Are you a Trinitarian, and if so, can you defend the doctrine?

It appears from your recent posts that you believe Jesus is a created being. Are you a Jehovah's Witness?

I am.

I would not say Yahweh is just God's covenant name but his personal name altogether. The scriptures, to me, are clear, Yahweh/Jehovah is God name regardless of any covenant or not, Exodus 3:15 states, "Then God said once more to Moses: “This is what you are to say to the Israelites, ‘Jehovah the God of your forefathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.’ This is my name forever, and this is how I am to be remembered from generation to generation". Prior to entering into a covenant with the nation of Israel or even Abraham Yahweh was still known as Yahweh, by Abraham/Abram as can be seen from Gen 14:22.

I think it matters, there are hundreds of Gods and false gods out there, to me, it matters very much and is quite clear that the one God and God of the bible who has stated he wants to be remembered by his name YHWH should be referred to by name over a generic title which is non-personal. Each to their own however.

What is more apostate than adopting the Babylon religion and calling it Christian ? Or It may or may not be conspiracy but how can you ignore the queen of heaven , perpetual virgin, thousands of idols to commune and worship with other stuff that doesn't fit Jesus teaching including the word Babylon itself , the torture and murder of millions of innocent people . And you can blow it off because you're too sophisticated to fall for something you judge as beneath your ''keep watch'' consideration .. What and who do you think the NWO could be ..
Here's my yes or no question for you and I'll be done .. Do you think Simon bar Jonah had anything to do with the RCC ?

As long as a preacher is throwing strikes in the strike zone , I can deal with it , he doesn't have to throw it right down the middle every pitch .. The RCC imo isn't even in the right game much less the strike zone ..

No disagreement here..however that still doesn't prove the Simon Magus myths being associated with the Roman Catholic Church.

I think the Simon Magus is the first pope claims are bogus.

I will say that I think he could have been a leader of a Gnostic sect though.

Just so folks know, this guy is buying into the kind of propaganda that Alexander Hislop taught.

Hislop wrote a book called Two Babylons. He was a rabid anti-Roman Catholic.

I am not at all in favor of Roman Catholicism, but to use Hislopite teachings to support claims is simply uninformed. I would just as soon read the National Enquirer as Hislop's Two Babylons.

Moreover, tons of cultic organizations are on the Hislop bandwagon too. Hebrew Roots Movement, Armstrongites, and JWs will refer to Hislop quite often.

I believe the Roman Catholic Church is an apostate church. I've already said that. They deny that Jesus' righteousness is imputed to the believer, so they stand on their own righteousness, which dooms them if they are knowingly rejecting the righteousness of Jesus.

However, Hislop was a dolt who misquoted his sources, and took them out of context. He employed poor reasoning to prove his points.

His logic is something like this:

Bill wears a blue shirt and blue pants.
Robert wears a blue shirt and grey pants.
Therefore, Bill is Robert.

He tried to claim that all the world's pagan religions were associated with Nimrod and Semiramis, and their child, Tammuz.

The problem is that Nimrod and Semiramis didn't even live in the same century.

Plus, he misquotes his sources. Academics have checked the original works that he cites and found out that he quotes them out of context or totally wrongly.

Therefore, his work has been discredited.

But cultists of various stripes will continue to associate the Roman Catholic Church with the Babylonian Mystery Religion, and believe Hislop's teachings in this regard.

For good reference materials on this topic, I would recommend a book by Ralph Woodrow called The Babylonian Connection?

Ralph Woodrow was one of the most avid Hislop fans. He wrote a book on it, summarizing Hislop's teachings and promoting them at the popular level. Then, a reader informed Woodrow concerning Hislop's errors and academic dishonesty. Woodrow recanted his book, and wrote another one called The Babylonian Connection? which refuted his previous book and Hislop's teachings.

Referring to Hislop's works just discredits a person academically. The cultic leader I followed quoted Hislop all the time. And, the reason he quoted him was not only to criticize Roman Catholicism, but to criticize evangelical Christianity too.

So, if someone starts preaching Hislop's teachings to me, it totally discredits them in my eyes. I figure that, lingering back in their minds, they want to discredit not only Roman Catholicism, but evangelical Christianity.

It's pretty well agreed that YHVH is the covenant-name of God. I would say, though, that this name applies to all covenants, not just with Israel.

I find it interesting that the writer used Elohim to describe God in Genesis 1, but switches to Yahweh in Genesis 2.

I believe Elohim is a word used for God, when he is portrayed as the God of all humanity, versus Yahweh, which focuses more on his covenant relationship.

OK..well, obviously you would disagree with the Trinity doctrine.

I belonged to a cultic organization that denied the Trinity as well, as a young man.

