It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Three 16th-Century Truth Seekers—What Did They Find?

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 17 2017 @ 09:50 AM
a reply to: whereislogic

My name is phrased as a question, in search of those preferring to apply logic rather than propaganda techniques disrespecting the person they're talking to and twisting what they're saying (or otherwise paint a picture on them and twist people's perception of them and what they're saying, or facilitate in the dismissal game because you're discrediting someone by questioning character or motives).

So what is your motive for using propaganda videos in your OP?

"Anti JW literature, web sites, YouTube links" and your behaviour in relation to these and in relation to the bible, as well as that of others who share your views or ways of thinking is actually one of my biggest clues regarding the determination of truths pertaining to God, the bible and other important matters of reality and human behaviour.

Human behavior?

YouTube videos will some how enlighten one of truths pertaining to God, the bible and matters of reality and human behavior?

Sorry but human interaction will enlighten one to deeper truths pertaining to god and reality and human behavior which in turn will allow one to have multiple interpretations of the bible and understand why there are so many different sects of religions worldwide.

The more propaganda some people need or resort to


Talking about "the bigger picture", why don't you try to have another look at the 5 videos in the OP, all of them in a row and try to see the bigger picture there.

You poor lost soul.

I hope one day you recognize the self deceit you in see others is actually closer to home than you would like to believe.

edit on 17-1-2017 by InhaleExhale because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 17 2017 @ 10:03 AM

originally posted by: PeterH
a reply to: whereislogic

This happens a lot on ATS. I've seen other threads posted by Jehovah's Witnesses where people go in to personally attack the person and totally ignore the OP. And have even seen the OP reason with them, ... the thread drift and name calling.

...They both will never answer any of your questions, and will only attack you and smear you with slander and propaganda.

I see not much has changed, didn't take long for one of these types to show up again and place a few subtle ones below the belt, 1 of which only to be understood by those who like gossip and slander about a particular individual in that case. And the recipient. Some people seem to like rhetorical paintjob questions such as:

When did you stop beating your wife?

"So what is your motive for using propaganda videos in your OP?"

But of course, in spite of asking such paintjob questions and placing a few subtle ones below the belt, I'm supposed to believe...

"You poor lost soul.

I hope one day you recognize the self deceit you in see others is actually closer to home than you would like to believe."

I don't know if I should believe that that is an accurate description of the hope inside the person who says the above after the earlier paintjob. I'm reluctant to ponder about the real motive for making the comment and what kind of hope that reflects cause there seems to be quite a negative vibe surrounding it. At the very least, I'm not convinced of genuine concern for my mental well-being.

I guess a person could be impressed with someone else's ability to ask rhetorical questions containing straw man arguments though. But I think that shows concern or a motive to do something else than help someone recognize self-deceit and that attitude never impresses me.

YouTube videos will some how enlighten one of truths pertaining to God, the bible and matters of reality and human behavior?

Great straw man argument in a rhetorical question, I think there's a red herring+ad hominem in there as well, since the topic of the OP is the doctrine of the Trinity and what the historical truth seekers in the articles I posted are saying about that subject, not me or how I process information according to your subtle implications:

edit on 17-1-2017 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 17 2017 @ 11:23 AM
continued from the article at the end of page 3 (oh look, no youtube videos

A Herald of Religious Freedom

Although Calvin eliminated his personal rival, he lost his own moral authority. The unjustified execution of Servetus outraged thinking people throughout Europe, and it provided a powerful argument for civil libertarians who insisted that no man should be killed for his religious beliefs. They became more determined than ever to press on in the fight for religious freedom.

Italian poet Camillo Renato protested: “Neither God nor his spirit have counselled such an action. Christ did not treat those who negated him that way.” And French humanist Sébastien Chateillon wrote: “To kill a man is not to protect a doctrine, but it is to kill a man.” Servetus himself had said: “I consider it a serious matter to kill men because they are in error on some question of scriptural interpretation, when we know that even the elect ones may be led astray into error.”

Regarding the lasting impact of Servetus’ execution, the book Michael Servetus—Intellectual Giant, Humanist, and Martyr says: “Servetus’s death was the turning point in the ideology and mentality dominating since the fourth century.” It adds: “From a historical perspective, Servetus died in order that freedom of conscience could become a civil right of the individual in modern society.”

In 1908 a monument to Servetus was erected in the French city of Annemasse, some three miles [5 km] from the spot where he died. An inscription reads: “Michel Servet[us], . . . geographer, physician, physiologist, contributed to the welfare of humanity by his scientific discoveries, his devotion to the sick and the poor, and the indomitable independence of his intelligence and his conscience. . . . His convictions were invincible. He made a sacrifice of his life for the cause of the truth.”

Servetus and the Name Jehovah

Servetus’ quest for the truth also led him to use the name Jehovah. Some months after William Tyndale employed this name in his translation of the Pentateuch, Servetus published On the Errors of the Trinity—in which he used the name Jehovah throughout. He explained in this work: “The other name, the most holy of all, יהוה, . . . can be interpreted as follows, . . . ‘He causes to be,’ ‘he who brings into being,’ ‘the cause of existence.’” He noted: “The name of Jehovah can properly apply only to the Father.”

In 1542, Servetus also edited the renowned Latin translation of the Bible by Santes Pagninus (shown below). In his extensive marginal notes, Servetus highlighted the divine name again. He included the name Jehovah in the marginal references to key texts such as Psalm 83:18, where the word for “Lord” appeared in the main text.

In his final work, The Restitution of Christianity, Servetus stated regarding the divine name, Jehovah: “[It] is clear . . . that there were many who pronounced this name in ancient times.”

posted on Feb, 8 2017 @ 07:44 AM
500 Years of Calvinism—What Has It Achieved?

JEAN CAUVIN (John Calvin) was born in Noyon, France, in 1509. He founded a religious movement that played a significant role in the life of many people in parts of Europe, the Americas, South Africa, and elsewhere. He is regarded as one of the major church Reformers in Western history.

Today, some 500 years after Calvin’s birth, Calvinism—the ideas and teachings of Calvin—in one form or another still flourishes in such Protestant denominations as Reformed, Presbyterian, Congregational, Puritan, and others. As of last September, the World Alliance of Reformed Churches reported having 75 million adherents in 107 countries.

At Odds With Catholicism

Calvin’s father was an attorney and a secretary for the Catholic church in Noyon. His work probably brought him face-to-face with much of the widespread misconduct of the clergy at the time. Whether this led to protest or irreverence, we cannot be sure, but in time John’s father and brother were both excommunicated by the church. When his father died, John had difficulty securing a Christian burial for him. That incident likely cemented John’s mistrust of Catholicism.

Most works on Calvin have little to say about him as a youth except to describe him as reserved and uncommunicative in character. Even as a student in Paris, Orléans, and Bourges, he seemed to have few friends. But Calvin was gifted with a quick mind and an astonishing memory. This, coupled with an awesome capacity for work—he studied daily from five o’clock in the morning until midnight—enabled him to become a doctor of law before he turned 23. He also learned Hebrew, Greek, and Latin in order to study the Bible. First and foremost, however, Calvin was known for his solemn, disciplined work ethic, a characteristic that many link to Calvinism even today.

Meanwhile, across the border in Germany, Martin Luther openly criticized the Catholic Church for its corruption and unbiblical teachings. It is popularly thought that in 1517 he nailed his 95 theses, or protests, to a church door in Wittenberg, urging church reform. Many agreed with Luther, and the Reformation quickly spread throughout Europe. Understandably, it stirred up strong opposition in many areas, and the protesters, or Protestants, expounded their views at their own peril. In 1533 in Paris, Calvin’s friend Nicholas Cop delivered a speech supporting Luther, and since Calvin helped write the speech, both he and Cop had to flee for their lives. Calvin never again returned to live in France.

