Trinity- True or False

by defd 215 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Midget-Sasquatch

  Jesus occupies a position far above the angels in the writings and the hearts of JWs. He is duplexed with Michael in that he fills the office, role, duty, function, etc. of 'archangel' and is said to "seemingly" characterize Michael, but his nature and essence now post-resurrection is that of Jehovah God himself, which angels are not. The 144,000 are also said to attain this level of godly being.

  The WTBTS has to attribute some "divinity"to Jesus and the saints because its just too blatant in several passages of the NT. Like the concept of being immortal and having "life within themselves". Thats the only "divine" characteristic I've ever heard being attributed to the annointed these last two decades. The WTBTS, then also try to explain their "divinity", and also to some extent that of Jesus, as being different from the "divinity" of Jehovah.

  Here are some references from WTBTS literature:

  *** rs p. 426 Trinity ***

  ‘Do you believe in the divinity of Christ?’

  You might reply: ‘Yes, I certainly do. But perhaps I do not have in mind the same thing that you do when you refer to "the divinity of Christ."’ Then perhaps add: (1) ‘Why do I say that? Well, at Isaiah 9:6 Jesus Christ is described as "Mighty God," but only his Father is ever referred to in the Bible as the Almighty God.’ (2) ‘And notice that at John 17:3 Jesus speaks of his Father as "the only true God." So, at most, Jesus is just a reflection of the true God.’

  *** it-1 p. 639 Divine ***

  Finally, at 2 Peter 1:3, 4 the apostle shows that by virtue of "the precious and very grand promises" extended to faithful anointed Christians, they "may become sharers in divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world through lust." Elsewhere in the Scriptures, Christians are referred to as ‘sharing’ with Christ in his sufferings, in a death like his, and in a resurrection like his to immortality as spirit creatures, becoming joint heirs with him in the heavenly Kingdom. (1Co 15:50-54; Php 3:10, 11; 1Pe 5:1; 2Pe 1:2-4; Re 20:6) Thus it is evident that the sharing of Christians in "divine nature" is a sharing with Christ in his glory.

  *** w92 1/15 p. 23 What Do the Scriptures Say About "the Divinity of Christ"? ***

  According to the Bible, then, Jesus had a prehuman existence as the Word. When on the earth, he was not a divine God-man. He was wholly human, though perfect, as Adam originally was. Since Jesus’ resurrection, he has been an exalted immortal spirit ever subordinate to God. Clearly, therefore, the Scriptures do not support the idea of "the divinity of Christ."
• 

  Hellrider

  JosephMalik:

  You seem to think the text was written with precision and protected by God in this way? That is your argument but anyone should be able to see that God did not protect the text in this way.

  First of all: I am arguing this from a christian perspective, even though I don`t consider myself a christian myself (at least not friday nights...)

  From a christian perspective: If God didn`t protect the text, at least thru the first couple of hundred years, then the text can`t be trusted at all. To me it`s an either/or-question. If God (by some kind of guidance/intervention) didn`t protect the texts, at least in the beginning, how can it be trusted? It could have been changed beyond recognition, the text could say anything, things we would even consider heresy/ungodly today! The JWs could even (principally) be right in their horrible mistranslation of the Bible! (they could be right by chance) And as for hermeneutical approaches, I have nothing but contempt for that. There is no (stabile) cultural bond between ourselves and the first christian congregations, or any part of humanity, 2000 years ago, for that matter. And if we had to second-guess or way thru 2000 years of culture to be able to determine what the Bible really says,I doubt that would be possible.

  You see regardless of how it was written, it was not copied with precision much less translated thus. There are many variations, additions or versions some of which are difficult to resolve.

  I am aware that there are many variations, but as I have no knowledge of greek, I don`t know what these differences are. Are there diverging texts on key issues (I would regard all paragraps concerning Jesus words about himself, "Ego eimi", things like that, key issues, whereas whether Onan "spilleth his seed on the floor" or "spilleth his seed on the table" is not a key issue), or just "small differences"?

  The Cannon itself is a best guess

  If that is the case, then there is no christianity. There might be "religion", based upon old greek and hebrew texts, but christianity as we know it today, would be a complete heresy (speaking from a christian viewpoint).

  The protection is somewhere else and is not compromised by such alteration or those responsible for it

  Hm, I`m not sure what you mean by that. That there is an "untouchable" version of the Bible, in heaven? Like the Quran, which moslems claim is only a "materialised" version of an allready pre-existing text in heaven? Ok,I have no problem with that. But that would mean that God revealed himself to man,made sure the account was written down, only to get out and leave the rest up to us, not caring if the account of his visit would be corrupted until it wasn`t any longer recognisable, leaving countless generations stumbling around in the dark after some sense of truth.

  However, I`m not saying I completely disagree with you. I just disagree with you when discussing this with the "christian part" of me. I know that from a non-christian perspective, what you say makes perfect sense. But it would alter the world and 2000 years of christianity completely, with huge theological implications.
• 

  LittleToe

  Midget:
  Thanks, pal. I don't have the WT Library CD, and the "Theocratic Library"TM got left with the ex.
• 

  Terry

  A distinct person, and yet identical to his Father in every way.

