Catholics are trinitarian. You are using a trinitarian source out of context (classic WT nonsense) to try to discredit the Trinity (cf. WT use of 'Two Babylons' by Alexander Hislop to discredit trinity despite him being a trinitarian?!). I have studied the history of dogma and understand the context. The bottom line is that it is rooted in Scripture and first century belief, but more formalized later in response to heresies such as your Arianism.
How evangelicals and Witnesses are alike
by jgnat 93 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
WontLeave
Whatever you need to tell yourself. Here are some things to chew on (all excerpts from International Standard Bible Encyclopedia):
As the doctrine of the Trinity is indiscoverable by reason, so it is incapable of proof from reason.
In point of fact, the doctrine of the Trinity is purely a revealed doctrine. That is to say, it embodies a truth which has never been discovered, and is indiscoverable, by natural reason. With all his searching, man has not been able to find out for himself the deepest things of God. Accordingly, ethnic thought has never attained a Trinitarian conception of God, nor does any ethnic religion present in its representations of the divine being any analogy to the doctrine of the Trinity.
Whether there really exist traces of the idea of the Trinity in the Old Testament, however, is a nice question. Certainly we cannot speak broadly of the revelation of the doctrine of the Trinity in the Old Testament. It is a plain matter of fact that none who have depended on the revelation embodied in the Old Testament alone have ever attained to the doctrine of the Trinity. It is another question, however, whether there may not exist in the pages of the Old Testament turns of expression or records of occurrences in which one already acquainted with the doctrine of the Trinity may fairly see indications of an underlying implication of it.
In the nature of the case the formulated doctrine was of slow attainment. The influence of inherited conceptions and of current philosophies inevitably showed itself in the efforts to construe to the intellect the immanent faith of Christians. In the 2nd century the dominant neo-Stoic and neo-Platonic ideas deflected Christian thought into subordinationist channels, and produced what is known as the Logos-Christology, which looks upon the Son as a prolation of Deity reduced to such dimensions as comported with relations with a world of time and space; meanwhile, to a great extent, the Spirit was neglected altogether. A reaction which, under the name of Monarchianism, identified the Father, Son, and Spirit so completely that they were thought of only as different aspects or different moments in the life of the one Divine Person, called now Father, now Son, now Spirit, as His several activities came successively into view, almost succeeded in establishing itself in the 3rd century as the doctrine of the church at large. In the conflict between these two opposite tendencies the church gradually found its way, under the guidance of the Baptismal Formula elaborated into a "Rule of Faith," to a better and more well-balanced conception, until a real doctrine of the Trinity at length came to expression, particularly in the West, through the brilliant dialectic of Tertullian. It was thus ready at hand, when, in the early years of the 4th century, the Logos-Christology, in opposition to dominant Sabellian tendencies, ran to seed in what is known as Arianism, to which the Son was a creature, though exalted above all other creatures as their Creator and Lord; and the church was thus prepared to assert its settled faith in a Triune God, one in being, but in whose unity there subsisted three consubstantial Persons.
And this is a very Trinitarian source. Even if the Trinity were true (which it clearly isn't, to me) what kind of God would require a belief that makes no sense, was the source of bitter arguments between good-heared Christians, isn't actually stated in the NT, and nonexistent in the OT (unless you're already indoctrinated to see it everywhere) be a prerequisite to avoid eternal torture? Your view of God is disgusting and offensive. You paint a God as cruel and petty as Allah of the Qur'an. I would hate to be in your shoes when you have to answer for your slander and blasphemy.
-
satinka
... Why does each religion think it is the only "true" religion? That belief implies that all other religions are false. I know from being an ex-member that the Jehovah's Witnesses believe theirs is the only true faith. They believe they are the only ones who have special knowledge. They are God's favored people. They and only them. Everyone else is going to be killed by God at Armageddon.
Muslims believe theirs is the only true religion. That belief means that all other religions are false. They have special knowledge. They are Allah's favored people. They and only them. Everyone else is going to burn in hell as an infidel.
Mormons believe theirs is the only true religion. That belief means that all other religions are false. They have special knowledge. They are God's favored people. They and only them. Everyone else is going to burn in hell.
Need I go on about the Catholics, Scientologists, and Fundamentalist Christians?
Judgmental? Divisive? Where does it end? Perhaps another Holy War, another Jihad, another Inquisition, another Crusades or another World War...?
One may wish to examine how much "conditioning" goes on in a religion before rushing into becoming a member. Personally, as a Westerner, I see over and over again how dangerously divisive so-called "moderate" religion can be.
On a happy note, the bible says a time will come when people would not adhere to religion. Rather, each person would be a law to themselves. (Romans 2:14) By that, I mean their conscience would be their guide; not some priest, pastor, elder, imam, bishop, etc. No more religion running the show, asking for money, lobbying for more power, and demanding more freedom to frighten and enslave. Sounds healthy to me. I embrace this idealist concept.
satinka
-
godrulz
I have the ISBE. Do you? It will make a cogent case for the trinity if you read the whole article in context. The bottom line is still affirming or refuting it with Scripture (Church Fathers are fallible). Many doctrines were not set in cement in the formative years of the early church, yet they are still accepted as true by JWs and others.
-
WontLeave
I have the ISBE. Do you?
It's available online, in its entirety. Where do you think I got the excerpts? I don't use second-hand evidence. That leads to embarrassment. I'm sure they make a wonderful case for the Trinity. I did mention it's a trinitarian source.
