The Trinity

by meadow77 740 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

herk

Will,
Thanks for sharing, but would you kindly tell us your main point? I read your lengthy post, but found myself wondering time and again what you were trying to say. For example, you wrote:
The image of the invisible God. ( ) Hmmmm How do you explain to a limited, yet evolving human mind, something that is almighty, eternal, no beginning, no end, all knowing, omnipresent, our creator, our judge etc., etc., yet is invisible? How would you comprehend this? Or better yet, how would you teach this.
Isn't that why we have the Bible? Do you feel the Bible doesn't provide us with good enough answers?
Most people, even little children, have no problem comprehending the fact that there is a grand Creator behind the universe. Common sense tells us that the creation has a creator. We see ourselves as persons, and we read in the Bible that God is also a person. We read that he created man in his image. Why should any of that be too difficult for anyone to comprehend? I'm curious what your answer might be.
Herk
Will Power

Herk
I explained why I thought some people need the bible and that those written words are the only thing they need or want.
"Common sense tells us that the creation has a creator. " ... Common sense is also scientifically defined. The 2 meet in the middle, always ending with the question is there a why?but are you telling me that you believe that the earth was actually created the way and in the time frame as spelled out in the bible? and if so, which account?
"God is also a person. " ... Can you tell me what this person looks like? Where does he live? Does the throne float? Will you ever see God? Is God invisible or not? A real person with a body or not?
Will
herk

Will,
Thanks for explaining. This thread is a discussion of whether or not the Trinity is taught in the Bible. Those of us principally involved have long ago made the decision that the Bible is from God and is true. If that is not your belief, I'm sure there are many who would be happy to discuss it with you in another thread. Since you've been a member of this forum for over a year, I'm sure you are aware of that.
Herk
William Penwell

Gumby said:
Many many scholars believe there were many additions such as Paul's "letters", and the "Acts", to give creedence to an Organised Church. There is much written about this if a person would take the time and study it. Most do not want to as they WANT to believe the bible as the infallable Word of God.

You are correct on your observations. The earlier church is suspected of adding or erasing text from the New Testament in order to support their ideologies. From the book Honest to Jesus:

Which is the Inspired Text!
The original manuscripts of the books of the New Testament have disappeared. The earliest fragments of any part of the New Testament is a scrap from a papyrus codex of the Gospel of John. It has been variously dated from 125 to 160 C.E., roughly one hundred years after the death of Jesus.More substantial pieces of papyrus manuscripts have survived from the end of the second century, but the earliest surviving copies of complete gospels come from the third century. And we have no copies of the complete Christian Bible that can be dated earlier than the fourth century. To put the situation in a nutshell, we can say that, in all probability, only a very few ever read the original of one of Pauls letters or of one of the gospels - copies were made almost immediately as the letters and gospels were circulated among congregations; meanwhile, the originals wore out or were lost.
To add to the problem, no two copies of any of the books of the New Testament are exactly alike, since they were all handmade. It has been estimated that there are over seventy thousand meaningful variants in the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament itself. That mountain of variants has been reduced to a manageable number by modern critical editions that sort, evaluate, and choose among the myriad of possibilities. The critical editions of the Greek New Testament used by scholars are in fact the creations of textual critics and editors. They are a composite of many variant versions. Specialists select the best reading from among variants and print that as the main text. They also list important alternative readings the best text. It is unlikely, of course, that any surviving ancient manuscript is identical with the autographs the originalsof the books, or portions of books, that it contains. Translators and interpreters are thus twice removed from the originals.
We are fairly confident, for example that the scribes who made copies of the New Testament (the gospels in particular) tended to modify the Greek text to match the orthodox views that were emerging. The opening line of the Gospel of Mark, to cite one example, reads "the good news of Jesus Christ" in several ancient manuscripts. Other manuscripts have amended this to "Jesus Christ, son of God". The tendency of scribes was to expand titles and labels in accordance with the practice current in their times. Those expansions, while of interest to historians, also obscure earlier practice and usage. And historians have an interest in those earlier traditions as well. Indeed, there remains a strong interest in establishing the text at every stage of its history.
So how confident can we be of the accuracy of the bible?
Why than even discuss points of interpretation as far as this book is concerned?
Will
herk
LittleToe,
Your short post contains a lot of personal attacks and innuendo, but you cite no examples. I'm interested in the specifics. Where have I twisted, dodged issues, deliberately misunderstood your viewpoint, refused to reason on your points, jumped up and down like a Fundamentalist? Those things are easy to say, but I think you'd have to work pretty hard to prove them.
Additionally, you suggest that I "lack the experiential aspects of a living relationship with Christ," that I show no evidence of having "had an encounter with the Holy Spirit." Then you conclude by saying "I still extend Christian love and goodwishes to you."
Well, it's nice to see that at least one of us hasn't a hypocritical bone in his body, at least in his own high opinion of himself.
I think you know deep down in your heart that you are being as deceitful as can be when you give the following alternatives for the meaning of Genesis 1:26:
God is plural
There are a plurality of gods
It wasn't really God who was speaking, but His representative, who was talking to others like him.
You know very well that there is at least a fourth alternative, and that it's the one advocated by most scholars, including Trinitarians. The Jews as a people have never been Trinitarians. The verse has never been a problem for them. It should be no problem for any of us when it is understood the way the Jews have always understood it. Jesus said concerning them, "We do know who we worship." (John 4:22) Any reasonable person would agree that the best course is to view the verse as Abraham, Moses, David, Isaiah and other ancient Jews did. In agreement with them, many if not most scholars concur that God was speaking to the angels who were present on the occasion of man's creation, especially those who make up his inner circle. (Deuteronomy 33:2; 1 Kings 22:19-22; Job 38:4-7; Daniel 7:10; Hebrews 12:22; Jude 14; Revelation 5:6, 11)
Right within the verse is all the evidence anyone needs that it has no application to the pagan Trinity. God said, "in our image and in our likeness." Man was not created as a trinity composed of three persons. Each human being is but one person, not three persons as would be required if the image and likeness of God were a Trinity.
Herk
Will Power

Herk, thank you for your reply.
"This thread is a discussion of whether or not the Trinity is taught in the Bible. Those of us principally involved have long ago made the decision that the Bible is from God and is true."
The trinity means different things to different people. You stated that God was a person, and you use your concept whether specifically or not to show in the bible why it does not teach the trinity.
I was asking for specifics. You only get your knowledge or rather trust the bible for that knowledge, so my questions about this person - God - are well in line with this topic.
If God is Spirit, and I am made in his/her image, which part of me resembles that image?
If God is a person that I am in the image of, is it the 2 eyes, nose & mouth thing?
If the bible says that the flesh means nothing, what is left?
If no one can see God & live, is there a part of my image that was created in God's image that cannot be seen by anyone "alive"?
Do you believe the ALL of the bible was written for ALL people? Or is most of it reserved for only those with the "spirit" who are in the new covenant.
Again the concept of the trinity means different things to different people. As does the concept of God. The bible says many things. It is literal in some places which is where some people get stuck in the "box" when they come across chapters with concepts that try to get you "out of the box". Once out, the questions are way harder, sometimes scary, that is where you discover the limitations of the human mind and appreciate the incomprehensible God.
So this person God, is He a Spirit as well?
UnDisfellowshipped

Herk said:
Your short post contains a lot of personal attacks and innuendo, but you cite no examples.
I love it when I see Herk say this to other people (LOL).
herk

UnD,
You wrote:
I love it when I see Herk say this to other people (LOL).
It seems like you're still holding a self-centred grudge for all these many days.
I also love it when I see typical Trinitarians hanging together and cheering each other on when their opponents rightly accuse them of offering not a shred of evidence for their personal attacks.
Herk
DakotaRed

