Why Do Jehovah's Witnesses Call the Trinity a Catholic Belief When The Vast Majority of Protestants Believe in the Trinity Also?
- Alan HLv 75 months agoFavorite Answer
They change their doctrine with almost the same regularity as some change their socks!
- MegLv 65 months ago
It was Pontiff Maximus Constantine who at the Council of Nicea 325 decided that Jesus is God. This, he did to unite the Christians with the pagans for political reasons, not because he was religious. Years later at Council of Constantinople in 381, the Catholic Nicean Creed developed the three-in-one formula. Although Protestants left Catholicism, they took with them Catholic doctrines with them.
Jesus never taught the Trinity and neither did the apostles.
There is not one text in the Bible that says Jesus is God.
Clearly the Bible teaches that Christ Jesus is the Son of God.
John 20:31 “But these
have been written down
so that you may believe that
Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God,
and because of believing,
you may have life by means of his name.”
- susanLv 75 months ago
The Trinity qualifies as a Catholic belief, because the Catholic church teaches it and many members of the Catholic church believe it. The fact that Catholics aren't the only people who teach and believe this doesn't keep it from being a Catholic belief.
- Anonymous5 months ago
Probably because they have learned that the doctrine and definition of the Holy Trinity - in its full form - was given to us by the Roman Catholic church long before Protestantism came into existence. Witnesses know that Protestants believe in the Trinity too.
- What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
- 5 months ago
Peter Gore Seer,
Thay The Witness Disagree With Much Of Other Religions, But The Brain Is A Religious Magnet, Strong So Create What You Can Easily Believe, Bait The Hook, And Catch A Fish Or Two JESUS Cast His Net And Cought A Multitude Did He Not?.
- Roberta BLv 65 months ago
My response addresses "God's Messenger"'s objections which deal primarily with doctrines that people do not understand about Jehovah's witnesses:
Informed Jehovah Witnesses believe:
Theodosius I, Emperor of Rome, in the year 380 CE gave an edict to all Romans that those who are "catholic christians" must believe in the trinity.
He "established the creed of the Council of Nicaea (325) as the universal norm for Christian orthodoxy and directed the convening of the second general council at Constantinople (381) to clarify the formula."
"Theodosius on February 28, 380, without consulting the ecclesiastical authorities, issued an edict prescribing a creed that was to be binding on all subjects. Only persons who believed in the consubstantiality of God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were henceforth to be considered Catholic Christians, a designation that here appears for the first time in a document." https://www.britannica.com/biography/Theodosius-I
Concerning the statement that "John 1:1-18 and 1 Timothy 3:16 that proves Jesus is God." -
John 1:1 shows clearly in the greek rendering that the word that was with "the" god is different from the word that was 'god' " (koine greek has no capital letters) Many translations reflect the fact that when "the god" is used, as it is in this verse, it references the identity of God, but when "god" with no "the" is used, as it is in the latter part of the verse that describes the Word, it refers to a characteristic or description of the one referred to. Other translations use the word "divine" or "a god". Scriptures such as Acts 28:6 have the same predicate form of god with no definite adjective "the", and therefore translate it as "a god". But because of trinitarian bias, John 1:1 is translated differently. Also, verse 1:18 stated that "No man has seen God at any time" but men have seen Jesus during the time that he was on earth.
1 Timothy 3:16 does not say "God is manifest in the flesh" in the earliest translations. The Greek abbreviation of "God" and the word "who" are very similar, and so after so many centuries of correct translations, that verse appeared with the word "who" translated as "God". Again, trinitarian bias, combined with the desire for the churches to accept this unscriptural doctrine, prevailed by accepting the erroneous change of one word from "who" to "God". The context clearly shows that the one who was manifest in the flesh is Jesus Christ, not his Father, who no one can see and live.
- PaulLv 65 months ago
Because the Catholic Church taught that truth for 1,500 years before Protestantism existed. All true Protestant beliefs are Catholic beliefs, because that's where they got them. Jesus Christ promised the one Church He founded, the Catholic Church, "The Holy Spirit will guide you into all truth", and "Whatsoever you bind upon Earth is bound in Heaven", and "He who hears you hears Me". Those Protestant beliefs that conflict with Catholic beliefs are false, which should be no surprise, given that virtually every belief accepted by a Protestant denomination is rejected by other Protestant denominations. Truth cannot conflict with truth, so obviously untruth is widespread in that unbiblical manmade tradition.
