Your comments on the dating of 539 BCE 1492 CE are correct and it boils down to the biblical chronologist making a selection of what secular data is of value. It could be argued that this is inconsistent but that depends on the methodology the scholar chooses to use and his worldview. As I have said there is a twenty year gap between both methods and I view this that secular chronology is only able to approximate the date for the fall of Jerusalem discovery of America as 586/587 1492 and biblical chronology prophecy determines the date as 607 1512. By adopting this approach I have no trouble in harmonizing the two and recognize the inherent value of both the secular evidence and the biblical evidence. Therefore my faith is not disturbed by the absurd claims made by higher critics and apostates who stupidly say that 607 1512 is incorrect.
Leolaia
JoinedPosts by Leolaia
-
63
PLEASE HELP! Assist in 1914 Rebuttal...
by Jared inok, so i'm trying to just plant a tiny seed of doubt somewhere in the cracks of my mothers mind, but that woman has 'jehovah' tattooed on her chest!
anyway, i would not only like help for her benefit but also for my benefit.
so it all started when i questioned her about 1914.... i wrote to her: 'as you had suggested i wanted to do some research.
-
-
Leolaia
-
59
Bible Mind Control is,,, Faith: belief in the unprovable,which,is glorified
by frankiespeakin in.
the bible gives faith a very high value and make faith in god a virtue that is rewarded with everlasting life.
this,,, is what gives the bible strong power,,, over the mind causeing it not to think clearly and see the clever control faith is.
-
-
Leolaia
Sorry sparky "I will establish" is not present tense. They had no agreement. Abraham got the actual covenant after trying to kill his son it is in the bible plain as day. Also "because it is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned. I will make the son of the maidservant into a nation also, because he is your offspring." The son of the maidservant is Ishmael. Like I said 2 corpses would have meant faith.
Huh? Help me out here....How is saying "I will establish my covenant with him" not "promising anything"?? And how is future tense inconsistent with making a promise? If the dean of the law school says, "I will see to it that your son will be admitted", that is somehow not a promise? Remember, your claim was that Abraham had nothing to place faith in. Even if somehow you were to argue on a technicality that God's promise was not really a promise, Abraham would still have no reason to expect anything to come with respect to his son Isaac that would be inconsistent with killing him? I don't follow you....
-
59
Bible Mind Control is,,, Faith: belief in the unprovable,which,is glorified
by frankiespeakin in.
the bible gives faith a very high value and make faith in god a virtue that is rewarded with everlasting life.
this,,, is what gives the bible strong power,,, over the mind causeing it not to think clearly and see the clever control faith is.
-
-
Leolaia
Abraham had faith in what exactly? He was about to kill his son in an act of human sacrifice to make his God happy something very common back then. He was also not promised anything until he tried to kill his son.
Wrong. "The matter distressed Abraham greatly because it concerned his son. But God said to him, "Do not be so distressed about the boy and your maidservant. Listen to whatever Sarah tells you, because it is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned. I will make the son of the maidservant into a nation also, because he is your offspring" (Genesis 20:11-13). Compare also 17:19: "God said, "Yes, your wife Sarah will bear you a son, and you will call him Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him."
-
15
Lies, all lies!!!
by LittleToe ini mentioned, in a recent thread, that one booklet in particular helped me shed some misconceptions about the wts.
it was regarding whether or not they were just misguided, or intentionally deceptive.. the booklet "exposing 'should you believe the trinity'" was what did it for me, solely on the basis of scholastic integrity (not the trinity doctrine, which has been "done to death" on many other threads).. .
the following site makes similar points, and references said booklet:.
-
-
Leolaia
I faded. I was never baptised and so they can't disfellowship me. And I never tendered my resignation as a witness. I simply moved to a different locale, and when the witnesses from the local cong came to my door to welcome me to their cong, I told them they must've gotten the wrong address! And I never heard from them again.
-
15
Lies, all lies!!!
by LittleToe ini mentioned, in a recent thread, that one booklet in particular helped me shed some misconceptions about the wts.
it was regarding whether or not they were just misguided, or intentionally deceptive.. the booklet "exposing 'should you believe the trinity'" was what did it for me, solely on the basis of scholastic integrity (not the trinity doctrine, which has been "done to death" on many other threads).. .
the following site makes similar points, and references said booklet:.
