Jehovah`s Witness/Nice Job, Brother Richard.....
Hello, Brother in Christ. I hope you are well.
I simply wanted to take a moment, or a couple of moments actually, to commend you for the job you are doing as of late, in calmly and politely exposing the constant false misrepresentations of the Trinity teaching. Most notably, and blatantly obvious, those by Rando.
When I first saw you begin to expose the misconceptions on 1/13/14, I really noticed and appreciated the way you gave such a clear and concise explanation of the Biblical teaching of the Trinity, and really laid bare, the ridiculous explanations that Rando constantly tries to sell, while all the while displaying an attitude of grace and compassion.
In fact, the reaction you are now getting from Rando and Eddie G, was predictable. No, I didn’t necessarily see Eddie G showing back up and attempting to cover who he was (like that was a hard one to figure out), but I knew immediately that Rando would read your answers, go all to pieces, and would start putting on the war paint, and letting loose with his same old lies and false statements. You know, the same ones we see week in and week out. You would think he would get some new material.
When I read your post of 1/13/14, I said to myself as I was reading it….“Well, Rando is gonna show himself on this one. I hope this Richard guy is prepared to be attacked, and ridiculed, without ever having a single point actually refuted”
And you have shown yourself to be quite prepared.
Of particular note, however, was the normal underhanded manner in which Rando launched his attack, by trying to cause division between 2 Christian experts….Myself, and you. I am referring to the statement he made, where he feebly attempted to make it look as if our Trinity beliefs were different, when he wrote…..
RANDO- “Here, we have Derrick Holland claiming God is a "three person god" for fourteen long years on the JWForum and Richard blew him out of the water with, "There is one being who is God. The name of this being is YHWH".
Now I’m sorry, but I couldn’t help but laugh out loud on this one. Its never been a surprise to anyone, that Rando cannot refute our doctrine, so he merely tries to distort it. We see it nearly every week, in fact. And it’s the same old stuff, and the same old lies. But for him to try and make it appear that our beliefs on the Trinity are opposed to each other, is downright hilarious. I mean, goodness...These people cannot even agree amongst themselves, on who is a real JW, and who isn't. Rando calls him "awesome", and DW calls him an impostor. But never mind that....Its just pretty low, that they try to make us appear as if we are contradictory.
But in fact, its easy to prove that Rando is once again, deluded, and lying. I took the liberty of going back and pulling up a statement that I made several months back, on the definition of the Trinity teaching, and I would like to do a comparison with your statement, if I may….
Richard, you said….“1) There is one being who is God. The name of this being is YHWH.
2) YHWH is revealed as three separate and distinct persons.
3) Each of these separate and distinct persons share the same nature, a nature that is completely different than any other beings in the world. It is the nature of God.
Now, what is interesting, is that several months ago, I gave an answer regarding the Trinity, that is nearly identical to the one you gave above. I said….
“Trinitarians believe there is only ONE Almighty God, and His name is Jehovah. And again, we believe that Jehovah has revealed Himself in Scripture, as one God, in 3 distinct Persons. So, when we refer to Jesus as “Almighty God”, this is not “another” one in addition to the Father, but that both the Father and the Son share the same nature as Almighty God.”
This answer can be found in the following link….
But they like to claim that I “change my doctrine constantly”, while never being able to show where this has occurred. I supposedly have abandoned the Trinity for Modalism, or perhaps I abandoned Modalism for the Trinity….I can’t remember which it is supposed to be, but that doesn’t matter….I doubt they do, either.
So, I went back to 2009, and found another quote from myself….
“"On the other hand, "Jehovah" or "I Am" is the name which refers to the one true God....Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.”
Funny, I believe our doctrines and definitions of the Trinity, are identical. Probably because they come from the same source….The Word of God.
Now, I could take apart, piece-by-piece, the many illogical debate fallacies, that Eddie G incorporated into his writing to Rando. But I will first give you the opportunity to address it, if you wish to. Since it was written in response to you.
