25), which is consistent with Christ’s eternal nature, not a point of origin in time.

The term "aion" in Proverbs 8:23, combined with the phrase "from everlasting" (LXX: πρὸ τοῦ αἰῶνος), emphasizes timelessness rather than a specific point of origin. This context supports the understanding of Christ’s eternal preexistence. The interpretation of "aion" as merely referring to the beginning of created things imposes a narrow reading that ignores its broader usage to denote eternity in both biblical and extra-biblical literature.

Origen’s concept of the eternal generation of the Son refers to the Son’s relationship to the Father, not the creation of the world. Origen distinguishes between the eternal Logos and the temporal world, explicitly affirming that the Logos is uncreated. The idea of the world being "eternally begotten" in Origen’s writings reflects his speculative philosophy and allegorical interpretation, not a denial of creation’s temporal beginning.

While Genesis 1 after the 2nd verse focuses on the creation of the physical universe, it does not exclude the preexistence of the Logos or Wisdom. John 1:1 explicitly clarifies that "In the beginning was the Word," emphasizing the Logos’s existence before all creation. Proverbs 8:22-30 complements this by portraying Wisdom as present before the foundation of the world, consistent with the Logos’s eternal nature. Omitting this broader scriptural context distorts the interpretation of both passages.

The debate over "qanah" reflects the richness of its semantic range. While it can mean "acquire" or "create," its use in Proverbs 8:22, in the context of divine Wisdom, aligns with "possess" or "bring forth" in a manner that does not imply temporal origination. The interpretation of "qanah" as "create" imposes a temporal framework inconsistent with the broader theological understanding of Christ’s eternal relationship with the Father.

90

What is Your Favorite WT Lie?

by Sea Breeze in

i would like to start a thread on lies that the watchtower and their reps have told.

surely we all have one or two that truly sticks out in our memories, no matter how much we would like to forget.

my favorite wt lie: the reason they don't want to release the name of the "scholars" who worked on the new world translation is because they do not want to accept "glory and honor" from others.

aqwsed12345

“The Catholic Church teaches that the Pope is infallible (not that different to the Governing Body’s only channel claim).”

This is a misunderstanding of Catholic teaching. Papal infallibility does not mean the Pope is infallible in everything he says or does. It is strictly limited to very specific conditions outlined in the doctrine: 1) The Pope must be speaking ex cathedra (from the Chair of Peter). 2) He must explicitly define a doctrine concerning faith or morals for the universal Church. This has occurred only twice in the last two centuries (the Immaculate Conception in 1854 and the Assumption of Mary in 1950, both retroactively recognized as infallible teachings). By contrast, the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses claims to be the sole channel of communication for God on Earth, which goes beyond merely clarifying teachings to controlling all aspects of belief and practice without the rigorous theological and historical process the Catholic Church employs.

“Transubstantiation takes place during Mass, and there are relics outside of Mass reportedly undergoing similar changes.”

This mixes accurate teaching with speculative claims. The Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation teaches that during the consecration at Mass, the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ while retaining their appearances (accidents) as bread and wine. This transformation is a matter of faith and not measurable by scientific means. The mention of Eucharistic miracles is separate from the doctrine. Some Eucharistic miracles, where hosts reportedly transformed in visible, miraculous ways, have been studied (e.g., Lanciano). These are rare, not doctrinally required for belief, and are treated with caution by the Church. The claim conflates the doctrine of transubstantiation with these miraculous occurrences, which are not a core part of Catholic faith.

“The Catholic Church teaches that unbaptized children can’t enter heaven.”

This is an outdated misunderstanding of Catholic teaching. The Church does not teach that unbaptized children are excluded from heaven. While earlier theological speculation (e.g., the concept of Limbo) suggested unbaptized infants might not experience the Beatific Vision, this has never been an official doctrine. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC 1261) expresses hope in God’s mercy for the salvation of unbaptized infants, trusting in God’s love and justice.

“The Church believes that non-Catholics and even Jews can gain salvation.”

The Catholic Church acknowledges the possibility of salvation for non-Catholics. The Second Vatican Council clarified this in Lumen Gentium (1964), stating that those who seek God sincerely and strive to follow their conscience can achieve salvation, even if they are outside the visible bounds of the Church (CCC 847). The Church emphasizes that salvation ultimately comes through Christ, even if individuals are not fully aware of Him (CCC 846-848).

“The Watchtower was good at lying about other religions, including Catholicism.”

The Watchtower often misrepresents other religions, they have frequently mischaracterized Catholic teachings, especially on the Trinity, Mary, and the role of tradition. For example claiming the Trinity is a “pagan” doctrine, ignoring its deep roots in Scripture and early Christian history, misrepresenting Marian devotion as idolatry, failing to distinguish between veneration (dulia) and worship (latria), or stating that Catholicism opposes Bible reading, ignoring the Church’s historical role in preserving and disseminating Scripture. These distortions serve to reinforce the Watchtower’s narrative that all other religions are false.

“The Watchtower takes a fact of its history, twists or denies it, which is a blatant lie.”

The Watchtower has a documented history of historical revisionism. Examples of Watchtower dishonesty include claims that 1914 was predicted “decades in advance,” despite earlier Watchtower publications asserting different dates for Christ’s return and Armageddon (e.g., 1874, 1925), presenting itself as having an unbroken line of “truth,” despite shifting doctrinal stances (e.g., on blood transfusions, the nature of Christ’s presence, and the generation doctrine). The Watchtower’s rewriting of its history undermines its claim to be the sole channel of God’s truth.

“The Pope blesses soldiers and wars.”

