Is The watchtower Dishonest When It comes to the Trinity?

by RevFrank 62 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Death to the Pixies
    Death to the Pixies

    Your condescending tone is tipping your hand here I believe....

    Most of them are exactly like the Fortman quote.. It is either nit-picking or completely ignoring the context of the SYBTB quote, I already handled the first one in Franks list in an earlier post, the next two are much the same:

    <<<<<<<<<<p.5 - ILLUSTRATED BIBLE DICTIONARY

    Booklet: "The word Trinity is not found in the Bible...It did not find a place formally in the theology of the church till the 4th century."

    Source: The Dictionary adds these 3 statements:

    (a) "Though it is not a Biblical doctrine in the sense that any formulation of it can be found in the Bible, it can be seen to underlie the revelation of God, implicit in the Old Testament and explicit in the New Testament. By this we mean that though we cannot speak confidently of the revelation of the Trinity in the Old Testament, yet once the substance of the doctrine has been revealed in the New Testament, we can read back many implications of it in the Old Testament."

    (b) "But even in the opening pages of the Old Testament we are taught to attribute the evidence and persistence of all things to a threefold source." (Not 3 sources separate)

    (c) "By way of contrast it must be remembered that the Old Testament was written before the revelation of the doctrine of the Trinity was clearly given and in the New Testament after it." >>>>>>>>>>

    Reply: The WT is showing from various quotes that the Trinity finds no place formally in scripture, and they do so correctly from the words of Trintarian sources. Even in Franks additional quotes he misses this point, the WT makes the point: "It did not find a place formally in the theology of the church till the 4th century."

    Which of course this is an accurate quote as upheld in his point a.) "Though it is not a Biblical doctrine in the sense that any formulation of it can be found in the Bible"

    This is all the WT is using the quote for, not to show the source as NOT believing in the Trinity, but to show it admits it was not formulated in scripture. In fact it was not formally introduced until the 4th century, ie..it underwent a formulation period! Frank is just missing the point of the quote.<<<<<p.6 - NEW CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA

    Booklet: "The doctrine of the Trinity is not taught in the Old Testament."

    Source:

    "In the New Testament the oldest evidence is in the Pauline epistles..."

    "In many places of the Old Testament, however, expressions are used in which some of the Fathers of the church saw references or foreshadowings of the Trinity."

    "...the minds of God's people (Old Testament) were being prepared for the concepts that would be involved in the forthcoming revelation of the doctrine of the Trinity. In the New Testament, the revelation of the truth of the Triune life of God was first made in the New Testament, where the earliest references to it are in the Pauline epistles."

    "Since the Son and the Holy Spirit are mentioned on a par with the Father, the passage clearly teaches that they are equally divine with the Father, who is obviously God."

    "...they testify, under divine inspiration, in the belief of the Apostolic Church in a doctrine of three persons in one God." >>>>>

    Reply: The quote is only dealing with the OT, and Frank is dealing with the NT for some reason. Obviously any person reading this will understand the Catholic encylopedia is of the Trinitarian persuasion, which makes the WT quote even more relevent. Even they admit the Hebrew scrips do not teach the Trinity...They claim (rather humorously) that the OT was "preparing people" for the Trinity!

    Again, just plain sloppy on Frank's part. In fact the heading in the brochure is bolded as " Testimony of the Hebrew Scriptures".

    I touch on the ECF, Justin to be exact- here: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/107582/1872647/post.ashx#1872647


  • LittleToe
    LittleToe

    Are you just as eclectic when it comes to the definition of the words "reasonable" and "dishonesty"?

  • Death to the Pixies
    Death to the Pixies

    Is there a reason why you are acting like this?

    I think I will put you on my personal ignore list.

  • Hellrider
    Hellrider
    Booklet: "The word Trinity is not found in the Bible...It did not find a place formally in the theology of the church till the 4th century."

    It is dishonest,in a very sneaky way: No, it was not "formally in the theology" until the 4th century. But of course, the WTS doesn`t mention that nothing was "formally in the theology" until the 4th century! This is all done in a pathetic attempt at trying to portray the whole trinity-doctrine as something that just came out of thin air at the church meeting in 325. They are trying to portray early christianity as a unified body, which just over night, in the 4th century, came up with the Trinity-doctrine (out of thin air). This is exemplified in the fact that in the pamphlet, they even try to put the whole blame for the Trinity-doctrine at Nicea on emperor Constantine - which is completely ridicolous. (if it is the same that is on their official website, I don`t have that brochure)Often the dishonesty lies in what is not being said, rather than in what is actually being said.

