Australia's largest stock trading and investment forum Australia's #1 stock forum

why christmas should not be celebrated, page-68

First 68 Last

Share
Profile

Follow
wafflehead

7,306 Posts.

30/12/21

18:08

Post #: 58572358
Share

Originally posted by ppm56: ↑

The doctrine of the Trinity can be traced back thousands of years ahead of the Catholic Church adopting it. The ancient Egyptians worshiped the trinity of Osiris, Isis (his wife), and Horus (his son). And the Hindus, even down to this day, worship a trinity made up of the three-headed Trimurti of Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva.
Abbott’s Dictionary of Religious Knowledge calls the Trinity a “very marked” feature in the Hindu religion and “discernible” in the ancient [pre-Christian] religions of Persia, Egypt, Rome, Japan, India, and Greece.
Again MrG, all that you quoted in this post is pure nonsense, and completely taken out of context, as per normal with anything coming out of the WT or JW.org
Read in the full context of Abobotts Dictionary to know what’s it all about I advise you again, don’t just blindly take what the WT gives you, trust me, its very bias and what they quote its normal to be taken out of context
I'll just do some cut and past from this site, just to give you an idea, my advice is to go and read the whole lot in full
https://bib.irr.org/lyman-abbotts-dictionary-on-trinity
We should also take very brief notice of an appendix in Abbott’s Dictionary entitled “The Names, Titles, and Characters of the Son of God, Jesus Christ Our Lord, in Their Variety, as Found in the Scriptures.” Section II of this appendix affirms that Jesus Christ is called “God” in numerous places in the Bible (e.g., Isa. 9:6; Matt. 1:23; John 20:28; Rom. 9:5; Titus 2:13; Heb. 1:8; 2 Peter 1:1; 1 John 5:20), including texts that contemporary Trinitarian scholars do not usually mention in this regard (Isa. 40:3; 54:5; Luke 1:47, 76; 1 Tim. 3:16). Abbott points out that Jesus is also called “Jehovah” (e.g., Isa. 6:3, cf. John 12:41; Isa. 40:3, 10; Jer. 23:6; Zech. 14:5; Rom. 10:13, cf. Joel 2:32; 1 Cor. 2:8) and that he says “I am” in ways that echo the words of Jehovah (John 8:24, 28, 58; 18:5-6; cf. Exod. 3:14).mce-anchor²⁵

A fair-minded and careful reading of Abbott’s reference work, then, demonstrates that it provides no real support for the claims anti-Trinitarians have tried to extract from it.