This is a partial truth requiring context. The Church has a long tradition of opposing unnecessary violence and advocating for peace, as seen in papal encyclicals like Pacem in Terris (1963) by St. John XXIII. However, the Church historically acknowledged the concept of a “just war” (developed by thinkers like St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas), recognizing that governments have a duty to protect their citizens. Papal blessings for soldiers were often pastoral, not endorsements of war itself, aimed at encouraging virtue and repentance among those sent to fight.

“Catholic dogmas are inventions not found in the Bible.”

Catholic doctrines are deeply rooted in Scripture and apostolic tradition. For example while the technical term “Trinity” is not in the Bible, the concept is clearly present in Scripture (e.g., Matthew 28:19; John 1:1, 14; 2 Corinthians 13:14) and was clarified by the early Church in response to heresies. Teachings like the Immaculate Conception and Assumption are based on Scripture (e.g., Luke 1:28, Revelation 12) and the development of doctrine under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The Papal Infallibility is Rooted in Christ’s promise to Peter in Matthew 16:18-19 and further supported by Luke 22:31-32 and John 21:15-17, the doctrine ensures the Church’s unity and fidelity to truth.

171

Alteration of Revelation 3:14 in the 4th century to support the emerging Trinity doctrine

by slimboyfat in

in an earlier thread another poster asserted that there is no evidence that revelation 3:14 played a part in the 4th controversy that led to the trinity doctrine.

this was claimed as evidence that the description of jesus as “the beginning of the creation of god” in the verse was not understood to mean that jesus was god’s first creation.

the scholarly greek–english lexicon of the new testament & other early christian literature 3e (2001) by bauer, arndt, gingrich, and danker, in its latest edition states that “first creation” is indeed the probable meaning of the greek phrase.

aqwsed12345

@Duran

Your response reveals several misunderstandings and misconceptions that need addressing. Let me clarify and refute your claims step by step while maintaining a respectful and constructive tone.

First, your accusation that I am “trying to promote Catholic teachings” is misguided. My goal is not to impose any particular denominational stance but to engage critically and thoughtfully with the claims and interpretations you present. If you interpret my responses as reflective of Catholic theology, it is because I am grounding them in historical, scriptural, and scholarly reasoning rather than speculative assertions. Unlike the Watchtower’s approach or other sectarian interpretations, Catholic theology strives for a holistic understanding of Scripture, incorporating context, tradition, and consistent hermeneutics.

Second, your repeated claim that I should not engage with your cited Scriptures until you “say more” is problematic. When you present claims—such as equating the MOL with the 8th King or other apocalyptic figures—alongside a series of verses, you are inherently inviting analysis. Expecting me to “mull over” these Scriptures without addressing the connections you are trying to imply creates ambiguity. Moreover, by delaying your explanation, you effectively ask me to engage with a moving target. My responses aim to critically examine the claims you have made and the Scriptures you have cited, which is a standard approach in theological discourse.

Third, your accusation that I am rebutting arguments you haven’t made is unfounded. You have made explicit claims about the identities and interconnections of apocalyptic figures like the MOL, 8th King, and King of the North. Even if you have not yet elaborated on every detail, the claims themselves demand scrutiny. For instance:

• You claim the MOL and the 8th King are the same. Yet, the MOL in 2 Thessalonians 2:4 is described in spiritual terms, sitting in God’s temple, which the broader New Testament context often equates with the Church or God’s spiritual dwelling (1 Corinthians 3:16-17; Ephesians 2:19-22). On the other hand, the 8th King in Revelation 17:11 emerges from a series of earthly kingdoms, described in political and symbolic terms, not as an individual figure acting within the Church.

• Your interpretation of these figures as synonymous is speculative unless you provide textual evidence that directly links them. As of now, you have not done so, which is why I critically evaluate the Scriptures you cite rather than simply “mulling over” them in silence.

Fourth, your assertion that I am akin to a JW promoting their teachings is ironic, given that your approach mirrors many of the Watchtower’s methods. Like the Watchtower, you rely on isolated proof texts and unsupported interpretive leaps while dismissing broader historical and theological contexts. For example, the Watchtower often pulls verses from different parts of Scripture to construct a narrative while ignoring the original context and intended audience of those verses. This fragmented approach leads to speculative interpretations rather than a coherent biblical theology.

Fifth, your dismissal of all organized religion as inherently flawed due to the WTS’s errors is an overgeneralization. While it is true that human institutions are imperfect, this does not mean that all religious structures are inherently corrupt or without value. The Bible itself affirms the necessity of communal worship, accountability, and the preservation of sound teaching (Matthew 16:18; 1 Timothy 3:15; Hebrews 10:24-25). Rejecting “all religion” based on the Watchtower’s failures risks throwing out the baby with the bathwater, ignoring the vital role of the Church in maintaining the faith and spreading the Gospel.

Finally, your claim that I “cannot rebut” your arguments because you have not yet presented them fully is disingenuous. You have made specific assertions, provided scriptural references, and invited critique. If you feel I have misunderstood your points, the responsibility lies with you to clarify them rather than deflecting criticism by claiming I lack understanding. Constructive dialogue requires both parties to present their views clearly and respond to critique directly, without resorting to accusations or evasion.

In summary, your critiques of my approach misunderstand the nature of theological dialogue. I have engaged with the claims and evidence you presented, highlighting where your interpretations lack clarity, consistency, or textual support. If you wish to continue this discussion, I welcome your explanations and arguments. However, dismissing my responses as one-sided or accusing me of promoting a particular agenda without engaging with the substance of my points only undermines the possibility of a productive exchange.

