gogh
Please investigate the Pre-Nicene Fathers and what they believed. The Trinity doctrine didnt just magically appear at the Nicean council.
It was an issue long before.
Hi Bangalore,
I've read a few of these from sites all over the internet. While their arguments try to show the quotes from other sources are being abused, the actual evidence of this is seriously lacking.
They are in fact full of emotional tactics typically used by politicians and the like to deflect listeners from the real context of the particular author quoted, authors who may or may not have their own biases on a given subject. For example, The Encyclopedia Americana by its own admission is not a religious authority but merely gives a balance of information, trying to remain neutral to deficiencies in arguments. It is simply an encyclopedia.
Here is another example of an encyclopedia quote used in reference to deceptive quoting by these websites (the portion quoted from the encyclopedia by the Trinity brochure is in blue):
“The transition from the Trinity of experience to the Trinity of dogma is describable in other terms as the transition from the economic or dispensational Trinity to the essential, immanent, or ontological Trinity. At first the Christian faith was not Trinitarian in the strictly ontological reference. It was not so in the apostolic and sub-apostolic ages, as reflected in the NT and other early Christian writings.†(Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, 1922, v.12, p. 461)
As I said before, this is quoted all over the internet as dishonest and deceptive "misquoting." This is not true. Deceptive quoting is a deliberate strategy to mislead from context. In this case, the brochure simply used what the encyclopedia acknowledged to be true—that "At first the Christian faith was not Trinitarian," that "It was not so in the apostolic and sub-apostolic ages, as reflected in the NT and other early Christian writings."
Was it necessary to also acknowledged that "The transition from the Trinity of experience to the Trinity of dogma is describable in other terms as the transition from the economic or dispensational Trinity to the essential, immanent, or ontological Trinity?" We all know that the Trinity eventually became a doctrine. So what's the point of quoting that? Trinitarians are even more guilty of deception when using these methods of dishonest arguments. It's alright for them to misquote, slanting the argument in their favour but not alright for anyone else?
As I said before—it's political. More than that, when the shoe gets on the other foot, it can become a highly charged and inflamatory ploy meant to stir up anger and gain support of their audience. (See the Thirty-eight dishonest tricks which are commonly used in argument—Straight and Crooked Thinking by Robert Thoulass)
Let's take another quote—this time from an author that is clearly Trinitarian but who makes an untrinitarian acknowledgement.
"The New Testament writers give us no formal or formulated doctrine of the Trinity, no explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons. They call Jesus the Son of God. Messiah. Lord. Savior, Word. Wisdom. They assign Him the divine functions of creation, salvation, judgment. Sometimes they call Him God explicitly. They do not speak as fully and clearly of the Holy Spirit as they do of the Son, but at times they coordinate Him with the Father and the Son and put Him on a level with them as far as divinity and personality are concerned.â€â€”The Triune God, 1972
Again, the author is acknowledging a basic truth. The Trinity brochure could have even quoted more but chose not to. This is not deceptive. It is simply using the author's own acknowledgment of what is true. To say otherwise is typically called, 'getting excited over nothing.'
My thouhts,
sw
Hi Bangalore,
I've read a few of these from sites all over the internet. While their arguments try to show the quotes from other sources are being abused, the actual evidence of this is seriously lacking.
They are in fact full of emotional tactics typically used by politicians and the like to deflect listeners from the real context of the particular author quoted, authors who may or may not have their own biases on a given subject. For example, The Encyclopedia Americana by its own admission is not a religious authority but merely gives a balance of information, trying to remain neutral to deficiencies in arguments. It is simply an encyclopedia.
Here is another example of an encyclopedia quote used in reference to deceptive quoting by these websites (the portion quoted from the encyclopedia by the Trinity brochure is in blue):
“The transition from the Trinity of experience to the Trinity of dogma is describable in other terms as the transition from the economic or dispensational Trinity to the essential, immanent, or ontological Trinity. At first the Christian faith was not Trinitarian in the strictly ontological reference. It was not so in the apostolic and sub-apostolic ages, as reflected in the NT and other early Christian writings.†(Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, 1922, v.12, p. 461)
As I said before, this is quoted all over the internet as dishonest and deceptive "misquoting." This is not true. Deceptive quoting is a deliberate strategy to mislead from context. In this case, the brochure simply used what the encyclopedia acknowledged to be true—that "At first the Christian faith was not Trinitarian," that "It was not so in the apostolic and sub-apostolic ages, as reflected in the NT and other early Christian writings."
