I seldom read what asq writes. He copies it from Catholic sources, ignores the Bible's content, advocates a religion that isn't Christian except in name only. I think he fears the Bible.
Posts by vienne
-
19Not only the ORG who perverts Scriptures!
by BoogerMan injohn 14:6 - "jesus said to him, “i am the way, the truth, and the life.
no one comes to the father except through me.".
certain christian denominations lie & contradict jesus' crystal clear statement, by promoting the following dogma:.
-
-
-
78
God, one person, or three?
by slimboyfat inthe trinity doctrine says god is three persons in one being.. yet the bible says god is one.. gal 3.20 a mediator, however, implies more than one party; but god is one.
niv.
gal 3.20 now a mediator is not for just one person, but god is one.
-
-
vienne
aqwsed12345 perhaps if you stuck the the Scriptures alone instead of reading The Catholic Encyclopedia, you might occasionally make a valid point.
-
78
God, one person, or three?
by slimboyfat inthe trinity doctrine says god is three persons in one being.. yet the bible says god is one.. gal 3.20 a mediator, however, implies more than one party; but god is one.
niv.
gal 3.20 now a mediator is not for just one person, but god is one.
-
-
vienne
Three states does not represent the Trinity doctrine. Trinitarians do not teach that Father, Son, Holy Ghost are one person in three states.
-
88
Who Was The Biggest Jackass Circuit Overseer You Ever Met?
by Sea Breeze inthere was on older white-haired circuit overseer in houston around 1989 or 1990. last name started with a w i think.... not sure though.
even the most brain-dead robotic elders told me he was offensive.
.
-
-
vienne
Nonsense. If you're saying Witnesses do not believe that the New Covenant is for forgiveness of sins, you're wrong. And you miss the point of my post. Simply condemning Witness theology without refutation is a waste of time and a false path. That will not change a Witness' belief, especially if she is moderately informed. Within their explanations of New Covenant doctrine is I John 2:1-3, which says according to their Bible: "My little children, I am writing you these things that you may not commit a sin. And yet, if anyone does commit a sin, we have a helper with the Father, Jesus Christ, a righteous one. And he is a propitiatory sacrifice for our sins, yet not for ours only but also for the whole world’s. And by this we have the knowledge that we have come to know him, namely, if we continue observing his commandments."
They emphasize "our sins" in contrast to "the whole world's." Their belief is that the "our" addresses anointed Christians, and 'the whole world" everyone else, making or marking two groups. Good theology? Simply shrugging this off as wrong-headed theology is insufficient. Refute scripturally, or anything said in rejection is meaningless
In their favor here is the difference between a propitiatory sacrifice and a covenant. A propitiatory sacrifice is "peace making." A covenant is an agreement between carefully defined parties. An example is the Law Covenant made between the descendants of Jacob and God. Others benefited from it - the strangers in the land for instance - but were not parties to the covenant.
The issue here is: Is the New Covenant between a closely defined group within Christianity or does it encompass all Christians? Even if we thoroughly disagree with Witness doctrine here, we cannot say they limit forgiveness of sins only to the anointed. Clearly they do not.
There are other issues, of course. Sanctification, justification, new birth. But when considering between whom the New Covenant was made, those are a bit irrelevant. We fail if we limit our message to ranting condemnation and do not scripturally refute. Just saying, "Bad, bad, bad" is insufficient.
-
88
Who Was The Biggest Jackass Circuit Overseer You Ever Met?
by Sea Breeze inthere was on older white-haired circuit overseer in houston around 1989 or 1990. last name started with a w i think.... not sure though.
even the most brain-dead robotic elders told me he was offensive.
.
-
-
vienne
They don't reject it. They see it differently than you do. The difference is not a rejection. Instead, they focus on a narrow definition of the parties to the covenant. Historically this traces from a narrow set of 18th and 19th Century Anglican Clergy and German Evangelicals.
They teach that all Christians benefit from the Covenant.
Are they right? Sigh. Many think not. Does it disqualify them as Christians? Christianity has been very diverse since Paul's day. God will determine who and what he accepts. That's not up to us. We are responsible, however, for what we believe and teach.
Presuming that Witness definition of the New Covenant is not what Paul taught is insufficient. If we're going to argue it out with Witnesses we must present proof, not merely citing Galatians. They, of course, could cite those verses and apply them to you.