28

Pre-Nicene christians and the trinity

by joey jojo in

this is just a quick summary that might be useful regarding the threads about the trinity currently on the board.. in 325 ce, the nicene council was called by constantine to settle schisms within the christian church.

the argument about the nature of jesus in relation to god was one of the big problems that needed resolution.

at first, constantine told the 2 main players, alexander and arius to sort it out between themselves, as he, constantine didnt see it as overly important.

aqwsed12345

The claim that Arius argued for a triune god who created himself as his first creation misrepresents Arian theology. Arius did not believe in a triune god. He held that the Son was the first and greatest of God’s creations but was not co-eternal or consubstantial with the Father. This is fundamentally different from Trinitarian theology, which asserts the co-eternity and co-equality of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Arius’s theology was sharply at odds with the Nicene Creed, which explicitly affirmed the full divinity of the Son.

The suggestion that the Trinity doctrine is merely a human construct influenced by political motives at the Nicene Council is a common but inaccurate portrayal. The Council of Nicaea was convened to address theological disputes about Christ’s nature, specifically the Arian controversy, and its conclusions were based on the theological consensus of early Christian teachings, not political expediency. Historical evidence shows that the Nicene Creed aimed to preserve apostolic teaching and scriptural truth rather than create a new doctrine.

The assertion that “trinity” concepts in pagan religions suggest a shared symbolic truth is problematic. While various triads exist in ancient pagan cultures, these triads typically represent separate gods with distinct roles, unlike the Christian Trinity, which uniquely posits one God in three persons sharing the same divine essence. Drawing parallels between the Trinity and pagan triads ignores these fundamental theological distinctions and oversimplifies both Christian doctrine and the beliefs of other cultures.

The idea that early Christian orthodoxy was indistinguishable from Gnostic teachings is inaccurate. While some Gnostic groups used Christian terminology, their theological frameworks diverged significantly from orthodox Christianity. For example, Gnostics often denied the material world’s goodness, rejected the bodily resurrection, and embraced a dualistic cosmology, which is incompatible with Christian teachings on creation, incarnation, and redemption.

The claim that orthodox Christians encouraged the destruction of Gnostic texts and that orthodoxy was not established in the second and third centuries requires nuance. While some Gnostic texts were indeed suppressed, many survived because of preservation by Gnostic communities, as seen at Nag Hammadi. Moreover, “orthodoxy” was not arbitrarily imposed; it was rooted in the apostolic tradition and the consensus of early Christian communities. Figures like Irenaeus sought to safeguard this tradition against theological deviations, not to suppress intellectual diversity for its own sake.

Finally, describing all theological systems, including Trinitarianism, as products of “poets and diviners” is dismissive and overlooks the rigorous philosophical and theological analysis underpinning such doctrines. The early Church Fathers engaged deeply with Scripture, reason, and tradition to articulate doctrines like the Trinity, aiming to remain faithful to the biblical witness and the experience of the Christian community.

171

Alteration of Revelation 3:14 in the 4th century to support the emerging Trinity doctrine

by slimboyfat in

in an earlier thread another poster asserted that there is no evidence that revelation 3:14 played a part in the 4th controversy that led to the trinity doctrine.

this was claimed as evidence that the description of jesus as “the beginning of the creation of god” in the verse was not understood to mean that jesus was god’s first creation.

the scholarly greek–english lexicon of the new testament & other early christian literature 3e (2001) by bauer, arndt, gingrich, and danker, in its latest edition states that “first creation” is indeed the probable meaning of the greek phrase.

aqwsed12345

@Duran

First, you accuse me of not waiting for you to present your full argument, but the structure of your approach complicates meaningful dialogue. You state that you were “going to cite Scriptures first” and then explain their relevance later. However, when you present passages without any immediate explanation of their connection to your claims, you are effectively asking me to accept your interpretation without critical engagement. It is not unreasonable for me to respond to the claims you have already made—such as equating the MOL with the 8th King, King of the North, and Small Horn—because these are interpretive assertions that require substantiation. If your argument depends on a series of steps, clarity and organization are essential, but this has been lacking in your presentation.

Second, my critique of your interpretive method is valid because the approach you’ve demonstrated so far relies heavily on isolated proof texts. You presented passages about “time” and “judgment” from different contexts without explaining how they fit together. For example, you cited Daniel 7:25, Revelation 13:5, and Daniel 12:7, but these texts address distinct events and contexts. My response highlighted the need for a consistent hermeneutic to connect these passages meaningfully, which is a standard practice in biblical exegesis. Simply citing verses without addressing their literary, historical, and theological contexts does not establish their interconnectedness.

Third, you assert that my responses demonstrate a lack of comprehension, but the problem lies in your presentation of unsubstantiated claims rather than any failure on my part to understand. For example, when you say the MOL, the 8th King, and the King of the North are the same, I am not dismissing the possibility outright. Instead, I am pointing out that you have yet to provide textual evidence that establishes this connection. It is not enough to list their traits or actions; you must show how the biblical authors explicitly or implicitly link these figures. Without this, your claims remain speculative.

Fourth, your approach to timing also requires clarification. You seem to oscillate between symbolic and literal interpretations of prophetic timeframes without explaining your criteria for determining which is appropriate. For instance, Revelation 13:5 mentions 42 months, but apocalyptic literature often uses symbolic numbers to convey theological truths rather than precise durations. When you treat such numbers as literal without addressing the genre’s symbolic nature, you impose an interpretive framework that may not align with the text’s intent.

