B
Big_Dummy
Guest
lol, Parmenides was a Monist. The nonsense your brother is spouting comes from here, ccg.org/english/s/p017.html .Reply,
Hello,
My brother was a Catholic for over 20 years and is now a JW. I asked him why? When he was a teenager, he studied Hebrew, Greek (classical and koine), ancient history and Greek philosophy and metaphysics. He did 3 years intensive reseach and came to the conclusion, ever before he ever met with JW’s, that many of the teachings, customs, celebrations and dogmas of the RCC and Protestant churches were based, not on scripture, but on extra-biblical matters!
He has had discussions with rabbis, priests, vicars etc and none of them seem to be able to touch him, as he, at will can quote the apologists, church fathers (I wish I had his memory) scripture and historical sources at will and has seemed to produce empirical indisputable evidence that what he says on certain subjects is true; for example, he says that the Triune godhead “substance sharing” (to quote him) is based on the metaphysics of a Greek philosopher called Parmenides, on whom, Plato based his metaphysical and philosophical ideas on and later on the Neo-Platonic philosophers Plotinus, Porphyry… gave the Catholic church a polished version of and that the whole church is 99% Greek in thought and only 1% Christian in thought and no vicar or priest seems to be able to hold their own against him, he seems to be like a surgeon’s scalpel. I told him about some of the way some on here answer the average JW, who in the main, are not apologists and when I told him about some of the Catholic replies to JW’s, he just laughed and laughed and said “it figures”!
Does anyone have any suggestions, as to how I can answer him, any questions, that I can put to him? Please drop me an e-mail, as I am out most of the time and can access my emails from an internet cafe!
Many thanks!
plato.stanford.edu/entries/parmenides/
Concerning god, he wrote,
Fragment 1, line 3: The manuscripts here are all corrupt (i.e., they must be the results of miscopying since they present a series of letters that do not form a sequence of correctly-spelled words). The most common way to make sense of them gives the sequence of words I have translated above. Recently N.-L. Cordero has argued that the letters could yield a different sequence of words, so that this line would read something like (my translation): Of a goddess, who bears there, in relation to everything, the man of understanding. See N.-L. Cordero, By Being, It Is (Parmenides Publishing, 2005) and Les Deux chemins de Parménide, 2d ed. (Vrin/Ousia, 1997).
Fragment 13, line 1: It is not clear just who is supposed to have devised Erōs (god of love and desire). Quite possibly the unnamed female divinity of Fragment 12 is meant; that seems to have been the impression of some ancient commentators. We do not know whether this divinity is the same as any of the other female divinities in Parmenides’ fragments.
…
Fragment 13
1 First of all the gods she devised Erōs (Love).
…
classweb.gmu.edu/rcherubi/ancient/poem4.htm“Cornford’s Fragment”: This fragment was identified by F.M. Cornford and is widely but not universally accepted as genuinely a fragment of Parmenides’ poem. It presents a number of difficulties. We do not know where in the poem the fragment originated if it is genuine: Is it part of the goddess’s account of roads of inquiry? Is it part of her account of the opinions of mortals? Is it something else? Further, it is not clear whether this fragment represents a full sentence or only part of one. Another problem is the wording. The first word may be either hoion, ‘such,’ or oion, ‘alone.’
google.com/#hl=en&cp=16&gs_id=2&xhr=t&q=Parmenides’+Poem&qe=UGFybWVuaWRlcycgUG9lbQ&qesig=VDGUFqnZlblNa9tytiBhwQ&pkc=AFgZ2tlPuaU4ehs43mgpQfQ1UbN-AhUCLSLrzJw8q1EXjFyD1TPli_2p4w5Kxfyl0OLIxQGHHTJRD6VlTilLEYMJVisAG7zt8g&pf=p&sclient=psy&site=&source=hp&pbx=1&oq=Parmenides’+Poem&aq=0&aqi=g1&aql=&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=1350c3a2e903cb66&biw=1024&bih=524
lets see “goddess”, “gods”, and Monist … there is no relation to Trinity
Philosophical monism Monism in philosophy can be defined according to three kinds:
Idealism, phenomenalism, or mentalistic monism which holds that only mind is real.
Neutral monism, which holds that both the mental and the physical can be reduced to some sort of third substance, or energy.
Physicalism or materialism, which holds that only the physical is real, and that the mental or spiritual can be reduced to the physical.
Certain other positions are hard to pigeonhole into the above categories, see links below. Moreover, these positions do not provide a definition of what does it mean to be “real”.
Ancient Western philosophersThe following pre-Socratic philosophers described reality as being monistic:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monism#Philosophical_monismParmenides: Being. Reality is an unmoving perfect sphere, unchanging, undivided. We say there are things that exist and things that don’t exist; Parmenides wrote that there nothing doesn’t exist, only existence does.
The Biblical Basis of the Doctrine of the Trinity: An Outline Study
By Robert M. Bowman,
irr.org/trinity-outline.html
spiritwatch.org/bowtrinout.htm