-
88
Who Was The Biggest Jackass Circuit Overseer You Ever Met?
by Sea Breeze inthere was on older white-haired circuit overseer in houston around 1989 or 1990. last name started with a w i think.... not sure though.
even the most brain-dead robotic elders told me he was offensive.
.
-
-
vienne
I was with mom when she met K. Little. So my opinion is based on a childhood memory. But I liked him then. Neither mom nor I were ever Witnesses though, and had we been my opinion might be different.
My Austrian-born Great Grandmother was a Witness. She died before I was born. I have aunts who are Witnesses, and two of my sisters are. Uncles by marriage and my one living grand uncle are Witnesses, most of them elders. There's a wide mix of personalities and sensibleness. One of my uncles by marriage is ... 'off.' He makes me uncomfortable, and I can't imagine anyone asking him for Scriptural counsel. A distant cousin -first cousin twice removed is the technical term - is at Warwick Bethel. I'd never ask him for 'scriptural help' either. This is the long path around my point: Personalities and a sense of entitlement differ among Witnesses in general and among Watchtower Elders. Some are 'gems,' and some are incurable fools..
-
26
Why Was WT OK with Blood Transfusions for over 65 Years Before Banning?
by Sea Breeze inblood transfusion history.
1665 the first recorded successful blood transfusion occurs in england: physician richard lower keeps dogs alive by transfusion of blood from other dogs.. 1818 james blundell performs the first successful blood transfusion of human blood to treat postpartum hemorrhage.. 1840 the first whole blood transfusion to treat hemophilia is successfully completed.. 1900 karl landsteiner discovers the first three human blood groups, a, b and o.. 1902 landsteiner’s colleagues, alfred decastello and adriano sturli, add a fourth blood type, ab.. 1907 blood typing and cross matching between donors and patients is attempted to improve the safety of transfusions.
the universality of the o blood group is identified.. 1914 adolf hustin discovers that sodium citrate can anticoagulate blood for transfusion, allowing it to be stored and later transfused safely to patients on the battlefield.. 1932 the first blood bank is established at leningrad hospital.. 1939-1940 the rh blood group is discovered and recognized as the cause behind most transfusion reactions.. 1940 the us government establishes a nationwide blood collection program.. so from the beginning of the watchtower being printed in 1879, they were ok with blood transfusions until 1945. what caused this?
-
-
vienne
As my mom had it in her research notes, two Witness doctors in Arizona had a Witness patient that refused blood based on Acts 15:29. The wrote to the Society hoping for an answer that would encourage their patient to take a needed blood transfusion. The Society's response was that Christians should not take blood; the 1945 blood articles followed. Rejection of blood transfusion was reflexive, a response to outside question. In this the Society followed the example set in 1935 over flag salute where a letter from a young person prompted a review of the matter.
-
5
In Defense of the Crusades
by aqwsed12345 inchristians in the eleventh century were not paranoid fanatics.
muslims really were gunning for them.
by the time the crusades started, muslims had already captured two-thirds of the christian world.
-
-
vienne
there's a movie based on the Siege of Vienne and Sobieski's part in it. Fun move.
-
5
In Defense of the Crusades
by aqwsed12345 inchristians in the eleventh century were not paranoid fanatics.
muslims really were gunning for them.
by the time the crusades started, muslims had already captured two-thirds of the christian world.
-
-
vienne
I agree, this is too long for this type of forum. It should find a place on a focused blog where readers expect something like this.
And it's his first post that isn't totally filled with logic flaws and false reasoning. There are some good points here, the best of which is noting the need to put things in their proper historical context. One of the few modern writers to do this when considering the Crusades - and to comment on the need - is Richard Fletcher in his The Cross and the Crescent.
Aqw is - in my critical opinion - primarily an autodidact. Nothing wring with that except that it tends to produce writers who stuff words in a shotgun and shoot them at the page. I'd much rather see articles like this but in a much more concise form.
-
22
My latest letter to the WT organization
by Kosonen inmay 14, 2024. hello brothers at the writing committee.
many brothers and sisters are wondering when will the end come?
we were supposed to live in the last days of the last days as brother lett told a couple of years ago.
-
-
vienne
I doubt he will get a response. I interviewed someone from the writing department. Among the things he said was, "We don't answer every letter we receive." But if they do answer, I'd love to see it.
A claim to divine anointing means nothing to them. Many claim that, and there is no way to prove it.