Finally, your assertion that my response is evidence of a lack of comprehension is not a valid critique of the points I raised. My responses have consistently engaged with your claims based on the information you provided. If you feel that my responses are premature or not aligned with your intended argument, it may be because your method—citing passages without immediate explanation—creates ambiguity. To move forward productively, I encourage you to present a clear, step-by-step argument that connects your claims to the biblical text in a coherent and substantiated manner.

In summary, your criticisms do not address the substance of my responses but rather mischaracterize them as dismissive or one-sided. I have engaged with your claims, pointed out where evidence or clarity is lacking, and highlighted the need for a consistent interpretive method. If you wish to continue this discussion, I am open to engaging with your arguments as long as they are presented clearly and with adequate support from the text.

171

Alteration of Revelation 3:14 in the 4th century to support the emerging Trinity doctrine

by slimboyfat in

in an earlier thread another poster asserted that there is no evidence that revelation 3:14 played a part in the 4th controversy that led to the trinity doctrine.

this was claimed as evidence that the description of jesus as “the beginning of the creation of god” in the verse was not understood to mean that jesus was god’s first creation.

the scholarly greek–english lexicon of the new testament & other early christian literature 3e (2001) by bauer, arndt, gingrich, and danker, in its latest edition states that “first creation” is indeed the probable meaning of the greek phrase.

aqwsed12345

@Duran

Your response and approach to the discussion reveal several fundamental issues that need to be addressed carefully and systematically. Your repeated assertion that I am not engaging with your arguments is misplaced; I am directly addressing your claims and examining the assumptions underpinning them. Let me explain why your methodology and claims fall short of providing a coherent interpretation of the Scriptures you cited.

First, your claim that you haven’t presented arguments yet but only outlined claims of identification is puzzling. Identifications are not neutral statements; they are already interpretations that require justification. When you state, for example, that the Man of Lawlessness (MOL) is the same as the 8th King, the King of the North, or the Small Horn, you are making an interpretive leap that demands evidence. Citing passages that describe these figures without demonstrating their interconnectedness is insufficient. It is not enough to assert that they are the same; you need to show how the text itself justifies this claim through consistent and contextual exegesis.

Second, your approach to symbolic versus literal interpretation lacks clarity and consistency. You accuse me of not understanding your intended point about symbolic and literal timeframes, but you have provided no explanation to reconcile your interpretive method. For instance, when you reference Revelation 13:5 (the 42 months) or Daniel 12:7 (time, times, and half a time), you treat these periods as literal durations, but you ignore the symbolic nature of apocalyptic literature as a whole. Apocalyptic texts frequently use symbolic numbers, imagery, and language to convey theological truths rather than precise chronological timelines. By failing to account for the literary genre of these texts, you impose a rigidity on the interpretation that contradicts their purpose and structure.

Third, your reliance on isolated proof texts creates a fragmented interpretation. By citing a series of unrelated verses about “time” and “judgment,” you attempt to draw conclusions about the timing and nature of prophetic events. However, this approach ignores the broader narrative and theological context of the passages. For example, your use of Revelation 13:5 alongside Daniel 7:25 to establish a specific timeframe for the beast’s authority conflates distinct contexts without addressing their differences. Revelation’s vision is rooted in the first-century context of Roman persecution, while Daniel’s visions relate to successive kingdoms leading to the establishment of God’s eternal kingdom. You cannot simply merge these texts without addressing their historical and theological settings.

Fourth, your criticism of my response as repetitive and dismissive overlooks the fact that I am engaging with your claims based on established exegetical principles. I have already outlined why the identification of the MOL with the 8th King and other figures is speculative and lacks textual support. Instead of addressing these points, you reiterate your claims without further justification, accusing me of avoiding your questions. This is unproductive and detracts from meaningful dialogue.

Finally, your appeal to Proverbs 26:4 to characterize my responses as foolish is both dismissive and ironic. That verse warns against engaging with folly in a way that legitimizes it, but it does not preclude addressing misunderstandings or correcting errors. If you genuinely believe my responses lack understanding, you bear the burden of providing evidence and argumentation to substantiate your claims. Insults or dismissive comments do not advance the discussion; they merely highlight an unwillingness to engage in a substantive exchange.

In conclusion, your methodology in interpreting the apocalyptic texts you cite is flawed due to inconsistent interpretive principles, a fragmented approach to Scripture, and a reliance on unsubstantiated claims. I invite you to present a cohesive and contextually grounded argument for your assertions rather than repeating unsupported identifications or dismissing valid criticisms. Constructive dialogue requires clarity, evidence, and respect for the complexities of the biblical text—qualities that I have sought to uphold in this discussion. If you wish to continue, I encourage you to focus on addressing the specific points raised rather than resorting to dismissive rhetoric.

28

Pre-Nicene christians and the trinity

by joey jojo in

this is just a quick summary that might be useful regarding the threads about the trinity currently on the board.. in 325 ce, the nicene council was called by constantine to settle schisms within the christian church.

the argument about the nature of jesus in relation to god was one of the big problems that needed resolution.

at first, constantine told the 2 main players, alexander and arius to sort it out between themselves, as he, constantine didnt see it as overly important.

aqwsed12345

First, while it is true that various factions within early Christianity wrote against their opponents, the claim that the survival of works like those of Justin Martyr or Irenaeus is due only to Nicene favoritism is misleading. These writings predate the Nicene Council by over a century and reflect a consistent belief in the divinity of Christ and a proto-Trinitarian theology. For instance, Justin Martyr repeatedly refers to Christ as “God” (e.g., First Apology, Chapter 6), a sentiment echoed by other early church fathers, such as Ignatius of Antioch, who explicitly speaks of Jesus Christ as “our God” (Epistle to the Ephesians, 7:2). This undermines the claim that Trinitarianism was a late development or a post-Nicene imposition.

