Let’s talk about the Bible

[savagewind]

 

[savagewind]

 

[savagewind]

 

[savagewind]

 

[savagewind]

 

[savagewind]

Anyway, there is no denying that according to the Watchtower, a crown does not mean Jesus.

 

[savagewind]

Oh, bother, why did they put crowns on their heads? Now what? More gunfire. I am sure.

 

[metis]

I enjoy your thoughtful responses Metis.

Your welcome, and thank you for your responses.

If the church admits it’s a mystery beyond the comprehension of all humans, then why did humans try to make a trinity in the first place?
Why not just have God the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit.
And leave it alone?

Probably because the connection was so vague in the 1st century church that it needed to be explained later, especially when "heretical" churches began to view Jesus in different ways with some saying he was just human like any other to those who felt he was entirely divine and that only his appearance appeared to be that of a human.

These controversies were also why creeds were developed, which basically said that that this was the basics of what one must believe.

IOW, "necessity is the mother of invention".

 

[metis]

But it is; there were quite a few in ancient times.

Triple deity - Wikipedia

Just because there are similarities doesn't mean nor imply that one led to the other. Just because I look a lot like George Clooney doesn't make me George Clooney.

 

[djhwoodwerks]

djhwoodwerks maybe you are the son of parents who choose censo

What does that mean?

 

[Faithofchristian]

I don't think that was the church. It was Paul.
Which is why Christianity became so Greco-Roman. It isn't based on Jesus, it's based on Paul.
Or, to be more precise, the teachings of Jesus that the Apostles were safe sharing with Paul. Which is why Christianity has so much Greco-Roman pagan concepts like demi-gods and divine sacrifice/ Resurrection built into it.
Jesus would never have approved of all that. I am sure He is spinning in His grave over being deified by a Greek.
Tom

Seeing you have No clue who Paul was exactly.
Paul was a Israelite of the tribe of Benjamin.
Therefore Paul was not Greek as you say.
Paul's father was a Pharisee, As was Paul a Pharisee.
And it was Christ Jesus himself who chosen Paul to be one of the disciples.

Maybe you need to get your facts right before you say anything.

 

[metis]

Of course the CC wouldn't 'justify their belief' in a trinity by using pagan sources! Vee never said nor implied that. Neither do Jehovah's Witnesses. But the origin of trinity gods is pagan.

Before making such an allegation and accepting it as fact, one needs to establish that there's some sort of actual connection, and I don't know of a single Catholic, Anglican, or Protestant theologian who believes for one minute that this "pagan" concept directly led to the trinitarian concept. Quote the reverse since we see debates in the 2nd century dealing with Jesus' exact relationship with God, and nowhere in my studies have I ever run across any of the patriarchs formulating or justifying it as being from "pagan" sources. Yes, religions learn from each other, no doubt, but I simply have never seen the connection to "pagan" sources made on this item.

IOW, one needs to establish that some sort of "smoking gun" that clearly shows that the early church copied this from "Pagan Religion X", and nowhere have I seen any such a connection made.

 

[metis]

Catholicism allowed 0 of the flock to read the bible for 1000 years after the councils were held.

That was then, this is now, and your JW emulates what the CC did by forbidding you to attend other churches, and also by telling its congregants that they should not read non-JW religious articles and books.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Seeing you have No clue who Paul was exactly.
Paul was a Israelite of the tribe of Benjamin.
Therefore Paul was not Greek as you say.
Paul's father was a Pharisee, As was Paul a Pharisee.
And it was Christ Jesus himself who chosen Paul to be one of the disciples.

Maybe you need to get your facts right before you say anything.

Maybe you need to learn the difference between fact and claim.

 

[metis]

Jesus meant he and his Father were 'one', in the sense of unity:

But that's not what the 1st century church believed, such as what we can even detect in Paul's writings that elevate Jesus well beyond what we see being referred to as a prophet. If one reads references to the prophets in the Tanakh, and then we compare them to references to Jesus in the NT and especially Paul's writings, there are significant differences. Even John 3:16 shows this. No prophet, including Moses, is ever referred to in these kind of terms.

 

[savagewind]

@kjw47 That the Watchtower shows kings with crowns proves that having been given a crown
does not prove Jesus rides at Revelation 6:2.
That your kind are making the governing body right about Revelation 6:2 proves to me that it is
governing body believers who are making them right and NOT Jehovah.

2 Timothy 3:13 I have zero doubt that this scripture warns against what you and they are doing.
13 But wicked men and impostors will advance from bad to worse, misleading and being misled.+

I understand that it is wrong to call you and the governing body members "evil", but if you will look up the word, it might mean; toiling for nothing good.

 

[Oeste]

But when Jesus supposedly said that he and God were one, ...

Jesus meant he and his Father were 'one', in the sense of unity:

John 17:22

Agreed. For Trinitarians it shows unity within the Godhead.

Yet trinitarians continue to misapply Jesus' statement at John 10:30, even tho He explained the oneness they shared in John 17:21-22.
It's obvious what Jesus meant.

Let's get it right Hockeycowboy. It is not Trinitarians who misapply this verse, but Modalists. Unitarians like yourself commonly misapply Modalist to Trinitarian theology.

If they twist that passage, they'll twist others.

If you twist Modalists into Trinitarians, you'll twist others as well.

Come to think of it, that's pretty much what your Organization does. They throw Oneness Pentecostals, Baptists, Methodists, Catholics, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, and everyone but themselves into one big "false religion" pot, so we shouldn't be surprised when Witnesses are unable to make distinctions between religious theologies.

 

[Oeste]

But it is; there were quite a few in ancient times.

Triple deity - Wikipedia

Don't you read your own sources Hockeycowboy??? From the source you just quoted:

Christianity

Main articles: Athanasian Creed and Trinity
Christians profess "one God in three divine persons" (God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost).

This is not to be understood as a belief in (or worship of) three Gods, nor as a belief that there are three subjectively-perceived "aspects" in one God, both of which the Church condemns as heresy.

The Church also rejects the notions that God is "composed" of its three persons and that "God" is a genus containing the three persons.​

Obviously, if you can twist Tritheism with Trinitarianism, you can twist others as well.

 

[Faithofchristian]

Maybe you need to learn the difference between fact and claim.

Maybe You need to learn the difference between fact and claim, Yourself.

 

[Oeste]

But that's not what the 1st century church believed, such as what we can even detect in Paul's writings that elevate Jesus well beyond what we see being referred to as a prophet. If one reads references to the prophets in the Tanakh, and then we compare them to references to Jesus in the NT and especially Paul's writings, there are significant differences. Even John 3:16 shows this. No prophet, including Moses, is ever referred to in these kind of terms.

That is correct. Jesus has unity with the Father but it doesn't stop there. Trinitarianism is the doctrinal result of a feud between Arianism and Homoousian Christians. It would help if folks freshened up a bit on their early Christian history, preferably from a secular source since the issue appears to be "highly charged" on this forum.