Where Did The Trinity Teaching Come From?

[quote=“Jack_Hectormann, post:365, topic:39617”]
I have often wondered how some males can endure their long flowing hair
[/quote]Same here. What makes me wonder is hair tickling the ears (though I guess you get used to it and it’s not bothersome any more?). Years ago, I started to let my hair grow a little, just to see what it would be like. When it started touching my ears, albeit it ever so slightly, that was it! I got it cut right away. End of 'speriment.

I haven’t ever let it get that long again. When I tell my wife, “It’s time for a haircut”, she’ll often say, “But it’s not even that long . . . it’s still short”. My answer: “It’s bothering me . . . that means it’s too long!”

I tried a beard and mustache one time too. While letting it grow out, I had to tell myself daily that I wanted to give it a chance, and didn’t want to make a premature judgment. Made it for maybe one day or so with a full beard and mustache. End of 'speriment. Facial hair, of any length, is just as uncomfortable to me as hair on my head, maybe moreso.

I’m retired, so I don’t have to shave every day for “work”. However, I can go without shaving for maybe two days, and that’s IT! Stubble is bothersome and uncomfortable to me.

[quote=“Jack_Hectormann, post:365, topic:39617”]
A man who has thick shoulder length hair, and who keeps it clean, has got to be spending a lot of time washing, drying, and styling it. He may hire it done, but he has to sit there, like a woman does, in a beauty shop for a long time
[/quote]I never thought of that. You’re right.

At the stage of the game I’m at, it’s all about comfort. Two bathrooms (so even if my wife is using one, there’s still “no waiting”), a LazyBoy recliner (where I spend most of my time enjoying my “low energy lifestyle”), frequent naps in the afternoon, etc. I figured I got enough exercise in my younger years, though I can’t exercise anyway with this physical disability curse . . . I do however do some “chair exercises” and stretches in the bed.

I have a very low tolerance level for discomfort these days (in my younger years, about the only thing that ever bothered me was . . . you guessed it . . .HAIR!). Now, for example, going to the dentist even for nothing more than tooth cleaning is a big deal to me.

My pastor shaved his head based on a promotion in a former church of his. He’s never let it grow since.

/grin … I hear ya on all that! We could probably add the right to impatience to that up there. /grin … I hold the position that Senior Citizens have every right to be tightly focused on avoiding discomfort and patience. Patience is the obligation of youth, but impatience heads up the list titled The Rights of Senior Citizens. … lol …

/half way joking around

He was at least 50% Kojak before he picked up the razor?

He didn’t give up a bushy healthy growing thriving “wig”, did he?

… lol …

OMGosh!!! That’s too funny!! I can just see the look on the pharmacist’s face as you’re asking him that question!! LOL!!

Back in my younger days, I had a boyfriend who’s hair was longer, thicker, and more beautiful than mine. I truly resented him for that. He didn’t do anything special to it–he washed it and that was it. BTW, he had a most beautiful Harley-Davidson hog… THAT I defintely liked!! My poor father didn’t share my sentiments…


See Post 2 here in the Trivia Forum:
http://www.republicanoperative.com/forums/f23/just-one-big-happy-family-23015/#post598741 for my response to your comment about your old boyfriend’s hair … lol …

We are guilty of some very serious threadjackery and the mods have every right to start whacking off left hand index fingers … /grin

I think I’ll make this my last post on non-Trinitarian subjects.

Post 2 here:

I remem…errrrrrrr…have heard parochial school teachers have a particular skill involving rulers…

[quote=“PeteS_in_CA, post:374, topic:39617”]
I remem…errrrrrrr…have heard parochial school teachers have a particular skill involving rulers…
[/quote]Been there done that, Not only the school but the Nuns as well

Ah yes…the nuns with the rulers. I spent first grade through second grade and high school being taught by nuns. Not once did any one of them come at me with a ruler–but, then again, I was a good girl. Actually, I had a couple of harrowing experiences with lay teachers in the public school I had to attend from 3rd through 8th grade, not to mention the darling children in the school. When I was in high school (all girls’ Catholic, college prep), the boys’ Catholic high school was right across the road from us. It was run by the Christian Brothers who had a long reputation of being rather brutal. I was dating a guy from the school and he told me that when the boys misbehaved, the brothers would slam them into their lockers and hold them up off the floor. I don’t know if he was telling me a fib or not, but I know the brothers were tough on the boys. The nuns (Dominicans) were pretty tough on us, too. Nonsense was not tolerated.

