by Amazing1914 86 Replies latest jw friends
I don't know Greek or Hebrew and my English is not greatest either. My only question is
"Is the Trinity belief a requirement for salvation?"
Scriptural support in your answer is requested. If I get enough civil answers I will give my answer with scriptural support.
I want cheese on my pasta
I love it when you guys post these very informative topics...I print them and read them at my leisure!!!
FOOD FOR MY BRAIN...YUMMY!
Jeff,
although I am not a true trinitarian, I have found overwelming evidence in the Bible itself that the early Christians, as well as the Pharisees believed exactly what you said which is that "Christ was God manifest in the flesh".
And No, I do not think believing in the Trinity is essential for our salvation. What is essential is belief in Christ and the resurrection. For Christians that is. No, I am not saying for those who don't believe this that God will destroy them or anything like that. Becuase I believe the bible was only written for Christ's believers and their hope is believing this at the present time. And that everyone else on earth will have a chance, at a future date to decide if they want to live under Christ's reign. But this is another story for another time.
Also, I believe that "trinity" itself is a man made term used to try to explain the nature of God. But growing up in the Catholic faith, (prior to becoming JW), I always had trouble with this term. I still do and I have read a lot on the subject. No one has ever been able to convince me that the Holy Spirit is a person. I have expereinced Holy Spirit first hand so I know exactly what it is. But the question of Christ's divinity is a seperate issue. This is not saying he is the same person as Jehovah but the same in nature. Christ was the word, the logos, God's one and ONLY Son. It is very hard to really understand the closeness of Jehovah and Jesus relationship. No one trully understands the full nature of God, except the Son.
I have been putting together the scriptures that show what the Apostles felt about who Jesus was and should have them all together soon. Than, maybe I will post them here if anyone is interested.
Another heresy that started early, even when the Apostles were alive was that there was no resurrection. But we can leave this too for another day.
Jim,
Thanks for the informative post. Since becoming mentally free from the WTS all I can say is that they clearly are trying to skew the bible and the scarce historical evidence about Jesus to fit their own doctrines. That Trinity brochure is just horribly written and the references quoted out of context. I am on the fence with the whole trinity issue but I am open minded to either point of view, though its clear the WT is up to something fishy here.
Mary,
While I believe that Jesus was a good person and (possibly) the Messiah, I don't believe that he was "God" and I doubt that he ever actually told his followers that he was. I think that after he died, his followers deified him and as time went by, pretty soon they had him being God Himself. 150 AD is 120 years after Jesus died. Alot of things, opinions and reality can change in 120 years.
Mary, In my previous post on the term "Catholic Church" you also commented that the early Chirtsians would have been more like Jews in their practices.
The purpose of this post was not to presume what Jesus was or is. However, Jesus is called God in the Bible. He pissed off the Jews with his own claims. So, Jesus is responsible for what is taught about him at this very early stage of the religion. However, your thoughts that all that much could change by 150 AD is erroneous: Consider these important issues:
1. The Apostle John did not die until about the year 100. Clearly, he would have helped keep a lid on very many changes. By this time, many early Church Fathers were already writing many of their own letters, and nothing in them suggests anything like what the Watchtower believes. They believed that the Holy Spirit was a person, and in Jesus divinity.
2. The very first diciples of the Apostles, such as St. Ignatius, St. Polycarp, and their first students, such as St. Irenaeus, St. Clement, and many others, began almost right away teaching in Jesus divinity, and the person of the Holy Spirit. They also had to teach Jesus humanity, because the Gnostics, as Jeff said, tried to say that Jesus was never human.
3. People of the Mddle East have long memories, unlike the fast-paced 20th century where we are changing as fast as the whether. So, they were very slow to change. This is why the Catholic religion lasted for over 1000 years beforce the first schism.
4. What I meant by the modern Roman and Orthodox resembling the early Christians is just that, resemble. Of course the very first Christians were more like Jews, since they were also Jews. As Gentiles (mostly Greeks at first) entered the Church during the Apostles Peter and Paul's time, it makes sense that some changes would take place ... as testified to in the book of Acts. But, much of the ritual and liturgy of Judaism stayed with the Church for a long time. Some of this is still identifiable today in the Roman and Orthodox churches.
Blueblades,
I would enjoy the book you mention. Is it available in retail bookstores? Thanks.
Jeff,
At the Council of Nicea, the Bishops overwhelmingly condemned the Arians and identified the understanding that Jesus is almighty God as the teachings of the Apostles. The vote was not even close.
Oddly enough, at the time there were about 3,000 bishops invited from all over Europe and Asia Minor, Egypt, etc. The dispute was largely confined in the Eastern Church, which was annoying Constantine. Only about 320 Bishops showed up, mostly from the Eastern churches. There were more pro-Arian bishops around, but they did not show. Then, the famous vote was over 300 for the Trinity and 2 in favor of the Arian concept.
What many JWs never knew is that Arian still believed in the person of the Holy Spirit, and in sometype of divinity for Jesus. The whole debate at Nicea was really not over the Trinity, but over how it was to be defined. It was a word-smithing argument. However, the majority of bishops did not like Arian's terms because they knew it would allow for his concept that Jesus was a created being. This notion so offended the majority of bishops, that they finally decided on a definition that would preclude Arian's concepts in any form. What I found most revealing is how their final draft of the Trinity matched so closely what had been taught since the time of Christ.
XBEHERE,
Thanks. Yes, my next post will show some of the ways in which the Society was dishonest in their Trinity brochure. I recall when this brochure was released, it was touted as the wave of the future to combat apostates. Yet, it is so bad, that they would have been better off writing comical fiction.
Thanks, Jim Whitney
BTW I guess I am asking way too much, but may be somebody could point me or if it has not been done yet, to create full reference guide for "Trinity" broshure quotes to original. I have seen several qutation references and examples as WT twists original texts, but may be there is full table/list of broshure quotes and their original contexts, references!
Bookmarks this thread.
Shazard,
... but may be there is full table/list of broshure quotes and their original contexts, references!
I don't know of any table or list. However, what I have done in my paper is to expose misquotes, or better stated, invented quotes, that the Watchtower made of the early Church Fathers. I will be posting it down the road, after I complete it and get peer review comments.
What I will say right now, is that the Society never actually quoted the early Church Fathers in the Trinity brochure, but rather, quoted an anti-trinitarian book author's opinion of what the early Church Fathers meant. They made their quotes in a way that strongly implies that they took them directly from the Church Fathers. The Society had to do this because there is absolutely no support for any of their doctrine in the early Church writings. This is why the Society never actually cites the actual reference their supposed quotes were taken. They had to conceal the source in order to make their point appear valid. Unfortunately, Jehovah's Witnesses eat this stuff up that the Society spews forth, but they never seem interested in really checking out what was written.
Jim Whitney
You might want to look at the following collection of quotes from the early Church fathers for a more rounded understanding of what they wrote.
http://www.heaven.net.nz/writings/trinity-06.htm
Forscher
