Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Matthew 26:39, death-blow to the Trinity

Expand Messages
  • muzzerbud
    Well put Louise. Just a quick note to Dave: I would suggest you study Hermeneutics... and look at scripture exigetically, instead of proof texting. The Triune
    Message 1 of 14 , Aug 24, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Well put Louise. Just a quick note to Dave: I would suggest you
      study Hermeneutics... and look at scripture exigetically, instead of
      proof texting. The Triune nature of God is in harmony with the
      entire counsel of Scripture.

      The Arian thinking (the denial of the diety of Christ) has been
      around for a very long time and continues to pervert the real truth.
      And the truth, you may ask? It's simple... God became flesh...
      willingly laid down his life for sinful man, so that though Jesus
      atoning death, man may once again have fellowship with a Holy and
      loving God.

      Muzz


      --- In biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com, Louise <mclouus@...>
      wrote:
      >
      > Goodness! This isn't any "death blow" to the Trinity at all.
      How in the world you come up with that is amazing.
      >
      > The scripture that you site where Jesus is asking the Father "to
      let this cup pass", is only because Jesus knew what He faced. He
      knew he faced a very painful and torturous death. I'm sure he knew
      exactly what His future was. If you could understand the humanity
      of Jesus, one can understand how Jesus would ask the Father if there
      was any other way for this to be done. I don't see this as Jesus
      desiring something that was contrary to the Father's will, but only
      asking if there would be an alternative way to get this job done.
      But I think Jesus already understood what He was supposed to do and
      carry out. There was not question about it. It was not in Jesus
      nature to contradict the will of the Father.
      >
      > It's no mystery to me.
      >
      > I still don't see how these scripture contradict the Trinity.
      >
      > Louise
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Dave Wave <empiricism101@...> wrote:
      > .
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > ---------------------------------
      > Get your own web address for just $1.99/1st yr. We'll help. Yahoo!
      Small Business.
      >
    • Paul Leonard
      The true belief has been around longer than either the Trinity or Arianism. The formulation “one God in three Persons” was not solidly established,
      Message 2 of 14 , Aug 24, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        The true belief has been around longer than either the Trinity or Arianism.

        The formulation “one God in three Persons” was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century...Among the Apostolic Fathers [Clement of Rome, Mathetes, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp, Papias, Barnabas(?)] there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective [of a Trinity doctrine].— (e.a.), Vol. XIV (14), p. 299. The New Catholic Encyclopedia


        THE ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA:
        Even after the elimination of Gnosticism...the Trinitarians and the Unitarians continued to confront each other, the latter [the Unitarians] at the beginning of the 3rd century still forming the large majority. (e.a.)—11th edition, 1910-11, Vol. XXXIII (33), p. 963; and ibid., 1892, Vol. XXI (21), p. 127.

        THE ENCYCLOPEDIA AMERICANA:Unitarianism as a theological movement ... antedated Trinitarianism by many decades. Christianity derived from Judaism and Judaism was strictly Unitarian. The road which led from Jerusalem [the location of the first Christian congregation] to Nicea was scarcely a straight one. Fourth century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding God; it [Trinitarianism] was, on the contrary, a deviation from this [early Christian] teaching. It [Trinitarianism] therefore developed against constant Unitarian or at least anti-Trinitarian opposition, and it was never  wholly victorious...Earl Morse Wilbur, in the introduction to his History of Unitarianism enumerates a number of anti-Trinitarian groups which deserve attention in this connection; among others he refers to the Ebionites, the Sabellians, the Samosatanians, and the Arians...it must be reemphasized that the concept God, understood as a single, undivided personality, precedes the Nicean notion of a Deity defined as three persons sharing one essence. Unitarianism is the early norm, Trinitarianism a latter deviation from this norm. It is therefore more proper to speak of Trinitarianism as an anti-Unitarian movement than of Unitarianism as an anti-Trinitarian mode of theological speculation. (e.a.)—1956, Vol. 27, p. 294L.

        muzzerbud <muzzerbud@...> wrote:
        Well put Louise. Just a quick note to Dave: I would suggest you
        study Hermeneutics. .. and look at scripture exigetically, instead of
        proof texting. The Triune nature of God is in harmony with the
        entire counsel of Scripture.

        The Arian thinking (the denial of the diety of Christ) has been
        around for a very long time and continues to pervert the real truth.
        And the truth, you may ask? It's simple... God became flesh...
        willingly laid down his life for sinful man, so that though Jesus
        atoning death, man may once again have fellowship with a Holy and
        loving God.

        Muzz



      • muzzerbud
        Paul: Thank you for your reply. I am guessing that you didn t go to the actual books you have quoted in your post (I am thinking you have obtained these quotes
        Message 3 of 14 , Aug 25, 2006
        • 0 Attachment

          Paul: Thank you for your reply. I am guessing that you didn't go to the actual books you have quoted in your post (I am thinking you have obtained these quotes from possibly a Watchtower publication).

          In response to the quote from the New catholic Encyclopedia, I respectfully submit a more complete passage as quoted (note that I have italicised and coloured red what was missing from your quote):

          From what has been seen thus far, the impression could arise that the Trinitarian dogma is in the last analysis a late 4th-century invention. In a sense, this is true; but it implies an extremely strict interpretation of the key words Trinitarian and dogma. Triadic Consciousness in the Primitive Revelation. The formulation "one God in three Persons" was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective; among the 2d-century Apologists, little more than a focusing of the problem as that of plurality within the unique Godhead. Not before Tertullian and Origen, early in the century following, had an attempt been made to solve the problem once raised by replying to the double question: in what sense is God one, in what sense three? And even then, results had been far from decisive. It is also true that, especially in the first decades of the 20th century, an excessively cautious Roman Catholic apologetics tended to whittle down these dividing lines by demonstrating another way of saying the same thing. "One God in three Persons" was simply a restatement, a legitimately condensed and compact version of the more loosely organized NT teaching. Key texts were cited in support, particularly the well-known mandate put on the lips of Christ in Mt 28.19-"baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." From the vocabulary and grammar of the Greek original, the intention of the hagiographer to communicate singleness of essence in three distinct Persons was easily derived.

          (The New Catholic Encyclopedia Vol XIV pages 299-230)

           

          As you can see there is quite a bit missing! I would have added the entire chapter, but that would take up too much space. I note also that the following has been added that was not part of the orginal text:

           

          [Clement of Rome, Mathetes, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp, Papias, Barnabas(?)]  and [of a Trinity doctrine].—

          I am sure you would agree with me that to misquote, leave out aspects of a passage and insert what is not there, could be considered dishonest and somewhat misleading. I would encourage you to go to your local public library and check this out for yourself, rather than take my word for it.

          As for the other references I am thinking that they too have been taken out of context and had aspects removed/added to pervert the writer's intended original meaning. I plan to go to the local library and check this out. I will reply next week once I have checked this.

          With that said, I would like to share with you some of what three of the early church fathers did indeed write:

          JUSTIN MARTYR (110-165)

          "For Christ is King, and Priest, and God and Lord, and angel and man, and captian, and stone, and a son born and first made subject to suffering, then returning to heaven, and again coming with glory, and he is preached as having the everlasting kingdom, so I prove from all the Scriptures."  (Dialogue with Trypho Chapter 34)

          IRENAEUS (120-202)

          "In order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Saviour, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, "every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess to Him," (Irenaeus Against Heresies p.330)

          IGNATIUS (30-107)

          For our God Jesus Christ, was, accoriding to the appointment of God, conceived in the womb of Mary, of the seed of David, but by the Holy Ghost." (Epistle of ignatius to the Ephesians Chapter 18)

          "Our Lord and God, Jesus Christ, the Son of the Loving God, first dd and then taught, as Luke testifies, "whose praise is in the Gospels through all the Churches." (Chapter 15)