Second, while some Gnostic writings, such as the Tripartite Tractate, also addressed heresies, this comparison is flawed. Gnosticism represents an entirely separate theological framework, often fundamentally incompatible with the beliefs of mainstream Christianity. The Gnostics’ rejection of material creation and their elaborate cosmologies bear little resemblance to the biblical monotheism embraced by both pre- and post-Nicene Christians. Furthermore, many Gnostic texts were preserved precisely because they were not systematically suppressed in the way you suggest—several were hidden or preserved by their own communities, not burned by the orthodox Church.

Third, the assertion that Origen’s writings were systematically altered to align with later Trinitarian theology misrepresents historical evidence. While Rufinus did edit Origen’s works, Origen’s theology often shows a clear subordinationist tendency that was debated but not erased. His writings reflect the diversity of thought in pre-Nicene Christianity, but they also confirm the widespread acknowledgment of Christ’s divinity. For example, Origen explicitly states that “the Word was God” and that worship of Christ is appropriate (De Principiis, 1.2.1, 1.3.6). These views undermine the claim that early Christians did not regard Christ as divine.

Fourth, the suggestion that first-century Christians overwhelmingly rejected the deity of Christ is contradicted by New Testament texts. John 1:1 unequivocally calls the Word (Jesus) “God,” and Thomas explicitly addresses Jesus as “My Lord and my God” in John 20:28. Paul’s writings, such as Philippians 2:6-11, present Jesus as preexistent and divine, using language that applies Old Testament Yahweh imagery to Christ. This evidence demonstrates that the divinity of Christ was not a later invention but part of early Christian belief.

Fifth, the claim that Trinitarian Christians resorted to torture and killing to enforce orthodoxy is anachronistic. The Nicene Council itself was not a coercive body but a gathering of bishops to resolve theological disputes. While political power later became intertwined with church authority, this occurred centuries after the early debates over Christology and cannot retroactively redefine first-century or even Nicene-era Christianity.

Finally, the assertion that all Christian denominations are primarily concerned with money and that the Bible is a work of fiction lacks any substantive evidence and detracts from the credibility of your argument. It conflates theological criticism with ad hominem attacks and personal bias.

171

Alteration of Revelation 3:14 in the 4th century to support the emerging Trinity doctrine

by slimboyfat in

in an earlier thread another poster asserted that there is no evidence that revelation 3:14 played a part in the 4th controversy that led to the trinity doctrine.

this was claimed as evidence that the description of jesus as “the beginning of the creation of god” in the verse was not understood to mean that jesus was god’s first creation.

the scholarly greek–english lexicon of the new testament & other early christian literature 3e (2001) by bauer, arndt, gingrich, and danker, in its latest edition states that “first creation” is indeed the probable meaning of the greek phrase.

aqwsed12345

@Duran

1. When and how do each of the figures come to their end?

The MOL represents a broader concept of anti-Christian rebellion rather than a single individual or political entity. When? The MOL meets its end at the Second Coming of Christ, as explicitly stated in the verse. How? The destruction of the MOL occurs through Christ's divine authority ("the spirit of His mouth") and the glory of His return. Your attempt to link the MOL to specific figures (e.g., the "8th king") lacks evidence. Paul’s description refers to pervasive apostasy rather than one temporal ruler.

The KOTN is historically identified with Antiochus IV Epiphanes, a tyrant who persecuted the Jews and desecrated the Temple. When? Historically fulfilled in Antiochus’ sudden death, this passage typologically prefigures future opponents of God's kingdom. How? His end came by divine intervention, without human assistance. Your conflation of the KOTN with later apocalyptic figures (e.g., the 8th king) ignores the immediate historical context of Daniel’s prophecy.

The "8th king" represents a culmination of anti-God powers throughout history, rooted in the historical persecution of Christians by the Roman Empire. When? Its end coincides with Christ’s final triumph ("The Lamb will conquer them," Rev. 17:14). How? The beast's destruction occurs at Christ's Second Coming, emphasizing God's sovereign victory over evil. Your interpretation overly literalizes symbolic imagery. The "beast" represents a principle of opposition to God, not merely a specific future ruler.

The beast and false prophet symbolize systemic opposition to God, manifested historically in oppressive regimes and false religions. When? Their defeat occurs in the eschaton, at Christ’s return to establish His eternal reign. How? The "fiery lake" represents eternal judgment upon those who persist in rebellion against God. This passage is not a predictive timeline but a theological affirmation of Christ’s ultimate victory.

2. How long was Jesus’ ministry from baptism to ascension?

Jesus’ public ministry lasted approximately three years, from His baptism by John the Baptist to His Ascension. This period is widely accepted based on the chronology of the Gospels, particularly John's account of three Passover celebrations during Jesus' ministry (John 2:13; 6:4; 11:55). Your question implies a connection between this timeline and the "42 months" in Revelation. However, the 42 months is symbolic, reflecting periods of trial and tribulation (drawing from Daniel 7:25; 12:7). It is not tied to Jesus’ ministry duration.

3. Rebuttal of Your Arguments

MOL and 8th King: You equate the MOL with the 8th king, beast, and other figures, yet these represent distinct aspects of rebellion against God. The MOL is described in moral and religious terms (apostasy and deception within the Church), not as a political entity. The 8th king and beast, on the other hand, symbolize broader worldly systems opposing Christ. The "temple" in 2 Thessalonians 2:4 refers to the spiritual dwelling of God (the Church), not a physical holy place as in Revelation.

