All About The Trinity (page 5)

link

Sorry, there is a bit of cross-posting going on here.

LT hit the jackpot with the last sentence of his last post.

One popular misconception (again IMHO) is that Heb.4:12 only refers to the written "word", AKA the bible, rather than the "Word", or Christ. I'll leave you to make the connection.

Once you open your mind and accept that there can be misconceptions caused by the use of language, the Bible becomes a whole new book. LT uses the prime example of Heb 4.12 but there are countless other areas in which the written word does not necessarily mean exactly what is commonly perceived – there are other possibilities. The situation becomes even more complicated when you take in to account similar variations in the original languages.

My point is that religion wrongly imposes doctrines like the Trinity doctrine upon it’s followers that can never be confirmed with certainty and insists that they believe them even if they are not understood. They then make the acceptance of these doctrines a condition of acceptance by a person as a Christian within their particular brand of religion.

I am not anti-Christian, just very anti-religion.

link

Tyre

What Isaiah said about JWs

Isaiah 5:13, "Therefore my people will have to go into exile for lack of knowledge; and their glory will be famished men (the governing body) and their crowd (the rank and file JW) will be parched with thirst."

I Sanctify the Christ as Lord in My heart.

1 Peter 3:15 says, "Sanctify the Christ as Lord in your hearts always ready to make a defense before everyone that demands of you."

Did JWs believed in Jesus ???? NOPE

Math. 7:8, "For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it shall be opened." Romans 10:11, "For the Scripture says, ?Whoever believes in Him will not be disappointed.?

Did JWs Bear witness of Jesus, bla...bla...bla in John 5: 39-40 ?? NOPE

John 5:39-40, "You search the scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is these that bear witness of Me; and you are unwilling to come to Me, that you may have life."

Why JWs ask to Jesus in their pray says if Jesus as a False God (True God is Jehovah, right)??

John 14:14 states, ?If you ask ME anything in my name, I will do it!? Did JWs ask to Jesus anything in Jesus's name??

Watchtower a False Prophets ??

1 John 4:1 says, "Do not believe every inspired expression but test the inspired expressions to see whether they originate with God, because many false prophets have gone forth into the world."

Are JWs received Jesus ?? Nope

Mat 10:37 He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me.

Mat 10:38

And he who does not take up his cross and follow Me is not worthy of Me.

Mat 10:39

He who finds his life shall lose it. And he who loses his life for My sake shall find it.

Mat 10:40

He who receives you receives Me, and he who receives Me receives Him who sent Me.

Mat 10:41

He who receives a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet's reward. And he who receives a just one in the name of a just one will receive a just one's reward.

Mat 10:42

And whoever shall give to one of these little ones a cup of cold water to drink, only in the name of a disciple, truly I say to you, He shall in no way lose his reward.

LittleToe

Link:

Once you open your mind and accept that there can be misconceptions caused by the use of language, the Bible becomes a whole new book.

Aye, and that's just for starters...
IMHO a clearer view of who "Jesus" was/is, and what he did/does can be helpful in making that leap of understanding.

My point is that religion wrongly imposes doctrines...

I'm afraid so. It's also often a social acceptance thing, which is seen in culture as well as religion.

I am not anti-Christian, just very anti-religion.

I can understand this viewpoint. I'm not especially enamoured of the religious mindset, either.

I believe that religion can (although not exclusively) help an individual make a "connection with the Divine", but if the weight remains on that particular stepping stone (without moving onto a more solid rock) it can become a very slippery stepping stone indeed.