In 1536, Calvin published Institutes of the Christian Religion, a veritable textbook on Protestant faith. He addressed it to King Francis I in defense of French Protestants, later known as Huguenots. Calvin attacked Catholic teachings and upheld the cornerstone of his own faith—God’s sovereignty. In addition to its impact on religious matters, Calvin’s Institutes is also noted for its influence on French language and literary style. Calvin was acclaimed as one of the foremost Reformers. He eventually settled in Geneva, Switzerland, and from 1541 onward, he made that city the focal point of his reforms.

Pursuing Reforms in Geneva

Calvin exerted a dramatic influence on Geneva. Driven by a strong sense of morality and righteousness, he changed Geneva from “a city of ill repute to one in which a strict moral code regulated the lives of all,” observes the Encyclopedia of Religion. Changes came about in other ways as well. Dr. Sabine Witt, curator of Berlin’s German Historical Museum, explains: “As a result of the religious wars in France, the population [of Geneva] doubled within a few years following the influx of thousands of Protestant refugees.” The Huguenots, possessed of a work ethic like that of Calvin, boosted the economy of the city, establishing Geneva as a center for printing and for the manufacture of timepieces.

Refugees from other lands also came to Geneva, including many from England, where Protestants were under threat from Queen Mary I. Made up mostly of exiled minorities, Calvinists thus developed what the religious journal Christ in der Gegenwart (Contemporary Christian) describes as “the theology of the persecuted.” In 1560 the refugees published the Geneva Bible, the first Bible in English to contain numbered verse divisions. Because of its compact size, this Bible facilitated personal study of God’s Word. This was probably the Bible translation taken by the Puritans when they emigrated to North America in 1620.

Geneva did not provide safe refuge for everyone, however. Michael Servetus, born in 1511 in Spain, studied Greek, Latin, Hebrew, and medicine and might have met Calvin when both were students in Paris. Servetus recognized from his study of the Bible that the doctrine of the Trinity was unscriptural. He tried to correspond with Calvin on the subject, but the latter viewed Servetus less as a friend than a foe. Persecuted by Catholics in France, Servetus fled to Calvin’s city, Geneva. Rather than being met with a welcome, he was arrested, tried for heresy, and burned at the stake in 1553. “The execution of Servetus continues to be a stigma on the life and work of the otherwise great Reformer [Calvin],” says historian Friedrich Oehninger.

Calvin turned out a prodigious amount of work while pursuing the goal of reform. He is said to have written more than 100 reference works and 1,000 letters as well as to have delivered some 4,000 sermons in Geneva. Through it all, Calvin not only propounded his view of what Christianity should be but also endeavored to enforce the way he thought Christians ought to live, especially in Geneva, which he envisioned as something of a city of God.*

What have Calvin’s tireless reform efforts in Geneva produced? According to the Swiss Federal Statistics Office, in the year 2000, just 16 percent of the inhabitants of Geneva belonged to the Reformed (Calvinist) Church, and there are more Catholics than Calvinists in that city.

Religious Disunity Proliferates

In the wake of the Reformation, individual cities and states declared their allegiance to Catholicism, Lutheranism, or Calvinism, making Europe a hotbed of religious disunity. Although the Reformers were united in their criticism of the Catholic Church, they were at odds with one another. Dr. Witt, quoted earlier, notes: “Theological disagreements developed even within the Protestant camp.” Although all acknowledged that the Bible should be the basis of Christian faith, there was considerable disagreement in their teachings. The immediate issue was the meaning of the Last Supper and of Christ’s presence. In time, Calvinism developed one of its most controversial doctrines: predestination.

There was much debate on the definition of predestination. One group of Calvinists claimed that before humans sinned, God had decided that a chosen few were to be led to salvation through Christ, whereas all others were to be abandoned to their fate. This group, therefore, believed that salvation was the decree of God and that men were not all equal. Other Calvinists thought that salvation was open to all humankind, and it was a matter of individual choice whether to accept it or not. This meant that salvation depended upon man’s free will. Until long after Calvin’s death, Calvinism struggled with such topics as God’s decree, man’s free will, and the equality of opportunity among humankind.

posted on Feb, 8 2017 @ 07:47 AM

Calvinism’s Blemished Legacy

In the 20th century, the Calvinist Dutch Reformed Church presented predestination as a basis for racial discrimination in South Africa. Regarding the government’s policy of white supremacy, Nelson Mandela, who became the first black president of South Africa, asserted: “The policy was supported by the Dutch Reformed Church, which furnished apartheid with its religious underpinnings by suggesting that Afrikaners were God’s chosen people and that blacks were a subservient species. In the Afrikaner’s world view, apartheid and the church went hand in hand.”

In the 1990’s, the Dutch Reformed Church apologized publicly for its support of apartheid. In a formal statement called the Rustenburg Declaration, church leaders acknowledged: “Some of us actively misused the Bible to justify apartheid, leading many to believe that it had the sanction of God.” Over the years, the church’s stand on apartheid not only contributed to the suffering that resulted from racial prejudice but even suggested that God was to blame!

John Calvin died in Geneva in 1564. At the end, he reportedly thanked his fellow churchmen “for having conferred so many honours on one who plainly deserved nothing of the kind” and begged forgiveness for his enduring weaknesses of impatience and anger. Be that as it may, there is no denying that the Protestant work ethic—characterized by industriousness, self-discipline, and dedication to duty—bears close resemblance to the person and values of John Calvin.

posted on Feb, 26 2017 @ 07:01 AM
More important things we can learn about and from history (and again, lessons from the 16th century) that will affect our understanding of what the bible refers to as "the system of things" and "Babylon the Great" and others here may have occasionally referred to as "The Matrix", TPTB, a Satanic conspiracy or NWO without fully understanding what they're talking about...(see also the OP of the thread linked at the end of the OP of this thread about those terminologies)

The Geneva Bible—A Forgotten Translation: Awake!—2004

The Geneva Bible—A Forgotten Translation

By Awake! writer in New Zealand

DO YOU possess a compact Bible that you can hold comfortably and that has a typeface that is gentle on the eyes? Does its format make it easy to find the information you seek? If you answer yes to these questions, then you owe much to the Geneva Bible of 1560.

Few people today have heard of the Geneva Bible. Yet, this remarkable translation was a best-seller in its day. Its reputed textual accuracy, along with innovations in presentation and layout, made it the favorite of the reading public. The English dramatists Shakespeare and Marlowe used it as the source for their Bible quotations.

Just how did this popular 16th-century English Bible come to originate in the French-speaking Swiss city of Geneva? What were its unique features? What led to its demise? How do we continue to benefit from it today?

A Bible With New Features

The Geneva Bible was produced by a group of religious refugees who fled repression and possible execution in England when Mary Tudor came to power in 1553. These scholars were welcomed into Geneva’s Protestant community. With a well-established printing industry and an interest in Bible reading, Geneva was a place where Bible translation and production flourished.

The Geneva Bible, translated by William Whittingham and his assistants, appeared in 1560. Soon people were eagerly reading it in England. Easier to read than Bibles produced prior to it, this was the first Bible in English to contain numbered verse divisions, a system that is universally used today. Also included were running heads—a few key words at the top of each page to help readers find specific passages in the text below. In addition, rather than using the heavy Gothic typeface that was modeled on written script, a clear typeface similar to what is still preferred in English Bibles today was generally used.

Earlier Bibles, designed for reading from church lecterns, had been produced in the large and cumbersome folio size. The Geneva Bible was a handy edition about half the size of the folio volumes. This smaller Bible was not only well suited to personal reading and study but also far more affordable.

Striving After Textual Integrity

The Geneva Bible translators gave particular attention to retaining the flavor and sense of the original Hebrew. God’s name, Jehovah, appeared in a few places, including Exodus 6:3; 17:5; and Psalm 83:18. Words that the translators considered to be necessary additions were shown in italics, and text that had been added for grammatical clarity appeared in square brackets.

