Can a Jehovah's Witness Believe in the Trinity? - WATCHTOWER In Question #2 - David Bercot 

Great work? Core Biblical doctrine? There is no such thing as Trinity in Scriptures, AT ALL. You will *only* find the concept of 3 in 1 in the occult, not in the Scriptures. Trinitarian-ism IS Catholic-ISM and Catholicism IS repacked Babylonian Witchcraft. What book are you people reading? The Talmud?

Spiritual gems or germs? There is no such thing as a triune god in Scripture. People do not read the Scriptures they rather tell men what the Bible actually says. (1 Tim 4:1-3)

@robert mardis Thanks for sharing; blessings to you as you serve Christ where you are! -Lynn

Excellent? So you're into mysticism? One means three and three means one?

Hi Lena, check out David's message here on Roman's 3. m.ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-XPkEpbsn9EA.html

@Bessufekad Kenaw Here are some links to the beliefs of the Ante-Nicene Fathers: www.amazon.com/Ante-Nicene-Fathers-10-Set/dp/1565630823 scrollpublishing.com/?s=ante+nicene+fathers If you want information on reliability, I would recommend this course (you can sign up for a free trial to listen to it): thehistoricfaith.com/courses/introduction-to-the-historic-faith/ -Lynn

@Jeremiah An edition of the ANF volumes can be found and downloaded here: www.ccel.org/fathers I don't think it has the wording David used; he probably has a different edition of it. -Lynn

That’s my question too.

@whambamclick1 Good question. My guess would be that it is neither. Instead, it would be because the very nature of God is to be in three persons. But I could be wrong. -Lynn

I also bought the Orthodox Study Bible with NKJV. I’m going to follow along, really study it out. Thank you all and God Bless!

@whambamclick1 I appreciate your concern. If you aren't comfortable with the word "Trinity," then we would definitely not fault you for not using the word. What we care about is that people believe the Scriptural doctrines as the apostles taught them--basically that Jesus is divine and of the same nature as God, and that the Father, Son, and Spirit are not the same exact person. That's what was originally intended by the word "Trinity," but you're right that today there's a lot of confusion, so it makes sense to be careful when using the word. -Lynn

@Jon Pass Hi Jon, here are multiple quotes where the analogies are found (posting this for David): They call Him the Word, because He carries tidings from the Father to men. But they maintain that this Power is indivisible and inseparable from the Father, just as they say that the light of the sun on earth is indivisible and inseparable from the sun in the heavens. ...They say that the Father, when He chooses, causes His Power to spring forth. And when He chooses, He makes it return to himself. ....This power, which the prophetic word calls God...is indeed something numerically distinct [from the Father]. ...This Power was begotten from the Father by His power and will, but not by division, as if the essence of the Father were divided. For all other things that are partitioned and divided are not the same after the partition as they were before they were divided. And, for the sake of example, I took the case of fires kindled from a fire, which we see to be distinct from the original fire. Yet, the fire from which many fires can be kindled is by no means made less, but remains the same. Justin Martyr (c. 160, E), 1.264. We have been taught that He proceeds forth from God, and in that procession He is generated. So that He is the Son of God, and is called God from unity of substance with God. For God, too, is a Spirit. Even when the ray is shot from the sun, it is still part of the parent mass. The sun will still be in the ray, because it is a ray of the sun. There is no division of substance, but merely an extension of it. ...Thus Christ is Spirit of Spirit, and God of God-just as light is kindled from light. The material root remains entire and unimpaired, even though you derive from it any number of offshoots possessed of its qualities. So, too, that which has come forth out of God is at once God and the Son of God, and the two are one. Tertullian (c. 197, W), 3.34. God sent forth the Word, as the Paraclete also declares, just as the root puts forth the tree, the fountain the river, and the sun the ray. For these are emanations of the substances from which they proceed. I would not hesitate, indeed, to call the tree the son or offspring of the root, and the river the offspring of the fountain, and the ray the offspring of the sun. For every original source is a parent, and everything that issues from the origin is an offspring. Much more is this so of the Word of God, who has actually received as His own peculiar designation the name of “Son.” But still, the tree is not severed from the root, nor the river from the fountain, nor the ray from the sun. Nor, indeed, is the Word separated from God. Tertullian (c. 213, W), 3.603. Thus there appeared another One beside Himself. But when I say “another,” I do not mean that there are two Gods, but that it is only as light of light, or as water from a fountain, or as a ray from the sun. For there is but one Power, which is from the All. And the Father is the All, from whom comes this Power, the Word. Hippolytus (c. 205, W), 5.227. According to John, “God is light.” The Only-Begotten Son, therefore, is the glory of this light. He proceeds inseparably from [God] Himself, as brightness proceeds from light, illuminating the whole of creation. Origen (c. 225, E), 4.248. The substance of the Son is not a substance devised extraneously. Nor is it one introduced out of nothing. Rather, it was born of the substance of the Father, as the radiance of light or as the stream of water. For the radiance is not the same as the sun itself. Likewise, the stream is not the water itself; but neither is it anything alien to it. The Son is an emanation from the substance of the Father. Yet the substance of the Father did not suffer any partition. The sun remains the same and suffers no diminution from the rays that are poured out by it. So likewise, neither did the substance of the Father undergo any change in having the Son as an image of itself. Theognostus of Alexandria (c. 260, E), 6.155. Since the Father is eternal, the Son is also eternal, Light of Light. ...Since, then, God is the Light, Christ is the Brightness. ...Moreover, the Son alone, always co-existing with the Father and filled with Him who is, He himself also is, since he is of the Father. Dionysius of Alexandria (c. 262, E), 6.92, as quoted by Athanasius. Life is begotten from life in the same way as the river has flowed forth from the spring and the brilliant light is ignited from the inextinguishable light. Dionysius of Alexandria (c. 262, E), 6.93, as quoted by Athanasius. -Lynn

