The Trinity and JW

  • Thread starter Thread starter raqrodriguez
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

raqrodriguez

Guest
Can some one help me explain the Trinity to a JW. I have tried the best I could and have got nowhere lol. :confused: Maybe I just don’t know how to explain it properly.:hammering: Thank you everyone.
 
Someone recently explained this to me and the example that made the most sense to me was that the Trinity was like water. Even if it is different forms (gas, solid, or liquid), it is still made of the same substance though it logically has a different role and does different things in each of its different forms.

I’m interested to see what other replies you get… I’m still trying to figure this part out myself.
 
Chris1112 said:
Someone recently explained this to me and the example that made the most sense to me was that the Trinity was like water. Even if it is different forms (gas, solid, or liquid), it is still made of the same substance though it logically has a different role and does different things in each of its different forms.
Click to expand...
When we use analogies from natural things like these, I think we must also be very careful to point out the dissimilarities as well as the similarities.

If we use something like the water example, we should be careful to clarify that we are not thereby endorsing trinitarian modalism. Sometimes water is frozen, sometimes water is in a gaseous state. (It’s true these states can sometimes coexist, but the point here is that the same water that is now gaseous can be solidified and the same water that is solidified can be liquified.) But God is not sometimes Father and sometimes Holy Spirit. These aren’t different roles played or masks worn by a single person. All three Persons are eternal, and the Father is not the Son is not the Spirit. There is some value in the analogy (only one substance, but ice is not liquid is not steam), but in all analogies involving God and creatures the dissimilarity is greater than the similarity (we should also clarify that the divine substance is not material, like water!).

Another popular trinitarian analogy is the shamrock. It’s a good analogy in that it shows the distinction of the questions: How many shamrocks? Only one, not three. How many leaves? Three, not one. The question of how many shamrocks (like how many gods) is a different question than how many leaves (or how many persons). The answers are different (one not three, three not one) because the questions are different. As with the water analogy, there’s something of real value in this analogy. But we must also clarify that we recognize the great dissimilarity. A shamrock is not only material, but also composite and divisible, and God is none of these (God is immaterial, simple, and indivisible). So the Persons of the Trinity cannot be called “parts” of God, though leaves really are parts of a shamrock.

Yet another analogy is human. I have a human nature, you have a human nature. We are each fully human, we have the same nature, and we are at the same time different persons. This analogy has the extra benefit of not appealing to sub-personal beings like water and plants. But as in the other analogies, the dissimilarity is greater than the similarity: we have the same human nature, but we are not only different human persons, we are different human beings. The three divine Persons have one divine nature, and they are different divine Persons, but they are only one divine Being.

The Trinity does not involve contradiction. “How many gods/beings/natures?” really is an entirely different question than “how many persons?” so the different answers to the questions (one, and only one; three, neither more nor less) can reasonably coexist. But the Trinity does involve mystery, something beyond our full comprehension, because nowhere among creatures do we encounter three persons who are a single being.

Don’t know if this helps anyone, but I hope it will. 🙂
 
I am one person, but I have different functions to different ones in my extended family. I am a son to my parents, a husband to my wife and a father to my child. All three titles carry different responsibilites, but I’m still the same me.
 
T_More said:
I am one person, but I have different functions to different ones in my extended family. I am a son to my parents, a husband to my wife and a father to my child. All three titles carry different responsibilites, but I’m still the same me.
Click to expand...
I think this analogy is intrinsically problematic precisely because of the way it starts: “I am one person.” The Persons of the Trinity are not different titles or roles held by a single person. :o
 
aspirant said:
I think this analogy is intrinsically problematic precisely because of the way it starts: “I am one person.” The Persons of the Trinity are not different titles or roles held by a single person. :o
Click to expand...
Agreed. It surely is a difficult concept to explain to those that are Unitarian. My apologies.
 
aspirant said:
I think this analogy is intrinsically problematic precisely because of the way it starts: “I am one person.” The Persons of the Trinity are not different titles or roles held by a single person. :o
Click to expand...
I think what you have described here is called “modalism” or something like that, and is an explanation of the trinity which has been rejected by the Catholic Church. This is what I thought the trinity was when I was younger, but I have come to understand the reality of the trinity is deeper than this, and (some people won’t like this) more mysterious. I could spend my whole life trying to comprehend the trinity, and I’m not sure my ideas and the reality of it would be a 1:1 correspondence. When I get there, I’m sure He will explain it to me 👍
 
well, it is an interesting question. And, yes, it seems that most examples fall into some sort of heresy if you push them too far. There is a sense in which the old “Father, Son, Holy Ghost is God, and none of them are each other” is really pretty good.

