Beginning Apologetics 2.5 : Yes! You Should Believe in the Trinity

Rating:
Summary: Great Study Guide
Review: A wonderful book from a wonderful series. Several people from my church have been using this series of books in our faith sharing group to help us become better prepared to defend our faith. As a lay Catholic I found this an invaluable tool, especially when my doorbell rings on Saturday morning. This book is only one in the series. For those who do not want to read 200+ page long books, attend regular classes, or research extensively on the subject, this is a quick way to find out the basics of the defense.

Check this book out, Catholics, and know your faith!

Rating:
Summary: Great Study Guide
Review: A wonderful book from a wonderful series. Several people from my church have been using this series of books in our faith sharing group to help us become better prepared to defend our faith. As a lay Catholic I found this an invaluable tool, especially when my doorbell rings on Saturday morning. This book is only one in the series. For those who do not want to read 200+ page long books, attend regular classes, or research extensively on the subject, this is a quick way to find out the basics of the defense.

Check this book out, Catholics, and know your faith!

Rating:
Summary: Tinitarians shoot themselves in foot.
Review: As one of Jehovah's Witnesses I was understandably curious about what this booklet had to say on trying to prove the Trinity. This booklet was written as an answer to our booklet "Should you Believe in the Trinity?" which uses the bible to prove that the bible doesn't teach the Trinity. We believe that the bible teaches that Jesus Christ is the son of his father Jehovah god. That he was created by his father as a separate being with his own free will and that his father is greater than he is. All of these points are supported in scripture. The Trinity on the other hand is supported by church creed and tradition. The authors in their booklet however attempt to prove the trinity as a bible based doctrine. Unfortunately they spend most of their time bashing our trinity booklet rather than using the bible to make their point. (on page 2 they even have a picture of our booklet, the only picture they have.) Which they describe as "packed with false arguments, deliberate misquotations and distorted Scriptures." they spend so much time on making such attacks, they leave little space for actually defending the Trinity. Their booklet is divided in three parts; faulty reasoning, misuse of the early church fathers and misinterpretation of scared scripture. All three parts are referring to our booklet on the Trinity, but could also be taken as self descriptive too. The authors do not present a fair impartial review of the issue, but instead launch a very biased and hateful attack on Jehovah's Witnesses with statements like, "Jehovah's Witness try to pass themselves off as Christians." The writing style makes one wonder if the authors miss the 'good old days' of the inquisition and crusade. I got the feeling at times the authors would rather be making their points with a hot poker than with words. They also spend a great deal of time attacking our bible translation, the New World Translation, with all sorts of ridiculous accusations like it has never been reviewed by other bible scholars. Like we could print and distribute tens of millions of copies of the NWT world wide without any bible scholars looking at it. Here on Amazon as a matter of a fact, there is a fine book by a bible scholar who I understand rates the NWT very favorably. ( Rolf. Furuli "The Role of Theology and Bias in Bible Translation: With a special look at the New World Translation of Jehovah's Witnesses" ) Another particularly outlandish claim was that the authors stated that our belief that Jesus Christ in heaven is also known as the archangel Michael, is plucked out of thin air, that we have no scriptural support for this belief. When saying this they use two quotes from a page in our Reasoning From the Scriptures book, where it states that we believe the two are one in the same. The outlandish part is that on that same page, in-between where the two quotes are taken from, is a number of cited scriptures supporting our viewpoint. Support which the authors claim doesn't exist. Making false accusations is one thing, but making false accusations when you know they are not true is another, it is slander. Which is why if you are looking for a publication to use for a discussion when we call at your door, I wouldn't recommend this booklet. We carry the Reasoning book in our book bags to find answers in the bible for different topics while out going door to door. So when this booklet makes its claim about the archangel, the witness at your door will naturally look it up in the Reasoning book and is bound to notice where the quotes are taken from with the scriptures supporting our view right in the middle. At this point in the discussion you are not going to have a leg to stand on. The derogatory language used in this booklet combined with a very limited and poorly done attempted scriptural defense of the trinity, will hurt rather than help any one engaged in a discussion trying to defend the trinity. If you want an impartial and scriptural detailed examination of whether the bible teaches the trinity or not. I would recommend the booklet that this booklet was written in a failed effort to disprove. Check it out for yourself. Most of the scriptural points raised in our booklet are not even addressed in this booklet, and perhaps that is because the authors had no answers which is why they resorted to gutter ball tactics.