Your idea the Trinity is "salvific" is ridiculous, is my point. It was virtually unheard of until the 4th Century before the Catholic Magesterium was formed and the Inquisitions started forcing it upon the people. The laity didn't have access to the Bible for the majority of Christian history (first by design, then from lack of availability or literacy) and only had the Church to tell them what to believe, so they had no first-hand knowledge. Add to that the Trinity isn't stated in Scripture, but is a "revealed doctrine" which must come from the Church. OT prophets were in direct communication with God, but never mentioned a trinity. The vast majority of Trinity "proof texts" are from the NT and still nothing overt.
The long and short of it all is faith in the Trinity isn't faith in the Bible, but faith in church doctrine. Are there people who insist they see it all over the Bible? Sure. There are also conspiracy theorists who see every helicopter in the sky as following them. When someone has been convinced if they don't see the Trinity in Scripture then they're going to be tortured for eternity in Hell, I'm confident many will gush about the splendor of the Emperor's new clothes.
-
godrulz
I have never said the trinity is salvific since I believe modalists can be saved (deny trinity like JWs do). I did say that the Deity of Christ is salvific because of Jn. 3:16; Jn. 14:6; Acts 4:12; Rom. 10:9-10; I Jn. 5:11-13; Gal. 1:6-10; 2 Cor. 11:4; Jude 3, etc.
The trinity is talked about before the 4th century. It can be defended from Scripture and is the only way to explain all the relevant verses vs few Arian proof texts out of context that are consistent with triune understanding. Forget the trinity. Focus on who Jesus is and the personality of the Spirit (vs active force nonsense). The rest will follow.
-
WontLeave
Once again, you've stapled scriptures to your rant that in no way support your statement. Here are all of them, which you cite for
the Deity of Christ is salvific
and gave these verses as evidence (all references are NIV, because it's the default on biblegateway.com):
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. - John 3:16
And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever - John 14:6
Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved. - Acts 4:12
If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved. - Rom 10:9-10
And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life. I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life. - 1John 5:11-13
I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse! Am I now trying to win the approval of human beings, or of God? Or am I trying to please people? If I were still trying to please people, I would not be a servant of Christ. - Gal 1:6-10
For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the Spirit you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough. - 2Cor 11:4
Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt compelled to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to God’s holy people. - Jude 3
Plese show me where Christ=YHWH (which is the only definition of Christ's diety you'll accept as "truly Christian"), Trinity, Oneness, Modalism - whatever you want to prove - is indicated in any (much less all) of these passages. I don't deny Jesus' Heavenly form is divine. If you had ever read the post I have pointed you toward numerous times, you'd understand this. But your straw men are more convenient, so you just type "JW/GB" as if they're representative of my beliefs or anyone's here, for that matter. You're arguing with a person who only exists in your head, over an ideal that only exists in your head, using evidence that only exists in your head. I'm starting to doubt your sanity and my own for engaging with you.
If anything, these verses do far more damage to your delusional theory than good.
he gave his one and only Son
I will ask the Father
God raised him from the dead
God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son
I use Galatians and 2Corinthians to disprove the Trinity, because most people know the apostles did not preach it, since the doctrine didn't exist then. But you refuse to admit or comprehend this established fact and insist your delusion be shared. No wonder you invoke the Hellfire doctrine so much. You can't establish your false claim with evidence, so you're resorting to threats. Well, I know your threats are as empty as your evidence and your beliefs, so I can just as easily ignore them, too.
-
godrulz
The verses were not about the Deity of Christ, per se, but about trusting Christ alone. It is an obvious principle that there is the true Christ and many false christs, worthless counterfeits. Typical of JWs, you think if you refute modalism that you are refuting trinitarianism (nope). JWs are also used to proof texts/eisegesis instead of sound exegesis. Verses can establish principles consistent with other verses, whereas JWs tend to bring up a verse to contradict another verse (instead of changing their view e.g. if we give a list of verses that prove the personality of the Holy Spirit, they will find a verse that describes His influence as power to try to support impersonal active force).
-
WontLeave
Typical of JWs, you think if you refute modalism that you are refuting trinitarianism
Who said anything about modalism, except among the list of things I allowed you to prove from the verses you just invoked to establish your "diety of Christ" statement? I am really starting to realize you're mentally unstable. At least I'm not going to tell you you're damned to Hell for your inability to function on a rational level.
bring up a verse to contradict another verse
If you'd read my post I keep mentioning to you, I addressed this, as well. But you aren't interested in the actual topic at hand. You're not listening; you're just waiting for your turn to rant again. Each time I post something to you, it's like hitting a hornets' nest with a stick. A whole lot of racket comes out, but nothing that will do anybody any good. I'll bet I could just respond with a blank post and you'd run off on another tangent, with a list of unrelated scriptures again. I could have you chasing your tail all day, because you've completely slipped off your cracker.
-
godrulz
Again, I was not quoting the traditional verses to support the Deity of Christ (you thought I was beating the trinity bush at first). I was establishing a principle that salvation is based on faith in Christ (not 'Jehovah', though Jesus is Jehovah) and that a counterfeit Christ of the WT is worthless/non-existent (same thing for Muslim concept or Mormon gods). The verse segments you are using are showing distinction between Father/Son, which we affirm. JWs typically think they disprove the trinity, but they actually disprove heretical modalism. I am not as dumb as you think.