Posts by FireNBandits

40

The NWT of John 1:1; Some Questions For Leolaia and Narkissos

by FireNBandits in

to get right to the point, acts 12:22 and 28:6 both contain an anarthrous occurence of "theos" or a derivative, depending on one's textual base.

in both instances these verses are rightfully rendered "a god" and not "god.

" why, then, the mainstream christian problem with the same anarthrous construction in john 1:1 being translated in the nwt as "the word was a god"?

FireNBandits

Dear Narkissos and Leolaia

Now that you've indulged me so thoroughly (and I have saved your comments to my PC as well as having mailed them to Jim Coram) could you indulge me further? I admit that I view the Bible, including the NT story of Jesus, as mythological. Having left Christianity and embraced several other paths for about eighteen years of my life, I'm back in the Christian camp, having re-embraced the mythology of my ancestors (of whom I am very proud). With that preamble out of the way, what is your (both Leo and Narkissos) assessment of Trinitarianism and Arianism as attemtps to synthesize the NT data? In Trinitarianism I also include the Christological definitions of Ephesus and Chalcedon (which the various fandamentalist and evangelical readers of this forum have unknowingly inherited to one degree or another)? I see them as truly brilliant, particularly Chalcedon, but also as synthetic in the negative sense. They seem artifical in that they do not seem to have been brought forth primarily in response to the theology of the writers of the NT, but in response to "heretics" and the heretical use and misue of proof-texts. In others words, they seem rather lifeless and brittle.

As an interesting aside, after explaining Chalcedonian Christology to a Brahman Hindu friend, he blurted out, "That's a perfect definition of an Avatar!"

Sincerely,
Martin

30

The Scientific Reasonableness Of Noah's Ark Demonstrated

by FireNBandits in

finally, someone in holland (where floods weigh heavily on the collective subconscious) has built a 1/5 scale model of noah's ark.

this proves that noah built the original ark.

if noah hadn't built the original ark, how could someone build a 1/5 scale model of it?

FireNBandits

Hey dedpoet. Do you think they actually believe they're God's Channel Of Truth? Do you think they're really that delusional? Perhaps you're correct and they are that delusional. However, I think that they're just cynical old men whose ideals and beliefs died a long time ago, and that's how they managed to rise to the top. (If you've ever been to a swamp, you'll recall that the scum always rises to the top.) If someone still has ideals there's no way they could be part of the GB. They'd be a "troublemaker." Someone with ideals tends to put their ideals above purely pragmatic considerations, and the GB are nothing if not pragmatists. That's why they would rather see children die than admit they were wrong about blood and open the WTS to litigation. The same with pedophilia in the midst of the glorious New World Society.

It would be grand to kidnap several of the top old men and inject them with sodium pentathol and ask them all sorts of questions before letting them scamper back to their fortress. Wouldn't THAT be a grand tape to distribute?

30

The Scientific Reasonableness Of Noah's Ark Demonstrated

by FireNBandits in

finally, someone in holland (where floods weigh heavily on the collective subconscious) has built a 1/5 scale model of noah's ark.

this proves that noah built the original ark.

if noah hadn't built the original ark, how could someone build a 1/5 scale model of it?

FireNBandits

AMEN! Finally a logical analysis of why it is completely illogical to logically analyze an illogical argument! Praise be to Jehovah and Noah and Shem and Ham and Gilligan and the Skipper, the Millionaire and his wife... the movie star, and the rest! But why did they have to save the Mosquitos?

FBF

Hey FBF. I'm still learning how this board works. Who did you have the hots for? Ginger or Maryann? Or, should I say, who did you have THE MOST hots for, Ginger or Maryann? My brother was in love with "Ginger" and I dug "Maryann." Gilligan I woulda prolly drowned when nobody was looking.

30

The Scientific Reasonableness Of Noah's Ark Demonstrated

by FireNBandits in

finally, someone in holland (where floods weigh heavily on the collective subconscious) has built a 1/5 scale model of noah's ark.

this proves that noah built the original ark.

if noah hadn't built the original ark, how could someone build a 1/5 scale model of it?

FireNBandits

Hey big! I'm glad you fell for it! At least part of it. The weirdest realization is that I'm only being slightly more whacky than the apologetic materials I've read on this topic. Josh McDowell has written things that peg him as certifiable. Or a con-man. There's big money to be made in repeating nonsense with "real" conviction.

