The issue is regarding masturbation and what such a habit leads to. And yes, "it is" a growing problem, especially among younger people and young adults. Some people choose to educate and even make rules regarding masturbation because they want to better protect people from it, and those who are educated are less likely to succumb to such an addiction. Should one be affected by masturbation and pornography, there are those who are well equipped to handle with those in suffering.
Just because you have a process in your body, doesn't mean you should be okay with such acts, this has been said before by the community who fight against masturbation and pornography 24/7, by those who share stories and testimonies of how troubling such an addiction is. I already have some experiences with some, as I already stated before, even losing a friend to the addiction, which led her to pornography, to depression and eventually, when she took her own life and the troubles my brother faced.
There is no "why" in the age, it is pretty evident, there are urges that the flesh cannot control, and eventually, the individual will give in. There are many examples, some a bit explicit than others on how an addiction worsens over time to those who succumb to it and does not do anything about it. It may seem okay to one person, but to another it is seen as something vile and something very shameful, especially if the person who sees it as such is the one with the problem.
Never mentioned pedophilia or one becoming as such due to masturbation and porn, however, pornography encourages and caters to them, giving them the tools and the how to for child grooming and or the creation of whatever vile practices they. For Pedophilia is classified as a psychological disorder ( DSM 5). It is a very difficult psychological disorder to treat, for there are programs, therapies, counseling, etc that can prove somewhat useful. Pedophilia root of originate is not yet known, some just consider the addiction was with the person from the time they were born and the disorder itself begins to flourish as they grow or over time they developed an interest in children or those younger than them, regardless of the sex of the targeted individual. but they tend to look into various types of things that gives them sexual gratification, to distribute, to share, to receive, etc. At times they tend to enact such actions on targets of their choosing. The Adult Industry does not get a lot of flack, especially for some of their viewed content consist women portraying the roles of teenage girls or cartography themselves as children in the presence of a grown man, the same thing happens when the roles are in reverse. That being said, feeding the addiction worsens it.
It amazes me how majority in America does not know how masturbation and watching porn causes some form of depression and low self-esteem, lack of confidence in oneself, and a few times, it also causes one to go on a suicidal path because they feel that their is no hope for them, somehow they were exposed/mocked for their habits and the like.
Luckily, as I said before, there are a couple of large communities, that work as one, to help such people, give advise, share their stories, and encourage anyone, for should you relapse into porn and masturbation, you can get back up and continue to fight it until you are free from it. They help anyone, regardless of one's background, religion, race, etc. At times, they had one time helped someone who thinks he is under the impression that he may be a pedophile.
Masturbation and porn to the majority is seen as normal, disregarding the effects it can cause in some individuals, among the people there are those who see masturbation and porn as a problem, a growing one due to some statistics in the past couple of years. There will always be people to instruct, there will always be those who will educate, and help out should any man, woman or child succumbs to the addiction of masturbation and pornography.
It may be a laughing matter to some here, but for me, it is a serious issue, and I have witnessed some things firsthand and talked with people, just like the communities who speak of this addiction, they too consider it a growing problem, and have the real world experience to share with others in order to help combat the addiction.
... and Cos... you stand on the shoulders of giants, and believe what you believe down to the very marrow of your bones ... but your giants are wrong, and so are you.
That's why I posted the picture of the Indian trinity.
Christendom adopted all things pagan .... and then "forgot".
You can't see the forest for its trees, can you, Cos? A typical Trinitarian never stems to far from the pack, will do anything to cover his or her tracks, which you are doing right now. Just like James White and those who follow him and those who take his word more than what the scriptures say.
Proverbs 12:1 -Â Whoever loves discipline loves knowledge, but whoever hates correction is stupid.
As for your post, of course you would say that, and I am right as I said before, you don't really read into much what any book says, you ignore bits and pieces of what others what is written, even going as far as to merge paragraphs together, you ignore what people say, especially me (Luke 24:52/Acts 1 and 2, Proskuneos, Shema, ignoring "Light' in John 1Â etc) and I am right to say what I said about you assuming what is found in book 4, chapter 20 of Against Heresies.
As for your response, I will leave every bit of information, evidence, of such an accusation you make against me vs what you said, so everyone here can see who is right and who is wrong. Me myself, I don't make contradictions, I don't "add" words like you or mix things together, I don't accept something "As Is" like you and most Trinitarian/Binitarians and I don't try to twist writings or Scripture (i.e. John 1:1-10, Luke 24:52, etc), etc.
Now then, let us begin to what you have stated for there is ample proof against you, cos:
Here you are, stating you never mentioned the word "eternal", but it seems you didn't even read of what you even typed right below that comment of yours, which I will address shortly.
As for your January 20th response to my January 24th response this is exactly what I said to you regarding this response:
Â
On to the next one.
You are correct that you said what you said on January 28, which is:
Â
My response:
Then I said the following:
Which does not contradict to my previous response on the 24th, when I stated that Irenaeus never said "Eternal Person" in that book's chapter, which you claim to have found such in (ignoring the fact that I have read all 5 books and I have access to them).
You claim that I am making contradictions when I am making a reference to one of your comments, I would not have mentioned what I said if I didn't see it, unfortunately for you, I have seen it, and I make a remark to what you have said because you did say it and I will bring it up whenever I choose if need be. And if you want proof of this, allow me to show you.
