Posts by Amazing1914

86

The Earliest Trinity Statements

by Amazing1914 in

jw
friends

[note: i am not promoting a religion, a church system, nor a set of beliefs.

i am merely reporting history as i find it.

the early, ante-nicene church fathers spent much time fighting heresies.

Amazing1914

Leolaia,

Excellent points. Sorry for the red ink, but the color button on JWD does not all change. Here is my specific point.

Year 190 AD, Clement Of Alexandria "There was then, a Word importing an unbeginning eternity; as also the Word itself, that is, the Son of God, who being, by equality of substance, one with the Father, is eternal and uncreated." (Fragments, Part I, section III) ... "I understand nothing else than the Holy Trinity to be meant; for the third is the Holy Spirit, and the Son is the second, by whom all things were made according to the will of the Father." (Stromata, Book V, ch. 14) ... "When [John] says: 'What was from the beginning [1 John 1:1],' he touches upon the generation without beginning of the Son, who is co-equal with the Father. 'Was,' therefore, is indicative of an eternity without a beginning, just as the Word Himself, that is the Son, being one with the Father in regard to equality of substance, is eternal and uncreated. That the word always existed is signified by the saying: 'In the beginning was the Word' [John 1:1]." (fragment in Eusebius History, Bk 6 Ch 14; Jurgens, p. 188)

Certainly, Clement had down all of the essential ingredients that makes up the Nicene creed and the Trinity doctrine. True, certain specific wording, and certain theologians, like Tertullian, continued to debate the finer points, and even some significant issues. Nothing in Clement's statements, however, is out of line with what was agreed upon at Nicea, 325 AD, nor with the doctrine as believed today by the overwhelming majority of Christians. And, as you posted earlier, the earlier Fathers, such as St. Ignatius in 105, also had down the essential components of what became used in the Trinity doctrine. The underlying theme is that the claim by the Watchtower that the Trinity was not formed until the Council of Nicea in 325 AD and Constantinople in 381 AD is completely without justification. I sent you another PM. Thanks, Jim Whitney

45

How do you handle extremely rude people in public?

by Virgochik in

i'm so upset by two vicious women who came to my work today.

i was helping a man in my line and they tried to cut in front.

i politely explained that as soon as i finished with my customer, i would help them.

Amazing1914

I work with the public every day. I can relate. I used to be real polite no matter what. Then, I moved from Oregon to Chicago, and learned how to get in people's faces and be rude right back. Then, I learned how to be polite again. It's tough to know what to say in each situation.

I find that focus on what I am doing, and non-response to rudeness works well. Were I in a similar situation that you were in, I would simply ask the line cutters to please step back as I am helping someone ahead of them. They will need to wait. Every time they blurted out more nonsense, I would keep repeating the request like a broken record, until they moved. If they did not move, I would call security. I would never acknowledge their silly claims, and I would never defend my feelings. I would, however, remain calm, with a low voice, and simply repeat myself.

In my office we do not have security. So, I simply ask rude people to leave, and I have done it. I then walk away from them, back to my office. If I am on the phone, I tell them that they are rude, and I end the conversation, and hang up. I move on without caring one wit. It is not worth my emotional energy to give such people the time of day, much less my own personal hurts.

I learned this after my heart attack.

Jim Whitney

26

Can Anyone Solve this Quote?

by Amazing1914 in

jw
friends

luke records the following:

and as they ministered to the lord, and fasted, the holy spirit said, "separate me barnabus and saul for the work whereunto i have called them.

" - kjv / av

Amazing1914

Stillajwexelder,

Okay, so what are you saying?

26

Can Anyone Solve this Quote?

by Amazing1914 in

jw
friends

luke records the following:

and as they ministered to the lord, and fasted, the holy spirit said, "separate me barnabus and saul for the work whereunto i have called them.

" - kjv / av

Amazing1914

Luke records the following:

And as they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Spirit said, "Separate me Barnabus and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them." - KJV / AV

All Bible translations, including the New World Translation has this verse. What objective evidence do you have to say that it is not a "person" speaking? Does speaking in the first person matter at all? If it is not a person, then why do we say that the Father is a person when he speaks in first person? Why do we say that the Devil is a person when he speaks in first person. False argumentation, like comparative analogies, are insufficient proof. Personification is not permitted here, because the writing style is not poetic, but is a historical narrative. Semantic and philosophical arguments, like "Well, God is not a person like we humans" are utterly irrelevant and useless. I am not looking for a certain result. I absolutely do not care for the outcome. I care about objective evidence, and well developed comments on language studies and credible sources. Thanks, Jim Whitney

86

The Earliest Trinity Statements

by Amazing1914 in

jw
friends

[note: i am not promoting a religion, a church system, nor a set of beliefs.

i am merely reporting history as i find it.

the early, ante-nicene church fathers spent much time fighting heresies.

