Posts by link

287

All About The Trinity

by UnDisfellowshipped in

when jesus was about to die, he showed who his superior was by praying: "father, if you wish, remove this cup from me.

the one god is eternal (has always existed and always will), immortal (his divine nature cannot die), omnipotent (all-powerful), omniscient (all-knowing), omnipresent (he is everywhere at the same time), god is the only one who can read human hearts and minds, god cannot sin and cannot lie, god does not change his morals or his nature.

the trinity is not one person revealed three different ways (this is what "oneness pentecostals" believe).

link

Sorry, there is a bit of cross-posting going on here.

LT hit the jackpot with the last sentence of his last post.

One popular misconception (again IMHO) is that Heb.4:12 only refers to the written "word", AKA the bible, rather than the "Word", or Christ. I'll leave you to make the connection.

Once you open your mind and accept that there can be misconceptions caused by the use of language, the Bible becomes a whole new book. LT uses the prime example of Heb 4.12 but there are countless other areas in which the written word does not necessarily mean exactly what is commonly perceived – there are other possibilities. The situation becomes even more complicated when you take in to account similar variations in the original languages.

My point is that religion wrongly imposes doctrines like the Trinity doctrine upon it’s followers that can never be confirmed with certainty and insists that they believe them even if they are not understood. They then make the acceptance of these doctrines a condition of acceptance by a person as a Christian within their particular brand of religion.

I am not anti-Christian, just very anti-religion.

link

287

All About The Trinity

by UnDisfellowshipped in

when jesus was about to die, he showed who his superior was by praying: "father, if you wish, remove this cup from me.

the one god is eternal (has always existed and always will), immortal (his divine nature cannot die), omnipotent (all-powerful), omniscient (all-knowing), omnipresent (he is everywhere at the same time), god is the only one who can read human hearts and minds, god cannot sin and cannot lie, god does not change his morals or his nature.

the trinity is not one person revealed three different ways (this is what "oneness pentecostals" believe).

link

This is precisely my problem

Kenneson says:

Trinitarians accept it because they believe it is revealed in Scripture not because they totally comprehend it.

My JW Study conductor said:

Jehovah’s Witnesses accept it as the "truth" because they believe it is revealed in Scripture not because they totally comprehend it.

I say: I am sorry, but if I don’t totally comprehend scriptural doctrine, I do not believe it just because everyone else says I should because they do.

link

287

All About The Trinity

by UnDisfellowshipped in

when jesus was about to die, he showed who his superior was by praying: "father, if you wish, remove this cup from me.

the one god is eternal (has always existed and always will), immortal (his divine nature cannot die), omnipotent (all-powerful), omniscient (all-knowing), omnipresent (he is everywhere at the same time), god is the only one who can read human hearts and minds, god cannot sin and cannot lie, god does not change his morals or his nature.

the trinity is not one person revealed three different ways (this is what "oneness pentecostals" believe).

link

LT, you say:

I suspect this is exactly why Jesus never "went there", rather he simply said "Follow me" (which implies a little more than just doing what he did - it implies relationship, IMHO).

(IYHO) it would appear that understanding and accepting the Trinity Doctrine is not crucial to "the relationship" and therefore to personal salvation. In which case why is it such an emotive issue to a number of people on this DB? Am I missing something?

link

287

All About The Trinity

by UnDisfellowshipped in

when jesus was about to die, he showed who his superior was by praying: "father, if you wish, remove this cup from me.

the one god is eternal (has always existed and always will), immortal (his divine nature cannot die), omnipotent (all-powerful), omniscient (all-knowing), omnipresent (he is everywhere at the same time), god is the only one who can read human hearts and minds, god cannot sin and cannot lie, god does not change his morals or his nature.

the trinity is not one person revealed three different ways (this is what "oneness pentecostals" believe).

link

Thanks for that LT. Are you saying then that it is possible to become a Christian without understanding the Trinity Doctrine? I am sure that you will agree that in order to believe this Doctrine it is necessary to understand it?

I am sure that you will also agree that, even in its simplest form as described here by Undisfellowshipped, it is extremely complicated and will be beyond the understanding of many people who would nevertheless like that "living relationship" that you mention.

link

287

All About The Trinity

by UnDisfellowshipped in

when jesus was about to die, he showed who his superior was by praying: "father, if you wish, remove this cup from me.

the one god is eternal (has always existed and always will), immortal (his divine nature cannot die), omnipotent (all-powerful), omniscient (all-knowing), omnipresent (he is everywhere at the same time), god is the only one who can read human hearts and minds, god cannot sin and cannot lie, god does not change his morals or his nature.

the trinity is not one person revealed three different ways (this is what "oneness pentecostals" believe).

link

I have a friend. He is a Batonka tribesman who finds it very difficult to read English and cannot find similar material in his own language. Consequently he did not get past the first paragraph of Undisfellowshipped's first post on this thread before he found himself completely lost and totally confused. (it took me quite a few paragraphs more to reach the same stage).

My friend does not believe the Trinity Doctrine because (like me) he cannot understand it. He would like to ask the contributors to this thread if this completely debars him from ever becoming a Christian – Born Again, JW or otherwise?

Any takers?

link

23

Question from Readers,WT MARCH 15, 2004 page 28

by badboy in

.

whose feet were touched when zipporah cut off her son's 4skin in an attempt 2 set matters straight?.

it was the angel of jehovah who had the power 2 put thew uncircumcised son 2 death.logically,then,zipporah would have caused the 4skin 2 touch the angel's feet,presenting it 2 him as evidence that she had complied with the covenant.. i understand from somewhere,possibly my niv study bible that the word used 4 feet can also mean genitals, there4 did zipporah put it on the angels thingy.. any comments?

link

yy er yy eb 4 Elswhere b yy 4 me.

With apologies for being (very slightly) off topic

link

22

American Lawyers: Help on DF case!

by Narkissos in

jw
friends

in a current european case, the wt lawyers refer to a judgment by the court of appeal of new jersey (nyc congregation of jws vs. mrs janice paul, # 819f.2d875, june 10, 1987) about the supposedly non-discriminatory character of the wt disfellowshipping arrangement and the related (shunning) instructions to its members.

according to them, in this case an exjw sued the congregation for slander, breach of private life, fraud and insult as a consequence of her disfellowshipment.

the court decided that the shunning of a disfellowshipped person was protected by the first amendment of the us constitution guaranteeing freedom of worship.

link

Euph. I think that you missed the point. We are not talking about someone saying that they do not like someone else – we are talking about a person instructing or inciting a large group of other people to shun / ignore / not talk to, another person. This affects Joes livelihood.

Joe has as much connection with the Witnesses as the person we are considering in this example. Are you saying that a Jehovah’s Witnesses Elder can tell the members of a congregation to shun anyone that he does not like (to that persons cost) even if that person has no connection with the Witnesses? I somehow don’t think so.

link

22

American Lawyers: Help on DF case!

by Narkissos in

jw
friends

in a current european case, the wt lawyers refer to a judgment by the court of appeal of new jersey (nyc congregation of jws vs. mrs janice paul, # 819f.2d875, june 10, 1987) about the supposedly non-discriminatory character of the wt disfellowshipping arrangement and the related (shunning) instructions to its members.

according to them, in this case an exjw sued the congregation for slander, breach of private life, fraud and insult as a consequence of her disfellowshipment.

the court decided that the shunning of a disfellowshipped person was protected by the first amendment of the us constitution guaranteeing freedom of worship.

link

There is something very strange here. The offended person was not a Jehovah’s Witness at the time that they were offended – they had already long since dissassociated themselves and were just ordinary members of the public.

Could an elder then instruct the congregation not to shop at Joes Hardware because Joe had offended him, even though Joe did not even know what a Jehovah’s Witness was.

In neither case does the treatment of the person involve membership of a religious organisation and in both cases the action is to their detriment. Shunning can possibly be viewed as being part of a religious system of beliefs when it is attached to other sanctions against a member of a religion but surely not against a member of the public?

My opinion is that it would be legal to shun a dissfellolwshipped person but not one who has dissassociated themselves and and has already taken themselves out of the jurisdiction of the religion.

Anyone agree?

link

6

Anointing?

by link in

i have recently been trying to get my head round the subject of anointing.

i have not had much success so was hoping that someone on the board might be able to help.. my understanding is that gods early kings had oil placed on their heads and received his holy spirit at the time of their appointment.

the process of placing the oil on the head is properly referred to as anointing but when this practice ceased it was the receipt of the holy spirit that was known by this term.

link

Thanks.

Grits, I did a search on Anointing and also on Holy Spirit – everyone seems to have different ideas so it seems that I am asking a question that has no definitive answer. It seems that you can use these terms to mean anything that you want so the Watchtower cannot be wrong on this.

You can actually adapt the usage of these words to suit your particular belief system.

link

6

Anointing?

by link in

i have recently been trying to get my head round the subject of anointing.

i have not had much success so was hoping that someone on the board might be able to help.. my understanding is that gods early kings had oil placed on their heads and received his holy spirit at the time of their appointment.

the process of placing the oil on the head is properly referred to as anointing but when this practice ceased it was the receipt of the holy spirit that was known by this term.

link

I have recently been trying to get my head round the subject of anointing. I have not had much success so was hoping that someone on the board might be able to help.

My understanding is that Gods early Kings had oil placed on their heads and received His Holy Spirit at the time of their appointment. The process of placing the oil on the head is properly referred to as anointing but when this practice ceased it was the receipt of the Holy Spirit that was known by this term. Today the term anointed is taken to mean "in possession of Gods Holy Spirit", and is not connected in any way to having an oily head.

The anointing and receipt of Holy Spirit did nothing to change or assist the ancient Kings in doing Gods will and what was right. Many of them "continued to do what was detestable in the sight of the true God".

When the early Christians received Holy Spirit it did enable them to carry out things that would normally be way beyond their natural ability. The were said "to be of the anointed".

When my wife goes on the Ministry she says she receives Gods Holy Spirit and is able to do things that she would not normally be able to do. But when I ask her if she is anointed she says no. When I ask the difference between receiving Holy Spirit and being anointed she tells me the anointed receive large amounts of Holy Spirit but just receiving Holy Spirit means a small portion.

What I don’t understand is that the Kings received large portions and were unable to get any benefit from it - the early Christians received large portions and were. My wife receives small portions and is, but she is not anointed. The governing Body of Jehovahs Witnesses claim to be of the anointed and act as Gods spokesperson in the time of the end – to ignore what they say is to ignore the word of God. Yet much of what they say and do is not in accordance with the Bible and this can be easily illustrated with numerous examples.

I can see that it is possible to compare them to the O.T. Kings but the whole idea seems so confusing. Can anyone properly explain Holy Spirit and show me where my logic is falling down?

link