You stated the following (January 20th): Irenaeus establishes the Holy Spirit as a distinct, eternal person alongside the Father and the Logos. “For with Him (the Father) were always present the Word and Wisdom, the Son and the Spirit…”(Against Heresies, book 4, chapter 20)
My response was (January 24th): https://imgur.com/I4n32ys Irenaeus establishes in Chapter 20 that the Holy Spirit, that is his Wisdom, was God's power that was used to create man and all things, for he made all things through both the word and wisdom, nowhere in Chapter 20 did he establish, specifically, the Holy Spirit was an “Eternal Person”.
My other response, which I make reference to your claim (February 2nd): I never made such a claim, for I have stated that Irenaeus never stated that the Holy Spirit was or is an “Eternal Person”, as you said, not Irenaeus. I also went on to say that Irenaeus in this chapter explained how God’s power, Holy Spirit (also known as Spirit of God; His [YHWH] Wisdom); things made by God, in addition to what is said about Jerusalem.
If you are feeling bold, I invite you to show everyone here, me included, here as to where exactly in Chapter 20, Book 4 that you claim Irenaeus stated the following from your claim: Holy Spirit as a distinct, eternal person alongside the Father and the Logos.
Â
Â
As for the proof that you said "Eternal Person" (or adding Eternal to the word Person) spreading falsehood of said book/chapter:
It can be found here, I direct link to your post of which you stated that Irenaeus mentioned "Eternal Person" in Against Heresies book 4, chapter 20:Â
Just to add a little more salt to the wound, I will even post a small image so everyone here can see you said this yourself, and I did not alter or add on to what you have said:Â https://imgur.com/yAuCJgZ
A screenshot of your own words if you are still in disbelief:Â https://imgur.com/F6gckCa
To deny yourself of your own words makes you a lair, not sure if you even noticed what you said or attempt to deliberately ignore it. But it says much about a guy who doesn't understand such works like Against Heresies (5 books not 6).
Â
So here now, I wonder who really belongs to the father, the devil, as you mentioned John 8:44 so boldly at the end. I hope you repent and pray about it, but seeing you believe in a "Triune God", I guess it must be like a multiple choice thing for you, since you consider the Father, the Son, and the Spirit as God (3 Gods in one) and taking away devoted religious worship and total servitude to the True God and consider the worship of the Son (makes you no different from the common "Arian" who practice Jesus religious worship today).
As for everyone here, I will give a direct link to Irenaeus' Book 4, Chapter 20:Â http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103420.htm
to which Cos here had stated the following on his January 20th post:
https://imgur.com/F6gckCa
https://imgur.com/yAuCJgZ
Irenaeus marks the identification of the Holy Spirit as a person just as the Son is a person when he writes; “the Son and the Holy Spirit, the Word and Wisdom; whom all the angels serve, and to whom they are subject.” (Against Heresies, book 4, chapter 7)
Irenaeus establishes the Holy Spirit as a distinct, eternal person alongside the Father and the Logos. “For with Him (the Father) were always present the Word and Wisdom, the Son and the Spirit…”(Against Heresies, book 4, chapter 20)
Â
I will also post Book 4, Chapter 7: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103407.htm For Cos's other claims.
Misc: https://imgur.com/eIT7fca https://imgur.com/2coilot https://imgur.com/xsE4P7z https://imgur.com/toNG20O https://imgur.com/F6gckCa
FYI, you made comment to this bible verse Colossians 2:9 to James Thomas Rook Jr. The Father and the Christ dwells in True Christians too:
We see this in the very next verse (literally)
Colossians 2:10 -Â and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority.
It also says it in this verse
In Ephesians 3:19 -Â and to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled with all the fullness of God.
For The same FULLNESS of deity dwells in all true Christians.
This is why we, as Christians, thank the True God, for our Lord, Jesus Christ.
Colossians 1:3 (Thanksgiving and Prayer) -Â We always thank God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, when we pray for you,
Â
PS: there is more to Revelations than you realize, but I will save you the trouble and will response to Robert instead, since you stated: I will not waste anymore of my time addressing your dishonest claims any further!
Â
Â
Consider yourself confuted.
This business of the 70 weeks is a great example of how Bible believers start with a premise -- the Bible is completely accurate as regards prophecy, etc. -- and then marshall evidence to make it seem to fit the evidence. But they filter out all evidence that does not fit, which is thoroughly dishonest. This is classic confirmation bias.
AlanF
Exactly! It's very useful to look at all the various ways that this time period was interpreted prior to Ussher. And after Ussher, more and more evidence continues to show that Ussher's date was not based on any evidence, either secular or Biblical. It was merely based on counting backwards from the secular date he preferred to use for the major events in Jesus' ministry. And, of course, there have been many attempts by Jewish persons going back to the Dead Sea Scrolls and Josephus and several more attempts among Jewish scholars and commentators and the dates are all over the place. Of course, even though we generally keep to the explanation from the Watch Tower you quoted, this particular theory for the date has had even more damaging evidence against it which continues to pile up. What some other Bible commentators have done is to keep a similar set of dates and count them with 360 day years. Some allow them to land closer to 70 C.E., and some still look for ways to dismiss the Persian chronology to start the 70 weeks closer to 539 B.C.E as seen in sources that AllenSmith has repeatedly posted.
This is why you do not squabble overmuch about 607 or anything else. 'Facts' are unstable building blocks that can be fashioned into palaces or outhouses. You don't blow 607 off as nothing, but neither do you let it spoil your day. Focus on the facts on the ground.
The dispute will be like the food pyramid that stands for decades and is literally turned upon its head. It will be like the generation avoiding fat because the scientists said so only to find that businesspeople had bought science and sugar is the culprit. It will be even be like the mathematical proof that the sum of all natural numbers is -1/12. Or that black holes violate either relativity or quantum physics.
