Thursday, October 28, 2010

Jehovah's Witnesses, why do you reject the Trinity?


For starters, here are reasons why I do:
1) It presents an invalid soteriology, as its Jesus did not offer what Adam lost. Adam lost perfect life on earth. The Trinitarian man-god Jesus did not offer a corresponding ransom for that. (2 Tim. 2:5, 6) It also states that Jesus did not really die, as his "divine nature did not die," only his "properties of divinity" with his human body died.[1] Thus, Trinitarianism teaches that Jesus did not have to fully sacrifice his life. Regarding this, consider the conversation Jesus had with Peter recorded at Matthew 16:21-23 and at Mark 8:31-33. Here, Jesus made it very clear that he would be killed. But Peter rebuked him, saying: "God forbid it, Lord! This shall never happen to You." (Mat. 16:22, NASB) Here, Trinitarianism appears to agree with Peter's rebuke. But Jesus called such reasoning satanic, and thoughts of men alienated from God.

2) It violates the laws of physics that the Bible agrees with: the Trinitarian Jesus is "fully man" in the divine realm. "Jesus continues to be fully God and fully human—now God in glorified human flesh."[2] Yet, Jesus said that he is not from our world, that he comes from a transcendent realm (TWN ANW), a realm "above" our "lower" realm (TWN KATW) where our physical bodies cannot enter. (John 8:21, 23) Additionally, there is Jesus' contrast at Matthew 16:17, where he contrasts "flesh and blood" with his "Father who is in the heavens," and 1 Corinthians 15:50, where Paul said that "flesh and blood cannot inherit God's kingdom, neither does corruption inherit incorruption." "Flesh and blood" is human nature, and it can only exist on earth or in earthly conditions. Thus, Trinitarianism is at odds with the laws of physics and contradicts Jesus and Paul. It makes Jesus into a fool for retaining his physical, human body and taking it to a place where he said it by definition cannot exist.

3) It turns Jesus' divinity into an abstraction. He is the second person of the Godhead, yet he is also "fully human" in the divine realm where Jesus and Paul said human flesh cannot exist, harmonizing with the laws of physics. Indeed, by way of contrast, Jehovah's Witnesses affirm and openly declare Jesus' divinity and lordship to the glory of God the Father. (Phil. 2:11) It's that simple.


[1] Slick, Matt. "The Trinity, the Hypostatic Union, and the Communicatio Idiomatum."
http://carm.org/christianity/christian-d…

[2] "The Dual Nature of Jesus Christ." http://www.gci.org/Jesus/dualnature

Edit: That should be 1 Tim. 2:5, 6, not 2 Tim., that discusses Jesus' corresponding ransom: ANTILUTRON.


@ surfari, hi there! You said: "the answer to every question on jw beliefs can ultimately be traced to "the watchtower said so"." Actually, perhaps you noticed that I did not quote the Watchtower, rather, I quoted from Trinitarians. The Watchtower has nothing to do with it. They just agree with me that the Trinity makes Jesus a liar and poor teacher. I honestly don't think you know what the Watchtower teaches, based on your post. The Watchtower is more scriptural and logical than you think. You're welcome for learning a new word! Take care! :-)

@ Tim F, Hi there! That word [ANTILUTRON] does mean that literally, I looked it up from non-JW sources. Adam was a perfect man and lost perfect human life. Jesus was a perfect man, and sacrificed his perfect life. Origins are irrelevant. [He was claiming that Adam would have to have had a pre-human existence as an archangel too.] It’s the values that are most relevant. But it’s the Trinity teaching that I referred to that means Jesus did not sacrifice his life, thus unwittingly denying the ransom.

Link

(This question was deleted when Trinitarians complained about it. However, a more comprehensive version of it is here: jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2010/11/do-you-reject-trinitarianism.html)

Are Trinitarians offended by 3-faced representations of the Trinity, and do some dislike the Scutum Fidei?


