Trinity...an attempt of Gentiles to distance themselves from the Jews?

by mizpah 7 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  mizpah

  I have often wondered whether the acceptance of the trinity doctrine in the church was an attempt of the Gentile beleivers to distance themselves from the early Jewish believers in the early church. As the Gentiles became the majority there does seem to be a concerted effort on the part of these members to eradicate any trace of the Jewish origins of the church. In fact, some of the early "church fathers" were very strong in their anti-Jewish sentiments. And some of the Jewish believers (Nazarenes, Ebionites, etc.) were eventually declared "apostate" and thrown out of the general association of Christians. What better way to do this than to declare belief in the trinity as a "central doctrine" in the Christian faith?

  After the destruction of Jerusalem, the Jews became objects of hatred of Rome. Christians were, at first, just considered another Jewish sect. Christians were also persecuted by Rome until the time of Constantine...and even thereafter. Could it be that Gentile christians did not want to carry the double stigma of both faiths?

  It is just a thought...but I would enjoy any comments that you could share with me.
• 

  La Capra

  Yes, yes, and yes (to all three in one). When Jews discuss the divinity of Christ, and the notion that Christians believe that God actually took human form, and how that morphed into the 3 in 1 doctrine, some say that this is where their fundamental proof is that Jesus of the Christians was not the messiah and savior, since it is diametrically opposed to their (our) fundamental doctrine that God is One, and only one.

  I believe I have mentioned in the past that there is a level of apologist doctine in what the JWs teach as it relates to the Jews. If it weren't for this technicality of Jesus coming along, there would have been nothing incorrect about being a Jew. When I was very young, I asked my mother why we weren't Jews, since that was the people "God chose" (I was only about 7, having my first stirrings that I was Jewish in my heart and soul). And she told me that earlier in the history of the JWs, that the Jews were still considered to be part of the whole plan, and that JWs didn't try to convert active Jews. I was so young at the time, I don't remember what that particular position was, and by the time I was interested in finding out about it, asking for old foundational JW literature was a no no, so I never tracked that down. Maybe someone else on the board knows about this.

  At any rate, the Christians did need a different angle, since from the beginning of time, (practically) the Jews have been a hated race and religion. Instead of being an offshoot of Judism (which it really is, and how the JWs present Christianity) coming up with a DIFFERENT notion of the almighty was essential as a separate and completely different identity. So much of the early decisions of doctrine by the Church was guided by a desire to spread and acquire power (and money and land). The Church adopted many outside customs (holidays) that would widen its appeal,and rejected other valid customs-or doctirnes- that would limit its appeal. Jewish customs limited appeal to the masses that were not Jewish. 3 = 1 was quite different, but still paid homage to Jewish mindset, yet was still quite UnJewish.

  And since JWs don't want to appeal to the masses (it IS part of their continued apology to the Jews-to remain outsiders), rejecting notions that do appeal is pro forma. So many times, before even considering a notion on its merits, the ntion is rejected simply because it seems too normal to outsiders.

  So as for the trinity-my research has revealed that it was instiuted by the church for several reasons, and one of them was to separate completely from Judaism. And as for JWs postion on trinity...JW doctrine clings to God of the Torah-God is One, and you shall worship no others. JW is a Jewish apologist religion, even borrowing their resurrection/paradise thing (which some Jews believe in).

  But what do I know, I intuit these things, then seek verification-not the other way around.

  Shoshana
• 

  mizpah

  La Capra:

  You bring up some interesting points. I do know that Russell's views toward the Jews were entirely different from that of Rutherford. Russell's support of the Zionist movement was based upon his belief that the Jews would return to the "holy land" during the "end time" in fulfillment of the ancient prophecies. As I recall, he even wrote about this subject. Today, some Jewish organizations have honored Russell as being one of the few ministers that supported this effort.

