The Trinity Doctrine, the Governing Body & Disfellowshipping

by 00DAD 21 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • 00DAD
    00DAD

    Possibly you thought this might be about something else ... but since you're here, why not keep reading!

    JWs are taught certain "reasoning" skills for use in the field ministry. In reality, these "skills" are really more like debating tactics or techniques, short scripts of verbal jiu-jitsu designed to throw the uninitiated off balance and attempt to force them into a position of mental submission.

    When you consider the fact that, as JWs, we got up early, had our coffee, thought about what we were going to say and how we were going to say it--sometimes practicing these scripts for years--it's no surprise that we could often walk away from a door "victorious" over the poor, unsuspecting householder that was still in their pajamas, probably only 1/2 way through their first cup o' joe and still wondering whether or not they should venture outside to get the morning paper! Not exactly a fair fight, eh?

    The fact is, there is really no actual critical thinking or logic going on here, no careful and thoughtful deductive or analytical reasoning. It's just some clever wordplay masquerading as high rhetoric and it could just as easily be turned around against them. Let's look at a couple of hypothetical dialogues and see how that might work.

    #1 The Trinity: For starters, let's examine this Ol' Chestnut approach to "disproving" the Trinity doctrine:

    JW: [Somewhat condescendingly] You DO know that the word "Trinity" never appears in the Bible?

    Trinitarian: Um, yes. But the concept is there!

    JW: That's what you say. But don't you think that if Jesus really wanted us to believe in the Trinity that he would have taught us about it and the word would actually be in the Bible?

    Trinitarian: Well, yeah ... I guess, maybe. I dunno'.

    #2 - The Governing Body: Now let's turn things around a bit, shall we:

    FreeThinker: You DO know that the word "Governing Body" never appears in the Bible?

    JW: Um, yes. But the concept is there!

    FT: That's what you say. But don't you think that if Jesus really wanted us to believe in the "Governing Body" that he would have taught us about it and the word would actually be in the Bible?

    JW: Well, yeah ... I guess, maybe. I dunno'.

    Or how about ...

    #3 - Disfellowshipping and Shunning: Now let's turn things around a bit, shall we:

    FT: You DO know that the word "Disfellowship" never appears in the Bible?

    JW: Um, yes. But the concept is there!

    FT: That's what you say. But don't you think that if Jesus really wanted us to believe in "Disfellowshipping and shunning" that he would have taught us about it and the words would actually be in the Bible?

    JW: Well, yeah ... I guess, maybe. I dunno'.

    We could keep this up for days, but I'm sure you get the point.

    In reality, whether a particular word does or does not appear in Bible is really not a very conclusive argument either for or against a particular belief, as the fact that this so-called method of "Reasoning from the Scriptures tm " so easily swings both ways readily proves.

    It also demonstrates the general lack of rigorous thinking of the part of the majority Jehovah's Witnesses when it comes to accepting and/or rejecting doctrines and beliefs.

  • PSacramento
    PSacramento

    There are MANY things that do NOT appear in the bible explicitly.

    Common sense MUST dictate and that was one of the many lessons of Christ:

    EX:

    God requires mercy not sacrifice - when in doubt error on the side of mercy and life.

    The sabbath is to be kept Holy and to be a day of rest, HOWEVER, doing good and what is right superceeds it being a day of rest ( Holy=good> rest).

    Christ taught us to forgive and that HOW we judge OTHERS is how WE will be judged ( love, pray and forgive your enemies, let he without sin cast the first stone, etc) - We have no right to judge anyone, that belongs to Christ, and we are to love and forgive so that we may break cycle of hate and sin with our love.

  • 00DAD
    00DAD

    PSac: Point! Thanks for coming up with another example.

    00DAD

  • Knowsnothing
    Knowsnothing

    PSac, what then do you believe about Pauline shunning? Do you believe it serves a disciplinary purpose if used correctly? And do you believe that, if Jesus selected Paul as an Apostle, then by extention he approves of what Paul commands?

  • Ding
    Ding

    When a JW talks to me (rare nowadays) and says, "The word `Trinity' doesn't appear in the Bible," I reply, "Sure it does -- right next to the word `organization.'"

    They usually respond with a deer-in-the-headlights look.

