J
False doctrines of the Jehovah's Witnesses
- Thread starter jonathanbchristian
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
B
The doctrine of the trinity didn't start in Nicaea Rome? I think you need to do some historical study. It did start there and that is why it is not mentioned in the Bible. It is a man's made interpretation on the scriptures. It is a man made word 'trinity' to define a man made idea of the Godhead.
Either there is One God -- or three distinct persons in One being?
God is all three; Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It is hard for man to fathom how He can be all three and yet One. The doctrine of trinity is basically denying that God is One; that He is instead three making one- trinity.
Your quote "The doctrine of the Trinity does not claim the existence of three beings. It affirms strongly the existence of one being."
So who is this one being? How should this One being be addressed? And how is it manifested? As one spirit? As three spirits? How does this picture that you portray of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit sitting at a round table together manifest itself?
Jesus - the Son - is one of the distinct persons in the trinity doctrine, is He not? So therefore, you can answer your own question of who Jesus is by your own belief. Jesus is God manifested in flesh. He is therefore the Son of God.
The Godhead is One God in three manifestations. The distinction - or word trinity - is not needed. They are all God - One being, correct?
I agree, it is hard for people to wrap their heads around.
Also, in relation to what the other person was saying:
20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins.
22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
So the person was saying, either God - the Father - is the Father of Jesus. Or God - the Holy Ghost - is the Father of Jesus.
Colossians 2
8Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
9For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
There is no problem with believing one God is all three. The problem lies in believing three are distinct and separate -- in which case where do you get your One from?
I guess what I'm trying to ask is, in what way are the three 'One being' according to trinitarian belief? In body? In spirit? In authority?
As strange as it may seem, Trinitarianism contradicts scripture because if you believe One God is all three, then you have no contradiction at all on any matter of the Godhead. However, if you believe three are distinct and separate, each equal and can sit at a round table together, then you don't have One being, hence the term 'trinity'.
W
Well, granted the ones making that choice are adult and make the choice for themselves, that is up to them, isn't it?
There was a case here in Norway where a couple of doctors did a blood transfusion on a man who had said in his journal he did not want one (they did it while he was unconscious). Sadly they got away with it.
There was a case here in Norway where a couple of doctors did a blood transfusion on a man who had said in his journal he did not want one (they did it while he was unconscious). Sadly they got away with it.
W
Well, that is indeed a tricky one, and I do agree it is a bad thing. But, I see a possible moral dilemma if one could force them to do it:
What if the law says you _have_ to save someones life whenever possible?
Should you, for instance, bring back to life a "dead" person (brain activity, heart stopped) person with severe burns who would be in extreme pain?
What if the law says you _have_ to save someones life whenever possible?
Should you, for instance, bring back to life a "dead" person (brain activity, heart stopped) person with severe burns who would be in extreme pain?
G
First of all, not only is your Church history off, but it seems that your geography is as well. The city of was located in Anatolia, which we modernly call Turkey.
Second, [FONT="]as I’ve said before, the internet has contributed to a lot of really great things: the readily availability to view ancient manuscripts online, lexical resources, commentaries, and other various tools of the sort that allow us to study from the comfort of our own home. However, with the perks of the World Wide Web, comes also the adverse: anyone, regardless of credibility, can post anything, anywhere, and can make even the most outlandish comments, and it is most certainly true here. At this point one just has to ask the question, exactly which Church history book have you been reading? It wouldn’t perhaps be Dan Brown’s Da Vinci Code, would it? There is absolutely no way anyone who has taken their studies of Church history seriously that would insist on a position that you hold to in regard to the Council of Nicaea, and the Doctrine of the Trinity.[/FONT]
[FONT="]
[/FONT]
[FONT="]The Council of Nicaea was convened because of an already ongoing dispute between Alexander, the Patriarch of Alexandria, and Arius, who was a presbyter under Alexander, which began approximately six years before the Council of Nicaea. In his letter to Eusebius of Nicodemia (not to be confused with the early church historian, Eusebius of Caesarea), dated around 321AD, just four years before Nicaea, Arius described at length the teaching of Alexander, namely, that the Son had eternally co-existed with the Father prior to the incarnation,[/FONT][FONT="]
[/FONT]
[FONT="]“Ammonius, my father, being about to depart for Nicomedia, I considered myself bound to salute you by him, and withal to inform that natural affection which you bear towards the brethren for the sake of God and His Christ, that the bishop greatly wastes and persecutes us, and leaves no stone unturned against us. He has driven us out of the city as atheists, because we do not concur in what he publicly preaches, namely, ‘God always, the Son always; as the Father so the Son; the Son co-exists unbegotten with God; He is everlasting; neither by thought nor by any interval does God precede the Son; always God, always Son; He is begotten of the unbegotten; the Son is of God Himself.’”[/FONT]
