Christendom's Trinity: Where Did It Come From?

[Capbook]

DOG BEGAT DOG . . . . yes, dog begat after its kind through bodily fluids being exchanged and a conception taking place.
The conception and birth of Jesus was NOT IN THAT MANNER!!!! God created IN MARY HER KIND, HER OFFSPRING -- no bodily fluids passed as in normal procreation ---- a miracle occurred.

You did not answer this question amazing grace. Why?
"Which do you prefer to base your belief amazing grace from the original Bible words or not?

The Bible word "begotten" with Strong#G3439, in Greek "μονογενής monogenēs" defined by Louw and Nida Greek-English Lexicon Based on Semantic Domain means as - unique in the sense of being the only one of the same kind or class
Thus, Jesus as being the only one of the same kind with the Father as God, having the same divine nature.
I don't know what Bible lexicon denying Jesus as God based on bodily fluids, my first time ever from an Arian.

Joh 1:18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.

Joh 1:18 R1NoG3762 oneG3762 has seenG3708 GodG2316 at anyG4455 timeG4455; R2the onlyG3439 begottenG3439 GodG2316 who is R3in the bosomG2859 of the FatherG3962, R4He has explainedG1834 Him.

G3439
μονογενής monogenēs
pertaining to what is unique in the sense of being the only one of the same kind or class
(from Greek-English Lexicon Based on Semantic Domain. Copyright © 1988 United Bible Societies, New York. Used by permission.)

REPEAT.

Post #37

My question was based through the context of 1John 5:11-20.
I don't know why Arians have difficulty facing 1John 5:11-20?
Is it comprehension problem or scared to face the truth?

Once again sorry, I did not see your answer as yes or no on your Post#37.
Again and again, do you have the Son, the eternal life in 1John 5:12,20 amazing grace? Yes or no?

 

[amazing grace]

You did not answer this question amazing grace. Why?
"Which do you prefer to base your belief amazing grace from the original Bible words or not?

Being that I am not a scholar-----I have not been trained in either Hebrew or Greek-----I rely on scripture that has been preserved as is written in the Holy Bible. I have the ability to look up words and do word searches in immediate contexts and remote context which carry similar meanings. So I believe that I have enough in my hands to come to a reliable sense of understanding.

The Bible word "begotten" with Strong#G3439, in Greek "μονογενής monogenēs" defined by Louw and Nida Greek-English Lexicon Based on Semantic Domain means as - unique in the sense of being the only one of the same kind or class
Thus, Jesus as being the only one of the same kind with the Father as God, having the same divine nature.
I don't know what Bible lexicon denying Jesus as God based on bodily fluids, my first time ever from an Arian.

Yes, monogenes single of its kind, only; used of only sons or daughters (viewed in relation to their parents); used of Christ, denotes the only begotten son of God
. . . . single of its kind ---- a human being born of a human being, a virgin Mary. A human being conceived in the womb of Mary IS VERY UNIQUE and SINGLE OF ITS KIND!

I'm not an Arian and 'the bodily fluids' was said in the context of procreation, breeding, etc. what makes one a part of a species or kind.

Joh 1:18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.

Joh 1:18 R1NoG3762 oneG3762 has seenG3708 GodG2316 at anyG4455 timeG4455; R2the onlyG3439 begottenG3439 GodG2316 who is R3in the bosomG2859 of the FatherG3962, R4He has explainedG1834 Him.

G3439
μονογενής monogenēs
pertaining to what is unique in the sense of being the only one of the same kind or class
(from Greek-English Lexicon Based on Semantic Domain. Copyright © 1988 United Bible Societies, New York. Used by permission.)

You are using a verse which is a considerable textual variant.
God has always been - God is not begotten - God is not a human being in any sense of the word.

My question was based through the context of 1John 5:11-20.
I don't know why Arians have difficulty facing 1John 5:11-20?
Is it comprehension problem or scared to face the truth?

Once again sorry, I did not see your answer as yes or no on your Post#37.
Again and again, do you have the Son, the eternal life in 1John 5:12,20 amazing grace? Yes or no?