42 Months: Revelation's 42 months are symbolic, signifying a limited period of persecution (three-and-a-half years = half of seven, the number of completeness). It draws from Daniel’s apocalyptic imagery and represents periods of trial faced by God’s people, not a literal timeline for a specific ruler.

Great Tribulation (GT): The GT is not a singular, future event but encompasses the Church's ongoing struggle against evil throughout history. Your fixation on a future 42-month period under a literal "8th king" contradicts the broader scriptural witness of Christ's reign extending from His Ascension (1 Corinthians 15:25).

Eschatological Timing: Christ Himself said, "No one knows the day or hour" (Matthew 24:36). Catholic teaching rejects speculative timelines or attempts to predict specific apocalyptic sequences, focusing instead on readiness for Christ’s return.

Your arguments rely on conflating distinct biblical figures and misinterpreting symbolic apocalyptic imagery. Catholic teaching, rooted in Scripture and Tradition, provides a more coherent and historically grounded understanding of these texts. Rather than fixating on speculative timelines, the Church emphasizes Christ’s victory, the call to faithfulness, and the ultimate restoration of creation in God's eternal kingdom.

I quote one of the Protesant biblical commentaries I use on the interpretation of the Book of Revelation:

"The Book of Revelation has been interpreted in various ways throughout the history of biblical exegesis. In antiquity and the Middle Ages, the so-called ecclesiastical-historical and world-historical interpretation was generally preferred. This method of interpretation assumed that the Book of Revelation foretold events in church and world history. Many attempted to identify the apocalyptic images and figures in Revelation with specific historical events and individuals. (Nowadays, only sects proclaiming apocalyptic doctrines engage in such interpretations of Revelation.) This method discredited itself because it had to repeatedly adjust its conclusions over time as historical events failed to align with the 'schedule' that interpreters believed they had discovered in the Book of Revelation. The failure of such attempts was one reason why the Protestant churches, until relatively recently, approached the book with reservations and largely neglected its interpretation. As a result, the Book of Revelation was handed over to pious fantasy. At one point, it even seemed as though Revelation would become the free prey of sects advocating apocalyptic doctrines.
Today, the situation has changed significantly. A large number of scholarly interpretations deal with the Book of Revelation, exploring its meaning and message within the context of biblical revelation. When discussing its genre, we saw that Revelation is a contemporary New Testament prophecy and an eschatological message presented in apocalyptic form. Exegesis must find a way to distinguish between the message of Revelation addressed to its own time, i.e., its first readers, and its eschatological teachings concerning the end times. At the same time, we must explore how both aspects of Revelation’s genre convey timely messages, comfort, encouragement, admonition, and calls to responsibility for today's Church and our generation.
The interpretation of the Book of Revelation cannot be resolved with one-sided methods. The unique character of the book resists all schematization. The appropriate interpretative approach can only be found by taking the scientifically established genre and characteristics of the book seriously, adapting to them, and scientifically uncovering its symbolic system and the message behind it.
Since Revelation is above all a New Testament prophecy—and prophecy is never abstract and timeless but always an address to its contemporaries—we must employ the historical-critical method to determine who the book's first readers were and the historical situation in which the prophecy was delivered.
Since Revelation also contains teachings about the end times, we must apply the eschatological interpretative approach, utilizing our eschatological knowledge derived from the entire history of biblical revelation to understand the book’s eschatological message.
It is also crucial to recognize that the message and content of Revelation are clothed in the imagery and forms of apocalyptic literature. Therefore, the use of the tradition-historical and history-of-religions methods is necessary to determine the origins and meanings of its apocalyptic imagery. This is essential to distinguish between the old and new content of the imagery.
While applying these exegetical methods, we must never forget that these methods cannot become infallible principles or mechanical keys to solve every mystery. These interpretative approaches are merely tools—so-called heuristic perspectives—that 'sound' biblical scholarship employs not arbitrarily but in accordance with the nature of Scripture (cf. 1 Timothy 1:10; Titus 1:9). Theology grounded in Reformation-evangelical principles has no other way to determine the content, teaching, and message of the Book of Revelation than this comprehensive scientific method based on the devoted work of generations.
Those who expect the Book of Revelation to satisfy their sensationalism, pious curiosity, or mystical inclinations to escape the world will be disappointed by both the book and its evangelical scholarly interpretation. The Book of Revelation and its evangelical interpretation serve to edify those who, like with the other books of Scripture, seek comfort, guidance, Christ’s timely commands, and calls to follow Him."

One of the greatest critiques of this approach is that it misunderstands the original intention of the Apostle John when writing the Book of Revelation. The Book of Revelation is apocalyptic literature, whose purpose was not to serve as a kind of 'historical map,' but to provide encouragement and comfort to believers, especially during times of suffering and persecution. The effort to interpret the book as a prediction of all human history distracts from its spiritual and moral message.

Instead of treating the Book of Revelation as a forward-looking prophecy that covers the entire arc of human history, it would be more important to consider its symbolic meanings and spiritual teachings. The text is meant to encourage and strengthen God's people in their daily trials, not to predict specific historical events. In interpreting the Book of Revelation, we should focus much more on its spiritual and theological messages than on forced connections to specific historical events. The goal of apocalyptic literature is not to predict historical events but to strengthen the faith and perseverance of its readers, no matter the era in which they live.