After that it becomes more of a social group, for support, and the "joy" of communal worship.

hooberus

My experience was similar.
I'll iterate the steps I went though, after "conversion" (albeit in very simple form, and in accord with my poor memory):
Jesus is "more" than I was taught
Jesus is "Divine"
Jesus holds titles and powers which are in common with "the Father" eg Creator, Mighty God, First and Last
The "Holy Spirit" is related to as a person
All three are "Spirit", and have instances of being refered to as "God"
Just as there are different kinds or orders of "flesh" (animal, human, etc) so there are different orders of spirit (Angels, "God", etc.)
Father, Son and Holy Spirit are distinct from other "spiritkind" - they are "God-kind", just as we are "human-kind" (Polytheistic, I know - I struggled with that one for a little while)
All three are involved in our prayers, wherever we are
All three, logically, must be able to be everywhere simultaniously (Omnipresent), at the same time
Since all three occupy the same time/space, and are evidently all refered to as "God" make the link...
All three are involved "in" the believer

LT are you saying that you were first born again and then went through the above process?

Or did you go through some of the above steps before you believe that you were born again?

LittleToe

Hoob:I had only gone through (and continued in) step one.

This resulted in a prayer to Christ (the first in my life) which involved total submission of my ego, a request for forgiveness of sins, and to receive the "Holy Spirit" (a totally different way of praying, to me). It was preceded by "conviction of sin", and triggered by reading a bible text that had been on my mind all morning (the parallel account of which I read, after my bible fell open at it).

Leolaia

Herk said.....

You won't find it in the Bible, but the Trinity doctrine asserts there are THREE persons in ONE nature -- the DIVINE nature -- while the doctrine of Christ's double nature states that there are TWO natures in ONE person. In the body of the God-Man Jesus resided the mind of God and the mind of man -- TWO NATURES -- the one infinite and the other finite, yet making but one person. Got that, fols? Three persons in one nature and two natures in one person! We hope you can figure that out better than we can.

This is a blundering of the two natures doctrine. Remember that it developed subsequently to the Nicene creed, and words that were used interchangeably in the Nicene creed were later given more precise meanings in the two natures doctrine. According to the fourth century doctrine, there were three HYPOSTASES in one OUSIA, and two PHYSES in one HYPOSTASIS. You have blurred together PHYSIS and OUSIA as if they were the same thing. PHYSIS refers to a distinction of the human and the divine from the point of view of the HYPOSTASIS, a Person of the Trinity. The Father and the Holy Spirit have only one PHYSIS, because neither have been incarnated in the flesh. The Son has a hypostatic union of two PHYSES, as a result of the Incarnation and Resurrection. As the Post-Nicene fathers saw it, a denial of the two natures (i.e. two PHYSES) of Christ would deny both the Resurrection (as Jesus really was raised) and the Incarnation (as God the Son was really made flesh). The three HYPOSTASES, or Persons, of the Trinity however shared the same divine OUSIA, or essence, shared by them and by no one else. HOMOOUSIA refers to this unity in deity. The human PHYSIS of the Son is a property unified with deity within the Son, not shared between the three Persons as if it were an OUSIA or essence.

ThiChi

"In brief, the ante-Nicene Fathers taught the real distinction and divinity of the three persons . . . but in their attempts at a philosophical interpretation of the Dogma, the ante-Nicene Fathers used certain expressions which would favor sudordinationism. In the late 17th century, the Socinians cited these expressions that the ante-Nicene tradition agreed rather with Arius than with Athanasius . . . Catholic theologians commonly defend the orthodoxy of these early Fathers, while admitting that certain of their expressions were inaccurate and eventually dangerous." -- Colliers Encyclopedia

Leolaia

Yep, a good example is Tertullian's Trinity, where subordination of the Holy Spirit to the Son and the Son to the Father was rather explicit. A view that would have been quite heretical in the fourth and fifth century if it were advanced as a new concept at the time.

herk

LittleToe

Leo:
There are some days that I think - "I wish this woman could have all my babies" (but then I get real, and remind myself that it'd only take a few years before I could no longer understand a word they said! ).

Your reply to Herk was incredibly succinct. Thank you for bringing such clarity to the subject, as it did my heart good. It's a shame he resorts to churlish cartoon strips, instead of rational debate.

All About The Trinity

Share this