In denying the Trinity, one is rendered incapable of understanding a lot of spiritual truths. For instance, how is God love by nature? He is love by nature because his very being has community, since there are three Persons within the Triune God.

In Unitarian theology, whether JW or Islam or whatever, there is a solitary god at some point, who had no one to love.

I find the arguments for the Trinity to be perfectly coherent.

And, by the way, you have some serious issues because Jesus is plainly identified as Yahweh, if you trace back OT quotes concerning Him.


I suggest performing this exercise. Look at all the NT references to Jesus, which are quotes from the OT. If any mention LORD in the OT, then this proves that Jesus is Yahweh.

And, in this manner, the JW claims fall apart completely.

By the way, inferences are just as good as quotes. They don't need to be exact quotes. It's just painfully obvious to the person who performs this exercise that Jesus is Yahweh. You are either unaware of this, or you have been blinded to the implications of this.

I've been discredited for nothing beFore just because I believed Jesus and witnessed Him so , ''Oh Well'' lol .. If you walk in the kitchen and the 3 yr old has chocolate all over them with candy wrappers laying all around you can not rule out they've been into the candy .. I'm sorry you've been misled by some guy Hislop at some time .. So your warning is about some guy named Hislop instead of an organization that has real blood on their history , do you deny that too ? I'm glad you saw the light .. Does it sound like I've waged war on the RCC, or tried to expose some things they seem to hide and cover up ? You referred me to a wiki article that I had seen and I simply asked if you knew about Peters bones found in Jerusalem and what PiousXII comments were about Bagatti's find .. If that sounds to pushy to you , OK ..

You may not be aware of this, but there are all kinds of guys relying on Hislop's false beliefs in order to discredit CHRISTIANITY in favor of their cults.

The beliefs regarding Simon Magus are a part of that.

I don't have any problem with folks criticizing Roman Catholicism because they deny justification by faith alone. However I wouldn't claim that they are worshiping Nimrod, Semiramis, and Tammuz. That's part of Hislop's teachings, and the kind of literature suitable for reading in the outhouse.

I won't continue commenting on this, though, as you don't seem to understand my point. Have a good day.

Over and over you keep showing your ignorance. NO, NO, NO!!

Jesus is not both a person and a being. Your English is your stumbling block. You are confusing "human being" with "being" which refers to the essence and nature of God.

A person is someone capable of being an individual, true. But, when referring to deity, a person is one of the three persons which make up ONE being.

Greek makes a lot more sense. And that is partly because Greek theology comes through Latin in the west, and the Latin words are not equivalent.

Ousia - Being - to be, to exist. That is the nature of the whole of God. He exists.

Hypostasis - This is person in Latin, and English. It doesn't really mean totally that in Greek.
Hypostasis is the underlying state or underlying substance and is the fundamental reality that supports all else. In Christian theology, a hypostasis is one of the three hypostases of the Trinity."

So, your confusion simply comes from trying to make the words "being" and "person" the same! They are not in English or Greek. Your mistake is understandable. Wrong definitions can do that to theology.

"The Persons (or Hypostases) of the Trinity, therefore, are immanent relations of origin that operate within the Godhead. They are the subjects of God’s action and answer the question Who?

The Divine Substance, on the other hand, answers the question of what kind of being God is.

Again, it should be stressed that the Persons do not “divide” the Divine Substance in any way; God remains utterly simple and undivided.

In Christology, just as in Trinitarian theology, “nature” or “substance” answers the question, “What kind of being is Jesus Christ?” and the answer, is “God and man.”

“Person” or “hypostasis” answers the question, “Who is Jesus Christ?” and the answer is, “the Divine Son, the Word, the Second Person of the Trinity.”

Is the triune God “three separate Persons”?

No, the Persons are in no way separate from each other. The are really distinct (that is, the Father is not the Son, and the Son is not the Spirit, and so forth). However, they cannot be considered “separate” from one antother, because each person is perfectly identical to the Divine Substance. (Each Person possesses the Substance in its “entirety”—which we say very improperly, because God does not have parts—and possesses the very same, undivided Divine Substance as the others.)

Of course, God is infinitely “separate” (in the sense of infinitely independent) from His creatures—which is what makes Him, so to speak, the Substance par excellence. (He is not, however, “separate” in the sense of “distant;” indeed, there is no one more “present” to creation than He is.)

Does this mean the triune God is ”three separate substances”, each existing apart from other substances, consisting of one substance?

