Is The watchtower Dishonest When It comes to the Trinity? (page 4)

Sunspot

We have all seen multitudinous examples of the intellectual dishonesty that they have employed. We would be kidding ourselves to assume that in this matter they have done less.

Any of the TV judges will come out and tell the people in their courts---that if they are caught in one lie (or purposely try and mislead them)---that anything they say from that point is suspect from that point on. This is how ALL should view the WTS.....especially the JWs themselves who place their trust (and their LIVES) in them for their supposedly "spirit-directed" teachings. When a JW bases his/her entire life on following "what the WTS says" when every publication hits their literature counter...they had best make VERY SURE of what they are being taught.

History (including my own) tells us that they get complacent, and implicity trust in AND loyally "obey" every word that rolls off the WTS presses. I have been having this discussion with someone on another board---mostly concerning the "truth" that the WTS claims to teach....and I have zeroed in on the "Trinity" booklet as of late. It didn't "go over" too well, as expected! I sit here and wonder how I could have been so blind and so stupid when I was a JW.

I had looked up the word "church" (for "upon this rock I shall build MY church" ) and I either had forgotten or never realized this before---that in the NWT index---the word church has been deleted and the word "congregation" has been inserted as in "see congregation"!!!

What a sneaky and slimy way to get the JWs to not think of the word "church" in connection with Jesus---but to then think in terms of "congregation" which falls directly into the WTS agenda!!!!! (ESPECIALLY since now they want to be known as "the Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses!" Like the SNL CHURCH LADY says....."Isn't that CONVEEEEENYENT!"

Funny how they proudly wore the foolish banner of "Jehovah's Wtnesses" for decades, even though the 1st century CHRISTIANS had adopted that name and identification from Antioch.....but then again.....when did what the bible actually says, have any meaning when it contradicted what the WTS taught?

This brings us right back to the LIES and deliberate misrepresentations that the WTS teaches without any shame whatsoever, the "Trinity" brochure standing well at the top of their ongoing scam to dupe and deceive the readers. I threw out almost all of the 30-years of toxic poison on my bookshelves....but correct me if I'm wrong when I say....

...that I'll just bet that after all the supposed "proof" of the WTS writers on their peculiar arguments----that there is something along the line of ......"now that we have present these facts....any 'mature thinker' or 'thinking Christian' will thus conclude....

(that whatever THEY said was THE ONLY POSSIBLE INTELLIGENT CONCLUSION that one could end up with).....and nobody wants to feel that they are NOT mature or intelligent....and the groundwork is set for the brain-numbed JW to sail off into the sunset, armed with his "accurate knowledge" du jour.

How wonderful it IS to be out from under the trappings of this cult.

LittleToe

StarMoore:
No tomatoes, and not even a blink at whatever you hold doctrinally.

However I would genuinely invite you to become acquainted with what this thread is drawing to your attention. That brochure is simply dishonest in the way it presents information.

Basically it does something like I'm just about to do with your post:

Well, I'm with the org but I think it's a brochere too long to read.... I have studied the trinity and I believe in it...

Death to the Pixies

<<<So, regardless of your own doctrinal persuasion; on the question raised by this thread - do you agree that the WTS was dishonest in its representation of those sources?>>>

Reply:Many of the so-called offenses are similiar to the Fortman above, a closer examination shows the intent of the quote. I have not checked all the sources, but basically they are accurate when you understand the context of the situation, like with Fortman and the Broch's. use of him. It is a matter of holding the brochure, in this instance, up to a standard that Rev. Frank does not even meet. I have spotted 3 or 4 similiar "offenses" in Rev. Franks presentation, I could share a couple if you like.

Do you have any comments on my Fortman rebuttal? Probably could have found a better source than Weigall, but that is pretty much my only complaint.

LittleToe

You honestly think that the WTS is accurately representing the intent and beliefs of the original authors?

diamondblue1974

Neither is the idea of measuring a JWs spirituality on how many meetings they attend, or having to fill out the number of hours you spend each month trying to gain recruits---but you have no problem with THAT, though do you, Ezra?

Touche!

Death to the Pixies

This one is just embarrassing on the good Reverends part:

"p.4 - ENCYCLOPEDIA AMERICANA

Booklet:"the doctrine of the Trinity is considered to be 'beyond the grasp of human reason'."

Source: The complete quote is:

"It is held that ALTHOUGH the doctrine is beyond the grasp of human reason, it is, like many of the formulations of physical science, not contrary to reason, and may be apprehended (though it may not be comprehended) by the human mind."

(So the Encyclopedia is comparing the degrees of mental perception, apprehension vs. comprehension, and does not state that the doctrine is "contrary" to reason - but BEYOND our fullest understanding.)

The Watchtower writers also ignored a statement on the same page of the Encyclopedia that disputes the idea that the Trinity doctrine is pagan. It says:

"It is probably a mistake to assume that the doctrine resulted from the intrusion of Greek metaphysics or philosophy into Christian thought; for the date upon which the doctrine rests, and also its earliest attempts at formulation, are much older than the church's encounter with Greek philosophy."

Reply: The WT from this quote did not say it was contrary to reason , it quoted it as saying it is beyond the grasp of human reason. This is nit-picking at its worst. The quote says it cannot be "comprehended", which only upholds the Brochures quote further, that it is not able to penetrate the human mind. The quote was to show the difficulty in explaining the Trinity as even Trinitarians themselves claim, what it is the problem here?

IMO, it is funny that people feel Gods identity is so confusing. Was Jesus really preaching some sort of confusion when he quoted the Shema? (Mrk 12:29) Maybe the writers had problems expressing how great and powerful they believed he was, but never his identity.

Death to the Pixies

<<You honestly think that the WTS is accurately representing the intent and beliefs of the original authors?>>

Reply: The ultimate belief is not what they are quoting, they are quoting for a specific purpose, like with Fortman, to show that even those who profess the Doctrine, do not believe it is explicit in scripture. That should trigger "If it is not explicit in scripture, then where is it explicitz?" in the mind of the reader.

Quick example, is it wrong to quote the WT to me if I was arguing that John 20:28 cannot be calling Jeus God, if even the WT said the declaration could be aimed at Jesus? I would say that would not nmake your argument, but it would be a good start, don't you think? Is taht wrong? I do not believe so.

LittleToe

The ultimate belief is not what they are quoting, they are quoting for a specific purpose...

You're wriggling like a good one. Yes or no would have sufficed.

Context is everything.

If someone were compiling a list of quotes when the society left subjects open to interpretation, then it might be used in that sense.

To actually construct a case for a specific doctrine, consistently using "partial" quotation to make your sources appear to agree with you even though their position was contrary, is frankly dishonest. Yes?

Death to the Pixies

<<<You're wriggling like a good one. Yes or no would have sufficed.>>

Reply: It was quite obvious what my answer was, I figured I would expound more to help you see my point.

<<Context is everything.>>

Reply: That was my point :>)

<<To actually construct a case for a specific doctrine, consistently using "partial" quotation to make your sources appear to agree with you even though their position was contrary, is frankly dishonest. Yes?>>

Reply: If we keep "context" in mind, we will see such quotations as Fortman, did agree with point the Wt was making, which was that the Trinity is not explicitly taught in scripture. Each quotation, often times from a hostile witness (which is acceptable, people love to use the WT in argumentation even though they do not agree ultimately) has it's own direct point being made. You do not have to agree in-toto to make a source quote. So, since you like the Yes/No type of answer, I will say "No"..

Regards.

LittleToe

LT Wrote: To actually construct a case for a specific doctrine, consistently using "partial" quotation to make your sources appear to agree with you even though their position was contrary, is frankly dishonest. Yes?
DTTP Wrote: ...since you like the Yes/No type of answer, I will say "No"..

Interesting. So you ascribe to the school of dishonest scholarship if it suits your cause?

Thanks. It's always nice to know what I'm dealing with

Is The watchtower Dishonest When It comes to the Trinity?

Share this