Do Trinitarians really follow the teaching of Jesus or do they follow their pastors teachings?

Oh, I'm sure they don't, as a whole. When I was a Baptist, I just accepted what the preacher told us. I never heard him say, "now turn to...so and so and let read it together, and reason on what God is saying here..." I could never figure trinity out--but I became one of Jehovah's witnesses after studying the Bible and now I understand the trinity!

In Matt.chapter six, Jesus taught us to pray for his father's kingdom to come his will to be done--he did not say "my will to be done..." etc And in John 3:35-36 we read "The father loves the son and has given all things into his hand.He that exercises faith in the Son has everlasting life, and he that disobeys the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God remains upon him." Here the scriptures clearly define the Father as one being, and the son, as a separate person.

Also consider John 6:38 which says "I have come down from heaven to do not my will, but the will of him that sent me." if Jesus is God, who sent him down from heaven? And why did Jesus yield to the will of that One?

In John 14:28 "You heard that I said to you, I am going away and I am coming back to you. If you love me you would rejoice that I am going my way to the Father, because the Father is greater than I am." Jesus views his father greater than himself. Which would contradict the trinity. Also the word trinity isn't even found in the Bible. If it is such an important doctrine, why not?

You can also reason on these scriptures at John 7:16, Matthew 28:18, Luke 3:21,22 --pray before you look all these up and do more research, and you will find that this doctrine comes from pagan religion. Way back in the time of Moses God's people got lead astray by false gods who were part of a trinity. Everyone should do the research on the subject,and I hope and pray they will. They have only a little time to lose...

The Illustrated Bible Dictionary records: "The word Trinity is not found in the Bible. . . It did not find a place formally in the theology of the church till the 4th century."

The New Catholic Encyclopedia admits that the Trinity "is not. . . directly and immediately the word of God."

The Encyclopedia of Religion And Ethics records: At first the Christian Faith was not Trinitarian. . . It was not so in the apostolic and sub-apostolic ages, as reflected in the New Testament and other early Christian writings."

L. L. Paine, professor of Ecclesiastical History acknowledged: "The Old Testament is strictly monotheistic. God is a single personal being. The idea that a trinity is to be found there . . . is utterly without foundation."

The Encyclopedia of Religion admits: "Theologians today are in agreement that the Hebrew Bible does not contain a doctrine of the Trinity."

Dear Dogma while not professing to be a Christian, by choice, certainly had it right and good for him!

For you others, I mean no disrespect, as someone showed me! Just be brave and see where trinity came from to begin with below--please don't be afraid to challenge you faith, that is no sin:

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/facts-about-hades-t...

That is no longer when it was adopted, just when it was once put in writing with an "professional definition" Ignatius and Polycarp had been each students of the Apostle John and each are documented as believing Jesus is God within the flesh (which blows the NWT version of John 1:1 correct in the trash) further, they have hinted on the trinity since the first century without it being called that until about 200 ad. Regardless, the Trinity used to be certainly a perception good earlier than the 4th century. Ignatius (died 117 ad) The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians, Chap. XIII be taught, as a consequence, to be based within the doctrines of the Lord and the apostles, that so all things, whatever ye do, may prosper each in the flesh and spirit; in faith and love; in the Son, and within the Father, and in the Spirit; in the commencing and ultimately; with your most admirable bishop, and the well-compacted non secular crown of your presbytery, and the deacons who are in line with God. Be ye field to the bishop, and to at least one a different, as Jesus Christ to the father, in step with the flesh, and the apostles to Christ, and to the daddy, and to the Spirit; that so there is also a union each fleshly and religious. (short version) The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians, chap.VI For they alienate Christ from the daddy, and the law from Christ. In addition they calumniate His being born of the Virgin; they're ashamed of His move; they deny His passion; and they don't suppose His resurrection. They introduce God as a Being unknown; they suppose Christ to be unbegotten; and as to the Spirit, they do not admit that He exists. Some of them say that the Son is a mere man, and that the daddy, Son and Holy Spirit are however the equal person, and that the creation is the work of God, now not via Christ, however via any other strange vigor. The Epistle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians, Chap. VI If someone says there is one God, and in addition confesses Christ Jesus, but thinks the Lord to be a mere man, and no longer the only-begotten God and knowledge, and the word of God, and deems Him to consist only of a soul and physique, such an one is a serpent, that preaches deceit and mistake for the destruction of men...If anybody confesses the father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and praises the production, however calls the incarnation merely an appearance, and is ashamed of the passion, such an one has denied the faith, no longer not up to the Jews who killed Christ. If anybody confesses these matters, and that God the word did dwell in a human body, being within it because the phrase, even as the soul also is in the physique, on account that it was God that inhabited it, and not a human soul, however affirms that unlawful unions are a good thing, and areas the best possible happiness in pleasure, as does the person who is falsely known as a Nicolaitan, this character can neither be a lover of God, nor a lover of Christ, however is a corrupter of his possess flesh, and as a result void of the Holy Spirit, and a stranger to Christ. (long version)

"On the other hand, before one becomes a Christian witness to Jehovah, they know exactly what is taught and where from the Bible it is taught. They do not blindly believe what is being taught. They make a choice to follow what the Bible teaches or not to. It is a decision based on knowledge rather than emotion."