Do I believe the testimony of God that he has told us concerning his Son --- yes, I do.
AND THIS IS THE TESTIMONY - THAT GOD GAVE US ETERNAL LIFE AND THIS LIFE IS IN HIS SON -----
For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will......For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself. (John 5:21,26)
Yep, no one comes to the Father except through Jesus Christ, the Son.
Yep, I believe in the Son of God . . . Jesus Christ.

And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him (God) who is true; and we are in him (God) who is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life. [1 John 5:20] - And this is eternal life that they may know you, the only true God and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. [John 17:3]
God's word fits together so great . . . when it harmonizes, it just flows!

 

[mikesw]

Being that I am not a scholar-----I have not been trained in either Hebrew or Greek-----I rely on scripture that has been preserved as is written in the Holy Bible. I have the ability to look up words and do word searches in immediate contexts and remote context which carry similar meanings. So I believe that I have enough in my hands to come to a reliable sense of understanding.

You ought to recognize your limitations and be more humble in your effort to provide a new, novel, gnostic, private interpretation about the essence of Jesus.

 

[mikesw]

I was expecting amazing grace to mock wise advice. It is reckless to create new doctrine and not want sufficient discussion by well-equipped scholars before trying to push the novel doctrine on other people.

 

[Alter2Ego]

mikesw:

The distortion is yours. I quoted the scriptures in context and asked you direct questions from which you lapped your tail and ran.

My denying that Jesus Christ is part of Christendom's 3-prong god is supported by scripture. Your love affair with a non-existent trinity god that was invented by the Catholic Church in the 4th Century AD (300 years AFTER Jesus left the earthly scene and 300 years AFTER the last book of the Bible was written by inspiration of Jehovah) is such that you refuse to be corrected by scripture.

Pitiful.

oh my. you try to twist things with the type of questions you ask and then get upset I did not answer the way you wanted. Then you fail to understand history when you do not recognize that the 4th century decisions on the Trinity were just continuation of doctrines known before the 4th century. too many errors weakens your arguments

I quoted the scriptures verbatim, and then I asked you TRUE or FALSE questions taken directly from what I quoted. That's your idea of me trying "to twist things with the type of questions" I ask, because you refuse to be corrected by scripture.

oh my. you try to twist things with the type of questions you ask and then get upset I did not answer the way you wanted. Then you fail to understand history when you do not recognize that the 4th century decisions on the Trinity were just continuation of doctrines known before the 4th century. too many errors weakens your arguments

4th Century decisions made by two Roman Emperors--both of them pagan worshippers of the "unconquered sun"--along with the corrupt Roman Catholic bishops who were simply vying for power, is your idea of "continuation of doctrines known before the 4th century"? You are sounding more and more pathetic each time you post the usual tripe.

The fact that you--and no Trinitarian--can find Biblical support for a 3-prong god speaks volumes.


Tell you what? Do me a favor and stop clicking on my messages, as I am not interested in having any further discussions with you. If you click on my name again, I will send you to my "Ignore List" permanently. I took you off "Ignore" previously. The next time I send you there, it will be for good.


Actually, I will go ahead and send you to IGNORE here and now.


My work with you is done.

 

[mikesw]

I quoted the scriptures verbatim, and then I asked you TRUE or FALSE questions taken directly from what I quoted. That's your idea of me trying "to twist things with the type of questions" I ask, because you refuse to be corrected by scripture.

Indeed. You seemed to have acquired the skill to twist with questions. And now you are questioning that?

4th Century decisions made by two Roman Emperors--both of them pagan worshippers of the "unconquered sun"--along with the corrupt Roman Catholic bishops who were simply vying for power, is your idea of "continuation of doctrines known before the 4th century"? You are sounding more and more pathetic each time you post the usual tripe.

why do you say that 3rd century Christians were corrupt? You really have to say that all Christians were corrupt so that you can build your little doctrinal island. Then you have an ignorant idea that Roman Emperors were somehow convincing the bishops to make a decision on topics the emperors had little interest in -- except that the issues be settled.

Let true history be the judge of you.

The fact that you--and no Trinitarian--can find Biblical support for a 3-prong god speaks volumes.

All that is needed is that passages show the divinity of Christ. The explanation of God from there can be left for another day. But you deny John 1 and other passages. So you cannot even start an argument.

