Trinity?!?!

by Lynne Y 31 Replies latest jw experiences

• 

  Etude

  Big Dog:

  The problem I have with the last 1/3 is what is ascribed to it. What I have read in the Bible tells me that there's a marked difference, one that belies the claim that a Godhead is composed of three omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent beings, what the Trinity is by the accepted definition. Don't think for a minute that I'm towing the Dub's line. My conclusion, doesn't negate that Christ should be revered and even worshiped as a God, if you should choose and it doesn't support it either. However, whether you choose that or not, it doesn't make him part of Trinity, as the concept goes. It only makes him another God if you choose to worship him as such. Besides, like I said before, the idea of a trinity is old hat. Why would so-called "Pagan" religions originate that concept? Could it be that the Godhead itself imparted it to them and they are right all along? In that case, we should start looking elsewhere, to the pagan religions, for truth.

  I really don't care one way or another. I can come to terms quite easily with what God is or is not. The gist of my sentences, and in spite of the things I have proposed should in no way make anyone conclude that whatever I have said supports or rejects the idea of a Trinity. I'm simply making arguments that may make someone else think and ask the right questions of him or herself. There's too much missing or contradictory information to come to a quick conclusion. Each individual would have embark on his own journey and eventual conclusion. This place is not a bad place to start. So far, it's been quite an active and stimulating exchange.

  Etude.
• 

  Etude

  the_classicist :

  Well, if you take the Bible as it is accepted today, I'm sure that you would find somewhere within it's pages that it is a "two-edged sword", capable of discerning. . . etc, etc. There are also many claims in it about how true the "Word of God" is, whatever that may be. I understand that other people (in particular, the Catholic Church) made the decision for us as to what the "Bible" would consist of. Therefore, by no means am I suggesting that it's an infallible book. I'm not denying it either.

  What I was suggesting in the words that you cited from my previous message is that we could assume (assume being the key word) the Bible to be infallible, simply as a place to start. That by no means suggest a conclusion. It's simply a point of reference. Contrary to the popular gist, it does not make and ASS our of U and ME. Assuming (a premise) is what scientist sometimes do in order to prove a point or arrive at an end. You could just as easily assume the opposite and proceed with the same process by putting it under scrutiny with whatever internal or external evidence there is. In other words, you could assume that all of the Bible is false and go from there to see how well it holds under evidence.

  I realize that for some individuals, the very thought of proceeding as I last suggested is almost blasphemous. I'm aware of such sensitivities. That's why I suggested the opposite first. I'm just trying to take a neutral (more objective, less subjective) stance and not come up with an answer to the question but a process that will make someone genuinely think. Sorry if I confused the issue.

  Etude.
• 

  jwsons

  One side is all the tradition churches believe in Trinity (with whatever definitons) and the other side with some non-Trinity (Christadelphians, Universalism, then latter Jehovah's Witnesses). Whoever believes in Trinity supplies very few Scriptures proofs. Jehovah's Witnesses, because of believing in Non-Trinity, also have to struggle with many "go-around" explanations in verses at the back of their New World Translation. Sometimes I think: "Why should they believe in Non-Trinity to get more trouble in no-ending explanations about bias translations in their Bible verses. Why ?" I still believe there is no Trinity in Bible, but I can not accept the New Worls Translations Appendix about how they translated "Trinity verses." Those bias translatings is unacceptable (verses like 1Pet 3:15 directly quote from Issaiah 8:13 hurts me a lots--even NWT ref ed. admitted it is quoted from Issaih,or read from Barnes' "Notes on the NT", by Albert Barnes Vol X p.169, this series is the one of the sucking tit which Brooklyn used to suck from Babylon The Great harlot' tits as mentioned by Ray Franz. For me, it is matter of your conscience. Even Jesus' disciples directly communicatees with him, but Jesus even said "some can not explain to you [disciples]." How can F&D slave (as JWs claim themselves) explains it even clearer than what Jesus did give up ?(It does not mean he can not but just because our human being limitations)---jwsons
• 