The Geneva Bible quickly became established as the official translation in Scotland. It was also widely used in England and is thought to be the translation taken by the Pilgrims on their famous 1620 voyage to what is now the United States. The Geneva Bible was taken to other British colonies—including the most distant, New Zealand. There, in 1845 a copy became part of the collection of Governor Sir George Grey.

The Contentious Marginal Notes

The extensive annotations in the Geneva Bible contributed to its enduring popularity among its readers. These were provided because the translators realized that the Bible had ‘hard places,’ or parts that were difficult to understand. Such marginal notes were not new. Tyndale had used them in his 1534 “New Testament.” Besides the marginal notes, the Geneva Bible contained illustrations, prefaces, and maps—all designed to enhance understanding. Bound with the text were genealogical tables, summaries, and even a section encouraging daily Bible reading.

Although they acknowledged the excellence of the translation in private, the hierarchy of the Church of England publicly objected to it because they considered the tone of the marginal notes to be radical. Matthew Parker, then Archbishop of Canterbury, called them “diverse prejudicial notes.” King James I considered the notes to be “very partial, untrue, seditious.” No wonder, since some of the notes challenged the “divine right” of kings!

The Demise of the Geneva Bible

In 1604, King James authorized a new translation, hoping to rid England forever of the Geneva Bible. Theological historian Alister McGrath states that “the greatest obstacle faced by the King James Version as it sought to establish itself in the seventeenth century was the continuing popularity of the Geneva Bible.” For many years the Geneva Bible was preferred by the public, and it remained the official Bible in Scotland. New editions continued to appear until 1644.

The British and Foreign Bible Society observed that an “examination of [the] King James’ Bible of 1611 shows that its translators . . . were influenced more by the Geneva than by any other English version.” Many innovations in presentation and renderings of the Geneva Bible were incorporated in the King James Version, including such distinct phrases as “Remember now thy Creator in the days of thy youth” and “Solomon in all his glory.”—Ecclesiastes 12:1; Matthew 6:29.

An Enduring Influence

Although eventually superseded by the Authorized Version, or King James Version, the Geneva Bible occupies an important place in literary history. Not only did it set new standards in translation and presentation but it remains a vital link in the chain of revision of English Bibles. It promoted Bible reading and study among a wide range of people who otherwise might not have had access to it.

By paving the way for the King James Bible, the Geneva Bible also ensured that certain Bible phrases made their way into literature and the English language. So although the Geneva Bible may for the most part be forgotten, it has certainly left its mark.

[Picture on page 12]

Exodus 6:3, where God’s name appears

edit on 26-2-2017 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 1 2017 @ 03:39 AM

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
a reply to: whereislogic

YouTube videos will some how enlighten one of truths pertaining to God, the bible and matters of reality and human behavior?

When I used the phrase "Anti links" I was quoting someone else that was referring me to (promoting, speaking favorably of, suggesting or implying) these youtube links as reliable sources (even though I know them to be filled with propagandistic slanderous lies, half-truths, twists of logic and reason, etc.), and I was hinting at the behaviour of those considering these "Anti JW literature, web sites, YouTube links" (as in all "Anti JW", again, using someone else's terminology) as the kind of source that you describe as capable of "some how enlighten[ing] one of truths pertaining to God, the bible and matters of reality and human behavior", it is that behaviour compared with what the bible says about it that I was talking about as "one of my biggest clues regarding the determination of truths pertaining to God, the bible and other important matters of reality and human behaviour." Not the "Anti JW literature, web sites, YouTube links" on its own (on their own? I'm actually thinking "propaganda on its own" at the end of the sentence there because I'm considering both the cause: "Anti JW" propaganda and the effect: the anti-Jehovah and his witnesses including his "Faithful Witness"* Jesus Christ, thus antichrist-behaviour and thinking; *: Revelation 1:2,5, Revelation 3:14 ). In short, the more people fall for the lies and deceptions without being able to recognize propaganda for what it is (+often presenting propaganda as reliable or factual/true, honest, figurative 'light' and describing facts/truths as propaganda, see Isaiah 5:20,21), the more clues I'm accumulating (observing) regarding the bible's descriptions of this human behaviour and in particular as explained by the targets (for slander*) of these propagandistic sources. (*: not the targets for brainwashing and indoctrination, those who are supposed to fall for the slanderous propaganda, these suggested sources have 2 targets, 1 target that they slander and 1 target that they hope to influence with that slander by making them believe it to be true when actually it's false or a misrepresentation of the situation, not the whole picture)

The 'pot calling the kettle black'-routine regarding what is propaganda and what is education (knowledge, the teaching of facts/truths) or Isa 5:20,21 routine (which describes it much better) is particularly interesting (related to the concept of "psychological projection"). Turning things upside down, paint a picture of (or consider, view) propaganda as reliable information ('light', good information, beneficial teachings) about reality and treat reliable information about reality (especially about God and the bible) as propaganda (and brainwashing, indoctrination, cult-stuff, gulllibility, dishonesty, evil, etc.: figurative darkness).

That is exactly what that person did with his referral to "Anti JW literature, web sites, YouTube links" as reliable information (light, enlightenment, knowledge, truth, an honest warning about the targets for slander).

All the time conveniently ignoring a logical reasonable response to the points that were being made in the thread about history and biblical subjects so that the focus and attention can be steered towards a particular group of people that people "in the world" have been conditioned to ignore and not take seriously about anything, disrespect, and feel disdain towards (all to assist with keeping people in darkness, so they won't even hear out someone that is trying to clear up a subject related to God and the bible, to share some light on the matter). Note that the three 16th century truth seekers mentioned in the OP and others after it lived long before all this propaganda against this other group became popular within human society. So why even bring them up? Because they happen to be the source for these facts/truths about history and historical characters that I shared in this thread? You know what that's called when one attacks a person or group of persons presenting a point but won't address or respond to the points being made (or facts shared)?

Ad hominem: (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person [or group of persons] rather than the position they are maintaining.

It is the main tool of these "Anti JW literature, web sites, YouTube links" and those who fall for it and suggest me to look into it. I already did, much more thoroughly than those who fall for the lies and false stories and demonstrate 2 Timothy 4:3,4 in the process and many bible verses speaking about the influence of "the world", "this system of things" (some people might be more familiar with the term "The Matrix"), the majority of humanity and their snowball-effect and bandwagon-way of thinking (see Matthew 7:13,14 where a majority view is contrasted with a minority view, likewise one can search youtube for "Jehovah" and see this contrast of a broad gate+road vs narrow gate+road, most videos will be negative about Jehovah, made by those going towards the broad gate with many people on that road or spiritual pathway, these videos are way more popular than videos with truthful accurate information about "Jehovah", or that contain lots of beneficial teaching, light, knowledge about the subject, again, demonstrating that many people are on the wrong road that leads to destruction, see Matthew 7:13,14).

These are all clues that the bible can be trusted and what the correct understanding of these verses is. They match up perfectly (and logically) with my observations of reality (in this case particularly related to human behaviour towards Jehovah and anyone on Jehovah's side or who dares to speak the truth or positively about Jehovah God, which is unavoidable to speak positively about Jehovah and all his witnesses* that have walked this earth when one is speaking about things that are true/factual about this subject). *: From Abraham to Jesus to his witnesses on earth today. But perhaps for most this particular type of information is too solid as food for thought.

Hebrews 5:11-14

We have much to say about him, and it is difficult to explain, because you have become dull in your hearing. 12 For although by now* you should be teachers, you again need someone to teach you from the beginning the elementary things of the sacred pronouncements of God, and you have gone back to needing milk, not solid food. 13 For everyone who continues to feed on milk is unacquainted with the word of righteousness, for he is a young child. 14 But solid food belongs to mature people, to those who through use have their powers of discernment* trained to distinguish both right and wrong.
edit on 1-3-2017 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 09:34 AM

originally posted by: ClovenSky
There is so much fraud in everything that clergy touches.

