The Duality -- The Father and The Son

by UnDisfellowshipped 218 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  fjtoth

  Undisf'd,

  Where are you coming from tonight? All I'm reading is one distortion after another. You wrote:

  You yourself above in this thread said that Hebrews chapter 2 was comparing Jesus' words about salvation and immortality with the angels' words (which you said was the Mosaic Law), and that Jesus' words about salvation and immortality were more important than the Mosaic Law.

  I nowhere said that the words of salvation and immortality were more important than the Mosaic Law that was given by the angel of the Lord. Please read what I wrote carefully, instead of repeatedly misquoting me.

  Frank
• 

  UnDisfellowshipped

  fjtoth said:

  I have to tell you that I'm a bit surprised at your actions tonight. I thought we were engaged in serious Bible discussion, not the scattering of wild opinions to see where they might land. Again, I say, calm down. Cool it!

  I would like to know exactly which of my statements tonight would be considered "wild opinions," and what exactly you mean by "wild opinions."

  Also, exactly how have I acted like a "wild man?"

  Every thing I posted tonight is a DIRECT reply to what you asked me. Then, when I make a DIRECT reply to questions asked by you tonight, you then make this statement to me:

  You also agreed that you would begin an examination of my rebuttals to your long essays. I'm waiting.

  If I had decided to post my comments on your older posts, would you then have complained because I had not yet responded to your latest posts tonight?
• 

  UnDisfellowshipped

  fjtoth, here is what you said, word-for-word about Jesus' words about salvation compared to the Mosaic Law:

  And you completely ignored the context in quoting Hebrews 2:1-4. The comparison is between what was spoken under the Law and what was spoken by Christ and by his followers. The comparison is not between the persons speaking, but it has to do with the message. There is nothing in the context to indicate that the words of the Law were of less value to those obligated to keep them. Death was the consequence, very likely eternal death. What could be of greater value than obedience to those words?

  But the superiority of the Christian message is that it is about "such a great salvation," a salvation that embraces immortality. That was not mentioned in the Old Testament message, and that is why the Christian message has such great value and must be obeyed. True, "It was declared at first by the Lord [Jesus]." But that wasn't the end of it. "It was attested to us by those who heard, while God also bore witness by signs and wonders and various miracles and by gifts of the holy spirit distributed according to his will."

  If you were to have 20 people read that statement, I bet that at least 15 would come out with the idea that you were saying the Christian message about salvation is more important than the Old Testament's message.

  If that's not what you were saying, then your statement appears to be double-speak, and it definitely does not make sense to me any other way.

  Is the Christian message "superior" to the Old Testament message, as you yourself said? And if the Christian message is superior, wouldn't that mean that it is MORE IMPORTANT to read that Christian message about salvation and immortality than it is to read the Laws of the Old Testament?
• 

  fjtoth

  Undisf'd,

  You wrote:

  I agree 100% with Paul's statement at 2 Timothy 3:16-17. Paul did not say that all Scripture was of equal importance.

  This is what I've been driving at from the beginning. You say out of one side of your mouth that the entire Bible is so important to us because it came to us from God himself. In other words, nothing that anybody says could be more important than what the Bible tells us. God breathed out every word of it.

  But out of the other side of your mouth you say some parts of what God gave us are not so important.

  This all started because I wanted to know if you will give equal weight to anything I quote from the Bible, or will you dismiss it because it doesn't meet with your standards. I didn't use those words, but you know that's what I meant. So you've answered my question.

  I can see that as we proceed through this discussion, you are going to accept only what you want to accept from the Bible. This is because you are going to set yourself upon God's throne and decide for both of us just what is acceptable and what is not. Very interesting.

  You wrote:

  I would like to know exactly which of my statements tonight would be considered "wild opinions," and what exactly you mean by "wild opinions."

  For one thing, your distortions of what I've previously said. If you're going to say I said this or that, please be sure you're telling it straight. You know, just for one example, that I never wrote that Gabriel "contradicted" Jesus. Will you be honest enough to admit that you were wrong about that? You also wrote that I said the words of salvation and immortality were "more important" than what the Law taught.

  But basically, the whole tenor of your come on tonight is highly irrational. I'm not going to take up a lot of time refuting all the wrong interpretations you are giving to verses you are quoting, because I think you know better. To suggest, for example, that Paul was writing about "myths" and "endless geneaologies" within the pages of the Bible is quite absurd, and I think you should know that.

  Frank
• 

  UnDisfellowshipped

  fjtoth,

  You have just made some extremely serious accusations against me.

