Death to the Pixies

Joined

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

Posts by Death to the Pixies

• 
  27

  What's the official JW Spin on Rev.19:1

  by PopeOfEruke in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  does anyone know the official jw spin on revelation 19:1 which says: .

  rev 19:1- after these things i heard what was as a loud voice of a great crowd in heaven.

  this plainly identifies the great crowd being in heaven.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Death to the Pixies

  More officialy explained, the term and words "great Crowd" are in and of themselves insignificant. There is a "great crowd" in Rev 19, in the gospels there is a "great crowd" that follows Jesus, there are "great crowds" at football games. Rev 19 probably has this "great crowd" being the angels as they encourage others to praise Jah. If the great crowd of Rev 7 were the GC of Rev 19, there would be no (other) people for them to encourage.
  

  edit to add.. The "great crowd" in vs.6-8 speaks of itself as distinct from the bride (144,000).

  I will dig up what Stafford wrote in defense of JW theology here in his second Edition of JWD.
• 
  15

  Open Letter To The Society

  by Outaservice in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  dear brothers,.

  you might want to consider this letter in the 'questions from readers' section of the watchtower.. my question is this: i would like to join the catholic church and at the same time keep my standing and position in the congregation!

  the reason being is that i have heard that the vatican has a very good and complete library which i would like to avail myself of.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Death to the Pixies

  Dear Brothers,

  You might want to consider this letter in the 'Questions From Readers' section of THE WATCHTOWER.

  My question is this: I would like to join the Catholic Church and at the same time keep my standing and position in the congregation! Can I do this?

  The reason being is that I have heard that the Vatican has a very good and complete library which I would like to avail myself of. I would of course have to refrain from criticizing Catholics and speak well of them, but the benefits are obvious.

  Thank you for your prompt reply.

  Brother Outaservice

  As your X-JW buds will attest, the WT did not "join" the UN..and a JW can go into a theologcal libary and attain a book for research...
• 
  1380

  The Gentiles Times Reconsidered--Again but this Time By Using the Bible

  by thirdwitness in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  think about this: if seven times mean only 7 years then daniel could have simply said 7 years.

  why does daniel specifically use the word 'times' rather than years?

  as we have already shown daniel used the word for 7 times instead of 7 years.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Death to the Pixies

  "All" is idiomatic in Greek, it can easily easily be understood in a certain context and often has exclusions. There is no reason to think that this "all" authority must include the authority of the Davidic Kingship. One does not have to search hard to see "all" pertain to just "some" in the GNT/LXX. Dr. Strong is a putz, but here commenting on pas/panta, he makes good sense:

  ... "the whole world has gone after him" Did all the world go after Christ? "then went all Judea, and were baptized of him in Jordan."Was all Judea, or all Jerusalem, baptized in Jordan? "Ye are of God,little children", and the whole world lieth in the wicked one". Does the whole world there mean everybody? The words "world" and "all" are used in some seven or eight senses in Scripture, and it is very rarely the "all" means all persons, taken individually. The words are generally used to signify that Christ has redeemed some of all sorts-- some Jews, some Gentiles, some rich, some poor, and has not restricted His redemption to either Jew or Gentile ... "
• 
  28

  W.E.Vine and ThirdWitness - Brothers Beneath The Skin?

  by hillary_step in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  thirdwitness,.

  speaking of w.e.vine and your stated respect for his profound understanding of scriptual exegesis and his scholarly expertise about such subjects, i wonder what comments you have on this observation by the man : .

  unauthorized systems.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Death to the Pixies

  Yes, and in a context like this thread, your use of "alleged" can be taken as serious or as sarcastic. Your other comments in this thread and others show me where your opinons lie, namely, that you agree with thirdwitness, and so your use of "alleged" would have to be serious. Unless, of course, you're just a troll. If you're not a mere troll, then try stating what you mean in clear terms. You're not nearly as clever as you think.

  This may be a megalomaniacs way of admitting he had no clue what was going on in this thread... I have stated my point here clearly, so who knows what you are referring to... It seems just to be a lame attempt at saving face.... I must say I find your justifications for your abrasive style saddening. Some friendly advice, leave JWD and go back to being legit... maybe go back to BGreek?
• 
  28

  W.E.Vine and ThirdWitness - Brothers Beneath The Skin?

  by hillary_step in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  thirdwitness,.

  speaking of w.e.vine and your stated respect for his profound understanding of scriptual exegesis and his scholarly expertise about such subjects, i wonder what comments you have on this observation by the man : .

  unauthorized systems.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Death to the Pixies

  
  Hi AlanF, you too are way off base here, at least when it comes to this thread, I was not defending whether Vines was a "Modern Scholar" but that he was quoted to answer the challenge, not to buttress a theolgy .I believe I used the word "alleged" (snickering at AlanF). Remember I said:

  DTTP:If you are merely trying to show 3rd the difference in opinion amongst scholars, then why exactly are you pointing to Vine's take on ecclesiastical authority? Does this somehow show that a Vine, an alleged modern scholar (the original context of the introduction of Vine mind you)

  This and the previous posts in t his thread show that this was an attempt at derailment. But, hey you threw in some insults (shocker!), so at least you got to exercise some of them inner demons. Good for you :>)

  Just as a side, and indulge me here, why do you feel the need to belittle 3rdWitness? If he truly is a moron, won't that be self-evident? Let me guess, you are calling him a moron for the benefit of the other morons to moronic to decipher the moronic nature of 3rd?
• 
  28

  W.E.Vine and ThirdWitness - Brothers Beneath The Skin?

  by hillary_step in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  thirdwitness,.

  speaking of w.e.vine and your stated respect for his profound understanding of scriptual exegesis and his scholarly expertise about such subjects, i wonder what comments you have on this observation by the man : .

  unauthorized systems.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Death to the Pixies

  This thread was addressing thirdwitness. ;

  If thirdwitness observes hypocrisy, or disingenuousness on the part of hillary_step's argument, he will address it himself. ; He is a big boy. ; He can speak for himself. ; He doesn't need you to speak for him or be his advocate.

  Please, let thirdwitness speak for himself, and stop trolling the thread. ; It is juvenile, and it is getting quite

  Seems Hilary Step is comletely out of ammo and realizes how correct I am...soo.... I only decided to take on this thread to make a point, which is to stop derailing arguments and expecting 3rd to waste his time with all these irrelevent threads, (which if he does not answer this idiocy, he gets taunted). It is already 1 against 20, and the twenty are using bullying tactics at that. Apparently grossly out-numbering him is not enough. You may have to-- NOT-- be part of the JWD clique to understand how bad it is for the opposing view to get heard fairly here.
• 
  28

  W.E.Vine and ThirdWitness - Brothers Beneath The Skin?

  by hillary_step in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  thirdwitness,.

  speaking of w.e.vine and your stated respect for his profound understanding of scriptual exegesis and his scholarly expertise about such subjects, i wonder what comments you have on this observation by the man : .

  unauthorized systems.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Death to the Pixies

  Are you homosexual darling?

  
  

  
  No, but I did save 15% on car insurance by switching to Geico....... I knew you were a dude from a previous post on another thread... The ref may be lost....Oh well, comedy show is over... Just to re-emph:

  In view of my repeated and proved evidence that ThirdWitness is pointing to Vine's overall scholarship as being indicative of the trust one can maintain in his application of parousia in Matthew 24, and this being the subject at hand, how can it be off-topic nonesense? I have to say, you are quite stunning in your ignorance of the implications of this thread - I think a mischievous motive would garner more respect than actually thinking that this is the sum of your ability to grasp the issue at hand.

  Again, He was answering a challenge that "No modern scholars agree.blah..blah.." the showing of the credentials was to show that Vines was indeed a legit scholar.. I have already addressed that he would not need to agree with all of Vines conclusions to quote him as an authority on translation of "parousia". Of course you agreed, which is what makes this thread so off-topic. You have probelms with diverting attention, Elsewhere 3rd wants to discuss how the testimony of the bible allegedly contradicts the secular and you want to argue the bible's legitimacy! As you see, slightly different than the point of his post. .

  You seem to be trying to turn being incorrect into an art form! Given that this post was aimed at ThirdWitness, on topic with regard to both the parousia and Vine, and that it was your goodself that interfered with this post with very limited understanding of what was really being discussed, I will leave the readers to reach the same conclusion that I am reaching, that what you have between the ears is nothing much to be proud of.

  Reply: No, you said in your last post:

  "If you are able to join the dots, which you are obviously unable to do, you would see that the point AlanF and I made was that while Vine was an exellent scholar, he had an agenda that influenced his application of parousia. ThirdWitness repeated three times, in defence of Vine's views, his credentials as a scholar, indicating that no agenda was present and that we were attempting to discredit him to bolster an 'unscriptual' view."

  But of course if you remember back to the other thread when this same supposed on topic point was made- 3rd said:

  "To those who would attempt to discredit Vine saying he had an agenda. So what? What is the agenda of Carl Jonnson and Alan F? I think it is obvious what their agenda is. "

  He obviously did not care to object..(everyone has an agenda!) .sooooooo why are you still diverting topics with this? He says "So what" He quoted Vines credentials not to buttress his own theology but to show that he was indeed a worthty commentator who agreed with "presence" being an apt rendering of "parousia", which if you remember was an answer to the challenge posed, namely, again for your benefit "No modern scholars agree..blah...blah.."

  Simply re-read the corrections in the last post and re-emph'd here.
• 
  28

  W.E.Vine and ThirdWitness - Brothers Beneath The Skin?

  by hillary_step in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  thirdwitness,.

  speaking of w.e.vine and your stated respect for his profound understanding of scriptual exegesis and his scholarly expertise about such subjects, i wonder what comments you have on this observation by the man : .

  unauthorized systems.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Death to the Pixies

  This is exactly what he HAS done. For the sake of your own credibility, read the posts that generated this thread before commenting further.

  
  

  But sweetie the context was merely about finding a modern scholar who believes "presence" is correct, So yes 3rd Witness did exclusively pointed to Vines , (cough), but the point made of course was 3rd has not rested his case on "parousia" simply by pointing to Vines. That is the difference, and that is why this is just off-topic non-sense that hopefully 3rd will not waste his time on.. 3rd was merely atempting to justify Vines as a legit scholar which of course would be an answer to AlanF's challenge.. .We do not want to spread him to thin do we? 3rd seems
  

  You really are just an off-topic king.
• 
  28

  W.E.Vine and ThirdWitness - Brothers Beneath The Skin?

  by hillary_step in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  thirdwitness,.

  speaking of w.e.vine and your stated respect for his profound understanding of scriptual exegesis and his scholarly expertise about such subjects, i wonder what comments you have on this observation by the man : .

  unauthorized systems.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Death to the Pixies

  Silly billy! That is not the point. Of course scholars all have areas of disagreement, that is OUR point. When we pointed this out to ThirdWitness, he accused us of trying to discredit Vine to undernmine the WTS application of parousia. You obviously are yet another poster who posts carelessly before they read carefully.

  Well then your point is all over the place.. If you are merely trying to show 3rd the difference in opinion amongst scholars, then why exactly are you pointing to Vine's take on ecclesiastical authority? Does this somehow show that a Vine, an alleged modern scholar (the original context of the introduction of Vine mind you) does not agree with the use of "parousia" at Matthew 24? Of course it does not so this whole diversion is ....um...a diversion.

  You cannot discredit Vine's take on the parousia by showing 3rd places where he disagrees with his own theology. That is unless 3rd exclusively hides behind Vine's authority, something he has not done.
• 
  28

  W.E.Vine and ThirdWitness - Brothers Beneath The Skin?

  by hillary_step in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  thirdwitness,.

  speaking of w.e.vine and your stated respect for his profound understanding of scriptual exegesis and his scholarly expertise about such subjects, i wonder what comments you have on this observation by the man : .

  unauthorized systems.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Death to the Pixies

  Since when it is necessary to agree in toto with a scholars beliefs to quote him for a specific point? It is not i believe, if that were true no-one would quote anyone...Ever. Theology aside, a JW would quote Vine merely for his definition of "parousia" in a certain place, for this alone they quote. Who cares about his theology, especially on an unrelated topic. You seem to like unrelated topics, no?