Amazing1914

Barry,

Very interesting comments. Your are correct about the later development of the 1914 WT doctrine. The 1914 doctrine of Jesus second presence was not developed until after 1929. The WT book, "Prophecy" released in 1929, at the bottom of page 65 still "strongly" promoted 1874 as Jesus second presence.

eNow with the trinity which wasnt developed until the 4th century my question here would be Why Not?

Your question and subsequent reasoning is good. However, if you read my opening post, which started this thread, the Trinity was fully developed by the year 190 AD. The 4th century action was to solidify a unified wording that could accomodate small variations, and deal with heresies, as you correctly noted.

Lovelylil,

But, as someone who has personally experienced the power of the Holy Spirit, I can attest to the fact that it is not a person. It is the power of God that he uses to influence people.

Your testimony is fine for you, but it is not acceptable to hundreds of millions of Christians. Claims of personal experience as proof of anything are not proof, unless you have objective edvidence to back it up. Anyone can claim spiritual experiences, and it is meaningless for others. JW anointed (of which I was one for 20-years of my 25 years in the organizations) claim to be specially bron of the holy spirit to a hope to be in heaven as co-rulers with 144,000 in a kingdom over the earthly paradise. Their claim is just that, a claim.

That is why the in the bible it says that the writers of it where "borne along by holy spirit". God or Christ can pour it out on believers.

The Bible also says that God is light, God is love, Jesus is a rock, etc. The Bible also shows that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit dwell within us. These are sayings to help us grasp a feature of what these persons do. So, being "borne along" by Holy Spirit or the Holy Spirit being "poured out" are simple descriptors of what they are or what they do.

I understand what the early church fathers taught but, that is only their way of explaining the nature of God, Jesus and the Holy spirit and the relationship between the three.

Nonetheless, they taught it. They were far closer to the early Apostles and Christ than we are. The Church did not have a consistent book called the Bible until well after the 4th century. Most of what Christians learned was taught by word of mouth and tradition, and letters being read from all sorts of Church Fathers, including the Bible writers. The objective evidence sides with the Trinity, and not with teachings like the Watchtower has.

They were just mere men and I choose to believe what the Bible says about the Holy Spirit, not any mans interpretation.

Likewise, you are just a mere women, and I am just a mere man. Any decisions we make for ourselves is no better than what those mere mortals decided upon. They were mere men, true. But the Bible was not even begun to be compiled until the 4th century and not declared inspired until hundreds of year later ... all done by Trinitarians. However, Jesus promised that he would be with the church all days right up to the end of the world, and that the gates of hell would not prevail over it. So, what Church has continued uninterrupted since the time of the Apostles? The Catholic Church (Roman and Orthodox). This is not a statement of faith, but an observation of evidence.

I do not agree that the Apostles or any one else in the bible felt that the Holy Spirit was a person.

They why did the Bible writers quote the Holy Spirit as speaking in the first person? Your disagreement does not negate the objective evidence in the Bible itself.

People were filled with Holy Spirit in the OT also. this was not a new teaching. Just because Christ did not pour it out upon Christians until pentecost, does not mean that the early followers of him did not know what it was. So I think on this point, we will just have to disagree.

I am not sure what the exact disagreement is. All I have done is to point to scriptures (just a few of th many examples, to show the Holy Spirit speaking. I can find similar scriptures showing the Father speaking, and you will immediately accept his words as he himself speaking. When I showed you the Holy Spirit speaking in the first person, you denied him speaking. Your own beliefs are creating a bias that prohibits you from reading language as it is written. That is okay for you, but it does not make the language as shown in all translations change one little bit.

But, clearly, the Holy Spirit was not talking in acts. The Holy Spirit moved people to speak and might have influenced them as to what to say, but it still is not a seperate person.

You are only claiming that the Holy Spirit is not speaking in Acts. Read it again. And as they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Spirit said, "Separate me Barnabus and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them." - KJV / AV

The Holy Spirit spoke in the first person, therefore, he himself speaks whether we want to believe in the Holy Spirit as a person or not. Your paradidgm of the Holy Spirit is causing you to deny clear language that is irrefutable in all Bible translations ... even the non-Trinitarian New World Translation was forced by Greek grammar to use quotation marks as does the other translations.

As for now, we will just have to respectfully disagree or we can argue this point forever. Thanks again.