Not really that hard: God is the kind of being that happens to exist as three distinct persons. Sure, it seems a little odd, but name something about God that isn’t strange. But, look, we usually work backward when we talk about God, don’t we? We don’t ask, How could God make all that is, seen and unseen, if he doesn’t have hands?" Instead, we say: “God is the kind of being that can create things through his will.” And, “The Father is the kind of thing that doesn’t need a body of any kind,” we don’t insist that the essence of spirit is explained to us.

And it is similar with the Trinity. It only fails to make sense when you are silly enough to expect it to – nothing about God “makes sense” upon reflection. And people who keep saying that they “don’t get” the Trinity are being a little dishonest they don’t “get” what it means to be an infinite, non-material being, either. But they don’t tend to push as hard on those elements of God’s nature.

So when people are confused about the Trinity (and these confusions are always about one mistake: they think nature and person are the same thing), you might do well simply to say that God is the kind of being that exists as three distinct persons. If soneone demands more, ask them to explain infinity first. That ought to frame the question a little better.
 
The doctrine of the Trinity is the belief that there is one God who has revealed Himself in three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. These three persons make up the one true God. These three persons are of the same substance, equal in power and glory.

The Bible clearly states that there is only one God. Deuteronomy 6:4 states, “Hear O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is one.” Isaiah 44:6 states, “I am the first and I am the last, and there is no God besides me.” Clearly, these verses reveal that there is only one God. Yet, there are three separate persons in the Bible who are called God and have the characteristics only God can have.

The Father is obviously called God as seen throughout the Bible. No one will argue that point. So there is one member of the Trinity, the Father.

Jesus the Son, is a separate person but He is also called God. John 1:1 says, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Titus 2:13 says, “Looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus.” So here we see clearly, the Son is also called God.

The Holy Spirit is also a separate person, and He is also called God. First, let us understand, the Holy Spirit is not an impersonal force. He is a person and has the characteristics of a person. He can be grieved (Eph. 4:30), He speaks (Acts 13:2), and He can be lied to (Act 5:3-4). In Acts 5:3-4 the Holy Spirit is called God, “But Peter said, ‘Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit?..You have not lied to men, but to God.’”

So we see clearly that there are three persons in the Bible, and all three are called God. Yet, we must remember, there is only one God according to the verses we looked at Deuteronomy 6:4 and Isaiah 44:6. Therefore, we come to the conclusion that the Trinity is made up of three separate persons who are the one true God.

(excerpts from “Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Trinity” by Patrick Zukeran, leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/jw-trin.html)
 
raqrodriguez said:
Can some one help me explain the Trinity to a JW. I have tried the best I could and have got nowhere lol. :confused: Maybe I just don’t know how to explain it properly.:hammering: Thank you everyone.
Click to expand...
yOU CAN NOT EXPLAIN the Trinity to a JW they will not believe any think you say and they have the most corrupt bible in the world,nothing you say will they believe they just do not listen.
But good luck and may God help you
 
Thank you all so much for replying. I have used many of the expamples posted. And Bill, I am about to pull my hair out trying to make this friend of mine understand. All he says is “I still don’t get it”. Lol i guess I have to accept that he will not (for now) ADMIT to “getting it” because he just refuses to. It can be very frustrating trying to make people you deeply care about understand things when they just refuse to. I think deep down he “gets it” but just will not admit it due to being a JW. He is such an intelligent person and I can’t believe how he falls for the brainwashing of the WT. I pray that God will grant him, and all who are non-believers, wisdom and help them to open their hearts to the truth. Your prayers are much appreciated. God bless you and your loved ones.
 
“I don’t get it” is a vague statement.

If he means “I don’t comprehend it,” no one does, nor claims to.

If he means “I do not even understand the terms being used and the distinctions between them,” or “I understand what you mean, but not why you would believe this,” then you have something to discuss.
 
aspirant said:
“I don’t get it” is a vague statement.

If he means “I don’t comprehend it,” no one does, nor claims to.

If he means “I do not even understand the terms being used and the distinctions between them,” or “I understand what you mean, but not why you would believe this,” then you have something to discuss.
Click to expand...
His “I don’t get it” is his cop-out. He repeats it over and over I think in an attempt to block out what I am trying to tell him so as to not let it sink in. 🤷
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top