Tell you what? Do me a favor and stop clicking on my messages, as I am not interested in having any further discussions with you. If you click on my name again, I will send you to my "Ignore List" permanently. I took you off "Ignore" previously. The next time I send you there, it will be for good.

haha. I will be so sad that you do not wish to learn scripture anymore. I do like restating that you failed to make an argument to reasonably deny the deity of Christ.

Actually, I will go ahead and send you to IGNORE here and now.

My work with you is done.

If your work has been to show your failure to understand scripture and history, I guess your work is done.

 

[Capbook]

Being that I am not a scholar-----I have not been trained in either Hebrew or Greek-----I rely on scripture that has been preserved as is written in the Holy Bible. I have the ability to look up words and do word searches in immediate contexts and remote context which carry similar meanings. So I believe that I have enough in my hands to come to a reliable sense of understanding.

We don't need to be a scholar amazing grace, just try to use Bible translations that abide with "textual criticism" a core academic and scholarly discipline focused on reconstructing original texts by comparing variations in surviving manuscripts, aiming to establish the most accurate version, especially for ancient or religious works like the Bible. https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-e&q=is+textual+criticism+a+concept

By that we will not be misled by our own interpretation or from translators thoughts, not from original Bible words.
"Reliable sense of understanding" is just like the paraphrase translation, based on your own thoughts amazing grace.

Yes, monogenes single of its kind, only; used of only sons or daughters (viewed in relation to their parents); used of Christ, denotes the only begotten son of God
. . . . single of its kind ---- a human being born of a human being, a virgin Mary. A human being conceived in the womb of Mary IS VERY UNIQUE and SINGLE OF ITS KIND!

What made Jesus unique amazing grace?
Is it because Jesus not only He have human nature but also the same kind with the Father as God in nature? (Col 2:9)

I'm not an Arian and 'the bodily fluids' was said in the context of procreation, breeding, etc. what makes one a part of a species or kind.

Isn't an Arian a follower of Arianism, a belief denying Jesus as God amazing grace?

You are using a verse which is a considerable textual variant.

Try to use "textual criticisms" Bible translations and you will see the difference, from our own or translators thoughts to the original Bible words. We will be enlightened I'm positive.

God has always been - God is not begotten - God is not a human being in any sense of the word.

Amazing grace, may i know your understanding about the word "God?"
Is it the personal name of the Father?
I believe that is the line of your understanding, if that is, we are misguided.

Here again, I might believe that there is a comprehension problem here.
Amazing grace can confirm this by again not answering this simple context.
My question was based through the context of 1John 5:11-20.
I don't know why amazing grace have difficulty facing 1John 5:11-20?

Once again sorry, I did not see your answer as yes or no on your Post#37 and Post#62.
Again and again, do you have the Son, the eternal life in 1John 5:12,20 amazing grace? Yes or no?

 

[Alter2Ego]

mikesw:

What "divinity of Christ" are you referring to? Scripture says Jesus gave up his power when he came to earth; therefore, he was not divine while he was in human form. He was fully human. That why other humans were able to kill him.

Jesus is in the nature of God when He was here on earth. Louw and Nida Greek-English Lexicon based on Semantic Domain defined the word "Godhead" in Col 2:9 with Strong#G2320, in Greek "θεότης theotēs" as - the nature or state of being God, deity, divine nature, divine being. Thus Jesus is God, the word "God" is not the personal name of the Father, it is His divine nature and so is Jesus.
What dies was Jesus flesh (human nature) not His divine nature.
I know Arians might have difficulty understanding 1Peter 3:18, as it did not say Jesus' divine nature was put to death.

Capbook:

I see you are picking up where mikesw left off. I just got through banishing him/her to my "Ignore List," after he dodged all four of my direct questions in another thread by refusing to give TRUE or FALSE answers. I quoted scriptures for mikesw and followed the scriptures with direct questions that require either TRUE or FALSE answers. mikesw refused to play by the rules and proceeded to post additional Trinitarian tripe.

I'm telling you all this so that you can prepare yourself for when I start sending you direct questions. If you plan to play the game of Artful Dodger (like mikesw has been doing) and refuse to answer my direct questions, I will send you to permanent IGNORE. That's what I do at every single website where I've debate for the past decade, including atheist websites where the Atheists won't answer my direct questions.