There is nothing for me to disagree with you on. I do not promote a particular definition of God. I see objective evidence in various sources which agrees with a conclusion that I did not expect to find. I cannot ignore the clear and irrefutable language in the Bible. It says what it says regardless of any disagreements people might have.

Jim Whitney

14

Let Us Praise the Watchtower Blood-Gestapo

by metatron in

jw
friends

from the latest ( may 06) kingdom ministry , front page article entitled "follow me continually".

"and think of the loving assistance provided by brothers who serve on hospital liason committees and patient visitation groups.".

now, for you who don't already know, the hospital liason committees are local elders appointed to support the watchtower's blood.

Amazing1914

Metatron,

Excellent post. The only good that the JW blood policy ever accomplished, is that the art of bloodless surgery was advanced to new levels. So, when the blood supply was low in an area, or not available, then some surgeries can be done without blood. They just have to take extra precautions.

The Watchtower doctrine became a serious fraud when they got into giving medical advice about the need to avoid blood. If they had simply stuck with their warped Biblical view, they would not be in serious potential legal trouble.

Jim Whitney

65

Better off Poor in UK than Rich in US!

by Seeker4 in

jw
friends

national public radio this morning had a story about a study of middle-aged (55-64 yo) whites in the uk compred to the us.

they were shocked at the results.

the study was done to try to find out the effects of poverty on health , which is why they just studied whites, to eliminate the effects of race.

Amazing1914

Diabetes and heart disease is hitting our younger generation as well. It had nothing to do with wealth. It has to do with diet and lack of exercise. Americans eat too damn much, we eat the wrong things, and we sit on our asses watching too much TV or being on the computer.

Jim Whitney

238

OK believers, time to put up or shut up...

by Gregor in

apparently, a large percentage of xjw's who post on this site have embraced some other form of god/jesus belief to replace the wt doctrine.

most of them fall into the "i accept the lord jesus christ as my personal savior" class.

they are still extremely attached to the old "forgiveness of sin through the shed blood of jc" line.

Amazing1914

Gregor,

I did not see your follow-up comment, so that I why I did not respond. I will start with your earlier post, and then your last post.

Apparently, a large percentage of XJW's who post on this site have embraced some other form of God/Jesus belief to replace the WT doctrine. Most of them fall into the "I accept the Lord Jesus Christ as my personal savior" class. They are still extremely attached to the old "forgiveness of sin through the shed blood of JC" line. You might as well be Catholics, all catch phrases, ritualism and symbolism. Whatever. It's always easier to let others spoon feed you the big answers to "What's it all about?"

I found your lead-in comments too broadbrush in its scope, and too simplistic in assuming that because someone has a religious belief they are being spoon-fed answers. My reaction set the stage for what appeared to be anger. I was annoyed, but not angry.

Don't you get it?? It's ALL bullshit. What's the deal? You have to 'taper' off from your bullshit addiction? All you have to defend your "belief" is vague stuff like, "How could a banana have just evolved?" or some other trite crap.

I don't think it is fair to say that what people believe is all bullshit, like an addiction. There is a lot of BS in religious circles, as there is in non-religious.

But here's your achilles heel. Since you still cling to your UFO believers level mentality that there is some superior, grand force to help you deal with the fact that life is tough , why can't you or JW's or Baptists or Catholics...ad infinitum, answer one question (and answer it clearly and simply, not so involved that by the time your through we have forgot the question)

The "UFO" believers mentality seems over the top, given that belief in God is no more or less foolish than the assertion that there is no God. It is all about faith. The only group that really does not have to say its faith are agnostics. Athiests, however, are proclaiming what they don't know based on the same faith as those they condemn.

Why does "god" permit evil, wickedness and tragic misfortune??

Free will and reaping what we so. An 18 mo. old baby toddles into the back yard, sees a pretty leaf in a 5 gal. bucket, reaches for it, tumbles in and drowns in 4 inches of water. If you were GOD you could have stopped it easily without revealing you wonderfulness to anybody.

Maybe next time, the parents will learn to put the bucket away. How can human ever learn responsibility unless we are permitted to reap the effects of our free will. Yes, the baby was innocent. Yes, it seems like God could do something. It is painfully obvious that we have to draw one of several conclusions: 1. There may not be a God, 2. God may not care, 3. God cares and has a noble purpose in permitting us to experience the effects of free will. The first two options terminate any further exploration. Option 3 commands our exploration and understanding, and permits us to grow. Believers also find hope in option 3. Good believers do not judge or put down those who prefer the first two options. Now, your second post:

You sound angry! (don't you love it when someone says that) But seriously, Jim, if you have read this thread you know that "self-rightous drivel" is exactly what I was whining about, it seems to be the stock and trade of 'believers', and it comes through loud and clear in their posts, even when discussing otherwise mundane things.