  jwsons

  One side is all the tradition churches believe in Trinity (with whatever definitons) and the other side with some non-Trinity (Christadelphians, Universalism, then latter Jehovah's Witnesses). Whoever believes in Trinity supplies very few Scriptures proofs. Jehovah's Witnesses, because of believing in Non-Trinity, also have to struggle with many "go-around" explanations in verses at the back of their New World Translation. Sometimes I think: "Why should they believe in Non-Trinity to get more trouble in no-ending explanations about bias translations in their Bible verses. Why ?" I still believe there is no Trinity in Bible, but I can not accept the New World Translations Appendix about how they translated "Trinity verses." Those bias translatings is unacceptable (verses like 1Pet 3:15 directly quote from Issaiah 8:13 hurts me a lots--even NWT ref ed. admitted it is quoted from Issaih,or read from Barnes' "Notes on the NT", by Albert Barnes Vol X p.169, this series is the one of the sucking tit which Brooklyn used to suck from Babylon The Great harlot' tits as mentioned by Ray Franz. For me, it is matter of your conscience. Even Jesus' disciples directly communicatees with him, but Jesus even said "some can not explain to you [disciples]." How can F&D slave (as JWs claim themselves) explains it even clearer than what Jesus did give up ?(It does not mean he can not but just because our human being limitations)---jwsons
• 

  greendawn

  The books of the New Testament were written almost 2000 years ago and the originals got lost our copies are sourced from copies of copies made centuries after the originals were written. Perhaps mistakes or bogus additions were made in the production of copies, and no doubt a lot perhaps most of the apostolic writings never came to us.
  
  The knowledge we have is only a fraction of that which existed in the apostolic church with the apostles having witnessed much more that Christ said than was ever committed to writing. Then there were many other inspired prophets and teachers.
  
  The Trinity doesn't agree with the overall picture of the New Testament because the Christ is presented as someone who had to suffer to acquire divine status he had to pay a price for it, and it doesn't fit reason that God himself would have to do so since all authority is his anyway. "Conquer and I will grant you to sit on my throne just as I conquered and sat on my Father's throne"
• 

  Justin

  The Trinity doctrine is "put together" from various Bible verses, similar to the way that JW beliefs such as Gentile Times and no blood transfusions are "put together." So I find that the Trinity can be derived from Scripture, and I'm comfortable with the end result - especially with the earlier versions of the doctrine. But I find that I cannot go back into the Bible and think as a trinitarian within the Biblical context itself - in other words, I can get the Trinity out of the Bible and then it stands on its own, but I cannot take it back into the Bible.

  When I say I am comfortable with an earlier version of the Trinity, I mean just that - an earlier version because the doctrine has undergone various modifications historically. The doctrine which was accepted at the Council of Nicea was not what it later came to be. The Fathers were concerned that the Son was begotten of the Father, not created as Arius claimed. But later trinitarians claimed that each Person of the Trinity is equivalent to the Trinity as such. This is where the belief becomes more paradoxical and to me is further from the Bible.

  JW arguments against the Trinity are usually proofs that the Son is not the Father, but trinitarianism when properly understood also teaches this. Unfortunately, much popular trinitarianism is a compromise with modalism (the thought that one Person has appeared in three different modes), and JWs take full advantage of this, although the idea was considered just as heretical by the Church Fathers as Arianism was.

  Reading C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity, with its chapter on the Trinity, may help. Also, When Jesus Became God by Richard E. Rubenstein explains the further development of the doctrine after Nicea, though I think Rubenstein relies too heavily on scholars who think that Arius did not even believe Jesus had a prehuman existence.
• 

  greendawn

  I don't know why we don't just take words at their face value instead of trying to beat so much about the bush, why should the words father, son, creation, greater, be given an unusual meaning didn't the authors of the scriptures mean them to be understood literally and if not why didn't they explain them or try some less ambiguous terms?
  
  There is a lot of complication where simplicity would do fine.
• 

  LittleToe

  The difficulty surrounds the concept that there is only one "God".

  To make that fit you need to do a theological fandango
• 

  jwfacts

  Etude,
  
  Pagans did not originate the Trinity. In fact Pagans generally do not have a Trinity. They may group Gods in threes, but not in the same way that is done by the Christian concept of 3 persons but only one God. Even if some do have a trinitarian concept similar to Christians does not make it wrong or right. Pagans and Christians share many concepts. The law of love is in virtually all religions. Karma equates to bible principles such as 'throw your bread on the water and it will come back'. Going to paradise, heaven etc etc. If God is a Trinity then pagans are copying God, Satan knows the true nature of God, and could imitate him into other religions.
  