Some representations of the Trinity include the Scutum Fidei (Shield of the Trinity) with the three-faced iconography. How is this viewed then? Would the Trinitarian that is offended by the three-faced image but who favors the Scutum Fidei diagram like this combination, or be offended by it as well?

I mean no disrespect. I would just like to know. Thank you.

Picture of the Scutum Fidei (Shield of the Trinity):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Shield…

Pictures of the three-faced/Scutum Fidei combination:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:T…
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:T…

Note: while these pictures are from Wikipedia, they are also found on the Internet.

Additional Details

@ Faith_works, hi there. Yes, I see the Triquetra is also very similar to the Scutum Fidei. Thank you for providing me a name for this. What is also similar to the Scutum Fidei is the Eye of Providence.

Wikipedia links:
Triquetra
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triquetra
Eye of Providence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_of_Prov…

These links are just for easy reference.

Does Trinitarianism unwittingly deny the divinity of Christ?


According to Trinitarianism, Jesus is a person of the Godhead. As one Trinitarian explained:

(quote)
The Trinity is the teaching that there is only one God who exists as three simultaneous and eternal persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. By "person" is meant the characteristics of self awareness, speech, having a will, emotions, etc. Therefore, there are three persons. … They are not three separate gods and are not three separate beings. They are three distinct persons; yet, they are all the one God. … If any one of the three were removed, there would be no God. … The Trinity is one God in three persons.[1]
(end quote)

Not three gods, but three persons. And, according to the Shield of the Trinity or Scutum Fidei, Jesus is God diagrammatically.[2] Yet, so is the Father and the Holy Spirit. So, we are left with the following: Jesus is not a god but a person of the Godhead, and is God diagrammatically along with the Father and the Holy Spirit, and God is not a person but three persons.

Additionally, Trinitarianism teaches that Jesus, in what is called the “Hypostatic Union,” is “fully divine” and also “fully man.”

Thus, I ask in all sincerity, has Trinitarianism unwittingly denied the divinity of Christ?

[1] Slick, Matt. “The Trinity, the Hypostatic Union, and the Communicatio Idiomatum.”
http://carm.org/christianity/christian-d…

[2] “Shield of the Trinity.” Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shield_of_t…

Update : @ JC Redding, hi there. As you can see, my primary source is not Wikipedia but the Trintiarian website CARM.org. Wikipedia is only sourced for the Shield of the Trinity diagram. :-)

Update 2: @ Annsan_In_Him, hi there. I'm trying to understand this issue as it troubles me deeply. To say that Jesus is fully man now seems to deny his full divinity. How can it not? Please try to focus on my sincere question. Thank you.

Update 3: ============
I see some Trinitarians have a problem with visual representations of the Trinity, like the Scutum Fidei. Perhaps this will be another question I'll ask.

While I appreciate the replies from some Oneness believers, I have some cognitive barriers with 'Oneness-ism'; but that's another topic.

Update 4: @ Annsan_In_Him, hi again. :-) I would like to address three points you made:
>"The three Persons are in eternal relationship with each other. That is why God is love."

But the Trinity is not required for God to be love. A unitarian God can still be love by having it be a primary cardinal attribute.

>"You seem to fail to grasp how the Creator can be far more complex than mere mortals are."

I assure you that is not the issue. I think I understand Trinitarian mechanics better than some Trinitarians do.

>"Do you think your sense of logic must determine what is true about God?"

It must conform to Paul's logic, which it does not seem to when he makes comparisons with the wife being in subjection to the husband like Christ is in subjection to God. (1 Corinthians 11:3) This comparison conforms to our logic, and therefore God's nature must too for Paul to be an authentic apostle, not using irrelevant analogies.

Update 5: @ Joe, hi and thank you for your thoughtful reply. You evidently are interested upholding the divinity of Christ, as am I. However, I noticed what appears to be prestidigitation. To merely say 'it is so' does not necessarily make it so--especially when we are dealing with physical properties (human nature) existing where it ought not, in the divine realm. This my friend is a contradiction, and a sobering one at that.

