New to Christianity, have some questions please help!

[Eagle_Eyes]

Broncos1982

There is no easy way to explain the godhead but, simply put, Jesus is God. Jesus was God in a tangible form.

In John 1, it says that in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God. Further on in the chapter it says that the Word became flesh (this was Jesus Christ). Therefore Jesus Christ (the Word) was in the beginning, and was with God, and was God.

Also in Matthew 28:19 Jesus says to his disciples (including Peter), 'Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name (singular; not plural) of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost'. Trinitarians inevitably jump on this and say, 'there you go, there are three!'

However, if you read in Acts 2:38, Peter explicitly said, 'Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.' You might wonder why Peter didn't say 'of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost' as the Lord commanded! Was he disobeying the Lord? Was he openly contradicting what Jesus said? Not at all. Peter had a revelation (given by God) of what that name was? It was the Lord Jesus Christ. Father, Son and Holy Ghost are merely titles of the one true God whose name is the Lord Jesus Christ.

Everyone of us are composed of three parts: body, spirit and soul; yet we are the same person. I am a son, a minister and a pianist, say, but that is not my name.

So, whether you are praying to Jesus or Christ or God or the Father or the Holy Ghost or the Rose of Sharon or the Lily of the Valley or the Great Shepherd - the list goes on and on - you are praying to just the one person!

I trust this is helpful. God Bless you!

 

[Jaareshiah]

Let's reason together Jaareshiah.

You said,

The first occurrence of the word trinity was by Tertullian (160-220 C.E.) around the beginning of the 3rd century C.E.,

This may be the first recorded use of the word "trinity". That of course does not mean that the understanding of three persons in one God was not prevalent at the time. Only that the usage of the term "trinity" has it's first recorded usage with Tertullian.

Baa, baa.

Tertullian was the first to coin the the word trinitas in Latin and the formula “one substance in three persons", around the beginning of the third century C.E., but the concept of the trinity dates back almost two thousand years before Tertullian. Ancient Babylon had their share of trinities of gods and goddesses. As an example, there was Sin (the moon-god), Shamash (the sun-god), and Ishtar (the goddess of fertility, of which there were found in Babylon 180 altars). And still another triad was composed of the devils Labartu, Labasu, and Akhkhazu.

Later, ancient Egypt had a trinity of gods, one of which was Osiris, Isis (his wife), and Horus (his son). This formed the principal trinity or “holy family” among Egypt’s gods and goddesses. There was the Theban (Biblical city of No or No-amon at Nahum 3:8) triad of Amon, his wife Mut, and Khonsu (his adopted son). There are numerous correspondencies between the principal gods of Egypt and those of Babylon, the evidence favoring Babylon as the source and Egypt as the receiver or perpetuator.

Later was Assyria, whose religion was largely inherited from Babylon. One seal, found by English archaeologist A. H. Layard in the ruins of an Assyrian palace and now preserved in the British Museum, represents the god Asshur with three heads. The belief in triads of gods as well as that of a pentad, or five gods, was prominent in Assyrian worship. The chief triad or trinity was formed of Aner, representing heaven; Bel, representing the region inhabited by man, animals, and birds; and Ea, representing the terrestrial and subterranean waters.

The title Bel (meaning "Owner; Master" and a Babylonian deity) was first applied to the god Enlil. Bel was part of the original Sumerian triad of deities, along with Anu and Enki (Ea). A second triad was composed of Sin, the moon-god (a Babylonian deity, along with Shamash); Shamash, the sun-god; and Ramman, god of storm, although his place was often filled by Ishtar, queen of the stars.

Even up to this point, ancient Babylon had a very influential effect upon both the first (Egypt) and second (Assyria) world powers of Bible history religiously, with each having their triad of gods and goddesses. Medo-Persia, the fourth world power of Bible history (ancient Babylon was the third), may have had their trinity of gods and goddesses.

This is suggested by the fact that Artaxerxes Mnemon (reigned from 404 to 359 B.C.E.) invoked the protection of Ahura Mazda (the principal deity of Zoroastrianism), Anahita (a goddess of water and of fertility), and Mithra (a god of light), and he attributed his reconstruction of the Hall of Columns at Susa (also called Shushan, an ancient city about 220 miles east of Babylon) to the grace of these three deities.

Greece (the fifth world power of Bible history) had a triad of goddesses: Clotho (spinner), who spun the thread of life; Lachesis (disposer of lots), who determined the length of life; and Atropos (inflexible), who cut life off when the time expired.

A similar triad was found among the Roman deities. The Romans (Rome, sixth world power of Bible history) had a triad of Jupiter (the supreme god, a god of the sky and light), Juno (the consort of Jupiter regarded as presiding over matters of particular concern to women), and Minerva (a goddess presiding over all handicrafts) that corresponded to the Etruscan Tinia, Uni, and Menrva.

Thus, triads of gods and goddesses are found throughout history not long after the Noachian Flood (2370 - 2369 B.C.E.) and has continued unabated down till our time. The trinity is not a new concept, but originated in ancient Babylon, eventually spreading throughout the earth.

 

[David777]

I can see your implication.

