In the Bible there are verses for and against trinity that's why the issue was never cleared up even after 2000 years, the apostolic scriptures that survived weren't suficient to decisively clear up this and several other issues.
In my view the Christ was indeed the created son of God but after his glorification he became entitled to receive worship like God the Father. Call this ditheism or whatever God has the freedom to demand worship for his created son by the rest of creation.
Trinity?!?!
by Lynne Y 31 Replies latest jw experiences
-
greendawn
-
Etude
I'm with you, jwfacts and greendawn. It's a confusing issue and the Bible does not make it easy to unravel. And, I disagree with you, the_classicist, because it is not incorrect or illogical to assume the Bible as an ultimate irrefutable source, even if we do it as a starting point for academic reasons. If you don't, then you have to pick and choose what is right or not in it and then that puts everything and anything it says in doubt. The ideal thing would be to have "outside" evidence corroborate what is in the Bible already. If external facts contradict it, then we must put it into question. If they agree, them we can trust it. If outside facts are unclear, then we would have to leave it at that.
I'm sure this topic has been beaten to death on this forum, but I think what we all need, not a definitive answer, but a way to ascertain if the discovery method we select is appropriate and correct.
For example, I can't buy the argument in the article that NeonMadman graciously supplied. I come up with a third alternative other than: "We are left with only two alternatives: 1: The Bible is incorrect, or 2: God is a plural personality consisting of three persons in one Being." I can for example say that the conclusion is: "The Bible is unclear regarding the subject and the historical and scientific evidence seems to contradict and/or agree with it while it shows that the concept did not originate in the Bible but in other religions." I can say that because the article makes some incorrect assumptions: 1) that the "Us" referred to in the Genesis quotes is indicative of plurality of individuals and not as a pronoun of grandeur, as the English royalty used it in the past. Also, it could very well be that it is as the JWs explain it, that if it refers to more than one person, it would be God's son and/or the angels. But the quotes in the article for that argument really say nothing regarding the duality or relationship of the members who comprise the "Us". In itself, it's does not support a trinity. 2) The argument regarding the use of the term "Elohim" falls flat on it's face because the term is also applied to humans in other places in the Bible. Although the article is extensive and is careful to say:"There is much evidence to support the fact that God exists as a Trinity", many of the quotes follow the same vein as I explained above. That makes it a bit shaky. I would have like it better if it also showed a more balanced view and cite the Biblical reference that appear to contradict the trinity. Also, the statement from it I cited above, indicates that it considers the trinity a "fact", which means that the "evidence" that follows may render it a biased view. It should let you render your own conclusion based on a balanced presentation.
All this may leave us nowhere. However, I'd rather be there than in the wrong place. I do like to discuss topics such as this one because it helps me to question my position and allows me to exercise my ability to reason logically. If I'm faulty there, I would hope that someone can kindly point it out. I'm not sure if the correct procedure would be to take it off-line or continue to use this forum for the benefit of others.
Etude.
-
DannyBloem
[edited] sorry for this empty post, how to delete it?
-
DannyBloem
The trinity makes logically no sense at all. Espaecially the time Jezus was on earth and he died. (God was not dead, Jezus was, or Jezus fakes it...)
In some parts of the bible it is clear that the writer did not see God as part of a trinity.
In other parts of the bible it looks like the writer did se God as a trinity, but the evidence on this is not very sure.
In my opinion, there are different thouhs of different writers, and that makes it impossible to come to one single conclusion for many of the teachings in the bible. Therefore we should not look at one or two versus of the bible to try to prove any of those things. The bible is just not the autority to do so....
Danny
-
Rex
Sheesh, didn't anyone here READ Neonmadman's post? How much scripture do you need to see the inference of the trinity? The reason it was not stated explicitly early on (the apostolic age) was because it was so obvious in scripture. The Jews had always expected YHWH to come to earth and liberate them, Immanuel: God with us (Isa. 9:6). The actual term and doctrine developed as gnostic heresies sprouted (btw, JWs have a couple of different gnostic heresies that they push as the Troof) and 'apologia' was necessary. The church had to define what had previously been a 'given'. Christians had always worshipped Christ, even before His crucifixtion. This is why the NWT uses the word 'obesiance' instead of 'worship' in John 9.38 and they use the same tactic in other scripture over 300 times to change it to match their doctrine. BTW, Gnosticism is defined as 'special knowledge' and we all the know the 'unfaithful and indiscreet slave' have that, don't we? Rex
-
Carmel
It is said that once John of Chrysostom was walking along the seashore thinking over the question of the trinity and trying to reconcile it with finite reason; his attention was attracted to a boy sitting on the shore putting water into a cup. Approaching him, he said, "My child, what art thou doing?" "I am trying to put the sea into this cup," was the answer. "How foolish art thou," said John, "in trying to do the impossible." The child replied, "Thy work is stranger than mine, for thou art laboring to bring within the grasp of human intellect the conception of the trinity."
(Abdu'l-Baha, Divine Philosophy, p. 152)
-
Big Dog
Everytime there is a trinity thread I basically write this same post (I should just go back and cut and paste one but I am a glutton for punishment) and no one hardly ever gives me an answer, and as most here were dubs I am always dissapointed (I was raised dub but never baptized). Here is the point I raised with my parents and anyone else that would listen regarding the issue, the dubs seem to have no trouble believing what I term as 2/3 of the trinity, ie. that the Holy Spirit is God's active force, and it is given personality, it can be sinned against, can be hurt, etc. I mean that's no problem for people to buy, yeah, the Holy Spirit, part of God yet separate, but when it comes to Jesus, oh no, can't go there, what are you crazy, it doesn't make sense.
I would tell dubs, you believe in 2/3 of the trinity so to speak, why is the other 1/3 such a problem? Any thoughts?
-
Carol
Big Dog...that sounds like a math problem to me and I hate math problems!
-
Etude
Rex:
I guess you must have been writing when I made a second entry on the board. I did read Neonmadman's post (a good effort) and I commented on it. Did you read my comments? I think I made some points. I would appreciate your comments on my comments, unless you have no comments at all to comment.
Etude.
-
the_classicist
And, I disagree with you, the_classicist, because it is not incorrect or illogical to assume the Bible as an ultimate irrefutable source, even if we do it as a starting point for academic reasons. If you don't, then you have to pick and choose what is right or not in it and then that puts everything and anything it says in doubt. The ideal thing would be to have "outside" evidence corroborate what is in the Bible already. If external facts contradict it, then we must put it into question. If they agree, them we can trust it. If outside facts are unclear, then we would have to leave it at that.
But where does it say it in the Bible, that the Bible is the ultimate source?
OTOH, how do you decided which books to put in the Bible. By whose authority do you decide what is inspired and what is not?