No. God is a unique, undivided Substance. He is unique, undivided, and also triune; that is, within the Godhead, there are three subjects that can be the answer to the question “Who?” The Persons (or Hypostases) differ from one another only in relation of origin (Fatherhood, Sonship, and Procession); in every other respect—that is, with respect to the entire Divine Substance—they are perfectly identical."*

Noose et al - you are using terms wrong, and you know nothing about philosophy or church history. More than that, you simply cannot be a Christian if Jesus is not fully God and fully man. The Father sent Christ to redeem us from our sins. He died in our place. If he was just a man, then his death would avail nothing. He needs to be God to intercede for us. If he is only God, then he is not human, and never came to earth. All the prophecies of the incarnation in the OT and it being fulfilled in the NT are impossible. If you do not believe in the Trinity, you are not a Christian, which numerous people have mentioned in this thread.

More to come! Need to go search some of my papers on the Trinity I did for my PhD research!

*https://christianity.stackexchange....s-the-difference-between-person-and-substance

I thank you for you honest heartfelt response but I am certain that my faith and doctrine is correct, not that I'm saying that I would ignore hard evidence which disagrees with my faith.

I've heard this argument before but never really could understand why it was an issue, it's more of a philosophical argument over a biblical one. Nowhere in the scriptures that God had to love someone for love to exist. God does not need anyone, namely, the other persons of the trinity, to be or have love. God is eternal and his attributes are eternal, God's justice, wisdom, and power weren't reliant on any being or creation for him to possess those qualities, likewise, God's love is and wasn't reliant on the other two persons of the trinity for him to have love. God doesn't need anyone for him to possess his attributes, to claim God needed the other persons of the trinity to have an attribute is to limit God when God has no limits.

For example, someone who lacks the attribute of being just cannot display justice, only someone who is just can display justice. The same can be said about any attribute, to display any attribute they need exist in the person by nature prior to that person displaying it. God was wise prior to him displaying his wisdom, God was all-powerful prior to him demonstrating his power, God was just prior to him showing his justice, God had love prior to him ever expressing his love.

What many fail to realise is Jesus acted as God agent, God did many things through Jesus, in turn Jesus is referred to as doing the actions of the one who ordained those actions in the first place. For example Hebrews 1: 9,10 is attributes the creation of the world ot Jesus, this is a quote -which I'm sure you'll agree- from the OT in Ps 102:25-27 where it applies it to Yahweh. Now, many people such as yourself would see this as evidence that Jesus was Yahweh, yet what many do not realise is that the Father created the world through Jesus, which is evident by Hebrews 1:1,2 "Long ago God spoke to our forefathers by means of the prophets on many occasions and in many ways. 2 Now at the end of these days he has spoken to us by means of his Son... through whom he made the universe". Since the Father created the world through Jesus both the Father and Jesus made the world, the Father was the source and originator of creation however. Hence the application made to God in Ps 102:25-27 is also applicable to Jesus.

So again, OT quotes of God are applied to Christ at times as it was Christ who was doing the actions on behalf of the Father, since the instruction came from the Father both persons can be said to have done the action.

I'll take your word about Hislop , never heard of him but I seem to know the type .. There are two kinds of people, Born again through faith in Jesus or not .. I could care less about Luther, Calvin , Ellen White , any Pope, Taze Russel, Joseph Smith, Joel Osteen, Jim Jones , your or my preacher but I like to see where they are coming from, Gold is where you find it .. Each person and generation either builds on the foundation of Jesus or not .. I am held responsible for myself and what I speak and to win souls spreading the gospel of Jesus and to warn them of the consequences of rejecting Jesus which is eternal damnation .. I've did my research too like anyone should to have answers to real questions that the lost ask, like I did ..
The people I've led to Jesus are responsible for and I tell them to find their own church and there are plenty out there that throw strikes for Jesus but they are not babes in Christ forever and not bound to any particular church group .. I don't ever even mention a church unless I'm pressed to answer .. It's not my business where Jesus wants them as long as the church teaches ''you must be ''born again'' through faith in Jesus our risen Savior ..

I don't think you're going to find much truth in cultic groups. It's a bit like lapping water from a toilet.

But, feel free to carry on

I believe sometimes you gotta know what it is or ain't before you step in it

why would you guys stop coming to my house?

my wife talked to some visitors one day, but she says she doesn't remember what she said - just that the Spirit came over her and she said a lot.
later when our neighborhood was being canvassed again, they started to come down our driveway, but one of them grabbed the younger by the shoulders and turned them to the next house. no JW's have been to our house since my wife talked to them.

what could she have said that would 'blacklist' us?

Don't be sad, PH! They blacklisted me long ago, too. I did get out my Greek Bible, Lexicons and some information I had written up on why the JWs were theologically in error, when using the Greek. Too bad, I even invited them in for a Bible study. And these guys were both elders. No trainees allowed! Very powerful, strong men, sent to set me straight. But, the Greek foiled them. And they never returned! Sigh!

Founder Charles Russell admitted in a court case that he couldn’t read Greek much less translate it. There you go.