@Felipe Thanks for commenting! I'm quoting a former comment by David on another video: "Yes, the early Christians clearly taught that Jesus is the Son of God. However, since neither Jesus nor the apostles ever refer to God as "Jehovah," neither did the early Christians. The name Jehovah does not appear anywhere in the New Testament. The New World Translation is very dishonest in inserting it in the New Testament, when it does not appear anywhere in the Greek text. Nor does the name Jehovah appear in the Septuagint, the Old Testament used by Jesus, the apostles, and the early Christians. The early Christians never equate Jesus as being the God of the Old Testament, but as being the Son of God. At the same time, they believed in the full Divinity of Jesus. He has the same nature as the Father, but he is a different person than the Father. I don't know that there are any keywords that will quickly show you what you are wanting to find. The early Christian understanding of the Father and the Son are evident all throughout their writings. Three writings that will enable you to quickly grasp what they taught about the Father and the Son are the following: 1. Tertullian's "Against Praxeas" in vol. 3 of the Ante-Nicene Fathers. 2. Novatian's "Concerning the Trinity" in vol.5 of the Ante-Nicene Fathers. 3. Justin Martyr's "Dialogue with Trypho the Jew" in vol. 1 of the Ante-Nicene Fathers. This is a long work, all of which is worth reading. But the chapters that talk the most about the Father and the Son are chapters 32-38 and 55-65." -Lynn

@@SoundFaithChannel I really appreciate your help, dear sister. The information you have provided me with is truly valuable. Thanks so much again. God bless.

@davidmoran4506 If I remember correctly, one analogy was that the Holy Spirit is the heat radiating from the sun. I believe David may go into this more in this video: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-UpPmXUEK3F8.html -Lynn

Hi Bryan, Everytime Jesus calls the Father “my God” in the Gospels, or Paul several times calls the Father the “God and Father of Jesus Christ.” 1 Corinthians 15:27-28 is the most important of course.

The 3 forms of water falls short. That is modalism. Much better is David’s explanation of the stream and Sun, which agrees with Christ’s teaching that if you’ve seen him, you’ve seen the Father.

@@dlfincher6887 Every single analogy falls short of the infinite God. A short course in Physics would cure you of your modalism terminology you gave. Really mate, have you not got any thing better to do than to try and push your amateur hour apologetics on someone who didn't ask for your opinion. After 40 years of doing apologetics, I really need some advice from people like you. Where have you been all my life. I just didn't know how empty and void my life was until your village let you out for the day so that you could explain things to me. Stop being a busy body. Again ALL ANALOGIES FALLS SHORT to describe an infinite God. Even anything that might emanate from your fertile mind. BTW contrary to you unfounded and unscientific assumption "and actually all 3 can coexist in a stable equilibrium occurring at exactly 273.1600 Kelvin or 0.0100 Celsius. Check the science, you are wrong Blocked.

what verses were those in john - if yu know of them - I would like to look over them in all the versions of the bible - to see if i can extrapolate the right translation of the words translated - greek and hebrew were odd languages to translate it seems -

@andrew bradice I'm quoting a former comment by David on another video: "Yes, the early Christians clearly taught that Jesus is the Son of God. However, since neither Jesus nor the apostles ever refer to God as "Jehovah," neither did the early Christians. The name Jehovah does not appear anywhere in the New Testament. The New World Translation is very dishonest in inserting it in the New Testament, when it does not appear anywhere in the Greek text. Nor does the name Jehovah appear in the Septuagint, the Old Testament used by Jesus, the apostles, and the early Christians. The early Christians never equate Jesus as being the God of the Old Testament, but as being the Son of God. At the same time, they believed in the full Divinity of Jesus. He has the same nature as the Father, but he is a different person than the Father. I don't know that there are any keywords that will quickly show you what you are wanting to find. The early Christian understanding of the Father and the Son are evident all throughout their writings. Three writings that will enable you to quickly grasp what they taught about the Father and the Son are the following: 1. Tertullian's "Against Praxeas" in vol. 3 of the Ante-Nicene Fathers. 2. Novatian's "Concerning the Trinity" in vol.5 of the Ante-Nicene Fathers. 3. Justin Martyr's "Dialogue with Trypho the Jew" in vol. 1 of the Ante-Nicene Fathers. This is a long work, all of which is worth reading. But the chapters that talk the most about the Father and the Son are chapters 32-38 and 55-65." For the second question, your interpretation seems reasonable from the context, but I couldn't say for sure. It could be good to check up what the Early Christian writers said on the subject. -Lynn

