Tim: Thank-you for continually amusing me with your responses.  If anything I am getting much sharper as a defender of the faith. My response to your last four letters is well underway.  It has been most enjoyable. Here is a sample: On this issue [Greg Stafford and scholars] you should notice first that I made a distinction between "scholars" and "Scholars." Second, by "of no repute" I mean to invest the term "repute" with the meaning of "exceedingly high repute" whereby I have in mind specifically NT scholars not theologians, or apologists. Third, I am not inferring that scholars like White and Rhodes are not scholars of repute in their own field (quite capable as they are), but neither fit the definition I give for Scholars in the field of NT--and that is what I meant (does you care anything for original intent?). Fourth, like everything written by me, however, you guys (Stafford/yourself) have a knack for misconstruing language much like you do Scriptures and the work of other
scholars to meet your own agenda.

Heinz: I do not remember you making any distinction between "Scholar and "scholar" at all. I think that you are backtracking in order to cover yourself. You have in the past talked quite highly of Rhodes, after all, he is called the "Bible Answer Man". If it makes you feel any better, I think he falls quite short of any "scholar" reference....period.
 

Tim: This whole process has a circular appeal to it. The more your work is refuted for the worthless but destructive propaganda it is [not an ad hom.], the more you claim how high caliber it is based on the reputation of scholars (of all fields) who address it. Its a parasitic claim to fame.
    Now as for Stafford, yes there will be a flurry of scholars addressing his "book" in the future on the internet and in a few books perhaps (so my earlier comment surely didn't rule out future acts by scholars or Scholars). What is interesting is that most Scholars that have been quoted by him and have been contacted, don't know who Stafford is, are perplexed at his misconstruing of their data when informed about them, and are reaffirming what all of us who have dealt with him have always known--he either deliberately twists what others write to conform to his WT theology, or he is a poor reader.

"While I should note that I respect the knowledge and skills of several members of this list, Mr. Stafford is by far the most exegetically sophisticated, academically rigorous, and theologically informed Jehovah's Witness that I have encountered.  I find him to be very intelligent and quite articulate.
I have said these things several times, but it seems they have tended to get buried in the pile of arguments and counterarguments, as well as the more unfortunate dimensions of our discussion that we have agreed to leave behind.  So, for the record, I wanted to say them again.  Whatever errors, mistakes, or misrepresentations I claim to find in Mr. Stafford's writings should not be construed as contradicting the above overall assessment of his abilities and performance.  He is a gifted spokesman for the perspective of the Jehovah's Witnesses and deserves to be taken quite seriously."

Perhaps you should actually read his book before you criticize him in this manner.
 

Tim: Here's a good example of what I mean concerning bad scholarship:
1.  Selective quotation, Providing quotations that are out of context, or elided to obscure that the author intended.
SYBT: "’At first the Christian faith was not Trinitarian…It was not so in the apostolic and sub-apostolic ages, as reflected in the N[ew] T[testament] and other early Christian writings’ – Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics" (pp. 6-7). The first part of this quotation is cut off in mid-sentence. It reads in full: "At first the Christian faith was not Trinitarian in the strictly ontological reference. It was not so in the apostolic and sub-apostolic ages, as reflected in the NT and other early Christian writings. It should be observed that there is no real cleavage or antithesis between the doctrines of the economic and the essential Trinity, and naturally so. The Trinity [or essential Trinity] represents the effort to think out the [economical] Trinity, and so to afford it a reasonable basis" (Encyclopedia
of Religion and Ethics, Vol. 12, p. 461.) This same article proclaims: "If the doctrine of the Trinity appeared
somewhat late in theology, it must have lived very early in devotion" (IBID., 458-459).

Heinz: Robert Bowman mentioned above would agree with you that Witnesses milk the comments of scholars and reference works for more than they are worth, but even he, after writing an entire book on the Trinity brochure, only tackles a scant few (similar to the ones that you do). Perhaps these are the only ones that seem open for attack. It seems that your reading of the above Encyclopedia is more selective than mine. This is the same work that says, "In Indian religion, e.g., we meet with the trinitarian group of Brahma, Siva, and Visnu; and in Egyptian religion with the trinitarian group of Osiris, Isis, and Horus . . . Nor is it only in historical religions that we find God viewed as a Trinity. One recalls in particular the Neo-Platonic view of the Supreme or Ultimate Reality," which is "triadically represented." This work maintains over and over again in many ways how the 4th century Church merely adopted paganism in its fold. You would be surprised at what this book says about Easter, birthdays, Mary, Tithes, etc.
But let us focus on what else it says about the Trinity: "It is exegesis of a mischievous kind, if pious, sort that would discover the doctrine in the plural form 'Elohim,' of the Deity's name, in the recorded appearance of three angels to Abraham, or even in the ter sanctus of the prophecies of Isaiah.""In the New Testament we do not find the doctrine of the Trinity in anything like its developed form, not even in the Pauline and Johannine theology, although ample witness is borne to the religious experience from which the doctrine springs. It then directs you to the footnote which mentions Luke 24:49  which says, "And behold, I send forth the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city, until ye be clothed with power from on high." ASV
Hardly the start of any Triune doctrine.  Scripture is quoted rarely, as are most of these works, but perhaps it is because the "doctrine of the Trinity does not usually fit well into the general doctrine of God, and often bears the character of a doctrine apart." p.462

