08 Aug 09
1 edit
Originally posted by duecerwhat is it about a remnant of individuals being saved that you do not understand? in the days of Noah, one family was saved! in the destruction of Jerusalem at the hands of the Babylonians in 607 BCE, a mere handful of agricultural workers were left over in the land. In the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C.E at the hands of Titus, a very small number of Christians who had heeded the Christ's message escaped the city and left for Pella were saved, any of this ringing a bell? can you see a pattern forming perhaps?
7 million JW's with about 125-130 years of history (and sketvhy at best) vs. 2.1 billion trinitarians with 2000 years. I think I know which "dogma's" I'll trust.
as has been already explained to you, the trinity was not accepted into Church dogma until at the very earliest the fourth century and took until perhaps the eighth century to be established, shall we talk of the pre Christian trinities, the Assyrian, the ancient Egyptian trinities, the Greek trinities, the Babylonian trinities, no? why not?
i have never met a trinitarian yet who knows what they are talking about, its an experience, its a mystery blah de blah de blah, the Christ's own words are very applicable in this case, and i quote,
(Matthew 15:6) . . .And so yo have made the word of God invalid because of your tradition.
Christendom is a sinking ship, her hands are full of blood shed and every vile thing, opulence abounds while people are hungering in the streets, adiós I say.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
08 Aug 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou are not seriously quoting Edward Gibbon?
As for church tradition, i find these quotes quite telling
In the preface to Edward Gibbon's History of Christianity, we read: "If Paganism was conquered by Christianity, it is equally true that Christianity was corrupted by Paganism. The pure Deism of the first Christians . . . was changed, by the Church of Rome, into the incomprehensible dogma o ...[text shortened]... being quite aware of it" (Soren Kierkegaard, cited in Time magazine, Dec. 16, 1946, p. 64).
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
08 Aug 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieCan you say much about the credentials and objectivity of this historian? Would it surprise if I said he wrote this over two hundred years ago and that his research does not reflect modern scholarship and is tainted with the prejudices of anti-Catholicism under the French Revolution?
it was expedient to my cause.
08 Aug 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Conrau Kthat is not my concern my friend, it was the content that interested me, and there are a plethora of other writers which state more or less the same thing, whether they were ancient or whether they are modern is also not my concern, if it is expedient to my cause, then why should i not utilise it.
Can you say much about the credentials and objectivity of this historian? Would it surprise if I said he wrote this over two hundred years ago and that his research does not reflect modern scholarship and is tainted with the prejudices of anti-Catholicism under the French Revolution?
08 Aug 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieremnant theology is poor theological thinking. furthermore it fly's in the face of the laws of conservation. It seems a terrible waste to abandon all these souls because they are not part of the "few" The word says that God loves his children, it stands to reason that he would find the broadest avenue possible for the salvation of humankind. Your faith was built on lies. The theology was presupposed without biblical proof, then translations were later altered to fit that belief. Deny all you like, but that is the truth.
what is it about a remnant of individuals being saved that you do not understand? in the days of Noah, one family was saved! in the destruction of Jerusalem at the hands of the Babylonians in 607 BCE, a mere handful of agricultural workers were left over in the land. In the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C.E at the hands of Titus, a very small numb ...[text shortened]... and every vile thing, opulence abounds while people are hungering in the streets, adiós I say.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
08 Aug 09
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo basically you are content to quote anything which confirms your opinion irrespective of whether it is reliable? Would you criticise me if I referred to Children's Alphabetical Guide to Animals of the Antartic to support the theory of evolution?
that is not my concern my friend, it was the content that interested me, and there are a plethora of other writers which state more or less the same thing, whether they were ancient or whether they are modern is also not my concern, if it is expedient to my cause, then why should i not utilise it.
08 Aug 09
6 edits
Originally posted by duecerwhat is my faith, that is built on lies, deucer, what is it?
remnant theology is poor theological thinking. furthermore it fly's in the face of the laws of conservation. It seems a terrible waste to abandon all these souls because they are not part of the "few" The word says that God loves his children, it stands to reason that he would find the broadest avenue possible for the salvation of humankind. Your faith was bu ...[text shortened]... translations were later altered to fit that belief. Deny all you like, but that is the truth.
you are the one who gives credence to the literal torment of limitless Jews and Muslims and Hindus and Buddhists, atheists and whatever in your hell fire, not I, so get your perspective sorted! we are the ones not content to sit on our fat butts and watch them die? no we have reached out through our ministry while the churches of Christendom, drive past them every Sunday, in their SUVs and drive past them on the way back to the comfort of their nice little cosy life, get a grip and get a perspective!
and how the heck did we manage to change the sahidc coptic text, did we have a time machine that went back two thousand years and we got our pencil and eraser out and rubbed out and the Word was God and inserted the word was a God, ? now you are descending into lunacy.
08 Aug 09
Originally posted by Conrau Kyou must do as you see fit, who am i to question your methods?
So basically you are content to quote anything which confirms your opinion irrespective of whether it is reliable? Would you criticise me if I referred to Children's Alphabetical Guide to Animals of the Antartic to support the theory of evolution?
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
09 Aug 09
2 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieFine. Then since you have no standard for what constitutes a reliable source and no care about whether they are reliable, I can then disregard any quotes you use to illustrate your argument.
you must do as you see fit, who am i to question your methods?
I would recommend others to do the same.
09 Aug 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Conrau Krecommend what you like and disregard what you want, would you prefer that i quote the new catholic encyclopaedia, would you give credence to that, ok, shall we call that into question as well, then so be it, its your choice. what about historian Will Durant, are you also willing to dispute his credentials, ok so be it, it matters not.
Fine. Then since you have no standard for what constitutes a reliable source and no care about whether they are reliable, I can then disregard any quotes you use to illustrate your argument.
I would recommend others to do the same.
"Christianity did not destroy paganism; it adopted it. . . . From Egypt came the ideas of a divine trinity." Historian Will Durant
"The trinity was a major preoccupation of Egyptian theologians . . . Three gods are combined and treated as a single being, addressed in the singular. In this way the spiritual force of Egyptian religion shows a direct link with Christian theology." - Siegfried Morenz
"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." - New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967), Vol. XIV, p. 299.
As i said before it was the content that i was interested in, every time i hear a rock band i don't stop to think of the personal lives of those playing the music, do i, of what interest is that to me?
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
09 Aug 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieFirstly, the entry from the New Catholic Encyclopaedia does not even remotely relate to your earlier claim that the Trinitarian dogma is a pagan derivative. Secondly, my concern is not about the number of historians you cite but about your ability to decide which are credible and which are not. A quite from Edward Gibbon will be totally unconvincing in modern historical scholarship. Why should anyone take your quotes seriously if you have not bothered to check their reliability or researched criticism and counter-arguments? You might as well say 'Trinitarian is a pagan idea -- my uncle says so.'
recommend what you like and disregard what you want, would you prefer that i quote the new catholic encyclopaedia, would you give credence to that, ok, shall we call that into question as well, then so be it, its your choice. what about historian Will Durant, are you also willing to dispute his credentials, ok so be it, it matters not.
"Christian ...[text shortened]... of the personal lives of those playing the music, do i, of what interest is that to me?