ok...here goes. This was provided to alter as biblical proof of the doctrine of the Trinity. This man is an exceptional Christian man, btw.
•Matt. 28:19, "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,"
•1 Cor. 12:4-6, "Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there are varieties of ministries, and the same Lord. And there are varieties of effects, but the same God who works all things in all persons."
•2 Cor. 13:14, "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all."
•Eph. 4:4-7, "There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all. But to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of Christ’s gift."
•1 Pet. 1:2, "according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, that you may obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood: May grace and peace be yours in fullest measure."
•Jude 20-21, "But you, beloved, building yourselves up on your most holy faith; praying in the Holy Spirit; keep yourselves in the love of God, waiting anxiously for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to eternal life."
And more from one of the "trinitarian" mods:
A2E, I'm guessing that your OP is not of your own creation, but is from a tool supplied to Jehovah's witnesses by the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society, either online or on a CD (or DVD). Edit: a subsequent post by A2E indicated that this of mine guess is incorrect, and that A2E's OP is of her composition. I pointed out a couple of historical problems in it, and could point out more (e.g. the fact that by the time of Jesus, Babylon was part of the Parthian Empire, whose religion was Zoroastrianism rather than the Babylonian pantheon; the Parthian Empire and Rome were bitter enemies, so its cultural influence on the Roman Empire would not have been welcome or great). And less than honest, as I also pointed out, in its false analogy between the various pagan triads of gods among within much larger polytheistic pantheons and the Christian teaching of one God of three persons who are God. Of course, the phrase, “Questions for Discussion”, is a near give-away as to your OP's source. The questions are quite tendentious, a couple incorporating poor reasoning (which I will point out), but will be useful for my further response.
5. Are the words "Trinity" and "Godhead" in the Bible? If so, were those words part of the original writings? No. Neither are the words “Theocracy” (Theocratic), “Organization”, “Class” (Matthew 24 and Luke 12), or “Kingdom Publisher” (e.g. the WTB&TS 1945 book, Theocratic Aid to Kingdom Publishers). These are all terms in common use among Jehovah's witnesses – currently or formerly – and they are not found in the Bible. So this question is just poor reasoning. Your response, were I to challenge you to point out where in your NWT “Theocracy”, etc., would/should be that the idea is taught in the Scriptures. Very well. My response to this question #5 is that the concept of the Trinity is taught in the Scriptures.
3. If the Trinity is a Bible teaching, why is it that Jesus and his apostles who followed him around never taught anyone about the Trinity? That Jesus and the Apostles didn't use the word “Trinity” doesn't mean anything, as explained above. Question #s 3 and 5 are cheap, deceptive, gotcha questions to prey on those who are less than knowledgeable in Christian teaching. To put it nicely.
2. Why is it that trinity is found in pagan/false religions that never worshipped the God of the Judeo-Christian Bible? ... (ellipsis to improve visual clarity) As I noted last evening, triads of gods among much larger pagan pantheons are not at all analogous to the Christian teaching of the Trinity - one God of three persons who are God. It's an apples-pineapples comparison, a dishonest straw man argument.
4. How is it that the Trinity teaching did not become "Christian" teaching until the Christianized Romans (who later called themselves Roman Catholics) copied the philosophy from pagan/false religions ... Since the premise of this question has not been established – that the Trinity teaching was copied from paganism – (and I will show it to be false, below) this is a, “Have you stopped beating your wife?” type of dishonest question. To put it nicely.
1. Are there scriptures in the Bible to support the teaching of Trinity? If so, quote up to four … This is the one question of the five not based on poor reasoning, a dishonest straw man argument, or an unproven and false premise. I used an ellipsis to cut down on visual distraction (the word “brevity” would not be apt to describe my response, obviously).
Here's my premise: the Bible teaches that there is one God; the New Testament of the Bible identifies three persons as being God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Since you and I would agree that the Father is identified as God, I will skip showing that. On the other hand, I won't limit myself to just four Scriptures. That limitation is necessary for a group discussion such as that Watchtower tool envisions. While practical in a group context, that limitation is neither necessary nor desirable here.
The Son Identified as God (selected from this blog post):
All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. (John 1:3, ESV; The Word took part in creating everything that was created)
For some reason, the NWT still hasn't done (I checked) to John 1:3 what it did to Colossians 1:16-17, where the word "other" is inserted 4 times into the English text, despite not being there at all in the Greek text.