It is the heart one must work to develop, not the head. For every Bible verse there is about the head, there are ten about the heart. Unfortunately, one of the drawbacks of focusing on the heart is that people cannot argue themselves right! - gutting the underpinnings of many a forum.
“Once in a Blue Moon?” ~ Beautiful Pictures You DidnÂ’t See Yet? ~
???????
Despite the northern front range of #Colorado being partly cloudy this morning, the little of the #LunarEclipse i managed to see was incredible and totally worth the struggle to find an angle. I left my house around 5:15am with no idea where I would be heading, which generally speaking isnÂ’t the best plan but it somehow worked in my favor today. From Boulder, where I live, the view was pretty obstructed by clouds, forcing me to drive further northeast to get away from the mountains and clouds. The eclipse was a #SuperBlueBloodMoon and peaked around 6:30 am which was perfect, giving a fair amount of blue hour light to work with. I was lucky to get this photo here of #MountMeeker and ColoradoÂ’s northern most 14,000 foot mountain, #LongsPeak, shot with a 500mm lens. Swipe through the carousel to see a few other photos from this mornings mission ??
#Repost @ladzinski ???
Something just dawned on me from your comment. Although, the organization says it is “spirit-directed”, this title was bestowed on it by its leaders. Rev 13:11,13,14,15
12/1/1981 Wt. However it may seem to some as though that path has not always gone straight forward. At times explanations given by Jehovah’s visible organization have shown adjustments, seemingly to previous points of view. But this has not actually been the case. This might be compared to what is known in navigational circles as “tacking”. By maneuvering the sails the sailors can cause a ship to go from right to left, back and forth, but all the time making progress toward their destination in spite of contrary winds. And that goal in view for Jehovah’s servants is the “new heavens and a new earth” of God’s promise.
Those in control of the sails are the GB. The spirit that leads them in such errors has already settled into the heart. Luke 6:45 In a sense, the “wind” begins as an external force but reaches into the mind and heart of the one maneuvering the organization, or “boat”. Rev 13:11,1,2,4
If these men had the Spirit of Christ within them, the path taken would be straight. Matt 3:3 To say their convincing lies will still lead one into God’s promise, is blasphemy. Prov 2:10-17
Jesus said, “Most assuredly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He sees the Father do; for whatever He does, the Son also does in like manner.” John 5:19
Also, the Spirit of God must remain in the heart of the anointed ones, otherwise they cannot be guided by Christ’s teachings, which hold the Spirit. John 6:63; 15:4; 5:38 They can fall from this grace, losing what they had initially received through the anointing, allowing another spirit to fills one’s heart, which Jesus showed us is evident by teachings. John 15:5-8; Matt 7:15-20
Can those who contain this alternate spirit practice deceit without it? They too, have a Father who infuses his will and direction into them. Luke 4:7,8
“You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it.” John 8:44
Then Satan entered Judas, surnamed Iscariot, who was numbered among the twelve. Luke 22:3
Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you, the twelve, and one of you is a devil?” 71 He spoke of Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon, for it was he who would betray Him, being one of the twelve. John 6:70,71
New light and tacking, are just excuses for deceit and lies. They are derived from the resources of men, who do not hold God’s Spirit within their heart. Otherwise, there would be no list. I stay with my thought that the Watchtower’s spirit is “tacking” against the Spirit of God and Christ. Perhaps these are contrary winds they are speaking of.
JW Insider
It does not matter whether Jer. 29:10 is translated either 'for Babylon or 'at Babylon' because both renderings of the Hebrew preposition le can have either meaning. Further, the 'seventy years' was a period of Servitude-Exile-Desolation beginning in 607 BCE with the Fall and ending in 537 BCE with the Return. Thus, the rendering 'at' simply shows the captive Jews exiled in Babylon as the location of their captivity-Exile whereas the rendering 'for' demonstrates the purpose of their Exile as being subject to Babylon- Servitude.
scholar JW
I'm not an expert in sailing, but I believe sailing both with and into the wind is possible. I think they change the type of sail on modern boats. The above scripture I think is about control, steering and sails. If you lack control you'll be blown aimlessly in any direction. But if you have some control, since we can never have complete control, then you can steer through a stormy sea, raise or lower sails depending on the wind strength. This implies, for us today, that thinking ability is needed when navigating tricky situations. That many of life's challenges aren't so straight forward, but made up of many layers, that take time to go through. But thanks for your research!
Hold a small piece of paper onto your bottom lip from both sides and purse your lips and blow over the top.
The higher velocity "wind" creates a low pressure area that sucks the paper closer to it.
Blowing over the TOP of a piece of paper makes it go UP! ... not down.
This is an example of "Bernoulli's Principle"
Most people do NOT KNOW that the upper wing of an airplane is curved, so that the "wind" hitting the front edge of the wing HAS TO TRAVEL FASTER ... to meet that same slug of air at the back of the wing.
Aircraft are SUCKED UP, and that's what keeps them up. ... same as the small piece of paper.
That is ALSO why a sailboat can sail at an angle INTO a wind ... the boat is being SUCKED forward by the low air pressure on the front of the sail.
.... NOT blown forward by any wind from behind.
Hi sis, welcome to the fold! In the last 5 years we've had more "big" adjustments than in the previous 10 years of "smaller" adjustments in our understanding. These are the "tackings" the poster was referring to. Each adjustment is like a small turn, the big ones are bigger turns or changes in direction. Like the Chariot of Ezekiel it can suddenly move at right angles at the speed of lightning, without turning or slowing down as it moves in the new direction. These too, are like strategic "tacks". Our appointed Commander and Chief is Jesus, Head of the Congregation. But it is Jehovah described on the throne in Ezekiel. Later in Revelation chapter 4, we get a glimpse of same throne, perhaps at a different more peaceful time since the one sitting on the throne is no longer surrounded by a rainbow with energetic flames flowing forth, but a peaceful emerald rainbow. It is our nature as a people to adjust or "tack" but some do no like it. If you compare the churches who prefer to stay the same, with no changes, it's good to ask those ones, what is better? There are advantages and disadvantages to both ways of thinking, so long as we all recognise that no one knows everything  except God.
The problem with the "tacking", is the front of one shoe is nailed to the floor, and any "progress" is made in either a clockwise or counter-clockwise circle.
Creating an artificial sense of urgency WILL motivate you ... but so will setting your hair on fire.
It is quite proper to follow "Jehovah's Chariot", wherever it goes ... but when following a clown car .... make sure you check the route, the weather, and the gas.
.... and don't follow TOO closely.
Yes I read your apology and I have already accepted it. I only summarized what you have stated in pervious comments, as well as calling Unitarianism identical to Arianism, which is not because last I checked, we don’t pray directly to Jesus, nor do we worship Jesus, ignoring the Father as if he not there or nothing at all, that is absurd and it is basically disrespecting God nor could you equal that we follow Arian doctrine, I’ll give you a hint, non-trinitarianism doesn’t make one an Arian, for even those who believe that God, the Son and the Spirit are separate don’t follow what the Arians today do. We don’t disrespect God neither should any of us disrespect him in any way shape or form, which some Arians today still do, Jesus worship, which is not something one should do.
You will love my next post then.
Stafford had since been an ex-jw years ago, this isn’t something new. He did start small group, but it wasn’t with JWs, however he has fallen under the radar for quite some time, but did acknowledge that he still speaks to JWs, as well as ExJWs, and other groups, believe it or not if you manage to find any of his blogs, for people brought them up via neutral Christian forums, he still uses the Watchtower/Awake magazines, so if he continued since his departure to make use of them, obviously he, as do other, tend to low-key use said magazines just to get in a bit of information either for themselves, or for their own gain, others have used said magazines of various religious groups, including JWs for other means, Thailand being an example.
All in all, I do fancy watching debates for it is something I taken great interest in since for several years now and since it is universal, it involves ALL people from faiths to speak up. The I find Greg Stafford interesting because he is the only Jehovah’s Witness at the time that was known to get into these debates, which in quite rare and very interesting at the same time. As for James White, not many Christians like him as much, and usually watches to take note of what he says to prove him wrong, others have taken key elements of what Mr. White claims and corrects for that, even the great Anthony Buzzard refutes several claims of both James White and Rob Bowman, if you look up the aftermath of what him and Rob been through, it is quite an interesting read with even commenter getting in on the mix.
No it doesn’t constitute to a religious act in terms of Jesus, you really going to base accept a scripture “as Is” without research? For a guy who is against Arians/or Arianism, you must know what the Arians were targeted for: religious devotion and worship to Jesus, an act that is not something a Christian should do, unless they are an Arian, of course.
No, the different sense is that Angels were the ones paying homage, worship and or obeisance to Jesus, for God has exalted him, making him above the Angels, seating Jesus at his right hand, for God has commanded this and God has says so. The other is the fact is that for us as people, human beings, we show exclusive religious worship to the True God, not to Jesus, for worshipping Jesus over YHWH is Arianism and takes away worship from God the Father, that. Previously, you assume that I met people themselves exclusively worshipping to Jesus, when I stated again I was referring to the Angels in that verse alone, Hebrews 1:6. As for the exjw Stafford he answered it correctly in his debate with James White, God has commanded the Angels to worship and or show homage to Jesus whereas James White have believed JWs would take issue to that verse, but Stafford made it very clear for him. Nowhere in scripture did God say give exclusive and or devoted worship to Jesus. God has not changed; we shouldn’t assume he has change, to assume such is being unreasonable as a Christian.
Let’s go back to Hebrews 1:6:
God commanded his Angels to worship and obeisance (also meaning homage, honor, reverence, adoration, etc) /obeisance to Jesus, not exclusive devotion obviously because true religious worship is devoted to God and He alone. God doesn’t change his mind and tell angels to switch over all devoted worship from him to Jesus that would just be absurd to even thing, especially in terms of God the Father who has through his Word made all things come into existence.
As for the verse you mentioned, Luke 24:52, the disciples merely bowed down in honor/reverence/obeisance/etc to Jesus Christ, nowhere did it say that they were giving exclusive devotion to Jesus in terms of worship, knowing who his Father is, the true God, Our God, because devoted worship to such, be it a god(s) (man, person, idol, etc) it is a sin, idolatry and to the Triune guys out there, it is Arian. We clearly see many, many examples of this in scripture, and we also see many examples of people showing honor/obeisance/reverence/worship/whatever to others in the bible that IS NOT exclusive worship.
As for Jesus, in scripture it is said that Jesus was a born king (Matthew 27:11, Mark 15:32, Luke 1:31, 32, etc.), even one of his disciples exclaimed this, Nathanael, in John 1:49. Reasons being on how the people treated those with such status, Kings in those ancient times, an example
never commanded us as human beings to do such in regards of Jesus, thus if one did so, are pretty much doing something that God has not commanded them to do and also doing what the Arians today do. However, Jesus was indeed a born King, and Kings are honored as such, hence his title “born king of Israel”.