Talking about that subject:

The Bible—“An Unknown Book”

“The Church has always fulfilled its duty to keep books under surveillance, but until the invention of printing, it did not feel the need to compile a catalog of prohibited books because those writings considered dangerous were burned,” states the Enciclopedia Cattolica. Even after the onset of the Protestant Reformation, the clergy of several European countries did their utmost to limit circulation of so-called heretical books. A turning point came after the Council of Trent in 1546, when the question of vernacular translations was considered. Two distinct positions emerged. Those favoring prohibition held that the Bible in the common tongue was “the mother and origin of all heresies.” Those against the prohibition stated that their “adversaries,” the Protestants, would argue that the church prohibited the Bible in the vernacular to hide “fraud and deceit.”

Lack of agreement meant that the Council took no definite stand on the issue but limited itself to sanctioning the authenticity of the Vulgate, which became the standard text for the Catholic Church. However, Carlo Buzzetti, teacher at the Pontifical University Salesianum, Rome, notes that pronouncing the Vulgate “authentic” “favored the idea that, in practice, it was to be the only legitimate form of the Bible.” Ensuing developments bore this out.

In 1559, Pope Paul IV published the first index of prohibited books, a list of works that Catholics were forbidden to read, sell, translate, or possess. These volumes were considered evil and dangerous to faith and moral integrity. The index forbade the reading of vernacular translations of the Bible, including Brucioli’s. Transgressors were excommunicated. The 1596 index was even more restrictive. Authorization was no longer to be given to translate or print Bibles in the vernacular. Such Bibles were to be destroyed.

As a result, Bible burnings in church squares multiplied after the end of the 16th century. In the minds of the people in general, the Scriptures became a book of the heretics, and that image is still very much alive. Almost all Bibles and Bible commentaries in public and private libraries were destroyed, and for the next 200 years, no Catholic would translate a Bible into Italian. The only Bibles that circulated on the Italian peninsula—in secret, for fear of confiscation—were those translated by Protestant scholars. Thus, historian Mario Cignoni states: “In practice, Bible reading by laymen ceased completely for centuries. The Bible became virtually an unknown book, and millions of Italians lived their lives without ever reading a page of it.”

Source: The Bible in Italian—A Troubled History

There's a lot more discussed in that article that provide interesting lessons from history for truth seekers as per the motive described in the OP, I skipped a lot.

posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 04:08 PM
I don't see how the trinity of a three in one Godhead cannot be understood or accepted by any Christian based on what Jesus said and the Spirit that issued forth from Him that is also Him in the present. Jesus is like God-processed for our own enjoyment and participation in the same spirit of koinonia.

The son cannot be cleave from the Father, nor the Spirit given by them.

Of course there is one God and only one God, but these are to us the three manifestations of God, or what God is to us, as Christians, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It's three in one. It's not divided in any way.

Oh sigh..

posted on Mar, 27 2017 @ 12:54 AM
a reply to: AnkhMorpork
Perhaps it has something to do with the points that were already made in this thread and some more examples below. Most of which made by the most influential Trinitarian organizations (or influential theologians belonging to them) that started teaching this doctrine or have teached this doctrine and continue to teach this doctrine in spite of their admittals and occasional 'honesty' regarding this subject....not sure if I should count this type of 'honesty' as actual honesty if they try to make up excuses for it when sticking to the doctrine of the Trinity or hope their flocks won't notice what they've just admitted to and how it impacts their doctrines and theosophies and what it demonstrates regarding their behaviour in spite of these acknowledgements:

Cardinal John O’Connor stated about the Trinity: “We know that it is a very profound mystery, which we don’t begin to understand.” Why is the Trinity so difficult to understand?

The Illustrated Bible Dictionary gives one reason. Speaking of the Trinity, this publication admits: “It is not a biblical doctrine in the sense that any formulation of it can be found in the Bible.” Because the Trinity is “not a biblical doctrine,” Trinitarians have been desperately looking for Bible texts—even twisting them—to find support for their teaching.

Source: Is Jesus God?

What is the origin of the myth?

“The impression could arise that the Trinitarian dogma is in the last analysis a late 4th-century invention. In a sense, this is true . . . The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century.”—New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967), Volume 14, page 299.

“The Council of Nicaea met on May 20, 325 [C.E.]. Constantine himself presided, actively guiding the discussions, and personally proposed . . . the crucial formula expressing the relation of Christ to God in the creed issued by the council, ‘of one substance with the Father.’ . . . Overawed by the emperor, the bishops, with two exceptions only, signed the creed, many of them much against their inclination.”—Encyclopædia Britannica (1970), Volume 6, page 386.

What does the Bible say?

“Stephen, filled with the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at God’s right hand. ‘Look! I can see heaven thrown open,’ he said, ‘and the Son of man standing at the right hand of God.’”—Acts 7:55, 56, The New Jerusalem Bible.

What did this vision reveal? Filled with God’s active force, Stephen saw Jesus “standing at God’s right hand.” Clearly, then, Jesus did not become God again after his resurrection to heaven but, rather, a distinct spiritual being. There is no mention of a third person next to God in this account. Despite attempts to find passages of Scripture to support the Trinity dogma, Dominican priest Marie-Émile Boismard wrote in his book À l’aube du christianisme—La naissance des dogmes (At the Dawn of Christianity—The Birth of Dogmas): “The statement that there are three persons in the one God . . . cannot be read anywhere in the New Testament.”

The dogma that Constantine championed was intended to put an end to dissensions within the fourth-century Church. However, it actually raised another issue: Was Mary, the woman who bore Jesus, “the Mother of God”?

Compare these Bible verses: Matthew 26:39; John 14:28; 1 Corinthians 15:27, 28; Colossians 1:15, 16


The Trinitarian dogma is a late fourth-century invention

Source: Myth 4: God Is a Trinity

That's just a tiny sample of acknowledgements and issues with the doctrine of the Trinity. I skipped a lot from the articles linked. It's not a biblical doctrine, period. The bible is clear on this point.

Coming back to something you said:

...based on what Jesus said...

I suggest some people are not really hearing Jesus very well (see also Matt.7:13,14 and possibly the context):

So you have made the word of God invalid because of your tradition. 7 You hypocrites, Isaiah aptly prophesied about you when he said: 8 ‘This people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far removed from me. 9 It is in vain that they keep worshipping me, for they teach commands of men as doctrines.’” (Jesus at Matthew 15:6b-9, and of course Isaiah who he was quoting and/or paraphrasing* and Paul came back to that subject quoting and/or paraphrasing* Isaiah as well)

Isaiah 29:13
13 Jehovah says: “This people approaches me with their mouth
And they honor me with their lips,
But their heart is far removed from me;
And their fear of me is based on commands of men that they have been taught.

ASV, Darby and YLT all have "Jehovah" in verse 10 and 15. The message is from Jehovah as related by His prophet Isaiah as well as repeated by His "faithful and true witness" Jesus (Rev. 3:14; 1:5) and Paul. The bible teaches that Jesus is a faithfull witness of Jehovah, and a divine son of Jehovah, the "firstborn of all creation" (Col.1:15) and "the beginning of the creation by God" (Rev. 3:14).

*: just remember that Isaiah was written in Hebrew while Matthew and Paul's letters were written in Greek, so that's also why you might see some variation in the translation to English.
edit on 27-3-2017 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 27 2017 @ 01:51 PM
a reply to: whereislogic

Yes, but Jesus said "I and the father are one" and then said that he would send the Holy Spirit, which he did. Father, son, holy spirit.

It's a valid description, but it's not in the Bible no.