Best Answer
בַר אֱנָשׁ (bar_enosh)
Yes, that and the absolute almightiness of God the Father. Athanasius was wrong, there cannot be three almightys.

See what mental and verbal gymnastics Trinitarians must perform to give even the least amount of substance to their doctrine. There's nothing like that in the Bible at all. Jesus gave us a pure, true, and simple teaching about the relationship between himself and his Father.

The Bible is clear that the Father is God. Jesus Christ is the Son of God. There's nothing at all about substances and co-equal persons in a Godhead in the Scriptures.

If God exists as three co-equal, co-eternal persons who are each fully God, then the Trinity is composed of three Gods, pure and simple, and Trinitarianism becomes polytheism.

Asker's rating & comment
Thank you my friend, it appears to me that Trinitarianism turns Christ's divinity into a diagrammatical abstraction, and a word game of prestidigitation.

Friday, October 8, 2010

My Question: How can Mary exist in Heaven (outside of earth's atmosphere) with her physical body?


Pope Pius XII declared: "Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory." Yes, according to the Assumption of Mary doctrine, she retained her physical body.
"Munificentissimus Deus - Defining the Dogma of the Assumption." November 1, 1950.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_x…

See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assumption_…

1 Corinthians 15:50 states in the Jerusalem Bible: “Flesh and blood [the natural] cannot inherit the kingdom of God [the supernatural]: and the perishable [the natural] cannot inherit what lasts for ever [the supernatural].” So, how can the natural (Mary's physical body) exist in the supernatural (Heaven)?

Last but not least, the Lord Jesus declared at John 8:23: “You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world.” (NIV) Thus he said that his world, “heaven,” is “above” this world. So, how can something from “the below” (TWN KATW), Mary's human body under the laws of physics, exist in “the above” (TWN ANW), the divine heavenly realm above the laws of physics and outside of earth's atmosphere?

Additional Details

While it is true that 2 Kings 2:11 has Elijah ascending in a windstorm to the heavens, he does not die at this time, nor does he go into the invisible spirit realm, but he is transferred to another prophetic assignment. (See John 3:13.) This is shown by the fact that Elisha does not hold any period of mourning for his master. A number of years (over four) after his ascension in the windstorm Elijah is still alive and active as a prophet, this time to the king of Judah. Because of the wicked course taken by King Jehoram of Judah, Elijah writes him a letter expressing Jehovah’s condemnation, which is fulfilled shortly thereafter.—2Ch 21:12-15.

Regarding Enoch, Genesis 5:24 says he was no more, for God "took" him, and Hebrews 11:5 says he was "translated" or "taken away" so he would not see his own death; nothing about retaining his physical body.

So, the Bible doesn't really say that these two retained their human bodies outside of earth's atmosphere. It's just not there.

Regarding Moses, Deuteronomy 32:1-6 states that he died in Moab and was burried there in the valley in front of Beth-peor. Nothing about going to heaven, much less with his human body. In fact, Jude 9 depicts Satan disputing over Moses' body, showing that it was not in heaven but still buried.

Regarding Abraham, Genesis 25:9 states that he was burried 'in the cave of Machpelah in the field of Ephron the son of Zohar the Hittite that is in front of Mamre.' Again, nothing about going to heaven, much less with his human body.
 
@ BibleChooser: Thank you for your thoughtful reply.

About Possibilities #1 and 2, I accept those, however then in both of them she is without her physical body which is what I am questioning the validity of based on Scripture and the laws of physics. Why would God take a human being outside of earth’s atmosphere? Would he not then have to micromanage her body so it would not expire? That seems to be based on ignorance that humans can only live on earth or if they take earth-like conditions with them (like in an astronaut suit) to an inhospitable place (like outer space). Either the popes don’t know that, or they haven’t applied this knowledge to the Assumption of Mary doctrine.

About Elijah, having him expire during his fiery-chariot departure appears to contradict Bible chronology that evidently has him writing a true warning to King Jehoram of Judah at 2Ch 21:12-15 a number of years after this event.