  • breakfast of champions
    breakfast of champions

    For me,"The word trinity doesn't appear in the bible" always ranked up there with "Taking blood into your veins is the same as eating it" as really bad WT logic that I never accepted.

  • 00DAD
    00DAD

    Ding, that's a good one! I've noticed that a lot of JWs don't really handle sarcasm well, at least not when it's directed at their beliefs.

    BOC, I agree completely with your comment about "bad WT logic". I've come to conclude that one of the reasons, maybe even the Main Reason, the GB Guys from Brooklyn don't want their R&F to pursue any higher education is that they know the students will learn some REAL THINKING AND LOGIC skills and realize what a sham the WT's lame attempt at a cohesive body of beliefs is.

  • PSacramento
    PSacramento
    PSac, what then do you believe about Pauline shunning? Do you believe it serves a disciplinary purpose if used correctly? And do you believe that, if Jesus selected Paul as an Apostle, then by extention he approves of what Paul commands?

    First off, Paul didn't shun anybody.

    The shunning view that is erroneous attributed to Paul comes from his letter to the Corinthians where he says:

    << 1 Corinthians 5 >>
    New American Standard Bible


    Immorality Rebuked 1 It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles, that someone has his father’s wife. 2 You have become arrogant and have not mourned instead, so that the one who had done this deed would be removed from your midst.

    3 For I, on my part, though absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged him who has so committed this, as though I were present. 4 In the name of our Lord Jesus, when you are assembled, and I with you in spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus, 5 I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

    6 Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough? 7 Clean out the old leaven so that you may be a new lump, just as you are in fact unleavened. For Christ our Passover also has been sacrificed. 8 Therefore let us celebrate the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

    9 I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people; 10 I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters, for then you would have to go out of the world. 11 But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler—not even to eat with such a one. 12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? 13 But those who are outside, God judges. R EMOVE THE WICKED MAN FROM AMONG YOURSELVES .

    Nowhere else does Paul say to remove ANYONE from the congrgation.

    And Paul single sthis individual out because of what he has done and that he is NOT repenten. Paul aslo states to avoide those that are:

    immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler

    No mention of not associateing or throwing people out because of theological differences.

    Paul tone sets that an unrepentant sinner must be addressed and asked t repent and if he does not then yes, he must be expelled and not associated with.

    BUT what does Paul also say in his FOLLOW up letter to them?

    First he regrets the sorrow that He ( His first letter) has caused them and regretting that his zeal caused such "boldness in his writing".

    Reaffirm Your Love 1 But I determined this for my own sake, that I would not come to you in sorrow again. 2 For if I cause you sorrow, who then makes me glad but the one whom I made sorrowful? 3 This is the very thing I wrote you, so that when I came, I would not have sorrow from those who ought to make me rejoice; having confidence in you all that my joy would be the joy of you all. 4 For out of much affliction and anguish of heart I wrote to you with many tears; not so that you would be made sorrowful, but that you might know the love which I have especially for you.

    5 But if any has caused sorrow, he has caused sorrow not to me, but in some degree—in order not to say too much—to all of you. 6 Sufficient for such a one is this punishment which was inflicted by the majority, 7 so that on the contrary you should rather forgive and comfort him, otherwise such a one might be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow. 8 Wherefore I urge you to reaffirm your love for him. 9 For to this end also I wrote, so that I might put you to the test, whether you are obedient in all things. 10 But one whom you forgive anything, I forgive also; for indeed what I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, I did it for your sakes in the presence of Christ, 11 so that no advantage would be taken of us by Satan, for we are not ignorant of his schemes.

    Note what Paul says:

    6 Sufficient for such a one is this punishment which was inflicted by the majority, 7 so that on the contrary you should rather forgive and comfort him, otherwise such a one might be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow. 8 Wherefore I urge you to reaffirm your love for him. 9 For to this end also I wrote, so that I might put you to the test, whether you are obedient in all things. 10 But one whom you forgive anything, I forgive also; for indeed what I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, I did it for your sakes in the presence of Christ,

    Note that the MAJORITY agreed with the punishment and that now that He repented they are to take him back and all is forgiven.

    This is hardly a disfellowshiped followed by shunning for a disagreement about human doctrine, soemthing that Paul would NOT have advocated or agreed on.

