by gubberningbody 26 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
There is no agreed-upon coherent authoritative definition on which all who adhere to the label agree.
It's that simple.
It's also true that those who feel any of this is important are missing the bigger issues of why any diety would create anything and if it would why it would have seized upon making this particular incarnation a possibility.
Hi GB,
What's wrong with this?
The Christian doctrine of the Trinity teaches the unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three persons in one Godhead.
Trinity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
All the best,
Stephen
Dear Chalam,
I feel that what you have posted clarifies nothing,rather it obfuscates by using technical theological terms like " Godhead"
What on earth in laymans terms is a"Godhead" and where in scripture is this concept clearly taught and explained ?
Now please don't give me a load of scripture references, this is supposedly a fundamental doctrine, where is it plainly taught in one scripture ?
I think sometimes the apologists for the trinity doctrine are very like the Dubs in their method of proving their belief.
Love and respect,
Wobble
btt
Here's my take on it:
If a true understanding of "the trinity doctrine" is essential for salvation, wouldn't God have made it abundantly clear what exactly his nature is?
Why have written down a bunch of ambiguous verses that may or may not prove or disprove "the trinity doctrine" only through a convoluted series of cross-references, interpretations, and leaps of logic?
For every trinitarian "proof text", a JW (or similar) will contend "yes, but that's not what that verse really means..."
For every non-trinitarian "proof text", a trinitarian will say "OK, now let me tell you what that verse is really referring to..."
Debate about the nature of God is much older than JWN / JWD, much older than Jehovah's Witnesses, much older than the Reformation....
Anything that can't be finally and unambiguously resolved, after 1900 years of debate, must not be all that important to God, is what I come up with. If it were important to him, he would have told us.
hi wobble
they do a neat piccy of it
or this one
or this one
I don't have those piccies in my bible? Is that the NWT study bible?
Anyhow Wobble,
Here goes, nice and simple!
I feel that what you have posted clarifies nothing,rather it obfuscates by using technical theological terms like " Godhead"
Just means Trinity.
What on earth in laymans terms is a"Godhead" and where in scripture is this concept clearly taught and explained ?
Now please don't give me a load of scripture references, this is supposedly a fundamental doctrine, where is it plainly taught in one scripture ?
What do you want, scripture or now scripture? ;)
Did you look at the Trinity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia page? There is enough scripture to get you going?
Anyhow, here's my favorite right now.
9 You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ. 10 But if Christ is in you, your body is dead because of sin, yet your spirit is alive because of righteousness.
1. The "Spirit" is the Holy Spirit. I am sure even the WT would not dispute that!
2. The Holy Spirit is described as the "Spirit of God" so He is God, obviously.
3. The Holy Spirit is described as the "Spirit of Christ" therefore, Christ is God. Verse 10 agrees with this statement because it says "Christ is in you" and in the preceding verse "the Spirit of God lives in you".
So there you have it. God, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. One God, three persons. Just like it says here, one name, three persons.
19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
I think sometimes the apologists for the trinity doctrine are very like the Dubs in their method of proving their belief.
I look forward to you comments on Romans 8:9-10 :)
Love and respect,
Wobble
Same :)
All the best,
Stephen
you know its bullshit when all it does is force you to ask more questions
This fictitious God of the Trinity- what a monster philosophy it all became with 100's of millions of its followers butchering each other century after century in its Name.
They threw mud on the good name of Jesus.
A violent and superstitious people.
What I have on the comparison of the views on the related scriptures, and
secondarily related history, and what seems to be better indicated to be the
original intention (mainstream view or JWs leaders' stance--it's the mainstream
view) is on pp.4 and 7 to 10 of "Glenster's Guide to GTJ Brooklyn."
http://www.freewebs.com/glenster1/gtjbrooklynindex.htm
http://gtw6437.tripod.com/
Basically, I look to see if it's better indicated that the original view was
Jesus as God's own wisdom personified or archangel Michael, if the holy spirit
was considered personal or not, and leave later Trinity or Arian specifications
to later squabbles of history.
Trying to figure out the comparison from JWs leaders' literature alone, though
it makes the pretension of comparing the two views, would not only be the
mistake of trying to render judgement after only hearing one side of the trial,
but of listening to one side that misrepresents the case of the other side.
Though a non-trinitarian view is only a minority view and not a JWs leaders'
exclusive, the JWs leaders, as when they try to prove any of the distinctive
stances that are meant to set themslves off as the only top spokesmen of a
literal 144,000, misrepresent the comparison. They make research books seem
supportive that aren't, misrepresent what the more reasonable mainstream inter-
pretations of verses are, and leave out any related history that's bad for their
case.
(I may be reorganizing some of the other pages in the future to put everything
in a handful of basic sections to make it easier to read.)
(PS: a lot of people have been hurt or killed when they get so 'centric they
won't be tolerant or friendly to others of whatever belief or non-belief view,
nationality, race, etc. I'd add whatever believers when they got too 'centric,
but not the other believers, and whoever else got that way. It's not a
determinant for whether to believe or not--just don't get too 'centric that
way.)
