Jehovah`s Witness/Your Letter To Eddie.....
Good morning, Brother Richard. I hope you are doing well today.
When I was reading over Eddie's writing to Rando, I felt compelled to write to you in regards to something he said. I am referring specifically to this comment.....
"As to, Richard's apology non apology letter, since he mentioned it. It's not really an apology because he still accused me of not understanding the doctrine, especially with the Holy Spirit. In any case, it went to the trash bin. He can publish it if he wants to."
If I may, can I just make an observation or two about this comment, not having seen what you sent to him?
First of all, Eddie fancies himself on being “logical”, yet makes a completely ILLOGICAL statement here….That somehow an apology cannot be genuine, IF you still maintain that this understanding of the Trinity is in error. What exactly, does one thing have to do with the other? Can a guy not apologize for something that he said that he wishes he hadn’t, without saying that a misunderstanding on the part of the other guy, is actually a CORRECT understanding? That one makes your head spin! For an apology to be genuine, you have to now tell Eddie that his entire argument is wonderful?
And that is logical?
Richard, its up to you, but perhaps you SHOULD publish the e-mail that you sent him.
Now, I did not see what you wrote to him, mind you, but it is pretty apparent that this is the e-mail that you referenced the other day, that you had sent to him. So, I do not know the content of it.
But again, back to the reference in his comment, about an "apology". Based on what I have seen from your posts in the past, I can imagine that you wrote to him, trying to convey a Christian spirit and apologize for any things you might have said in the past, which could be deemed hateful. I assume this, because I saw another apology you wrote a few weeks back, which to be honest, I did not feel that you owed anyone. I have not seen you do anything but speak the facts, and in a Christian manner. Sometimes when a person is not telling the truth, there simply isn't a "sweet" way to point that out, except to just say that they are not telling the truth. In that case, it is Eddie and Rando that have a ton of “apologizing” to do….not you.
I do appreciate your desire to convey a Christ-like spirit in your writings, which is a good thing. That is what we are supposed to do. But you have said nothing to apologize for, when you point out that Rando and Eddie do not understand the Trinity teaching. They don't. Those are the facts.
But what I want to say is this....You have been commendable in your effort to take time from your life and family, to write to Eddie in private correspondence, to help him grow in his understanding of the teaching. The problem with people like Eddie and Rando, is that when you approach them with the correct understanding, you in effect, take away all of their arguments against the teaching, because all of their arguments are based on straw men, and false understandings. So, for them to properly understand what the teaching is, then they would have to come up with entirely new arguments. They do not want that. They would rather continue to promote their falsehoods and misrepresentations.
Nobody can say that you didn't try.
Now, I also am often able to pick up on certain things about people's personalities...even people whom I have never met. Benyamin Grunbaum, for instance. I pointed out a couple years ago, that he had many qualities of a narcissist. JWs like DW and Sister T screamed bloody murder about that. But I will guarantee you right now, that there isn’t a JW here who would disagree with that assessment.
And I see Eddie as a guy who is somewhat fragile and sensitive. If you tell Eddie that he doesn't understand something, he takes it personally....no matter how nicely you approach him, or how politely you treat him. In his mind, to tell him he doesn't have his facts straight, is to insult him personally….You might has well have shot his dog! I found that fact out, when he and I had the debate on the cross vs. torture stake. When I pointed out the misquotes, outright misrepresentations, and falsehoods that he continually posted, it turned personal for him. So, he began to attack me, instead of just answering the questions and the evidence presented.
Bottom line, is this. I have watched this discussion unfold, and after reading him talk about sending your e-mail to the "trash bin", I realized that Eddie is not interested in a proper understanding, or even representing the Trinity in an accurate way. Knowing your mannerisms, Richard, I am quite sure that you did not put pressure on Eddie in the least, to AGREE with the Trinity, but rather, to merely have a proper understanding of the teaching he is trying to demean. And you see how it was received.
I realized that Eddie was not interested in a proper understanding of other people’s beliefs, when he was told by 2 other Baptists on their forum, that we do NOT worship the cross, and instead of making a correction of his error in this forum, he merely kept it quiet that my statements in this regard had been confirmed, and he continued to promote his fabrication.
People who are interested in truth, do not do that.
There comes a time, Richard, when you have done all you can to assist someone, and it becomes obvious that they simply are comfortable in their own misunderstanding. That is why the following verse was written....
Matthew 7:6- "Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you."
Now, I realize that is harsh, but this verse is there for a reason. It is there because there are people who, despite your patience and desire to be a Christian example to them, will only take what you say and attack you for it. Unfortunately, Eddie and Rando seem to be those types of people.
And another harsh reality....There is a good reason that Eddie chose Rando, as his "go-to" guy. Not any of the good Jehovah's Witnesses on here. Not the honest ones. Not Brenton, not Carol, not Pam....But Rando, the one that has been caught in lie after lie after lie, caught practicing deceit at every turn, and full of hate and bitterness. You have to wonder why….
Sometimes the company you choose to keep, says a lot about you as a person.
You took your time to simply explain to him the Biblical doctrine of the Trinity more fully, and he chose to "trash" it, instead of consider adjusting his own incomplete understanding.
In effect....trampling them under his feet, and then turning again to attack you.
For the reader’s sake, we should continue to post the truth and correct the many, many falsehoods that are promoted here on a daily basis.