One of the points I brought up 31 pages ago in the 65 scriptural questionings against the trinity, was;
1 Thess. 5:21. Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (KJV)
Trinitarians eventually come to the point of saying that it is a mystery beyond human comprehension. It means different things to different people also. There is mush disgareement as to the actual make up of the doctrine, culminating in it taking so long to formulate 400 years after Christ's death, and even then, the argument has raged on down to today.
Given that concept I just stated, how does that tie in with the scripture I cite above? How can you prove that which you are supposedly not supposed to comprehend?
From the very beginning of the article on "The Blessed Trinity" found in the Catholic Encyclopedia online, we read the following paragraph;
I. THE DOGMA OF THE TRINITY
"The Trinity is the term employed to signify the central doctrine of the Christian religion -- the truth that in the unity of the Godhead there are Three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, these Three Persons being truly distinct one from another. Thus, in the words of the Athanasian Creed: "the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God ." In this Trinity of Persons the Son is begotten of the Father by an eternal generation, and the Holy Spirit proceeds by an eternal procession from the Father and the Son. Yet, notwithstanding this difference as to origin, the Persons are co-eternal and co-equal: all alike are uncreated and omnipotent. This, the Church teaches, is the revelation regarding God's nature which Jesus Christ , the Son of God , came upon earth to deliver to the world: and which she proposes to man as the foundation of her whole dogmatic system."
If you have three separate and distinct individuals, persons, or whatever, and each is God, there is no way possible for them not to each be three separate and distinct Gods. It is a contradiction within itself.
How can you prove it to hold fast to it, if you are not supposed to understand it? Indeed, why is it such a mystery when Jesus said the following ?
John 18:20. Jesus answered him, I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing. (KJV)
If, Jesus says he taught and spoke openly and without secret, should it not be plain and apparent for all to see, without any confusion or mysterious definitions?
Could this also be what concerned Paul enough to utter the following?
2 Cor. 11:3. But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. (KJV)
Simplicity in Christ! There is nothing simple in the doctrine of trinity. It is deemed incomprehensible and mysterious, unexplainable, often said that it cannot be understood unless God himself gives it to you. And even then, those that claim to understand it, cannot adequately explain it. Is that simplicity? I think not.
Yet, Jesus did not speak in secret! What can be simpler than his own words? The Father is greater than I. My God and your God. Calling the Father "the only true God."
Did God himself give the Israelites a hidden message of His triunity that they have missed for thousands of years?
Isaiah 45:19. I have not spoken in secret, in a dark place of the earth: I said not unto the seed of Jacob, Seek ye me in vain: I the Lord speak righteousness, I declare things that are right. (KJV)
How could he have given them any hidden meanings given the above? He declares things that are are right. What did He declare?
Deuteronomy 6:1. Now these are the commandments, the statutes, and the judgments, which the Lord your God commanded to teach you, that ye might do them in the land whither ye go to possess it: 4. Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God is one Lord:(KJV)
Jesus carried this teaching on with him;
Mark 12:29. And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:(KJV)
Paul even echoed the same words;
1 Cor. 8:6. But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.(KJV)
Simple as can be, ONE GOD! Not separate and distinct persons to make up one God, but one God, the Father, "the only true God." If it takes separate and distinct persons to comprise God and each is declared God, you have three separate and distinct Gods. Or, you have three separate and distinct lesser beings that make up a godhead. But, then they cannot each be God, can they?
No, as Paul cautioned, leaving the simplicity of Christ has brought much confusion to the world. We get so caught up arguing of this complicated triune nature that was brought in early on, we forget Jesus' own commandment given to the Apostles;
John 13:34. A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.
35. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another. (KJV)
Luke 10: 27. And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. (KJV)
Belief or non-belief in a triune nature is not the sign of a disciple of Christ, but love it. However, is it loving to deceive mankind for centuries over the simplicity of Christ?
In closing, the trinity is cited above as being the central doctrine of Christianity. But, is that really so?
1 John 4:11. Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another.
12. No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us.
13. Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit.
14. And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world.
15. Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God. (KJV)
It isn't the trinity, but the belief that Jesus is the Son of God, not God himself. And, loving one another.
Lew W
herk

The Trinity

Share this