Should I believe in the Trinity?!

by TTWSYF 49 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • Terry
    Terry

    Try to remember 3 things about any discussions of The Trinity Doctrine (either for or against it):

    1. All the discussions stem from disagreement. They are not the result of anybody knowing anything. They are attempts to refute an interpretation.

    2.There are no sources of actual information about the Trinity as far as facts or proof go. It is all assertion based on opinions.

    3. There would have to be a communication between the True God and humanity written down and preserved in the original as a proof source for any discussion as as starting point. THERE IS NO PRESERVED ORIGINAL. Consequently: a discussion about the Trinity is a discussion about nothing at all that has substance, fact, proof, certitude or documentation. Assertions based on hearsay are not a good starting point for convictions.

    Why---you might ask yourself aloud---Why would people base a belief, an argument and a position of confidence in such total absence of substance?

    The only reason I can come up with is that they have an extremely low threshold of naivete and gullibility.

    Not an insult, mind you, just an observation.

    Terry

  • realJFpenguin
    realJFpenguin

    Hello,

    I won't say I've read all the Church Fathers, but recently I've studied parts of Adversus Praxeam by Tertullian, Dialogue with Trypho by Justin Martyr, and various bits and pieces of the others.

    What you will find if you start investigating that tract, is that the church fathers are, for the most part, misrepresented and even deliberately misquoted. (Apparently there are entire books out there refuting that tract.) For example, they say that Justin believed Jesus was a created angel, citing one or two words from a ream of discourse in which he demonstrates that Theophanies, or passages in the OT where the "Angel of the LORD" interacts with the patriarchs, are actually appearances of the LORD Himself. In another quote, they make it appear Tertullian believed Jesus was not God... quoting a work in which he argued FOR the Trinity doctrine proper against Sabellian heresy.

    Many of the early Christians, especially the Apologists, had flaws in their theology as they tried to apply ontological ideas to understand what, in Scripture, is described in strictly spiritual terms and not explained philosophically. However, with the exception of maybe the Shepherd of Hermas, all those guys you quoted believed in the Trinity. Origen was a little off track in that he screwed up trying to explain HOW the Son was "begotten," thus leaving the door open for Arianism to say that if Jesus was begotten at a certain point in time, then "There was a time when the Son was not" (Watchtower theology). Athanasius pointed out to Arius's followers that the Bible doesn't reveal to us when or how God begets a Son, so we ought not to turn to philosophy for explanations of this mystery as Origen did.

    The brochure doesn't quote Ignatius for obvious reasons, although a later Watchtower article tries to misrepresent him in a fascinating way... by quoting exclusively epistles NOT written by Ignatius himself, and claiming that they represent his views. Here's the article that details what they do to mangle history: http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/apl/jw/ignatius.txt Of course, they rely on ignorance--the average reader is not going to dig up the genuine Ignatian epistles and count the references to "Jesus Christ, our God," or quotes such as these below:

    "Await Him that is above every season, the Eternal, the Invisible, who became visible for our sake, the Impalpable, the Impassible, who suffered for our sake, who endured in all ways for our sake (Polycarp 3)."

    "There is only one physician, of flesh and of spirit, generate and ingenerate, God in man, true Life in death, Son of Mary and Son of God, first passible and then impassible, Jesus Christ our Lord (Ephesians 7).

    I was completely floored when I started to do research on this topic. There's a distinct feeling of violation when you realize you've been deliberately lied to.

    I'm actually addressing a lot of the Biblical topics in that tract in my blog, "Sealed for Eternity."

    Hope that helps for starters.

    Because of Him,

    RealJFpenguin

  • GLTirebiter
    GLTirebiter

    Please see this article at the Institute for Religious Research. It is a refutation of the WT anti-trinitarian position from a conservative Protestant point of view.

    Sorry to be so late replying to this!

    GLT

  • TTWSYF
    TTWSYF

    1. All the discussions stem from disagreement. They are not the result of anybody knowing anything. They are attempts to refute an interpretation.