But all the talk about a “3 legged stool”…I think the throne of the Triune God is still standing pretty solid, don’t you, Richard?
But I do want to make a comment in regards to Eddie G, here. It really doesn’t pertain to the Trinity, and I’m only mentioning it because he wrote to Rando, with his distortion of facts. I am sure you probably recall the “Cross/Stake” debate I was having with Eddie, when he left the forum. Now, I want to make a comment in regards to that discussion, not for you to necessarily feel the need to answer, but just for him to see, and to let him know that INTEGRITY is a quality that is desirable in a Christian. Richard, I saw where you indicated that you must have had some private discussions with Eddie, and that you felt he was striving to get the facts straight about our doctrine. So, I want to be sensitive to that fact, but to point out an instance on the Cross/Stake discussion, where I found his desire for truth and facts, to be very disappointing.
Eddie constantly made the false claim, that in our religion, we “worship, venerate, bow to, pray to, the cross”. He was told SEVERAL times, even by a fellow JW, that this was not the case. Yet, he continued to repeat it, even telling me that he “worked with people” who believe like I do, so he “knew what he was talking about”.
Well, imagine my surprise, and disappointment, when I took a visit over to the Baptist forum to just read some of the questions, and found (completely by accident) where a guy asked a question of not one, but TWO, Baptist preachers, in regards to whether we believe it is appropriate to worship the cross. And not one, but BOTH of those preachers informed the questioner that we do NOT worship the cross.
And as you have probably guessed, that questioner was none other than Eddie G….
So, even knowing that those other preachers gave him the same exact answer I had given him, he failed to mention that little detail, and CONTINUED to come back into the debate, making the same false statement that we believed in worshipping and praying to, the cross.
I said all that to say this, Brother Richard….Be prepared for more twisting and distorting. It would be great and desirable if everyone who claims to be a follower of Christ and a lover of the Scriptures, would actually practice honesty and integrity. But unfortunately, that is not the case with these certain few. You are dealing with a different grade of JW, than what you have probably encountered face to face.
But anyway, Brother, keep up the good work. You are doing a fine job. Keep exposing error, and then we will just keep watching the predictable reactions, which only show that you are on the right track.
God bless, and take care.
As always I appreciate your kind words. You have been here much longer than I, so I have no doubt that you have a better sense of what to anticipate when certain things are posted. Honestly, I just stepped in because I was getting really tired of the same inaccurate speech being rendered day in and day out on the forum. At some level, readers will begin to believe these false statements out of ignorance of the truth. So, I just put my foot down. I whole-heartedly expected this reaction, weeping and gnashing of teeth, if you will. I am also sure that in some predictable way I should expect character assassination soon, as that is usually next on the list once scripture has been exhausted.
Like you, I was a bit surprised to see Eddie perk up from the conversation, and like you I was a bit dismayed that none of my prior discussions with him had sunk in. He just parroted what the Watchtower trained him to say. So, once again I responded in a letter that will post alongside yours for his sake as well as that of the public. I mostly appreciate your comment that my responses have been with grace and compassion. My latest letter is a bit more forthright, but I sincerely hope that it is viewed in the same manner as the others.
I also addressed Rando's statement that your view of the Trinity conflicted with my view. That is why I asked you first before responding to him. That surprised me the most. It really makes me wonder what is going on in his head for him to believe that. It must blow his mind that our viewpoints (without prior conversation on the matter) agree completely with each other. Again, at some level, I just really wish that JWs would accept that the version of the Trinity that they are being taught isn't what true trinitarians believe. I truly appreciate the actions of one of the readers who sent me the "Trinity defined" letter. He humbly asked what it was that trinitarians do believe. Thank you for that. Whether or not we ever agree is a moot point. He inquired much in the same way that I inquire JWs about things that they believe that I don't understand. He demonstrated respect and I applaud him.
Well, I guess I should be prepared for more discussions heading my way. Thank you Brother again for your thoughts on the matter, and I wish you the very best.