[FONT="]Many of those who were present at the Council had suffered for their faith under the Diocletianic Persecution (299-313AD). In his Ecclesiastical History, Theodoret of Cyrus describes those present at the Council as those who “bore in their bodies the marks of the Lord Jesus Christ,” some of which “had had the right eye dug out, others had lost the right arm” -- they altogether “looked like an assembled army of martyrs.”[/FONT]
[FONT="]“At this period many individuals were richly endowed with apostolical gifts; and many, like the holy apostle, bore in their bodies the marks of the Lord Jesus Christ. James, bishop of Antioch, a city of Mygdonia, which is called Nisibis by the Syrians and Assyrians, raised the dead and restored them to life, and performed many other [FONT="]wonders which it would be superfluous to mention again in detail in this history, as I have already given an account of them in my work, entitled ‘Philotheus.’ Paul, bishop of Neo-Caesarea, a fortress situated on the banks of the Euphrates, had suffered from the frantic rage of Licinius. He had been deprived of the use of both hands by the application of a red-hot iron, by which the nerves which give motion to the muscles had been contracted and rendered dead. Some had had the right eye dug out, others had lost the right arm. Among these was Paphnutius of Egypt. In short, the Council looked like an assembled army of martyrs.”[/FONT][/FONT]
G
In an anonymous letter written to Diognetus in about 130 AD, the author writes,
There is a high Christology in this early letter. This author does not speak of God the Father manifesting in the flesh, or any such notion, but speaks of God the Father and His relationship to Christ as, “As a king sends his son, who is also a king, so sent He Him.” The author also notes that God did not send a servant or an angel but “the very Creator and Fashioner of all things” (ch. 7). This author refers to the Son as the Word, and he does so repeatedly, as well as contrasting God with the Word. Nonetheless, the Word is the Creator and Fashioner of all things, and is not the Creator alone, but was the active agent through whom God created all things.
"For, as I said, this was no mere earthly invention which was delivered to them, nor is it a mere human system of opinion, which they judge it right to preserve so carefully, nor has a dispensation of mere human mysteries been committed to them, but truly God Himself, who is almighty, the Creator of all things, and invisible, has sent from heaven, and placed among men, [Him who is] the truth, and the holy and incomprehensible Word, and has firmly established Him in their hearts. He did not, as one might have imagined, send to men any servant, or angel, or ruler, or any one of those who bear sway over earthly things, or one of those to whom the government of things in the heavens has been entrusted, but the very Creator and Fashioner of all things--by whom He made the heavens--by whom he enclosed the sea within its proper bounds--whose ordinances all the stars faithfully observe--from whom the sun has received the measure of his daily course to be observed--whom the moon obeys, being commanded to shine in the night, and whom the stars also obey, following the moon in her course; by whom all things have been arranged, and placed within their proper limits, and to whom all are subject--the heavens and the things that are therein, the earth and the things that are therein, the sea and the things that are therein--fire, air, and the abyss--the things which are in the heights, the things which are in the depths, and the things which lie between. This [messenger] He sent to them. Was it then, as one might conceive, for the purpose of exercising tyranny, or of inspiring fear and terror? By no means, but under the influence of clemency and meekness. As a king sends his son, who is also a king, so sent He Him; as God He sent Him; as to men He sent Him; as a Saviour He sent Him, and as seeking to persuade, not to compel us; for violence has no place in the character of God. As calling us He sent Him, not as vengefully pursuing us; as loving us He sent Him, not as judging us. For He will yet send Him to judge us, and who shall endure His appearing? ... Do you not see them exposed to wild beasts, that they may be persuaded to deny the Lord, and yet not overcome? Do you not see that the more of them are punished, the greater becomes the number of the rest? This does not seem to be the work of man: this is the power of God; these are the evidences of His manifestation."
G
Why, some might ask, is the word "Trinity" itself not in Scripture? The reason: There was no need for it. It was innovative heresies like Arianism, Monarchianism, and even Sabellianism that later arose which freed Christians to name and explain their beliefs. Importantly, they didn't seek to invent anything new, but only to more precisely define what they already believed. As a very simplified example, if all you ever knew were apples that were green, you would simply call them "apples"; however, is someone brought you a red apple for the first time, you would now find the need to differentiate between the two -- calling one a green apple, and the other a red apple. Your apples have always been green, but now you find it necessary to point out that they are such in order to distinguish them from red apples.
G
While Modalism adheres to the Deity of the Father (whom they call "Jesus"), they outright deny the Deity of the Son. Robert (aka MrLimeyBob), one of my YouTube "buddies" created a video last year which helps bring this to light. Since it's his material, I'll let it speak for itself.
[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvnh-2BUI5o[/video]
B
It is entirely of your own opinion what you see the author expressing here. He did send the Son, Word, Logos… He did all those things. That does not make Him three distinct separate persons.
Trinitarianism is not scriptural. Perhaps you need to search harder for a letter which states that God is three distinct separate persons – as in the trinity. I know possibly where you could find one – amongst the Catholic church history.