          "Abstain from the poison of heretics... they are ashamed of his cross, they deny his passion, and they do not believe His resurrection. They introduce God as a being unknown; they suupose Christ to be unbegotten; and as to the Spirit, they do not admit he exists. Some of them sayt hat the Son is a mere man, and that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are but the same person, and that the creation is the work of God, not by Christ, but by some other strange power. Be on your Guard, therefore, strand against such persons, that ye admit not of a snare of your own souls. And act so that your life shall be without offense to all men, lest ye become as 'snare upon a watch-tower, and as a net which is spread out.'" Hosea 5:2 (Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians (Chapter 6 & 7)

          I kindly encourage you, dear friend, to check your references before making such a post, that they are indeed correct and not altered in any way to bring a bias of one's own personal theological stance.

          I leave you with these four scriptures to contemplate:

          Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today, and forever." (NWT Hebrews 13:8)

          "For there has been a child born to us, there has been a son given to us; and the princely rule will come to be upon his shoulder. And his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace."  (NWT Isaiah 9:6)

          "This is what Jehovah has said, the King of Israel and the Repurchaser of him, Jehovah of armies, `I am the first and I am the last, and besides me there is no God." (NWT Isaiah 44:6)

          "Behold, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to everyone according to what he has done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.  "Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city. Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood. "I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star."  (NIV Revelation 22:12-16)

          Regards

          Muzz

           

           


          --- In biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com, Paul Leonard <anotherpaul2001@...> wrote:
          >
          > The true belief has been around longer than either the Trinity or Arianism.
          >
          > The formulation "one God in three Persons" was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century...Among the Apostolic Fathers [Clement of Rome, Mathetes, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp, Papias, Barnabas(?)] there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective [of a Trinity doctrine].— (e.a.), Vol. XIV (14), p. 299. The New Catholic Encyclopedia
          >
          > THE ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA: Even after the elimination of Gnosticism...the Trinitarians and the Unitarians continued to confront each other, the latter [the Unitarians] at the beginning of the 3rd century still forming the large majority. (e.a.)—11th edition, 1910-11, Vol. XXXIII (33), p. 963; and ibid., 1892, Vol. XXI (21), p. 127.
          >
          >
          > THE ENCYCLOPEDIA AMERICANA:Unitarianism as a theological movement ... antedated Trinitarianism by many decades. Christianity derived from Judaism and Judaism was strictly Unitarian. The road which led from Jerusalem [the location of the first Christian congregation] to Nicea was scarcely a straight one. Fourth century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding God; it [Trinitarianism] was, on the contrary, a deviation from this [early Christian] teaching. It [Trinitarianism] therefore developed against constant Unitarian or at least anti-Trinitarian opposition, and it was never wholly victorious...Earl Morse Wilbur, in the introduction to his History of Unitarianism enumerates a number of anti-Trinitarian groups which deserve attention in this connection; among others he refers to the Ebionites, the Sabellians, the Samosatanians, and the Arians...it must be reemphasized that the concept God, understood as a single,
          > undivided personality, precedes the Nicean notion of a Deity defined as three persons sharing one essence. Unitarianism is the early norm, Trinitarianism a latter deviation from this norm. It is therefore more proper to speak of Trinitarianism as an anti-Unitarian movement than of Unitarianism as an anti-Trinitarian mode of theological speculation. (e.a.)—1956, Vol. 27, p. 294L.
          >
          > muzzerbud muzzerbud@... wrote: Well put Louise. Just a quick note to Dave: I would suggest you
          > study Hermeneutics... and look at scripture exigetically, instead of
          > proof texting. The Triune nature of God is in harmony with the
          > entire counsel of Scripture.
          >
          > The Arian thinking (the denial of the diety of Christ) has been
          > around for a very long time and continues to pervert the real truth.
          > And the truth, you may ask? It's simple... God became flesh...
          > willingly laid down his life for sinful man, so that though Jesus
          > atoning death, man may once again have fellowship with a Holy and
          > loving God.
          >
          > Muzz
          >

        • Paul Leonard
          Hi, Actually I posted the quote from a page of my own work. I have been studying this issue for over 30 years and made use of several seminary libraries.
          Message 4 of 14 , Aug 26, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            Hi,

            Actually I posted the quote from a page of my own work. I have been studying this issue for over 30 years and made use of several seminary libraries. Some info also came from others who did research and had the source material. Thus the brackets in the quote[Clement of Rome, Mathetes, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp, Papias, Barnabas(?)]  and [of a Trinity doctrine].— were from a "paper" I had previously written. I simply lifted the edited quote from my previous work. NOT from any WT publication.

            The full text does not change the thought at al. Note below in green:

            muzzerbud <muzzerbud@...> wrote:

            From what has been seen thus far, the impression could arise that the Trinitarian dogma is in the last analysis a late 4th-century invention. In a sense, this is true; but it implies an extremely strict interpretation of the key words Trinitarian and dogma. Triadic Consciousness in the Primitive Revelation. The formulation "one God in three Persons" was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective; among the 2d-century Apologists, little more than a focusing of the problem as that of plurality within the unique Godhead. Not before Tertullian and Origen, early in the century following, had an attempt been made to solve the problem once raised by replying to the double question: in what sense is God one, in what sense three? And even then, results had been far from decisive. It is also true that, especially in the first decades of the 20th century, an excessively cautious Roman Catholic apologetics tended to whittle down these dividing lines by demonstrating another way of saying the same thing. "One God in three Persons" was simply a restatement, a legitimately condensed and compact version of the more loosely organized NT teaching. Key texts were cited in support, particularly the well-known mandate put on the lips of Christ in Mt 28.19-"baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." From the vocabulary and grammar of the Greek original, the intention of the hagiographer to communicate singleness of essence in three distinct Persons was easily derived.
            (The New Catholic Encyclopedia Vol XIV pages 299-230)
            As you can see there is quite a bit missing! I would have added the entire chapter, but that would take up too much space. I note also that the following has been added that was not part of the orginal text:
            (Paul) The missing parts simply expand on WHY it was an not "assimilated" into Christian life prior to the 4th century. It was not in existence thenl.The fukll quote supports my contention that it was not the early teaching. In fact the full quote shows it was a speculation, un answered.
            The other quotes were also from my same work, but feel free to check them out and post the full section from the sopurce material as you did above, rather than my abbreviated ones to save space.
             




          • muzzerbud
            Hi Paul I had a quick read... again if you have done your own research (and I hope you are not engaging in Theocratic warfare!). You should know better than to
            Message 5 of 14 , Aug 26, 2006
            • 0 Attachment

              Hi Paul

              I had a quick read... again if you have done your own research (and I hope you are not engaging in Theocratic warfare!). You should know better than to misquote any reference you make, especially such as these. My reason for making the comment in regards to the Watchtower as being youre reference, they use these three particular quotes in reinforcing their Arian belief in one of their publications.

              As far as highlighting the green aspects, this again is being selective rather than taking into account the whole context of the passage.  It is dishonest to leave out critical parts of any quote, and even more dishonest to add what is not there. Any person can take what is written and change it's contextual meaning by adding/deleting text. The key in any quote/reference we make is that we are true to the original writings.

              I too have studied over many years, and spent time both as a student and staff at a nationally recognized Bible College in New Zealand. I would like to point out that although personal study is personally beneficial, it can never take the place of having a personal, loving relationship with our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ. I am compelled by the Love of Christ to share the Good News of his death and resurrection with you. Paul reasoned with those who worshipped the "Unknown God". I too, reason with you, and with confidence share the truth about God - that as a Christian I believe in the one true God, who eternally exists in three persons... God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.

              May I ask... are you a Jehovah Witness? If so, you have said you have studied and obtained material from several seminary libraries. Which seminaries did you visit and obtain this information?

              In closing, I again reiterate that it is imperative that we honour those who writings we quote and quote them without any changes to reinforce our personal theological bias.  To do any less is to be morally and spiritually bankrupt.

              Regards

              Muzz


              --- In biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com, Paul Leonard <anotherpaul2001@...> wrote:
              >
              > Hi,
              >
              > Actually I posted the quote from a page of my own work. I have been studying this issue for over 30 years and made use of several seminary libraries. Some info also came from others who did research and had the source material. Thus the brackets in the quote[Clement of Rome, Mathetes, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp, Papias, Barnabas(?)] and [of a Trinity doctrine].— were from a "paper" I had previously written. I simply lifted the edited quote from my previous work. NOT from any WT publication.
              >
              > The full text does not change the thought at al. Note below in green:
              >
              > muzzerbud muzzerbud@... wrote:
              >
              > From what has been seen thus far, the impression could arise that the Trinitarian dogma is in the last analysis a late 4th-century invention. In a sense, this is true; but it implies an extremely strict interpretation of the key words Trinitarian and dogma. Triadic Consciousness in the Primitive Revelation. The formulation "one God in three Persons" was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective; among the 2d-century Apologists, little more than a focusing of the problem as that of plurality within the unique Godhead. Not before Tertullian and Origen, early in the century following, had an attempt been made to solve the problem once raised by replying to the double
              > question: in what sense is God one, in what sense three? And even then, results had been far from decisive. It is also true that, especially in the first decades of the 20th century, an excessively cautious Roman Catholic apologetics tended to whittle down these dividing lines by demonstrating another way of saying the same thing. "One God in three Persons" was simply a restatement, a legitimately condensed and compact version of the more loosely organized NT teaching. Key texts were cited in support, particularly the well-known mandate put on the lips of Christ in Mt 28.19-"baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." From the vocabulary and grammar of the Greek original, the intention of the hagiographer to communicate singleness of essence in three distinct Persons was easily derived.
              > (The New Catholic Encyclopedia Vol XIV pages 299-230)
              > As you can see there is quite a bit missing! I would have added the entire chapter, but that would take up too much space. I note also that the following has been added that was not part of the orginal text:
              >
              > (Paul) The missing parts simply expand on WHY it was an not "assimilated" into Christian life prior to the 4th century. It was not in existence thenl.The fukll quote supports my contention that it was not the early teaching. In fact the full quote shows it was a speculation, un answered.
              >
              > The other quotes were also from my same work, but feel free to check them out and post the full section from the sopurce material as you did above, rather than my abbreviated ones to save space.
              >

            • Robert M. Bowman, Jr.
              Muzz, You wrote:
              Message 6 of 14 , Aug 27, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                Muzz,

                You wrote:

                << I had a quick read... again if you have done your own research (and
                I hope you are not engaging in Theocratic warfare!). You should know
                better than to misquote any reference you make, especially such as
                these. >>

                I have no objection to you questioning Paul's selective quotations or
                trying to show that he has taken them out of context. However, casting
                aspersions on him by suggesting that he is lying is not appropriate
                behavior. Please review the list rules on our home page and make sure
                you abide by them.

                In Christ's service,
                Robert M. Bowman, Jr.
                List Owner
                Evangelical and JW Theologies
              • Paul Leonard
                Thank you Rob, Robert M. Bowman, Jr. wrote: Muzz, You wrote:
                Message 7 of 14 , Aug 27, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  Thank you Rob,


                  "Robert M. Bowman, Jr." <faithhasitsreasons@...> wrote:
                  Muzz,

                  You wrote:

                  << I had a quick read... again if you have done your own research (and
                  I hope you are not engaging in Theocratic warfare!). You should know
                  better than to misquote any reference you make, especially such as
                  these. >>

                  I have no objection to you questioning Paul's selective quotations or
                  trying to show that he has taken them out of context. However, casting
                  aspersions on him by suggesting that he is lying is not appropriate
                  behavior. Please review the list rules on our home page and make sure
                  you abide by them.

                  In Christ's service,
                  Robert M. Bowman, Jr.
                  List Owner
                  Evangelical and JW Theologies


                • Louise
                  Rob, What I got out of Muzz s post was that he hoped that Paul wasn t engaging in theocratic warfare. Just to elaborate, for those who don t know what that
                  Message 8 of 14 , Aug 27, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Rob,
                     
                    What I got out of Muzz's post was that he "hoped" that Paul wasn't engaging in theocratic warfare.  Just to elaborate, for those who don't know what that means, here are quotes from the Watchtower 5/1/57, page 285:
                     
                    Perhaps some will wonder as to where the line is to be drawn between use of theocratic war strategy in hiding the truth and the telling of lies........
                    But hiding the truth, which he is not entitled to know, from an enemy does not harm him, especially when he would use such information to harm others who are innocent.

                    We don't really know (and of course I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt and believe that he doesn't) if that is what Paul does; however, it is difficult to not assume that when things like this are written in the Watchtower magazines.
                     
                    Of course, this discussion is far better suited for the Evangelicals and JW's Group.  So I will end this right here.
                     
                    Louise

                    "Robert M. Bowman, Jr." <faithhasitsreasons@...> wrote:
                    Muzz,

                    You wrote:

                    << I had a quick read... again if you have done your own research (and
                    I hope you are not engaging in Theocratic warfare!). You should know
                    better than to misquote any reference you make, especially such as
                    these. >>

                    I have no objection to you questioning Paul's selective quotations or
                    trying to show that he has taken them out of context. However, casting
                    aspersions on him by suggesting that he is lying is not appropriate
                    behavior. Please review the list rules on our home page and make sure
                    you abide by them.

                    In Christ's service,
                    Robert M. Bowman, Jr.
                    List Owner
                    Evangelical and JW Theologies







                    Yahoo! Groups Links

                    <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
                    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biblicalapologetics/

                    <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                    biblicalapologetics-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                    <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
                    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/






                    How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger’s low PC-to-Phone call rates.

                  • Paul Leonard
                    Please note; hiding the truth is not the same as lying. No one is required to give an answer unless they chose to do so. Then they need to be honest. As I
                    Message 9 of 14 , Aug 27, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Please note; hiding the truth is not the same as lying. No one is required to give an answer unless they chose to do so. Then they need to be honest.

                      As I have been

                      Louise <mclouus@...> wrote:
                      Rob,
                       
                      What I got out of Muzz's post was that he "hoped" that Paul wasn't engaging in theocratic warfare.  Just to elaborate, for those who don't know what that means, here are quotes from the Watchtower 5/1/57, page 285:
                       
                      Perhaps some will wonder as to where the line is to be drawn between use of theocratic war strategy in hiding the truth and the telling of lies........
                      But hiding the truth, which he is not entitled to know, from an enemy does not harm him, especially when he would use such information to harm others who are innocent.

                      We don't really know (and of course I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt and believe that he doesn't) if that is what Paul does; however, it is difficult to not assume that when things like this are written in the Watchtower magazines.
                       
                      Of course, this discussion is far better suited for the Evangelicals and JW's Group.  So I will end this right here.
                       
                      Louise

                      "Robert M. Bowman, Jr." <faithhasitsreasons@ yahoo.com> wrote:
                      Muzz,

                      You wrote:

                      << I had a quick read... again if you have done your own research (and
                      I hope you are not engaging in Theocratic warfare!). You should know
                      better than to misquote any reference you make, especially such as
                      these. >>

                      I have no objection to you questioning Paul's selective quotations or
                      trying to show that he has taken them out of context. However, casting
                      aspersions on him by suggesting that he is lying is not appropriate
                      behavior. Please review the list rules on our home page and make sure
                      you abide by them.

                      In Christ's service,
                      Robert M. Bowman, Jr.
                      List Owner
                      Evangelical and JW Theologies







                      Yahoo! Groups Links

                      <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
                      http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/biblicalap ologetics/

                      <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                      biblicalapologetics -unsubscribe@ yahoogroups. com

                      <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
                      http://docs. yahoo.com/ info/terms/






                      How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger’s low PC-to-Phone call rates.