  • Knowsnothing
    Knowsnothing

    Psac, the Bible says:

    R EMOVE THE WICKED MAN FROM AMONG YOURSELVES .

    You say:

    Nowhere else does Paul say to remove ANYONE from the congrgation.

    Ok, but getting back to whether Biblical shunning and WT shunning are any different.

    You say:

    This is hardly a disfellowshiped followed by shunning for a disagreement about human doctrine, soemthing that Paul would NOT have advocated or agreed on.

    Bible says:

    2 John 1:10,11 10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, 11 for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works.

    This is a theological difference. John says, "Don't give him any greeting."

    No one could "disagree" with church authority in those times and JW's are no different.

  • jonathan dough
    jonathan dough

    Plenty of reference to the Trinity in the Bible. Sorry about the Blue. no idea how to fix that.

    The Trinity in the New Testament

    a) Matthew 28:19 ----------------------------------------------------------

    The most explicit reference to the Trinity in the Gospels is Christ’s baptismal formula found at Matthew 28:19: “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 …” (NAB). “This is perhaps the clearest expression in the New Testament of the Trinitarian belief” (NAB notes, Matthew 28:19).

    Not surprisingly, the Jehovah's Witnesses don’t see it that way, stating: “Do these verses say that God, Christ and the holy spirit constitute a Trinitarian godhead, that the three are equal in substance, power and eternity? No, they do not, no more than listing three people, such as Tom, Dick, and Harry, means that they are three in one” (Should You Believe, Chapter 9).

    The Jehovah's Witnesses have missed the point entirely. No credible scholar claims that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one just because they are numerated like Tom, Dick and Harry. That’s silly. The unity of the three Persons or hypostases - the oneness of the three and singleness of essence - is indicated by the singular use of “name” by which all three Persons are referred to, not their plural “names.” If, for instance, the Son were merely a separate subordinate creature as the Jehovah's Witnesses falsely teach, Jesus would have them baptizing in the “names” of the Father and Son, at a minimum. But he did not. Having all the same “name” puts Father, Son and Holy Spirit on par, on an equal plane with all which this connotes.

    “Name” (Greek Onoma), “… as a noun, is used in general of the “name” by which a person or thing is called ….” It also stands “for all that a “name” implies, of authority, character, rank, majesty, power, excellence, etc., of everything that a name covers” (Strong and Vine’s, 178). The phrase “in the name” may represent the “authority of Christ” … or “in the power of” … or “in recognition of the authority of …. (MT 18:20; cf 28:19; …” (ibid.).

    Under either scenario a Trinitarian formula is patently obvious. If the “name” into which believers are to be baptized is that by which a person or thing is called then Father, Son and Holy Spirit share the same name, that of God, and all three are called by God’s name; three Persons in unity sharing the divine essence, yet distinct. It equates the three Persons, and ascribes to them essence, power and eternity equally.

    The Jehovah's Witnesses reject the conventional application of “name” at Matthew 28:19 and argue that “name” does not mean a personal name at all, that “God” is not a name like Jehovah, but means “power or authority” (Should You Believe, Chapter 8). So, “‘baptism in the name of the holy spirit recognizes the authority of the spirit, that it is from God and functions by divine will” (ibid.).

    Actually, “I AM” can’t be considered a name in the conventional English sense either, but that is what Jehovah said His name is. A name can have wide application, as Isaiah attests about Jesus, whose name is “God.”

    And his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. (Isaiah 9:6 NWT)

    Another weakness in their approach is that baptism under the Jehovah's Witnesses’ interpretation would be into three separate and unequal powers and authorities, with the Son possessing less than the Father because they believe Father and Son are not equal, since their Jesus is nothing more than a man, always inferior (Should You Believe, Chapter 7). This would conceivably require at least two separate baptisms but that would contravene Ephesians 4:5 which says that there is only “one baptism.”

    For the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Holy Spirit is only a power similar to electrical current flowing from God (Should You Believe, Chapter 8). But if that were the case, baptizing into the names of God and the Holy Spirit would be redundant, ascribing the same authority twice; it ascribes an authority and power of the Holy Spirit distinct from God, but that’s not what Jesus meant.