B
You mistake me for believing that the Nicaea Council was of God. You’re right, it was Turkey, and a whole lot of bishops attended. And bishops were given positions. And it was to clear up disputes. It was the first ecumenical church. It was with good intentions to bring Christians out of the Roman oppression. Constantine was a good man but he was not properly converted, if he was fully converted like Paul, he would have turned FULLY from his ways. And out of the Nicene Council came several different forms of religion which base their beliefs on the Nicene Creed, one being Catholicism (it was already there as Nicolaitans as seen in church ages of Ephesus and Smyrna). Either you have Catholicism separate to the Nicaea Council and already with the trinity doctrine, or you have Catholicism taking on the trinity doctrine as formed in Nicaea.
So there is a movement to move out of the oppression of the Roman Empire by a Roman Emperor – supposedly turned Christian – that, lo and behold, has links to fundamental doctrines of Roman Catholicism. Are you seeing any link here? First ecumenical church should have rung bells a long time ago. If that wasn’t enough of a link, we have bishops in place over people, just like Catholicism has. Coincidence?
Go on. Trinity doctrine was officially formed in the Nicene council and is what Catholics and many protestant churches believe. The Nicene Council took place around the time of the Pergamos church age, in which Revelations 2 says:
12 And to the angel of the church in Pergamos write; These things saith he which hath the sharp sword with two edges;13 I know thy works, and where thou dwellest, even where Satan's seat is: and thou holdest fast my name, and hast not denied my faith, even in those days wherein Antipas was my faithful martyr, who was slain among you, where Satan dwelleth.
14 But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication.
15 So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes, which thing I hate.
16 Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth.
17 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it.
[FONT="] [/FONT]
[FONT="]It is disputed as to what the Nicolaitanes doctrine was, but by reading Revelations 2, you can clearly see it was against the churches of God (church ages) and is behind the oppression of God’s people. It is the Roman Catholic church before it was known as that. [/FONT]
[FONT="]So, there is a Nicaea council with a Nicene creed – which the Roman Catholics base their beliefs on and many protestants that supposedly came out from it have really not come out at all, or turn back to it's doctrines. There is a Roman emperor supposedly turned Christian who founded the Nicaea council to get a consensus on doctrinal things – and there is a trinity doctrine formed out of it. Let’s not forget that the term ‘trinity’ was not scriptural and had to be created to describe the Trinitarian belief borne from this council. [/FONT]
[FONT="]Another link, there is a baptism in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost - with which no one in the Bible was ever baptised in. [/FONT]
[FONT="]Indications are that there is too much of a link between the two and too easily a slide from one to the other. Have a read of Revelations 2 the whole chapter. Revelations 13 will help too, as it speaks about another ecumenical church forming under one doctrine - known as the mark of the beast. You see differences from your viewpoint (ironically, differences in the Godhead too) but from mine I see next to none. [/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
So there is a movement to move out of the oppression of the Roman Empire by a Roman Emperor – supposedly turned Christian – that, lo and behold, has links to fundamental doctrines of Roman Catholicism. Are you seeing any link here? First ecumenical church should have rung bells a long time ago. If that wasn’t enough of a link, we have bishops in place over people, just like Catholicism has. Coincidence?
Go on. Trinity doctrine was officially formed in the Nicene council and is what Catholics and many protestant churches believe. The Nicene Council took place around the time of the Pergamos church age, in which Revelations 2 says:
12 And to the angel of the church in Pergamos write; These things saith he which hath the sharp sword with two edges;13 I know thy works, and where thou dwellest, even where Satan's seat is: and thou holdest fast my name, and hast not denied my faith, even in those days wherein Antipas was my faithful martyr, who was slain among you, where Satan dwelleth.
14 But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication.
15 So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes, which thing I hate.
16 Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth.
17 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it.
[FONT="] [/FONT]
[FONT="]It is disputed as to what the Nicolaitanes doctrine was, but by reading Revelations 2, you can clearly see it was against the churches of God (church ages) and is behind the oppression of God’s people. It is the Roman Catholic church before it was known as that. [/FONT]
[FONT="]So, there is a Nicaea council with a Nicene creed – which the Roman Catholics base their beliefs on and many protestants that supposedly came out from it have really not come out at all, or turn back to it's doctrines. There is a Roman emperor supposedly turned Christian who founded the Nicaea council to get a consensus on doctrinal things – and there is a trinity doctrine formed out of it. Let’s not forget that the term ‘trinity’ was not scriptural and had to be created to describe the Trinitarian belief borne from this council. [/FONT]
[FONT="]Another link, there is a baptism in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost - with which no one in the Bible was ever baptised in. [/FONT]
[FONT="]Indications are that there is too much of a link between the two and too easily a slide from one to the other. Have a read of Revelations 2 the whole chapter. Revelations 13 will help too, as it speaks about another ecumenical church forming under one doctrine - known as the mark of the beast. You see differences from your viewpoint (ironically, differences in the Godhead too) but from mine I see next to none. [/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]