Short Survey for Non-Trinitarians

by Amazing1914 56 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  The Lone Ranger

  I believe every single thing that the WTS taught me except the parts which are unique to them, there are other Christian religions which also are non-Trinitarians. I do not believe in the trinity and I don’t know how any religion ever can, but that’s just my view and I’m staying that way. Their are other religions that teach about God’s kingdom on earth for a 1000 years.

  The things that are unique to the WTS are…

  Kingdom established in 1914 in heaven.

  • No blood
  • Disfellowshipping
  • And the Faithful and discreet slave class.

  And more…
• 

  lovelylil

  Amazing,

  You raised some very good questions. Hopefully I can give you answers to help explain my view as based on the bible.

  For the first question, the bible always equates sinning against the Holy Spirit with sinning against God - not a seperate person. See the account in Acts chapter 5 about Ananias and Sapphira. They sold their land and supposedly gave all their money to the Apostles. But they did not give all the money to them but lied about it. In verse 3, Peter tells them they lied to the Holy Spirit? Now if we stop there, it seems like the Holy Spirit, if we can lie to it is a person. But if we read on in verse 4 Peter tells them "you have not lied to men but to God". So lying to the Holy Spirit (which represents God, his essence, power, force, being), is lying to Him not another person.

  Heres another account Acts 16:6-8 where the Holy Spirit is also the Spirit of Jesus. Same thought as above. God and Jesus use the power of Holy Spirit to accomplish their will but it is not a seprate person. It is themselves who is accomplishing this by sending some of their power to fill others

  The sin against the Holy Spirit is such an unforgiveable sin because in actuality it is sinning against God, the father. As is brought out in 5, when peter says you are lying to God.

  The Holy spirit (God) must speak to people. In the bible it says it was written by men borne along by holy spirit. God put his thoughts in their hearts and minds. This is a hard concept to understand. By saying, the Holy Spirit says.... it is less complicated then trying to explain how something that is not a person can speak. Or how God put the ideas in men with Holy Spirit. Still, it is God not a seperate person. It was not Holy Spirit in itself that wrote the bible but God thru His Holy Spirit. (hope this makes sense to you)

  How does it know the mind of God? It is God. About the early church fathers, they also would use terms that are easy for us to understand. I don't believe they thought the Holy Spirit was actually a seperate person other then God (I have read much too), and they never used the word trinity which means triune God.

  I also believe the Jehovahs Witnesses got a lot right including their views on the Trinity, the Kingdom of God, The last days, etc. I also dont believe in the things exclusive to them. Hope this helps.

  In the interest of not taking up too much space here, feel free to start another thread to continue to debate this. I am all for a friendly debate as long as we agree that we will disagree on some things.
• 

  Mary

  I don't believe in the Trinity. That's the one thing the WTS teaches that I agree with. To me, it never made any sense. The Israelites worshipped a monothesis God, YHVH.......so my believe was always "how can God go from being One in the OT, to being three in the NT?

  I don't believe Jesus is or ever was God. I think that by the time the NT started to be written, the writers were maybe making him out to be more than what he was and the idea of a trinue God took off from there.
• 

  Honesty

  Acts 8:29 The Spirit told Philip, “Go and join that chariot.”

  That should be enough if you believe God's word.

  BTW, how would you quote the following scripture?

  Isaiah 56:7 I will bring them to My holy mountain and let them rejoice in My house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and sacrifices will be acceptable on My altar, for My house will be called a house of prayer.

  I would say, " It is written that my Father's house will be a house of prayer."

  Notice what Jesus said:

  And He said to them, “It is written, My house will be called a house of prayer. Matt 21:13 Jesus just has announced His diety and no Jew refutes what He says.
• 

  lovelylil

  I would like to clarify what I mean by Jesus being God in the beginning; I belive if Jehovah is Divine (God) that his son must also be Divine. Not that they are the same person. Jesus is said to have been in the bossom of God and the exact representation of his being. They are both the only Divine people in the universe and are truly unique. Therefore they share the same qualities in a way we humans cannot fully understand. The bible writers used terms we could relate too but I dont believe even they fully understood everything about God. I do believe Jesus is seperate because the bible says once he was resurrected he sat at God's right hand. therefore he must be a seperate person. I know I am not doing justice to the bible as I am only a human and cannot fully understand all Gods ways. But I am NOT a trinitarian in its true sense. I think the truth lies somewhere in between what JWs believe and what trinitarians believe.