    The expression “in the name of” (literally, ‘into the name’), indicates a dedication or consecration to the one named. Thus Christian Baptism is a dedication or consecration to God - Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Since the Son and the Holy Spirit are mentioned here on a par with the Father, the passage clearly teaches that they are equally divine with the Father, who is obviously God. (Catholic Encyclopedia, 306)

    “From the vocabulary and grammar of the Greek original, the intention of the hagiographer to communicate singleness of essence in three distinct Persons was easily derived” (ibid., 299).

    b) 1 Corinthians 12:4-6 ----------------------------------------------

    Likewise, 1 Corinthians 12:4-6 does not attempt to prove equality and unity simply by listing “Spirit,” “Lord” and “God.” Rather, the three are put on a par, thus indicating their divine nature, and consequently, their omnipotence, omniscience and eternal existence. In speaking of the spiritual gifts or charisms that are bestowed upon Christians, Paul says:

    There are different kinds of spiritual gifts but the same Spirit; there are different forms of service but the same Lord; there are different workings but the same God who produces all of them in everyone. (NAB)

    This passage witnesses to the doctrine of the Trinity by ascribing the various charisms, viz, gifts, ministries, and workings, to the Spirit, the Lord (the Son), and God (the Father), respectively. Since all these charisms of their very nature demand a divine source, the three Persons are put on a par, thus clearly indicating their divine nature while at the same time maintaining the distinction of Persons (Catholic Encyclopedia, 306).

    The Spirit is the donor in each instance and each gift contributes to the corporate life of the body of Christ, the Church. The one Spirit, Lord or God, is at work in the body; the embryonic Trinitarian formula is to be noted, ….” (C.S.C. Williams, Peake’s Commentary on the Bible [London: Nelson and Sons, Ltd., 1964], 961) (Peake’s Commentary)

    c) 2 Corinthians 13:13 (14) -----------------------------------------------

    2 Corinthians 13:13 (14) provides “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the charity (love) of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.” “[This] is one of the clearest Trinitarian passages in the New Testament” (NAB notes 13, 11-13). What makes Paul’s “use of these terms so significant is that they appear against a strictly monotheistic background” (Catholic Encyclopedia, 306).

    This blessing is perhaps a quotation from the early Christian liturgy. The grammatical usage in this blessing, especially the subjective genitives …. gives us a basis not only for the distinction of persons, but also for their equality in as much as all the benefits are to flow from the one Godhead.” (ibid.)

    2 Corinthians 13:13(14) “not only sums up the apostolic teaching, but it interprets the deeper meaning of the Trinity in Christian experience, the saving grace of the Son as that which gives access to the love of the Father and the communion of the Spirit” (New Bible Dictionary, 1299).

    d) Romans 8:9-11-------------------------------------------------------------

    Romans 8:9-11 also makes a strong statement that the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ both dwell in the believer, and accordingly the Spirit of God is the Spirit of Christ since there is only one Spirit (Ephesians 4:4), an indwelling exemplified in a true Trinitarian fashion: God is in you, Christ is in you, and the Holy Spirit which proceeds from both (in the Latin Western tradition) is in you the true believer, all existing as one principle ultimately.

    But you are not in the flesh, you are in the Spirit, if the Sprit of God really dwells in you. Any one who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. But if Christ is in you, although your bodies are dead because of sin, your spirits are alive because of righteousness. If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies also through his Spirit which dwells in you. (Romans 9:8-11 RSV)

    Jehovah is the spirit. (2 Corinthians 3:17 NWT; “the Lord is the Spirit” RSV)

    “[T]here are many other implicit references, for example at Jesus’ baptism, where the Father speaks from the cloud and the Spirit descends as a dove upon the Son (Matthew 3.16-17). In Paul’s letters there are many examples of Father, Son and Spirit being closely linked in their activity. [I]n Ephesians he speaks of ‘one Spirit …one Lord … one God and Father’ (4.4-6). In 2 Corinthians he speaks of God establishing us in Christ and giving us the Spirit as a first installment (1.21-2). He said to the Galatians that ‘God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, ‘Abba! Father!’ (4.6)” (Oxford, 1208).

    http://144000.110mb.com/trinity/index-4.html#17

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit