Just because Plato used the word spirit or soul does not mean the biblical concept comes from Plato or that it is identical to Platonic thought (cf. Johannine use of 'logos'/Word vs Jewish/Greek uses).
The trouble with Christianity. TRINITY.
by whereami 209 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
still thinking
I think you are reading into this what you want to.
I have quoted some in red as you quoted. The others seem a bit clearer to me. This does not show that they all have the same name GOD.
This show that they are being baptized by the three things that are important. The father (GOD), the Son who God sent to save us, And the Holy Spirit that God uses to help us. He is telling them to Baptize in the three names because this is part of the new convenant. It is recognizing that the son is needed for our salvation and we need the Holy Spirit to help. It is NOT making a statement that they are one GOD.
How you come to the conclusion that this means they are One really stretches the imagination.
New International Version(©1984)
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,New Living Translation(©2007)
Therefore, go and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.English Standard Version(©2001)
Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,New American Standard Bible(©1995)
"Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,International Standard Version(©2008)
Therefore, as you go, disciple people in all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit,GOD'S WORD® Translation(©1995)
So wherever you go, make disciples of all nations: Baptize them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. -
tec
A very simple verse that could have defined the trinity from scripture could have been this: (in light of the above examples)
Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of God, who is the Father, the son, and the Holy Spirit.
There is nothing like that in the bible. The trinity is an extrapolation and interpretation. No one who believes that has any right to look down on those who do not.
Tammy
-
frankiespeakin
Religious dogma can really polarize people.
-
still thinking
<<John 10>>
New International Version
17 The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again. 18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.”TTWSYF I'm sorry, how does this say the Father and Jesus are one God?
The point of this is to show the love for his father and his fatheres love for him. And the authority to lay down or take up his life was given by the father. This does not support Trinity doctrine.
-
still thinking
TTWSYF The only thing any of the scriptures you quote support that the Father gives authority to Jesus and uses the Holy spirit to do his will.
I think you have your mind so set on proving the Trinity is true that you just don't want to see it any other way. I am looking at the scriptures you quote and am trying to see it without bias as to if the trinity is true or not. I am reading them and trying to get their true meaning. I am open to the trinity being true if I actually see it. So far I don't. And I would say that many others don't.
Jesus never said we had to believe in any such doctrine to be saved. He said we had to believe in him. Because we cannot come to the father except through him. He is our intermediary. I understand that you believe that if we don't understand Trinity as being truth we don't understand who Jesus really is so we cannot put faith in him properly, thus cannot be saved.
I would say this is just your religions teaching of that understanding. And does not correlate with anything Jesus said.
Personally I prefer to believe Jesus over a church.
-
myelaine
dear Tammy...
you said: "There is nothing like that in the bible. The trinity is an extrapolation and interpretation. No one who believes that has any right to look down on those who do not. "...
I'm not looking down on you...I think that you are worth time and effort to help you understand. I think that the nature of God is very important in knowing God...don't you? Isn't wanting to know and understand the details of a persons life the difference between wanting a friend as opposed to wanting an acquaintance?
the scriptural evidence that can be obtained regarding the nature of God as three persons is there for a reason...if there was no scriptural evidence to extrapolate then we could be confident that the triune nature of God is false...but there is evidence and it can't be dismissed.
I don't think that the nature of God was questioned in the first church of the apostles(col 1:15-18)...by the time they were called "the church" they knew who and what they were talking about and this most important doctrine would have been the first to be elucidated in order that the congregation would be of the same mind and speak the same thing as disciples who would spread the gospel(1 cor 1:10)...paul made it his duty to remove and spoke about people who were not of the same mind as the apostles. why is it that you believe that somewhere between the apostles and the nicene council there was or might have been some kind of dramatic move toward apostasy? the church was interested in the truth and relaying the truth in the manner that they received it...it was taught from one disciple to another to another...the gospels and epistles were an additional reminder in which one could confirm that what the other/later disciples were teaching was correct(col 4:16)...there was a continuity of thought and practice...a unity of the body.
love michelle
-
godrulz
name (singular/one God) of Father, Son, Holy Spirit (Father is God/personal and no indication that Son is creature and Holy Spirit is impersonal active force). If WT was true, we might see in the name of the Father and in the name of the Son and the active force for good measure. It does not say nameS because there is one God. The 3 personal distinctions are grammatically included in name because of their absolute unity/diversity. Jesus was a trinitarian, as was Paul (2 Cor. 13:14).
-
tec
I'm not looking down on you...I think that you are worth time and effort to help you understand. I think that the nature of God is very important in knowing God...don't you? Isn't wanting to know and understand the details of a persons life the difference between wanting a friend as opposed to wanting an acquaintance?
I don't think you're looking down on me. But I think that the best and for many, the ONLY, way to know God is through Christ. Know Christ, know God. That is what He taught. So that is enough for me. Anything beyond that seems unnecessary, and perhaps confusing, and perhaps lead away from God, rather than toward Him.
the scriptural evidence that can be obtained regarding the nature of God as three persons is there for a reason...if there was no scriptural evidence to extrapolate then we could be confident that the triune nature of God is false...but there is evidence and it can't be dismissed.
I don't dismiss anything; I see different explanations for such. But there are scriptures that also clearly state that God and His Son are two separate people with one being in subjection to the other.
why is it that you believe that somewhere between the apostles and the nicene council there was or might have been some kind of dramatic move toward apostasy?
I think both Paul and John speak of the wolves that were already moving among the sheep. Plus, the council was called to define the beliefs because of the varied beliefs at the time, right? Arianism was considered heretical, but had the majority believed it, then Trinitarianism would have been heretical. The doctrine of a burning eternal and torturous torment (hell) is also a mainstream doctrine that can find some backing from scripture, and yet I don't believe in the place at all. If that could have evolved in such a short time, then anything could. What about burning people at the stake? What about following Christ, but going to war in His name? These aren't doctrines, I know, but they certainly (imo) show a falling away from the teachings of Christ. Perhaps if people should have spent less time on doctrine, creed, and ritual... and more time following and knowing Christ, Himself, (and therefore, God).
Peace to you,
Tammy
-
PSacramento
A few things:
The trinity doctrine is NOT a doctrine of salavation, it is a doctrine to "help" understand the nature of God, Jesus and the HS.
Of course they used words that were infulenced by Greek tought, Greek was THE "international" language of the times, to express soemthing to people we need to find a common ground, a Point of Reference and that was the Greek way of saying and expressing things.
Expressing things from a prodominate culture does NOT equal that the Trinity CAME from Greek Pagan views because you will not find anything like the Trinity in greek theology.
Jesus was with God from the very beginning BEFORE creation.
Was there a point in which God was "singular"? If God is a God of Love and Love is what God is, then How can God something/anything that doesn't exists?
To Love we must have somenthing to direct that Love and that was Christ.
Perhaps God existed as a singular entity, but he truly became the God we know when he became God The Father, Father of his only begotten Son, Nature of his nature, essence of His essence and spirit of His spirit, the exact form of God.
You will not find the world "Trinity" in the bible because the word is a "modern" construct.
What you will find in the bible is, if you choose to accept the NT teachings, is an existence of a perfect union between God, Son and The HS, before the creation of the universe.