Posts by Death to the Pixies

64

The other sheep: Looking for an apologist to offer an explanation

by IP_SEC in

a verse constantly plucked from context by witnesses is john 10:16. they use it to prove that there are two classes of christian.. and i have other sheep i have other sheep, which are not of this fold: those also i must bring and they will listen to my voice, and they will become one flock, one shepherd.. the this fold say witnesses are anointed christians and the other sheep are christians with an earthly hope.. read the text carefully and in context, and i challenge anyone to be able to prove that.. in chapter 9 jesus heals a man born blind.

this infuriates the pharisees who then attack the healed man and threaten him with being expelled from the synagogue.

the man will not recant and is thrown out.. jesus finds him and asks him to be his follower.

Death to the Pixies

The little flock would start at Pentecost.

51

Trinity pamphlet, - a response & research

by Kristofer in

i'm not sure how much of this is old news to y'all but after being handed this literature, i was trying to find evidence on the ante-nicene fathers it quotes in this pamphlet.

i figured, if early christians didn't believe in it, then, to me anyway, the doctrine held some water.

i stumbled upon this essay by eric francke which is a direct response to the pamphlet and very well written in my opinion.

Death to the Pixies

Hey LT,

W-out getting to much into a Biblical Trinity debate I do not believe Paul got it wrong, I believe he was most careful in the prepositions he used of Christ when describing Creation. I agree with BDAG which has the Father as the Ultimate agent, and the Son the passive intermediate in this verse. . "all things" came in (RSV) the Son but *from* the Father, as in 1 Cor. 8:6

BDAG places DIA in Colossians 1:16 as intermediate agent and EN as "in association with" whic would prevent the interpretation that the Son was the ultimate agent and Creator in that verse. . I know Daniel Wallace of Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics fame, holds this view too, but does not see any conflict with his Trinitarian beliefs, even using the phrase "hands on creator" with regards to the Son., So you are free to disagree, and come to your own conclusions.

Justin wrote in Greek I Believe, and was seemingly ignorant of the Divine name YHWH.

51

Trinity pamphlet, - a response & research

by Kristofer in

i'm not sure how much of this is old news to y'all but after being handed this literature, i was trying to find evidence on the ante-nicene fathers it quotes in this pamphlet.

i figured, if early christians didn't believe in it, then, to me anyway, the doctrine held some water.

i stumbled upon this essay by eric francke which is a direct response to the pamphlet and very well written in my opinion.

Death to the Pixies

Because I am bored, I Just read thru this link and am amazed at how ineffective it is. First he declares:

"That same paragraph that the Watchtower is alluding to also says that it was Christ who spoke to Moses from the burning bush, and identified Himself as Jehovah. The Watchtower seems to ignore that."

Reply: You could see how this guy could make this mistake, but it is still a mistake. Justin does not identify Jesus as "Jehovah". He knows little of the DN. He equatd him with titles from the OT not,the name Jehovah directly.. Further, even the Father himself is "un-nameable" and "curse those who attempt to name him, as the rave with hopeless madness" (Apology II) Sounds a bit more Mormon than Orthodox Christian.

<<<Thus, for the Watchtower to assert that Justin Martyr said Jesus was a created angel and not "God" in the proper sense shows that the Watchtower writers are completely unfamiliar with Justin Martyr altogether.>>>

Reply: Justin goes to great leanghts to qualify his use of "God" to Jesus, making it clear it is not as the Almighty, nor the "Maker of all things". To Justin Jesus is a God, subject to the "Maker of all thngs". What this author means by "proper sense" we do not know, but my guess is, it has nothing to do with Justins usage. Justin's Monotheism , if we can even call it that, is more reflective of his period, and in no way resembles the Modern Trinitarian use. Anyone have any comments from this portion of the link?

24

Letter following Disfellowshipping

by inbyathread in

here is a letter recently sent to the local elders.

quite small so here it is as i can type it out.

february 1, 2006

Death to the Pixies

Never cite the internet as reason why a belief (not necessarily religious) was changed, defintely not in a DF letter. You will sound crazy. Maybe say the "bible", or this "book written by this doctor" influenced why I now think...(insert new informative belief here)

51

Trinity pamphlet, - a response & research

by Kristofer in

i'm not sure how much of this is old news to y'all but after being handed this literature, i was trying to find evidence on the ante-nicene fathers it quotes in this pamphlet.

i figured, if early christians didn't believe in it, then, to me anyway, the doctrine held some water.

i stumbled upon this essay by eric francke which is a direct response to the pamphlet and very well written in my opinion.

Death to the Pixies

I will try to be as brief as possible, there were some points I did not get into for the sake of brevity, but I think this sums up the point of the SYBTB:

<<<The Society's characterization of the beliefs of the apologists is consistently skewed to mention whatever is consistent with their own theology (even attributing statements and views the apologists did not hold in some cases) while omitting everything that would be inconvenient with their theology.....especially all the beliefs that would serve as ingrediants to the fourth-century Trinity doctrine (i.e. the Deity of Christ, the unity in substance between the Son and Father, the relationship between the three Persons as a Trinity, the co-equality of Christ with the Father, etc.), which gives the misleading appearance that the notions of the Trinity appeared out of nowhere in the fourth century. That is imho the main issue here. You say that they are "free to interpret" the views of the church fathers, but that doesn't mean that one can characterize the views of someone any which way one wants. It is hardly conceivable that the authors of the broshure missed all the affirmations of Christ's Deity and trinitarian thinking in Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria. The consistent, systematic nature of the misrepresentation tells me that it is deliberate and thus dishonest.>>>

Reply:

a.) The WT believs the 1st Century Church taught the Divinity of Christ, as we acknowledge it as well. So, the inclusion of these ideas would have done no harm to the WT attack on the Trinity. I agree, it would have been nice to been more thorough, but this does not convict them.

b.) You are forgetting the importance of what the Trinity is in its ultimate, final state. Merely having SOME of the building blocks there for a formal doctrine is not enough, it is the One-God, in 3 co-equal persons which is important. This idea did spring up after "many centuries". .

Leo: "What did they leave out about Justin Martyr? He claimed that the Son was the "Lord God" of the OT who appeared as the "God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob" in the burning bush (1 Apology 62-63),

Reply:I briefly touched on Justin's belief in the Divinity of christ, and to some extent you seem to agree in your ackowledgment of his belief in a Second God. This gets to the core, or lackthereof, of Justins' theology. This "Lord God" "The God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob" is *a distinct God*, from the God that is the "Maker of all things". This does not help an Orthodox view of "God". From Trypho, same topic, different apology:

Dialogue with Trypho LVI-III

"Even if this were so, my friends, that an Angel and God were together in the vision seen by Moses, yet, as has already been proved to you, it will not be the Creator of all things that is the God that said to Moses that He was the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, but it will be He who has been proved to you to Abraham, ministering to , and likewise carrying into execution His counsel in the judgement of Sodom, so that, even though it be as you say, that there were two-an Angel and God- He who has but the smallest intelligence will not venture to assert that the Maker of all things, having left all supercelestial matters, was visible on a little portion of the Earth........ (Trypho LVI-III)

"......He who is said to appeared to Abraham, and to Jacob, and to Moses, and who is called God, is distinct from him who made all things-numerically I mean, not in will. I affirm that He has never at any time done anything which He who made the World-above whom there is no God- has not wished HIm both to do and to engage himself with" (Trypho)
"

At this point, the Deity of Jesus was being explained contrary to a God-head of 3 persons. Between the Father and Son, we Have Two Gods, one the Almighty Maker of all things", and the other that gets to be called "God" because The Almighty said it was OK. (cough)

Leo:that "Angel" was a title given to the Son because he announced God to man (1 Apology 62, Dialogue 76), that "God" was also a title given to the Son (Dialogue 34, 61, 124, 127 "God the Son"), but not only is he "called God" but "he is God, and always shall be God" (Dialogue 58),

Reply: True, but a key point is that he is called at times Angel, just like he is called "God". Because God allowed it to happen. It is derived divinity:

"I shall give you another testimony, my friends said I "from the scriptures, that God begat before all creatures a Beginning [who was]a Certain Rational Power [proceding] from HImself, who is called by the Holy Spirit, now the Glory of the Lord, now the Son, again Wisdom, again an Angel, then God, and the Lord and Logos. For he can be called by those names, since He ministers to the Fathers will and since he was begotten of the Father by an act of will " (Trypho LXI)

Leo: and thus is to be worshipped (1 Apology 6, Dialogue 68)

Reply: Going from memory I believe the context has "God alone" as being worshipped, but because God (Father))sees fit, he allows another to recieve it as well. A less interpretetive view than the one given in the ANF series has the Angels also recieving "worship", and the implication being that Jesus is an Angel , like the "other good Angels". (CHAP. VI.--CHARGE OF ATHEISM REFUTED From Justin's First Apology)

Justin also sees the Son being generated as a "beginning", by an act of the Father. IMO, if we do not see an explicit "eternal generaration" argument from Justin, we should lean toward Justin believeing in the temporality of the Son. The work entitled "The biblical exegesis of Justin Martyr" says of Justin's "begotten before all creation":

""The language here is such that it cannot be argued that Justin considered the Logos to be eternal. The most that can be said about the Logos is that he was created before anything else"

You interpret Justin differently, but it cannot be said that he was mis-represented in the SYBTB. There were also a lot of quotes by Justin the SYBTB left out that could have been very helpful. The context leading up the ECF in the brochure was such various questions as "Does the NT speak CLEARLY of the Trinity", then they segue to the ECF, and showed that they did not speak CLEARLY of a Trinitarian God-head. Which they did not, they interpreteted the Divinity of Christ differently.

Sincerely.

51

Trinity pamphlet, - a response & research

by Kristofer in

i'm not sure how much of this is old news to y'all but after being handed this literature, i was trying to find evidence on the ante-nicene fathers it quotes in this pamphlet.

i figured, if early christians didn't believe in it, then, to me anyway, the doctrine held some water.

i stumbled upon this essay by eric francke which is a direct response to the pamphlet and very well written in my opinion.

Death to the Pixies

Leo,

I will get back to Justin maybe tomorrow, I got sidetracked with looking up WT quotes from your latest

Yes, that would be a few of the errors, the reverse is true of Trins to JW theology. They (WTS) are much more careful in their language today. Just a couple suggestions from the 62' quotes.

<<Suppose, now, they say that, in John 1:1, 2, God means the other two Persons of the Trinity, so that in the beginning the Word was with God the Father and God the Holy Ghost. In this case we come to this difficulty, namely, that, by being God, the Word was God the Father and God the Holy Ghost, the other two Persons of the Trinity. Thus the Word, or "God the Son," the Second Person of the Trinity, is said to be also the First Person and the Third Person of the Trinity. It does not solve the difficulty to say that the Word was the same as God the Father and was equal to God the Father but still was not God the Father. If this were so, it must follow that the Word was the same as God the Holy Ghost and was equal to God the Holy Ghost but still was not God the Holy Ghost. >>>

Reply: This does not seem to be a mis-rep, but it, like Greg Stafford in the more recent times is merely taking what Trintarians say, and showing the folly of it. ,If the Logos is the same God (or part of, depending on who you speak too) as the "God" he is with, then the ipso facto is, that the Logos is the Father, or the Trinity, depending on who you take the articular "theos" as. This is also where the Trins must make a questionable distinction between "person" and "being". This is why P/Harner politely responded to "Colwells Rule" to get past this msitake, and started arguing a strictly qualitative sense of "theos" in ref. to the Logos. "Celebrated WT Scholars" beat them to the punch here though:>) Sorry, Scholar cracks me up too!

<<<Since we cannot scientifically calculate that 1 God (the Father) + 1 God (the Son) + 1 God (the Holy Ghost) = 1 God, then we must calculate that 1/3 God (the Father) + 1/3 God (the Son) + 1/3 God (the Holy Ghost) = 3/3 God, or 1 God. Furthermore, we would have to conclude that the term "God" in John 1:1, 2 changes its personality, or that "God" changes his personality in one sentence. Does he?>>>

Reply: This one is not defining the Trinity, but showing the error of it as seen by Unitarians. If we take the year into account, which by and large, at least in majority of scholars, the more sophisticated "nature" arguments were not being pushed as much as a definite "theos" in ref. to the Logos.

"Christendom has copied the heathen, pagan nations of Asia in teaching that God is a trinity, three Gods in one Person. But who can explain this so-called Trinity and harmonize it with the book of Christianity, the Bible? Hence when the people, who cannot understand the Trinity, ask for an explanation, the clergymen take to flight by the escape route of saying that the Trinity is a mystery. In this way they leave the people in great confusion and unable to understand the Bible and its message, and unable to call upon the divine name Jehovah for salvation through Jesus Christ. (Joel 2:28-32; Acts 2:16-21) In this way, too, they have misrepresented God to the heathen or pagans, who see in this TRINITARIAN GOD a resemblance to their own false gods."

Reply: This one seems to be a typo, as in the Capped part above, they make mention of just "One God". MAybe not, I would need to read the entire article.

51

Trinity pamphlet, - a response & research

by Kristofer in

i'm not sure how much of this is old news to y'all but after being handed this literature, i was trying to find evidence on the ante-nicene fathers it quotes in this pamphlet.

i figured, if early christians didn't believe in it, then, to me anyway, the doctrine held some water.

i stumbled upon this essay by eric francke which is a direct response to the pamphlet and very well written in my opinion.

Death to the Pixies

<<Christians do not say this, why don't you spend a few minutes finding out what Christians actually think before simply relying on a lying printing corporation to tell you >>

Reply: People do love to make these comments, but thay are not fair. Other than a few mistakes over the last hundred years, the WT has correctly described the Trinity in its defenses. I have seen many more variations/mistakes in Trinitarian Literature and references.

51

Trinity pamphlet, - a response & research

by Kristofer in

i'm not sure how much of this is old news to y'all but after being handed this literature, i was trying to find evidence on the ante-nicene fathers it quotes in this pamphlet.

i figured, if early christians didn't believe in it, then, to me anyway, the doctrine held some water.

i stumbled upon this essay by eric francke which is a direct response to the pamphlet and very well written in my opinion.

Death to the Pixies

Krist:#1. You are using Lamson's interpretation of Justin when you could just as easily go to the source and see what Justin has to say.

Reply: I only used Lamson to show that the WT was not alone in their view on Justin and the ECF. Others have come to the same conculsions based on the writings on the Fathers. I could quote others. In the case of Justin, the first father quoted in the Pamphlet, their intertpretation is both plausible and warranted.

Krist:2. I don't know how you can dodge dishonesty here. Saying that justin called the prehuman Jesus a "created angel" is a flat out LIE! Yeah, sorry..but that's dishonest. Show me where he calls Jesus a "created angel" and I will take back my accusation.

Reply: "Created angel" was not not attributed to be a direct quote from Justin, but an implication derived from his writings. They could have been more thorough, but they did not have space to do so in their pamphlet. They are free to interpret. That is not a mis-quote nor dishonest.

Krist:Justin does say:

"The Jews, accordingly, being throughout of opinion that it was the Father of the universe who spake to Moses, though He who spake to him was indeed the Son of God, who is called both Angel and Apostle, are justly charged, both by the Spirit of prophecy and by Christ Himself, with knowing neither the Father nor the Son. For they who affirm that the Son is the Father, are proved neither to have become acquainted with the Father, nor to know that the Father of the universe has a Son; who also, being the first-begotten Word of God, is even God."

Reply: Justin does call Jesus G-god, but in what way is enlightening. Justin defintiely believes Jesus to be a different God than the Almighty, a distinct "subjected" God, as can be seen from his writings:

: "Then (Justin) replied, 'I shall attempt to persuade you, since you have understood the Scriptures (of the truth) of what I say, that there is, and that there is said to be, another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things; who is also called an Angel, because he announces to man whatsoever the Maker of all things above whom there is no other God - wishes to announce to them...'. Then (Justin) replied, 'Reverting to the Scriptures, I shall endeavour to persuade you, that he who is said to have appeared to Abraham, and to Jacob, and to Moses and who is called "God" is distinct from Him who made all things - numerically, I mean, not (distinct) in will'... 'For I affirm that he has never at any time done anything which he who made the world - above whom there is no other god - has not wished him both to do and to engage himself with'." (Trypho LVI)

Krist:I also don't see anywhere where Justin refers to Jesus as inferior.