Is the Spirit not also Jesus and doesn't it (He) issue from God the father &/or from Jesus?

Jesus is God. He is one with God and at the right hand of the power of God.

Perhaps the problem you have is with the idea of three separate persons, but since they are three in one, what's the problem?

At the very least I'm sure you would concur that Jesus is alive and that he lives in the Spirit, who also lives in us, with us in him and him in us with son and father having made their home with us.

That's the real marvel, the removal of the veil of separation, allowing us access to the holy of holies where, because of the work of God in the son, we are not at enmity with God, but instead can enjoy koinonia with God, as an intimate, participatory fellowship, not unlike that of a Bride to a Bridegroom.

He makes possible our access to God via the holy spirit which he sent as a comforter and as a teacher.

Because of Him, we can access Him as the living Spirit of the living God, who is Spirit and Truth ie: can worship and fellowship with him, anyone, anywhere, and do not need to go to the mountain or the temple to find Him.

And when he said that He and the Father are one, He of course meant in Spirit and there is only one Spirit of the Living God.

Jesus is a spiritual reality, not a seperative God-at-a-distance, and praise God for that! He can be with us where we are, in a heart to heart relationship of love and mutuality, completing His circle of joy in us with us in Him. What a wonderful thing to be invited to participate in.

P.S. I think of Jesus as the right arm of God (metaphorically). And for God to be love, there were always two in one, and now we have the Spirit as well, just as Jesus promised He would send, which like the wind is radically free and blows where it will where our job is to make a place for Him, and to be willing to receive.

I've seen alleged "devotees" who do not have the Spirit and who are spiritually dead because they don't have that intimate relationship with God that was intended by the father and the son in the Spirit.

Many believe in him like some sort of object or like Zeus on a throne, but who don't have a relationship WITH Him in the Spirit, and that's very sad, and it reflects itself or fails to do so in their countenance, because they're so wrapped up in a certain doctrine, that they never went in or invited others to enter in and never developed a love relationship with him in Spirit ie: are far from His heart.

edit on 27-3-2017 by AnkhMorpork because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 03:08 AM

originally posted by: AnkhMorpork
a reply to: whereislogic

Yes, but Jesus said "I and the father are one" ...

See the OP, 2 responses were already made to the eisegesis regarding that verse by Trinitarians (the verse in question provides as much evidence for the doctrine of the Trinity as changes in DNA because of mutations and bacterial resistance provide evidence for 'common descent' of all living organisms; it's all based on bias and spin, propaganda, twisting and misrepresenting the evidence). The commentary from Campanus as well as the bible verses quoted in response in the 5th video about the Trinity doctrine respond to the Tinitarian spin or eisegesis. Jesus and his Father and his God Jehovah are one in the same sense that Jesus is talking about "one" at John 17:22 (KJV):

...that they may be one, even as we are one:

"they" is referring to his disciples. Why is this verse never mentioned when Trinitarians attempt to sell their eisegesis regarding the other verse about Jesus and his God Jehovah? Because it doesn't fit their logic? If you follow through their logic that means the disciples are also requested to become part of this supposed Trinity, therefore, it's no longer a Trinity (as in 3 persons in 1 God, that's a whole lot more than 3). Clearly Jesus meant that in a different way than identifying himself as part of a God that consists of 3 persons or even more if you don't conveniently ignore John 17:22 or suddenly switch to a different understanding of what he's talking about for John 17:22 than the eisegesis for John 10:30 (the verse that uses the same concept and says "I and the Father are one"), i.e. then suddenly it isn't that hard to understand what he's talking about at John 17:22, but we're just going to conveniently ignore that he means the same concept at John 10:30, it's even in the same biblebook for crying out loud. Pardon if that last expression comes across wrong, just wanted to emphasize how it astonishes me that some people can do these things and get away with it (that's a remark regarding those top theologians that know very well the tricks they're pulling on people, that aren't ignorant about the relation between these 2 verses and how the bible itself refutes the Trinitarian eisegesis regarding John 10:30, no need for human wisdom at all; but they'll nicely talk past that point as well and pretend that you can interpret it both ways, in other words, mere human interpretation in both cases is what they imply;nope, the bible is clear and it's not a human interpretation in the sense that you can pick whatever interpretation you feel like and continue to use eisegesis regarding John 10:30 and then pretend or tell yourself that it's the holy spirit that taught or shown you this understanding or explain it away like that so you don't have to address the flaws in the logic of that eisegesis compared to John 17:22 while appealing to blind faith and describing it as faith, since the logic is not used consistently, 2 different interpretations for the same concept, one correct, the other wrong and biased towards Trinitarianism).

I'm afraid my comment is getting too complicated and you might only be able to understand the last part of it if you manage to put of your Trinitarian glasses, of which I'm not hopeful so I'll just leave it at that. Perhaps my way of explaining is also a bit odd, impatient is perhaps the right word for it. Maybe this explanation is better:
In What Way Are Jesus and His Father One?

“I and the Father are one,” said Jesus. (John 10:30) Some quote this text to prove that Jesus and his Father are two parts of a triune God. Is that what Jesus meant by this statement?

Let us take a look at the context. In verse 25, Jesus stated that he did works in the name of his Father. From verses 27 to 29, he talked about symbolic sheep whom his Father had given him. Both statements by Jesus would have made little sense to his listeners if he and his Father were one and the same person. Instead, Jesus said, in effect, ‘My Father and I are so close-knit that no one can take away the sheep from me, just as no one can take them away from my Father.’ It is much like a son saying to his father’s enemy, ‘If you attack my father, you attack me.’ No one would conclude that this son and his father were the same person. But all could perceive the strong bond of unity between them.

Jesus and his Father, Jehovah God, are also “one” in the sense that they are in complete agreement as to intentions, standards, and values. In contrast with Satan the Devil and the first human couple, Adam and Eve, Jesus never wanted to become independent of God. “The Son cannot do a single thing of his own initiative, but only what he beholds the Father doing,” Jesus explained. “For whatever things that One does, these things the Son also does in like manner.”—John 5:19; 14:10; 17:8.

This strong bond of unity, however, does not make God and his Son, Jesus, indistinguishable from each other. They are two individuals. Each one has his own distinct personality. Jesus has his own feelings, thoughts, experiences, and free will. Nevertheless, he chose to submit his will to that of his Father. According to Luke 22:42, Jesus said: “Let, not my will, but yours take place.” These words would have been meaningless if his will could not differ from his Father’s. If Jesus and his Father were really one person, why did Jesus pray to God and humbly admit to not knowing things that only his Father knew?—Matthew 24:36.

Members of many religions worship gods that are depicted as quarreling and fighting with their own family members. In Greek mythology, for example, Cronus overthrew his father, Uranus, and devoured his own children. How different this is from the oneness based on true love between Jehovah God and his Son, Jesus! And how this unity endears them to us! In fact, we have the incomparable privilege of being in union with these two highest Persons in all the universe. Regarding his followers, Jesus prayed: “I make request . . . that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in union with me and I am in union with you, that they also may be in union with us.”—John 17:20, 21.

Thus, when Jesus said, “I and the Father are one,” he was speaking, not of a mysterious Trinity, but of a wonderful unity—the closest bond possible between two persons.

And he was not suggesting he and his Father Jehovah were part of a Trinity or Binity (if you leave out the holy spirit, which some people do, including on ATS, they sometimes identify themselves as "Jewish Christians", but Trinitarians switch to arguments for a Binity and leave out the claims regarding the holy spirit the way a philosophical naturalist and evolutionary philosopher will leave out the claims regarding the so-called "chemical evolution theory of life" a.k.a. abiogenesis when trying to sell or argue in favor of the other evolutionary philosophies, because they don't want people to notice something in relation to amount and quality of evidence and arguments, and how effective or persuasive some arguments are compared to others that actually help do the opposite, expose the flaws in those arguments and twists of reason).
edit on 29-3-2017 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 10:43 AM
a reply to: whereislogic

And when he said if you have seen me you've seen the father, when they asked him to show them the father?

