The Trinity... is it a false teaching as the WTBTS claims?

by Honesty 146 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • JamesThomas

    Generally, when it comes to what the word G-O-D points to, the more scriptures a person parrots the less they actually know.

    Our true Source and Sustenance is that which all time, space and phenomena exists in. It is that which is the Life of all life; the Existence of all existence. It has no beginning and no end; and so is the foundational reality of all things.

    Only in the carnal-mind and it's unbelievably foolish ideas, beliefs and made-up scriptures is there little gods too tiny to be present; too circumscribed and separate to be what we ultimately are.

    Christians, generally, don't want to here of an INFINITE GOD, which can not be reduced and diminished into a fragmented personal deity of one, two, or three. They are too busy filling themselves with ancient tribal ignorance which belittles and minimizes God to a tiny anthropomorphic image.


  • moggy lover
    moggy lover

    j2s, You seem to miss the point of your own argument. Within the privacy of the royal household the POW may indeed be called by a distinctive name, by members of his family. But you and I, who are not members of that arrangement are not ENTITLED to use any other name to adress him.

    If you were to meet him and ask him his "name" he would reply: "My name is the POW" Thus in this respect, the terms "name" and "title" are synonymous, not mutually incompatible.As I said in my previous post, AS FAR AS WE are concerned, his name is "The POW" and THAT is the correct form of adress for us.

    Titles such as "sherrif" and "mayor" are not unique, because there are several hundreds in the USA alone. Also, and this is most important, they do not reflect an inheritance that is a consequence of birth. These titles such as "mayor" remain relevant only insofar as the will of the people makes it possible for the holder to use them. Indeed, there are several "princes" in the world today, despite the wave of democracy sweeping the world, but only ONE "POW"

    The relationship between us and the Holy Spirit is illustrated by a comment in Acts 13:2. Someone is said to be speaking, and is clearly identified for us: "The Holy Spirit said......" irrespective of whatever His distinctive name may be, AS FAR AS WE are concerned He is "The Holy Spirit"

    Similarly, when the newspapers report that "The POW said today......" it is illustrating OUR relationship to the POW, not that of his mum and dad

    Incidently, commenting on the verse at Acts 13:2, and obviously feeling the need to deflect any attribution of personality to The Holy Spirit, The WT of Aug 1st 87, said :"Evidently using the HS, Jesus, as the head of the congregation, said........" In all due respect, that is NOT what the texr says. The text clearly reflects our relationship to someone who is clearly identified.

    And yes, the God of the OT is the same as the God of the New. My point is that attributing a name such as "jehovah" must, if it is to be applied, be applied consistently. It is only when this is applied consistently, that the identity of the God of both testaments is established. It is blatantly obvious, that the WT Bible, amusingly called a "translation" has intruded into the inspired text by selectively applying this word "jehovah" only insofar as it can justify their own teaching.

    Cheers, mate.

  • just2sheep

    moggy lover,

    perhaps it is a difference in cultures. he may be the prince of wales but i still think his name is charles i may not be of the proper class to address him as such but it does not mean, to me as an american, that his name is anything but chuck. in the culture where he exists does he ever sighn official documents, or credit card reciepts for instance, prince of wales? as i said it might be cultural. by the way what the heck is a moggy?

    j2s of the i may be a peasant but that isn't my name class

  • moggy lover
    moggy lover

    Hi, j2s, Actually yes, he does sign his name as "Prince of Wales" for instance when he signs a hotel register, or an invitation to come to some foreign land. When he becomes king, on the death of his mother, the Queen, he will then sign his name as "Charles third, Rex" [meaning "king"]

    By the way, I personally am a republican, although I respect the office for which he stands. When one becomes a citizen of Oz as I had to when I migrated here, one has to affirm an oath of allegiance, not to an abstract concept such as the "constitution" or the "law" but to a person. You say something like: "I swear allegiance to her most gracious and Britannic majesty, Elizabeth the second, by the grace of God, Queen of Australia and to her descenants in perpetuity...." [or something similar. I took the oath some thirty five years ago] This implies that such concepts as "the law" and "liberty" are not disembodied principles, but are in fact articulated by the Soverign Personally. When you break the law for instance, it is the Queen, not the state who prosecutes you. That is why your case is called "The Crown versus so-and-so" [Not the "state" as in republics] Other countries who have this same arrangement are: The UK, New Zealand, Canada, Jamaica, The Bahamas, Bermuda, The Caymans, Gibraltar, The Falklands, and St Helena.

    "Moggy" is a British term that has "migrated" to Oz. It is a contraction of "mongrel" and refers to any cat that is of indetirminate breed. So into my life wandered this emaciated kitten, abandoned and forlorn, more dead than alive. The vet suggested I put her down, since she probably would'nt make it another night. That was 15 years ago. She's turned into probably the spolitest bloody cat in the whole uunniverse. She's convinced my life revolves around her. The problem is that it does.

    Sigh> I suppose if I had grandchildren, I would spoil them, and since I don't, well she scores.



    To be honest I dont really know for sure if the trinity is true or false. One thing is certain though, there are verses in the bible that seem to support it and the WTS has tried to change it by substituting words or adding words in brackets. If you read their own Kingdom Interlinear...the original purple one you can see how they admit that the literal translation of some verses were not to their liking so they added or changed things.

    They are guilty of distorting the translation of the Holy scriptures which according to the bible merits the death penalty regardless of the truthfullness of the trinity or not.

  • mdb


  • mdb

    Honesty, Keep proclaiming the truth! You have shown where the Scriptures say that the Holy Spirit is God (Lying to the Spirit = lying to God). The Scriptures also say that the Lord is the Spirit and where He is, there is liberty. But even to this day, when Moses is read, a veil lies on their heart. Nevertheless when one turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
    2 Cor 3:15-17

  • zen nudist
    zen nudist

    1 cor 8:5-6 is the ONLY in context new testament verse which is comparing and contrasting God and Jesus with other God's and lords....

    note it says to US [christians?] there is but ONE GOD, THE FATHER and ONE lord JESUS.....


    God has made Him both Lord and Christ-- this Jesus whom you crucified." (Acts 2:36)

    NOT a contradiction, but a clarification that LORD in this case is NOT the same as GOD.....

    so while JWs may be wrong about a great many things, the TRINITY is not one of them.... it is CLEARLY a human delusion read backwards into many OUT OF CONTEXT verse and never found in the bible taught by anyone.... and obviously something Jesus never gave two $#!+$ about as he commended peter and his other followers for simply acknowledging that Jesus was the promised messiah the SON of GOD, not GOD THE SON.

  • sir82

    To me, it all makes a lot more sense if you stop viewing "the Bible" (i.e. in this context the New Testament) as a whole, complete, harmonious work composed by a close-knit group of Jesus' contemporaries, all books being written within a few years of each other. Apparently, most scholars recognize the written works of the NT were begun around the time period of 70-80 CE, a full generation after Jesus' death, and several of the books that made it into the canon were composed as late as the 2nd century (falsely attributed to Paul). I.e., they were written over a long period of time, a century or more, and the "orthodox position" on the question of Jesus' divinity was changing over that time. The writings of a particular time period reflect the contemporary understanding.

    If you read the books in the order they were written chronologically, you can see the shift in position of the writers, from "Jesus is the son of God, and inferior to him", to "Jesus is the son of God, but also God simultaneously".

  • TopHat

    In Matt. 3: 16-17 all three are in different places...Jesus was in the water the Holy Spirit was desending as a Dove and God was speaking from Heaven.....from that scripture alone...I can see they are three separate enities and not one and the same.

Share this