The Trinity: to believe or not to believe?

by speechless 31 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  ros

  Hi, aChristian:

  On the surface your explanation of how Jesus could become God (Do you put a big G or a little g on that word when you use it to describe Jesus?) seems to be a good one.

  Cap, when it is after Pentecost.

  Kings and queens do often abdicate their thrones to their heirs.

  And Christ was "heir". An heir has to "inherit" what they are heir to from someone else.

  The only problem I have with that is that the God of the Bible seems to say that He would never do such a thing. "I Jehovah your God am a God exacting exclusive devotion." (Ex. 20:5) Jesus said the same thing. He said, "It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service." (Matt. 4:10) Yet we know he accepted "worship," the same Greek word he used in Matt. 4:10. (Matt.28:9,17; Luke 24:52) Many other things come to mind. For instance, God said, "I am Jehovah. That is my name; and to no one else shall I give my own glory." (Isa. 42:8)

  Yes, as you might imagine, I'm familiar with the trinitarian debate. :-)
  What you have alluded to here, in itself, would take hours to debate. That's why I don't debate it. If I can answer with fairly brief comments, I will. I will just point out that while you say Jehovah seems to say he will never relinquish, you probably realize there are scripture texts that I can produce that say he will relinquish, both throne and a "new name". He was the one and only god of Israel.

  However, Jesus said, "For the Son of Man is destined to come in the glory of his father." (Matt. 16:27)

  Which I don't find to be contrary to the analogy. A prince, or even a soldier, comes in the glory of their king, so to speak.

  As I've said before, I'm not sure how I feel about the Trinity doctrine. But I believe that the Father and Son are One in a far greater way than the way JWs say they are.

  Certainly so. The WTS does not acknowledge the deity of Christ at all.

  I think you are right to fully examine the belief as anything else. You have to come to the conclusion that makes the most sense to you. I'm certain its not an issue for salvation, although judging others for their belief is. So trinitarians who claim belief in their doctrine is essential for salvation, that's riskier imo.

  Fwiw, it was once pointed out to me that if the Biblical scribes Jewish leaders had not become superstituous about God's OT name, leaving it out of the Greek translations, the whole confusion that has led to the trinity doctrine might never have occurred.

  Ros
  "A religion that teaches lies cannot be true"--The Watchtower, 12/1/91 pg. 7
• 

  aChristian

  Ros,

  As you know, the Trinitarians knock JWs for being "polytheists," worshippers of more than one god. But that is not quite accurate, for as we know, JWs do not worship their little g god, Jesus. I think I understand to you say that Jesus was a little g god before Pentecost and afterwards he became a big G God. Does that mean from that point on Christians should no longer call Christ's father their God, or do we now have worship two Gods and leave ourselves open to the charge of being polytheists? You mention that it is helpful to "think Jewish." Obviously Jews would not think much of us having two Gods.

  You wrote: it was once pointed out to me that if the Biblical scribes Jewish leaders had not become superstituous about God's OT name, leaving it out of the Greek translations, the whole confusion that has led to the trinity doctrine might never have occurred.

  As you know, historians tell us that the personal name of God, as recorded in the Old Testament, was not used in either its written or spoken form for many years before the time of Christ. Because the Jews were afraid that casual use of the divine name might amount to "taking the name of the Lord in vain," they actually forbid its use altogether.

  As you also know, the Bible tells us that for Christians the name of Jesus should be promoted above every name. (Phil. 2:9) Has it occurred to you that it may have been by God's own design that His Old Testament name fell out of use and was eventually lost, to make certain that the name of Jesus Christ would be put "above all names" by Christians?

  Just a thought.
• 

  Noel Christian

  Let’s see “Trinity” according to New World Translation. “Now Jehovah is the Spirit and where the spirit of Jehovah is, there is freedom.” (2 Cor, 3:17) New World Translation did it in 2 Cor, 3:18 that “done by Jehovah the Spirit.” Spirit of Jehovah is called the Spirit of Christ, Spirit of God and Holy Spirit. In Acts 5:3-4. Peter telling very clearly that what is done to God’s Spirit done to God Himself. It is very clear that Holy Spirit is God. New World Translation translates Greek word “Kurios” as “Jehovah” It refers to the Father. When it refers to Jesus they translate “Lord.” New World translators could tell whether to use “Lord” or ‘’Jehovah” by noticing if the Hebrew word which the New Testament quoted was “Jehovah.” In 1 Peter 2:3, passage quotes Psalm 34:8. “Taste and see that Jehovah is good…” New World Translation in 1 Peter 2:3 is “Provided you have tasted that the Lord is kind. This passage is referring to Jesus Christ. If they use “Jehovah” and follow their rule of translation, it will automatic prove that Old Testament God “Jehovah” is New Testament Jesus Christ. Let me tell here that God has mighty hand and no one can twist His plan and purpose. No matter what way anybody translate Greek word “Kurios” means “Jehovah” the Father OR “Jesus Christ” the Lord is one. The name of Jesus Christ is “…above every other name”. (Phil, 2:9) This is not because a man is above Jehovah, but because Jesus Christ is Jehovah. (John, 10:30)
• 

