Problems with Jehova's witnesses
15 Dec '09 02:351 editOriginally posted by galveston75This is quite a lot to swallow. You have raised several issues which I will try to address separately.
I have answered this before with many, many postings but start with this:
http://www.heraldmag.org/olb/Contents/doctrine/The%20Origin%20of%20the%20Trinity.htm
And the few scriptures that are misunderstood that you think supports the trinity add up to about 4 where as the whole Bible never teaches it. So that's 66 books that never teach the trinit ...[text shortened]... esearch on line is very easy for anyone to do and see the proof that the trinity is paganistic.
1. The site you have supplied does not offer a very convincing picture of trinities in pagan culture. It certainly shows triads, such as Anu, Enlil and Enki. However, this is a far cry from the Trinity. The traditional Trinitarian formula states that God is whole, integrated and one and cannot be divided. However, according to the author of this site, Anu and Enlil and Enki were separate gods, of different natures. They were not one God. In the case of Amun, Re, Ptah, he speaks of them as divisible, with Amum its name and Ptah as its body. This is not remotely Trinitarian because it allows for the divisibility of the Triad into individual parts whereas the Trinitarian formula says that there is only one nature, no division but instead total unity in the Godhead. This is the Catholic criticism offered on Catholic answers:
'The Christian Trinity is the most emphatic assertion of the unity and unicity of the Godhead, whereas in pagan religions, whatever their triad may be, it is an absolute denial of the unity of the Godhead.
...
'The gods Anu and Ea were originally Sumerian gods. Ea was the god of the city of Eridu on the Persian Gulf and reputed the giver of learning and wisdom. He was the Neptune or ocean god and embodied the mysteriousness of the distant waters. Bel is the well-known Baal, or "Lord" of the Bible, since the Semites conceived the deity as lord or king: melek. As "Lord" of the City of Nippur he took the characteristics of its old Sumerian city-god Enlil, a storm-god wielding the hurricane, and was gradually transmuted into the lord of the earth and the lord of mankind. Anu was the most ancient of all the gods; the word means heaven and no doubt was once used for a purer concept of the deity, before it was degraded to a kind of political polytheism….How can anyone of common sense see any connection whatever between their crude Babylonian fancies and the Christian Trinity? One might as well cite Jupiter, Mars, and Mercury or Zeus, Ares, and Hermes as prototypes of God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.'
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1992/9207clas.asp
It is impossible to deal with all the other claims of this author. I do not believe it is a very trustworthy source of historical information. Catholics would largely agree that early Christianity embraced Greek philosophy. In many ways, this is a strength. However, Catholics would reject the idea that this entailed some kind of syncretism. The last two Popes have affirmed the importance of Hellenic philosophy and its important role in Christianity but have never embraced Hellenic religion. I would also say that the idea of the Trinity rather than Modalism runs counter to the Gnosticism which the author said was the primary influence over early Christianity.
2. For the majority of Christians, i.e. Catholics, Orthodox and to some extent Anglicans, dogma is seen as developmental. The fullness of revelation came in Jesus Christ and is inerrantly recorded in the Scriptures. However, the Scriptures were never intended to be a collection of dogmatic statements. They are not written like legislation nor like scientific textbooks. So consequently, when later Christians were confronted with philosophical questions, like the divinity of Christ, the unicity of God or even what books are part of the bible, they believed that the Holy Spirit, as Jesus promised, would help them resolve these dilemmas. In no way have they believed that they are adding to Revelation but rather making explicit what was already implicit in Scripture. This is the basis of Tradition. So Christians would argue that while no explicit mention of the Trinity is in the bible, there is compelling evidence in John 1 (even if it is mentioned only once) and that the Holy Spirit, as Jesus promised his apostles, resolved the dispute at the Nicene Council. Christianity, and especially Catholics since Henry Newman, has understood that doctrine emerges in history by the work of the Holy Spirit and that this is handed down via Tradition.
3. As I indicated earlier, the Trinity actually comes before the official promulgation of the bible. Catholics have always wondered on what basis Protestants feel assured of the authenticity of Scripture when no consensus emerged until much later (in fact, even at the time of the Nicene Council there was dispute about some books.) Without the authority of the Church to decide the biblical canon, how do Protestants know which books are inspired and which are not? Catholics also wonder why Jesus Christ would abandon his church and leave only a book as the source of revelation -- at a time when the majority of Christians were illiterate.
4. From a theological perspective, I also wonder how non-Trinitarians who presumably reject the divinity of Christ as well understand the redemption. For the majority of Christians, the efficacy of the redemption derives from the incarnation -- Jesus Christ as both man and God atones for the sins of man and redeems man to God. But if Jesus Christ was only a man, couldn't anyone atone for mankind's sins (why not St. Peter who supposedly suffered the crucifixion upside down?).
Back to Top