I've sent dozens of people to IGNORE over the years, because they simply want to argue to ad nauseam. I don't have time for that. My objective is to teach those who are searching for answers, as opposed to arguing with people who simply show up on these types of websites to post their personal philosophy and are not interested in being corrected by scripture. That said, I will respond to your comments in the next posts.

 

[Capbook]

Capbook:

I see you are picking up where mikesw left off. I just got through banishing him/her to my "Ignore List," after he dodged all four of my direct questions in another thread by refusing to give TRUE or FALSE answers. I quoted scriptures for mikesw and followed the scriptures with direct questions that require either TRUE or FALSE answers. mikesw refused to play by the rules and proceeded to post additional Trinitarian tripe.

Alter2Ego, is banishing someone from a healthy spiritual discussion good as a good Christian?
In debates, we present points and better be supported with evidence as foundation of beliefs.

I'm telling you all this so that you can prepare yourself for when I start sending you direct questions. If you plan to play the game of Artful Dodger (like mikesw has been doing) and refuse to answer my direct questions, I will send you to permanent IGNORE. That's what I do at every single website where I've debate for the past decade, including atheist websites where the Atheists won't answer my direct questions.

Yes, I'm glad to if you will also accept textual criticisms Bible translations, Strong Concordance, Bible Lexicons and etc as reliable source of evidence Alter2Ego.

I've sent dozens of people to IGNORE over the years, because they simply want to argue to ad nauseam. I don't have time for that. My objective is to teach those who are searching for answers, as opposed to arguing with people who simply show up on these types of websites to post their personal philosophy and are not interested in being corrected by scripture. That said, I will respond to your comments in the next posts.

Is to "ignore" fellow Christians just to share their beliefs Christian like behavior Alter2Ego.
Or is it the "ego" that prevail?

Are we aware or can we be correected of what 1Pet 3:15 say, Alter2Ego?

1Pe 3:15 but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence;

 

[mikesw]

Alter2Ego responded to mikesw with:

mikesw:

What "divinity of Christ" are you referring to? Scripture says Jesus gave up his power when he came to earth; therefore, he was not divine while he was in human form. He was fully human. That why other humans were able to kill him.

So you at least are showing that the one who was God incarnated before he came to earth. That is a better position than you have advocated before. Maybe you are learning something?

Capbook:

I see you are picking up where mikesw left off. I just got through banishing him/her to my "Ignore List," after he dodged all four of my direct questions in another thread by refusing to give TRUE or FALSE answers. I quoted scriptures for mikesw and followed the scriptures with direct questions that require either TRUE or FALSE answers. mikesw refused to play by the rules and proceeded to post additional Trinitarian tripe.

mikesw refused to be led to false answers to questions that are not answerable in the fashion posed by alter2ego. It is basically like the lawyer asking: Have you stopped beating your wife.

I'm telling you all this so that you can prepare yourself for when I start sending you direct questions. If you plan to play the game of Artful Dodger (like mikesw has been doing) and refuse to answer my direct questions, I will send you to permanent IGNORE. That's what I do at every single website where I've debate for the past decade, including atheist websites where the Atheists won't answer my direct questions.

Alter2ego wishes to ask questions that were not reasonable before but still wants to ask them. You do not have to be upset for Christians not falling for your antics. You should have taken the answers as they came instead of being upset for your failure to control what people say.

I've sent dozens of people to IGNORE over the years, because they simply want to argue to ad nauseam. I don't have time for that. My objective is to teach those who are searching for answers, as opposed to arguing with people who simply show up on these types of websites to post their personal philosophy and are not interested in being corrected by scripture. That said, I will respond to your comments in the next posts.

You have no interest in learning by discussions then. You just want to distort ideas to fit into your views. That is hardly an authentic debate approach.

 

[Alter2Ego]

mikesw:

What "divinity of Christ" are you referring to? Scripture says Jesus gave up his power when he came to earth; therefore, he was not divine while he was in human form. He was fully human. That why other humans were able to kill him.