He departed from Elisha in Israel, then he is seen again a number of years later writing a letter to the king of Judah. So, perhaps the fiery chariot transported him to another prophetic assignment. In any case, 2 Chronicles presents him as still being alive on earth after his fiery departure. (It’s possible it was a different Elijah, but it seems that Ezra, the chronicler, would have mentioned this. Also, his letter was not a forgery, for it proved to be true.)

About Enoch, Hebrews 11:5 uses the Greek word that signifies he was "translated," “transferred” or "taken away." However, in view of Jesus’ clear statement to Nicodemus at John 3:13, (“_No one [no human] has ascended into heaven_, but He who descended from heaven: the Son of Man.”—NASB) he was not taken to heaven. One theory is that God put him in a prophetic trance and then terminated his life while he was in the trance, so that he did not experience the pangs of death or martyrdom.

It appears then that God disposed of Enoch’s body when he “took him.” Since Jesus by implication said he did not go to Heaven in John 3:13, it appears then that Enoch is preserved in God’s memory and will be resurrected at the appointed time.

Thank you for providing me insight as to why some may think Moses and Abraham ascended to heaven, per the transfiguration and the rich man and Lazarus account. However, as Jesus said in John 3:13, they did not ascend to Heaven. So, the transfiguration appearances must have been visionary and prophetic in nature. Regarding the nature of the dispute over Moses’ body, it appears that God kept his burial place a secret to prevent the Israelites from being ensnared by idolatry by making a shrine of his grave. Evidently Satan desired to use Moses’ body for some such purpose.

****************************************
A point in conclusion: God can only create what is allowable by the laws of physics that he put in place. So, this is not about lack of faith in His ability to support a physical human outside of earth's atmosphere, but faith in His superior intelligence to not waste time and energy in something that His laws of physics will not support, in this case of having a human body in heaven.

See a similar question/answer:
Trinitarians: How can Jesus be fully man outside of earth's atmosphere?

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;…
 


Best Answer: [by Mindy]

You asked and I quote:
"How can Mary exist in Heaven (outside of earth's atmosphere) with her physical body?"

It's absolutely utterly impossible. Even though the Bible does state that with God ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE at Matthew 19:26, it also states that "it is IMPOSSIBLE for God to lie" at Hebrews 6:18.

Therefore, when the Bible speaks of ALL THINGS being possible with God, this would by reason of necessity be "ALL THINGS" that DO NOT go against his own holy Word, being that it is IMPOSSIBLE for God to lie.

People have to learn to view the Bible for what it truly is... the INFALLIBLE Word of God the Almighty. It's GOD'S WORD, in which it is IMPOSSIBLE for God to lie:

"Indeed, that is why we also thank God incessantly, because when YOU received God’s word, which YOU heard from us, YOU accepted it, NOT AS THE WORD OF MEN, but, just as it TRUTHFULLY IS, AS THE WORD OF GOD, which is also at work in YOU believers."
~ 1 Thessalonians 2:13

It is GOD'S WORD which clearly states that flesh and blood CANNOT inherit God's Kingdom at 1 Corinthians 15:50. Being that it is IMPOSSIBLE for God to lie and his Word clearly states what it does at 1 Corinthians 15:50, the Scriptural rule found at Romans 3:4 is enforced when it comes to either believing God at his Word... OR... believing the ideas, thoughts, traditions, beliefs, theories... etc, of sincere, well meaning but imperfect humans:

"let God be found true, though every man be found a liar"
~ Romans 3:4

I am an ex-Italian Roman Catholic and even back when I and my family use to go to the church, I personally never believed in the Assumption doctrine. It never sat well with me. I knew that God wasn't a human being and our kind (humans) could not possibly exist in a place whre an all powerful being such as God was. Upon learning the truth of the Scriptures I became beyond convinced due to the accurate knowledge on the subject that the Bible provided.

I truly do feel for people, they are like blind people groping around in darkness who are being led and guided by other blind people whom they respect because of the titles they hold as part of the religious Clergy. I understand how Jesus must have felt when he saw the crowds of people and he "felt pity for them, because they were skinned and thrown about like sheep without a shepherd" (Matthew 9:36).