Hi, Andrew. You’ve asked two very good questions. Normally, the name Jehovah refers to the Father. Jesus told the Jews, “If I honor Myself, My honor is nothing. It is My Father who honors Me, of whom you say that He is your God.” (John 8:54). So Jesus did not say that He was the God whom the Jews worshipped, but that His Father was. The early Christians identified the God of the Old Testament with the Father, not with Jesus. Jesus is the Son of God. At the same time, there is one passage in the Old Testament where it speaks of two “Jehovah’s.” This is Gen. 19:24: “Then Jehovah rained brimstone and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah from Jehovah out of the heavens.” There, the Angel of the Lord (Jesus) who visited Abraham and then went down to Sodom is referred to as Jehovah. It says He rained down brimstone and fire from Jehovah out of the heavens. This is lost in most Bible translations, as they say, “The LORD rained brimstone ... from the LORD out of the heavens.” The New World Translation hides the significance of this verse by translating it: “Then Jehovah made it rain sulfur and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah-it came from Jehovah, from the heavens.” But this is not what the Hebrew text says. Anyone can see that by consulting an interlinear Bible. Justin Martyr discusses this passage at length in his work, Dialogue with Trypho the Jew. Nevertheless, this is an unusual passage, as normally the Old Testament uses the name Jehovah to refer to the Father. But this passage in Genesis shows the Divine nature of Jesus and His close identity with His Father. It also shows that the name Jehovah is not exclusively applied to the Father, although it normally is so applied. There are also prophecies in the Old Testament that say that Jehovah will do certain things, which prophecies were later fulfilled in Jesus. Again, these prophecies show the close relationship between the Father and the Son. But we must be careful that we don’t misinterpret them and revert to modalism, as many professing Christians do, claiming that Jesus and the Father are one and the same Person. Your second question concerns Jesus’ statement in John 8, and you ask whether, “in order to be forgiven of your sins one must believe Jesus is God.” This depends upon what you mean by “Jesus is God.” As I explain in my message, most western Christians misinterpret Scripture and either think Jesus is the same Person as the Father (modalism)-or else they essentially think of the Father and the Son as two sides of a triangle. These are both erroneous understandings of the Trinity. So when most western Christians say, “Jesus is God,” what they mean is not orthodox. When we read the entire 8th chapter of John, we can clearly see that Jesus is claiming to be the pre-existent Divine Son of God. If we don’t believe He is that, we will die in our sins. So when you say “Jesus is God,” if you mean that “Jesus is Divine” (that is, the true Son of God, with the same nature as the Father), then your statement is correct. At the same time, in that passage in John 8, Jesus goes out of His way to explain the distinction between He and the Father (they are clearly two different Persons) and also the headship of the Father. Thank you again for listening.

@@user-du7pe6pm7d Hi Sam john 8 : 28

@@davidbercot5267 I love it that you point to the Two Yhwhs problem being discussed by the Rabbis during the Second Temple period. See also Amos 4:11 where in speaking about Yhwh’s overthrow of Sodom that God changes from the first person singular to the third person singular in keeping with the two figures at Gen 19:24. The LXX doesn’t try to change this oddity but retains it. The NWT84 seems to keep the two Yhwhs in view better than the NWT13. Also the zeugma at Exod 20:18 is smoothed out in the NWT13 whereas the NWT84 keeps it and even footnotes it. This was an important passage that Philo used to show that there was a second being called the Voice whom God used as a representative.

No i padri della chiesa primitiva non erano d'accordo con la Trinità ,tutto e cambiato nel 325 dopo cristo nel consiglio di nicea dove l'l'imperatore Costantino raduno tutte le religioni sotto un solo nome cristiano , ma molti non erano daccordo a incorporare il paganesimo ma Costantino gli disse che esistevano due modi per uscire da questa confusione di religioni ,O SAREBBERO USCITI CON UNA SOLA RELIGIONE O SAREBBERO USCITI MORTI DAL CONCILIO .QUESTO A PORTATO A TANTE CREDENZE FALSE .DA L'ITALIA

@stayin2fly Good question. Jesus taught us to pray to the Father, but nowhere are we told not to pray to Jesus. I think God understands and hears us even if we address our prayers confusedly. -Lynn

@@SoundFaithChannel Greetings, there is no such thing as Trinity in the Bible, only in the occult. Trinity means three in unity. Three *what* in unity? 3 gods! The Bible doesn't teach polytheism nor mysticism. Unfortunately you fell into the trap of the Judaizers and since you're a teacher you're leading many astray. It's sad to see that all Trintarians are *spoiled* through philosophy (Col 2:8).

"Unfortunately you fell into the trap of the Judaizers and since you're a teacher you're leading many astray." How So?

@@SoundFaithChannel Because the concept of 3 in 1 comes from the Kabbalah (Judaizers) called the Supernal Triad. The Bible does not teach that the God of Israel is a Trinity. God is One Person just like the first man He created. The Scriptures also forbids philosophy (Col 2:8) but people do not care. And that's the reason the majority of the Christian population believes in the occult and are confused who Jesus Christ is. I pray you will study this out and correct yourself. This is a salvation issue.

