Posts by godrulz

33

How many times was Christ begotten?

by GOrwell in

in light of all the recent trinity threads, how many times do you think christ was begotten?.

godrulz

3.1416?

We do not have a problem, but monogenes (only begotten) is not the same as begotten in reference to His resurrection, etc.

The generation of the Son and procession of the Spirit is more Catholic, philosophical than explicitly biblical. We know the Son is uncreated. We know that WT is wrong about thinking beginning/firstborn/begotten has something to do with being created. We also know that Deity/humanity in one person is unique. We know parameters, not exhaustive details. We also know that He was the Christ from birth, not from baptism (WT error).

93

The JW's dependence on WT literature.

by Knowsnothing in

godrulz

At least Mormons prioritize placing the Book of Mormon which they consider Scripture. They consider it an evangelistic tool on par with the Bible (but they are dead wrong). WT places bad commentaries of the Bible as if it is almost on par with Scripture. Giving their poor track record with pseudo-scholarship (misquoting authorities, prooftexts out of context), people should see through it and find better Bible tools to aid interpretation (reading the Bible is sufficient on essentials, but some original language, cultural issues require aids for clarity on peripheral issues).

29

Is Matthew 24 future or fulfilled?

by Vanderhoven7 in

i believe the wts has completely misapplied matthew 24:1-35. .

i believe the scripture is quite clear that jesus was speaking to his own generation and not some obscure future or 1914 generation.. if you happen to be a jw and/or futurist, what makes you believe jesus was talking about events that would transpire in the 20th/21st century?.

vander.

godrulz

Most of Mt. 24-25 is yet future (a verse or two is about 70 A.D.). It is the time preceding His yet future Second Coming after Armageddon, Daniel's 70th week described in Rev. 6-19. It relates to Israel, not the present Church Age. Preterists are wrong and must rely on a subjective allegorical interpretation. Futurists are correct using a normative literal approach. WT is totally off track to read in dates from the 1800s, 1900s, 2000s into here and Rev. Their chronology is indefensible and constantly changing from Barbour/Russell/Rutherford ff.

93

The JW's dependence on WT literature.

by Knowsnothing in

godrulz

The WT has flip flopped (e.g. Rom. 13) interpretations on many issues and have had strange, allegorical interpretations in the past. Their understanding of Revelation is bizarre and changing. To make affirmation of present, false teaching a condition of paradise (that may change in the future) is insane.

93

The JW's dependence on WT literature.

by Knowsnothing in

godrulz

The Catholic church is not the problem if it means the universal church (creed). It is a problem if it means the Roman Catholic Church. Some unbiblical concerns would include purgatory, rosary, papacy, apostolic succession, indulgences, Mass/transubstantiation, Scripture+Tradition, sacramentalism (infant baptism=born again, etc.), faith+works, praying to saints, Marian issues, etc.

Is faith in Jesus Christ sufficient for salvation or do we have to be part of the Catholic Church to be saved?

136

Theology

by sabastious in

jw
friends

theology is the study of religion and religions are human systems of spirituality.

it could then be said that theology is the study of the applications of human spirituality.

human spirituality is a chosen way of life.

godrulz

Fine, I watched the video and it was pretty much what I figured it would be after seeing a minute of it. I agree with a number of his points. He is not refuting Christianity, but making a case for my view related to the perseverance of the saints. Calvinists would use this loop hole that if one becomes an atheist, they were never a true Christian. As a free will theist, I reject OSAS (once saved always saved or POTS/unconditional perseverance of the saints). This is a big debate in Christian circles (JWs are hyper-not OSAS). Some people who claimed to be Christians were not actually regenerate believers, but nominally religious (and Christian as opposed to Muslim or Buddhist). Others were in fact born again (Charles Templeton...google him) and became atheists (tantamount to apostasy). So, this fallacy applies to the OSAS debate, not whether Christianity or atheism is the correct world view.

He also begs the question and assumes that there is no God to know or reveal Himself to man. If God is omnipotent (by definition and reality), He can communicate Himself to us in a written record and preserve it. IF there is no God, then it does become unreasonable. Jesus considered the OT to be the Word of God. He claimed to know God. People followed Jesus as the God-Man, Lord/Savior. After He died and rose again, hundreds testified to this space-time event. Now, hundreds of millions have come to know Him, not based on fallible humans, but the Holy Spirit directly dealing with us. People do preach and share the gospel, but this does not mean it is not truth from God that transforms lives.

Basically, the video is not persuasive about much and most of us understand the application of this logical fallacy and are not guilty of it (he responded to some misinformed people, possibly wrong Calvinistic types).

theoneminuteapologist (youtube/google) has good responses to atheists; Dawkins, Hitchens, etc. have been exposed as ignorant men on these things with specious arguments full of logical fallacies.

Genesis 1:1 simple, but profound cf. Jn. 1:1; Jn. 3:16 The bottom line is that God exists, Jesus is God risen from the dead. There are evidences for this, unlike the Flying Spaghetti Monster (another stupid argument). Blessed are those who have seen and believe. Even more blessed are those who believe despite not seeing with their natural eyes. Heb. 11:6 Faith is a factor, but it is not the blind existential Kierkegaardian leap of presumption in the dark. Believe that God exists and that He rewards those who seek Him. Those who suppress truth will still have to confess that Jesus is Lord in the end (Rom. 1; Phil. 2).

It is the fool (moral more than intellectual) who says that there is no God (Ps. 14:1).

He is there and He is not silent-Francis Schaeffer

93

The JW's dependence on WT literature.

by Knowsnothing in

godrulz

There are interesting parallels between WT and RC. Isidore: I trust that you have a love relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ and are not just a nominal, ritualistic, religious Catholic. Paul was not referring to the Roman Catholic Church (came much later in church history), but the universal, invisible Body of Christ (believers) and local church expressions of this reality. RC has to many extra/contrabiblical teachings, but I appreciate there defense of a sound doctrine of God/Christology. I also share common moral values (relating to abortion, homosexuality, etc., but have deep concerns about priesthood, child abuse, etc.).

136

Theology

by sabastious in

jw
friends

theology is the study of religion and religions are human systems of spirituality.

it could then be said that theology is the study of the applications of human spirituality.

human spirituality is a chosen way of life.

godrulz

Belief affects practice (orthodoxy/orthopraxy). If I am going to die for my faith like early and modern Christians have, I want to die for the truth, not a lie. Paul's letters were half doctrinal with the latter half being the devotional, practical outworking of it. We all do theology, but some do it well and others botch it up.

I want pure water, not polluted water (and I am the spawn of Satan for thinking this way?). At its extreme, bad theology leads to the end result of Jim Jones and David Koresh (not to mention the innocent deaths of those who embrace the JW blood error, a classic e.g. of bad theology/exegesis/practice).

93

The JW's dependence on WT literature.

by Knowsnothing in

godrulz

Take away their literature and most JWs could not play Bible hop scotch. I can use the Bible and talk circles around them (I have to go find someone who knows the answers). When they use their literature, they can talk circles around the uninformed public.

93

The JW's dependence on WT literature.

by Knowsnothing in

godrulz

Paul's statement was before the closing of the canon. He also said 2 Tim. 3:16. The Church (are you Catholic?) does defend the closed canon now, something Paul did not have for the NT when he said I Tim. Peter considered Paul's writings to be Scripture and inspired (2 Peter 3:16). The Church does defend and proclaim the source of truth, God's Word. No church is infallible (papacy, WT, LDS error) and no church tradition is on par with Scripture.

What is your faith background and what are you getting at?