And again, I commend you for your Christ-like burden, that these “men” know the truth about the God of the Bible, and the Savior of the world.
Always good to hear from you. I appreciate what you have to say, and your letter that posted this morning was spot on. Here is a copy of the email I sent him. Obviously I prefered to address him personally as it is between him and me. I only offer it since he gave his consent. What I speak is truth, like it or not.
"I appreciate your letter, and I thank you for your understanding. My friend's name is **** and her condition remains the same. We would all appreciate your prayers for her well-being.
I intend no disrespect regarding your intellect and passion on the Trinity subject. In my own life, I found that I didn't understand the Trinity, well...until I did. What I mean is that I thought I understood it for most of my life, when in reality, I didn't. As I have openly stated, most churches do a horrific job of educating their congregations on doctrine. It wasn't until I was challenged by some well-educated JW's that I began to realize that my concepts were unbiblical. And thus my search began.
For years, I collected every scripture and commentary that I could get my hands on from both sides. I believe, as you do, that scripture explains scripture with no contradiction. I considered everything the Bible had to say on the matter and prayed and meditated on it for a very long time. I moved away from any bias at all and allowed scripture to speak for itself. Finally, one day, I came to an understanding, one that does not conflict with any scripture.
This understanding is very much not what JW's teach the Trinity is. I know this because I bounce my thoughts off the JW that still comes to my house on a regular basis. Yes, the same one who started this whole thing several years ago. Why does he still come? Because we have fascinating discussions, because JW's focus on different things still worth discussing, and because we both learn things from each other. Although he clearly disagrees with me on the Trinity, he recognizes that the idea of the Trinity that I subscribe to can be interpreted from scripture. We both agree that what he has been told the Trinity is really is a pagan concept.
All of that to say, there are too many things that you have said in your comments that demonstrate a lack of understanding of what the biblical version of the Trinity really is. Calling out a "bait and switch", "God's nature is spirit", "Jehovah 1, 2, 3", or not seeing how the verse you gave about the blaspheming the Holy Spirit is not an issue really screams out that you don't understand it. You wouldn't have said those things if you did. I don't fault you for that. I agonized over these things for years until one day... I didn't. It all made sense.
With regard to the Trinity, two questions that I really struggled with...Can one being be revealed as three distinct persons, or is one being limited to one person? and Does co-equal HAVE to mean equality within the Godhead?
If you want to better understand what I believe the biblical definition of the Trinity to be, just let me know. I will send you a series of worksheets that I prepared as a teaching tool for a class. Nearly all of it is simply looking up scripture. After looking up all of the scriptures, please feel free to ask if I believe these scriptures suggest something in particular. At least then, you will really understand WHY I believe what I do. From there, all I ask is that you represent my beliefs with more accuracy.
P.S. If you feel that I called you out unfairly or treated you with any disrespect, I do apologize. I quite admire you and appreciate an intellectual discussion. I do not appreciate personal attacks toward anyone on the board, and am saddened that I even momentarily crossed that line."
That's it. It is up to the readers to decide if the fruits of the spirit are evident in my writings. His recent writings only validated what is in my letter. It is sad, but as you said...throwing pearls before the swine. Thank you for taking the time out and dissecting the various comments by Eddie and Rando to demonstrate their lack of understanding on this subject. I just don't understand why it is so hard for them to admit that they don't completely get it and continue to repeat fallacious arguments that have no bearing on trinitarian beliefs.
For instance, I don't completely get how Jesus MUST be Michael the archangel. I completely understand the rationale used to back up the claim, but to me there are holes and apparent contradictions that must be accounted for before I could comfortably say that I completely get it. That's not a hard thing for me to admit. I can freely disagree and show my position without having to claim that I totally get it. And I would hope that if I misrepresented the other side's rationale that I would quickly corrected.
I always appreciate Brenton's writings. He clearly pointed out what he perceived as an issue with a quote that I said. My point of the Countess quote was not to infer that 100% of the time this rule applies, rather that 6% is an incredibly low rate of applying it to even bring up this rule as a valid reason. Brenton, in case you are reading this, I hope this clears up my intent. I respectfully disagree with your assessment of Man/Child, but I see what you are saying. A trinitarian perspective is more of "Mankind" rather than "Man", denoting a nature rather than a specific person. This is because we see God (Jehovah) as collective unity..."echad" rather than "yachid".
Derrick, I laugh at thinking that Rando knows me better than I know myself. How far from the truth could a person possibly be? I am stunned that he would try to call me out using Hebrews 1:9 showing that Christ is clearly preeminent. Rando, please hear this...YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT THAT HEBREWS 1:9 REFERS TO CHRIST. Are you prepared to say the same thing about Psalms 45:6,7 which clearly attributes the EXACT SAME THING to Jehovah? It's a direct quote from the Old Testament applying an attribute of Jehovah to Jesus. Remember, "But of the SON, He says..." Thank you for proving my point.
And yes, Jesus is the Preeminent over all creation. The same word is used in Revelation 3:14 as Jesus being the "origin" or all creation. http://biblehub.com/greek/746.htm
(Same place Rando went to) But John chapter 1 already demonstrates that.
Thanks again Derrick for your thoughts. It was very difficult to find the time to get this letter in, but I felt it needed to be published.