30

The Scientific Reasonableness Of Noah's Ark Demonstrated

by FireNBandits in

finally, someone in holland (where floods weigh heavily on the collective subconscious) has built a 1/5 scale model of noah's ark.

this proves that noah built the original ark.

if noah hadn't built the original ark, how could someone build a 1/5 scale model of it?

FireNBandits

Those Dutchman ain't dumb, that's for sure. I've had some of their kind bud. I hope to have some more. Soon.

9

What allows JWs to use Jehovah (YHWY)

by wab07 in

i remember from past college courses that in the old testament the isrealites were not allowed to say god's name yhwy because it was too sacred, so they could only write it; therefore, they used el when saying god's name....correct?.....the jws seem to claim that they are the only religion to know god's name, but where do they get the right to say jehovah.

are there any scriptures that would confirm the change from only writing god's name to saying it?

i was just wondering about this questions because the jws have an answer for everthing....maybe i should ask one.

FireNBandits

I'd be willing to bet that Rabbis stil know how to properly pronounce the Tetragrammaton, they simply don't let the goyiim in on the secret because it would instantly be profaned.

17

A SCIENTIFIC COMMENTARY ON GENESIS 1

by FireNBandits in

it's worhy of note that john 1:1 is also anarthrous, "in beginning.

" this is because the bible doesn't tell us about the beginning or it would say "the" beginning.

an infinite series of beginnings being alluded to.. .

FireNBandits

I thought they turned "evangelical"?

20

Almost vomited this weekend

by sinis in

well, i grabed the pile of shit watchtower mags my wife has been bringing home and decided to look through a few since i had some down time this weekend.

i haven't read one in years... jesus christ i almost vomited!!!!

i cannot believe the shit they write!

FireNBandits

I'm with ex-nj-jw. Wash your hands.

40

The NWT of John 1:1; Some Questions For Leolaia and Narkissos

by FireNBandits in

to get right to the point, acts 12:22 and 28:6 both contain an anarthrous occurence of "theos" or a derivative, depending on one's textual base.

in both instances these verses are rightfully rendered "a god" and not "god.

" why, then, the mainstream christian problem with the same anarthrous construction in john 1:1 being translated in the nwt as "the word was a god"?

FireNBandits

Thank you Narkissos! Thank you again Leolaia! I've sent Jim Coram the entirety of this exchange up to this point and I'm hoping he'll weigh in and have his say. Yes, Leolaia, he is constructing a theology based on what he perceives to be the paradigm that best incorporates the biblical data. He embraced Arianism in his early twenties perhaps earlier. So, his theological musings are always in an Arian context. I went the other route in my early thirties and realized the NT doesn't stand alone in a cultural vacuum, it didn't drop out of the sky, but was produced by Theists in a definite cultural milieu. I learned that the current NT we have is the result of many factors and forces, including Catholic (both Roman and Byzantine) councils that were convened to settle the issue of the NT canon. So, I sought the Church that had made those decisions/pronouncements as that is where any authority the NT has ultimately springs from, historically speaking. I opted for the Eastern Orthodox Church, and studied as much as I humanly could the many influences that led to the synthesis we call Catholicism/Orthodoxy. I read the ante and post Nicene Fathers up until the Great Schism, and I gave my full attention to the various Biblical texts that bear on Arianism/Modalism/Trinitarianism and read what was available to enable me to understand where these NT authors were “coming from” so to speak.

I came away firmly convinced that any "solution" I could come up with has already been fleshed out by others long before me. Trinitarianism does make sense of the data but in a very synthetic way. I use “synthetic” here in its negative sense of artificial. Hence, what I’m doing now is re-examining the NT as closely as I can, even attempting to learn Koine, out of fascination with Christianity and the NT. I have no delusions of actually solving anything. I don’t really see anything needing to be solved anyway. I simply want to more thoroughly understand what already is.

Thank you again, both of you, for indulging me.Sincerely,
Martin

40

The NWT of John 1:1; Some Questions For Leolaia and Narkissos

by FireNBandits in

to get right to the point, acts 12:22 and 28:6 both contain an anarthrous occurence of "theos" or a derivative, depending on one's textual base.

in both instances these verses are rightfully rendered "a god" and not "god.

" why, then, the mainstream christian problem with the same anarthrous construction in john 1:1 being translated in the nwt as "the word was a god"?

FireNBandits

Thank you nvr, but as you can see, Leolaia is in a different league entirely.