There is no possible way you could embrace Jehovah Witness theology if it were not for the teaching of the pastoral leaders of the Watchtower. You're accusing other Christians (the one's that are "part of Christendom") of the very thing you are guilty of.

Regarding Trinitarianism... it was established as Christian dogma with the formalization of the creed at the council of Nicea (325 AD)..... Nearly a century before the canon of scripture was formalized at Carthage and Hippo.. In other words before Christianity had a Bible they had a Trinitarian Creed. If the "post-Constantine" church was apostate... then the Bible derives it's existence from that same apostate source.

On the whole they follow the teachings of their pastors, priests, etc. Humans have a natural tendency to follow the crowd. Go along with what the masses put out. Most animals too. Think of herds of deer, flocks of birds, swarms of insects, schools of fish. They conform to the surroundings.

The same could be said of education, most educators just go along with what they have been taught following rather than reasoning on their own. How many teachers do you remember that had a profound affect on you?

That goes without saying for most things. My doctor goes in another room and looks at a computer if he isn't sure and follows what the masses have put out already (and I play golf with him too.) He says most just follow a set of procedures they are use to. And many times many don't accept better procedures and practices till long after, even though the facts show it's better. IE: Bloodless surgery--we know it has less risk and better recovery time now, but we have to wait Until enough of the masses become more informed on the subject before it will change and be used more . (I did my homework there, wasn't a religious thing for me)

It's comforting often for most to go along even if not the best way.

It's no different here. (Only Satan works harder to keep people fro God's truth more than anything else)

.

It's true many often even think more of a crowd makes something right... until a turning point occurs. Perhaps an event or perhaps someone getting you to question your own beliefs more.

Going against the crowd takes a special kind of person, a person who isn't afraid of risk, it doesn't has to be someone who seeks it out, but a person who looks inward, reasons more, and doesn't need reassurance from others.

It's interesting that you accuse other Christians of doing the very same thing Jehovah's Witnesses do- following men...

Jehovah's Witnesses believe in the everchanging doctrines formulated by the imperfect men at the New York headquarters.

Since you are a Witness,did you know that the Watchtower used to promote the worship of Jesus, until 1954 ?

When the Watchtower abandoned that belief,so did all of Jehovah's Witnesses

If tomorrow ,the Governing Body, God's sole spokesman on earth ,decided that Jesus should be worshipped, I'm sure every Jehovah's Witness would applaud it as 'new light' and say that it makes sense.

hi there.

you're making claims here that are at odds with what your handlers teach.

they say bible reading alone leads to "apostate" (to jws) beliefs.

trinitarianism would be one of those "apostate" beliefs.

see how, according to the watchtower, a pastor, priest or minister is not required? all you need is a bible.

and once again I ask

if I listened to the bible on mp3 while on a kiwifruit orchard in rural new zealand, who is this pastor, priest or minister that i'm supposed to "blindly follow without knowing the reasons"?

and every time I ask why you guys are so keen to perform the watchtower "reasoning" steps to change jesus from god to the archangel mike, why none of you have a reason?

another pot kettle black post from the myopic ones.

God revealed Himself as a Triune God, and the JW's wrote their own Bible because of this inescapable fact.

Pick up your Authorized Version my friend, what does 1 Timothy 3:16 say? You can take it to the bank. "Without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh (JESUS)," God was manifest in the flesh!

What does John 1 clearly state? The same thing. What does 1 John 5:7 say? For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word (Jesus refer back to John 1), and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

YOU are the one following pastors of Jehovah's Witness blindly

Oh, this is a good one. JW Bibliophiles and (their own) "scholar" worshippers calling Trinitarians bad names. This is a good one. You guys are the ones who changed "son of God" into merely "a son of God" and can't be bothered to look up the original Name of the Most High on any of the original manuscripts. There wasn't a J sound in any of the original languages (even the Greek Septuigent) until about 500 years ago. "Jehovah" is a mistranslation from mispronoucing the Greek, at best. We all know who you mean but really, let's not confuse it with the Most Holy (personal) Name (used by the Hebrew/Jewish High Priests).

I'm not trinitarian, JW or christian. However I have read most of the bible including the entire new testament. I have often thought that if trinitarians followed the teaching of Jesus, they would not be trinitarians.

WE do the former

WE cannot speak for anyone else

Our pastor also follows the teachings of Jesus - and teaches them himself

This sounds like a JW recruiting ad