Attack on the trinity

  • Thread starter Thread starter Asiyreh
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Asiyreh

Guest
Hi guys

I have a JW guy on our forum who loves to cite these authors over and over again. I’m going to begin my own investigation into them. Find out what their actual perspective was etc. Any help would be great. Thoughts, idea, refutations, whatever. Thanks guys

The truth is that the Trinity isn’t even mentioned in God’s word, the Holy Bible.
Harper’s Bible Dictionary, by P. Achtemeier, c. 1985, Harper & Row, San Francisco, Ca.

A check of any concordance will prove this fact. Not only is it not mentioned, but the doctrine is neither found in the New Testament, (Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, Vol. 12, ed. S. Jackson, reprint of early 1900’s edition republished by Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Mich.)
nor is it found in the Old Testament. (Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, Vol. 10, by J. M’Clintock and J. Strong, reprint of 1881 workd published by Baker Book House, Grands Rapids, Mich.)

Concerning Old Testament scriptures, “theologians today are in agreement that the Hebrew Bible does not contain a doctrine of the Trinity, even though it was customary in past dogmatic tracts … to cite texts like Genesis 1:26 … as proof of plurality in God.” (The Encyclopedia of Religion, Vol. 15, ed. M. Eliade, c. 1987, Macmillan Pub. Co., New York)

And “… in the New Testament the doctrine of the Trinity is not enunciated …” but only “deduced from a collocation of passages …” (The New Schaffe-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol. 12, ed. S. Jackson, reprint of early 1900’s edition republished by Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Mich.)

The Trinity, therefore, did not " … reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God, it was, on the contrary, a divination from this teaching." (Encyclopedia Americana, Vol. 27, c.1956, Americana Corp., New York)

“The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established … into Christian life … prior to the 4th century… Among the Apostolic Fathers, there has been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.”
( New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 14, p.299, by editorial staff at the Catholic University of America, c.1967, McGraw-Hill, New York)
 
Asiyreh said:
Hi guys

I have a JW guy on our forum who loves to cite these authors over and over again. I’m going to begin my own investigation into them. Find out what their actual perspective was etc. Any help would be great. Thoughts, idea, refutations, whatever. Thanks guys
Click to expand...
From my research, when using God’s Word translation of the Bible, the two easiest means to recognize the Holy Trinity are found in Genesis 1:26-27 and Matthew 28:19.

The plurality within a singularity is recognizable from comparing God in Genesis 1:26 & 27, where God says, “Let us make humans in our image,” then God creates in his image. Therefore, God’s image is both plural and singular. Furthermore, the plurality within the singularity can be recognized because when God speaks, which is inner being, God’s image is plural (our), yet when God acts, which contains speaking, God is singular (his). If God was solely a singularity, verse 26 should have read, “God says, ‘Let me make humans in my image.’”

The three distinct persons, which are each fully the same essence, is recognizable In Matthew where we find we are to baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. There is one name for the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Therefore, whatever we name the Father, the same name fully applies to the other two persons. A couple examples: If I call the Father, God, then the Son is also God, as well as the Holy Spirit is God.
If I call the Father, Jehovah, then the Son is also Jehovah, as well as the Holy Spirit is Jehovah.

One other means I like, but is not as easy to see, is the comparison of God as God, LORD God, and LORD. In the Old Testament, the Word refers to God’s self distinctly as God, LORD God, and LORD. When reflecting on the distinctions, I first thought, “why would God refer to himself in three distinct ways, as opposed to a simpler and more consistent means of only one way?” Throughout time, I have discovered the beneficial understanding of God, LORD God, and LORD as three distinct persons, which are fully God, both in communion and individually.

As far as the quotations, each statement contains some validity, but are also incomplete.

“…the “Trinity” isn’t even mentioned in God’s word, the Holy Bible.”
Sure, the word “Trinity” isn’t stated, however, neither are the terms “God” and “Holy Bible.” Since the Bible was originally written in different languages other than English, consistent application of the quote would mean, I should only believe in using the language of the initial presentation of the Bible.

“…theologians today are in agreement…”
Sure, some people who study God agree on some things about God today, of which some things are in disagreement with earlier theological understandings, even though the early theologians supported the doctrine of the Trinity from the Old Testament. In other words, the practice of protesting, does not create the unity God possesses, nor desires for us.

“…in the New Testament the doctrine of the Trinity is not enunciated…”
Sure, there are no lines which state, “In God there are Three Persons, the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. Each of the Three Persons possesses the one (numerical) Divine Essence,” however God’s purpose for creation is not enunciated either. Does this mean we can never know the purpose for creation or that God is purposeless in creating? We know God has a purpose for creating by deducing from a collocation of passages, in accord with the knowledge from the Holy Spirit.

“…[did not] reflect accurately early Christian teaching…”
Sure, sometimes early Christians did not agree, however Jesus Christ, himself, taught the plurality within a singularity. Jesus told us, “The Father and I are one,” therefore, there is a plurality persons within the singularity of being.

“The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established…prior to the 4th century…”
Sure, God does not reveal the entirety of himself in a single instance to created humans, as He does angels, however, as a Jew, Jesus taught that, “He and the Father are one,” which had never been remotely thought of by other Jews

Thank you very much for sharing your time, consideration, and the interesting question!
 
As I understand it the Catholic church does not recognize JW as a Christian religion and so any convert to the Church from JW will have to be baptized because in order to be a Christian one must be baptized in the Trinitarian formula as Jesus commanded which is just one of many ways we get clues into the Trinity.

Matthew 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

They baptize in the name of Jehovah because they don’t understand Jesus as God but rather an angel and will site this as part of their understanding. Hebrews 2:9 But we do see Him who was made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, so that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone.

The Priest references that scripture in mass saying something like God humbled Himself and became man… And we know in the heirarchy of the angels, just below the angels is man, Jesus being perfect man would be the one just below the angels when He was human.

They have different interpretations of scripture which allows them to believe as they believe and they are taught that other religions, especially Catholicism, as false religions and that is pretty much ingrained in them so they will of course not be open to learning anything different about the scriptures especially from a Catholic. And that doesn’t bother them because they believe in the literal sense that only 144,000 people will enter heaven so this would mean that many Catholics wouldn’t nor would most Christians but the chosen few, probably the JW. Revelation 7:4 Then I heard the number of those who were sealed: 144,000 from all the tribes of Israel.

Rev 7.4 a hundred and forty-four thousand: A symbolic number, i.e., twelve (the sacred number) squared 12 tribes of Israel x 12 apostles (Mark 3:14) and multiplied by 1,000 to denote a multitude, or in other words a great multitude of Christians already making up the early Church is what John is speaking of. It is the church, the spiritual Israel, that is meant. The creation of the Church made up of both Gentile and Jew to make this multitude, and if a person continues on in Revelation 7 they will say it is talking about the multitude. Still they’re interpreting Rev in the very literal sense with almost certainty will bring about an incorrect interpretation of the scriptures.

So you see there’s a lot to this having to do with the way they interpret these scriptures.

God speed…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top