Lovelylil,
Thank you. I'm glad it helped to some extent. Even more so as I am not a Trinitarian!
Just to make my stance a bit clearer, I think JWs are right in that the Trinity cannot be deduced from the only NT. It is a 4th-century synthesis. The earlier NT texts reflect very diverse theologies, to which no later synthesis can really do justice -- and certainly not the WT one either!
To answer your last question, I really don't know what I believe now. I am still interested in religion, mythology and theology, but I have become increasingly unsatisfied with the monotheistic notion of "God" -- even though I think the Trinitarian doctrine, and perhaps even more the Gnostic thought (in which I include the Gospel of John) which has contributed to it, albeit conflictually, are fascinating developments of Jewish monotheism.
Shortly after I was df'd for apostasy 20 years ago, I had the opportunity to study theology, and realised how little I knew about it from the WT publications I had been reading for many years. That's why I feel xJWs who are still interested in the issue should at least read about it from serious sources.
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?
This cuts both ways I guess. As I am not inclined to believe in the theory of "Satan mimicking God," this argument doesn't really convince me. On the other hand existing divine triads may have influenced the concept at a subconscious level, or made it more acceptable to the masses at popular level. But as far as theology is concerned, I think the philosophical concepts of neo-platonism had a far greater influence on 4th-century theologians than "pagan" religious beliefs.
Jim,
Thanks for bearing with me.
"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 view the term "God" as just another name for a single person, the instead, understanding God as Divinity, or a category that one belong to or not. ; The above definition is the best that I have ever heard.
Isn't that tritheism, i.e. polytheism, rather than Trinitarian monotheism? Three "individuals" of the divine nature would make three gods. just like three individuals of mankind would make three "men" (or women). It was indeed one tendency in the late 2nd and early 3rd century (e.g. Tertullian), against modalism (God as one person in three modes of action), but it was ultimately rejected. To me it relies too much on the usual sense of "person" (btw, persona was introduced into the debate by Tertullian afaik). The Greek equivalent, hupostasis, is less subject to this kind of (mis-)understanding, especially as defined by the so-called Cappadocian Fathers (Basil of Cesarea, Gregor of Nyssa and Gregor of Nazianzus). in the 4th-century.