Reply: That is open to debate, Trins will argue basic Trinitarian arguments when we show Justin applied John 14:28 to Jesus without qualification, when he says such things as:

""And now I shall again recite the words which I have spoken in proof of this point. When Scripture says, 'The Lord rained fire from the Lord out of heaven, 'the prophetic word indicates that there were two in number: One upon the earth, who, it says, descended to behold the cry of Sodom; Another in heaven, who also is Lord of the Lord on earth, as He is Father and God;the cause of his power and of His being Lord and God " (Trypho)

We wil let his words speak for themsleves.

Sincerely.

51

Trinity pamphlet, - a response & research

by Kristofer in

i'm not sure how much of this is old news to y'all but after being handed this literature, i was trying to find evidence on the ante-nicene fathers it quotes in this pamphlet.

i figured, if early christians didn't believe in it, then, to me anyway, the doctrine held some water.

i stumbled upon this essay by eric francke which is a direct response to the pamphlet and very well written in my opinion.

Death to the Pixies

<<<also found a link to the writings of the early church fathers that you can read for yourself rather than listen to what other people think they said. I was shocked by the academic dihonestly. Happy reading>>>

Reply: Greetings, Let's not get "academic dishonesty" confused with a warranted interpretation. If we take Justin into consideration (Justin being one of the Fathers quoted in the pamphlet) we find some disagree-ing with the WTS interpretation and implications derived from Justins words*, but this is not dishonesty on the part of the WTS simply because it goes against an Orthodox interpretation of Justin. JWs are not alone as seeing Justin as having the Son as an Angel of temporal origin. One thing for sure is, Justin nowhere speaks of what was later deemed an "Eternal generation", in fact all signs point elsewhere. Justin regularly refers to Jesus as the "First-begotten" and "first-progeny", applies the LXX of Proverbs 8:22 to the Son. Lamson notes:

" He speaks of the "Son" as the Logos, that before created things, was with God, and begotten, when, through him, he [God] in the beginning created and adorned all things" The meaning is, that he was converted into a real being, having a seperate personal subsistence, at the time God, using him as his instrument, was about to proceed to the work of creation. That this is the meaning is obvious from the use of the term "when" (we use Ottos text):he was begotten of God "when through him he created and embellished all things"- language which makes the two acts almost simultaneous, the one taking place immediatley before the other..... The attribute, like all divine attributes was eternal, but it became hypostatized or converted into a real person,in time, that is just befoe the creation of the world. Justin elsewhere, as we shall see speaks of the Son as the "beginning" of God's "way to his works". (The Church in the first 3 centuries p. 53)

Now we can also take Justin as being ambiguous in this regard, but you canot say the Pamphlet mis-quoted Justin, or that they have shown dishonesty. Many Non-Jws have came to this very same conclusion.

*Pamphlet makes this observation on Justin:

Justin Martyr, who died about 165 C.E., called the prehuman Jesus a created angel who is "other than the God who made all things." He said that Jesus was inferior to God and "never did anything except what the Creator . . . willed him to do and say."

28

Writing academic/scholarly papers

by Lady Lee in

this might be very boring for most people but some who were denied the opportunity to get a post-secondary education might find it an interesting perspective on what defines "scholarly" and "academic" work.. the question concerning the scholarship of the wts has come up a few times.

i took one university religion course and had to write a couple of papers.

the title of the course was "on death and dying".

Death to the Pixies

Leo:I just read a QFR from 1960 (5/15, p. 318-320) which actually tries to take Dr. Bruce Metzger to task for his negative review of the NWT and his criticism about the insertion of "Jehovah" into the NT in particular. It is quite funny, filled with condescending statements like "If Dr. Metzger has read the Foreword of the above volume through, then he should have learned..." and "It is very easy for a trinitarian theologian of Christendom to carp at a Bible translation that does not agree with his trinitarian doctrine," while entirely side-stepping the main problem he brought up.... Reply: The NWTC would not have a problem taking the Metzger to task in general for his bias, looking back at some of his comments against the NWT ,bias was clearly shown, even some ignorance.. Saying John 1:1 was a "frightening mistranslation" because the Committee was apparently unaware of "Colwells rule". How he knew they were not aware of this rule, is up to anybodys guess. Given this sloppiness, you can see why they may have been annoyed and disappointed in Metzgers criticism in general. But in this instance, what do you feel is his main objection, and in what way did the QFR not address it?