Trinity pot calling the Yahwist kettle black

by QC 7 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • QC
    QC
    From where does the most devastating indictment again JWs come? It's their paper trail. Calling themselves Jehovah's Witnesses does not track back to 1 st century Christianity. Thousands of original language manuscripts show positively that there is no evidence that Jesus and 1 st century Christians used a Jehovah moniker. They did not feature the name Jehovah in everyday speech. Jesus making God's name known refers to reputation (Jn 17:26) . How do we know? Although God's icon name does not appear in the text, God name is a focus. So icon name logically defaults to reputation name. Proposing a Jehovah's Witness identity based on a "Ye are my witnesses" (43:10) + "cloud of witnesses" (He 12:1) argument is tortured scriptural reasoning, a reach too far. So, why is God's proper name not featured in the Greek text? Great question, there is an answer.

    Trinitarians also have a paper trail problem. 1 st century Christians did not believe in a Trinity doctrine. One God divisible by a "holy three" entities is inconceivable to Christian JEWS educated in Judaism. And, there are no 1 st CENTURY Jewish Christian polemic signature writings arguing for an ineffable mysterious "coequal gods oneness" theology. Written language articulating that idea began arriving in the 4 th CENTURY.
    We know what happens in Christianity when legitimate change comes. The issue of circumcision illustrates this. Judaizers, objectors to ending circumcision, (Ga 2:14) force a cause celebre public debate to be heard by Jewish Christian pillars, apostles and elders. These JEWISH Christians accountable for the foundation of Christianity resolve the circumcision issue by ending it. This foundational change comes early in Christianity's development. Most certainly, any other fundamental foundation change (like Trinity theology) would be given the same cause celebre attention early in Christianity's development. Absence of an early polemic signature writings and public debate speaks volumes about the illegitimacy of the Trinity doctrine. The OFFICIAL WRITTEN CREEDS expressing triune ideas start hitting the planet during political battles amongst Catholic clerics in 325CE at the synod in Nicaea, Asia Minor.
    Just as JWs can't force the name Jehovah into the Greek text to bolster their Yahwist religious fantasy, Trinitarians can't force tritheism into the Greek text to bolster their religious triune fantasy. Both beliefs are ideological inventions by men. Trinitarians are disciples of Athanasius, JWs are disciples of Rutherford. TIMING of each historic narrative debunks their claims to legitimacy.

    Finding pure Christianity is not difficult. We have the tools to figure these matters out.

    Where is Recovery (aka Still Recovery) when we need him? I do agree with his take on Rv 7. The setting is earth.

  • Theocratic Sedition
    Theocratic Sedition

    Very, very good post. I look forward to the responses from Trinitarians. We've been due for a good Arianism vs. Athanasian thread for a while.

  • Satanus
    Satanus

    I'm not trinitarian or christian. However, i'm curious about what you do w john1:1.

    S

  • Leolaia
    Leolaia
    Trinitarians also have a paper trail problem. 1st century Christians did not believe in a Trinity doctrine.

    Yes.

    One God divisible by a "holy three" entities is inconceivable to Christian JEWS educated in Judaism.

    I don't think so, not quite inconceivable.

    Judaism wasn't any one single monolithic thing. Christianity drew on streams of Judaism that conceptualized of a hypostasized second power, whether as God's word (memra/logos), glory, presence, voice, wisdom, spirit, etc. By the early second century this became a big controversy in rabbinical Judaism, the "two powers in heaven" heresy. The Christian binitarian view became heretical in proto-orthodox Judaism, where it was termed the "two powers" heresy. The non-hypostatisized monotheistic view normative in proto-orthodox Judaism, meanwhile, became heretical in Christianity, where it was called "modalism".

    And, there are no 1st CENTURY Jewish Christian polemic signature writings arguing for an ineffable mysterious "coequal gods oneness" theology. Written language articulating that idea began arriving in the 4th CENTURY.