    2.There are no sources of actual information about the Trinity as far as facts or proof go. It is all assertion based on opinions.

    3. There would have to be a communication between the True God and humanity written down and preserved in the original as a proof source for any discussion as as starting point. THERE IS NO PRESERVED ORIGINAL. Consequently: a discussion about the Trinity is a discussion about nothing at all that has substance, fact, proof, certitude or documentation. Assertions based on hearsay are not a good starting point for convictions.

    point one- there is proof in scripture, period. When Jesus commands his followers to baptise in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Notice it's not the name of the Father, the name of the Son and the name of the Holy Ghost, it's one name for all three beings.

    point two-there is proof in scripture, period. Sure, the word 'trinity' is not present, but the facts to support the word are there for all to see. John1;3 and Colossians1;16-17 state that Jesus created the heavens and earth. Right? Yet scripture is clear that God alone created the universe. 'he that constructed all things is God' Heb3;4, Job9;8, Is44;24, Neh9;6. As to the Holy Ghost Mark 3;29 says that HE can be blasphemed......guess what, only God can be blasphemed.

    Point three- Of course there are no original scriptures. Recently, scriptures dating back some 10k years were discovered. They are the oldest fragments currently know of and they were [probably] copies. There is are pages and pages of scriptural proof, it'd just be too long to list here.

    Bottom line ? Do real research from reliable sources. I'm sorry, but the lies and lies and lies that I have discovered while researching JW sources means that they are simply not a trustworthy source of information. You've a computer or at least a library. Check for yourself and find the truth.

  • TTWSYF
    TTWSYF

    that previous thread I copied from came from terry. Sorry that wasn't so clear

  • designs
    designs

    Bottom historical line read the Torah, Talmud, Midrash, Dead Sea Scrolls and other literary works from those eras. Ask a Rabbi for current views.

    Now after the early Bishops got done rewriting and inserting ideas in the NT about the Jew known as Jesus you have a nice dozen theologies.

    Sort of resembles Chinese Pick Up Sticks.

  • TTWSYF
    TTWSYF

    so I should consult a Rabbi on what Christianity means? Is that what you did? Where is this proof that early bishops inserted new teachings. It sounds like you think the NT is rubbish and not from God.

  • designs
    designs

    TT- Christianity was born from Judiaism, the first one's were all Jews.....so ask a Jew about historical Jewish Monotheism or look it up in their Encyclopedeas since many Fundamentalists seem to get a rash at the idea of speaking to a Rabbi. You will note that Jesus is an Observant Jew and quotes the Shema on a couple of occaisions.

    As for the tinkering of the NT- use a study Bible like the Jerusalem Bible with its footnotes, it identifies each prologue, hymm, extra source speech, and added texts like 1John5:7, the problematic difficulties of the Pauline version of Christianity along with the Pauline self contradictions and the Jewish centered James and Jesus message.

    People that want to believe some redigested post 1st century Greek Orthodox, Catholic/Protestant version of the Jew Jesus must like seeing faces in clouds these leaders make the ballyhoo of the GB look tame in comparison.

  • TTWSYF
    TTWSYF

    yes, the 1st Christians were Jews [hello apostles and Jesus mother], but in the book of acts, many non jews became Christians. Jesus came for all people, didn't he? The very first folks to worship Jesus were pagans, not Jews [hello 3 wise men]. As for what the 1st Christians believed after scriptures, see the church fathers who were taught from the apostles themselves. Do you think that Jesus was an idiot who didn't know how to get His church moving? He promised that it would stand though all ages, for all people and against the gates of hell. Didn't he? Many Jews [most Jews] are still waiting for their savior, most Christains are waiting for his return, and a few believe that he is here now [unseen].

  • designs
    designs

    TT- Just define Monotheism as a Jew would.

    The Bishops from the Greek and Roman backgrounds took Christianity in a whole different direction....sadly

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit