Death to the Pixies

Joined

• started 4 topics
• posted 255 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Death to the Pixies

• 
  66

  Is The watchtower Dishonest When It comes to the Trinity?

  by RevFrank in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  in 1989 the watchtower society published a 32-page booklet entitled "should you believe in the trinity?

  " the aim of this publication was to discredit the christian doctrine of the triune nature of god.

  the method that the society used to accomplish this goal was to quote from a plethora of resources, both secular and religious, such as dictionaries, encyclopedias, books and historical literature written by individual authors.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Death to the Pixies

  Looks like we should agree to disagree here gang.

  Regards.
• 
  66

  Is The watchtower Dishonest When It comes to the Trinity?

  by RevFrank in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  in 1989 the watchtower society published a 32-page booklet entitled "should you believe in the trinity?

  " the aim of this publication was to discredit the christian doctrine of the triune nature of god.

  the method that the society used to accomplish this goal was to quote from a plethora of resources, both secular and religious, such as dictionaries, encyclopedias, books and historical literature written by individual authors.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Death to the Pixies

  Is there a reason why you are acting like this?

  I think I will put you on my personal ignore list.
• 
  66

  Is The watchtower Dishonest When It comes to the Trinity?

  by RevFrank in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  in 1989 the watchtower society published a 32-page booklet entitled "should you believe in the trinity?

  " the aim of this publication was to discredit the christian doctrine of the triune nature of god.

  the method that the society used to accomplish this goal was to quote from a plethora of resources, both secular and religious, such as dictionaries, encyclopedias, books and historical literature written by individual authors.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Death to the Pixies

  Your condescending tone is tipping your hand here I believe....

  Most of them are exactly like the Fortman quote.. It is either nit-picking or completely ignoring the context of the SYBTB quote, I already handled the first one in Franks list in an earlier post, the next two are much the same:

  <<<<<<<<<<p.5 - ILLUSTRATED BIBLE DICTIONARY
  
  Booklet: "The word Trinity is not found in the Bible...It did not find a place formally in the theology of the church till the 4th century."
  
  Source: The Dictionary adds these 3 statements:
  
  (a) "Though it is not a Biblical doctrine in the sense that any formulation of it can be found in the Bible, it can be seen to underlie the revelation of God, implicit in the Old Testament and explicit in the New Testament. By this we mean that though we cannot speak confidently of the revelation of the Trinity in the Old Testament, yet once the substance of the doctrine has been revealed in the New Testament, we can read back many implications of it in the Old Testament."
  
  (b) "But even in the opening pages of the Old Testament we are taught to attribute the evidence and persistence of all things to a threefold source." (Not 3 sources separate)
  
  (c) "By way of contrast it must be remembered that the Old Testament was written before the revelation of the doctrine of the Trinity was clearly given and in the New Testament after it." >>>>>>>>>>

  Reply: The WT is showing from various quotes that the Trinity finds no place formally in scripture, and they do so correctly from the words of Trintarian sources. Even in Franks additional quotes he misses this point, the WT makes the point: "It did not find a place formally in the theology of the church till the 4th century."

  Which of course this is an accurate quote as upheld in his point a.) "Though it is not a Biblical doctrine in the sense that any formulation of it can be found in the Bible"

  This is all the WT is using the quote for, not to show the source as NOT believing in the Trinity, but to show it admits it was not formulated in scripture. In fact it was not formally introduced until the 4th century, ie..it underwent a formulation period! Frank is just missing the point of the quote.<<<<<p.6 - NEW CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA
  
  Booklet: "The doctrine of the Trinity is not taught in the Old Testament."
  
  Source:
  
  "In the New Testament the oldest evidence is in the Pauline epistles..."
  
  "In many places of the Old Testament, however, expressions are used in which some of the Fathers of the church saw references or foreshadowings of the Trinity."
  
  "...the minds of God's people (Old Testament) were being prepared for the concepts that would be involved in the forthcoming revelation of the doctrine of the Trinity. In the New Testament, the revelation of the truth of the Triune life of God was first made in the New Testament, where the earliest references to it are in the Pauline epistles."
  
  "Since the Son and the Holy Spirit are mentioned on a par with the Father, the passage clearly teaches that they are equally divine with the Father, who is obviously God."
  
  "...they testify, under divine inspiration, in the belief of the Apostolic Church in a doctrine of three persons in one God." >>>>>

  Reply: The quote is only dealing with the OT, and Frank is dealing with the NT for some reason. Obviously any person reading this will understand the Catholic encylopedia is of the Trinitarian persuasion, which makes the WT quote even more relevent. Even they admit the Hebrew scrips do not teach the Trinity...They claim (rather humorously) that the OT was "preparing people" for the Trinity!

  Again, just plain sloppy on Frank's part. In fact the heading in the brochure is bolded as " Testimony of the Hebrew Scriptures".

  I touch on the ECF, Justin to be exact- here: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/107582/1872647/post.ashx#1872647

  
  
• 
  66

  Is The watchtower Dishonest When It comes to the Trinity?

  by RevFrank in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  in 1989 the watchtower society published a 32-page booklet entitled "should you believe in the trinity?

  " the aim of this publication was to discredit the christian doctrine of the triune nature of god.

  the method that the society used to accomplish this goal was to quote from a plethora of resources, both secular and religious, such as dictionaries, encyclopedias, books and historical literature written by individual authors.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Death to the Pixies

  <<<thereby implying that this also goes for the other quotes in the brochure (which it doesn`t) ! It is quite a slick way of smoothing things out, a sneaky way of reassuring the reader that "it` s really not that bad"...but the sad truth is that it is. The dishonesty of the WTS lies in the fact that they are trying to pull the "the ultimate belief is...to show that even those who profess the Doctrine, do not believe it is explicit in scripture" - also on the early church fathers! Their "quotes" from the early church fathers are ripped out of context. And your strategy here is to use that one example from Fortman (which I do agree with) - to try to pass off all of the misquoting as "something that can be explained...see, I showed you with the Fortman-quote...all the other quotes are exactly the same". It`s not so difficult to see what you are trying to do. I can read JWs like an open book, I have a full family of them>>>

  Reply: No, not really, I started to discuss the ECF on one of the other 64 threads started this week on this forum about the SYBTB , but got little response. And I also gave my thoughts on another quote in Rev Franks post, I could go on, but Why? I do not feel the need to systematically justify every attack on the brochure, every time it comes up. Fortman caught my eye on this thread because I recently read his book. To say the Fortman quote is somehow the only one Rev Frank missed the mark on, well..... is not the truth.
• 
  66

  Is The watchtower Dishonest When It comes to the Trinity?

  by RevFrank in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  in 1989 the watchtower society published a 32-page booklet entitled "should you believe in the trinity?

  " the aim of this publication was to discredit the christian doctrine of the triune nature of god.

  the method that the society used to accomplish this goal was to quote from a plethora of resources, both secular and religious, such as dictionaries, encyclopedias, books and historical literature written by individual authors.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Death to the Pixies

  Such a cogent argument Hell-rider.

  <<< And that is just wrong, wrong, wrong. Perhaps some of them did not believe in it in its form of today, but they still believed in a Trinity, although some of them were subordinationists>>>

  Reply: You did not deal with my example, if you would have you should have comprehended the simple point. The context is there for the Fortman quote.

  And.....This would be the definition of "non-sense". "A Trinity"....? Well, by such non-sensical standards I believe in "A Trinity". I believe in the Father, Son and spirit, and a unity is taught in scripture.. "The Trinity" as understood today was not held. Suborditionist views as held by Origen, Justin are not compatible with the ontological Trinity. , Jesus in is Divine pre-human nature is subordinate, not just subordinate by economical standards... The Brochure shows the fact that the doctrine was a formulation and brought out points by the ECF that are incompatible with "The Trinity" as understood today. Trust me, The WTS is not alone here. The fact that you say "A trinity" also proves this "formulation".

  Why do you even post on theology issues with that language, you sound like a fool. In a fluff thread for comedic purposes I can see, but in a Christology thread? Dep!
• 
  66

  Is The watchtower Dishonest When It comes to the Trinity?

  by RevFrank in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  in 1989 the watchtower society published a 32-page booklet entitled "should you believe in the trinity?

  " the aim of this publication was to discredit the christian doctrine of the triune nature of god.

  the method that the society used to accomplish this goal was to quote from a plethora of resources, both secular and religious, such as dictionaries, encyclopedias, books and historical literature written by individual authors.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Death to the Pixies

  HaHa! Seriously, that is not a valid comparison.

  Are you all out of juice, or is there anything else?
• 
  66

  Is The watchtower Dishonest When It comes to the Trinity?

  by RevFrank in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  in 1989 the watchtower society published a 32-page booklet entitled "should you believe in the trinity?

