and now WT is represented by Spade, WT=Spade, they are one, the same nature, distinct character
One thing the WT got right was the Trinity being false.
by miseryloveselders 96 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
jakeyen
If you have the gift of the Spirit, you will undertand it perfectly
Trinity is an interpretation of man to somehow explain what was in the Bible, it may be true
The whole thing is not worthy of debate or interpretation, whether you believe in trinity or not
What matters is your FAITH, and faith is not based on Bible, faith is a gift and you only need to accept it
so keep asking so it may be given to you
-
Murray Smith
Spade . . . the God of the Bible is not absolutely clear about a lot of things . . . that's why we have religions who cause mental health problems/suicide/family problems/murder/corruption/isolation/hatred etc etc etc etc etc . . .
Luvonyall - MS
-
GOrwell
MLE: I haven't decided on the trinity completely, and definitely did not believe of it when I started reading the NT. Upon completion of the NT, there are simply too many scriptures that blantantly point in that direction (yes, as you mentioned, in the GOJ and Paul, but in others too) to completely dismiss it. It would seem that you can't prove the Trinity from the Bible, nor can you disprove it, which is likely why it took 300 year to crystalize as a doctrine.
But from what Jesus said (specifically in the GOJ), it would seem he was either God or the most blasphemous Jew ever encountered.
-
scary21
Why would any person think they could...or should understand the nature of God?
-
wobble
I have not had time to read the whole thread,(I should be working right now!), but I will do so later, but I object to two parts of the thread title.
The first is "One thing..." etc they have not got that right, you cannot condemn a doctrine you do not understand.
The second is "Trinity.....false" , that is too bold a statement, yes it is not plainly taught in scripture in some formula that even a three year old could understand, but hardly any doctrine is, hence all the forests of trees that have been sacrificed to WT and other publications on the Bible.
But it was that first assertion in the title that got to me, because there is nothing that the WT has got completely right.
-
miseryloveselders
Outlaw, you were right!!!!
-
cantleave
Misery - stop winding the Christians up!
-
WontLeave
The reason there is so much bickering between trinitarians (of various flavors) and unitarians (also of various flavors) is that neither is completely correct. The Bible isn't monotheistic, at all. John 1:18 (NWT) calls Jesus the "only-begotten god". Jehovah is a god, Jesus is a god, angels are gods. Perhaps many of the pagan gods of the OT had the backing of actual gods (demons), while others may have been completely made-up, having no substance other than some statues and stories.
Just like there are many gods but only one God, there are many mothers, but only one woman we see as Mother. The god we are supposed to serve is Jehovah, YWHW, the Almighty, etc.; the father of all the other gods (the sons of El). The god we subject ourselves to, becomes God to us. If someone chooses to worship Satan, Jesus, or Gabriel, then that god will be God to that person.
One point of contention is John 1:1. Trinitarians believe it proves Jesus and Jehovah are not separate and distinct. Unitarians believe there is an "a" missing in English. In actuality, neither is true. While "a god" might be a quick way to avoid a doctrinal quagmire, it is not a completely accurate way to convey the point John was making. It is obvious that the first reference to God (τ?ν θε?ν) refers to the personal entity, YHWH. The second reference to God (θε?ς) is a quality of the Word (λ?γος). As Adam was dust, the Word was God.
There was much creation before Adam came into existence, thus there already existed created material (referred to as "dust") from which Adam was made. If Jesus (Michael, the Word, whatever you want to call pre-human Jesus) was God's first creation, from what must Jesus have come? The only thing that existed was God, himself. So, like an amoeba, God split himself into 2 beings; the Father (himself) and the Son. Unlike an amoeba, which becomes 2 equal copies of the original and are indistinguishable from each other or the original, YHWH didn't want an equal (brother, conjoined twin) but a son, a subordinate. Especially in the Jewish community, a father/son relationship was understood to be a hierarchy involving separate individuals. John 1:1 eludes to this relationship, trying to indicate Jesus is literally a "chip off the old block", demonstrating the uniquely intimate relationship the Father and Son have, making Jesus the most qualified entity in existence to understand, demonstrate, and explain his father.
Imagine I went to the beach and was standing beside the Atlantic Ocean. Then I fill a bucket from it. While what's in the bucket may be ocean, it is not the same as "the Ocean", while having the exact same quality and substance. While my bucket of ocean may taste the same and feel the same, it won't support abundant sea life, carry a ship to a foreign land, or wipe out a coastal town in a storm. Also, the vastness of the Ocean isn't noticeably affected by the removal of my bucket of ocean.
Under normal circumstances, the worshipful adoration of Jesus would be idolatry. Even though he died for our sins, the whole arrangement was a product of the Father, not the Son. Outside the Father, there is no salvation. But, our God has instructed us that the Son has been elevated to a position to be worshiped. The Father has instructed us that he has updated his previous law of exclusive devotion to now include his Son, who died for our sins. While JWs for many years understood this, they opted to drop the understanding, so as not to confuse former Trinitarians. Also, the understanding of verses like John 1:1 was dumbed down to further separate the JW understanding from the Trinity.
Perhaps the intention is good, as many JWs aren't the brightest crayons in the box and are easily confused. I believe it to be dishonest and invites the many controversies from thinking critics. People easily fall into a false dichotomy; when they are comfortable with the false doctrine of the Trinity and an alternative is presented that is also not in 100% agreement with the spirit of the Scriptures, each side points at the holes in the other's theory and more tightly grips their current position and the debate will continue indefinitely. One side is claiming 2+2=3 while the other side claims 2+2=5. Each side can demonstrate the other is wrong, but both make the logical leap that since the "other side" is wrong, that makes "us" right. In actuality, both (okay, I'll stipulate there are many versions of Trinity, Unity, Modalism, and other theories) are wrong, neither is right, and the truth is yet outside of the confines of the debate.
Examine for yourself and see if this understanding doesn't fit all scriptures used both for and against a Trinity. Someone interested in the truth (not JW Truth th or church dogma) will adjust his/her understanding to fit the Bible, not attempt to shoehorn the Bible into the preconception.
-
james_woods
Isn't the real issue here the question of the divinity or the non-divinity of Christ?
I am no theist, so it is a moot point for me - but, for the record - (in my opinion) in the years before his death, Ed Dunlap accepted the divinity of Christ. I never heard him accept the traditional trinity, but he did say this:
"To understand the Jehovah of the old Testament, you have to accept and understand the Jesus of the new Testament. Jesus is all we can know about the real Jehovah."
I got the impression that Ed was saying that christians should replace notions about the war-god YHWH with the teachings of Jesus of the NT.
The Watchtower religion has effectively done the opposite - expanding on the old Jehovah image at the expense of the Christ. In Watchtower theology the 144,000 and the GB are effectively as important as Christ.