Isn't God, Spirit? And isn't there only one Spirit of the Living God?

I'm not hung up on the trinity, except in so far as Jesus ought not be reduced as apart from God, not the Spirit he sent somehow ignored or negated.

Otherwise, it's like the argument at the Council of Nicea which caused Nicholas of Myra to slap the other bishop across the face.

posted on Mar, 30 2017 @ 01:02 AM
a reply to: AnkhMorpork

Well, we could go through them (those bible texts that were earlier described as "Trinitarians have been desperately looking for Bible texts—even twisting them—to find support for their teaching.") one by one as was done on this page:
Trinity: Reasoning

But I'm not sure what good it will do if we can't find an agreement on even 1 of them. That's what fans of evolutionary philosophies do as well, they hop from 1 card to play to the next whenever you respond to their card (a Joker) beating it with an Ace. As if nothing happened, new rules. An Ace no longer beats a Joker. And you have a nearly unlimited supply of Jokers, all of which get beat by Aces but won't be acknowledged by the one playing only with Jokers. Was that too metaphorical?

Anyway, here's a more specific response and discussion of John 14:9; the text that is part of your latest proposal for a text that you think* indicates God being a Trinity and Jesus being the same individual (or God) as his God whose name is Jehovah as mentioned for example by the KJV (or AV), ASV, Darby, YLT and NW. *: or seem to imply because they are the standard texts used for this purpose by Trinitarians; also one can use the earlier phrase championed by the Pagan Emperor Constantine "of one substance with the Father." Since that's part of the human doctrine/teaching and tradition. Emperor Constantine took the art of hypocricy to new heights when he pretended to have converted to Christianity shortly before systematically killing all his family members that could be a threat to his throne (lay a claim).
Has Anyone Ever Seen God?

But let me ask you a question that isn't rhetorical...
Does the bible speak about "the God...of our Lord Jesus Christ"? (Eph. 1:3 for example)

Is that a clear teaching from the bible that Jesus has a God? Does the bible (for example the translations I listed above) use the unique and personal name "Jehovah" for "the God...of our Lord Jesus Christ"?

Can you acknowledge what Ephesians 1:3 is saying? Does the bible speak about a God who is "the God...of our Lord Jesus Christ"?

Does Jesus have a God that is "greater than" Jesus? (John 14:28)

It's basically all part of the same question but phrased in different ways to encourage "yes" or "no" type of answers, without eisegesis or excuses in the form of persuasive arguments to either avoid having to answer with a clear "yes" or "no" or justify a "no" answer when the facts about what the bible really says and teaches speak for themselves. So if you can, you're make me really happy with just a simple "yes" or "no" per question so I can figure out what part of the bible's teachings you are not interested in acknowledging no matter what the bible says. And which parts you can acknowledge to while keeping eisegesis regarding these verses as an excuse ready to argue for "no" or that a simple "yes" or "no" isn't possible here or something like that.

Exodus 3:15 (starting with ASV, Darby and YLT for the name, ending with the Jerusalem Bible for the rendering of the latter part of the verse):
...Jehovah...This is my name for all time, by this name I shall be invoked for all generations to come.

If you don't like the NW you can compare with the ASV (based on the KJV) for some of the verses in the 1st video above that use the name "Jehovah" which also uses the name in the approx. 7000 places it is found in the Hebrew Scriptures (and the oldest most reliable manuscripts). The reason for the translators of those translations (Darby, YLT, ASV, NW) to restore that name to its rightful original location before Trinitarian and Jewish scholars and translators replaced it with "the LORD" (or the word for "lord" in Greek or Hebrew or other languages) or even more deceptively "the Lord" and inconsistently "God" or even more deceptively and inconsistently "Mighty God" (the NIV one time, very specific and deliberate in order to support a specific twist and Joker-card). See examples of other bible translations:
edit on 30-3-2017 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 30 2017 @ 03:26 AM
a reply to: AnkhMorpork

edit about the "yes" and "no" type of questions (I was out of time):

"you're" should read "you'll"

At the end I should have mentioned that a "yes" answer +eisegesis in the back of the mind to convince oneself that this "yes" answer does not refute or contradict the teachings within Trinitarianism or Binitarianism is also a possibility. Such as "yes" Jesus has a God but he's also God (with the hidden argument or logical follow-through that one is arguing that Jesus is the same God as the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, talking past a logical contradiction as if it's no big deal that Jesus has a God, he can still be that God in spite of that acknowledgement, cause God can do anything right? "God cannot lie", another clear teaching from the bible, want to know some synonyms that are interestingly listed in an online thesaurus? Paradox/contradiction/lie/nonsense/mystery, all listed as synonyms).

1 Timothy 6:20,21 (NW):

Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you, turning away from the empty speeches that violate what is holy and from the contradictions of the falsely called “knowledge.” 21 By making a show of such knowledge, some have deviated from the faith.
May the undeserved kindness be with you.

Caveat regarding the video below from I think someone who is an atheist: the bible is clear (he argues it isn't clear), it refutes the Trinitarian or Binitarian philosophies. It's not a 'he says, she says' kind of thing. All of the verses that are twisted by Trinitarians support the same teachings about Jehovah God and his divine Son Jesus Christ. The bible is consistent on this; including John 1:1 where the Word is not the same god as the God he is already with, the text in Timothy about being manifested in the flesh, John 14:9, John 10:30, etc.; and none of these verses contradict the clear and unequivocal teachings from the bible about Jehovah and Jesus. He likes to leave another impression. Oh, and his title, obviously I don't agree with referring to the Trinity as "Christian" for the reason that it's "not a biblical doctrine" (as the main reason).

The Paradox of Tertullian
Quickly without layout or emphasis:

The Paradox of Tertullian

‘WHERE is there any likeness between the Christian and the philosopher? between one who corrupts the truth, and one who restores and teaches it? What concord is there between the Academy and the Church?’ Such bold questions were raised by Tertullian, a writer in the second and third centuries C.E. He came to be known as “one of the most prolific sources of the history of the Church and of the doctrines which were taught in his time.” Virtually no aspect of religious life escaped his attention.

Tertullian was perhaps best known for his paradoxical, or seemingly contradictory, statements, such as these: “God is then especially great, when He is small.” “[The death of God’s Son] is by all means to be believed, because it is absurd.” “[Jesus] was buried, and rose again; the fact is certain, because it is impossible.”

There is more to the paradox of Tertullian than his statements. Though he intended that his writings defend the truth and uphold the integrity of the church and her doctrines, he actually corrupted true teachings. His key contribution to Christendom turned out to be a theory upon which later writers built the doctrine of the Trinity. To gain insight into how this happened, let us first get a glimpse of Tertullian himself.

“Incapable of Being Dull”

Very little is known about the life of Tertullian. Most scholars agree that he was born about 160 C.E. in Carthage, North Africa. Evidently, he was well-educated and thoroughly familiar with the main schools of philosophy of his day. Apparently, what attracted him to Christianity was the willingness of professed Christians to die for their faith. Concerning Christian martyrdom, he asked: “For who that contemplates it, is not excited to inquire what is at the bottom of it? who, after inquiry, does not embrace our doctrines?”

After his conversion to nominal Christianity, Tertullian became an inventive writer with a flare for terse and witty statements. “[He] possessed an ability rare among theologians,” observes the book The Fathers of the Church. “He is incapable of being dull.” One scholar said: “Tertullian [had] a gift for words rather than sentences and it is much easier to appreciate his sallies than it is to follow his arguments. Perhaps this is why he is so often quoted and so infrequently quoted at length.”