I think so; I’ve never seen him with hair - except on the rare occasions when it’s been allowed to grow a couple of centimeters.

My teacher in 1st and 2nd grade and my teacher in 3rd grade were no nonsense (German Lutherans … need I say more?), but not quite so rough. I spent some time with my nose in the corner once or twice.

You need to smoke some weed man. You’ll soon forget about hair being uncomfortable. If you smoke enough, you’ll forget about needing soap too.


1 Like

Before proceeding, I have a little confession. I’ve been referring to Hebrews 1:8 for quite a few years, and have read the chapter many times. But for some reason it wasn’t till preparing for this that I really followed and understood the writer’s full train of reasoning in it. As will be seen, that fuller understanding augmented rather than changed my understanding of Hebrews 1:8.

Hebrews 1:1 God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, 2 in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world.

In these first two verses, the writer sets up a pattern of parallel contrasts. Here, it’s limited human prophets vs. the Son, though that will not by the primary contrast in the chapter. Human prophets were “long ago”, and were limited human beings. The Son, however, is described both as the Co-Creator and as the “heir of all things”. This latter cannot be true unless the son is not a “thing”, created.

“(I)n these last days has spoken to us in His Son,” is interesting, though perhaps a rabbit trail. One’s immediate thought is, “Well of course! The prophets spoke and their words were written down. Jesus spoke, and His words and story were written down.” Not so fast! There were prophets in the church as well. Agabus and the daughters of Philip are mentioned in the Book of Acts. Paul spoke of prophecy as a gift of the Spirit in Romans 12 and 1 Corinthians 12. And then Paul spoke, in Ephesians 4:11, of prophets as being one of Jesus’ gifts to the church. So, taken together all these passages mean: 1.) New Testament prophets are means in which believers are, “ spoken to … in His Son;” the Son is speaking in them; 2.) God, Who is speaking in these New Testament prophets, includes the Son (Jesus, Who gave the prophets) and the Holy Spirit (Who gives prophecies).

3 And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power.

Chapter and verse divisions in the Bible are later, human, “inventions” that make the Bible easier to use. So this sentence really is part of the thought in verse 2. Where verse 2 speaks of the Son as the uncreated Creator, this verse firmly shows that the Son is God: in glory; in nature; in power. Isaiah 42:8 points out that God does not give His glory to any other, so that the Son radiates God’s glory means that the Son is God. “(E)xact representation” cannot be explained away by saying that a really good portrait or sculpture is a representation of a person. Not so! A portrait is two-dimensional; the real person is three-dimensional. A sculpture is made of stone or metal, and is not living, unlike the real person. “(E)xact representation” can only be true if the Son is God. And no “thing”, a creature, can uphold all creatures. Only the Creator, God, can do that.

And this verse states the the Son’s power is not limited: not to within creation; there is no creature that is not subject to the Son’s sustaining power. Again, the Son is not created, but is the uncreated Co-Creator.

When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4 having become as much better than the angels, as He has inherited a more excellent name than they.

Here the writer of Hebrews sets up the contrast that will be the topic of the rest of the chapter – the Son vs. the angels. This contrast is devastating to the Arian theology of the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society, in further showing that the Son is God, and in showing that the Son is not angel (not even the chief angel). Two differences com into view in this verse and a half. First, the Son’s name, the “Son”; second, and less obviously, the Son’s position of power and authority. The writer has already precluded understanding the Son as a created “thing”. So “Son” (and “Father”) express relationship and intimacy, not creature-hood and/or inferiority. This relationship and intimacy set the Son apart from the angels. Angels do not have such a relationship with God. Sitting down on a throne means the Son is in a position of power and authority; the angels serve the One with that power and authority.

5 For to which of the angels did He ever say, “YOU ARE MY SON, TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU”? (Psalm 2:7) And again, “I WILL BE A FATHER TO HIM AND HE SHALL BE A SON TO ME”? (2 Samuel 7:14)

Verses 5 and 6 are the closest Hebrews 1 comes to lending support to Arianism, yet they fall short, and are amenable to a better interpretation. Were the Son a creature – an angel or something unique and “other” - God would have said, “Today I have made you.” What was done, however, is that the Father-Son relationship was established within the One, uncreated, God.