    Umm, "coequal gods oneness" combines different concepts together, and I would say it doesn't represent 3rd/4th/5th/etc. century trinitarianism either (which did not conceive of seperate "gods"). Co-equality was a later development, but there was most definitely trinitarian language in place by the late second century (and non-theoretical triadic language much earlier).

  • EntirelyPossible
    EntirelyPossible

    First century christians beleived all sorts of things, like that Jesus never died, never rose from the dead, in the trinity, not in the trinity, etc.

  • glenster
    glenster

    What I have on the mainstream stance vs. the GB mischaracterization of it is at
    the next links:
    http://glenster1.webs.com/gtjbrooklyn6b.htm
    http://glenster1.webs.com/gtjbrooklyn7.htm
    http://glenster1.webs.com/gtjbrooklyn8.htm
    http://glenster1.webs.com/gtjbrooklyn9.htm
    http://glenster1.webs.com/gtjbrooklyn10.htm

    Larry Hurtado makes the case that prayer and worship in the devotional practice
    of 1st cent. Jewish monotheism were reserved for God alone (not through a lesser
    god), and Christians reserved them for God and Jesus.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binitarianism#Scholarly_views_of_early_Christian_theology
    http://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2012/09/10/binitarian-dyadic-triadic-early-christian-god-talk-and-devotion/

    The material for the mainstream holy spirit stance is debated. It could be
    taken as related to Jesus as in the OT spirit is related to God. The mainsteam
    stance sees the NT spirit referred to as personal and nothing requiring that to
    be poetic personification about something impersonal, and that the NT has a
    triadic relationship of Father, Son, and Spirit.
    http://books.google.com/books?id=KLi5NLU3kAAC&printsec=frontcover&dq=larry+hurtado+God+in+New+Testament+Theology.&source=bl&ots=nPo_NHn_R6&sig=WyXfEhxX8shQoUVnZqi7g1JrSlI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=LqOCUKmuLoaC8AT1kYDICg&ved=0CC8QuwUwAA
    http://www.amazon.com/God-Testament-Theology-Library-Biblical/dp/0687465451

  • yadda yadda 2
    yadda yadda 2

    I basically agree with you.

    While it was commendable for the Watchtower Society to restore the divine name in the OT in their NWT, their translation committee clearly took liberties with the NT by inserting Jehovah where, in all likelihood, it never existed in the first place. But even in about 140 or so places out of the 237 instances where they did replace kyrios (Lord) or Theos (God) with Jehovah in the NT, you could argue that Jehovah is just a surrogate for the Father, since in those instances there is no ambiguity and the identity is clearly not Jesus. As far as their name 'Jehovah's Witnesses' goes, I see no problem with the title if one takes the view that Jehovah as simply a surrogate for the Father in the NT; however, the name does hark back too much to the OT and they would have been better calling themselvs "Jehovah's Christian Witnesses" or similar.

    On the other hand, Trinitarian copyists (or early versions of them) fiddled the NT to support a high Christology, and nearly all modern Bibles have unjustifiably removed the divine name from the OT where it absolutely has a textual right to exist. The popular NIV for example, does not even render the divine name in capitalised letters as (LORD) in the OT where the tetragrammaton originally occurs; this kind of thing arguably contributes to the modern re-emergence of modalism, such as the heretical belief that Jesus was YHWH of the OT incarnate. The corruption of the Septuagint in removing the divine name and replacing it mostly with Lord (Kyrios) didn't help either, since Paul clearly identified Jesus as the Lord of Christians.

    The JW's have simply tried to 'correct' this trinitarian imbalance but unfortunately they have overcorrected a bit.

    Both groups are rather guilty of doing the same thing but to achieve opposite theological agendas, which seems to be the point you're making.

  • itsibitsybrainbutbigenoughtosmellarat
    itsibitsybrainbutbigenoughtosmellarat

    Suggested reading for all of you on the subject is by

    Anthony Buzzard and Charles E. Hunting on the subject of

    The Doctrine of the Trinity Christianity's Self Inflicted Wound.

    Powerful argumentation although counter mainstream.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit