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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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.