-
-
Leolaia
Mulan....Here is one example. Can someone with the WT CD-ROM help find the original text? There was a 1990 article on Irenaeus that claimed that he did not believe Jesus to be God and quoted him as distinguishing clearly between God and Jesus, where he said that there was "one God, the Father Almighty, who made the heaven and the earth and the seas, and all that is in them, and one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who was made flesh for our salvation". That seems pretty clear, doesn't it? Except the WT was quoting two-thirds of a triadic formula which a few sentences later declared Jesus to be God! Here is the full quote:
"Now the Church, although scattered over the whole civilized world to the ends of the earth, received from the apostles and their disciples its faith in one God, the Father Almighty, who made the heaven, and the earth, and the seas, and all that is in them, and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who was made flesh for our salvation, and in the Holy Spirit, who through the prophets proclaimed the dispensations of God--the comings, the birth of a virgin, the suffering, the resurrection from the dead, and the bodily reception into the heavens of the beloved, Christ Jesus our Lord, and his coming from the heavens in the glory of the Father to restore all things, and to raise up all flesh, that is, the whole human race, so that every knee may bow, of things in heaven and on earth and under the earth, to Christ Jesus our Lord and God and Savior and King, according to the pleasure of the invisible Father, and every tongue may confess him, and that he may execute righteous judgment on all." (Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses, 1.10.1; the italicized words are quoted in the 1990 WT)
Neither was Irenaeus unclear as to the deity of Christ in other passages:
"God became man, and it was the Lord himself who saved us." (Adversus Haereses, 3.21.1)
"How can they be saved unless he was God who wrought their salvation on earth? And how shall man pass to God unless God has passed into man (pos anthropos khoresei eis theon ei me ho theos ekhorethe eis anthropon)." (Adversus Haereses, 4.33.4)
"Therefore the Father is Lord, and the Son is Lord, and the Father is God and the Son is God; for he who is born from God is God. And thus God (i.e. the Godhead) is shown to be one according to the essence of His being and power; but at the same time, as the administrator of the economy of our redemption, he is both Father and Son: since the Father of all is invisible and inaccessible to creatures, it is through the Son that those who are to approach God must have access to the Father." (Proof of the Apostolic Preaching, 47)
Can someone also post what the Trinity broshure claims that Irenaeus believed? It should make for an interesting comparison.
-
15
Lies, all lies!!!
by LittleToe ini mentioned, in a recent thread, that one booklet in particular helped me shed some misconceptions about the wts.
it was regarding whether or not they were just misguided, or intentionally deceptive.. the booklet "exposing 'should you believe the trinity'" was what did it for me, solely on the basis of scholastic integrity (not the trinity doctrine, which has been "done to death" on many other threads).. .
the following site makes similar points, and references said booklet:.
-
-
Leolaia
I should get that booklet. My situation was exactly like yours...the dishonesty in the Trinity broshure was the last straw for me. By that time I had already become quite knowledgable of christology and what the church fathers taught, so when I first laid my eyes on the booklet I saw right through the deception and realized how thoroughgoing the dishonesty was. I thought, "And they expect me to sell this door to door as the truth?" I refused to go to book studies when it was being considered, as I knew I could not remain silent while people mindlessly repeated one distortion after another. Towards the end, I compiled together a massive corpus of quotes from the Church Fathers in case the elders questioned me on my misgivings towards the Society, but it never came to that.
And it wasn't just the booklet. At the same time, the Watchtower had a series of articles on the faithful and wonderful Christian martyrs and leaders like Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Papias, and Irenaeus, and I recall their use of primary sources was as shifty there as in the Trinity broshure.
-
19
Witnesses Are Always Made To Feel They're Not Doing Enough
by minimus inone way the watchtower gets into people's heads is by making them feel that they're unworthy, not good enough, inferior.
" that is the chant of circuit overseers and elders all around the world.
nobody could keep up the pace that the watchtower has given its followers.
-
-
Leolaia
Well, God's kindness is "undeserved", isn't it? That's what it says in the New World Translation. Elsewhere: Yeah, when I was in the bOrg in the '80s, I made a similar connection to the song, especially the part about "running around in circles" and children waiting for a happy birthday which even we didn't get. That was a great album. There was another song called the "Prisoner" which also perfectly captured my feelings:
The Prisoner
Here behind the wall
I feel so small
Breathing but not preceiving
Here anger is me
Love sets me free
Feeling and not believing
Here in my mind
Biding my time
Waiting but not relating
Here anger is me
Love sets me free
The Prisoner is now escapingSo apt!
-
21
When did early church "fathers" first unequivocally write of Trinity?
by True North inanyone know when the early church "fathers" first unequivocally wrote of the trinity?
how about when they first unequivocally wrote of the unitarian/arian viewpoint?
and when did one view versus the other first become an issue?
-
-
Leolaia
Yep, that is a good way of putting it, Narkissos. Perhaps there was as much a gulf between Tertullian's trinity and the Nicene trinity of the fourth century as there was between Tertullian's theology and that of Paul or John. Tertullian had a trinitarian doctrine, but it was far different from that of the later creeds.
-
21
When did early church "fathers" first unequivocally write of Trinity?
by True North inanyone know when the early church "fathers" first unequivocally wrote of the trinity?
how about when they first unequivocally wrote of the unitarian/arian viewpoint?
and when did one view versus the other first become an issue?
-
-
Leolaia
ThiChi.....True North was asking when the church fathers first expressed such a doctrine, not when it was "solidly established" as a creed which was of course much later. And it is absolutely true that other Ante-Nicene and Nicene Fathers had "other views" on Christ's deity.... I especially noted at the outset how complex the situation was, with many different trinitarian conceptions, and of course many other non-trinitarian conceptions as well. I nowhere implied that the views of the few Fathers I mentioned were generally held by Christians, and while the precise interpretation of the Fathers has been a matter of debate for hundreds of years, the samples I quoted show sufficiently that the views of Irenaeus, Tertullian, and others were intermediate in the developments that led to the later Trinity doctrine, and I hope I have given a fair, if not rough, characterization of them.