  Noel Christian

  Let’s see “Trinity” according to New World Translation. “Now Jehovah is the Spirit and where the spirit of Jehovah is, there is freedom.” (2 Cor, 3:17) New World Translation did it in 2 Cor, 3:18 that “done by Jehovah the Spirit.” Spirit of Jehovah is called the Spirit of Christ, Spirit of God and Holy Spirit. In Acts 5:3-4. Peter telling very clearly that what is done to God’s Spirit done to God Himself. It is very clear that Holy Spirit is God. New World Translation translates Greek word “Kurios” as “Jehovah” It refers to the Father. When it refers to Jesus they translate “Lord.” New World translators could tell whether to use “Lord” or ‘’Jehovah” by noticing if the Hebrew word which the New Testament quoted was “Jehovah.” In 1 Peter 2:3, passage quotes Psalm 34:8. “Taste and see that Jehovah is good…” New World Translation in 1 Peter 2:3 is “Provided you have tasted that the Lord is kind. This passage is referring to Jesus Christ. If they use “Jehovah” and follow their rule of translation, it will automatic prove that Old Testament God “Jehovah” is New Testament Jesus Christ. Let me tell here that God has mighty hand and no one can twist His plan and purpose. No matter what way anybody translate Greek word “Kurios” means “Jehovah” the Father OR “Jesus Christ” the Lord is one. The name of Jesus Christ is “…above every other name”. (Phil, 2:9) This is not because a man is above Jehovah, but because Jesus Christ is Jehovah. (John, 10:30)
• 

  DanielHaase

  Being an "evil" agnostic, I don't really care about the trinity. But I did think it was interesting that the NWT added "a" to John 1:1 to make it say something like "the word was A god" instead of "the word was god". Ah hell. It's just man-made print anyway...

  "Brother, you better get down on your knees and pay...a thousand more fools are being born every f***ing day" -Bad Religion
• 

  ros

  Hi, aChristian:

  As usual, this is turning into a trinitarian debate, so I'm going to bow out at this point. Its not that I don't have answers, its that I know this becomes an endless merry-go-round. If I respond to this, there will be more, and more, and more ....
  You're right in what you mention I know, except for one thing, which I'll make a brief parting comment:

  I'm not aware that the Bible says the name "Jesus" (Yeshua, btw) will be above every name in the sense of given name. Jesus/Joshua/Yeshua was then, and is now in some cultures, a common Israelite name. In the Jewish culture, "name" did not necessarily refer to the person's given name. (Should I have begun that last sentence with "As you know,...")
  aChristian, I think you might be more trinitarian than you admit. :-)

  Ros
  "A religion that teaches lies cannot be true"--The Watchtower, 12/1/91 pg. 7
• 

  Kophagangelos

  I cannot believe the trinity! I would not debate this again! I had three debate with the others! It is not worthy to believe it that I am conclused to the end!
• 

  aChristian

  Ros,

  You wrote: I think you might be more trinitarian than you admit.

  Not really. The big problem I have with the Trinity doctrine is that it says that the Holy Spirit is a "third person." It seems plain to me that the Holy Spirit is either God the Father Himself or God the Son Himself or both. For the Bible refers to the Holy Spirit as both "the spirit of God" and "the spirit of Christ."

  However, as I told you earlier, I definately believe in the deity of Christ. Something which you also told me. I assumed when you said that that you meant just what I meant, that you believed Jesus Christ was God, not that he was a small g god or a second big G God. For I have never heard of a Christian who worshipped two Gods. If that is your position, you have to admit it is fairly unique.
• 

  ros

  Dear Noel Christian:

  I tried to reply to your e-mails sent to my private e-mail, to explain, AGAIN, that I've heard most of the trinity arguments, ad infinum ad nauseum, and I DO NOT DEBATE doctrine with trinitarians. However, the reply bounced as undeliverable. The substance of my reply was essentially that I disagree with trinitarians Bible interpretations, but won't spend the time it takes to go into all the details. Trinity debates are not only pointless, they are boring to anyone other than trinitarians. Its like trying to show devout JWs the truth about 1914--a waste of time. So I don't.

  Ros
  "A religion that teaches lies cannot be true"--The Watchtower, 12/1/91 pg. 7
• 

  ros

  Hi, aChristian:

  Thanks for sending a copy of your last post here to my private e-mail. That is where I responded. :-)

  Blessings,
  Ros

  Ros
  "A religion that teaches lies cannot be true"--The Watchtower, 12/1/91 pg. 7