- Anonymous5 months ago
It doesn’t matter who believes it, JW’s do not believe in that teaching (it is not in the ancient scriptures)
All the folks attacking JW’s verbally here I don’t trust, it shows there ignorance and loveless neighborly attitude.
- TeeMLv 75 months ago
Protestants inherited this and many other beliefs from the Catholic Church who adopted many of their beliefs, not from God's Word but from Plato.
For centuries, the two books all 'educated' persons must read were the Bible and Plato,
Sadly during these same years, the teachings of Plato were easier to get than a copy of God's Word.
Plato taught the trinity, whereas Jesus teaches there is only one true God, and he even excludes himself from his God.
For the truth, one must pray to the God and Father of the heavenly glorified Jesus for wisdom and accurate knowledge of him, the only true God.
"Many thinkers influential in the development of trinitarian doctrines were steeped in the thought not only of Middle Platonism and Neoplatonism, but also the Stoics, Aristotle, and other currents in Greek philosophy (Hanson 1988, 856–869). Whether one sees this background as a providentially supplied and useful tool, or as an unavoidably distorting influence, those developing the doctrine saw themselves as trying to build a systematic Christian theology on the Bible while remaining faithful to earlier post-biblical tradition."
2.2 The New Testament: The New Testament contains no explicit trinitarian doctrine. . . . the Trinity not only (1) can't be inferred from the Bible alone,"
3.1.1 The One God in the Trinity: "No theologian in the first three Christian centuries was a trinitarian in the sense of a believing that the one God is tripersonal, containing equally divine “persons”, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. . . . Nor did they consider these to be equally divine. A common strategy for defending monotheism in this period is to emphasize the unique divinity of the Father. Thus Origen (ca. 186-255), . . Jesus was now “God” or “a god”, but not the one true God. (e.g. Novatian, Trinity, ch. 31; Justin First, ch. 13) This divine Son (i.e. the pre-human Jesus) was mysteriously “generated” by God either just before creation (late 2nd to early 3rd c. “logos theologians”"
[Please note the word 'generated' means 'created or made' : "to bring into existence; cause to be; produce.
to create by a vital or natural process."]
Dean Inge, the famous professor of divinity, writes that:
“Platonism is part of the vital structure of Christian theology . . . . [If people would read Plotinus, who worked to reconcile Platonism with Scripture,] they would understand better the real continuity between the old culture and the new religion, and they might realize the utter impossibility of excising Platonism from Christianity without tearing Christianity to pieces. The Galilean Gospel, as it proceeded from the lips of Jesus, was doubtless unaffected by Greek philosophy . . . . But [early Christianity] from its very beginning was formed by a confluence of Jewish and Hellenic religious ideas.”
Here are just some quotes, easily found on the web.
- Annsan_In_HimLv 75 months ago
They call it a Catholic belief because they do not believe it is a biblical teaching, and that the doctrine of the Trinity did not appear in formal wording until the Catholic Council of Nicaea (the first one in 325 A.D.) centuries before Protestantism emerged.
Of course, if it is biblical teaching, then it is Christian teaching, irrespective of when Catholicism arose and irrespective of anything it decreed about the doctrine. But JWs have swallowed the half-truths their leaders have told them about the history of the Trinity doctrine and so think it's only a later Catholic belief that has no biblical foundation.
JWs are notoriously ignorant about the history of Christianity from the 2nd century onwards. If they had basic knowledge, they would know that Jesus was being worshipped as God right from His resurrection onwards, and that for Jesus to say the only unforgivable sin was blasphemy against the Holy Spirit was to confirm the status of deity for the Holy Spirit. They would know that trinitarian language (in Latin) was being used by the likes of Tertullian (circa 150-225) in the 2nd century. This proves that the trinity belief was on the go nearly 150 years before Arius attacked it so much that his heresy had to be dealt with in a formal trinitarian statement. When that was formed (325), that was the culmination of debate, not the start of something new, as the JWs claim.
All of this ignorance contributes towards JWs perpetuating the untruth that the Trinity doctrine was a 4th century Catholic teaching. Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants alike agree on the Trinity doctrine, and share the same biblical conviction as to it being soundly Christian, even from the mid 1st century onwards.
- PyriformLv 75 months ago
Probably because the Protestants got that belief from the Catholic Church from which they separated.
Three thumbs down, but no explanation of what is wrong? Hmmm...