6 And when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says, "AND LET ALL THE ANGELS OF GOD WORSHIP (Deuteronomy 32:43 & Psalm 97:7)

“Firstborn” has two meanings in Scripture: the first one born among multiple children; one who is preeminent or the heir. The first meaning doesn’t work, even within the idea that the Son is a creature (an idea already precluded). The second does work: the Son is preeminent over creation, of which the Son is Co-Creator. There are at least two important things to understand in the command that the angels worship the Son. First, they are inferior (positionally) to the Son. Superiors do not worship inferiors; peers do not worship peers. Second, only God is to be worshiped. So, in pointing out the fact that the Son is not an angel, the writer also shows that the Son is God.


Verses 7 and 8 culminate the servant-served contrast between the angels and the Son. Angels are specifically called servants in verse 7, and then verse 8 expands on the authority of the Son. Apparently, there are two ways, “Your throne o God,” could be translated, the other being, “God is your throne.” That latter doesn’t make sense, unless one needs to avoid a clear statement that the Son is God. And that’s what Hebrews 1:8 is, a clear statement that the Son is God in a context that identifies the Son as the uncreated Co-Creator served by and sustaining the highest of creatures (angels).


A key fact may or may not be obvious in the verse and its source in Psalm 102. Clearly, as quoted here in Hebrews, “ YOU, LORD” refers to the Son. While those words are not present in the sentence the writer of Hebrews quotes, it is present throughout the Psalm. And “LORD” there in Psalm 102 is the Divine name, YHWH! So many/most of the intended First Century audience for the book of Hebrews would have recognized that, in using this quote from Psalm 102, the Son was being equated with God.

Once again, the Son is spoken of as the Creator. The contrast in these verses between creation being subject to time and aging and the Son being ageless and unchanging show that the Son is eternal, a characteristic of God alone.

13 But to which of the angels has He ever said, “SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND, UNTIL I MAKE YOUR ENEMIES A FOOTSTOOL FOR YOUR FEET”? (Psalm 110:1) 14 Are they not all ministering spirits, sent out to render service for the sake of those who will inherit salvation?

The writer of Hebrews returns to the contrast between the Son and the angels. The Son is at rest; the angels are at work serving believers. The Son is the ruler (of creation); the angels are servants.

In detail and taken as a whole, Hebrews chapter 1 devastates the Arian theology of the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society! The Son, Jesus, is the Co-Creator of every creature. The Son speaks as God. The Son is eternal. The Son is as superior to the angels as a king is superior to His servants. The Son is directly identified as God.

Many pages ago these verses - John 1:3, John 8:58, Acts 5:3-4, Psalm 139:7, Hebrews 1:8 - were the ones I cited in response to A2E’s OP questions. A2E has rehearsed what she did here on RO on quite a few other discussion forums. Her response that I took these verses out of context was not the first time she thus responded, and for my part was predictable. I chose the verses I cited carefully: for clarity; for speaking to the heart of this discussion; for not introducing rabbit trails; for context that strengthened my interpretation of the verses; for being able to go a level deeper into the context of the cited verses. A2E hasn’t visited (unless as a “Guest”) RO since her last post in this thread. But I took her challenge to look at the context to the verses I cited seriously, and have tried to respond seriously. Whether she ever sees my responses I’ll leave to God and to her curiosity. I pray that between this thread and parallel posts on my blog others receive some benefit.

A little bit of info: the word “prophesy” originally equated with “preaching”; but since so much of prophecy was “predicting” the future (ie, if you do this, I will do that, etc.) that it came eventually to have the connotation of predicting the future.

FYI: I found alter on another forum. Here is the link to her “trinity conspiracy” arguments–I think she may have copied and pasted the same stuff right from RO.

View topic - Genesis Creation vs. Darwin’s Macroevolution Myth • Evidence for God from Science

She admitted to posting the same stuff everywhere she goes.

I must have missed that part…

I think it’s near the beginning of her intro - she was giving us a heads-up so that we didn’t immediately label her a spammer. . . .

I told her that we are a Christian-friendly site. Of course, she (very probably) took that to mean that we would accept her JW beliefs without question. In any case, JW is not Christian, because they consider Christ less than God.