To literally think Luke 24:52 was an act of complete devotion to Lord Jesus Christ, just proves that you need to look into scripture more, the very words in that verse also applies to how the Shema is interpreted, each word in this same verse have Strong’s numbers, including “worship” that points back to “proskyneō” (in the Septuagint G4352), meaning:
To kiss the hand to (towards) one, in token of reverence among the Orientals, esp. the Persians, to fall upon the knees and touch the ground with the forehead as an expression of profound reverence in the NT by kneeling or prostration to do homage (to one) or make obeisance, whether in order to express respect or to make supplication.
The Hebrew version of that being שָׁחָה (shachah/hish·ta·chawah Strong’s #7812) which means: To pay homage to another one by bowing low or getting on the knees with the face to the ground. The act literal to bow, and so it can also be used of one man bowing to another, as well as an act to show honor, reverence, obeisance, worship, etc.
On the other hand, the renderings “bow before” and ‘pay homage’ (instead of “worship”) are in no way out of harmony with the original language, either the Hebrew of Psalm 97:7 or the Greek of Hebrews 1:6, for such translations convey the basic sense of both shachah/hish·ta·chawah and proskyenō.
The Greek word proskyenō and its root Hebrew word shachah were clearly understood by ancient times. proskyenō was the Greek word the ancient Jews used to translate the Hebrew word shachah in their Greek translation of the Hebraic scriptures known as the “Septuagint” a century or two before the birth of in Bethlehem. This Jewish translation of the Old Testament into Greek is important because it shows how ancient Jews before Christ understood the word proskyneō. Their uses of the word proskyneō plainly shows how some people today, people like James White, are falsely claiming that this word referred to an act one should only do toward the God of Israel. Keep in mind that the word in “proskyenō” was also translating as "worship" in the New Testament.
This word is translated by scholars of old and the now in two main ways “to bow down/before”, and or “worship”. Both are used below in example to clearly show how much of a serious, and yet confusing problem with how people view this word.
This is because David and Solomon sat on the throne of God, 1 Ch. 29:23. They were anointed to exercise God's authority over all of Israel just as the resurrected man, Jesus, was anointed to be exalted above the angels, Hebrew 1:9. It should be very clear to any reasonable person that the Greek word proskyneō was used to bow down in submission to any higher authority, hence reverence/honor/obeisance.
We also see the word used again in Revelation 3:9b, whereas Jesus uses the word proskyneo to refer to Jews worshiping Christians, in this case, Jews worshiping the Philadelphian Christians: “I will make them come and bow down (proskyneō) before your feet.”
The wealth of scriptural proof to show people that one that the word proskyneō was not restricted to "worship" of God, but in the end, people tend to ignore true facts and continue to speak of what they’ve been told when not really going in depth of what the word proskyneō really means.
As stated before, yes, the word has a different sense, and it means the same as other words as to bow down, show honor, etc, even worship. But one reader would have to see for themselves that there is a difference in worshiping terms of showing honor to Kings and or certain persons, and showing devoted, religious worship to the one God who is true, the God of Israel.
That being said, a smart Christian would know this: Not to have Jesus take the place of God in terms of devoted act(s) of Worship. And biblically, you see how God reacted.
For the Bible tells us that our worship in the sense of religious reverence and complete devotion must be addressed solely to God, and He alone. Moses said it himself, “a God exacting exclusive devotion.” The Bible makes it clear to us to “worship” the One has created everything, Deuteronomy 4:24, Revelation 14:7.
When you get the chance, look into the connected verse to Luke 24:52 is Acts 1:9, the full account could be read in the book of Acts 1:9-26, including what took place after Jesus had ascended, and or “lifted up and a cloud caught him up in their sight”.
Actually it was from a Christian form. This user was referring to bible translations that use obeisance, homage, honor, etc. I took part of his comment to post it. I am a user on another Christian form whereas everyone is pretty neutral and cool based on discussion and bible findings, and in looking for other translations that uses the rendering of proskyneō, as well as finding other bibles that also use a rendered word that also means the same thing (the ones marked in red in previous post). That being said The CSE community is a treasure trove of information, reasons why I use it for the specific word, proskyneō and its renderings.
As for Irenaeus
Irenaeus’ Belief
We know that on one hand Irenaeus repeatedly insists the Father alone is the “one” and “only true” God. In Trinitarian theology, this does not work since the Father alone is “not” the only true God. The Father is true God along with the Son and the Holy Spirit. On the other hand, Irenaeus does not mind telling us that God’s Son Jesus can be referred to as deity; however, he says that the scriptures also call Christians "God”. Irenaeus does not believe that the Son is "God" by identity, but is deity/divine by virtue of his divine origins in the Father as the Logos (The Word). Being "of" the Deity, The Word is deity. Some people see "God" to be a three person being, in Irenaeus’ case, he sees his God to be a “one” person, “one” being, out of whom came the Son, and therefore, Jesus is deity of the Supreme Deity, the only one true God and this God is the Father alone and the divinity of the Son is simply a derivative of the Father who is the Deity, therefore, for this reason only the Heavenly Father is the one true God.
For Irenaeus, Jesus can be called "God or god (Deity or deity)" but only in the sense that he derives his power and incorruptible deity from the One and Only True God, the Father, and as such he is the Word of God, a manifestation of God, but is not himself, “The One and True God". Irenaeus speaks a common voice with all his Christians brothers in those ancient times that Jesus is deity of The Deity, and the only true Deity was the Supreme God, the Father. Irenaeus, along with all the early Christian witnesses, reveal that the early church of the first 250 years was most definitely not a church who worshiped a 3 in 1 God.