  My point is, many of those types of arguments against the trinity are irrelavant. It doesnt matter what the Jews believed. It doesn't matter what the history of the teaching is. For a person that believes the bible the question should be 'what does the bible say' about the nature of God. To me it keeps coming back to the same conclusion - We must have only one God, yet Jesus is plainly called God, clearly is worshipped and was prayed to. If Jesus is not Jehovah than Christians were breaking the most important law of the Jews, to have no other God than Jehovah.
• 

  Etude

  jwfacts:

  Sorry mate, but the pagan origins of Trinities are well established. I agree that the concept may have recently changed (i.e. Father, Son, Holy Spirit as one godhead), but that only indicates that this concept is relatively new (no earlier than 3rd century C.E.) and that it's not explicitly mentioned in the Bible.

  The fact that pagan deities are mentioned as triads is indicative of the idea of a trinity. However, notice the following, more explicit quotes:

  • The Hindu trinity is of Brahma , Vishnu and Shiva. They are respectively the creator, preserver and destroyer of the universe. They are also aligned as the transcendent Godhead, Shiva , the cosmic lord, Vishnu and the cosmic mind, Brahma. In this regard they are called Sat-Tat-Aum, the Being, the Thatness or immanence and the Word or holy spirit. This is much like the Christian trinity of God as the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. The trinity represents the Divine in its threefold nature and function. Each aspect of the trinity contains and includes the others.
  • Each God in the trinity has his consort. To Brahma is Saraswati , the Goddess of knowledge. For Vishnu is Lakshmi , the Goddess of love, beauty and delight. For Shiva is Kali ( Parvati ) , the Goddess of power, destruction and transformation. These are the three main forms of the Goddess, as Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva are the three main forms of the God. The three Goddesses are often worshipped in their own right as well as along with their spouses.
  • Based on Dr. David Frawley, From River the of Heaven

  http://www.hindunet.org/god/trinity/

  Here are excerpts from another document. I've taken them out of context in order to save space here. However, you can refer to the entire document yourself:

  "Brahma, Vishnu and Mahesa constitute the trinity of Hinduism. Brahma is the creator . . ."

  "In the Vedas we do not find any reference to the concept of Trinity. During the Rigvedic period, Vishnu was a minor solar deity, while Siva was almost unknown."

  "It is quite possible that the concept of Trinity was not a Vedic concept but a native Indian concept, and probably with some minor modifications and name transference, especially in case of Brahma and Vishnu, it was assimilated into the Indian religious tradition. It is now well established beyond doubt that the subcontinent had a rich religious tradition of its own spanning over at least two millenniums by the time the Vedic Aryans came to India and settled in the north."

  "The gods of Trinity are not different gods, but manifestations of the same Supreme Iswara, who is also known as the Saguna Brahman or the awakened or dynamic Brahman."

  "To the question whether these gods are different, the answer is both yes and no." http://hinduwebsite.com/hinduism/hindutrinity.htm

  The last citation is so exactly like what I learned about the Holy Trinity in Catechism (I was raised Catholic) that I could almost think both traditions were taken from the same "book". Mind you, I only did a cursory search to find what I have just quoted. I've seen more but don't ask you to take my word for it. I'm sure you can find it.

  I agree that there are similarities in religion (Karma and "casting your bread"). However, that is not unusual. After all there are human attributes that bind us together. That's why many civil laws we hold today have their roots in the Code of Hammurabi (18th century B.C.E.). By the way, the concept of "Hell" is also ancient and hence parallel to what most Christian denominations believe today.

  It DOES "matter what the Jews believed". It DOES "matter what the history of the teaching is." It's been said: "Those who ignore history are bound to repeat it." Me? I like to know where we've been so that I can have an idea where we're going. As to your statement: "the question should be 'what does the bible say'", the problem is that the Bible does not say much about the subject (one godhead) and whatever else it does say can confuse some honest individuals and puzzle genuine investigators. Belief in the Bible is not a requirement for understanding it, it may be a requirement for accepting all that it says. Scholars have been at it for many years and they don't necessarily believe in it, yet provide for us learned commentaries. In fact, it seems to me that to take a neutral view of it may help in order to not jump to conclusions.

  "If Jesus is not Jehovah than [I think you meant to say ", then"] Christians were breaking the most important law of the Jews, to have no other God than Jehovah."

  You would be right if you assume that Jesus was someone to be worshiped. That's were the Bible may contradict you. There are many Bible texts that show that Jesus directed his disciples to worship God and not him. He also prayed to God. Was he praying to himself? Hmmm . . .

  Does all this add to the confusion? No worries, mate. The truth is out there. If one is intellectually honest with him or herself, one will discover it. I tend to see the glass as half empty because for many years the Jehovah's Witnesses kept telling me it was half-full, when in actuality it was nearly empty. I call that progress. Don't you?

  Etude.