Another theology book of mine says:

Prophetic foretelling is definitive. It is not ambiguous or open to manipulation, as were the prophecies of the pagans, notorious for their ambiguity; nor is it uncertain, like reckless predictions that rely on chance fulfillment. However, the definitiveness of prophecy does not mean it is prewritten history or that the prophet is a historian drawing from the future. A prophet is sent by God primarily to proclaim and testify how God’s great principles inevitably prevail, both in the past and in the future. Therefore, prophecy is usually detailed enough to capture the attention of those of good will and prompt serious reflection, yet sufficiently veiled so that this reflection and the resulting decision can occur with complete individual freedom and responsibility. This is why prophecy often appears clothed in symbols, metaphors, allegories, and parables. Since the prophet stands on God’s perspective, teaching others to view events from this divine standpoint, the eternal God focuses on the interconnectedness of things and events (the relationship between merit and responsibility, intentions and outcomes) and the fulfillment of His divine purposes, rather than on the passage of time (since for Him, a thousand years are as one day). For this reason, the prophet often compacts vast epochs into a single image or vision (synopsis prophetica, prophetic compression). [...]
Prophecy in general, and messianic prophecy in particular, is not merely prewritten history; it is always the energetic articulation of the great divine thoughts and principles that guide and interpret history. This is done in a way that leaves room for the free decisions of the persons involved in the prophecy, as well as for the free faith of those called to believe who have been awakened by the prophecy’s exhortations. [...]
Despite appearances to the contrary, chiliasm (millenarianism) has no roots in Scripture. It fundamentally misunderstands that prophecy reveals the supernatural interconnections of salvation history, follows divine pragmatism, and does not aim to be prewritten history. Anyone who interprets the apocalyptic and prophetic descriptions of the future as literal narratives, rather than seeing them as symbols of God’s abundant grace and power, acts contrary to the spirit of Scripture.

I recall that when I purchased my first Bible, I enthusiastically searched for a 'hidden key' or 'secret message,' and for a few weeks, I was convinced I would make some great discovery that no one had ever realized before. In my defense, I was a young teenager, and such thinking is understandable at that age. The real problem is with adults—even those with decades of Bible-reading experience—who still approach Scripture in the same way, thinking, 'I’ll dig up something no one has ever thought of.'

In my experience, when, for example, a Jehovah's Witness looks into what Catholics believe about interpreting the Book of Revelation, they expect something similar to their own approach: that a specific verse means Russell here, another verse refers to a JW convention there, and instead of 1914 or 1919, they anticipate seeing other specific dates. By contrast, Catholic commentaries often present what they find disappointingly dull interpretations, devoid of the concrete event identification or dates they are accustomed to.

You misunderstand the characteristics and purposes of apocalyptic literature if you approach the Book of Revelation as if it can only be encouraging when it serves as a 'historical map.' Apocalyptic literature, including Revelation, is not a literal historical account or a 'map' of the future. This genre uses symbolic and metaphorical language to convey deeper spiritual truths that transcend the specific events of any given time period. The purpose of apocalyptic texts is not to establish a linear timeline but to provide encouragement and hope to believers amidst trials and persecutions.

Encouragement does not require the text to predict the future precisely or serve as a 'map.' The symbolic language conveys deeper spiritual truths that provide believers with hope and perseverance in their faith, regardless of how closely future events align with these images. For instance, the symbolism in Revelation, such as the 'Lamb' or the 'New Jerusalem,' does not point to specific chronological events but rather to the ultimate victory brought by Christ.

The Book of Revelation was not written to establish a precise chronological order of events but to reveal God’s ultimate plan and the purpose of human history. In this context, 'objective truth' does not mean that every detail must be taken literally but that the text illuminates God’s plan and the path of salvation for believers.

The teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses, which apply a literal interpretation to certain prophecies, differ from the Catholic Church’s approach to apocalyptic texts. The Catholic Church does not see a literal interpretation of Revelation as necessary to provide encouragement to believers. Instead, it views the book as a source of spiritual truths that transcend the specifics of time and place and apply to the Church universally across all ages.

1 Corinthians 1:20-21 reminds us that God’s message often does not align with the wisdom of the world but operates contrary to it. Apocalyptic literature embodies this 'foolishness,' not by offering a literal 'map' of the future but by providing profound spiritual truths that give believers strength and perseverance. The Book of Revelation offered encouragement to early Christians and continues to inspire all believers seeking faith and hope amidst persecution or difficulty.

The Book of Revelation is not a 'map' but an apocalyptic text that uses symbolic language to convey spiritual truths. Encouragement does not arise from literal interpretation but from the deeper understanding that God’s ultimate victory is assured, and believers always have hope in Christ. 'Objective truth,' therefore, lies not in the chronological sequence of events but in understanding God’s eternal plan and believing that believers will share in this plan, no matter what happens in history.

28

Pre-Nicene christians and the trinity

by joey jojo in

this is just a quick summary that might be useful regarding the threads about the trinity currently on the board.. in 325 ce, the nicene council was called by constantine to settle schisms within the christian church.

the argument about the nature of jesus in relation to god was one of the big problems that needed resolution.

at first, constantine told the 2 main players, alexander and arius to sort it out between themselves, as he, constantine didnt see it as overly important.

aqwsed12345

@Touchofgrey

Some resources for you:

The pagan triads listed (e.g., Osiris, Horus, Isis; Zeus, Apollo, Athena) are collections of three distinct deities, often grouped together due to familial relationships, shared attributes, or functional roles. These triads do not represent a single, unified Godhead, as in Christian theology, where the Trinity is one God in three co-equal, co-eternal persons (Father, Son, Holy Spirit). In contrast, pagan triads are polytheistic and lack the ontological unity that defines the Christian Trinity. For example Osiris, Horus, and Isis are three separate deities with individual roles and functions in Egyptian mythology. There is no claim of unity or shared essence among them. This contrasts sharply with the Christian doctrine, which insists on a single divine essence shared among the three persons.

