D
Dan_Parker
Guest
Sorry, but I just stopped reading your posts. You are on ignore. I don’t see that you are interested in a dialogue.
- Status
T
teak421
Guest
I looked back and I got that you said God pretty much ensured that we got the right books in the Bible. Uh! That’s really not a good answer… Common Dan!Sorry, but I will not allow you to ask me questions until you answer mine. Sound familiar?
Now what about Revelation?
I’m trying to point out a very simple concept… That, the same authority that rejected Arianism and gave us the Nicene Creed was also was the authority that put the Canon of the Bible together… This is a matter of historical fact.
Not that you care what I think, but I would feel much better about your position if you simply said the Church got it wrong with Arianism but got it right with the canonization process of the Bible.
Cya!
- Michael
T
teak421
Guest
Dan… you are interested in dialog on your terms. And when challenged you do the ignore bit. Silly. Why are you on this forum then?Sorry, but I just stopped reading your posts. You are on ignore. I don’t see that you are interested in a dialogue.
I must be honest, your answer about God ensuring that we had the right books was silly. OF COURSE HE DID! But, HOW did he do it… You never answered that… I’ve explained the concept… its quite simple. You accept the authority of the Canonization process, but you reject that same authority that rejected your heretical view. If this concept is something you can not see, you are right… there cannot be any dialog.
- Michael
J
jlhargus
Guest
[Teak welcome to the IGNOR CLUB, you are doing a good job or Dan would not have put you on ignor, it is a badge of honor. Its seems Dan will eventually ignor everyone whom he can’t answer, or can’t pull the wool over their eyes, I wouldn’t trust any quotes Dan posts. Keep on replying it doesn’t matter if he sees it or not, others will.]
BEGIN POST: Originally Posted by Dan Parker
jlhargus:
JL: You also post, " Note what the Bible says of God: “He has set a day in which he purposes to judge the inhabited earth in righteousness BY A MAN whom he has appointed.” (Acts 17:31) This judge appointed by God IS, of course, Jesus Christ",
JL: Did you notice the judge will be a MAN, which you admit is Jesus Christ. I thought the gospel according to the WT was, The MAN Jesus Christ went out of existence at death and was not bodily raised a MAN, but instead a spirit being an angel Michael. Shouldn’t the scripture say, “He has set a day in which he purposes to judge the inhabited earth in righteousness BY a god or an angel named MICHAEL whom he has appointed.” (Acts 17:31).
One Timothy two, five tells us it is a MAN, scripture tells us AGAIN our mediator in heaven is a MAN, 1Tm 2:5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the MAN
DAN: The Lutheran financed Bauer-Danker-Arndt-Gingrich Greek lexicon says of the word man in Greek, ANQRWPWS that “Jesus Christ is called ANQRWPWS as one who identifies with humanity.”
JL: I see the WT couldn’t even quote a complete sentence. Why? Is it because to quote further would refute them? I can partially believe the lexicon says Jesus is called ANQRWPWS, which I assume is anthropos #444=MAN OR HUMAN BEING, according to Strong’s Concordance.
Dan:
The WT did not quote BDAG. I did. It is my research. You are accusing me of being dishonest. I am putting you on ignore. There are plenty of polite Catholics on this board, and those are the ones I enjoy talking to.
JL: Really, well then it should be easy for you to give us a COMPLETE QUOTE, shouldn’t it? Also you can explain where you got the VERB MADE and please explain to me what being in the AORIST means. YOUR STATEMENT, “grammatically the word “MAN” here HAS AS ITS VERB the word “MADE” which is in the aorist not the present tense form.” Where is the word “MADE” in 1Tm2:5 or Acts17:31? Finally you should find it easy to tell me if this lexicon is referencing any specfic verse or just a general overview of the Greek word ANTHROPOS?
I did not say you were dishonest or even think you were, but I guess If you can’t produce a complete QUOTE, I can draw my own conclusion, can’t I? Do you suppose the WT will be pleased with you reading a Protestant lexicon, isn’t that a reason to be disfellowshiped? Just asking.
As far as putting me on ignore, I accept that as high praise indeed. Thank you. END POST.
[Whereas before I did not even think he was being dishonest, My conclusion now is he cetainly was. I think he justifies himself by WT teaching given in 1960.
Lying to God’s enemiess is not really lying but war strategy. WT 6/1/1960, p. 352
[Index of Watch Tower Errors, David A Reed, editor compiled by Steve Huntoon & John Cornell, Baker Book House Grand Rapids, Michigan 49516]
catholic.com/thisrock/1990/9004fea.asp JW’s masters of misquotes
4witness.org/jehovahs_witness/jw_deity.php#topic4b
catholic-forum.com/members/popestleo/antenicene.html Fathers, Justin Martyr
blueletterbible.org/study/cults/rajwd/rajwd24.cfm
docbob.org/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=32
catholic-forum.com/members/popestleo/antenicene.html
Tiber swim team 73. Jn14:1 Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me. (Christ) Lk1:48 For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: (Mary) for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed. The Ultimate truth is CHRIST who is TRUTH.
BEGIN POST: Originally Posted by Dan Parker
jlhargus:
JL: You also post, " Note what the Bible says of God: “He has set a day in which he purposes to judge the inhabited earth in righteousness BY A MAN whom he has appointed.” (Acts 17:31) This judge appointed by God IS, of course, Jesus Christ",
JL: Did you notice the judge will be a MAN, which you admit is Jesus Christ. I thought the gospel according to the WT was, The MAN Jesus Christ went out of existence at death and was not bodily raised a MAN, but instead a spirit being an angel Michael. Shouldn’t the scripture say, “He has set a day in which he purposes to judge the inhabited earth in righteousness BY a god or an angel named MICHAEL whom he has appointed.” (Acts 17:31).
One Timothy two, five tells us it is a MAN, scripture tells us AGAIN our mediator in heaven is a MAN, 1Tm 2:5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the MAN
DAN: The Lutheran financed Bauer-Danker-Arndt-Gingrich Greek lexicon says of the word man in Greek, ANQRWPWS that “Jesus Christ is called ANQRWPWS as one who identifies with humanity.”
JL: I see the WT couldn’t even quote a complete sentence. Why? Is it because to quote further would refute them? I can partially believe the lexicon says Jesus is called ANQRWPWS, which I assume is anthropos #444=MAN OR HUMAN BEING, according to Strong’s Concordance.
Dan:
The WT did not quote BDAG. I did. It is my research. You are accusing me of being dishonest. I am putting you on ignore. There are plenty of polite Catholics on this board, and those are the ones I enjoy talking to.
JL: Really, well then it should be easy for you to give us a COMPLETE QUOTE, shouldn’t it? Also you can explain where you got the VERB MADE and please explain to me what being in the AORIST means. YOUR STATEMENT, “grammatically the word “MAN” here HAS AS ITS VERB the word “MADE” which is in the aorist not the present tense form.” Where is the word “MADE” in 1Tm2:5 or Acts17:31? Finally you should find it easy to tell me if this lexicon is referencing any specfic verse or just a general overview of the Greek word ANTHROPOS?
I did not say you were dishonest or even think you were, but I guess If you can’t produce a complete QUOTE, I can draw my own conclusion, can’t I? Do you suppose the WT will be pleased with you reading a Protestant lexicon, isn’t that a reason to be disfellowshiped? Just asking.
As far as putting me on ignore, I accept that as high praise indeed. Thank you. END POST.
[Whereas before I did not even think he was being dishonest, My conclusion now is he cetainly was. I think he justifies himself by WT teaching given in 1960.
Lying to God’s enemiess is not really lying but war strategy. WT 6/1/1960, p. 352
[Index of Watch Tower Errors, David A Reed, editor compiled by Steve Huntoon & John Cornell, Baker Book House Grand Rapids, Michigan 49516]
catholic.com/thisrock/1990/9004fea.asp JW’s masters of misquotes
4witness.org/jehovahs_witness/jw_deity.php#topic4b
catholic-forum.com/members/popestleo/antenicene.html Fathers, Justin Martyr
blueletterbible.org/study/cults/rajwd/rajwd24.cfm
docbob.org/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=32
catholic-forum.com/members/popestleo/antenicene.html
Tiber swim team 73. Jn14:1 Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me. (Christ) Lk1:48 For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: (Mary) for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed. The Ultimate truth is CHRIST who is TRUTH.
T
teak421
Guest
T
teak421
Guest
I’ve research Mormonism (still, no expert) more than JW’s, and I gotta say I was shocked to see all the “prophecies” that were put forth by the JW’s that did not come true. Hello, RED FLAG! And, these were documented in their magazine… How people can follow this one is beyond me…
- Michael
F
FCEGM
Guest
Precisely because of the quote you don’t mention from St. Justin where he continues discussing the Cross and its true shape:
J
jlhargus
Guest
Originally Posted by teak421
Dan… You never answered my question… Read and answer and I will answer…
Cya.
Dan… You never answered my question… Read and answer and I will answer…
Cya.
- Michael
JL: Translation, I can’t answer because it isn’t in the WT canned remarks. I will ignor you so I don’t have to deal with facts. I’ll keep my head in the WT sand, where I don’t have to deal with truth.Sorry, but you are now on ignore
F
FCEGM
Guest
Actually exiled more than once because the Emperors were Arians or had returned to paganism (Julian the Apostate) and forced Arian bishops into Athanasius’s see (and some other sees of orthodox bishops) - with MUCH opposition by his people who were treated despicably by those bishops.
And yet the Church did recognize the book of Revelation along with all the other books in its canon; but the question to you remains: how did God protect His word and ensure the canonization of the inspired books?
D
Dan_Parker
Guest
Paul records in Romans that it was the Jews who were entrusted with the scriptures and this of course would be the Hebrew Scriptures. By the time of Jesus and Paul the Jewish leaders were quite apostate and divided amongst themselves with respect to their doctrine and morals. However for the 400 or so years from the book of Malachi to the 1st century the mechanism was in place to ensure that the copyists continued to faithfully copy and preserve the scriptures. In addition even though other books were written they were never considered equal to inspired word.
Extrapolating that forward, just because the ones who copied and preserved the word did this job sufficiently well enough to preserve it, does not mean they did not become apostate just like the Jewish leaders in Jesus’ day.
The way the word was preserved was not in a single manuscript or family of manuscripts. It was preserved in thousands of manuscripts. Because of the multiple families (eg East, West, etc) and multiple copies, it is possible through textual criticism to arrive at a critical edition of the Scriptures that can be considered to be very, very close to the original.
The books that are in the canon today are represented by many, many copies in spite of the efforts of some remove some like Revelation from the list of books which are considered inspired. The fact is, John wrote Revelation and it was in the canon right from the beginning. It was inspired right from the beginning. It may have been acknowledged by various groups, but its canonicity was established when it was written.
D
Dan_Parker
Guest
I am not quite sure why you think I would be mentioning something that you just brought up, and I would not have asked if I knew the answer.
Is it the word “cross” to which you refer as proof of its shape or the other illustrations. If so, would you mind developing your argument and explain to me exactly what you mean? I don’t wish to read Justin and then assume I know what you mean.
D
Dan_Parker
Guest
Here is why I am confused. The New Schaff & Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol. 3, p. 313 (ccel.org/ccel/schaff/encyc03.c.xiii.html#c.xiii-Page_313) says:
no definite data are found in the New Testament concerning the nature of the cross on which Jesus died. It is only the Church writers after Justin Martyr who indicate the composite four-armed cross as Christ’s vehicle of torture
So that is why I ask exactly to what you refer in Justin’s writings. BTW, Schaff & Herzog is not a publication of the WTB&TS. Perhaps you have heard of it.
D
Dan_Parker
Guest
I have replied to this but also wanted to add that what you consider part of the canon now is not what earlier scholars considered the canon. Read my post on Jerome who said to avoid the apocrypha.
How can you claim to have an authority when so many disagreed with what was to be canonized? Only God could ensure that despite man his canon would prevail.
T
teak421
Guest
That’s kinda silly… Why did he go ahead and translate books? They are in his translation… What is your point?
- Michael
T
teak421
Guest
You should consider NOT using Justin as proof text. Also suggest that you read his entire writings, you will find the man adhered to the core Catholic teaching… such as the Eucharist.
- Michael
D
Danno2281
Guest
The New Testament does not indicate the shape of the “stauros” because there was no need to. The Romans brought crucifixion with them, and they even had a name for the crosspiece (patibulum). Those within the empire knew well what “stauros” meant in a Roman context. The person whose figure is on the shroud ot Turin was crucified on a Roman cross, not a stake. See e-forensicmedicine.net/ShroudBibliog.htm
F
FCEGM
Guest
And note that Dan’s quote states that it was “after” Justin Martyr that a T-shaped cross was identified as the form for Christ’s Crucifixion, when Justin Martyr himself gives the form in the quote I twice presented to Dan - unless Justin’s connecting the shape of the Cross with the shape of a man indicates a man who has just a head, torso and legs, but has no arms to extend.
F
FCEGM
Guest
Beyond me, too. Dan, of course, doesn’t like to hear about this and stopped participating in the thread where the long list of failed “prophecies” was set before him. So much for his desire to “dialogue”.
J
JeanneH
Guest
Just my 2cents here,And note that Dan’s quote states that it was “after” Justin Martyr that a T-shaped cross was identified as the form for Christ’s Crucifixion, when Justin Martyr himself gives the form in the quote I twice presented to Dan - unless Justin’s connecting the shape of the Cross with the shape of a man indicates a man who has just a head, torso and legs, but has no arms to extend.
The JW,s believe that Jesus was nailed to the stake with his arms over his head. I guess they forgot about the sign over Jesus head. I don’t know why they make such a big deal over this any way.
Jeanne
F
FCEGM
Guest
A good question, Michael. Dan’s claim of already having all the manuscripts still doesn’t get to who had the authority from God to determine just which manuscripts put forward as inspired are inspired and thus to be included in the canon.
- Status