Was the Watchtower Right?

by Christ Alone 91 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Theocratic Sedition
    Theocratic Sedition

    I think they got the trinity right, and theres been some very good trinity threads on here where compelling arguments have been made. None were sufficient enough to sway me.

    The condition of the dead and by extention the lack of a burning hell I believe they got right. Ditto on Pergatory.

    As far as Jesus being an angel, spirit creature, etc., I dont think its wrong to say he was an angel, no more than saying Satan was. I will say that the evidence the WT uses to say he was Michael isnt as substantial as they'd like to believe.

  • Theocratic Sedition
    Theocratic Sedition

    The Jews no longer being God's exclusive people is something else I think they got right.

  • sabastious
    sabastious
    Yes, the trinity is post-biblical.

    Are you saying that none of the Gospel writers believed in a tri God in any form? How do you explain Matthew 28: 19, 20 then?

    -Sab

  • cofty
    cofty

    I don't want to turn this into a trinity debate Sab but yes I'm saying no bible writer would recognise the trinity doctrine.

  • John_Mann
    John_Mann

    It's very hard to get a unique conclusion only having the sola scriptura thing.

    The bible it's not a self consistent book so we can get several views on it.

    In a book full of contradictions what can we take as criteria? The majority of texts about something? Like what? Up to 50% of texts that say something wins the other texts that says the opposite?

    I think (as an atheist) the catholics have the right thing in consider the bible just as a PART of the whole christianism.

    No one can take anything out the bible but nonsense.

  • cofty
    cofty

    Good point John_Mann. The mistake evangelicals make is to try to read consistent theology into a library of books written by diverse humans with conflicting beliefs.

  • John_Mann
    John_Mann

    But in relation to trinity I can say I'm an trinitarian atheist. LOL

    I think the trinity it's a superior philosophical concept, and seems to me the unitarians never gets the trinity concept right. The WT does not talk about the mainstream trinity doctrine but always build a strawman from it.

    The trinity doctrine it's not what the WT says.

  • sabastious
    sabastious
    I don't want to turn this into a trinity debate Sab but yes I'm saying no bible writer would recognise the trinity doctrine.

    It seems you are right, I found a good article on it. It's actually likely that the original manuscripts didn't mention the triune formula at all, but were added to support the then new trinity doctrine. However, after reading the article it remains apparent to me that there is a triune formula in the Biblical narrative that wasn't well established in the doctrine of the day.

    First, where Matthew 28:19 is concerned, it is clear that Jesus is not telling the disciples what to say, but what to do. They were to go and make disciples, baptizing them because of and into the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. It may well be that this speaks of only one name, as even some Trinitarians suggest. That is because Father, Son, and Holy Ghost can be understood as one name, not three, speaking of God as we understand, perceive, and experience Him: as the Father, in the Son, and through the Holy Ghost. Some churches understand and apply this truth by saying,"I now baptize you in the name of Jesus Christ, who brings you to His Heavenly Father, who graciously gives you the Holy Ghost." From Matthew's perspective, Jesus is commanding His disciples to go and baptize new disciples with an understanding of the spiritual dynamic that this example captures. We all come to God at the foot of the Cross. The broken body and shed blood of Jesus is the only way any of us can approach the Father; Jesus said so Himself:

    "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." (John 14:6)

    And when we come back into fellowship with God the Father through Jesus Christ His Son, we can expect with full faith the promised gift of the Holy Ghost:

    "Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear." (Acts 2:33,39)

    Regarding Luke 24:45-47, it would seem that Luke remains focused on the function of baptism, i.e. remission of sins, and the focus of baptism, i.e. the atoning work of Jesus Himself on the Cross. This theme is what is emphasized throughout the book of Acts, as well as in the many references to baptism in the Epistles:

    "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." (Acts 2:38)

    "Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life." (Romans 6:4)

    "For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ." (Galatians 3:27) and others.

    Many of the events and teaching of Jesus are repeated in two, three and sometimes all four of the Gospel records. And while the Bible does not contradict itself, it often reveals very different perspectives based on the writer, the audience, and the leading of the Holy Spirit. We would do well not to try and discredit one version in order to approve of another.

    -Sab

  • transhuman68
    transhuman68

    The Watchtower has got nothing right. The Bible is a book about the history of two religions- Judaism & Christianity. It is not a text book, or a rule book, or a manual for living.

  • Leolaia
    Leolaia

    I think what they write about the trinity is really slanted and oversimplified. Yes, it is a post-biblical development, but belief in the deity of Christ was early and economical trinitarianism developed in the second century AD (way before the time of Constantine). The Society's discussions about the trinity are usually filled with conflations and red herrings like.....confusing the issue of the deity of Christ with the trinity (e.g. characterizing the deity of Christ as itself inherently trinitarian), considering the distinguishing of the Father and the Son as anti-trinitarian, treating subordinationism as something antithetical to trinitarianism (early conceptions of the trinity were very much subordinationist, and there is a difference between subordination in role vs. nature), regarding the trinity as a mere plurality of gods added together, etc. The omissions of fact when they discuss the early church fathers are considerable. They also present Arianism as defending Bible truth and trinitarianism as corrupted by Greek philosophy, without pointing out that Arianism drew on Greek philosophy just as much as trinitarianism.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit