Paul's rationale... (page 2)

Londo111

InChristAlone: Alas, only too well. Which handle are you over there?

Jesus was 'Given' all authority, and when Jesus was baptised they heard a voice say 'this is the one I approve listen to him'. These are just two of many that seem to make a distinction between the two so not a trinity. But they also say that Jah has given over to his son all power and authority so he (Jesus) is our King and Mediator and its his ball of wax now. He is Jah's ambassador to earth with the Emperor's Seal to prove it, and since their in unity it all works. jmo

MrFreeze

A discussion with JW's about the Trinity is pointless. When I was a JW me and another person were invited in to a house to talk to a guy about the Trinity. He showed us scripture after scripture pointing to it. We showed them scripture after scripture refuting it. Eventually the wife told her husband to give up.

designs

Judaism and Christian Trinitarianism are incompatible and every attempt by NT writers to confiscate OT passages to their doctrine are sophistry.

The Book Of Jewish Knowledge by Ausubel

Londo111

MrFreeze brings up a good point. For a JW, the Trinity is Doctrinal Enemy #1. It is not their fault, it’s just how the indoctrination rolls. One of the best things is to find some common ground with their position. As Paul said, “Become all things to all people.” Find areas of agreement.

But if I was to share something doctrinally with a JW, the Deity of Christ is such a touchy subject, I would focus on areas more unique to JW theology.

Crazyguy

I think the trinity is irrelevant to God, he and his son are in union. If it were a big deal to him either way there would have been more specifics written in the bible.

NeverKnew

These are just two of many that seem to make a distinction between the two so not a trinity.

Hmm... are you telling me that that's the reasoning? Otherwise, I'm not clear on the statement. The Trinity does not deny a distinction between the Father and Son.

I had a heck of a time in a discussion about the Sodom and Gomorrah story some time ago. In order to explain the story, my jw friends were adamant that the passage meant for me to understand that the "Lord" depicted in the passage was actually "a representative of the Lord." I asked if there was a way to understand this passage without adding this "intended meaning" and was told "of course not!"

Then I asked why God's inspired messenger repeatedly missed opportunities to include that in chapters 18 and 19... The response was because the answer should be obvious since no one has ever seen God.

*sigh* ok

My goal is not to argue the existence or non-existence of a Trinity. When I read the Bible leveraging the Trinitarian lense, the Bible in it's entirety makes sense. Without it, it seems like there are these hanging chads. It's okay to have a perspective that's different. In the interest of understanding the perspective, I just want to know what one does with the chad.

I've gotten used to this site, but I will definitely check out the other site.

Hi, Mr. Freeze! :)

Londo111

The Watchtower argument is more geared towards defeating Modalism, not the Trinity.

For instance, if Jesus was God, who did he pray to? With Modalism that makes no sense, however, if the Son is a distinct person from the Father, that makes perfect sense.

Crazyguy

Jesus never took credit for himself and always referred everything to his father even prayer. Also If Jesus was God or part of God then Satan would have never tempted him they way he did when jesus was in the wilderness 40 days. The Hebrews were monotheists, but around them were many nations that were into trinities. Just a study of history alone, one can see how and why the trinity became part of the christian ideas later on after christ died. It makes sense to me that Jah was the [man] before Jesus, then when Jesus came Jah gave the whole mess to his son. 'This is the one I approve listen to him'

Londo111

That was certainly the arguement of Adoptionism.

Keep in mind it is Modalism that argues that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three modes of one person. That Jesus is the Father in the flesh. That would make no sense then, for Jesus to pray to anyone.

However, that is not Trinitarian doctrine. In the Trinity, the Father is a Person. The Son is a Person. They are both Divine in nature, but seperate persons. Although they are equal in nature, as a human son is equal in nature to his human father, the Father is greater than the Son in position, just as in a human household, the human father is greater in position than his son. The Father has his own mind. The Son has his own mind. Therefore, the Son (a seperate person) could pray to his God and Father (a seperate person).

It is clear from Hebrews 1 that Jesus wasn't an angel in his prehuman existance. In fact, verses 10-12 equate the Son to YHWH in Psalm 102.

Paul's rationale...

Share this