On second edit: I'm not sure if this is quite what you mean, but viewing the whole lot of Ante-Nicene and Nicene literature as hopelessly forged is a highly extreme position and a rather untenable one in my opinion. Why forge writings from esteemed Fathers that would be considered practically heretical in the fourth century....why not put current Nicene doctrine in their mouths? Why make them teach mongrel, proto-Trinitarian doctrine that reeks of monarchism and other heresies? Why not make earlier writers like Justin Martyr at least use terms like "trinity" and "person"? While some interpolation and forgery is possible and even likely, one would have to invalidate a vast body of literature covering at least two centuries involving many different writers, expressing their own distinctive, individual points of view, in order to maintain that the Trinity doctrine of the fourth century was not preceded by a long period of gradual theological development, and was foisted on Christianity at a late date. It's not just a matter of "here a little, there a little". What a terrible job of forgery they did anyway -- they couldn't even put the Nicene creed or a similar formulation in these purportedly early works at all! And that runs counter to the normal development of religious doctrines; ideas like that do not suddenly come out of nowhere and take hold. I see no reason to throw out the window 250 years of theological history on the account of a few forged works of the fourth and fifth centuries.....where there's smoke there's usually fire.... And all autographs to all writings have been lost to history....everything is copies of copies, and so the Ante-Nicene writings are not different in this regard from any other ancient writing.
And while some modern trinitarians may claim that "all was well" and the apostolic teaching continued unchanged, this is not at all what we find in the Ante-Nicene writings which attest a gradual change in doctrine as orthodox Christians attempted to define and redefine their faith and assert their belief as "truth" in the face of competing christologies and theologies from Gnostics, Jews, and even fellow orthodox. They attest just the sort of drift and doctrinal change which you argue took place.
-
21
When did early church "fathers" first unequivocally write of Trinity?
by True North inanyone know when the early church "fathers" first unequivocally wrote of the trinity?
how about when they first unequivocally wrote of the unitarian/arian viewpoint?
and when did one view versus the other first become an issue?
-
-
Leolaia
Let me put this early conception of the Trinity by Tertullian in simple terms. Those who criticize the Trinity as assuming three gods and lampoon it mathematically as 1 + 1 + 1 = 3 fail to understand what the doctrine is claiming. Addition makes the a priori assumption that what is being added is already divided. But Tertullian says there is no division within God; the Son is one with the Father. Rather the Son is extended from the Father, just as the Holy Spirit is extended as well. Imagine an amoeba. It is a single entity, all of the same organic substance. Then it extends forth two legs. There is no division and the extensions have the same substance as the rest of the amoeba. But at the same time, the two extensions are recognizable as parts of the amoeba and they each have a distinctive function. We can think of the same thing regarding our own body. Our arms are extensions that allow us to interact with the world in a certain way, by holding onto things, pressing on things, removing things, etc. Our legs are different extensions that have a different function, they allow the body to move from place to place, to dance, etc. Our arms and legs are equally parts of our body, they are just as much our "body" as any other body part, and they are not external to our body. No one would say that our arms and legs make up four different bodies! They are united in one body. This is the point Tertullian was making. God has eternally had both Power and Reason (Logos); these were always attributes of God. These are uncreated attributes but without an external universe, God and his attributes were all there was; there was nothing for his Power to act on and nothing for his Reason to produce. But it was when God created the universe that Power and Reason extended from the Father to interact with the external universe. Tertullian observed that the Gospel of John claimed that the Logos made all things, and according to Genesis, creation occurred through God's utterance. Thus the Logos was emitted from the Father, just as an utterance is emitted from one's mind, and it was this newly-begotten and extended Logos that also extended God's Power and created the universe. Thus the Holy Spirit was extended from the Father through the Son, and the Son was extended from the Father through his utterance. And once the world was created, the Holy Spirit and the Son remained the means through which the Father interacted with the world. Thus the Son was incarnated and revealed the Father. And it is through having the Spirit that Christians can "be in the Father". In no sense was there any division of substance in all of this.
As you can see, this conception draws heavily on Platonic philosophy but to be fair, the concept of the Logos in John and the Wisdom-derived conceptions of the Son in Colossians and Hebrews draw on such philosophy as well. Later trinitarian theology abandoned such a naturalistic and even anthropomorphic conception of the Trinity in favor of more abstract esoteric formulazations, but these later theologians were building on, tinkering with, and revising what Tertullian and Irenaeus had already conceptualized (e.g. by rejected generation at creation and positing eternal generation). To be sure, these formulations can be justly criticized as extrabiblical and even reinterpreting what NT writers meant. But misrepresenting the Trinity as equivalent to 1 + 1 + 1 = 3 is doing nothing more than setting up a straw man entirely irrelevant to the doctrine itself, as Tertullian deftly refuted this thinking 1,800 years ago!!