                    • Paul Leonard
                      Hi, See below: muzzerbud wrote: You should know better than to misquote any reference you make, especially such as these. (Paul) I did not
                      Message 10 of 14 , Aug 27, 2006
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Hi,

                        See below:

                        muzzerbud <muzzerbud@...> wrote:
                        You should know better than to misquote any reference you make, especially such as these.
                        (Paul) I did not "misquote" them I simply quoted accurately the pertinent words.
                        My reason for making the comment in regards to the Watchtower as being youre reference, they use these three particular quotes in reinforcing their Arian belief in one of their publications.
                        (Paul) First to clear up a misconception or innacuracy on your part. We are not "Arian". Arius was one of many, like Athanasius who had their own ideas. We do not agree with all of either man's views. Nor reject all of either mans views.
                        The reason for the similarity of the quotes is simple. I did the work 30 years ago, before computers. I have shared with many and many have shared with me. Now I have the "quotes" in my computer library. The written/typed original dissertations are filed and in some cases lost. A friend of mine, Nelson H. supplied a lot of his work to the Society and had many of the same quotes.
                        As far as highlighting the green aspects, this again is being selective rather than taking into account the whole context of the passage.  It is dishonest to leave out critical parts of any quote, and even more dishonest to add what is not there. Any person can take what is written and change it's contextual meaning by adding/deleting text. The key in any quote/reference we make is that we are true to the original writings.
                        (Paul) No it is not being selective. It points out that the quotation as I provided it is correct and in harmony with their statement. Except the bracketted portion which was bracketed for a reason. Next time I will remove them before I post.They did not change the info.
                        May I ask... are you a Jehovah Witness? If so, you have said you have studied and obtained material from several seminary libraries. Which seminaries did you visit and obtain this information?
                        (Paul) I am a Witness. I have used several. The closest being Westminster Theological Seminary in Escondido, CA.
                        Rob Bowman will tell you I have a lot of interesting material. He knows as an example that I have Cal Bisner's Thesis, which surprised him. If you want more info on Cal ask Rob.
                        In closing, I again reiterate that it is imperative that we honour those who writings we quote and quote them without any changes to reinforce our personal theological bias.  To do any less is to be morally and spiritually bankrupt.
                        (Paul) I did not change nor misquote. I simpy selected the pertinent info. It saves space. Many of these boards are concerned about the size of posts and I try to help. Plus it saves typing and I am a lousy typist.
                        By the way do you have any info that I changed or misquoted the other sourcesI quoted?



                      • muzzerbud
                        Hi Robert My comment regarding theocratic warefare was in hindsight...unfortunate... and in view of the room s rules, I should have perhaps omitted the
                        Message 11 of 14 , Aug 28, 2006
                        • 0 Attachment

                          Hi Robert

                          My comment regarding theocratic warefare was in hindsight...unfortunate... and in view of the room's rules, I should have perhaps omitted the statement.

                          I  respectfully apologize to both biblical apologetics and to Paul...

                          Muzz

                           

                          I am


                          --- In biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com, "Robert M. Bowman, Jr." <faithhasitsreasons@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > Muzz,
                          >
                          > You wrote:
                          >
                          > << I had a quick read... again if you have done your own research (and
                          > I hope you are not engaging in Theocratic warfare!). You should know
                          > better than to misquote any reference you make, especially such as
                          > these. >>
                          >
                          > I have no objection to you questioning Paul's selective quotations or
                          > trying to show that he has taken them out of context. However, casting
                          > aspersions on him by suggesting that he is lying is not appropriate
                          > behavior. Please review the list rules on our home page and make sure
                          > you abide by them.
                          >
                          > In Christ's service,
                          > Robert M. Bowman, Jr.
                          > List Owner
                          > Evangelical and JW Theologies
                          >

                        • muzzerbud
                          Hi Paul I have considered what you have written below. The great thing about entering into dialogue is we both have the freedom to think and axpress freely. It
                          Message 12 of 14 , Aug 28, 2006
                          • 0 Attachment

                            Hi Paul

                            I have considered what you have written below. The great thing about entering into dialogue is we both have the freedom to think and axpress freely. It is your perogative to select what you see as being pertinent. That is something you have the freedom to choose

                            My reason for bringing a more complete passge of what you quoted was to show that the writer's meaning was to in fact reinforce the Tiune nature of God. I did just that, and to the best of my ability honoured the writer's intentions.