To the Defense of Christianity

Tertullian’s most famous work is Apology, considered to be one of the most powerful literary defenses of nominal Christianity. It was written during a time when Christians were often victims of superstitious mobs. Tertullian came to the defense of these Christians and protested the irrational treatment of them. He said: “[Opposers] consider that the Christians are the cause of every public calamity and every misfortune of the people. . . . If the Nile does not rise to the fields, if the weather will not change, if there is an earthquake, a famine, a plague—straightway the cry is heard: ‘Toss the Christians to the lion!’”

Although Christians were often accused of disloyalty to the State, Tertullian endeavored to show that they were actually the most trustworthy citizens in the realm. After calling attention to several attempts that were made to overthrow the government, he reminded his antagonists that those conspirators arose from the ranks of the pagans, not the Christians. Tertullian pointed out that when Christians were executed, the real loss was sustained by the State.

Other works of Tertullian dealt with Christian living. For example, in his exposition On the Shows, Tertullian counseled against being present at certain places of entertainment, pagan games, and theatrical events. Apparently, there were new converts who saw no inconsistency in meeting for Bible instruction and then attending the pagan games. Trying to stir up their thinking ability, Tertullian wrote: “How monstrous it is to go from God’s church to the devil’s—from the sky to the stye.” He said: “What you reject in deed, you are not to bid welcome to in word.”

Corrupts the Truth While Defending It

Tertullian began his essay entitled Against Praxeas saying: “In various ways has the devil rivalled and resisted the truth. Sometimes his aim has been to destroy the truth by defending it.” The man named Praxeas of this essay is not clearly identified, but Tertullian took issue with his teachings concerning God and Christ. He viewed Praxeas as a pawn of Satan covertly trying to corrupt Christianity.

A crucial issue among professed Christians at that time was the relationship between God and Christ. Some among them, particularly those of Greek background, found it difficult to reconcile belief in one God with the role of Jesus as Savior and Redeemer. Praxeas attempted to solve their dilemma by teaching that Jesus was just a different mode of the Father and there was no difference between the Father and the Son. This theory, known as modalism, alleges that God revealed himself “as the Father in Creation and in the giving of the Law, as the Son in Jesus Christ, and as the Holy Spirit after Christ’s ascension.”

see next comment
edit on 30-3-2017 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 30 2017 @ 03:37 AM
a reply to: AnkhMorpork

Tertullian showed that the Scriptures made a clear distinction between the Father and the Son. After quoting 1 Corinthians 15:27, 28, he reasoned: “He who subjected (all things), and He to whom they were subjected—must necessarily be two different Beings.” Tertullian called attention to Jesus’ own words: “The Father is greater than I am.” (John 14:28) Using portions of the Hebrew Scriptures, such as Psalm 8:5, he showed how the Bible describes the “inferiority” of the Son. “Thus the Father is distinct from the Son, being greater than the Son,” Tertullian concluded. “Inasmuch as He who begets is one, and He who is begotten is another; He, too, who sends is one, and He who is sent is another; and He, again, who makes is one, and He through whom the thing is made is another.”

Tertullian viewed the Son as subordinate to the Father. However, in his attempt to counteract modalism, he went “beyond the things that are written.” (1 Corinthians 4:6) As Tertullian erroneously sought to prove the divinity of Jesus by means of another theory, he coined the formula “one substance in three persons.” Using this concept, he attempted to show that God, his Son, and the holy spirit were three distinct persons existing in one divine substance. Tertullian thus became the first to apply the Latin form of the word “trinity” to the Father, the Son, and the holy spirit.

Beware of Worldly Philosophy

How was Tertullian able to devise the theory of “one substance in three persons”? The answer lies in yet another paradox about the man—his view of philosophy. Tertullian called philosophy “‘the doctrines’ of men and ‘of demons.’” He openly criticized the practice of using philosophy to support Christian truths. “Away with all attempts to produce a mottled Christianity of Stoic, Platonic, and dialectic composition,” he stated. Yet, Tertullian himself made liberal use of secular philosophy when it harmonized with his own ideas.—Colossians 2:8.

One reference work states: “Trinitarian theology required the aid of Hellenistic concepts and categories for its development and expression.” And the book The Theology of Tertullian notes: “[It was] a curious blend of juristic and philosophic ideas and terms, which enabled Tertullian to set out the trinitarian doctrine in a form which, despite its limitations and imperfections, supplied the framework for the later presentation of the doctrine at the Council of Nicaea.” Hence, Tertullian’s formula—three persons in one divine substance—played a major role in the spreading of religious error throughout all of Christendom.

Tertullian accused others of destroying the truth while they were trying to defend it. Ironically, however, by mixing divinely inspired Bible truth and human philosophy, he fell into the same trap. Let us therefore take to heart the Scriptural warning against “paying attention to misleading inspired utterances and teachings of demons.”—1 Timothy 4:1.

[Pictures on page 29, 30]

Tertullian criticized philosophy but used it to advance his own ideas

[Credit Line]

Pages 29 and 30: © Cliché Bibliothèque nationale de France, Paris

[Picture on page 31]

True Christians avoid mixing Bible truth with human philosophy

Coming back to the topic of hypocrisy and my earlier quotation of Jesus talking about that subject and quoting Isaiah who was speaking for Jehovah on the matter.
edit on 30-3-2017 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 30 2017 @ 07:40 PM
The idea of working to separate Jesus from God or the argument at the Council of Nicaea that got a bishop slapped in the face by St. Nicholas of Myra that Jesus is not of the same essence as the father, I don't know... that's not an argument I'd like to make, because for one it doesn't jive with the Spirit, who is also Jesus.

I've encountered a few JW's in my time, and they don't seem to honor the Spirit nor believe that there's a personal and intimate relationship with God in and through the person and the Spirit of Jesus through everything that was created was created and apart from whom nothing was created.

We know full well that he was begotten by God and was and is of God, and of course he did say, first thing out of the tomb, "I ascend to my father and your father to my God and your God" and that he wasn't praying to Himself in the Garden.

The beauty of Jesus is that he makes the Absolute inscrutable and unfathomable Godhead, accessible, through himself as not apart from God in any way.

To try to separate Him from the Godhead and then hoist them both up to a separate place at an infinite distance without the medium of the Spirit, yikes!

That not only separates and distinguishes Jesus as apart from God, but places them both far away, like Zeus atop Mount Olympus.

To then work on the idea of being right about this, to the wrong of everyone else, I just don't think that this is what Jesus really had in mind in the area of Christian koinonia.

In JW, you have the Spirit, do you not?

Jesus to me is the necessary manifestation of the Godhead in order to that his will and intent and His love would be communicated and made known, and yes, as a witness, who's testimony was always to the one who sent him, and thus, at some level, preceded him.

However, for love to be love there is always two or more (however paradoxical that might appears within the context of succession or of sending and being sent), and Jesus also said something about being loved and being with the father before the very foundation of the world (prior to causation).

Both fully divine and fully human, but in the Spirit, uncreated, and that Spirit lives on and, was magnified by Jesus, like a type of lense of "Jehovah" as the proper and self-proclaimed name of Yahweh.

They stand together as one and issue forth the Holy Spirit as something that's freely available to all who thirst and we are the Bride.

It's a consummation and a comingling of the Spirit of man and God whereby Jesus and Jehovah together makes their home with us, and calls us their son, also, by him, through Him (Jesus) and because of Him as a manifestation of the will of God from before the very origin of creation or before the stars and galaxies were flung into existence, by anticipation from a first cause.

The eternal life that Jesus offers us, isn't based on a certain belief system per se, but in the Spirit where the living God who remains the same always lived.

He is the gateway, the good shepherd, the living water the light of life, but these things are in reference to the nature of his very being, which He invites us into, and to be sent out of again, in so far as He said "As my father hath sent me even so send I, you".