  What I mean is that Jesus cannot be "a god" like the JWs believe because if there is only one true God, then Jesus would be a false God. So when I say he was God (john 1:1), I mean only that he is a divine being a full manifestation and reflection of God, but not the same person as Jehovah. Here, John 1:1 the Apostle John tries to explain it in the best words he can use. Read it in its full context and you will get the jist of what John was saying. )read the whole chapter of John 1.) That Jesus was divine but then became flesh (human) and dwelt among us. But because of who he is, Jehovah shares his titles and power and everything belonging to him with his unique son. And because of this people confuse him with actually being Jehovah. Hope this explains better. As I said, I am only human and can only explain things using our human terminology which does not do justice to Gods word.

  As far as the early church fathers, I have read their writings they also believe Jesus to be the divine son of God and that the Holy spirit existed and was personified (or had personality) but I am not clear that they felt Jesus was the same person as Jehovah. To me it seems that while they believed in God and Jesus and that the holy spirit was from God (his spirit), I cannot find anything that says they believed the Holy Spirit to be an "actual person" and that Jesus was the same. But even if they did use these terms to try to explain what and who God is, does not mean that they as humans are actually explaining it fully correct either. We have to put things in terms we can understand. Some things are only hazy at this time, like the Apostle Paul said. In the future, we will all get the full understanding.
• 

  Narkissos

  I don't qualify to answering the survey, but I will throw in the following in case it helps.

  The logical problems the Trinity doctrine poses to xJWs and others are not the same, whether the focus is on Jesus or the Holy Spirit.

  Most people will admit that Jesus is a person, but question his deity.

  Otoh, most believers will admit that the HS is divine in the highest sense but question its distinct personality.

  At the root of that, there is, imo, a misunderstanding on the Trinitarian notion of person (Greek hupostasis, Latin persona), which doesn't exactly mean the same thing as in the common use of the word "person" (i.e. something similar to a distinct, separate individual of the human kind, with a distinct will, mind, etc.). The Trinity doctrine doesn't mean "three persons" as in Peter, James and John, but points to a certain pluralistic structure within the unique deity (as in Augustine's famous representation of "the lover," "the loved one" and "love" itself, which only painfully ascribes personality to the latter).

  What if the Spirit (Greek pneuma, neuter) pointed specifically to the impersonal aspect of a "God" which is to be understood as both personal and impersonal? Then qualifying it as a "person" in the usual sense of the word would be highly misleading.
• 

  lovelylil

  Narkissos,

  I loved the way you explained things. I think I have a better understanding of what some believe the trinity is. I have never heard the term "plaualistic structure" used before but I can except that as an explanation. So are you saying while God is one God, he is in essense pluralistic (plural in nature) and not singular and is made up of three parts which are himself the father, his divine son, and his holy spirit or power and that they are all divine in nature and make up who he is in totality? I think I am finally getting it. You are right the term persons would never be right anyway because God is not a person like we are. This goes back to what I was saying about our human terms. Here are a few questions I would like to ask you, do you think when Jesus went back to heaven and took on his divine nature again that he also had to keep his human nature along with that? Is that why people say he is fully God and fully man? Thanks.

  By the way I do believe Jesus was and is Divine in nature like his father.
• 

  Narkissos

  Lovelylil,

  First I don't want to hijack Amazing's thread so I'll try to keep it brief. I think it may be helpful though because many xJWs are reacting to a popular presentation of the Trinity doctrine, if not to the "strawman" depicted in the WT publications -- not the theological definitions.

  So are you saying while God is one God, he is in essense pluralistic (plural in nature) and not singular

  Yes, I think this is what the Trinity doctrine basically means. Don't forget it is partly dependent on the Platonic and other Greek speculations about mathematics (both arithmetics and geometry) and the procession of plurality from an original, all-embracing One. In the Christian context it inscribes the principle of difference, plurality into the monotheistic God as a sort of ontological triangulation.

  and is made up of three parts which are himself the father, his divine son, and his holy spirit or power and that they are all divine in nature and make up who he is in totality?

  I'd cringe a bit at "made up of three parts". "Orthodox" theologians would definitely not view it as an addition, or sum of parts. It's rather an analysis of the very being of "God".

  "Examples" of the Trinity concept tend to obscure it as much as they explain it, but let me try with the word and notion of "consciousness". As the etymology suggests ("con-" = "with") there is no such thing as simple consciousness. At the very least it implies a mental dialogue, an echo of perceptions, a projection on imagination, a recollection of memory, etc. It is not without inner plurality, which can be represented arithmetically in numbers, geometrically in figures, etc. As far back as we have been conscious such a plurality has been working within our mind because it is the very essence of consciousness. But that's not an "addition" of "parts".

  I read something similar in the Johannine phrase "the logos was with God". As far back as "God" was he could not be without it.

  do you think when Jesus went back to heaven and took on his divine nature again that he also had to keep his human nature along with that? Is that why people say he is fully God and fully man?