                            In addition, Paul, by giving others the complete text, they can judge for themselves, and make a more informed decision on what they wish to believe as being the truth. That, above all else, was my intention.

                            As far as how you choose what is pertinent in referrring to written material, that is something that is personally subjective, and something you can freely do. For me personally, I prefer to see it all..."test all things and hold fast to that which is true..."

                            As for the other two references... they will be a far harder to tack down, given the dates they were written... it will take some time.

                            Now... the Arian belief that Jehovah Witness adhere to, I share the following:

                            "A much more thoroughly developed and subtle view sprang up in the fourth century around the teaching of an Alexandrian presbyter named Arius. It became the first major threat to the views implicitly held by the church regarding Jesus' deity. Because Arianism arose in a period of serious theological reflection and represented much more thorough and systematic construction than Ebionism, this movement had a real chance of becoming the offical view. Although it was condemned by the church at the Council of Nicea in 325 and at subsequent councils, it lingers on to our day in various forms, most notably the movement as Jehovah's Witness."

                            Millard J Erickson - Systematic Theology (2nd Edition P711ff)

                            I am sure that you will be able to check Dr Erickson's book in one of your regular vists to the Westminster Theological Seminary. 

                            With all that said I am pretty sure this topic is done. We are at the point where we will have to agree to disagree. I do look forward to further discussions..

                            Cheers

                            Muzz

                             

                             

                             

                             


                            --- In biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com, Paul Leonard <anotherpaul2001@...> wrote:
                            >
                            > Hi,
                            >
                            > See below:
                            >
                            > muzzerbud muzzerbud@... wrote:
                            > You should know better than to misquote any reference you make, especially such as these.
                            >
                            > (Paul) I did not "misquote" them I simply quoted accurately the pertinent words.
                            >
                            > My reason for making the comment in regards to the Watchtower as being youre reference, they use these three particular quotes in reinforcing their Arian belief in one of their publications.
                            >
                            > (Paul) First to clear up a misconception or innacuracy on your part. We are not "Arian". Arius was one of many, like Athanasius who had their own ideas. We do not agree with all of either man's views. Nor reject all of either mans views.
                            >
                            > The reason for the similarity of the quotes is simple. I did the work 30 years ago, before computers. I have shared with many and many have shared with me. Now I have the "quotes" in my computer library. The written/typed original dissertations are filed and in some cases lost. A friend of mine, Nelson H. supplied a lot of his work to the Society and had many of the same quotes.
                            >
                            > As far as highlighting the green aspects, this again is being selective rather than taking into account the whole context of the passage. It is dishonest to leave out critical parts of any quote, and even more dishonest to add what is not there. Any person can take what is written and change it's contextual meaning by adding/deleting text. The key in any quote/reference we make is that we are true to the original writings.
                            >
                            > (Paul) No it is not being selective. It points out that the quotation as I provided it is correct and in harmony with their statement. Except the bracketted portion which was bracketed for a reason. Next time I will remove them before I post.They did not change the info.
                            >
                            > May I ask... are you a Jehovah Witness? If so, you have said you have studied and obtained material from several seminary libraries. Which seminaries did you visit and obtain this information?
                            >
                            > (Paul) I am a Witness. I have used several. The closest being Westminster Theological Seminary in Escondido, CA.
                            >
                            > Rob Bowman will tell you I have a lot of interesting material. He knows as an example that I have Cal Bisner's Thesis, which surprised him. If you want more info on Cal ask Rob.
                            >
                            > In closing, I again reiterate that it is imperative that we honour those who writings we quote and quote them without any changes to reinforce our personal theological bias. To do any less is to be morally and spiritually bankrupt.
                            > (Paul) I did not change nor misquote. I simpy selected the pertinent info. It saves space. Many of these boards are concerned about the size of posts and I try to help. Plus it saves typing and I am a lousy typist.
                            >
                            > By the way do you have any info that I changed or misquoted the other sourcesI quoted?
                            >

                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.