But of the Son he says, "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom. (Hebrews 1:8, ESV)
Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am." (John 8:58, ESV)
I am well aware of what the NWT did to this verse. If you go to your Kingdom Hall library and find that it has copies of the various editions of the NWT all the way back to the 1950 New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, you will see that the "reason" for the NWT's mistranslation of this passage changes from edition to edition. If it was properly translated, the reason would not need to change. As a further exercise, find a concordance to the Greek text of the New Testament and look up all (well, to be practical, maybe 10 or 20 or 30) the times Jesus said "I am", ejgw; eijmi, in reference to Himself. Why is just John 8:58 changed?
The Holy Spirit Identified as God (selected from this blog post):
As an aside, I am quite aware that the Watchtower teaches Jehovah's witnesses that the Holy Spirit is an impersonal force, not a person. The blog post linked above responds at some length to that false teaching.
The Spirit of God has made me, And the breath of the Almighty gives me life. (Job 33:4, NASV)
The Holy Spirit identified as Creator and life-giver.
Where can I go from Your Spirit? Or where can I flee from Your presence? (Psalm 139:7, NASV)
The Holy Spirit is omnipresent, an attribute of God.
But Peter said, "Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back some of the price of the land? "While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not under your control? Why is it that you have conceived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God." (Acts 5:3-4, NASV)
In lying to the Holy Spirit, Ananias lied to God.
For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God. (1 Corinthians 2:11, NASV)
Besides attributing knowledge and understanding to the Holy Spirit, this attributes to the Holy Spirit knowledge and understanding that only God can have.
And this was her response:
[quote}ALTER2EGO -to- PETE S IN CA:
My OP is not from a Watchtower template. I wrote it myself based upon my personal research regarding trinity from numerous sources (websites, encyclopedias, etc.).
(she never provide any citing for this claim) All of the images in my OP are from the Internet. Of course, at this point, I very much doubt you will give me credit for anything. Especially since you have repeatedly informed me that you consider me to be dishonest and that I am here to prey on people. I do not appreciate having my character attacked.
I asked for scriptures from the Bible to prove Trinity and hellfire torment claims. If I wanted to "prey" on people, I would not have asked anyone for scriptures but would have instead told people my opinion/personal philosophy. Since the Bible speaks for itself, my intention in asking for scriptures is to make the Bible the authority.
Yours is the type of contentious attitude I run into at numerous websites when Trinitarian moderators get involved in the debate. I asked valid questions in my OP and requested people to start with the first four verses of scriptures so that those scriptures can be discussed thoroughly--before moving on to another four verses. Instead, you presented a wall of text along with groups of cherry picked verses that do not mean what you claim they mean.
None of the verses you provided above are talking trinity. I could go through them one by one and direct you to the context and show you why. But I very much doubt you want to see the context. (Context refers to the surrounding words, verses, and chapters that are related to the verse that is being focused on.) People who believe trinity are not willing to pay attention to Biblical context, because the context debunks what they claim the verses are saying.
Not only that, since you believe I am dishonest and that I am here to prey on people, you will reject everything I show you regarding Biblical context because you have now turned this into an anti-Watchtower argument, which enables you to evade the fact that the doctrine of a 3-prong god in Christendom did not become formal Christian teaching until the 4th century AD--more than 300 years after Jesus Christ left the earthly scene.[/quote]
Another typical alter answer:
ALTER2EGO -to- JACK HECKTERMAN:
I will only deal with four verses of scriptures at a time, maximum. Above are the red flags in four of the scriptures you posted. Without context, words lose their intended meaning. The routine of Trinitarians is to isolate a few words and ignore everything else that is part of the context. Remember, context refers to the surrounding words, verses, and chapters that are related to the verse one is focusing on.
You previously indicated you are not interested in anything I have to say. So I will not trouble myself to show you the context, unless you say otherwise.
And more from one of the mods:
I don't recall stating in my OP that the pagan trinities were exactly like Christendom's version. In fact, the three sets of trinities in my OP are all different from each other in terms of the characteristics of the gods in each set. Christendom's trinity is simply another rendition of a pagan idea.
At some point the degree of difference becomes so great as the preclude claims of being analogous. That the pagan triads you cited were each three individual gods, and all 3 were members of more numerous pantheons renders these triads entirely different from the Christian Trinity, which is three persons Who are individually God yet still one God Who alone is God. As I keep saying, you are trying to say that apples are like pineapples, which they are not.