@@JudeOne3Four @JudeOne3 Maybe you could clarify a little more. Are you saying that just because the Kabbalah contains a similar concept, that means that the way Christians have believed since the beginning is wrong? That seems like a strange argument, especially since all the earliest church leaders have taught that Jesus is divine. Are you saying that they were all following the Kabbalah rather than the apostles who had taught them the faith? I think you may have misunderstood Col 2:8, which says, "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy." So it's not teaching against philosophy. It's teaching against being spoiled through philosophy. If I were to tell you, "Don't spoil the strawberries through baking," am I telling you never to bake anything? -Lynn

@Granitic Truth Good point. A word is only useful as long as it is actually communicating the concept that the person who speaks intends it to communicate. We use the word "Trinity" because it's the word many people use, even though we sometimes have to correct their understanding of what it means. However, where I can tell it's causing misunderstandings, I tend to stay away from it. So your position makes a lot of sense. -Lynn

Bro. Price, thank you for bringing up the Athanasian Creed. You are right that this is what most western Christians think of when they think of the Trinity. You are also right that the Athanasian Creed is different from what I shared. What most Christians don’t realize is that the so-called Athanasian Creed did not originate with Athanasius, nor does it represent his teachings. It is not the product of any church council. Rather, the so-called Athanasian Creed is a product of early medieval western theologians. It reflects the Trinitarian teachings of Augustine, rather than the historic faith. Because the anonymous author of this creed dishonestly attached the name of Athanasius to it, many Christians today confuse the Athanasian Creed with the Nicene Creed. The two are radically different. The Nicene Creed simply states: “We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, God from God, Light from Light, Very God from Very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made. Who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin, Mary, and was made man, and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried, and the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father. And he shall come again with glory to judge both the living and the dead, whose kingdom shall have no end. And we believe in the Holy Spirit.”

To be sure Dale would tear me to pieces as well

Your name is jesus student but you believe in the Trinity? No such thing man. You people follow the teachings of a bunch of occult Platonists. That is the reason Trinitarians do not understand the Bible.

NOPE -- he was gods son - not god himself - even though he himself being made by his father - was a god -- of course - and had to learn what was needed from his father the books says - its in there - ya just have to read more -- I myself -- have thousands of hours and many many decades involved in learning !

@@user-du7pe6pm7d Thanks for the comment, sir. So I see you disagree with brother David. It's fine. God bless.

@Felipe I would say that what we believe is exactly what you said. I believe David would agree. -Lynn

@@SoundFaithChannel Thanks for your prompt response, dear brethren. God bless.

Thank you for the feedback, Felipe. Yes, we can say that the Scriptures teach that Christ Jesus is divine, just as you explained it.

@almenaja If you'd like a deeper dive into the subject, I recommend signing up for a free trial on thehistoricfaith.com and listening through the first few lectures in "Mini Courses and Miscellaneous Lessons." Or get the Ante-Nicene Fathers books and read them for yourself. -Lynn

Thanks for your feedback, Almenaja. Understanding the interrelationship of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is easily the most difficult Christian doctrine. "Triune" and "Trinity" are just words. If you don't like the words, don't use them. Hopefully, however, you can see the Divine nature of the Son. (John 1:1; Col. 2:9).

@@davidbercot5267 yes thank you for your response. I can see the divine nature of the son. But that is 2 not 3. And no early church father has fully explained the trinity. I am not a JW but their reasoning makes more sense to me with my Bible understanding.

@@Almenatraining I agree. There is a lot of doctrine one must absorb to make Jesus both man and God, to explain Jesus’ deferment to The Father and this is to say nothing of The Holy Spirit not expressing “personhood” like The Father and Jesus. The lack of subsequent debate amongst Jews on a triune God in Christianity early years, the question of how do I follow Jesus if he is God and I am not (hence not tempted - what about him being tempted in the desert). There is a small denomination called Biblical Unitarians that hold to scripture but do not hold to the trinity.

@joeyburrell3207 Scripture seems to indicate that Jesus was raised both through the Father's power and through his own. For example, Hebrews says that he became a priest "by the power of an indestructible life" (Heb 7:16). When we die, it is our bodies that die, while our spirits await the judgment and the final resurrection. For example, Jesus said to the thief, "today you will be with me in paradise." And Paul talked about departing and being with Christ. Then, in the resurrection, our bodies are raised and we are reunited. So when Jesus died, his consciousness and his Godhood did not die. Does that make sense? -Lynn

@Timothy Lawson Indeed, if God divided a part of himself off to generate Jesus, God would be diminished. However, you'll note that David uses the historic Christian examples of the sun's rays and of a stream flowing from a spring. Is the spring diminished because it is creating a spring? Is the sun diminished because it is sending forth rays? -Lynn

Thank you Lynn but as I mentioned earlier that seems counter to Jesus being given aseity.

@@SoundFaithChannel also the analogies of the sun and spring raise the question that if the angels are created ex nihilo then are they not dependent on the source for life? That would make them superior to the Son.

So really it’s this view of the antenicene fathers that led to the question of homoousia (same substance) or homoiousia (like substance). The more difficult philosophical questions derive not from Arius’ view but from theirs. This controversy directly leads to the later explanation of the Trinity in an effort to make it make sense

@Timothy Lawson I don't believe I said that either Jesus or angels have aseity. The Son's existence is dependent on the Father, but he exists of the Father's essence. Angels' existence is through the Father and the Son (all things were made by him) and they "hold together" in the Son (Col 1:16-17). Scripture therefore teaches that angels are dependent on God's Son for the beginning of their existence and for their continued existence. If the Son creates and sustains them, of course they are not superior to him. Scripture never tells us that angels are the "exact imprint" of God's nature, as Jesus is (Heb 1:3). -Lynn

