Was the Watchtower Right?

by Christ Alone 91 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Christ Alone

  john, what is the correct trinity teaching?

  I'll answer that one, Elephant. The WT states this: "Christendom has copied the heathen, pagan nations of Asia in teaching that God is a trinity, three Gods in one Person." Watchtower 1962 Apr 15 p.235

  However, that has never been the official doctrine of the Christian church. The doctrine of the Trinity is simply this: The Bible calls the Father, God. The Bible calls Jesus, God. And the Bible calls the Holy Spirit, God. They are ALL separate and different PEOPLE or PERSONS. But it also states that there are not 3 gods, but only ONE GOD. Therefore, when the Bible talks about "God", it is speaking of the 3 persons unless otherwise specified.

  This was the doctrine from early times. It was NOT contrived during the council of Nicea. It was believed by the early church Fathers, some of which where alive right after the apostles deaths.

  The problem is that JWs do not know the doctrine of the Trinity because the WT is so concerned with disproving it that they resort to misquoting sources and changing the definition of words in order to prove their point.

  For me personally, I have come to believe in the Trinity. No big shock there, right? When examining the evidence outside of the NWT, I see that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are very clearly called "God" in the Bible.

  However, back to the thread, there are very few things that I personally think that the WT got right. I think they got the soul and Trinity very wrong. I've found that many that still hold on to those teachings did not make it a matter of study outside of the NWT after leaving. But to each their own. I'm tired of telling people "YOU HAVE TO BELIEVE THIS SPECIFIC THING!!!!" I will show people why I believe it, and leave it at that, unless they want to discuss it.

  I guess I feel that there are various PIECES of truth in place of WT theology. I believe we are in the last days. However, I believe that this time period started in 33CE. (Acts 2:17-21) I believe that there will be a cleansed earth, but I believe that will happen after we go to heaven and the earth is cleansed. I believe they are right that the Bible is the perfect and complete Word of God.
• 

  Christ Alone

  Lots of otherwise orthodox Christians think they believe in something like the immortality of the soul, when what they believe in is the resurrection of the body.

  I think that may be a description of how I view the soul. I don't know if the soul is inherently immortal, but the Bible speaks about life after death for both the wicked and the righteous. The Bible uses the word "soul" in several different senses, but it speaks about the consciousness of both the righteous and the wicked after death. The wicked MUST be conscious if they are to experience eternal sadness and the knashing of their teeth. There are several passages that speak about the wicked being alive after the body is killed.

  And yes, JWs do not believe in an actual resurrection. They believe in a RECREATION. God will REMEMBER who you were and RECREATE it exactly. That's how they get around the physical resurrection of Jesus. That's something I think they are VERY wrong about. The Bible very clearly teaches the BODILY resurrection of Jesus.
• 

  Muddy Waters

  Things I presently believe the WTS got right:

  - condition of the dead (they are dead/no immortal soul)

  - no hell fire

  - no trinity

  - Muddy
• 

  Phizzy

  I am a non -believer Muddy, so have no difficulty with the No Hell and the Dead are dead bit, but if one is a believer, a believer that Jesus is the Son of God , how can you dismiss the Trinity doctrine as it has evolved since the first Century ?

  Or, are you a believer who says Jesus was just a man, maybe a great Teacher, but just a man ?

  It kinda has to be one or the other .
• 

  Christ Alone

  how can you dismiss the Trinity doctrine as it has evolved since the first Century ?

  It's interesting because I see so many say that it was not taught in the Bible, but it evolved later. I just can't see that. It seems that the Bible is clear when it calls Jesus "God". Especially John 1:1 and John 20:28 among a TON of others.

  I see that various councils were formed to combat false teachings and to put in stone what the beliefs were, but I don't see them actually CREATING a new doctrine that is not supported by scripture. At least in the case of the Trinity.
• 

  Phizzy

  I probably used the wrong word "evolved" and should have said "as it has been explained". I think many see explicit teaching as to the divinity of Christ in the N.T, even if there is not a verse or two that spells it out as a JW would like it spelled out.

  As to truth of course, the N.T and other "christian" writings cannot be relied upon for that, they are part of the huge Jesus myth.

  So, there cannot be a simple," is the Trinity true or false?" question, any more than you can ask is Hogwarts truly a school, Harry Potter ain't real either.

  So the WT was not right on that one either, they simply, as usual, did not know what they were talking about.
• 

  slimboyfat

  I still think the Watchtower is right to oppose war. It's futile, ideological nonsense and I still want nothing to do with it.
• 

  cofty

  It seems that the Bible is clear when it calls Jesus "God".

  As Leo said the deity of Jesus is not the same as the developed doctrine of the trinity. Bible writers refer to the father as "the God of our Lord Jesus". Modern christians would never use that phrase.
• 

  Sulla

  The JWs don't even believe in resurrection, much less the resurrection of the body. They teach that nothing of the original body is raised again in the resurrection. They go further to deny any sort of continuity between the person who died and the person who is raised. The latter is rather a facsimile of the person who died.

  And there are many Christians who believe in a corporeal resurrection, such as Bishop N. T. Wright.

  Well now I have to explain. I think that a great many regular Christians have a belief about the resurrection that is essentially as the JWs accuse Christendom of teaching: your immortal soul continues on as a spirit. They aren't supposed to, since I don't know of any major Christian religion that fails to hold the resurrection of the body as an article of faith, but I think plenty of Christians have managed to miss this part of the whole thing. I base that on casual conversation with Christians of various traditions as well as an interesting experience teaching religious education to the 9th graders in my parish. Doesn't N.T. Wright have a section in his book about this? Maybe I'm mis-remembering.

  As for what the JWs believe: I don't disagree with you. Continutiy is a huge problem, etc. But I do think that the Jw resurrection of the Other Sheep is pretty close to the idea the Second Temple Jews had and is, in that way, closer to the historical Christian teaching than existence as a spirit (as I assert many Christians sort of believe). Like I said, I was grasping at straws: their teaching is still a mess.
• 

  Sulla

  I think that may be a description of how I view the soul. I don't know if the soul is inherently immortal, but the Bible speaks about life after death for both the wicked and the righteous. The Bible uses the word "soul" in several different senses, but it speaks about the consciousness of both the righteous and the wicked after death. The wicked MUST be conscious if they are to experience eternal sadness and the knashing of their teeth. There are several passages that speak about the wicked being alive after the body is killed.

  Christalone, I was making reference to the creedal statements. What Christians believe in as a matter of dogma is the resurrection of the body. The immortality of the soul is not part of that specific belief. In fact, the nature of the soul with specific reference to the resurrection of the body is an active subject of theological debate. There is even a Catholic theologian who has tried to work out how an entirely materialist "soul" might be consistent with the dogma of the resurrection (without much success, I think).

  I totally agree that the JW's view of what a resurrection must mean with respect to the nature of the human person is nonsense on stilts.