Jesus is in the nature of God when He was here on earth. Louw and Nida Greek-English Lexicon based on Semantic Domain defined the word "Godhead" in Col 2:9 with Strong#G2320, in Greek "θεότης theotēs" as - the nature or state of being God, deity, divine nature, divine being. Thus Jesus is God, the word "God" is not the personal name of the Father, it is His divine nature and so is Jesus.
What dies was Jesus flesh (human nature) not His divine nature.
I know Arians might have difficulty understanding 1Peter 3:18, as it did not say Jesus' divine nature was put to death.

Col 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

Col 2:9 ForG3754 inG1722 himG846 dwellethG2730 allG3956 theG3588 fulnessG4138 of theG3588 GodheadG2320 bodily.G4985

G2320
θεότης theotēs
the nature or state of being God - 'deity, divine nature, divine being
(from Greek-English Lexicon Based on Semantic Domain. Copyright © 1988 United Bible Societies, New York. Used by permission.)


1Pe 3:18 For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit;

And also, the Tetragrammaton is originally written as "יהוה ."

Psa 83:18 And let them know that You, Whose Name is יהוה, You alone are the Most High over all the earth.

Capbook:

A Lexicon is not written by inspiration of Jehovah God. A Lexicon is nothing more than a group of words that someone else strung together to express THEIR personal philosophy. Notice below the difference between a lexicon and a dictionary.

"A lexicon is a list of words that belong to a particular language.

Sometimes, lexicon is used as another word for thesaurus (see below)

A dictionary is a list of words and phrases that are (or were) in common usage, together with their definitions - so a dictionary is different from a lexicon because a lexicon is a simple list and doesn't define the words."

Difference between lexicon and dictionary

What is the difference between a lexicon and a dictionary? Is a lexicon just an über-big dictionary?

english.stackexchange.com

 

[Alter2Ego]

Col 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

Col 2:9 ForG3754 inG1722 himG846 dwellethG2730 allG3956 theG3588 fulnessG4138 of theG3588 GodheadG2320 bodily.G4985

G2320
θεότης theotēs
the nature or state of being God - 'deity, divine nature, divine being
(from Greek-English Lexicon Based on Semantic Domain. Copyright © 1988 United Bible Societies, New York. Used by permission.)


1Pe 3:18 For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit;

And also, the Tetragrammaton is originally written as "יהוה ."

Psa 83:18 And let them know that You, Whose Name is יהוה, You alone are the Most High over all the earth.

Capbook:

The word Godhead is a fabrication that didn't show up in the Bible until the 14th century AD--1,300 years AFTER the last book of the Bible was written by inspiration of Jehovah--when John Wycliffe introduced it into HIS English translation as godhede. Since you're relying on a made-up word not found in the oldest known copies of the Greek Scriptures aka New Testament, you've been debunked.


“John Wycliffe (born c. 1330, Yorkshire, England—died December 31, 1384, Lutterworth, Leicestershire) was an English theologian, philosopher, church reformer, and promoter of the first complete translation of the Bible into English.”

John Wycliffe | Biography, Bible, Beliefs, Reformation, Legacy, Death, & Facts | Britannica

John Wycliffe, English theologian, philosopher, church reformer, and promoter of the first complete translation of the Bible into English. He was one of the forerunners of the Protestant Reformation. The Lollards, a heretical group, propagated his controversial views.

www.britannica.com

“The ending "-head", is not connected with the word "head". John Wycliffe introduced the term godhed into English Bible versions in two places, and, though somewhat archaic, the term survives in modern English because of its use in three places of the Tyndale New Testament (1525) and into the Authorized King James Version of the Bible (1611). In that translation, the word was used to translate three different Greek words:”

Godhead meaning

Godhead[hede] of the Bible - Maranatha Media

Articles, books and presentations vital Scripture truths . Also includes a study collection of books, studies and resources for Bible study

maranathamedia.com

 

[Alter2Ego]

Alter2Ego, is banishing someone from a healthy spiritual discussion good as a good Christian?
In debates, we present points and better be supported with evidence as foundation of beliefs.

Yes, I'm glad to if you will also accept textual criticisms Bible translations, Strong Concordance, Bible Lexicons and etc as reliable source of evidence Alter2Ego.

Is to "ignore" fellow Christians just to share their beliefs Christian like behavior Alter2Ego.
Or is it the "ego" that prevail?

Are we aware or can we be correected of what 1Pet 3:15 say, Alter2Ego?

1Pe 3:15 but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence;

Capbook:

You are confused. There's nothing healthy or good about a conversation with people who claim they are Christian but refuse to be corrected by scripture. Jesus Christ set the example when he instructed his First Century disciples as follows:

Matthew 10:14​

"Wherever anyone does not receive you or listen to your words, on going out of that house or that city, shake the dust off your feet."

Whenever I ask someone a TRUE or FALSE question, I first give the person a direct quotation from the Bible. If the person refuses to answer the question as TRUE or FALSE--based upon the scriptural quotation--that's the signal that they don't care what the Bible says. I don't waste time with those types of people. I simply send them on their way.

Now, if you want to debate in circles, find somebody else to do it with. I will send you to IGNORE if you refuse to be corrected by scripture by not answering the questions I ask you in the manner that you've been asked to answer them, eg. as either TRUE or FALSE.

 

[Alter2Ego]

Capbook:

I'm telling you all this so that you can prepare yourself for when I start sending you direct questions. If you plan to play the game of Artful Dodger (like mikesw has been doing) and refuse to answer my direct questions, I will send you to permanent IGNORE. That's what I do at every single website where I've debate for the past decade, including atheist websites where the Atheists won't answer my direct questions.

Yes, I'm glad to if you will also accept textual criticisms Bible translations, Strong Concordance, Bible Lexicons and etc as reliable source of evidence Alter2Ego.

Capbook:

Anything that does not agree with what's in the Judeo-Christian Bible is not an authority that I will consider. None of the publications that you listed above are acceptable because none of them were written by inspiration of Jehovah God. They were written by imperfect humans spewing their personal philosophy in printed form.

 

[mikesw]

Capbook:

You are confused. There's nothing healthy or good about a conversation with people who claim they are Christian but refuse to be corrected by scripture. Jesus Christ set the example when he instructed his First Century disciples as follows:

Matthew 10:14​

"Wherever anyone does not receive you or listen to your words, on going out of that house or that city, shake the dust off your feet."

Whenever I ask someone a TRUE or FALSE question, I first give the person a direct quotation from the Bible. If the person refuses to answer the question as TRUE or FALSE--based upon the scriptural quotation--that's the signal that they don't care what the Bible says. I don't waste time with those types of people. I simply send them on their way.

Now, if you want to debate in circles, find somebody else to do it with. I will send you to IGNORE if you refuse to be corrected by scripture by not answering the questions I ask you in the manner that you've been asked to answer them, eg. as either TRUE or FALSE.

I take it that alter2ego is repenting from being unable to be corrected by the words of scripture.

Also Matt 10:14 is directed to the 12. I presume you are one of the 12 apostles and going out to the surrounding territory. That is an impressive resume you have.

If alter2ego wishes to debate, then work with the answers given rather than forcing an inaccurate answer to be given.

 

[mikesw]

Capbook:

Anything that does not agree with what's in the Judeo-Christian Bible is not an authority that I will consider. None of the publications that you listed above are acceptable because none of them were written by inspiration of Jehovah God. They were written by imperfect humans spewing their personal philosophy in printed form.

uh. alter2ego must limit arguments to the Hebrew and Greek since no Lexicon or translations are, for some reason, no longer allowed in JW debates.

 

[synergy]

I quoted the scriptures verbatim, and then I asked you TRUE or FALSE questions taken directly from what I quoted. That's your idea of me trying "to twist things with the type of questions" I ask, because you refuse to be corrected by scripture.

4th Century decisions made by two Roman Emperors--both of them pagan worshippers of the "unconquered sun"--along with the corrupt Roman Catholic bishops who were simply vying for power, is your idea of "continuation of doctrines known before the 4th century"? You are sounding more and more pathetic each time you post the usual tripe.

The fact that you--and no Trinitarian--can find Biblical support for a 3-prong god speaks volumes.

I take it you're a non-Trinitarian.

I find it curious that non-Trinitarians always demand a verse that explicitly says "Trinity" or thereabouts when the Bible goes a thousand steps further by manifesting the Trinity before human eye witnesses time and time again. The multiple OT and NT Theophanies are Trinity manifestations with the clearest one being Jesus' Incarnation.

