I don't know about you, but Trinity for me used to mean "two dudes and a bird."

by booby 9 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  booby

  http://www.heartlight.org/articles/200906/20090609_trinity.html

  I stumbled on this as we do sometimes as we go from point to point searching out something in particular. In this case I was looking at Proverbs 27:11 because of the way it was used/misused in the tower study covered by Blondie and ended up reading this. I am making no statement or point other than how different an expression/doctrine/thought can come out in different ones minds. I thought it quite interesting and it emphasized to me how problematic it can be when ones like Reniaa chant the singlular tower party line without a more expansive research.
• 

  Amazing

  I think of the Trinity similar to how I understand humanity ... there is one humanity with billions of members ... there is one divinity (godhead) with three members. One person said to me, "Oh, then you believe in three gods." No, I said, just as I do not believe in billions of humanities ... there is only one humanity but is made up of many members ... there is only one divinity. I wish that the early Christian writers had not coined the term Trinity, as it would then have forced more discussion about the meaning of divinity without the label that causes so much difficult discussion.

  Your point about singular thinking is well taken ... if the Society lied about prophecy, and a host of other things ... perhaps they lied about the Trinity too ... judging from the letter the Society sent to Robert Finnerty (a copy is in his book, Watchtower on Trial) the Society all but admitted to lying ... they admitted using quotes of the early Church writers from Lampsons book ... but they were not quotes of the early fathers, but rather of Lamp son's opinions ... one can find this in the Trinity Brochure. Thus, it brings into question the credibility of the JW teaching on the nature of God.

  Thanks for an interesting post.
• 

  mraimondi

  semantics contortions are amazing
• 

  Narkissos

  there is one humanity with billions of members ... there is one divinity (godhead) with three members. One person said to me, "Oh, then you believe in three gods." No, I said, just as I do not believe in billions of humanities ... there is only one humanity but is made up of many members ... there is only one divinity.

  Am I he, or are we more? -- we've been going over this before; if memory serves I even suggested you to ask (good) Catholic theologians about it.

  To me this explanation is indeed a school case of tritheism; i.e., polytheistic in principle; it takes "godhead" = "divinity" as nature, condition or status, god-kind, and "humanity" as mankind. And "persons" in the usual modern sense of "individuals of the (human) species". Even in the most embracing pantheons all gods and goddesses share one divinity in that sense. They are all persons of the same god-kind.

  Btw I have nothing against tritheism, or polytheism for that matter; but last time I checked, Catholic dogma had.
• 

  reniaa

  I had a brief look at the article it was all rhetoric and no scripture.

  I assuming he's a normal trinitarian but couldn't resist using the trinity is like Ice/water/steam modalism trinity model since all of these three aspects of H20 are changing aspects and not at the same time. a molecule of water can be ice when cooled becomes water in it's normal state gas after heating, no co-existence but jumping from one to another erm that modalism trinity.

  I only ask one thing of trinity DOCTRINE is that it is described in the bible and it ISN'T!

  In questioning trinities varacity I am only questioning men's words not the bible's

  Reniaa
• 

  isaacaustin

  I only ask one thing of trinity DOCTRINE is that it is described in the bible and it ISN'T!

  In questioning trinities varacity I am only questioning men's words not the bible's

  Reniaa

  or conversely, it IS...but you miss it.
• 

  Amazing

  Narkissos,

  To me this explanation is indeed a school case of tritheism; i.e., polytheistic in principle; it takes "godhead" = "divinity" as nature, condition or status, god-kind, and "humanity" as mankind.

  Likewise, I am not a polytheist or tri-theist ... I simply made an illustration of one way I see things ... not a proof of God's nature, or how it functions. Therefore, no need to contact Catholic theologians. In Catholic theology, the Trinity is a mystery, which is precisely where it belongs.

  Reniaa: Just as the word "Trinity" is not used in the Bible, neither is the Jehovah's Witness word "Theocracy" used in the Bible. These are human functional terms to describe what is inferred in the Bible. Like most Protestant Evangelicals, the JWs accept the Bible as the sole rule of law book, except the JWs look to the GB for interpretation, to tell them how and what to think. But the GB do not have any authority or divine appointment to interpret the Bible for anyone ... rather they are just self-appointed and self-deluded Goof-Balls who love to run people's lives.
• 

  isaacaustin

  hhmm the word trinity is not in the bible...granted. Neither is field service, governing body, 7 gentile times, great crowd of other sheep...the list can go on and on...
• 

  DJK

  Is it quail, duck or goose? I mean it should be big enough to fill two dudes.
• 

  booby

  Well, well, Reniaa bit, Rather than see the point being how different people percieve things and allow for thier right to make those assertions allowing us to see another way of thought, she went straight for the "Trinity DOCTRINE'. One of the big problems with the society is the notion that everything "they" say is gospel and anything others say is crap, thinking. The whole point of my post was to point out that we can look at other persons take on matters and with an open mind learn "something" from it. Reniaa is a perfect example of society thinking. "Everything" , no matter how complex that I/We say is right without the need for further examination. But what others say even if I don't really comprehend what they are saying has to be wrong somehow!! How often has the society admonished: if you find a point that is made in the literature difficult to understand, are you willing or prepared to leave it be for a period, I think they suggested maybe six months or so, and see if an answer comes for you. I realize now that it was another one of thier little tricky poos. You know, give it six months and you will likely forget all about it. Voila, no more conflict in your mind.