But what is an "Economic Trinity"? According to one of our anti-JW web-sites (and there are thousands of them) the Economic Trinity is: First in a simple sense, as we find in the Bible, where there is an affirmation of the deity of Christ and the personality of the Holy Spirit combined with a mono-theistic view of God, but without any explanation as to how the whole thing fits together and works. So basically speaking, just because the NT speaks of the Father...and the Son...and the Holy Spirit, then that is all that is good enough for you people to form a belief system akin to "Brahma, Siva, and Visnu; and in Egyptian religion with the trinitarian group of Osiris, Isis, and Horus."

Tim: SYBT:  "This confusion [over the Trinity] is widespread. The Encyclopedia Americana notes that the doctrine of the Trinity is considered to be "beyond the grasp of human reason" (p. 4). Unfortunately, SYBT neither quotes this passage in full nor documents it, instead only giving the title of the source and implying that it agrees with
the Watch Tower's position:  "It is held that although the doctrine is beyond the grasp of human reason, it is, like many of the formulations of physical science, not contrary to reason, and may be apprehended (though it may not comprehended) by the human mind" (Encyclopedia Americana, vol. 27, p.116).

Tim-SYBT: “Fortman states: ‘The New Testament writers…give us no formal for formulated doctrine of the Trinity, no explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons’” (p. 6). Sounds like Fortman denies the Trinity in any form exists in the NT, doesn’t it?Here’s what Edmund Fortman really said, in context:
“If we take the New Testament writers together they tell us there is only one God, the creator and lord of the universe, who is the Father of Jesus. They call Jesus the Son of God, Messiah, Lord, Savior, Word, Wisdom.  They assign Him the divine functions of creation, salvation, judgment.  Sometimes they call Him God explicitly.  They do not speak as fully and clearly of the Holy Spirit as they do of the Son, but at times they coordinate Him with the Father and the Son and put Him on a level with them as far as divinity and personality are concerned.  They give us in their writings a triadic ground plan and triadic formulas.  They do not speak in abstract terms of nature, substance, person, relation, circumincession, mission, but they present in their own ways the ideas that are behind these terms.  They give us no formal or formulated doctrine of the Trinity, no explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons.  But they do give us an elemental trinitarianism, the data from which such a formal doctrine of the Triune God may be formulated” (Fortman, The Triune God, p. 9).

Tim: SYBT: “The New Encyclopedia Britannica observes: ‘Neither the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament’” (p. 6).Note the word “explicit.”  The Britannica is saying the same thing as Fortman.  On the same page, we find: “The New Testament establishes the basis for the doctrine of the Trinity” (Encyclopedia Britannica, Micropedia, Vol. X, p. 126).

Heinz: That is a pretty weak argument since most nominal Xtians beleive that simply because the N.T. mention the Father, Son and holy spirit that this makes this a basis for a three-in-one doctrine. What else does Brittanica say?
"In his theological interpretation of the idea of God, Arius was interested in maintaining a formal understanding of the oneness of God. In defense of the oneness of God, he was obliged to dispute the sameness of essence of the Son and the Holy Spirit with God the Father, as stressed by
the theologians of the Neoplatonically influenced Alexandrian school. From the outset, the controversy between both parties took place upon the common basis of the Neoplatonic concept of substance, which was foreign to the New Testament itself. It is no wonder that the continuation of the dispute on the basis of the metaphysics of substance likewise led to concepts that have no foundation in the New Testament--such as the question of the sameness of
essence (homoousia) or similarity of essence (homoiousia) of the divine persons." Brittanica.com

Tim: 2.  Not telling the whole story. Similar to #1, by providing only an out-of-context quotation, does not reveal information the author provides that is detrimental to one's argument. SYBT:  “E. Washburn Hopkins affirmed: ‘To Jesus and Paul the doctrine of the trinity was apparently unknown…they say nothing about it” (p. 6).
Full quote in context:  “The beginning of the doctrine of the trinity appears already in John (c. 100).  To Jesus and Paul the doctrine of the trinity was apparently unknown, at any rate they say nothing about it” (Hopkins, The Origin and Evolution of Religion, p. 336). So, Hopkins, a liberal scholar who questions the historical accuracy of the NT record, finds the trinity present in the Gospel of John.  Hardly “affirming” the proposition that the Trinity is non-Biblical.