  " the aim of this publication was to discredit the christian doctrine of the triune nature of god.

  the method that the society used to accomplish this goal was to quote from a plethora of resources, both secular and religious, such as dictionaries, encyclopedias, books and historical literature written by individual authors.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Death to the Pixies

  <<<Interesting. So you ascribe to the school of dishonest scholarship if it suits your cause?>>>

  Reply: See the problem with Yes/no answers...LoL.... That was a "No" to the brochure being guilty of your charge.
• 
  66

  Is The watchtower Dishonest When It comes to the Trinity?

  by RevFrank in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  in 1989 the watchtower society published a 32-page booklet entitled "should you believe in the trinity?

  " the aim of this publication was to discredit the christian doctrine of the triune nature of god.

  the method that the society used to accomplish this goal was to quote from a plethora of resources, both secular and religious, such as dictionaries, encyclopedias, books and historical literature written by individual authors.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Death to the Pixies

  <<<You're wriggling like a good one. Yes or no would have sufficed.>>

  Reply: It was quite obvious what my answer was, I figured I would expound more to help you see my point.

  <<Context is everything.>>

  Reply: That was my point :>)

  <<To actually construct a case for a specific doctrine, consistently using "partial" quotation to make your sources appear to agree with you even though their position was contrary, is frankly dishonest. Yes?>>

  Reply: If we keep "context" in mind, we will see such quotations as Fortman, did agree with point the Wt was making, which was that the Trinity is not explicitly taught in scripture. Each quotation, often times from a hostile witness (which is acceptable, people love to use the WT in argumentation even though they do not agree ultimately) has it's own direct point being made. You do not have to agree in-toto to make a source quote. So, since you like the Yes/No type of answer, I will say "No"..

  Regards.
• 
  66

  Is The watchtower Dishonest When It comes to the Trinity?

  by RevFrank in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  in 1989 the watchtower society published a 32-page booklet entitled "should you believe in the trinity?

  " the aim of this publication was to discredit the christian doctrine of the triune nature of god.

  the method that the society used to accomplish this goal was to quote from a plethora of resources, both secular and religious, such as dictionaries, encyclopedias, books and historical literature written by individual authors.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Death to the Pixies

  <<You honestly think that the WTS is accurately representing the intent and beliefs of the original authors?>>

  Reply: The ultimate belief is not what they are quoting, they are quoting for a specific purpose, like with Fortman, to show that even those who profess the Doctrine, do not believe it is explicit in scripture. That should trigger "If it is not explicit in scripture, then where is it explicitz?" in the mind of the reader.

  Quick example, is it wrong to quote the WT to me if I was arguing that John 20:28 cannot be calling Jeus God, if even the WT said the declaration could be aimed at Jesus? I would say that would not nmake your argument, but it would be a good start, don't you think? Is taht wrong? I do not believe so.
• 
  66

  Is The watchtower Dishonest When It comes to the Trinity?

  by RevFrank in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  in 1989 the watchtower society published a 32-page booklet entitled "should you believe in the trinity?

  " the aim of this publication was to discredit the christian doctrine of the triune nature of god.

  the method that the society used to accomplish this goal was to quote from a plethora of resources, both secular and religious, such as dictionaries, encyclopedias, books and historical literature written by individual authors.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Death to the Pixies

  This one is just embarrassing on the good Reverends part:

  "p.4 - ENCYCLOPEDIA AMERICANA
  
  Booklet:"the doctrine of the Trinity is considered to be 'beyond the grasp of human reason'."
  
  Source: The complete quote is:
  
  "It is held that ALTHOUGH the doctrine is beyond the grasp of human reason, it is, like many of the formulations of physical science, not contrary to reason, and may be apprehended (though it may not be comprehended) by the human mind."
  
  (So the Encyclopedia is comparing the degrees of mental perception, apprehension vs. comprehension, and does not state that the doctrine is "contrary" to reason - but BEYOND our fullest understanding.)
  
  
  The Watchtower writers also ignored a statement on the same page of the Encyclopedia that disputes the idea that the Trinity doctrine is pagan. It says:
  
  "It is probably a mistake to assume that the doctrine resulted from the intrusion of Greek metaphysics or philosophy into Christian thought; for the date upon which the doctrine rests, and also its earliest attempts at formulation, are much older than the church's encounter with Greek philosophy."

  Reply: The WT from this quote did not say it was contrary to reason , it quoted it as saying it is beyond the grasp of human reason. This is nit-picking at its worst. The quote says it cannot be "comprehended", which only upholds the Brochures quote further, that it is not able to penetrate the human mind. The quote was to show the difficulty in explaining the Trinity as even Trinitarians themselves claim, what it is the problem here?

  IMO, it is funny that people feel Gods identity is so confusing. Was Jesus really preaching some sort of confusion when he quoted the Shema? (Mrk 12:29) Maybe the writers had problems expressing how great and powerful they believed he was, but never his identity.