Critics of the doctrine of the Trinity, both non-religious skeptics and advocates of anti-Trinitarian religious doctrines, routinely argue that the doctrine originated from ancient pagan religions rather than the Bible. In making that case, such critics commonly quote a variety of scholarly (and not so scholarly) works in which this allegation seems to be made. One such work is an entry on “Trinitarians” in A Dictionary of Religious Knowledge, edited by Lyman Abbott and published in 1875.
Abbott’s Dictionary Quoted by Skeptic Henry Taber
The earliest such citation of this reference work in an anti-Trinitarian polemic appears to have been made by skeptic Henry Moorehouse Taber in a book published in 1897. Taber’s book originated as a series of articles in the Chicago Freethought Magazine, and has a preface by the influential skeptic Robert G. Ingersoll. In his criticisms of the doctrine of the Trinity, Taber attributed the following quotation to Abbott:
Traces of belief in the Trinity are to be found in most heathen nations. It is discernible in Persian, Egyptian, Roman, Japanese, Indian, and the most ancient Grecian mythologies and is very marked in Hindooism.mce-anchor¹
Taber later offered the following statement also from Abbott:
Precisely what the doctrine of the Trinity is, or rather how it is to be explained, Trinitarians are not agreed among themselves.mce-anchor²
Abbott’s Dictionary Quoted by Jehovah’s Witnesses
Two years later Charles Taze Russell, the founder and first president of the Watchtower Society (the organization that runs the religion later called the Jehovah’s Witnesses), quoted Abbott’s dictionary. We do not know if Russell had found Abbott through reading Taber, but it is not implausible. Both Abbott’s and Taber’s books were published by New York publishing houses, and Russell had gone through a period of skepticism himself before accepting a form of Adventist Christianity and eventually starting his own religious organization. In any case, Russell clearly consulted Abbott’s dictionary directly, since he quoted more of the entry than Taber had. Unlike Taber, Russell gave a reference for his quotation and identified Abbott as “one of the compilers and editors” of the work (which is not quite accurate). Here is what Russell wrote:
The Religious Dictionary, of which the Rev. Dr. Lyman Abbott, a professed Trinitarian, was one of the compilers and editors, on page 944 says—
“It was not until the beginning of the fourth century that the Trinitarian view began to be elaborated and formulated into a doctrine, and an endeavor made to reconcile it with the belief of the Church in one God…. Out of the attempt to solve this problem sprang the doctrine of the Trinity…. Trinity is a very marked feature in Hindooism, and is discernible in Persian, Egyptian, Roman, Japanese, Indian and the most ancient Grecian mythologies.”mce-anchor³
The last sentence of this quotation was reused in a Watchtower article in 1953 and also attributed to Abbott’s Religious Dictionary. That article commented, “Yes, the trinity finds its origin in the pagan concept of a multiplicity, plurality or pantheon of gods.”mce-anchor⁴ A 1961 article in Awake! presented the quotation in the same form.mce-anchor⁵ A 1988 Awake! article made use of the same quote in a different way and corrected the title of Abbott’s work: “Abbott’s Dictionary of Religious Knowledge calls the Trinity a ‘very marked’ feature in the Hindu religion and ‘discernible’ in the ancient [pre-Christian] religions of Persia, Egypt, Rome, Japan, India, and Greece.”mce-anchor⁶ A later Watchtower publication, Should You Believe in the Trinity, quoted two other statements from the same entry, including one of the quotations that Taber had used:
Thus, A Dictionary of Religious Knowledge says: “Precisely what that doctrine is, or rather precisely how it is to be explained, Trinitarians are not agreed among themselves.” …A Dictionary of Religious Knowledge notes that many say that the Trinity “is a corruption borrowed from the heathen religions, and ingrafted on the Christian faith.”mce-anchor⁷
A 2001 article in the Watchtower repeats the quotation about the Trinity being “borrowed from the heathen religions”:
A Dictionary of Religious Knowledge notes that many say that the Trinity “is a corruption borrowed from the heathen religions, and ingrafted on the Christian faith.”mce-anchor⁸

Expand

The Trinity is a doctrine, a construct. The evolution of the doctrine of the Trinity developed in stages and the doctrine that received the first imperial sanction did so in 325 A.D. in Nicaea.

It reads as follows :-
We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of all things, visible and invisible;
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten from the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, of one substance with the Father, through Whom all things came into being, things in heaven and things on earth, Who because of us men and because of our salvation came down and became incarnate, becoming man, suffered and rose again on the third day, ascended to the heavens, and will come to judge the living and the dead;
And in the Holy Spirit.
But as for those who say, There was when He was not, and, Before being born He was not, and that He came into existence out of nothing, or who assert that the Son of God is from a different hypostasis or substance, or is created, or is subject to alteration or change these the Catholic church anathematises.

Though this statement did not formalise the Trinity, it did provide all the essential elements so that later creeds of Christianity were able to develop the Trinity as seen in some Christian beliefs today.

Christ never taught the Trinity.

Augustine and Thomas Aquinas could not explain the Trinity. They said it either came done to Faith, or both faith and reason. They said, if there are several persons in G.d then there are several substances; which appears to be heretical.

But there is something to the Trinity, though not following the definition of the CC, in that Jesus serves the Will of G.d and thus is one with G.d and is aided by the active force of G.d, the Holy Spirit and as such a Trinity of sorts is formed.

The Trinity has no bearing on one's salvation. Now as Mr Gordon is unable to accept any true other than that which is delivered to him via the GB, it remains to be seen if you are able explore truths outside the framework of your religions codified beliefs?
Upvote

Reply

Top Stories

Week 29 Wrap: ASX hits new all time high of 8,766pts ahead of Aug 1

PSC

Prospect's Mumbezhi Project puts it at the middle of copper's megatrend. And FQM just bought in

DRO

History repeats for DroneShield investors but carnage so far subdued

AII

A new NASDAQ listing for a key player in the global critical minerals space

SYR

Syrah jumps +19% as graphite tariff threat spurs optimism down under

HotCopper Highlights: Trigg; Droneshield; Lumos & more

Listen: HotCopper Wire Podcast 018 – Potatoes, TACOs, and the $120M helicopter heist

STN

Saturn brings up seventh straight Apollo Hill upgrade on 'impressive' 300-hole drill run

BDM

Burgundy plunges -20% after turning to layoffs to navigate record-low diamond prices

SER

Strategic Energy extends its QLD copper-gold frontier with Diamantina acquisition

First 68 Last