Rating:
Summary: Tinitarians shoot themselves in foot.
Review: As one of Jehovah's Witnesses I was understandably curious about what this booklet had to say on trying to prove the Trinity. This booklet was written as an answer to our booklet "Should you Believe in the Trinity?" which uses the bible to prove that the bible doesn't teach the Trinity. We believe that the bible teaches that Jesus Christ is the son of his father Jehovah god. That he was created by his father as a separate being with his own free will and that his father is greater than he is. All of these points are supported in scripture. The Trinity on the other hand is supported by church creed and tradition. The authors in their booklet however attempt to prove the trinity as a bible based doctrine. Unfortunately they spend most of their time bashing our trinity booklet rather than using the bible to make their point. (on page 2 they even have a picture of our booklet, the only picture they have.) Which they describe as "packed with false arguments, deliberate misquotations and distorted Scriptures." they spend so much time on making such attacks, they leave little space for actually defending the Trinity. Their booklet is divided in three parts; faulty reasoning, misuse of the early church fathers and misinterpretation of scared scripture. All three parts are referring to our booklet on the Trinity, but could also be taken as self descriptive too. The authors do not present a fair impartial review of the issue, but instead launch a very biased and hateful attack on Jehovah's Witnesses with statements like, "Jehovah's Witness try to pass themselves off as Christians." The writing style makes one wonder if the authors miss the 'good old days' of the inquisition and crusade. I got the feeling at times the authors would rather be making their points with a hot poker than with words. They also spend a great deal of time attacking our bible translation, the New World Translation, with all sorts of ridiculous accusations like it has never been reviewed by other bible scholars. Like we could print and distribute tens of millions of copies of the NWT world wide without any bible scholars looking at it. Here on Amazon as a matter of a fact, there is a fine book by a bible scholar who I understand rates the NWT very favorably. ( Rolf. Furuli "The Role of Theology and Bias in Bible Translation: With a special look at the New World Translation of Jehovah's Witnesses" ) Another particularly outlandish claim was that the authors stated that our belief that Jesus Christ in heaven is also known as the archangel Michael, is plucked out of thin air, that we have no scriptural support for this belief. When saying this they use two quotes from a page in our Reasoning From the Scriptures book, where it states that we believe the two are one in the same. The outlandish part is that on that same page, in-between where the two quotes are taken from, is a number of cited scriptures supporting our viewpoint. Support which the authors claim doesn't exist. Making false accusations is one thing, but making false accusations when you know they are not true is another, it is slander. Which is why if you are looking for a publication to use for a discussion when we call at your door, I wouldn't recommend this booklet. We carry the Reasoning book in our book bags to find answers in the bible for different topics while out going door to door. So when this booklet makes its claim about the archangel, the witness at your door will naturally look it up in the Reasoning book and is bound to notice where the quotes are taken from with the scriptures supporting our view right in the middle. At this point in the discussion you are not going to have a leg to stand on. The derogatory language used in this booklet combined with a very limited and poorly done attempted scriptural defense of the trinity, will hurt rather than help any one engaged in a discussion trying to defend the trinity. If you want an impartial and scriptural detailed examination of whether the bible teaches the trinity or not. I would recommend the booklet that this booklet was written in a failed effort to disprove. Check it out for yourself. Most of the scriptural points raised in our booklet are not even addressed in this booklet, and perhaps that is because the authors had no answers which is why they resorted to gutter ball tactics.

Rating:
Summary: A little research may help
Review: Please note the following statements from one of the most authoritative sources to be printed by the author's own church. Can anyone tell me why the average Catholic does not know what their own church teaches regarding what The Catholic Encyclopedia calls "the central doctrine of the Christian religion"?

"The formulation of one God in three persons was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective." New CATHOLIC Encyclopedia (1967) Vol. XIV, p. 299

"The majority of NT texts reveal God's spirit as something, not someone; this is especially seen in the paralellism between the spirit and the power of God." ibid p. 296

"There is the recognition on the part of exegetes and Biblical theologians, including a constantly growing number of Roman Catholics, that one should not speak of Trinitarianism in the New Testament without serious qualification. There is also the closely parallel recognition on the part of historians of dogma and systematic theologians that when one does speak of an unqualified Trinitarianism, one has moved from the period of Christian origins to, say, the last quadrant of the 4th century." ibid p. 295

These are the statements, not of Jehovah's witnesses, but of the Catholic church. Does not a serious discussion of this issue warrant honest presentation of both sides of the argument, and at least an acknowlegement of what YOUR OWN CHURCH actually teaches regarding this subject?

Rating:
Summary: A little research may help
Review: Please note the following statements from one of the most authoritative sources to be printed by the author's own church. Can anyone tell me why the average Catholic does not know what their own church teaches regarding what The Catholic Encyclopedia calls "the central doctrine of the Christian religion"?

"The formulation of one God in three persons was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective." New CATHOLIC Encyclopedia (1967) Vol. XIV, p. 299

"The majority of NT texts reveal God's spirit as something, not someone; this is especially seen in the paralellism between the spirit and the power of God." ibid p. 296

"There is the recognition on the part of exegetes and Biblical theologians, including a constantly growing number of Roman Catholics, that one should not speak of Trinitarianism in the New Testament without serious qualification. There is also the closely parallel recognition on the part of historians of dogma and systematic theologians that when one does speak of an unqualified Trinitarianism, one has moved from the period of Christian origins to, say, the last quadrant of the 4th century." ibid p. 295

These are the statements, not of Jehovah's witnesses, but of the Catholic church. Does not a serious discussion of this issue warrant honest presentation of both sides of the argument, and at least an acknowlegement of what YOUR OWN CHURCH actually teaches regarding this subject?