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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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.