FACT #1: There were pagan trinities in existence for at least 200 years before Jesus Christ appeared on earth.
So what! Demonstrate the influence you assume. This is the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy I referred to in a later post. You claim influence. Provide evidence for that claim. The only thing showing these polytheistic triads existed before Jesus was born does for your claim is to show it cannot be dismissed due to anachronism.
FACT #2: There are no scriptures in God's inspired word, the Bible, that indicate the Father (YHWH/Jehovah), the Son (Jesus Christ) and the holy spirit are three persons that are co-equal and co-eternal and combined into a single "Godhead."
As you now know, I responded to your questions this AM rather than last night. And I cited quite a few - albeit not an exhaustive list - scriptures.
FACT #3: It was not until the 4th century AD—more than 300 years after Jesus Christ returned to heavenly life, and more than 300 years after the last book of the Bible was written—that the Christianized Romans formalized Christendom's trinity.
Nicaea formalized how the Trinity was taught, but the Bible teaches the Trinity in identifying the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as God.
FACT #4: Although Christendom gave its version of trinity a different twist from the examples in my OP, with the result that Christendom ends up with a 3-in-1 god, Christendom identified and then combined a set of three persons (Father, Son, and holy ghost). The pagan trinities each have a set of three specific gods. For instance, Egypt's Abydos Triad is always Horus, Osirus, and Isis—to the exclusion of all of the other Egyptian gods. Remember a set of three equates to trinity.
The Egyptian religion is polytheistic; Christianity is monotheistic. Huge difference. The Egyptian religion had a much more numerous pantheon than just those three; Christians teach that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit have no additional peers, and that there is only one God. A second huge difference. Among other Egyptian gods whose names come to mind are Amen-Ra, the greatest among the pantheon, Anubis, Set and Thoth. Specific cities in Egypt often had cults devoted to certain specific gods - evidently Abydos had such a cult that was devoted to Osiris, Isis and Horus - but that does not change the fact that those three were but three among many more. This cults of specific gods phenomenon was also seen among the Greeks and Romans. The bottom line is that a cult triad of three among many is utterly different from what Christians teach the Trinity to be.
And more:
Yours is the type of contentious attitude I run into at numerous websites when Trinitarian moderators get involved in the debate. I asked valid questions in my OP and requested people to start with the first four verses of scriptures so that those scriptures can be discussed thoroughly--before moving on to another four verses. Instead, you presented a wall of text along with groups of cherry picked verses that do not mean what you claim they mean.
"Cherry picked verses"? That's an odd criticism from the person who asked for "four" - just four - "verses" (not paragraphs, otherwise known as "context"). If you wanted context included, inform your readers that it is expected. Otherwise criticisms for lack of context will appear disingenuous.
As for, "when Trinitarian moderators get involved in the debate," I am a member of RO, and I post as such. I was an RO member nearly two years before being asked to be a Mod. So I doubt anyone here thinks of my posts as posts from a Moderator. Nor should they, unless warm discussion gets personal or insults start flying and I intervene as a Moderator. The same is true of JStang, Fantasy Chaser, Rightwing Nutjob and WhoIsJohnGalt.
As to context, I'm well aware of the verses' contexts. So, look at John 8:58. After Jesus said that, the Jewish leaders picked up stones to try to kill Him. Why, Because they understood that He claimed to be the I AM, God. Such a claim would be blasphemy, the punishment for which was ... being stoned to death. The context for Hebrews 1:8? The writer was explaining how the Son is greater than the angels, being God and not one of the angels (as the WTB&TS claims Him to be, as you well know). The context for John 1:3? John identifies the Word as God, and as existing in eternity; and John 1:3 clearly states that the Word participated in creating everything that was created. Read Acts 5 as often as you will! You won't find anything in that context that contradicts the plain statement in the verse I quoted. I could similarly examine the context of the other verses I cited, but I'm working from memory and don't have the list on screen.
There is so much more. If anyone wants to read the entire thread (VERY long...) you can read it here:
http://www.republicanoperative.com/foru ... ome-40902/
That's the best I can do at this point! BTW, I have tried to work my way through the Summa, as I had my own 26 volume copy of it at one point (I donated it to a Catholic high school some years ago) and I loved it. But, there is so much to ponder that I didn't get too far! My hat (if I wore one) is off to you, my friend. I wish I had your gift of saying things simply and to the point. I often wind up getting lost in words trying to make my point. 