  What I might think personally about it doesn't really matter as I'm not exactly a Christian believer. But classical theology does maintain that. It usually distinguishes between the "ontological Trinity" (what God was "in himself") and the "economical Trinity" (which implies the identification of the eternal Logos, or Son, with the human Jesus, aka incarnation). The point being that mankind is "now" (become, or revealed as? big difference here) part of the divine mystery because Jesus has brought (or revealed?) God amongst men and mankind within God, and the Holy Spirit within believers is nothing but the continuation of the same mutual indwelling.

  Hope this is not too obscure.
• 

  lovelylil

  Narkissos,

  Thanks so much for the explanation. I really do understand better now what the trinity doctrine is. When I left the JWs I was still stuck on that Jesus was a lesser God, created by Jehovah. That they are seperate persons, and we should never worship Jesus. But the more I studied about Christ I came to realize that this could not be the case. First of all the word firstborn is a different word in Greek than first created. I started with John 1:1 and actually read all of that and the rest of the Apostle John. Because, he really did have a good understanding of who Christ was in name and in essence. I see now that my mistake was keeping the old view of what the trinity is to some degree such as the so called "three headed God" like the witnesses teach. But now I can really understand what you are saying. Each "part" for lack of a better word, has always been in existance together and never apart. One is not greater than the other for they are all divine (God)? I think I am getting it and I have no qualms about accepting this explanation. Actually that makes sense then that if you lie against the Holy spirit, Peter said you were lying to God himself. (see my earlier post on Acts) and the same about Jesus. The bible said "spirit of Jesus" when it was Jesus himself.

  When I left the JWs and got another bible translation and began to study the original Greek texts, I noticed that the early diciples did not just do "obeisance" (or bow out of respect) for Jesus but did bow down and worship him. I also understood that this is why when Christ said he was the son of God, the pharisees said he was making himself equal to God. The WT Society told us that they misunderstood Jesus and what Jesus was saying was he was the son of God, but not God. I think the Pharisess knew exactly what Jesus meant and heard exactly what he said, (that he was the SON of God) which would make him equal to God by nature. You have helped me better understand the Holy Spirit part. So thanks! I am still not sure if I totally get it, but I do understand much better. I am going to print your posts and review again. Your arguements are very clear, it is a tough subject and like I said, very hard to use human terms to explain it.

  One more thing: In the booklet "should you believe the trinity", the WT showed images of three headed looking idols from ancient babylon. They said that these were basically satanic images to mislead people into worshipping a false God. But I was thinking recently that I remember always being taught that Satan, who wants Gods worship for himself, is always making COPIES, if you will of what belongs to God. True religion we have - false religion, etc. So maybe Satan got the idea to copy the true image of God (triune) with false Gods who look triune in nature? Thus the images of Gods with three heads? Does anyone have thoughts on this?

  Also you say you are not Christian but seem to have a good understanding of the Trinty, may I ask you what you believe in a religious sense?
• 

  Amazing1914

  Hi Lovelylil,

  I have been busy all day, but I will provide a more lengthy response to your questions and comments later on today.

  I do not necessarily suscribe to the exact definition of the Trinity, and I certainly do not hold it up as required for salvation. The problem with some Trinitarians, as with some non-Trinitarians (e.g. JWs), is that they make these dogmatic demands that are just not reasonable. Most Christians, including Catholics and Orthodox do not necessarily think about the Trinity that often, but they do accept it as the best way to explain what they observe in Scripture.

  I am planning to relate at BRCI another definition I learned sometime back, and will quote the source once I get permission. But the definition goes something like this:

  "Just as there is only ONE Humanity, with billions of members who are each fully human, likewise, there is only ONE Divinity (God), with only three members, each fully Divine (God)."

  What this definition does for me is to make a paradigm shift from viewing the term "God" as just another name for a single person, to understanding God as Divinity, or a category that one belongs to or not. The above definition is the best that I have ever heard.

  Also, it should come as no surprise that the Watchtower Society was not honest in its brochure, "Should You believe in the Trinity?" I have proof that they misled Jehovah's Witnesses on things that they claim the early Church Fathers said, but that they really did not say. And, the Society left out many things the early Church Fathers did say which would refute Watchtower Theology.

  I am also publishing my work that is the basis of my talk at BRCI. I will likely ask Randy Watters if he will sponsor it on his web site for all to read.

  Anyway, I will get back to your points and questions above, and give a response later on. Thanks for engaging me in this discussion.

  Narkissos, I enjoyed your comments, so I will also look for your response to this post and what I post later on today to Lovelylil.

  Thanks, Jim Whitney