Against Heresies
In his work, Against Heresies, it is recognized that he was writing against Gnostic like groups of various kinds, who had turned away from the teachings Orthodox Christian Church.
Irenaeus claims against them were that they did not follow the teachings handed down by the Apostles and the scriptures, resulting in many groups, Sects, with bizarre beliefs. They use scriptures used by Christians, however, Irenaeus wasn’t writing against men who have heretical views that sound somewhat Christian. These are extreme heretical movements that claim to have the true knowledge of Christianity by taking in numerous concepts with Christian belief. He is not debating his points against other Christians who have went astray, but men who are completely distorting Christian beliefs and merging them with various forms of Gnostic-Platonic philosophy and or that of non Judeo-Christian religious beliefs, as a means of forming their own unique religions.
This work of Irenaeus is very important to a solid understanding of the identity of God for two reasons.
First, Irenaeus is defending the apostolic traditions of the church. Second, the Gnostics preached other gods and Irenaeus must argue, even considering it a Christian heresy, for Irenaeus knew who the true identity of the One and Only Christian God and will do anything it takes to defend this truth.
His main defense and offense:
(1) The Church follows the teachings handed down by the Apostles (Apostolic Age), which includes their Scriptures, and follows them without contradictions and does not fall victim to wild and outlandish speculations.
(2) The Church has this universally accepted belief concerning God and Christ handed down from the Apostles (Apostolic Age), which he himself holds, and is defending, and by which he is also refuting the deceptions of these men who are competing as a power against the Christian church. And if, anyone was not given over to a growing Platonism in the church, it was Irenaeus. He is no philosopher and simply takes the scriptures as they are without delving into deeper questions. And in fact, one of Irenaeus' main themes in this work, is to establish the identity of the one and only true God which he repeatedly insists is the Father alone, through reasoning from the scriptures. The mass of overwhelming evidence Irenaeus leaves us for the early church's true belief concerning God is certainly decisive.
John, proclaiming One God, the Almighty, and one Jesus Christ, the only-begotten, by whom all things were made.... But if the Word of the Father who descended is the same also that ascended, he, namely, the only-begotten Son of the Only God, who, according to the good pleasure of the Father, became flesh for the sake of men. (I,9,2).
What I find interesting is you probably didn’t know the actual name of the chapter in book 3. The actual title of said chapter is
“Jesus Christ Was Not a Mere Man, Begotten from Joseph in the Ordinary Course of Nature, But Was Very God, Begotten of the Father Most High, and Very Man, Born' Of the Virgin.”
You have cut up into pieces of what the chapter is trying to tell the reader, allow me to post what is says:
But again, those who assert that He was simply a mere man, begotten by Joseph, remaining in the bondage of the old disobedience, are in a state of death having been not as yet joined to the Word of God the Father, nor receiving liberty through the Son, as He does Himself declare: "If the Son shall make
The full paragraph to “Against Heresies, book 3, chapter 19”, 2. It would seem you only picked a “portion” of it and highlighted that one part of the paragraph, not realizing what Irenaeus had said before in the previous paragraph before I post it, I will show you exactly where you took that part from in full:
For this reason [it is, said], "Who shall declare His generation?” since "He is a man, and who shall recognise Him? " But he to whom the Father which is in heaven has revealed Him, knows Him, so that he understands that He who "was not born either by the will of the flesh, or by the will of man," is the Son of man, this is Christ, the Son of the living God. For I have shown from the Scriptures, that no one of the sons of Adam is as to everything, and absolutely, called God, or named Lord. But that He [Jesus] is Himself in His own right, beyond all men who ever lived, God, and Lord, and King Eternal, and the Incarnate Word, proclaimed by all the prophets, the apostles, and by the Spirit Himself, may be seen by all who have attained to even a small portion of the truth. Now, the Scriptures would not have testified these things of Him, if, like others, He had been a mere man. But that He had, beyond all others, in Himself that pre-eminent birth which is from the Most High Father, and also experienced that pre-eminent generation which is from the Virgin, the divine Scriptures do in both respects testify of Him: also, that He was a man without comeliness, and liable to suffering; that He sat upon the foal of an ass; that He received for drink, vinegar and gall; that He was despised among the people, and humbled Himself even to death and that He is the holy Lord, the Wonderful, the Counsellor, the Beautiful in appearance, and the Mighty God, coming on the clouds as the Judge of all men; -all these things did the Scriptures prophesy of Him. - (Against Heresies, book 3, chapter 19, 2)
Now for what was said before the, previously to the above information, we see what Irenaeus at the time believed about Jesus being The Word and the Son of God:
To whom the Word says, mentioning His own gift of grace: “I said, You are all the sons of the Highest, and gods; but you shall die like men.”He speaks undoubtedly these words to those who have not received the gift of adoption, but who despise the incarnation of the pure generation of the Word of God, defraud human nature of promotion into God, and prove themselves ungrateful to the Word of God, who became flesh for them. For it was for this end that the Word of God was made man, and He who was the Son of God became the Son of man, that man, having been taken into the Word, and receiving the adoption, might become the son of God. - (Against Heresies, book 3, chapter 19, 1)
We see here again in Chapter 4, of which you only pulled a portion of said paragraph, not realizing, once again, what Irenaeus was talking about, allow me to post that paragraph so you can see for yourself. Also with all due respect, Irenaeus indeed identified the Holy Spirit as a Person (said spirit has no personality whatsoever), however, never once did he claim that it was God, or that it, the Son and the Father are “selfsame” (remember this word for what you will see later) in this specific paragraph, as you claim:
Therefore have the Jews departed from God, in not receiving His Word, but imagining that they could know the Father [apart] by Himself, without the Word, that is, without the Son; they being ignorant of that God who spake in human shape to Abraham, and again to Moses, saying, "I have surely seen the affliction of My people in Egypt, and I have come down to deliver them." For the Son, who is the Word of God, arranged these things beforehand from the beginning, the Father being in no want of angels, in order that He might call the creation into being, and form man, for whom also the creation was made; nor, again, standing in need of any instrumentality for the framing of created things, or for the ordering of those things which had reference to man; while, [at the same time, ] He has a vast and unspeakable number of servants. For His offspring and His similitude do minister to Him in every respect; that is, the Son and the Holy Spirit, the Word and Wisdom; whom all the angels serve, and to whom they are subject. Vain, therefore, ark those who, because of that declaration, "No man knoweth the Father, but the Son," do introduce another unknown Father. - (Against Heresies, book 4, chapter 7, p.4)
Irenaeus establishes in Chapter 20 that the Holy Spirit, that is his Wisdom, was God's power that was used to create man and all things, for he made all things through both the word and wisdom, nowhere in Chapter 20 did he establish, specifically, the Holy Spirit was an “Eternal Person”. In attention, the title of Chapter 20 even states: That One God Formed All Things in the World, by Means of the Word and the Holy Spirit, you can find that out in your bible as well, if you really look that is, anyways to the paragraph you seem to misinterpret:
As regards His greatness, therefore, it is not possible to know God, for it is impossible that the Father can be measured; but as regards His love (for this it is which leads us to God by His Word), when we obey Him, we do always learn that there is so great a God, and that it is He who by Himself has established, and selected, and adorned, and contains all things; and among the all things, both ourselves and this our world. We also then were made, along with those things which are contained by Him. And this is He of whom the Scripture says, "And God formed man, taking clay of the earth, and breathed into his face the breath of life." It was not angels, therefore, who made us, nor who formed us, neither had angels power to make an image of God, nor any one else, except the Word of the Lord, nor any Power remotely distant from the Father of all things. For God did not stand in need of these [beings], in order to the accomplishing of what He had Himself determined with Himself beforehand should be done, as if He did not possess His own hands. For with Him were always present the Word and Wisdom, the Son and the Spirit, by whom and in whom, freely and spontaneously, He made all things, to whom also He speaks, saying, "Let Us make man after Our image and likeness; " He taking from Himself the substance of the creatures [formed], and the pattern of things made, and the type of all the adornments in the world. - (Against Heresies, book 4, chapter 20, 1).
You sure about that? I say “no” to that. And some didn’t claim it, Irenaeus wrote it himself. You just choose to ignore it.
Check this out: In this, Irenaeus speaks a common voice with all his early Christians brethren, Jesus is deity [god] of The Deity [God], and the only true Deity was the Supreme God, the Father. Also he refer to Christian(s) as “God(s)”, does that make “us” begotten Gods? Not really. You have to understand how the people spoke back then and not just jump to a conclusion and or “accept as is”, do the research.
As for the other part of your comment, not quite, Ireaneus made it clear as to who Jesus is, and who God is throughout his books he speaks of both and uses Deity and deity as well as God and god, in one of his writings he even referred to Christian(s) and I quote “which is begotten of God is God”, hence Christian(s) are God(s), when in truth, regarding to what he really met in his books that all sons of God are gods and or godlike (regarding Angels), even God said it himself, Psalm 82:6, said that his followers (as well as the angels) are gods it is also within the Law of the Jews as Jesus spoke of in John 10:34, 35, as well as Paul also mentioning “many gods and many lords in heaven or on earth”, 1 Corinthians 8:6. Ireaneus isn’t a fool and if one understands or even read his books, they would know exactly what he met. Ireaneus wouldn’t be foolish for literal think that Jesus, Christian men and women, angels are literal Gods that are equal to the Father, which is absurd, in addition, it would put all of his work into contradiction and make him no different than the ones he is against. Read his work and you will get a BETTER understanding. Any Christian knows what “Begotten” means in terms of a Parent to a child (Abraham to Isaac, Hebrew 11:17) In addition to that, throughout his books when he speaks of Jesus or the Holy Spirit, he references them time and time again “The Word and The Wisdom” of God, he also referred to Jesus as The Son of God. Just because he refers to Jesus as such, then you would also have to take into account as to what he says on others. Plus if Ireaneus truly believed Jesus was fully “God”, you would have mentioned that, but you didn’t because, it is unfounded. Bene Elohim/Benai Ha Elohim (Son(s) of God) have a meaning, it isn’t hard to learn/look this up via studying the bible.
So then the Father is Lord and the Son is Lord, and the Father is God and the Son is God; for that which is begotten of God is God.* And so in the substance and power of His being there is shown forth one God; but there is also according to the economy of our redemption both Son and Father. Because to created things the Father of all is invisible and unapproachable, therefore those who are to draw near to God must have their access to the Father through the Son. (Proof of the Apostolic Preaching, 47)
[* ftn.] [178](I, i. 18: to gar ek theou gennethen theos estin.) For Irenaeus, as is evidenced throughout his writings, this is also true of Christians who are also begotten of God. [178]
Also I suggest you start reading his books a little more.