Was it necessary to also acknowledged that "The transition from the Trinity of experience to the Trinity of dogma is describable in other terms as the transition from the economic or dispensational Trinity to the essential, immanent, or ontological Trinity?" We all know that the Trinity eventually became a doctrine. So what's the point of quoting that? Trinitarians are even more guilty of deception when using these methods of dishonest arguments. It's alright for them to misquote, slanting the argument in their favour but not alright for anyone else?
As I said before—it's political. More than that, when the shoe gets on the other foot, it can become a highly charged and inflamatory ploy meant to stir up anger and gain support of their audience. (See the Thirty-eight dishonest tricks which are commonly used in argument—Straight and Crooked Thinking by Robert Thoulass)
Let's take another quote—this time from an author that is clearly Trinitarian but who makes an untrinitarian acknowledgement.
"The New Testament writers give us no formal or formulated doctrine of the Trinity, no explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons. They call Jesus the Son of God. Messiah. Lord. Savior, Word. Wisdom. They assign Him the divine functions of creation, salvation, judgment. Sometimes they call Him God explicitly. They do not speak as fully and clearly of the Holy Spirit as they do of the Son, but at times they coordinate Him with the Father and the Son and put Him on a level with them as far as divinity and personality are concerned.â€â€”The Triune God, 1972
Again, the author is acknowledging a basic truth. The Trinity brochure could have even quoted more but chose not to. This is not deceptive. It is simply using the author's own acknowledgment of what is true. To say otherwise is typically called, 'getting excited over nothing.'
My thouhts,
sw
SW, deal with the quotes they use and HOW they use them
not ones they don't
The fact that the WT VERY Purposely chose not to give any reference to page number or Volume number is on deception but to quote so many times OUT OF CONTEXT is GREAT DECEPTION
SYBTT ( Should you believe the Trintity ) page 4
( from Encyclopedia Americana Vol. 27 pg 116)
( I have originals of some and copies of the others )
To use ONLY " Beyond the grasp of Human reason " says to the reader " It is beyond the grasp of Human reason.
When the words that follow are Quote ( it is like many of the formultions of physical science not contray to reason, and may be apprehended ( though it may not be comprehended ) by the Human mind.
it is followed by quote " the simplest affirmation is that God is Three in One and One in Three
" the doctrine might be better described as that of the divine "Triunity" rather than the "trinity "
SO TO SAY ONLY " Beyond the grasp of Human reason" is Deceptive
If someone were to say about you " He sucks at playing baseball but as a father he is one of the best " and it gets printed " He sucks as a father " wouldn't you be upset? ? Are people being misled by what they read about you?
A short History of Christian Doctrine ( You can get this at almost any library ) page 38
The WTBS in SYBTT Quotes " As far as the New Testament is concerned, one does not find in it an actual doctrine of the Trinity "
THE NEXT SENTENCE SAYS
Quote " This does not mean very much, however, for generally speaking the New Testament is less intent on setting forth certain doctrines than it is upon proclaiming the kingdom of God a kingdom that dawns in and with the person of Jesus "
PAGE 39 says this Quote
"In other passages of the New Testament the predicate "God" is without a doubt applied to Christ With these affirmations, which for Jewish monotheism were utterly offensive. Christians expressed their faith that it was not merely some heavenly being which encountered them in Jesus Christ, but God himself and that because of this. his coming, especially his cross and resurrection, had meaning for for entire world."
THE NEW ENCYCLOPEDIA BRTIANNICA Vol 2 page 928
WTBTSin SYBTT page 6 says Quote
" Neither the word Trinity or the explict doctrine appears in the New Testament"
the paragraph ends with these words
quote " Thus, the New Testament established the basis for the doctrine of the Trinity"
A FAR CRY FROM WHAT IS IN THE SHORT QUOTE FROM WTBTS
DICTIONARY OF RELIGIOUS KNOWLEDGE Page 944
WTBTS SYBTT page 4 Quote
" Precisely what that doctrine is or precisely or rather how it is to be explained, trinitarians are not argreed among themselves "
Just prior to this quote, the article said,
"If is certain. however, that from the apostolic times they paid worship to Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. addressed to them their prayers, and included them in their doxologies."
AND GOES ON TO SAY!!! QUOTE
"The Bible represents God to us as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost it represents them as equally entitled to our highest reverence, affection, and allegiance."
I have all the articles[/quote]
BB