Evidence for God from Science

perhaps the Jews state that Jesus is not directly mentioned in OT but the Trinity is but they seem to have missed that also "for Abraham rejoiced to see my days and he saw it and was glad" - dont you miss it but see the rendezvou at Mamre at Gen.18 - any comments - twinc

Those that reject the trinity doctrine do it based on the fact that it is NOT explicitly stated in the Bible and that is a fair enough critique BUT that "rule" then should apply to ANY doctrine NOT explicitly stated in the Bible.

PaulSacramento wrote:Those that reject the trinity doctrine do it based on the fact that it is NOT explicitly stated in the Bible and that is a fair enough critique BUT that "rule" then should apply to ANY doctrine NOT explicitly stated in the Bible.

While I agree that the word "trinity", is not in the bible, the concept of the trinity is pretty clear in scripture.

And, belief in the trinity, or should I say, unbelief in the trinity, is a pretty good indication of whether a belief is cultic in nature.

twinc wrote:perhaps the Jews state that Jesus is not directly mentioned in OT but the Trinity is but they seem to have missed that also "for Abraham rejoiced to see my days and he saw it and was glad" - dont you miss it but see the rendezvou at Mamre at Gen.18 - any comments - twinc

I have no idea what your point is as your question is too well - not clear at all - what do you mean?
-
-
-

RickD wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Those that reject the trinity doctrine do it based on the fact that it is NOT explicitly stated in the Bible and that is a fair enough critique BUT that "rule" then should apply to ANY doctrine NOT explicitly stated in the Bible.

While I agree that the word "trinity", is not in the bible, the concept of the trinity is pretty clear in scripture.

And, belief in the trinity, or should I say, unbelief in the trinity, is a pretty good indication of whether a belief is cultic in nature.

Yep, the concept is there and the only way to reconcile many verses is a Triune God ( for lack of a better word) but none of that changes the fact that it isn't there stated explicitly.
My point though is that for those that use that as a reason, they must apply that reason across the board and they don't.

PaulSacramento wrote:

RickD wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Those that reject the trinity doctrine do it based on the fact that it is NOT explicitly stated in the Bible and that is a fair enough critique BUT that "rule" then should apply to ANY doctrine NOT explicitly stated in the Bible.

While I agree that the word "trinity", is not in the bible, the concept of the trinity is pretty clear in scripture.

And, belief in the trinity, or should I say, unbelief in the trinity, is a pretty good indication of whether a belief is cultic in nature.

Yep, the concept is there and the only way to reconcile many verses is a Triune God ( for lack of a better word) but none of that changes the fact that it isn't there stated explicitly.
My point though is that for those that use that as a reason, they must apply that reason across the board and they don't.

I see what you're saying, but I guess I don't know enough specifically about JW theology, to say what you're saying. Perhaps you could lay out some examples of their inconsistencies on what they hold to that's not stated explicitly in scripture.

RickD wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

RickD wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Those that reject the trinity doctrine do it based on the fact that it is NOT explicitly stated in the Bible and that is a fair enough critique BUT that "rule" then should apply to ANY doctrine NOT explicitly stated in the Bible.

While I agree that the word "trinity", is not in the bible, the concept of the trinity is pretty clear in scripture.

And, belief in the trinity, or should I say, unbelief in the trinity, is a pretty good indication of whether a belief is cultic in nature.

Yep, the concept is there and the only way to reconcile many verses is a Triune God ( for lack of a better word) but none of that changes the fact that it isn't there stated explicitly.
My point though is that for those that use that as a reason, they must apply that reason across the board and they don't.

I see what you're saying, but I guess I don't know enough specifically about JW theology, to say what you're saying. Perhaps you could lay out some examples of their inconsistencies on what they hold to that's not stated explicitly in scripture.

The most blatant is the doctrine that Jesus is the incarnate form of the Archangel Michael.
There is NOTHING in the bible that says that BUT they view, according to their interpretations, the passages that mention Michael as IMPLYING that He is Jesus in his pre-incarnate form.
Examples are Daniel where Michael is the one that stands up for Israel (never mind that he is called ONE of the chief princes).
1Thessalonians where Christ will come with the voice of "the" archangel ( since according to the JW's there is only ONE archangel, Michael, then Christ is Michel)
Now to be fair, this whole idea of Michael - Jesus is NOTHING new nor was it invented by them.
But it is a prime of example of taking what MAY be implicit and making it doctrine and YET criticizing those that do the same thing in regards to the Trinity doctrine.

Thanks, Paul. I see it clearer now.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought Jews did believe in the Holy Trinity. The difference in my mind was simply that they don't believe Jesus was part of it (the son/Messiah).

Ivellious wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought Jews did believe in the Holy Trinity. The difference in my mind was simply that they don't believe Jesus was part of it (the son/Messiah).

Ivellious, Judaism is unitarian. Christianity is trinitarian.
Maybe this'll help:http://whatjewsbelieve.org/explanation6.html

Ah, shows how much I know. Guess I don't have many Jewish friends haha

The whole notion of a "triune God" is blasphemy and heresy to a Jew.
Lets remember that we use the term "Trinity" because of tradition, I am sure that IF the doctrine had come to be in the 20th century for example, we would be using a different term and different wording to explain the nature of the relationship between Father, Son and HS.
Remember, to some Jesus IS the HS so there is a "biune" as oppose to a Triune God.

PaulSacramento wrote:Those that reject the trinity doctrine do it based on the fact that it is NOT explicitly stated in the Bible and that is a fair enough critique BUT that "rule" then should apply to ANY doctrine NOT explicitly stated in the Bible.

You mean like Sola Scriptura? (okay, okay, I'll behave).

Byblos wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Those that reject the trinity doctrine do it based on the fact that it is NOT explicitly stated in the Bible and that is a fair enough critique BUT that "rule" then should apply to ANY doctrine NOT explicitly stated in the Bible.

You mean like Sola Scriptura? (okay, okay, I'll behave).

Hey! Who invited the Catholic? Be gone, heretic!!!

An old Irishman, McDougal, had a loyal and faithful dog who died. McDougal went to his parish priest and asked, "Father, could you say some prayers in Mass for my dog?" The old pastor said, "McDougal, you know very well that we don't pray for animals at Mass. Why don't you go down to that Baptist church and ask them? I'm sure they'll do it." "Well, ok, Father, I think I'll do just that. Oh, by the way, do you think they'll be offended if I offered them $5,000 to pray for my dog?"

Father exclaimed, "Why, McDougal, you never said your dog was Catholic!"