  May I carp?

  The word IDENTICAL is being done great violence here.

  At the point where you can DISTINGUISH one thing from another they are NOT IDENTICAL!

  Define: IDENTICAL (wordnet.com) exactly alike; incapable of being perceived as different;

  So?

  So, Jesus and Jehovah cannot be IDENTICAL even if they are fictional!

  Why even have conversations like this when the damned words DON'T CARRY MEANING???

  That is my problem with religious doctrines and beliefs derrived from them. Words must convey precise meanings in order to be sensible.

  This doctrine and the conversations about the doctrine all stem from ABUSED LANGUAGE.

  Stop the madness!!

  Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
• 

  Terry

  Jesus Christ is described as "Mighty God," but only his Father is ever referred to in the Bible as the Almighty God.

  Ahh, like washday detergent! White/whiter, strong/stronger, rich/richer, pure/purer

  We have a god of DECLENSIONS!
• 

  zen nudist

  the question is whether or not the concept of the trinity is biblical or not...

  if we mean by that does the bible ever teach that there are three persons in one god, the obvious answer

  is no. the bible teaches right from the beginning that the family of God or the elohim is comprized of many Sons of God who are all

  elohim or super beings which number in the millions all of these are said to be the children of one entity called the god of the elohim or the god of gods who's name is given as YHWH.

  following the bible story one of the elohim was designated to voluntarily give up the form of dvinity to adopt the form of a slave [human]

  no where in the bible is the elohim ever limited to three.

  and manifestly those who are to be given divine regent status along with christ will be even higher in rank than the beni-elohim and godlike beings in their own right.. so

  seems to me that the whole trinity invention came abotu to serve political ends and has ntohing to do with the bible.
• 

  LittleToe

  Terry:

  That is my problem with religious doctrines and beliefs derrived from them.

  Is it? Is that really your problem?

  At the point where you can DISTINGUISH one thing from another they are NOT IDENTICAL!

  "...The one seeing Me has seen the Father! And how do you say, Show us the Father? Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me? The Words which I speak to you I do not speak from Myself, but the Father who abides in Me, He does the works. Believe Me that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me;..." John.14:9-11

  I have two identical bookends, of which I only know them apart because one is always on the left and one on the right. So why don't ya haul yer pedantic ass outta here, if you're not intersted in the conversation at hand?

  The meaning is in the context, which is this thread...
• 

  Hellrider

  the bible teaches right from the beginning that the family of God or the elohim is comprized of many Sons of God who ; are all

  elohim or super beings which number in the millions all of these are said to be the children of one entity called the god of the elohim or the god of gods who's name is given as YHWH.

  following the bible story one of the elohim was designated to voluntarily give up the form of dvinity to adopt the form of a slave [human]

  Zen nudist: You are basing that conclusion on JW-doctrine, that Jesus is/was Michael the archangel, sent to earth on a mission. As far as I know, only JWs are the only religious group that believes this. The rest of christianity, whether they believe in the trinity or not, don`t see Jesus as "only" an angel sent to earth. And the number three is not what the trinity is all about. The trinity is a belief that God is almighty, and logics/physical laws don`t apply to him. If God choose to be in several places at once (all over the place, like the holy ghost) or in heaven (as the Father) or on earth in human form, that`s up to him/it. And for God (who is omnipotent/almighty) this is not selfcontradictory. Whether the bible supports this view, that`s another question. But some believe that it does.
• 

  zen nudist

  Zen nudist: You are basing that conclusion on JW-doctrine, that Jesus is/was Michael the archangel, sent to earth on a mission. As far as I know, only JWs are the only religious group that believes this. The rest of christianity, whether they believe in the trinity or not, don`t see Jesus as "only" an angel sent to earth. And the number three is not what the trinity is all about. The trinity is a belief that God is almighty, and logics/physical laws don`t apply to him. If God choose to be in several places at once (all over the place, like the holy ghost) or in heaven (as the Father) or on earth in human form, that`s up to him/it. And for God (who is omnipotent/almighty) this is not selfcontradictory. Whether the bible supports this view, that`s another question. But some believe that it does.

  this has nothing to do with JW stupidity, I have not been borg nor even christian for 15 years, I am just lookin at the bible as I would any other myth. the bible clearly says that there were many elohim who were also called beni-elohim and it gives every indication that Jesus was one of them who gave up his elohim nature and became a mortal man. there is nothing I have ever seen in the bible to suggest that God was numerically 3 people which IS what trinity means. it has NOTHING to do with what you said at all.
• 

  LittleToe

  Zen: Au contrare.

  He is identified as uniquely the Son, and different from the angels, as per Hebrews 1 & 2, and the title "only-begotten Son".

  The only reason the "anointed" become sons is by adoption. He isn't the "firstborn among many brothers" (Rom.8:29) in the midst of the angels.