@archieliburd3794 I don't believe anyone has said that it is in the Bible. -Lynn

Yess Thank you for the explanation👍

@Timothy Lawson I'm glad you found that beautiful prophecy of Jesus in Wisdom of Solomon! I love it and will have to remember it. Just so you know, I removed some of your comments. JWs receive enough teaching about their beliefs that they don't need to hear them on this channel too. If we commented on a JW channel arguing for the original Christian view of the Trinity, you probably would (and would be welcome to) do the same. I hope you understand. -Lynn

@@SoundFaithChannel I have a Facebook group which includes non-JWs and absolutely do not remove comments that are contrary to my position. The truth should be able to stand up to any scrutiny. Also, it’s important to hear all sides of an argument otherwise we are in an echo chamber just as the organization insists on. I engage with and count as friends numerous Bible scholars of non-JW perspectives. It disappoints me to be censored because I post points that may support a JW theology

@Timothy Lawson I'm sorry you're disappointed; we simply don't have the time to respond to comments as in-depth as you gave. If you have a Facebook group, I'm sure you understand. Come, if you think we're in an echo chamber or refuse to be scrutinized, you have clearly not read the many (most) non-Christian comments that we leave up. I would suggest that you would look at a sampling of the comments on our videos before making such a claim. We just prefer interacting with people's questions, rather than providing them a platform for preaching their views. But of course you're welcome to disagree with our methods. -Lynn

What is your facebook group Timothy?

Never heard of that interpretation. Interesting

The noun λογος Logos is where we get our word LOGIC. λογος is a Greek noun sharing the root with the common NT verb λέγω lego meaning "I speak words of sound reason, logic". The Greek words θεος noun and θειος adjective convey the idea of divinity, deity, god... NT context uses it as the Father sometimes but it means divine one, or deity. So often we think of this word or the English God, as a person, but only if the context indicates it is using it that way. So as David Bercot has rightly said similar to what I will write in my own words, The Logos was with the person God in the beginning as was He himself divine, having came forth from God the Father when He spoke in the beginning.

24:50 David more or less renders it as I do below except because of the short comings of Greek lexicon like Strong's just saying "Word" and not tying it to the verb λεγω with which it shares the root, it often gets translated this way. Failing to see it translated as "spoken Word" prevents one from understanding the early Christians explaining that when God spoke, the Logos was begotten and went forth in the beginning i.e. "Let there be light". Ahhh there is the Logos, behold, going to create light as God commanded. 😊

@Darren Koglin My understanding is that "create" in Greek and Hebrew doesn't need to mean "bring to existence at a particular time." The early Christians used the word "create" while meaning that Jesus was eternally begotten. David might be able to comment on this, but if he isn't able to, you can find out more at thehistoricfaith.com (sign up for a free trial) at the course "Mini Courses and Miscellaneous Lessons." -Lynn

@@SoundFaithChannel the LXX translates the Hebrew qana with κτιζω (ktizo) which does in fact mean create. Prov 8:22κύριος ἔκτισέν με ἀρχὴν ὁδῶν αὐτοῦ εἰς ἔργα αὐτοῦ, 23 πρὸ τοῦ αἰῶνος ἐθεμελίωσέν

@@SoundFaithChannel also in Hebrew, stative and action verbs behave differently, and the syntax of Proverb ‪8:22‬ may throw light of the meaning of qnh. The first phrase of the verse is "YHWH qanani reshit darko qedem" YHWH is subject, qana is the verb, and ni (me) is the object. Alternatives: "Yehowa possessed me" and "Yehowa created me." The word reshit means "beginning; first," and the question is whether it is a time adverbial "in the beginning" or an accusative (object) predicative "as the beginning." The word reshit stands in the construct, which means that it has a genitive relationship to the next word darko ("his ways"). If reshit stood in the absolute, it was independent, and it would naturally have been an adverbial. In that case the stative meaning "possess" would fit; "YHWH possessed med in the beginning." However, the word reshot modifies darko ("his ways"), and what would that mean? The word derek means literally "way;road," but it can also mean "action," as in Proverbs 7:25: "Do not let your heart turn aside to her ways." The word derek in ‪8:22‬ cannot refer to a literal road, but must refer to the actions ("ways") of Yehowa. So the genitive construction must be "the beginning of his actions," and therefore, this phrase must be an accusative (object) predicative. This construction requires an action verb, because "YHWH possessed me as the beginning of his ways" does not make sense. But "Yehowa created me as the beginning of his ways," makes sense. The rest of the verse "before his actions (palaw) of long ago" confirms the last translation: The phrase "his actions" parallels "his ways" and confirms that ways also refers to actions. The verses ‪8:23‬, 24 also confirms that what is discussed is creation and not possession. The LXX of ‪8:22‬ also s takes reshot darko as accusative (object) predicative, by translating: The Lord created me as the beginning of his ways. So, the idea of possession does not belong to Proverbs 8:22.