Not too long ago, I was one of them, groping around in the darkness and simply reciting what I was taught and grew up on as part of religious tradition.

I noticed that people here have brought up 'the Rich Man and Lazarus' PARABLE recorded at Luke 16:19-31 as a possible way to try and justify the Assumption, however that parable doesn't cut it because of it being just that... a PARABLE / ILLUSTRATION.

The Jerusalem Bible, in a footnote, acknowledges that it is a “parable in story form without reference to any historical personage.”

If taken literally, it would mean that those enjoying divine favor could all fit at the bosom of one man, Abraham; that the water on one’s fingertip would not be evaporated by the fire of Hades; that a mere drop of water would bring relief to one suffering there. Does that sound reasonable to you... to friggin ANYONE?

If it were literal, it would conflict with other parts of the Bible. If the Bible were thus contradictory, would a lover of truth use it as a basis for his faith? But the Bible does not contradict itself, it is only the man-made religious teachings and traditions that are taught as doctrine, which make the Bible SEEM to contradict itself.

So, what does the parable about 'the Rich Man and Lazarus' mean?

The “rich man” represented the Pharisees (See verse 14). The beggar Lazarus represented the common Jewish people who were despised by the Pharisees but who repented and became followers of Jesus (See Luke 18:11; John 7:49; Matthew 21:31, 32). Their deaths were also symbolic, representing a change in circumstances. Thus, the formerly despised ones came into a position of divine favor, and the formerly seemingly favored ones were rejected by God, while being tormented by the judgment messages delivered by the ones whom they had despised.—Acts 5:33; 7:54.

Then, I noticed that you had some people bring up the account of the prophet Elijah in the whirlwind. There's no need for me to go into that because you have done so wonderfully by Scripture. You showed that the prophet WAS NOT taken to the heavenly spirit realm but rather to the physical heaven(s) which consists of the sky, clouds, birds... etc, that he was simply transported from one place to another and at a later time he even sent correspondance by letter.

As for the events that took place during the transfiguration of Jesus, the Bible shows that what the apostles saw was in fact a VISION, due to the fact that after the event happened, Jesus is recorded as saying to the apostles John, Peter and James, "Tell THE VISION to no one until the Son of man is raised up from the dead” (Matthew 17:9).

During Jesus’ transfiguration, Moses and Elijah also appeared “with glory.” (Lu 9:30, 31; Matthew 17:3; Mark 9:4) It had been foretold that Jehovah would raise up a prophet like Moses, and that promise was fulfilled in Christ. (Deuteronomy 18:15-19; Acts 3:19-23) There were many similarities between Moses and Jesus, such as: Babes were killed at their births, though they themselves were spared (Exodus 1:20–2:10; Matthew 2:7-23); they both experienced fasts of 40 days’ duration (Exodus 24:18; 34:28; Deuteronomy 9:18, 25; Matthew 4:1, 2); both were raised up by God in the interests of true worship and to effect deliverance (Exodus 3:1-10; Acts 7:30-37; 3:19-23); they were each privileged by God to mediate a covenant with his people (Exodus 24:3-8; Hebrews 8:3-6; 9:15); both were used by Jehovah to magnify his name (Exodus 9:13-16; John 12:28-30; 17:5, 6, 25, 26).

It was also foretold that Jehovah would send Elijah the prophet, among whose works was that of turning persons of Israel to true repentance. While Jesus was on earth, John the Baptizer did a work of that kind and served as the Messiah’s forerunner, fulfilling Malachi 4:5, 6. (Matthew 11:11-15; Luke 1:11-17) But, since the transfiguration occurred after the death of John the Baptizer, Elijah’s appearance in it indicates that a work of restoration of true worship and vindication of Jehovah’s name would be associated with the establishment of God’s Kingdom in the hands of Christ.