  I think Rutherford probably was an anti-Semite. Whatever his motive, it served his purpose to allegorize all those ancient prophecies and apply them exclusively to "spiritual Israel." And, of course, in Rutherford's theology only members of his organization qualified. The strong anti-Semitic sentiments of Rutherford can be seen in the "Declaration" that distributed in Germany during the Nazi regime. And even though his attempt to pacify the Nazis failed, he never changed his stance against the Jews. In light of this, I always find it ironic that Jehovah's Witnesses find a special place of mention in the holocaust memorials.
• 

  DannyBear

  Mizpah & Shoshana,

  Very interesting discussion.

  ****I think Rutherford probably was an anti-Semite.**** I not only think it, it is relatively plain to see in his letter's to the Nazi's.

  The history of most religions reveal the tendancy to assimilate other cultures and traditions, with the sole intent of making their particular message more palatable to potential converts.

  Enjoyed both of comments.

  Danny
• 

  OHappyDay

  No doubt Bible Students/JWs are honored by the Holocaust Museum because of the shared experience of persecution under Nazism. The Gypsies, homosexuals, and others are mentioned there for the same reason.

  I would not be quick to pass around accusations of antisemtism. There are many who want to say that the New Testament itself is antisemitic, but I don't buy that. JWs are hardly antisemitic, but some of the older literature had themes that could be classed as anti-Zionist.

  It is historical fact that the growing Christian congregation rejected its Jewish roots and marginalized the first Christians, who were Jewish. Many churchmen of the 2nd and 3rd centuries carried Paul's dichotomy of the Law and Faith to an extreme, making it a rigid dichotomy between Judaism and Christianity.

  What is strange today is to see many professed Christians trying to go back to Jewish practices, people such as the Seventh-Day Adventists, the various Yahweh-groups, etc. They would wed certain Jewish traditions to what they consider to be primitive Christian ethics. But to me the results are grotesque, not at all the seamless Jewish Christianity of the first century. These are not Jews who merely accept Jesus as the Jewish messiah, but Gentiles wanting to become Jews.
• 

  mizpah

  Ohappyday:

  No, I don't think Jehovah's Witnesses are antiSemitic. But I do think that Rutherford probably was as evidenced by his "Declaration." I actually admire those JWs who did not compromise with the Nazis and ended up in the concentration camps. But I wonder what the Jews would think of Rutherford's attempt to pacify the Nazis at the expense of their people. The Declaration was known by JWs in Germany who distributed it. It was also well known by all who read the Yearbook. I'm not aware of any JWs who protested the contents or the spirit of the Declaration. Do you? So, at least, JWs of that time seem to have spread the anti Semitic sentiments of Rutherford.
• 

  Hamas

  I don't think Jehovah's Witnesses are antiSemitic

  Shame. I was going to return.
• 

  JCanon

  No, I don't think Jehovah's Witnesses are antiSemitic. But I do think that Rutherford probably was as evidenced by his "Declaration." I actually admire those JWs who did not compromise with the Nazis and ended up in the concentration camps. But I wonder what the Jews would think of Rutherford's attempt to pacify the Nazis at the expense of their people.

  You can't take Rutherford's statement to Hitler for face value. One reference claimed that both he and Russell were Jewish, in fact. I confirmed that Russell was Jewish but not Rutherford. Furthermore, both were accused of being Freemasons, which connects them to Jewry. In the situation with Hitler where the witnesses were being accused of being supported by "the Jews" the reference undoubtedly was the secret society Jews believed to exist with the global agenda to dismantle the white world and become its ultimate leaders. Thus it is interesting that monetary support by the Jews/Freemasons was Hitlers concern, with this theory of the Jewish conspiracy to control the world with money.

  So in that context, when Rutherford basically came out and ADMITTED that the Jews controlled England and New York, he was confirming what Hitler was focussing on as well; only he wouldn't have done that if (1) it wasn't likely true and (2) he wasn't himself a Freemason of some order. He basically confirmed the romours and concepts of Jewish money and their interference in Hitler's face. So my impression was that he was taunting Hitler. Hitler didn't buy it and locked the witnesses up anyway. Of course, if you were a Freemason and understood that one day all their money would control the world, this is precisely the same kind of sarcastic rhetoric one would expect.

  That having been said, was Rutherford or the WTS anti-Semetic?

  JCanon