Should You Believe In The Trinity? - Maybe

by dontomas 33 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Leolaia

  A Jew once told me that the Messiah being YHWH is anathema to them.

  Perhaps. So you should appreciate the horror some Jews would have felt to see OT scriptures referring to YHWH being applied to Jesus. There are scores of these in the NT.

  I don't see anything in the OT that says the Messiah was already alive in heaven.

  There are not that many OT scriptures referring to a Messiah-figure per se. But there are various scriptures referring to heavenly Wisdom as being pre-existent or being an extension of God that were applied to Jesus in the earlier Church (e.g. Proverbs 8, Sirach 24, Wisdom 7), and there are various texts in the Gospels and the NT that present Jesus as Wisdom (cf. Matthew 23:33-38 = Luke 11:49-51, 13:34-35). See also how the description of Jesus in Hebrews 1:3 and Colossians 1:15 reflects the wording in Wisdom 7:22-25, and how the wording in John 1:5, 9 reflects Wisdom 7:26, 30.

  People have bastardized John's prologue (the pronoun is neuter, i.e. "it (the LOGOS) created all things"

  I'm not sure what you mean here. The demonstrative pronoun houtos in v. 2 is masculine. The neuter form is touto.

  1 Colossians (which speaks of the new creation, not the creation of the universe).

  No...v. 15 does not refer to creation as an event per se, but it refers to "all creation" as EVERYTHING in the universe that was created, "all things in heaven and on earth, everything visible and everything invisible" (v. 16). The "new creation" is here not in view. Verse 17 also states that he existed BEFORE "all things" existed.
• 

  Hellrider

  Narkissos wrote:

  Nope. Logos is masculine in Greek -- even though an English translation may arguably use the neuter as referring to "the Word," just as many French translations use the feminine (la Parole).

  Is the gender of the nouns relevant? I mean, theologically? Is there a point in the fact that logos is masculine, that this is an argument for logos being Jesus? Just out of curiosity: What gender is "aggelos" (angel/messenger)?
• 

  Narkissos

  Is the gender of the nouns relevant? I mean, theologically?From the translator's standpoint (treating one text synchronically as a self-enclosed unit), no. From the broader standpoint of the history of ideas and representations, certainly it is.

  In Hebrew and Greek "wisdom" (chokhma, sophia) is a feminine noun. Allegorical personification made it a feminine character (Proverbs 8). In Pharisaic Judaism (already in Sirach) it is identified with the equally feminine Torah.

  In Philo the "wisdom" thread is subsumed into the logos theology. This reflects Greek philosophical thinking, and affects further representation. Philo's logos is the Son of God, the unique arkhaggelos (yes aggelos is masculine too). And in early christian theology the incarnation of the logos into a man sounded very natural. This is not so clear when logos is translated as a neuter (the Word) or a feminine (la Parole).

  Half-joking: had the "wisdom" thread persisted in its feminine set of representations perhaps we would have had a Daughter of God instead of a Son.
• 

  Leolaia

  Here is Jesus speaking as feminine Wisdom:

  "Serpents, brood of vipers, how can you escape being condemned to Gehenna? This is why, in my turn, I am sending you prophets and wise men and scribes; some of you will slaughter and crucify , some of you will scourge in your synagogues and hunt from town to town; and so you will draw down on yourselves the blood of every holy man that has been shed on earth, from the blood of Abel and the holy to the blood of Zechariah son of Barachiah whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar. I tell you solemnly, all this will recoil on this generation. Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you that kill the prophets and stone those who are sent to you! How often have I longed to gather your children, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you refused! So be it! Your house will be left to you desolate" (Matthew 23:33-38).

  The parallel in Luke 11:49-51, 13:34-35 attributes this, at least in part, to "the Wisdom of God".
• 

  Hellrider

  Narkissos: Thanks!
• 

  Narkissos

  Re: Leolaia, It's quite interesting indeed that the sophia references are most explicit in Luke which has no logos christology.
• 

  DannyHaszard

  Trinity Quandary & Quantum Theory Danny's deliberations
• 

  M.J.

  Hi and welcome to the forum. I just wanted to add that while you're disillusioned with "Christendom", I'd have to point out that it's a dangerous trick of a propagandist to reduce thinking into black and white terms, i.e, making hasty generalizations. Christian groups cannot all be classified into the same category in the terms you present. You will find, if you do a little searching, that there are plenty of groups out there who are more agreeable to your sensibilities than the ones you have personally witnessed. Plus we ought not place our faith in a group of people per se, because we will always be disappointed. Human nature will always persist...sometimes to a greater or lesser extent, but it will always be there. Its just that SOME groups have enough "muscle" with respect to the minds and actions of their members to force them to uphold a particular image. In such cases the dirty side of things is simply covered up and done in secret, but it still exists!

  I've personally been in churches that seem to be all about emotionalism and very light on sound teaching. Yes, some have rallied around political issues (i.e., abortion). On the other hand I've been to churches that are quite strong in biblical teaching, totally apolitical, etc.

  You might want to check out the story behind the "new and improved" Worldwide Church of God. There's a link to a video named, "Called to be Free" about this church available at http://www.freeminds.org/sales/calledtobefree.htm

  It's a great eye-opening story that I'm sure you would enjoy learning about.
• 

  dontomas

  HI - MJ

  Thanks for the response and to everyone else who put some meaty topics up here for me to read....

  "Christian groups cannot all be classified into the same category in the terms you present. " - OK - Got me. I suppose that my impressions on "Christendom" (which is a poor but subconscious choice of words) are too generalized. FYI I am a Roman Catholic, so...

  " Its just that SOME groups have enough "muscle" with respect to the minds and actions of their members to force them to uphold a particular image. In such cases the dirty side of things is simply covered up and done in secret, but it still exists!"

  Is pretty applicable and have made me really dissapointed sometimes, especially when my church goes to the palmy forces of the world to protect its money and influence, which it is doing lately.

  On research though, it seems that Watchtower is engaged in doing exactly the same. I was really disappointed to find this out. That along with its faulty beliefs on numerous topics have pretty much pushed me away at this point. Does not make me dislike JWs, though. There are a lot of individual ones who are walking the walk that I know, like this Elder.

  I have learned much as a result of this query.

  God Bless

  Don Tomas
• 

  M.J.

  I hear you regarding the JWs. I really do love one of them--she's my wife.

  The main difference between this religion and some other churches, I feel is that this is set up to be a kind of a 12 step program (without advertising itself as such). Its a corporate-American creation with books, tapes, "seminars", etc., following a conversion "technology" that packages God, his message, and his work on earth into a fine-tuned business model under direction of the Governing Body. (the completion of a revision to their corporate charter in the 1940s even fulfilled Daniel's prophecy of the 70 weeks, so they say) Following the program takes commitment and dedication. Those who can't hack it either don't join or are weeded out. Those who do join more than likely posess and demonstrate the admirable qualities that naturally come from the total buy-in the program requires of its members. Wrapped in this is the carrot--that paradise is the reward for those who acheive the program goals. On the other hand, death would certainly result for those who drop out.

  One has to sit back and wonder, is submitting ones self to such a program really what was intended by God?

  Sure, any strict program provides the external motivation to whip anyone into shape. I think of a wayward teen that joins the Marines for some direction. Or the poor overweight kid that goes to the "fat farm" for the summer (or does that just happen on TV?). But does this necessarily point to a work of God, or are such things more man's measures of success? Would a transformation based on external pressures, in particular, the pressure to re-configure your own mind, necessarily point to a spiritual transformation? Or does the Spirit transform from within?

  Sorry for the rambling. Just some random thoughts.