During the transfiguration, Jesus, Moses, and Elijah talked about Christ’s “departure [a form of the Greek word e′xo·dos] that he was destined to fulfill at Jerusalem.” (Luke 9:31) This e′xo·dos, exodus or departure, evidently involved both Christ’s death and his subsequent resurrection to spirit life.

Some critics have endeavored to class the transfiguration as simply a dream. However, Peter, James, and John would not logically all have had exactly the same dream. Jesus himself called what took place a “vision” (Matthew 17:9), but not a mere illusion. Christ was actually there, though Moses and Elijah, who were dead, were not literally present. They were represented in vision. The Greek word used for “vision” at Matthew 17:9 is ho′ra·ma, also rendered “sight.” (Acts 7:31) It does not imply unreality, as though the observers were laboring under a delusion. Nor were they insensible to what occurred, for they were fully awake when witnessing the transfiguration. With their literal eyes and ears they actually saw and heard what took place at that time.—Luke 9:32.

As Moses and Elijah were being separated from Jesus, Peter, “not realizing what he was saying,” suggested the erecting of three tents, one each for Jesus, Moses, and Elijah. (Luke 9:33) But as the apostle spoke, a cloud formed (Luke 9:34), evidently (as at the tent of meeting in the wilderness) symbolizing Jehovah’s presence there on the mountain of the transfiguration. (Exodus 40:34-38) From out of the cloud there came Jehovah’s voice, saying: “This is my Son, the one that has been chosen. Listen to him.” (Luke 9:35) Years later, with reference to the transfiguration, Peter identified the heavenly voice as that of “God the Father.” (2Peter 1:17, 18) In the transfiguration, evidently Moses and Elijah represented the Law and the Prophets, both of which pointed toward and were fulfilled in Christ. Whereas in the past God had spoken through prophets, he now indicated that he would do so through his Son.—Galatians 3:24; Hebrews 1:1-3.

The apostle Peter viewed the transfiguration as a marvelous confirmation of the prophetic word, and by having been an eyewitness of Christ’s magnificence, he was able to acquaint his readers “with the power and presence of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (2Peter 1:16, 19) The apostle had experienced the fulfillment of Christ’s promise that some of his followers would “not taste death at all until first they see the kingdom of God already come in power.” (Mark 9:1) The apostle John may also have alluded to the transfiguration at John 1:14.


My guess of why MANY Catholics put stock in the man-made dogma of the Assumption is because of what is stated in the book of Revelation at Revelation 12:1, 2. They are taught to believe that the "woman" that the apostle John was/is the "virgin" Mary. I'm NOT here going to go into how and why the "woman" IS NOT Mary and what the "woman" actually represents because I have already done so on Yahoo Answers here:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=A0WTZXT3GaVMwXwACAnty6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20100927093834AANnhyy&show=7#profile-info-iBxx4SNNaa

Source(s):

I sooooo will be beyond happy when we are soon in God's foretold Paradisaic New Earth (2 Peter 3:13) and all these man-made twisted teachings of Babylon the Great (including Babylon the Great herself) will be gone forever. We will truly have, "exquisite delight in the abundance of peace" (Psalm 37:11).


LINK 

My Question: Mormons: Adam and Eve were created without blood?


The LDS.org Bible Dictionary sums up Mormon teaching this way:
"Before the fall, Adam and Eve had physical bodies but no blood. There was no sin, no death, and no children among any of the earthly creations. With the eating of the “forbidden fruit,” Adam and Eve became mortal, sin entered, blood formed in their bodies, and death became a part of life."
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bd/f/2
So, blood is associated with death, not life? You believe that's true? Let's keep the replies focused to this topic please.

Additional Details

The name Adam literally means “ruddy” and derives from the Hebrew word dam, meaning “blood.” According to Mormonism, when he fell or transgressed, blood appeared in his body. But, Jesus had blood! Therefore, both the Bible and Mormon Jesus had blood, which according to Mormonism is the product of Adam's transgression.

What we have here may be called a soteriological contradiction, for Jesus was holy and sinless--he did not have any products of Adam's transgression. (Luke 1:35; Hebrews 4:15)
[Only one answer of mild import.]