Heinz: On the basis of his studies, Professor E. Washburn Hopkins said of the trinities of Hinduism, Buddhism and Christendom: "The three trinities as religious expressions are identical. . . . One may say: I believe in God as godhead, and in the divine incarnation, and in the creative Holy Spirit, as a Christian, a Vishnuite, or a Buddhist."
Noteworthy, too, is the fact that the trinity of Chinese Buddhism is defined in a way that is practically identical to what professed Christians say. We read:
"The Three are all included in one substantial essence. The three are the same as one; not one, and yet not different; without parts or composition. When regarded as one, the three persons are spoken of as the Perfect One (Tathagata). There is no real difference [between the three persons of the trinity]; they are manifestations, different aspects of the same unchanging substance."-Origin and Evolution of Religion, p. 348.
 Yale professor E. Washburn Hopkins put it this way: "The final orthodox definition of the trinity was largely a matter of church politics."
Origin and Evolution of Religion, by E. Washburn Hopkins, 1923, page 339.

Tim: Let me ask, have Trinitarians who quote Harris without referencing his comments on YHWH withheld information Harris provides that is detrimental to their argument? Let me ask, have Trinitarians attributed quotes by Harris to someone else, or someone else to Harris?
The examples can be multiplied.  Let me ask, have Trinitarians selectively quoted Harris to obscure what he said about YHWH (or anything else for that matter)?

Heinz: I don't know of any Trinitarians that have actually quoted Harris. But since you are ignorant of the writings of Rolf Furuli and Greg Stafford, you might be surprised to know that they have used Harris quite a bit and even praised his efforts. "Murray J. Harris' work, Jesus as God, ...will be quoted here throughout this discussion. This is probably the most exhaustive book ever written about the Biblical witness to Jesus as theos. Its strength is the sound grammatical and linguistic analysis presented and it also gives the principal viewpoints for each verse discussed." p.199 Theology and Bias in Bible Translation. Rolf does though find fault with the author's statements of faith interspersed throughout, but all in all a glowing recommendation. Stafford also uses Harris' work favourably throughout his book, but since, according to you, neither of the above are scholars of any repute, then this does not bode well for your argument.

Tim: 3.  Mis-attributed quotes/Attributing a quote to someone other than the author, with the intent of obscuring what the author really did write.
SYBT: "Tertullian, who died about 230 C.E., taught the supremacy of God. He observed: ‘The Father is different from the Son (another), as he is greater; as he who begets is different from him who is begotten; he who sends,
different from him who is sent.’ He also said: ‘There was a time when the Son was not. . . . Before all things, God was alone’" (p. 7).
The phrase: "There was a time when the Son was not" is not from Tertullian, but an expression used by scholar Bishop Kaye in an appendix of one of Tertullian’s works. Bishop Kaye was summarizing a statement made by
Tertullian, who argued that the Word and the Father were always God, but the titles Father and Son only become applicable after the Incarnation: "For He could not have been the Father previous to the Son, nor a judge previous to sin" (Against Hermogones, Ch. 3).    See Bishop Kaye, “Account of the Writings of Tertullian,” The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 3, p. 1181.  This section includes the following statements that more accurately summarize Bishop Kaye’s understanding of Tertullian: “Tertullian’s opinions were generally coincident with the orthodox belief of the Christian Church on the great subject of the Trinity in Unity” (p. 1180); “the Reason and Spirit of God, being the substance of the Word and Son, were co-eternal with God” (p. 1181); “He [Tertullian] really believed that the very hypostasis which is called the Word and Son of God is eternal” (p. 1182).
This is a particularly egregious example, as it included not only the mis-attribution, but also selective quotation and ellipses to conflate two works to make them appear as a single passage.