Because this is a passage that comes up frequently, David is planning to present a message specifically on that passage and what it means. Look for it in a couple of weeks! -Lynn

@Timothy Lawson @Darren Koglin For an answer to the appeal to Proverbs 8:22, see this video: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-0091VPv1W8A.html The verse does not indicate that Jesus had a beginning. -Lynn

Because this is a passage that comes up frequently, David is planning to present a message specifically on that passage and what it means. Look for it in a couple of weeks! -Lynn

@Brother Nick For an analysis of Proverbs 8:22, see this video: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-0091VPv1W8A.html -Lynn

@jamesfitch4569 We agree that Jesus established one church, which comprises all those throughout the world who come together to follow him, no matter what local church or church group they belong to. -Lynn

@@SoundFaithChannel The Bible clearly teaches that the church is the body of Christ that it wears His Name and teaches His doctrine and including the sacred worship pattern. It is the spiritual kingdom of God and is not a denomination nor is it divided. Denominationalism consists of different groups with man made names as well as different doctrines and worship patterns that are not found in the Bible. In reading the New Testament we find only one church which is the Ekklesia of Christ, the called out assembly of Christ purchased by the blood of Christ, Acts 20:28 established in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost and added to by repentance and baptism for the forgiveness of sins by Christ himself. There’s no mention of any other churches being established by Christ. In fact the Apostle Paul teaches in 1 Corinthians 10th chapter that the church must teach the same thing therefore excluding any other doctrine and worship practices. Christ is not divided. Where do you read the Anti-Baptist or any other denomination in the Néw testament? Denominationalism originated from the apostate Catholic Church during the reformation period in the 1500’s . The Bible teaches one Lord one faith and one baptism.

@@SoundFaithChannel you can’t prove that with scriptures.Where does the Bible teach that?

@@SoundFaithChannel if you believe that then where does the Bible mention the Anti-Baptist church?

@jamesfitch4569 The Bible doesn't mention the Anabaptists. But we don't believe that it does. We believe first and foremost that we must be part of the church of Christ established at Pentecost. Just because we belong to a congregation that people have decided to call "Anabaptist" doesn't mean that we divide ourselves from Christians who are called other things. The name doesn't matter to us--the faith of the apostles is what we live and die for. -Lynn

@jaythorn8733 Good to hear from you, Jay! My understanding is that there are church fathers who don't specify whether or not the Son had a beginning, but there aren't any who say it specifically. Do you have examples of church fathers who actually said that Jesus had a beginning? -Lynn

@@SoundFaithChannel I think it is pretty clear from reading some of the quotes and verifying it through secondary sources from honest Christian and Non Christian Historians alike and from encyclopedias as well.

@jaythorn8733 Could you point me to some of those quotes? This is an area I've been wanting to research farther. -Lynn

@Peter Biram That's a really strange interpretation of a clear passage. John didn't say that "God" was Jesus' nickname. Nor did John say that the Word was _for_ God, but that the Word _was_ God. When you say that Obama was President, do you mean that Obama was merely the spokesman for the President, not actually the President? -Lynn

@@SoundFaithChannel when Jesus is the Word, he his representing God. If you look in the scriptures where God is speaking to humans, that is not Jehovah, he won't speak to us, because we are imperfect. He needs a spokesman to get his message across, Jesus takes up this role, hence Jehovah naming Jesus, the Word. John is trying to let you know that he knows Jesus better than any of us, he's the only one that tells us his nickname 'The Word'.

@@SoundFaithChannel This will make it easier for you to see Lynn. If you look up John 9:31 You will see that God will listen to someone who his doing God's will, but he won't talk to them. Now if he wants to reply to someone, he needs a spokesman, to give them his words, hence 'the Word'. You see Jesus doesn't mind talking to imperfect people, and takes on this role has God's Word. Let's say that a woman is praying to God, and God wants to give her his view. He shouts out "the Word" but Jesus doesn't come running. Jesus then says to God. " Since I've become King, I have more to do, you need to get someone else to be your Word." God then turns to you Lynn, and asks you if you'll be his 'Word'. You accept. You now have to speak to this woman on God's behalf. God gives you his words, then you speak. The woman writes down the conversation she had with you... God spoke to me and said these words.... Look Lynn, you are now 'God' looking at what she's wrote. But it's only when you are the 'Word'. Jesus will have pointed this out to John, showing him scriptures of God speaking, then letting John know that it wasn't God but him. Mind you Lynn, God wouldn't be able to ask you to be his 'Word' seeing he doesn't speak to imperfect people! 😊

@Peter Biram But John 9:31 doesn't say that God doesn't talk to imperfect people. God spoke to many imperfect people in both the Old and New Testaments. And "Logos" (translated "Word") doesn't mean "spokesman" in Greek, as far as I have been able to find--where do you get the idea that "Logos" means "spokesman"? But even if Logos could mean spokesman, John said that the Logos (Word) _was_ God. So if Jesus is the Logos, then Jesus is God. -Lynn

@@SoundFaithChannel Hey Lynn, how do read Matt 7:22,23 What do you think Jesus is meaning?

@Shunned non-member Copperfeld I believe David mentions modalism and why it's not true. Or maybe I missed what you meant. -Lynn

@@SoundFaithChannel Yes, I wrote the comment before he got to that

@Cgh Rios It's hard for me to tell whether you're agreeing or disagreeing with this video. You're right that many Christians mistakenly believe in "modalism," the view that the Father and the Son are the same person. Historically, Christians have believed that the Father and the Son are different persons, but that the Son has a nature that is divine like the Father's nature. That's what David was explaining here, and it sounds like you might agree. -Lynn

@Cleight theJW Agreed, they aren't equal in every sense, or they wouldn't be different persons. Jesus depends on the Father, but they are both divine. It sounds like we mostly agree. The only thing I wouldn't agree with is that Jesus is a different God from the Father. If he is the true divine expression flowing directly from God, then how would he be a separate God? -Lynn

@@SoundFaithChannel Technically Jesus is a 'sub god'. Even te way you guys want to put it with Jesus beind 'dependent' shows his position of a lower one not and exact and perfectly equal kind to the ONLY Ture God that is Almighty. That being said Jesus or as we believe Michael the archangel is the 'Divine Expression' that God brought into existence. And ther is no other being/thing that is as close to being the ONLY true God than Michael or this 'Divine Expression' OF God. Have you ever considered what the very first thing God created/brought into existence is? Doesn't it seem reasonable to you that it would be His Son or what God labels 'son'? Also, if that issue of the trinity is true as you ones hold to- why is the Holy Spirit not called 'son' or 'daughter' since it is surely in existence as Jesus is in heaven right? And if you don't mind my asking- are you among the trinitarians that believes Jesus is all over the OT as 'the angel of Jehovah (or, Yahweh if you prefer)'?