I felt that your comment was like the pot calling the kettle black. Looking back, I think I get a better flavor of what you were trying to accomplish. And as far as being an agnostic or athiest, you decide. But I have made it clear here that when it comes to these big questions of God vs No God, etc. I DON'T KNOW. I simply challenged those who trumpet that they DO KNOW.
Fundies act like they know everything, and make asses of themselves by debating the science of evolution with nonsense plausibilities and platitudes. Reasonable and moderate Christians, like Roman Catholics and others, view evolution as a matter of science, and a tool that God possibly used to create humans. They usually don't get into nonsense debates. Faith is just that: Faith. I knew their beliefs were unprovable when I started the topic. That was the point. There has been way too much assumption that everyone who got out of the WTS became a fundy. I just wanted to remind all you good folks that not all of us have retained ANY remnants of either WT or Christian teachings. I don't see anything wrong with that, in fact, isn't that the point of this site???
But atheistic and religious beliefs are unprovable.

You ask, "Why do you think you have the high perch...or the right to ridicule...?etc" Come on Jim, take a deep breath, what the hell do you think is the main focus of this site? What's the deal? You want to decide what the only target will be in this turkey shoot?

Fair enough. I am not sure why I took umbrage at your post. Normally, I keep my humor meter turned on. Somehow it must have malfunctioned. I often get on other when they assume what my emotions are ... because the printed word cannot convey the author;s emotions unless specifically stated. So, I guess I let my own emotions overrule my senses.

NOW GO TO YOUR ROOM! (said in a friendly, joking way)

I consider myself thoroughly chastized. Jim Whitney

19

Do Satan and Jesus exist?

by Amazing1914 in

jw
friends

since some seem perfectly at ease to depersonalize the holy spirit, and claim that any mention of the holy spirit as talking, or as "he, him, or his" are mere personifications, then this rule can be applied anywhere.. satan is not a real person.

the bible only makes him sound like one because the bible writers all use personification whenever they talk about satan.

why, because according to the arguments of some, wisdom is personified in proverbs, or the mountains cry out, or the trees laugh, that satan is not a person either.. but, but, but ... what about when jesus was tempted by satan in the wilderness?

Amazing1914

Gregor,

I will get to it in a few minutes. I am responding to another thread, then I need to stop and take meds. I should have my response to you in about 20 minutes from now ... its 10:40 PM Central time.

Jim Whitney

19

Do Satan and Jesus exist?

by Amazing1914 in

jw
friends

since some seem perfectly at ease to depersonalize the holy spirit, and claim that any mention of the holy spirit as talking, or as "he, him, or his" are mere personifications, then this rule can be applied anywhere.. satan is not a real person.

the bible only makes him sound like one because the bible writers all use personification whenever they talk about satan.

why, because according to the arguments of some, wisdom is personified in proverbs, or the mountains cry out, or the trees laugh, that satan is not a person either.. but, but, but ... what about when jesus was tempted by satan in the wilderness?

Amazing1914

Gregor,

What posting did I drive by and shoot you? I will be happy to go back and shoot again.

Just kidding. Yes, I want my posts to be clear and I take life seriously. However, to live life without a little levity, a little fun, with a dash of satire, parody, sarcasm, and humor makes it awefully boring.

But, I will be happy to go back and check your response that I left unattended, and provide a good reply. I have to leave loose ends untied. If you provide the link, it will be most useful. Otherwise, I need to search a lot to find it.

BTW, besides being self-employed, working full time, I am also a full time student back in university. Sooooo, sometimes I stop into JWD and fire off a few rounds of postings, and then I have to get back to regular business. In addition to the foregoing, I have been working on a serious research project for BRCI called ... "What is the Nature of the Holy Spirit?" ... which has taken the better part of a year.

When I commenced the project, I fully expected to find no real conclusive data, thus making it impossible to determine whether the early Church Fathers believed in anything like the Trinity or something closer to what the Watchtower teaches. To my amazement, shock and awe, the early Fathers taught the full-fledged Trinity, complete with the triad terminology, by about 150 AD. They taught the component concepts as early as the year 105 AD.

Sooo ... I have been on an emotional roller coaster wondering if I should have remained Roman Catholic, and not converted to the Watchtower organization in 1968. I may have saved myself 25-years of nonsense ... followed by another 14-years of unwraveling the whole mess, and putting my life back in order before I hit the ripe old age where death is but a banana peel away from the grave. I look forward to your kind response.

Jim Whitney