It is the two of them, and the Spirit, but there's no need to separate and distinguish them, in so far as to know Him is to also know the one who sent Him, and apart from whom nothing was made.

What you're saying in effect is that when the creation came into being, that the creator was created, the preserver was preserved, and, in the fullness of time, the destroyer, destroyed.

Or in other words that Jesus was God's project.

However, because it's also intrinsic and principal centered, it's still at the very heart of it all, and all I'm saying is that everything that was made was made for the son by the father because of love, and for that love to find it's origin, it has to also be willing to be lost in eternity, already always.

It is about the invitation into the knowledge of a personal experience and a personal love relationship wherein it becomes possible to encounter or to approach God as the all-in-all and before and after it all (the alpha and omega), even in spite of our own errors, sins, shortcomings and character defects, or in other words that's absolutely free (for all who thirst) as a gift of incalculable value for which there is absolutely nothing that we can do to either earn or deserve it.

To "get it" we have to be willing to follow and enter into the domain, which is a domain as much of Christ and of Jesus Christ as it is God the Father, Jehovah (I have no problem calling God what God said to call him in the OT). They and the Spirit they give, are one.

If we fail to receive the Spirit, however much we may also grieve the Spirit as we transform over time, then we neither receive Jehovah or the one He sent in the Son, apart from whom nothing was worthwhile creating since of his very being is the very best of the best of life itself and everything worth living for or even as needed, dying for, but oh to resurrect again into a new life of life meeting life - now there's an awesome twist for which both Jesus and Jehovah deserve all the credit, the turning point being when Jesus, with sweat pouring off him like blood under extreme pressure, out of obedience to God, said, "let it be thy will, not mine that is done", and our mutual glorification (John) is imbedded in that choice, which isn't about the ordeal itself, but the new and resurrected life on the other side of it, which Jesus held in reserve for all who love Him, as, ironically the only thing or way of being that's reasonable, rational, and entirely loving.

It's not a doctrine, so in a way you're right but I feel that you might be both right and wrong in a way.

It's nothing less than the love of God made known unequivocally, which was necessary because of his great love for all his children, from his only begotten and first born from the dead, to the rest of us.

We still haven't gotten it, in so many ways, and that's sad, but that it's still moving and the conversation continuing, there's always hope.

This isn't preaching as I'm speaking as much to myself and my own faith as I am to anyone else.

We all need more Christ and the Spirit of the living God, and to be consoled so that we can also experience the beginning of the kind of joy and love that Jesus had in mind and felt through and through as an expression of the same love of God that God had for him and Him, God. He left the self behind and became transparent to God, but who's life was also framed by the starry skies themselves, even from before the very beginning and the laying of the foundation for the Earth, and that's a real marvel right there, what I call a Superderministic, Cosmological Christ, who's great work will never be undone, and which forms a rock upon which true Civility is born in the corollary of the First Commandment.

We must go to Him all of us who are thirsty and freely drink the living water that is given by the Spirit and the Bride.

I am a type of Bride of Christ (for better and for worse), as are you.

Do we extend the invitation to all who thirst as a free invitation (without coercion or under threat)? There is certainly more that unites us than divides us, in Him.

Thank you God for Jesus Christ, without whom we would be lost to you but in whom and through whom and by whom, we can be retrieved by your love.
edit on 30-3-2017 by AnkhMorpork because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 31 2017 @ 12:26 AM
a reply to: AnkhMorpork
I began reading your comment until I stopped myself with the question:

Hold on, when is he going to get to what the bible is teaching and quote the bible to show that that is indeed what it's teaching and how that is consistent with the verses I brought up, how it further clarifies those, how those verses are to be understood? Or an answer or acknowledgement related to my simple straightforward non-rhetorical questions regarding bible teachings earlier?

Then I started skimming through your post looking for bible quotations or references to specific bible verses....

No luck there (that's not to say some things you've said aren't in the bible, but there doesn't seem to be a very detailed look at anything that the bible is actually saying in your comment and there are some things you are saying that are not in the bible or taught by the bible). I take my teachings or gather my knowledge about Jehovah and Jesus as individuals from the bible, not Babylon the Great. I guess you follow a different path and call it "having/receiving the Holy Spirit" (with or without capitals). Hey, at least you're not calling God's active (holy) force "The Holy Ghost", as if it's (he is?) Casper the Ghost. That's positive when it comes to the influence those described by Isaiah, Jesus and Paul have had on you (Isaiah 29:13, Matthew 15:9, Mark 7:7).

Here's another video with bible quotations and a detailed look at multiple translations and manuscripts refuting or debunking your claim that Jesus was not created, or otherwise showing that you are contradicting what the bible is saying about it (Col.1:15 - "He is...of all creation"; it doesn't even matter whether or not one wants to apply the Trinitarian cop-out eisegesis to interpret "firstborn" as preeminent or first in rank when Paul already uses the Greek word for "preeminent" a couple of verses later, even both the words for "firstborn" and "preeminent" in the same verse later on, clearly showing he meant "firstborn" when he said "firstborn" and "preeminent" when he said "preeminent", no need to interpret "firstborn" in Col.1:15 as "preeminent" or "first in rank" when Paul already made that distinction and Jesus is still called "of all creation", so it doesn't even matter whether he's the firstborn, lastborn or first in rank, he's still "of all creation", that automatically qualifies him as being a creation, being created, but there's more evidence from the bible regarding that which you also ignored or might have overlooked because I'm being too wordy when I hinted at Rev.3:14 earlier, like Proverbs 8:22-30):

Part 2 is not that great, probably because the person in question has a Jewish background causing him to erronuously use terms such as "Co-Creator" and "atomic gr..." (or glue, I can never quite hear which word he's using there, it's a misinterpretation of the verse he's referring to anyway and Jesus is not a Co-Creator). We can already both agree that Jesus is divine. So are the angels as per the teachings of the bible which refers to angels as gods, deities, spirits and as being divine (beings). Keeping those caveats in mind and keeping in mind there are a couple more that I haven't mentioned (hopefully with minor affects on people's thinking when watching the video), part 2 is watchable:
The Created Messiah part 2

I could probably mention some caveats for the videos above as well regarding how a few things are phrased or explained but I'll wait till someone actually shows any interest in what the bible is really teaching rather than whatever their religious teachers are teaching or those who have had influence on their beliefs, thinking, reasoning and arguing and their love for myths/false stories including the promotion thereof with persuasive arguments (see 2 Timothy 4:3,4; Col. 2:4).
Continuing with Col.1:15-18:
RESPOND TO MBI3030 video on Cults Apologetic series JW's part 7
Responding to MBI3030 Part 1: in DefendingYHWH video on Cults
Responding to MBI3030 Part 2 in DefendingYHWH video on Cults Apologetic series JW's pt 2
Bill and his commentaries Colossians 1
Another Look At Col 1:15-18 A Response To MCO4HELP part 2
edit on 31-3-2017 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 31 2017 @ 03:05 AM
a reply to: AnkhMorpork
Just wanted to add that after a more detailed look I did not overlook the few sporadic bible quotations in your comment given what I mentioned at the start of my previous comment.

They are a bit irrelevant to what we were discussing or what I asked questions about and/or sometimes accompanied with eisegesis and faulty human interpretation though.

References to where the quotations can exactly be found can sometimes be quite useful though, not saying you always should use them. I guess it depends on what you're exactly talking about as well (whether or not it's something simple perhaps?).

This thread now connects to my commentary in this thread, specifically the following comment:
Who sits on the left hand of God?, page 4

Comment on page 4 about the holy spirit
If Jesus is God's Son...(thread and specific comment about the holy spirit and related commentary)
edit on 31-3-2017 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 31 2017 @ 10:45 AM
I was really referring to a direct and intimate relationship with the heart of the Lord and the Spirit of the Living God as an actual present moment experience.

A person either has that, or they don't.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in