  • LittleToe
    LittleToe

    That would not be a loss, to me, I assure you

    Do you ever answer questions directly, without sliding around them? You remind me altogether too much of me

  • Death to the Pixies
    Death to the Pixies

    Looks like we should agree to disagree here gang.

    Regards.

  • LittleToe
    LittleToe

    It's only a discussion board - are we having fun yet?

  • Hellrider
    Hellrider
    It's only a discussion board - are we having fun yet?

    I sure am.

    The really funny part here is that ReverendFrank has just scratched the surface. There is a whole ton more of dishonest crap in the "Should you believe in the Trinity"-pamphlet. Here`s what they write about the Holy Spirit:

    None of the bishops at Nicaea promoted a Trinity, however. They decided only the nature of Jesus but not the role of the holy spirit. If a Trinity had been a clear Bible truth, should they not have proposed it at that time?

    Which is of course, ridicolous. This is what the 318 fathers actually said:

    1. We believe in one God the Father all powerful, maker of all things both seen and unseen. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten begotten from the Father, that is from the substance [Gr. ousias, Lat. substantia] of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten [Gr. gennethenta, Lat. natum] not made [Gr. poethenta, Lat. factum], CONSUBSTANTIAL [Gr. homoousion, Lat. unius substantiae (quod Graeci dicunt homousion)] with the Father, through whom all things came to be, both those in heaven and those in earth; for us humans and for our salvation he came down and became incarnate, became human, suffered and rose up on the third day, went up into the heavens, is coming to judge the living and the dead. And in the holy Spirit.

    1. And those who say
    2. "there once was when he was not", and "before he was begotten he was not", and that
    3. he came to be from
      • things that were not, or
      • from another hypostasis [Gr. hypostaseos] or substance [Gr. ousias, Lat. substantia],
      affirming that the Son of God is subject to change or alteration
        these the catholic and apostolic church anathematises.

      ...note, the Holy Spirit is included in the wording. Note also how they clearify, specifically, that the Son of God has always existed, that he was not created.

      The WTS also writes, in its pamphlet:

      FOR many years, there had been much opposition on Biblical grounds to the developing idea that Jesus was God. To try to solve the dispute, Roman emperor Constantine summoned all bishops to Nicaea. About 300, a fraction of the total, actually attended.

      Constantine was not a Christian. Supposedly, he converted later in life, but he was not baptized until he lay dying.

      This is a misrepresentation. There had not been "much opposition" to the "developing idea that Jesus was God". In fact, it was the other way around. The early church had all sorts of ideas concerning the nature of Christ, and the relation between Christ, the holy Spirit and the Father. Modalism/Sabellianism, Patripassionism, Arianism, everyone had all sorts of ideas. The largest group was the group that held the view that would later be "formalised" in the Trinity-doctrine in 325, and they declared all the other groups, including the role model of the WTS, Arianism, heretic. So when the WTS are trying to portray this as one "minority" who, wrongly, held the trinitarian view, got it their way, by help of the emperor, they are lying! They are not right when they declared that "Constantine was not a christian". There are diverging stories about his life. One version is that he wasn`t baptized until he lay dying, another that he was converted immediately after the battle in 312.

      I`m sure there is a ton more of crap. I just find it distasteful to shovel thru a pile of dung to examine which parts of it is filthier than the others.

    4. scout575
      scout575

      RevFrank: If the WTS does misrepresent the writers that they quote, maybe they're following the example set by the gospel writer Matthew, who BLATANTLY misrepresents the OT writers that he quotes in trying to prove that Jesus is the Messiah. Compare Matt 2:15 with Hosea 11:1, and Matthew 2:18 with Jeremiah 31:15. If Jesus really was the Messiah why did Matthew have to resort to such obvious 'spin'? Are you going to criticise Matthew just as severely as you criticise the WTS?

    5. hooberus
      hooberus
      RevFrank: If the WTS does misrepresent the writers that they quote, maybe they're following the example set by the gospel writer Matthew, who BLATANTLY misrepresents the OT writers that he quotes in trying to prove that Jesus is the Messiah. Compare Matt 2:15 with Hosea 11:1, and Matthew 2:18 with Jeremiah 31:15. If Jesus really was the Messiah why did Matthew have to resort to such obvious 'spin'? Are you going to criticise Matthew just as severely as you criticise the WTS?

      http://www.christian-thinktank.com/baduseot.html http://www.christian-thinktank.com/fabprof0.html

    Share this

    Google+
    Pinterest
    Reddit