 

[Capbook]

Capbook:

A Lexicon is not written by inspiration of Jehovah God. A Lexicon is nothing more than a group of words that someone else strung together to express THEIR personal philosophy. Notice below the difference between a lexicon and a dictionary.

"A lexicon is a list of words that belong to a particular language.

Sometimes, lexicon is used as another word for thesaurus (see below)

A dictionary is a list of words and phrases that are (or were) in common usage, together with their definitions - so a dictionary is different from a lexicon because a lexicon is a simple list and doesn't define the words."

Difference between lexicon and dictionary

What is the difference between a lexicon and a dictionary? Is a lexicon just an über-big dictionary?

english.stackexchange.com

Alter2Ego, what a misunderstanding, I said Bible lexicon not just lexicon.
You know what is a "strawman argument" is?
That is what you are doing, misrepresenting what I said.

 

[Capbook]

Capbook:

The word Godhead is a fabrication that didn't show up in the Bible until the 14th century AD--1,300 years AFTER the last book of the Bible was written by inspiration of Jehovah--when John Wycliffe introduced it into HIS English translation as godhede. Since you're relying on a made-up word not found in the oldest known copies of the Greek Scriptures aka New Testament, you've been debunked.

If you don't use "textual criticisms" Bible translation Alter2Ego, your foundational belief will crumble.
You are against the word "Godhead"?
How about "Deity" Alter2Ego?
Quoted from NASB, a literal word for word Bible translation that aims to maintain the highest degree of accuracy to the original languages render Col 2:9 refer to Jesus as Deity, as God.

Col 2:9 For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form,

“John Wycliffe (born c. 1330, Yorkshire, England—died December 31, 1384, Lutterworth, Leicestershire) was an English theologian, philosopher, church reformer, and promoter of the first complete translation of the Bible into English.”

John Wycliffe | Biography, Bible, Beliefs, Reformation, Legacy, Death, & Facts | Britannica

John Wycliffe, English theologian, philosopher, church reformer, and promoter of the first complete translation of the Bible into English. He was one of the forerunners of the Protestant Reformation. The Lollards, a heretical group, propagated his controversial views.

www.britannica.com

“The ending "-head", is not connected with the word "head". John Wycliffe introduced the term godhed into English Bible versions in two places, and, though somewhat archaic, the term survives in modern English because of its use in three places of the Tyndale New Testament (1525) and into the Authorized King James Version of the Bible (1611). In that translation, the word was used to translate three different Greek words:”

Godhead meaning

Godhead[hede] of the Bible - Maranatha Media

Articles, books and presentations vital Scripture truths . Also includes a study collection of books, studies and resources for Bible study

maranathamedia.com

I've gone to the link you've provided Alter2Ego, and this is what I see below;
Visit your link again and see if it is not there

Godhead[hede] of the Bible - Maranatha Media

Articles, books and presentations vital Scripture truths . Also includes a study collection of books, studies and resources for Bible study

maranathamedia.com

Godhead from Old English godhede – "godhood" (nothing to do with "head") may refer to:

• deity
• divinity, the quality of being God
• Conceptions of God

And again, here, did you quote Scripture verbatim Alter2Ego?
See to yourself if your Father's personal name is correct.

Psa 83:18 And let them know that You, Whose Name is יהוה, You alone are the Most High over all the earth.

 

[Capbook]

Capbook:

Anything that does not agree with what's in the Judeo-Christian Bible is not an authority that I will consider. None of the publications that you listed above are acceptable because none of them were written by inspiration of Jehovah God. They were written by imperfect humans spewing their personal philosophy in printed form.

Do that mean that JWs are not taught to consult original Bible words what it means at the time it was used through Bible lexicons?
I believe that will surely misled JWs. Bible Lexicographers hold the highest credentials to define original Bible words Alter2Ego.
Or maybe the only authority you acknowledged is just the NWT, a paraphrase translation a product of translators thoughts.

And firstly, don't you know that your used of the "Tetragrammaton" is the Latinized?
See the original writing of it. Is it not Alter2Ego?
Can you answer Yes or no? Or true or false?
Just to follow your style of questioning or you will have to reason and explain.

Psa 83:18 And let them know that You, Whose Name is יהוה, You alone are the Most High over all the earth.