@Cleight theJW I agree, Jesus does have a lower position than the Father, as Scripture clearly points out. I'm sure you're aware of those Scripture passages. And I would agree that Jesus is the Divine Expression. I would just ask, how could the divine expression be only partly divine? And how could the expression of God not fully express God? That's one reason why we believe Jesus is divine and shares in the essence of God. We do believe that the Son was the first ever to gain his existence from God. But because God is eternal, his Son is also eternally flowing from and expressing God. He couldn't be the true expression of God if he weren't like God in his timelessness. So Jesus has always existed (though not always as a man). "Created" doesn't need to mean that he had a beginning. And yes, I would believe that Jesus appears in the Old Testament in some cases when it speaks of the angel of Jehovah. However, "angel" doesn't always mean a spiritual being who isn't divine. It just means "messenger," so it can speak of Jesus as divine. If I understand correctly, it was in the Middle Ages when people began to say that "angel" means a spiritual being who isn't divine. If I understand correctly, the Holy Spirit isn't called "son," because he proceeds from God in a different way than Jesus does. -Lynn

@@SoundFaithChannel Honestly, that makes no sense about the 'Holy Spirit' and why it isn't called 'son' or 'daughter'. So is that holy spirit higher, lower, or equal to god the Father and/or the Son OF God before coming to earth as Jesus?? I think you're kind of 'straw-manning' my comment about Jesus' Divinity in that Divine Expression. I believe Jesus is as close to being the Almighty God that anyone/anything could ever possibly be without being God. Yes, a created being can be like God/Divine without bein eternal. Are we not 'made in God's image'? Yet we are not 'eternal' are we? Those 'angels=messengers' from Heaven are 'spirits' all the time aren't they? Though it is good to know you also view the 'angel/messenger OF Jehovah' as being Jesus in the OT. Would you say that Joshua 5:14 is one of these instances? Other than the book of Genesis what would be another passage or 2 that you would say is 'pre-incarnate Jesus'?

@Cleight theJW You're right that a created being can be like God without being eternal. But you didn't just say that Jesus is like God. You said that Jesus is the Divine Expression. That's what I believe, too. I just don't see why you would say that the expression of God wouldn't fully express God. "He is the reflection [Greek, "radiance, brilliance"] of God’s glory and the exact representation of his very being, and he sustains all things by the word of his power" (Heb 1:3). So Jesus is the same kind of being as the Father. And he makes all things continue to exist. That would put him far above the angels. He is a spiritual being who does what God does and is what God is. Of course, he is subject to the Father, since the Father is his source. I haven't looked into the Old Testament appearances of Jesus, so I couldn't say for sure. Most of that is speculation, anyway. Same with much about the relationship of the Holy Spirit and the Father. Even though I have beliefs about those things, I care most about the things we can be sure of. How do you ensure that the doctrine you believe is what the apostles taught? Do you have a way of testing your understanding of Scripture against what they meant when they wrote Scripture? -Lynn

@Chris Scalf I appreciate your comments. I'm not familiar with Oneness theology, but we believe that God exists in three persons. The Father is the ontological source of the Son and the Spirit, who are eternally sourced from him and share fully in his divinity. Yet they follow the Father. Thus, they aren't one person. Not sure if this answers your position or not, since as I said, I'm not familiar with it. But I hope this clarifies our beliefs a bit. -Lynn

@@SoundFaithChannel Thank you for your response. I understand your position as it is not coequality view IMO. Actually you do believe he is one person who is ultimately God if you think about what you said. Other persons as you would call them out from God(Father)from source really do not equal God but expressions from him. Only the Father is God in reality while the other "persons" are out of him and of the substance and his nature they still by essence of being can only be secondary and not all God in fulness.

@Chris Scalf A son is not the same person as a father, even though the son has the same essence. A spring and a stream are not the same thing, even though they have the same water. And a sun and its rays are not the same thing, even though they have the same brightness. We believe that, in the same way, the Father and Jesus are not the same person, although Jesus shares the Father's essence. And yes, the Father is the first in the Godhead, being the source from which the others come. Jesus submits to him. However, they are both fully divine and they are united in all things. I don't think we'd call Jesus "coequal," but he is fully God, even though he is not the Father and he submits to the Father. Does this make sense? -Lynn

@@SoundFaithChannel I understand. However from a Oneness position Jesus is not ontologically the Father. Jesus is expression of the Father's person. Hebrews 1. Not an eternal Son. Again my point is Jesus is the out of the HS. He has a God and prays out of necessity as all men pray. Oneness does not teach a 1 to 1 equation of Father as Son as a sock puppet. Jesus was the expression of the One God into authentic humanity as a kinsman redeemer. Appreciate your responses.