Chistians hold to one God, the only God, Jaareshiah.

You seem to have multiple Gods similiar to the Romans and Greeks.

If you take the Word as a God.

Please reply Jaareshiah.

 

[Sam Canvas]

The Distorted Gospel of Jehovah’s Witnesses

“...there are some who trouble you and want to pervert [distort*] the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed” (Galatians 1:7, 8).

* “to transform into something of an opposite character” (Vine's Dictionary of New Testament Words).
​

How does a religious organisation define the Person of Christ? This simple test will tell true Christians all they need to know. Can you find the Jesus of the Bible in the literature of the Watchtower Society?

The answer is No.

To prove this we don’t need to go beyond the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ version of John 1:1 where it is claimed that Jesus (the Word) was “a god”. Despite what you may have read here on this forum, the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ version of this verse is inaccurate and tramps all over the best scholarly methodology of New Testament Greek translation.

An accurate translation of the Greek in John 1:1 reads: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

If you have any doubts about this please read the 4th chapter of Ron Rhodes book Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovah's Witnesses. This verse is dealt with in depth and proves conclusively that unbiased scholarly opinion is stacked heavily against the Watchtower Society’s distorted version.

The Watchtower Society is forced to pervert the Greek here because it contradicts the false teaching about their version of Christ.

The knock-on effect of this proof is the final realisation that the Christ preached by Jehovah’s Witnesses is not the Christ of the Bible. Therefore Jehovah’s Witnesses (including the member here on this forum) are distorting and perverting the true Gospel of Christ.

See my Blog for further information on the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ belief system.

But before I go I have to take issue with some of Jaareshiah’s somewhat lofty comments in deleted posts. I understand only too well why he makes these comments – he’s mainly just passing them on from Watchtower literature. But nonetheless they need to be put in a proper context:

“And yes, I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses. That is why I am able to provide detailed and accurate information, rather than what the churches dispense. I use the New World Translation as the Bible of choice, for having done a critical analysis by comparing it with the both Hebrew and Greek manuscripts, it has shown itself to be one of the most accurate Bibles anywhere.”

"Detailed and accurate information"?

The New World Translation is widely recognised to be of such a low standard in a variety of contexts that any authority worth its salt has no choice but to dismiss it. It certainly has not “ shown itself to be one of the most accurate Bibles anywhere”.

There is a mountain of evidence on this subject. I’d strongly encourage anyone here who’s tempted to accept Jaareshiah’s comments as fact to read sound literature on the Watchtower movement. I could copy out reams of damning evidence here, but it’s available through any good Christian outlet and can be downloaded from the likes of Amazon too.

But here are a couple of relevant quotes:

From The Facts on Jehovah's Witnesses by John Ankerberg, John Weldon and Dillon Burroughs:

“...the Watchtower Society miserably fails to pass the test of accurately translating the Bible. Because the Watchtower's New World Translation has universally been condemned as biased and inaccurate, it cannot legitimately claim it is faithfully presenting the Word of God. If it is not faithfully presenting the Word of God, the Watchtower Society cannot possibly be the sole channel on earth through which God has chosen to lead all men.”
​

In his book New World Translation: A Reliable Bible Version?, Gary F. Zeolla reaches the following conclusions:

“...the NWT is not a very readable version. Many places in the NWT were noted in this booklet where its readings were unnecessarily awkward.

“But to make matters even worse, as seen in the evaluations, there are occasional places in the NWT where the pre-conceived theology of the WT affects the way verses are translated in the NWT. And these were not even instances where there were in fact two legitimate translations of a passage, one favoring the theology of the translators and one not.

“In the cited cases, the WT has flat-out mistranslated the verses to make them fit their theology. And they did not indicate in any manner that words had been added or altered in these verses. Such a practice is abhorrent. And I would never recommend such a version, even if I agreed with the theology being inserted into the text.

“Is the New World Translation a reliable Bible version?

“The NWT would best be classified as a dynamic equivalence version. It is based on a very poor Greek text. It is not very easy to read. And worse of all, it occasionally mistranslates the text to make it fit the preconceived theology of the translators. These four factors together mean the NWT is not a reliable Bible version.

“As such, I would not recommend the NWT to anyone for any purpose. There are simply too many truly reliable Bible versions available for a person to waste their time reading an unreliable one.”
​

Jaareshiah has also said: “Obviously, there is much bias and prejudice for the trinity on this forum despite the evidence to the contrary. I meet up with this on a regular basis. However, I will proceed to answer your question.”

Jaareshiah, this is a Christian forum and is well defined (if, perhaps, not well policed) by those in charge. That explains the bias!

Imagine if I were to regularly visit my local Kingdom Hall up the road here and one day say to all those assembled, “You know folks, I think there’s a bit of bias here against orthodox Christianity’s teaching on the Trinity.”

The truth is, Jaareshiah, in this forum you find yourself badly out if context, and while you are sincerely and humbly loved, your Watchtower doctrines are spiritually pernicious.

They distort the balanced fullness of Bible Truth about the Godhead, Christ, the Holy Spirit and God’s clear plan of Salvation.

Sam