by Michael842 39 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Mustang,
The Old Testament is stained with the blood of those killed in the name of God (pre-Trinitarians). That, however, doesn't prevent some people from continuing to believe in God and remaining pacifists (Quakers, Mennonites, Amish, Church of the Brethren and some even in the mainline churches). While you may point to the Inquisition, others can point to groups like Francis of Assisi and the Franciscans.
Problem is, Trinitarians don't know what the Trinity is. The statement was made, "Jesus is Jehovah." Not according to purist Trinitarians I have spoken to. They insist that the Father is not the Son.
Those who want to believe in the Trinity will do so. Die-hard Arians like myself will opt for strict Monotheism: One God, with everyone and everything else subordinated.
All the argumentation in the world is not likely to change anyone's mind, so why bother? The Bible, depending on interpretation, can be made to support either side.
?All the argumentation in the world is not likely to change anyone's mind, so why bother? The Bible, depending on interpretation, can be made to support either side.?
Quite so!!!
And the thought that there was bloodshed in God?s name before the NT, doesn?t help matters either.
This heightens two thoughts:
That the tRINITY was a CREATION OF MAN, since it was not seen BEFORE the NT. (This excludes the various pagan trinities that are frequently mentioned; those are another story & not relevant to this particular discussion.) The development of the tRINITY followed the attentions brought to bear on Jesus.
And speaking of Jesus, he taught love and abstaining from killing. Jesus put aside the old Law & Covenant from those days. This heightens the view of the rift between the OT & the NT. This does not do Bible unity any good. It begs the question: who was this God of the OT, contrasting himself to Jesus and the NT??
Also, killing in the OT is a distraction or ?red herring? type of argument.
On St. Francis:
The existence of a man of peace and poverty doesn?t not excuse the use of bloodshed and such non Christian acts. That is a distraction or ?red herring? type of argument.
BTW, St. Francis was a man of arms in his early days.
An additional thought: where is the doctrine named and required in the Bible? I study law and am quite literal. I don?t find mention of the tRINITY in the Bible. If it is required for salvation, God shall have to spell it out EXPLICITLY and personally, not by the word of some self-serving priest.
THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR THE UNCHRISTIAN ACTS OF KILLING DONE IN THE NAME OF THE tRINITY.
Mustang
LT:
Can you comment on the absence of this name in the LXX?
Isaiah 9:5[= MT 6} reads as follows in the LXX:
For a child is born to us, a son was given to us; the rule came upon his shoulder and his name is called Messenger (= Angel) of Great Counsel. For I will bring peace to the rulers, peace and health to him.
One common explanation for this is that the Hellenistic Judaism of the Egyptian diaspora, as reflected in the LXX (but also in Philo), is not quite so much interested in eschatology and messianism (implying prediction of salvific events and individual[s] at the supposed "end of history") as Palestinian Judaism is. To Alexandrine Judaism, what really matters is the translation of Jewish heritage in universal and non-temporal moral terms. Hence the emphasis falls neither on the description of a future Savior (as in Palestinian Judaism) nor on the original meaning of the text (implying an expected Savior in Isaiah's time, which would be the main interest of modern exegesis). Rather, what matters to the LXX translator is the moral action of God on rulers at any time.
Problem is, Trinitarians don't know what the Trinity is. The statement was made, "Jesus is Jehovah." Not according to purist Trinitarians I have spoken to. They insist that the Father is not the Son.
While Trinitarains believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, are disctinct persons, we also believe that they are all Jehovah.
Those who want to believe in the Trinity will do so. Die-hard Arians like myself will opt for strict Monotheism: One God, with everyone and everything else subordinated.
The Trinity teaches that there is only one true God by nature, so it is just as monotheistic as any other monotheistic doctrine.
Mustang,
I'm not trying to justify the Inquisition. It was wrong and I do not approve of it. I'm just saying that in the midst of all this folly there were those who came to abhor violence and continued to believe in God. You correctly point out that St. Francis was not a peacemaker before his conversion. But when he did change thousands of others followed suit and laid down their arms; they call themselves Franciscans and exist even until this day.
Narkissos:
Thanks for that.
Kenneson,
I recognize what you say. I found several interesting points from your observations. You have heightened the dichotomy between the OT & the NT with your observations.
Personally, I no longer disagree with military action: it is frequently necessary. And there is a time and place for such action. Also, there is a proper authority for military action. In actuality, the Church never really had such authority.
A study of this thought is quite revealing.
One thing that all should have learned from the Bible is that violence and military action in the name of God is not proper. Certainly Jesus brought this point out to Peter in his last hours on earth.
Again, the dichotomy of the OT & the NT shouts a message J J
I realize that you do not approve of the Inquisition. No proper follower of the Bible should.
But there is bloodguilt on the hands of the promoters of the tRINITY. My ancestors and thousands of others attest to this.
No amount of alms, self-sacrifice, acts of contrition and other attempts at penitence can reverse this.
This bloodguilt casts doubt on the validity of the doctrine.
Mustang
The jw's attempt at explaining that scripture is by saying jehovah is our "Grandfather" and jesus is our "father".
Not sure what publication that was in, I believe the "prince of peace" publication. Anyway sounds pretty lame to me.