The word Bible does not exist in the Bible either.

@DamnBlessing Thanks for your reply. The Holy Spirit being the full revelation of Jesus (as the book of John shows), it makes sense that he would also be divine. If you want to know more about the historical Trinity, I would recommend signing up for a free trial at thehistoricfaith.com and listening through the talks in "Mini Courses and Miscellaneous Lessons" thehistoricfaith.com/courses/early-church-doctrine/ -Lynn

You will need to sign up for a free trial to get the answer to that question.

@@Almenatraining Yeah, that's embarrassing and was the complete wrong way to go about that.

You should read all of the verses talking about the Holy Spirit. If you remember He actually speaks for Himself in Acts 13. And furthermore, you should read all of what the earliest Christians have to say about the Holy Spirit. It was universally taught from the very beginning that the Holy Spirit was God.

If we go back to the previous chapter in Against Praxeas, we find Tertullian saying: “[We] believe that there is one only God, but under the following dispensation, or oikonomia, as it is called: that this one only God has also a Son, His Word, who proceeded from Himself, by whom all things were made, and without whom nothing was made. Him we believe to have been sent by the Father into the virgin, and to have been born of her-being both man and God, the son of man and the Son of God, and to have been called by the name of Jesus Christ; we believe Him to have suffered, died, and been buried, according to the Scriptures, and, after He had been raised again by the Father and taken back to heaven, to be sitting at the right hand of the Father, and that He will come to judge the living and the dead; who sent also from heaven from the Father, according to His own promise, the Holy Ghost, the Paraclete, the sanctifier of the faith of those who believe in the Father, and in the Son, and in the Holy Spirit. “That this rule of faith has come down to us from the beginning of the gospel, even before any of the older heretics, much more before Praxeas, a pretender of yesterday, will be apparent both from the lateness of date which marks all heresies, and also from the absolutely novel character of our new-fangled Praxeas. In this principle also we must henceforth find a presumption of equal force against all heresies whatsoever: that whatever is first is true, whereas that is spurious which is later in date. While keeping this prescriptive rule inviolate, still some opportunity must be given for reviewing (the statements of heretics), with a view to the instruction and protection of various persons-were it only that it may not seem that each perversion of the truth is condemned without examination, and simply prejudged. Especially in the case of this heresy, which supposes itself to possess the pure truth, in thinking that one cannot believe in One Only God in any other way than by saying that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are the very selfsame Person.” So Tertullian is not saying that modalism is the historic Christian faith. Rather, he declares that it is something “novel” or “new-fangled” and that it goes against the faith once for all handed down to the saints. Tertullian acknowledges that simple-minded Christians get confused in trying to understand the Trinity. But he is hardly arguing that this fact is a basis for rejecting the historic faith. What is important is what the disciples of the apostles and the leaders of the Church taught-not what the simple-minded misunderstood. Tertullian’s observation would equally apply today. Relatively few denominations teach modalism or “Jesus only” as their statement of faith. Yet, as I say in my message, modalism is perhaps the most common explanation given today of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Perhaps a majority of Christians even imagine that modalism is the orthodox understanding of the Trinity.

@@davidbercot5267 Great response, David. Have you heard Dr. Beau Branson’s monarchical trinitarian explanations of the Trinity? He focuses on Gregory of Nyssa and Basil the Great, but I think much of it is applicable to the orthodox ante-Nicene Christians like Irenaeus in Proof of the Apostolic Preaching.

@Adonis Jackson Hi, to answer some of these questions, I would recommend signing up for a free trial at thehistoricfaith.com and listening through the talks in "Mini Courses and Miscellaneous Lessons" thehistoricfaith.com/courses/early-church-doctrine/ -Lynn

Thank you for your comment, Adonis. Although I hear a lot of Christians today claim that Jesus was begotten only in the Incarnation, this is definitely not the historic faith. It stems from Augustine’s erroneous understanding of the Trinity. As I said in my message, Augustine’s doctrine of the Trinity essentially makes the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit three brothers. If Jesus was begotten only in the Incarnation, then He is Self-Existent (autotheos), just like the Father. In short, talking about eternity, it would mean that there are two Unbegotten Beings. However, only the Father is Unbegotten. The Nicene Creed teaches: “We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds.”

​@@davidbercot5267 Thank you for your reply. I would like to make clear that, like you, I reject Augustine's soteriology. I consider myself to be a Zero-Point Calvinist, i.e. I reject all of TULIP. I subscribed to Decisional Regeneration aka Decision Theology. With that said, I'm sure I agree with Augustine about some things, but that's not necessarily because I learned them from him or those who can trace their teachings back to him. My belief that Jesus wasn't always begotten comes from my personal study of the scriptures, not from any books that I read or teachings that I heard. For instance, Yah said, "Today, I have become your Father." It seems obvious to me that Jesus's sonship was an event that was predicted in Psalm 2, meaning that at the time it was prophesied, it wasn't yet reality. Most Christians that I know would agree with you that Jesus has always been the Son of God. I've met only one other person who shares my position. It could be that the church fathers didn't teach that Jesus wasn't always begotten. I don't agree with the church fathers on everything. I don't agree with Baptismal Regeneration. I'm not sure where I stand on the veracity of the Nicene Creed. I need to study it. I will say that until the incarnation of Jesus, all three persons of the triune Yah were unbegotten.