by AllTimeJeff 161 Replies latest jw friends
The Trinity should NOT be a "stumbling block" to Christ.
It is NOT EXPLICIT in the NT, though it can be implicit and it is NOT required for believing Christ to be our Lord and savour, Son of God, and that he was resurrected.
There were no explicit trinitarians until the term was coined and a human doctrine formulated.
Oh PSac you're in the cross-hairs of a rabid Trinitarian now (Sulla) be prepared to be pummeled by St. Augustine books
LMAO !!
Perhaps.
I don't know, Tec, sounds like the reason you aren't a JW is because you found them to be arrogant. Or maybe there is some other reason associating with them made you, as you put it, judgmental. They encouraged you somehow to look down on others, you say?
No, I found them (my study conductor and most of the people at the one Memorial I went to) to be humble and sincere. I found that I was becoming judgmental. "What that person is doing is wrong, etc..." I was just starting to point fingers, when the one I should have been concentrating on (in regard to faultfinding) was me. I think that when you are taught that everything outside of the jw's is bad, you tend to become judgmental in thinking that everyone outside of the jw's is bad or under the influence of satan. I was just starting to come to that; I recognized it and I stopped.
So it was bad for me. But I still thought they were chosen. I just couldn't be part of them, to my own fault. The arrogance that came into play was the one 'doctrinal' reason that I could not join and that was Armageddon. I had misunderstood something. I thought that everyone - absolutely everyone - got a second chance. When I realized that anyone who was killed at Armageddon (which could come any day now, and to anyone who was not at least studying to become a JW), had received their final judgment, my heart stopped. That was everyone I knew. Even if everyone I knew did become a JW in time, what about all the other people in the world? I couldn't be part of that. So the arrogance was thinking that I was somehow 'better than' God. Keep in mind that I still thought that they had the truth, so this was probably true too. Had I been listening to Christ, I would have known better. Just as I should have known right from the start, that I could not be better than God. So I should have known that God would not do such a thing.
On the other topic,
I too take Christ and His teachings more seriously than Ghandi and Buddha or anyone else... becasue Christ is the Truth, the Son of God. He shows us His Father. I don't have to believe in a trinity to follow Him, or listen to Him, or to do as He asks. It is simply becasue I believe Him, love Him, and know that I see the Father through Him.
Peace,
Tammy
PSac, I agree in part and disagree in part. The teaching is not explicit in the NT, though the habits of the primitive Church were clearly Trinitarian in nature. The term obviously post-dates the NT, but that is not the same as saying the doctrine was imposed as a late addition.
PSac: it is NOT required for believing Christ to be our Lord and savour, Son of God, and that he was resurrected.
People can believe lots of amazing things without any particular reason. I do think that the early Councils were correct to observe that the core Christian claims about Jesus being the Son of God, that he was raised, that his death was in order to fix creation, must necessarily imply the Trinity. Logically, then, if P implies Q, then denying Q means denying P.
So, I think it really is necessary. Which is not to say that someone could not accept the Christian premises and still reject the Trinity. But that's a different sort of question, I think. They couldn't do it logically.
You would make Barry Hoffstetter smile with that load...
PSac, I agree in part and disagree in part. The teaching is not explicit in the NT, though the habits of the primitive Church were clearly Trinitarian in nature. The term obviously post-dates the NT, but that is not the same as saying the doctrine was imposed as a late addition.
I don't think the Trinity was an attempt to impose anything, but more an attempt to "put down in writing" Man's attempt to understand the nature of God and the relationship between Father, Son and the HS ( and to answer the Arian heresay of course).
PSac: it is NOT required for believing Christ to be our Lord and savour, Son of God, and that he was resurrected.
People can believe lots of amazing things without any particular reason. I do think that the early Councils were correct to observe that the core Christian claims about Jesus being the Son of God, that he was raised, that his death was in order to fix creation, must necessarily imply the Trinity. Logically, then, if P implies Q, then denying Q means denying P.
So, I think it really is necessary. Which is not to say that someone could not accept the Christian premises and still reject the Trinity. But that's a different sort of question, I think. They couldn't do it logically.
That Christ was by nature God, is explcit in the NT writings of John and Paul and implicit in the rest of the NT. That God is revealed fully in His Son is also implicit. That the HS is God is explicit also and that the HS is Christ is explicit in Paul only ( that I recall). The Trinity is a doctrine that is a "slave" to the wording and undestanding of its time, a tiem heavily infulenced by Greek thought and wording ( note I am NOT saying that the Trinity was infulenced by Greek thought, only the wording was). I would think that if an attempt to describe the n ature of God was made NOW, the wording would be quite different, as it would have been if the doctrine had been developed outside of the greek influence. That said I have no issue with the Trinity doctrine and agree that for many, it is a way of understanding God and bringing God closer. I am not a Trinitarian in the sense that I believe the doctrine to be needed. I believe that Christ shared the same nature as God, the exact form of God, that Christ was God as Per John 1:1. I don't think the way the Trinity doctrine is word actually helps anyone come to God other than by faith beyond understanding and I am not a huge fan of faith in that way.
designs: From one Cult into another bigger Cult 'how do you explain that'.
It's a mystery, designs, but our world is filled with mystery. How does one explain why your head is filled entirely with dog shit? For that matter, how does one explain how your head is filled only with dog shit? Science can't explain it, but the fact is indisputable, stinking up the whole house.
Sulla,
While designs may like to get under peoples skins, that was totally uncalled for and rather, well...unchristian.
I don't disagree with you in any of those comments, PSac. I might quibble with the idea that the doctrine is not needed. If I were to quibble, I would say that any true statement about God is necessary. But that would be a quibble and I'm not in much mood to quibble.
