Anony Mous

Joined

• started 110 topics
• posted 3,317 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Anony Mous

• 
  171

  Alteration of Revelation 3:14 in the 4th century to support the emerging Trinity doctrine

  by slimboyfat in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  in an earlier thread another poster asserted that there is no evidence that revelation 3:14 played a part in the 4th controversy that led to the trinity doctrine.

  this was claimed as evidence that the description of jesus as “the beginning of the creation of god” in the verse was not understood to mean that jesus was god’s first creation.

  the scholarly greek–english lexicon of the new testament & other early christian literature 3e (2001) by bauer, arndt, gingrich, and danker, in its latest edition states that “first creation” is indeed the probable meaning of the greek phrase.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Anony Mous

  @duran: the last post you linked to the MEV version of the Bible (a retranslation of the KJV that attempts to be inclusive for modern Christian thoughts) and stated that you could not be rebutted because you only made claims from scripture as if what you had quoted up to that point could not be rebutted (claim to authority)

  But it is exactly the WTBTS interpretation and translation of scripture that is being rebutted. Nobody is saying that the scripture doesn’t state certain things, but that in and of itself does not provide any meaning to the text. The WTBTS uses the same format to “stump” lay people that aren’t educated on Biblical/Christian history, translation but then in that interpretation you are yourself jumping back and forth between literal and figurative speech. You can’t have it both ways, either the entire thing is figurative and the meaning of the numbers have a meaning that has probably been lost to time, or meant something specific related to the customs and culture of that day (eg 1000 years from now, people will find reference to Swifties, which without cultural context could mean lots of things). Or it is read literal and then you can’t turn days into years and beasts into specific organizations that did not exist yet and you likewise can’t just jump from sentence to sentence across books and string together a coherent story.

  Pick one of the books you want to make an argument about and then from the same book, string together the context about the idea that was being conveyed. If the King of the North is not the widely believed to be physically the King of the North at the time of writing, then prove that from the book of Daniel. The context of Daniel then would make clear that this is not written for the Jews as a warning and message of hope, John of Patmos largely rewrote the story for early Christians with similar messaging, which clearly does not indicate the same message because the numbers are different, but the story itself is important. Were it a prophecy, the numbers would be the same, except there is pretty strong evidence the numbers 666 was a transliteration of Nero Caesar, likely Daniel had similar coding which was lost to time. So the story stayed the same, the characters changed, it is possible history repeats itself but those numbers would have to change for every large empire.
• 
  28

  Pre-Nicene christians and the trinity

  by joey jojo in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  this is just a quick summary that might be useful regarding the threads about the trinity currently on the board.. in 325 ce, the nicene council was called by constantine to settle schisms within the christian church.

  the argument about the nature of jesus in relation to god was one of the big problems that needed resolution.

  at first, constantine told the 2 main players, alexander and arius to sort it out between themselves, as he, constantine didnt see it as overly important.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Anony Mous

  @SeaBreeze, my point you did not understand: People are missing the point entirely.

  The question was about the trinity at the Nicene Council, the one Arian participated in, he lost the argument, but did not argue there was no trinity, he believed there was one supreme god in the beginning that then created and made himself into the triune god as his first creation. This isn’t too crazy in the eyes of a people that largely came from polytheism.

  As far as the arguments of a trinity being pagan: yes, that is an argument I have made prior to the fact many religions have come to the same conclusion about deities and their connection to humanity, both influenced and independent, you can find references to various trinity even in cultures that did not have influence from Christians or Greeks and Romans. Therefore my claim is that scientifically speaking there is a basic symbolic “truth” to it, for stable societies to exist people should understand that a God is not disconnected but has progressive human (youth, vigor, sons) properties and a logos (spirit, word, teachings) and a father (wisdom, knowledge) property that needs to be balanced and influence each other for humans to thrive.
• 
  171

  Alteration of Revelation 3:14 in the 4th century to support the emerging Trinity doctrine

  by slimboyfat in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  in an earlier thread another poster asserted that there is no evidence that revelation 3:14 played a part in the 4th controversy that led to the trinity doctrine.

  this was claimed as evidence that the description of jesus as “the beginning of the creation of god” in the verse was not understood to mean that jesus was god’s first creation.

  the scholarly greek–english lexicon of the new testament & other early christian literature 3e (2001) by bauer, arndt, gingrich, and danker, in its latest edition states that “first creation” is indeed the probable meaning of the greek phrase.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Anony Mous

  @aqswed: it is hard to engage with someone who repeatedly uses the WTBTS mistranslation of the NT to prove a point, they intentionally rewrote large swathes to conform the text to their theology. I’ve quoted the Greek text and got ignored, instead making a statement sourced from the WTBTS that the WTBTS translation is accurate.

  I’ve given up, the text is irrefutable in the original Greek, yes there are other texts that SEEM to negate that IF you ignore the meaning of the original Greek words and only read the English without understanding the symbolism and the OT. The problem with those texts is if you accept the original text you then must also accept the divine nature of man, divinity of Christ, immortal soul, existence of hell etc, also written out of the WTBTS translation.

  When they stop linking to WOL as their proof, then you can engage in discussion.
• 
  7

  After Trump appointee RFK Jr. gets flouride removed from water

  by SydBarrett in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Anony Mous

  @NotFormer: Fluorine in the water is mandated by the Federal government (FDA). It was an experiment performed under the Manhattan Project under the guise that it was to improve oral health, really, it was human subject testing on widespread atomic contamination (this wasn’t the only human subject testing that went on, in various places .

  Strong Memorial Hospital

  Located at the University of Rochester, this hospital was the site of a field office called the “Manhattan Annex” that focused on health-related issues. The hospital was involved in a series of controversial experiments that injected patients with plutonium and uranium to study how the body expels radioactive materials.

  
  

  • University of California San Francisco

    One of the hospitals where patients were injected with radioactive elements.
• University of Chicago

  One of the hospitals where patients were injected with radioactive elements.
• Manhattan District Hospital

  Located in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, this hospital was involved in the plutonium experiments.
• Massachusetts General Hospital

  Injected patients with uranium between 1953 and 1957.