Heinz: All the writings of the ANF (Ante-Nicene Fathers) come to us from others, as there are many translations and commentaries out there of the ANF. Tertullian held a two stage view of the LOGOS QEOU and believed that the Son qua Son was brought forth at the ARXH of creation based on his reading of Genesis chapter one. So even if the LOGOS, as Tertullian contended, eternally subsisted as the Reason of God within the Father before God the Father created all things--he (the Son) did not subsist as a distinct divine hypostasis from all eternity and nor was he always the Son. The view that Christians are/will be gods was also echoed by Tertullian. Here is a sample of what else they say that Tertullian says: Frend lists Tertullian and Hippolytus as examples of western thinkers who believed in the inferiority of the Son. He even writes that Hippolytus felt that Jesus Christ "was simply a created being to whom divinity had been arbitrarily and temporarily assigned" (_The Rise of Christianity_. Page 345).
"Tertullian . . . [also] was a man to whom the inspiration of the Spirit was everything . . . [in his theological system] the Word was derivative ("a portion of the whole") and subordinate, and equally liable to modalist interpretations . . . despite Tertullian's thrust against Praxeas,
Trinitarian theology never had a high priority in the thought of the North African church leaders . . . Fourth century inscriptions if anything emphasize the subordination of Son to Father. God [the Father] was "Omnipotent," Christ was "Saviour." In this period, few African Christians showed
much concern regarding the accusation that Donatus was an Arian (Frend 345-346).
And since you claimed that we misquoted Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, here is what it has to say about Tertullian, "And even Tertullian, who founded the nomenclature of the orthodix doctrine, knew as little of an ontological Trinity as did the apologists; his is still the economic or relative conception of the Johannine and Pauline theology." Do you remember what this same work said about John and Paul? "In the New Testament we do not find the doctrine of the Trinity in anything like its developed form, not even in the Pauline and Johannine theology" p.458
Robert Wilken wrote in _The Myth of Christian Beginnings:  "From the very beginning, the Christian tradition had struggled with the question of JESUS' relation to God . . . Very early Christians tried to account for his extraordinary life and accomplishments and his Resurrection, and it was not long before he was called Son of God--then God. EVEN SO, HE WAS NOT GOD IN THE SENSE IN WHICH THE FATHER WAS GOD--OR WAS HE? Was he creator, was he eternal, should he be addressed in prayer? These and other questions troubled thoughtful Christians for almost three centuries. During  these years, MOST CHRISTIANS VAGUELY THOUGHT OF JESUS AS GOD; yet they did not actually think of him IN THE SAME WAY THAT THEY THOUGHT OF GOD THE FATHER. They seldom addressed prayers to him, and thought of him somehow as SECOND TO GOD--DIVINE, YES, BUT NOT FULLY GOD . . . When the controversy over the relation of Jesus to God the Father broke out in the early fourth century, most Christians
were"SUBORDINATIONISTS," i.e. they believed that Christ was God BUT NOT IN PRECISELY THE SAME WAY THAT THE FATHER WAS GOD" (See pp. 177-183).
"With the exception of Athanasius virtually every theologian, East and West, accepted some form of subordinationism at least up the year 355; subordinationism might indeed, until the denouement of the controversy, have been described as accepted orthodoxy." (Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God, p.xix)

Tim:This exercise could continue for quite some time, but I think I've made my
point. Have Fun!

Thank you Tim, I will. And I will do it by explaining the Triadic phrase at Matthew 28:19b. This is the scripture that is used in many Encyclopedias to promote a biblical trinity, even when they say ‘Neither the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament’. Many works cross-reference Mt 28:19 to scriptures like 2 Cor 13:14, "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit, be with you all"; "But he, being full of the Holy Spirit, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God" In none of these scriptures are they ever said to be one in nature/essence. In fact, it is the Father that is clearly defined as being "God" when they are all put together.
Many say to me that by reading Acts 2:38, we can see that Jesus alone is synonymous with the Trinity, "And Peter [said] unto them, Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." After all, this scripture only mentions "in the name of Jesus", while Mt 28:19 mentions "in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirt."
But is this really so? If we look at Acts 8:14-17 we read, "Now when the Apostles at Jerusalem heard Samaria had recieved the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John; who came down and prayed that they might receive the Holy Spirit; for it had not yet fallen on any of them; but they had only been baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus. RSV
So here we can see that baptism into Jesus is not the same as being baptized into the holy spirit.

Conclusion: Most works, like Bowman You Should Believe in a Trinity only attack a few of the quotes in the SYBT, but those only the few THEY CAN use against us. Many others in the booklet are ignored or simply brushed away. There are verily hundreds that could have been used, and better ones that the WTS probably could have made better use of.
I will finish off with a quote from E.H. Broadbent to show you where I am coming from. Speaking of the much persecuted but humble group of Christians of times past, the Waldenses and the Albigenses, he says

"They considered that in all times and in all forms of churches there  were enlightened men of god. They therefore made use of the writings of Ambrose, Augustine, Chrysostom, Bernard of Clairvaux and others, not accepting,  however, all they wrote, but only that which corresponded with the older, purer teaching of Scripture." The Pilgrim Church, p.120

But while I am writing all of this in response to you, you have yet to introduce the holy spirit into your argument, which means that all your posturing has been for nothing.
-Heinz

Back to Main Page