The claim that Christians "copied" pagan trinities is an example of a post hoc fallacy—assuming that because pagan religions had triadic deities first, the Christian Trinity must have been derived from them. Correlation does not imply causation. Many human cultures independently arrived at the idea of groupings of three, as the number three often symbolizes completeness or balance, but this does not establish a causal connection. Even if there are superficial parallels (e.g., groups of three), these do not imply doctrinal borrowing. The Christian Trinity arises from divine revelation and is deeply rooted in Jewish monotheism, which strictly opposed pagan polytheism.

The doctrine of the Trinity is derived from Scripture, not external sources. The Old Testament hints at plurality within God's unity (e.g., Genesis 1:26; Isaiah 48:16), and the New Testament makes it explicit (e.g., Matthew 28:19; John 1:1-14; 2 Corinthians 13:14). While the formal articulation of the Trinity occurred at councils such as Nicaea (325 AD) and Constantinople (381 AD), this was not the “invention” of a new doctrine but the clarification and defense of what the Church had always believed. The apostles' writings already affirm Christ's divinity (e.g., John 20:28; Philippians 2:6-11) and the Holy Spirit's personhood (e.g., Acts 5:3-4).

The claim that the apostles did not subscribe to the Trinity is false. While the term "Trinity" does not appear in the New Testament, the concept is present. Jesus explicitly identifies Himself with the Father (John 10:30) and promises the Holy Spirit (John 14:26). The baptismal formula (Matthew 28:19) invokes the three persons of the Godhead.

Early Christian writers like Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus (2nd century) affirmed the divinity of Christ and the Holy Spirit, laying the groundwork for the later Trinitarian formulations. The Councils of Nicaea and Constantinople did not invent the Trinity but responded to heresies (e.g., Arianism) by affirming and clarifying the Church’s belief. The Trinity was implicit in Christian worship and theology from the beginning, as seen in early creeds and doxologies.

The claim that the Babylonians worshipped a Trinity of Venus, the moon, and the sun is misleading. While Babylonian religion included celestial worship, it did not describe these as three persons of a single divine essence. Instead, they represented distinct celestial bodies.

Zeus, Athena, and Apollo are part of a vast pantheon with no unity of essence. The notion that they "agree in one" is an invention with no historical basis.

Jupiter, Mercury, and Venus were local adaptations of Roman gods, again illustrating polytheistic worship rather than a monotheistic tri-unity.

The argument that Christian doctrines, such as the Trinity, were "borrowed" from earlier pagan religions often relies on identifying superficial similarities between Christian beliefs and elements of pagan mythology. This approach, epitomized by Alexander Hislop's The Two Babylons, assumes without sufficient evidence that any resemblance automatically implies direct influence or "adoption". While this claim may appear persuasive at first glance, it is fundamentally flawed because it commits the genetic fallacy.

The genetic fallacy occurs when someone argues that the origin or source of an idea determines its truth or validity. In essence, the fallacy attempts to dismiss or discredit a belief based on its alleged origin rather than addressing the belief itself on its merits. For example, saying that a moral principle is invalid simply because it was first articulated by a flawed individual is a clear example of the genetic fallacy.

In the case of the "borrowed from paganism" argument, the fallacy lies in claiming that because some pagan religions included triads or other superficially similar concepts, Christian beliefs about the Trinity must be unoriginal, false, or derivative. This reasoning sidesteps the theological, historical, and scriptural basis of Christian doctrines and instead dismisses them purely based on alleged parallels.

Identifying similarities between two belief systems does not prove that one actually influenced the other. Human cultures often develop similar ideas independently due to shared human experiences and reasoning. For example, the concept of a divine triad in pagan religions often reflects attempts to organize their pantheons into groups for philosophical or symbolic reasons, which differ fundamentally from the Christian Trinity as a revealed doctrine.

The argument frequently overlooks significant theological differences between the Christian Trinity and pagan triads. Pagan triads often represent three separate gods with distinct roles, while the Christian Trinity asserts one God in three consubstantial persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). The Christian Trinity is uniquely monotheistic, grounded in scriptural revelation, and distinct from the polytheistic frameworks of pagan triads.

The claim of direct "borrowing" lacks historical evidence. The early Church Fathers explicitly rejected pagan practices and beliefs, frequently critiquing them as incompatible with Christian theology. If the Trinity were merely an adaptation of a pagan concept, one would expect more explicit acknowledgment or controversy about such “borrowing” in early Christian writings, but no such evidence exists.

Hislop's method exemplifies a predetermined agenda: to portray Christianity as corrupted by paganism. By starting with the assumption that "borrowing" occurred, he interprets every similarity as proof of his thesis, ignoring alternative explanations and evidence that contradict his conclusions.

The claim that "historians of church dogma agree the Trinity was not part of the first-century church" is false and misrepresents scholarship. While the precise terminology developed later, the belief in the divinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit was integral to early Christianity.

So the argument that Christianity borrowed the Trinity from pagan sources collapses under scrutiny. The pagan triads cited are fundamentally different in nature, purpose, and theology from the Christian Trinity. The doctrine of the Trinity is uniquely Christian, rooted in divine revelation, and deeply anchored in Scripture and the apostolic faith. Pagan trinities reflect human speculation and polytheism, while the Christian Trinity reveals the mystery of the one true God in three persons.

The "borrowed from paganism" argument is an oversimplification that fails to engage with the substantive theological, historical, and philosophical foundations of Christian doctrines like the Trinity. By committing the genetic fallacy, this argument distracts from the real questions of whether a belief is true or well-founded. Superficial similarities between Christianity and pagan religions do not prove borrowing, and the unique, revealed nature of Christian theology stands as evidence against such claims.