  You said that I am acting as a "wild man" and that I am giving out "wild opinions," and that I set myself up on God's throne, and that I only accept whatever parts of the Bible that I want to accept.

  Why do you need to resort to personal attacks?

  Please, have a look at Wikipedia's "Ad Hominem" page, I think you might find it interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

  I know have probably not been as gentle or humble as I should have been in some of my posts, but I have never personally attacked you. Instead, I have attacked your arguments and your reasoning. If at all possible, let's try to stay away from personal "ad hominem" attacks, okay?
• 

  fjtoth

  Undisf'd,

  Here is another example of your irrational behavior tonight:

  If I had decided to post my comments on your older posts, would you then have complained because I had not yet responded to your latest posts tonight?

  Where do you find the slightest hint that this is the sort of thing I do? Fess up, buddy! You know you're ranting and raving over nothing. You did say you were going to give consideration to my rebuttal. But tonight you seem to be more interested in other things.

  Frank
• 

  UnDisfellowshipped

  fjtoth said:

  For one thing, your distortions of what I've previously said. If you're going to say I said this or that, please be sure you're telling it straight. You know, just for one example, that I never wrote that Gabriel "contradicted" Jesus. Will you be honest enough to admit that you were wrong about that?

  I apologize. I should have worded it this way:

  "You wrote that Gabriel said something that, according to my understanding, and according to the plain english of John 17:5, contradicts what Jesus said in that verse."

  I'm sorry -- I should have worded it that way instead.

  fjtoth said:

  You also wrote that I said the words of salvation and immortality were "more important" than what the Law taught.

  Well, you actually said "the Christian message is superior" to the Old Testament's message because the Christian message speaks of salvation and immortality which the Old Testament does not.

  My question to you is this: If something is SUPERIOR, doesn't that mean that it is more IMPORTANT?

  Look at the first definition of SUPERIOR from Dictionary.com:

  1.higher in station, rank, degree, importance, etc.: a superior officer.
• 

  UnDisfellowshipped

  fjtoth said:

  You are reading into Ephesians 2:20 what is not there. In fact you are giving to the text the exact opposite meaning of what Paul the writer intended. Your idea is that the teachings of the apostles carry less weight than the teachings of Jesus, but Paul is describing the foundation of the church. [...] So Paul did not teach, as you claim, that the teachings of Jesus come FIRST in the sense that the teachings of the apostles and prophets are in some way secondary or inferior.

  Other Christians and Bible Commentaries also teach what I wrote about Ephesians 2:20:

  Jaimieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary:

  Ephesians 2:20:

  [...] foundation of the apostles, etc. — that is, upon their ministry and living example (compare Mat_16:18). Christ Himself, the only true Foundation, was the grand subject of their ministry, and spring of their life. As one with Him and His fellow workers, they, too, in a secondary sense, are called “foundations” (Rev_21:14). The “prophets” are joined with them closely; for the expression is here not “foundations of the apostles and the prophets,” but “foundations of the apostles and prophets.” For the doctrine of both was essentially one (1Pe_1:10, 1Pe_1:11; Rev_19:10). The apostles take the precedency (Luk_10:24).
• 

  UnDisfellowshipped

  fjtoth said:

  You did say you were going to give consideration to my rebuttal. But tonight you seem to be more interested in other things.

  If you didn't want me to reply tonight to your latest messages, then why post them until after I responded to your oldest posts? I don't understand what you want, and I don't understand what you are saying.

  And, believe me, God willing, I will post my comments on ALL of your posts soon.
• 

  fjtoth

  Undisf'd,

  I hate to say it in view of your nice apology, but you are still being quite irrational. You just want to argue over words, it seems. When I used the word "superiority," I did not have in mind "more important," and you know it! In fact, I pointed out that nothing could have been of greater value to those under the Law than obedience, since disobedience could have resulted in eternal death. Disobedience to Christ also means death for the unrepentant. But the message of the New Testament that was preached first by Jesus and his apostles and prophets, introduced immortality, something the Law had not mentioned. Yes, that makes it superior, but it doesn't make it more important, depending upon when a person lived and whether it was under the Law or under the Law of Christ.

  You're just trying to make mountains out of molehills, as I said before. Instead of getting down to the basics as to who Jesus really is in comparison with the Father, you want to waste away your time and mine over trivialities. Well, go ahead and have your fun. I'll still wait around in the weeks to come to see how you deal with my rebuttals.

  Frank