You are taking the paragraph in chapter 5 out of context (why mention book 4 if it is not found there), in addition, it doesn’t prove anything about the Trinity, as you claim. This is the full paragraph:
God, then, is one and the same, who rolls up the heaven as a scroll, and renews the face of the earth, who made the things of time. For man, so that coming to maturity in them, he may produce the fruit of immortality, and who, through His kindness, also gifts them eternal things, "that in the ages to come He may show the surpassing riches of His grace," who was announced by the law and the prophets, whom Christ confessed as His Father. Now He is the Creator, and He it is who is God over all, as Isaiah says, "I am witness, says the LORD God [YAHWEH], and my servant whom I have chosen, that ye may know, and believe, and understand that I am. Before me there was no other God, neither shall be after me. I am God, and besides me there is no Saviour. I have proclaimed, and I have saved." And again, "I myself am the first God, and I am above things to come." For neither in an ambiguous, nor arrogant, nor boastful manner, does He say these things, but since it was impossible, without God, to come to a knowledge of God, He instructs men, through his Word, to know God. To those, therefore, who are ignorant of these matters, and on this account imagine that they have discovered another Father, justly does one say, "You err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God.".... He is the God of the living; and His Word is He who also spoke to Moses.... Christ Himself, therefore, together with the Father, is the God of the living, who spake to Moses, and who was also manifested to the fathers. (Against Heresies, book 4, chapter 5, 2).
Reading it in full speaks volumes. Not to mention the actual title of Chapter 5 that says: The Author Returns to His Former Argument, and Shows that There Was But One God Announced by the Law and Prophets, Whom Christ Confesses as His Father, and Who, Through His Word, One Living God with Him, Made Himself Known to Men in Both Covenants.
Interestingly enough, the term “God of the Living” (“of the Living God”) is found in the bible (Hebrews 10:31; 12:22, Rev 7:2, Matthew 16:16, Jeremiah 10:10, Luke 20:38), in addition, everywhere it is used, it is referring to the Father.
If you were to read ahead from that paragraph that, it would most definitely destroy what the claim you just said here with minimum effort, shooting yourself in the foot, if you will. In addition, if you read carefully as to what paragraph 1 in the same chapter or anything from paragraph 3 to 5.
Also what you said “the name of God is applicable to both the Father and the Son” is unfounded. Why you may ask? Simple, for NO such thing was said in Chapter 5 in book 4.
Therefore neither would the Lord, nor the Holy Spirit, nor the apostles, have ever named as God, definitely and absolutely, him who was not God, unless he were truly God; nor would they have named any one in his own person Lord, except God the Father ruling over all, and His Son who has received dominion from His Father over all creation, as this passage has it…
(Read Psalms 110:1)
Here the [Scripture] represents to us the Father addressing the Son; He who gave Him the inheritance of the heathen, and subjected to Him all His enemies. Since, therefore, the Father is truly Lord, and the Son truly Lord, the Holy Spirit has fitly designated them by the title of Lord.
For it here points out that the Son, who had also been talking with Abraham, had received power to judge the Sodomites for their wickedness. And this [text following] does declare the same truth (Read
(Psalm 45:6-7)
For the Spirit designates both [of them] by the name, of God-both Him who is anointed as Son, and Him who does anoint, that is, the Father. And again: "God stood in the congregation of the gods, He judges among the gods." He [here] refers to the Father and the Son, and those who have received the adoption; but these are the Church. - (Against Heresies, book 3, chapter 6, 1)
Not sure if you actually read the title to Chapter 6 in book 3, you make it obvious, especially in regards to context. And Yes I agree with this statement, that God and Jesus, The Father and The Son, in this very chapter are spoken of as two different persons, and both identify as Lord, further proving that they are literally NOT one God (3 in 1). For it is God the Father who does the anointed, and the anointed one is Jesus Christ himself. Jesus acknowledged an anointing via prophecy in Isaiah 61:1 that is applied to himself, whereas the praise” LORD [YHWH] has anointed me” is appears. In Luke 4:18, Jesus states clearly that God has anointed him using his Spirit. You already agreed on that, hence your comment in regards to the actual statement above, but with ample evidence of them not literally being a 3-in-1 God, you would just ignore what the book even says.
That just tells me you “didn’t” read the full paragraph, this is what it really says about how the early church views God and his Son:
The Church, though dispersed through our the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: [She believes] in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His [future] manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father "to gather all things in one," and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Saviour, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, "every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess" to Him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all; that He may send "spiritual wickednesses," and the angels who transgressed and became apostates, together with the ungodly, and unrighteous, and wicked, and profane among men, into everlasting fire; but may, in the exercise of His grace, confer immortality on the righteous, and holy, and those who have kept His commandments, and have persevered in His love, some from the beginning [of their Christian course], and others from [the date of] their repentance, and may surround them with everlasting glory. - (Against Heresies, book 1, chapter 10, 1)
If you continue to read into the other paragraphs, it continues to put a strong emphasis on the faith and belief of the church and of its members. As it continues on to say in the next paragraph, just a single sentence: As I [Irenaeus] have already observed, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although scattered throughout the whole world, yet, as if occupying but one house, carefully preserves it. - (Against Heresies, book 1, chapter 10, 2)
Now what is this preaching they received as well as their belief? “SHE” the church, believes in One God, The Father Almighty. “She” believes in One Christ Jesus, The Son of God and The Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the administrations of God.
Just take a look at the first few sentences of paragraph 1 in Chapter 10. I don’t see how you missed this, and I have no doubt in my mind if you read it from start to finish, you would disagree with Irenaeus on the spot.
Lastly, take a good look at this [Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Saviour, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father]. As to my pervious comment in Irenaeus’ other book, Proof of the Apostolic Preaching, anyone can figure this out so there is no further need to go into detail, in addition, as I said before, you didn’t read the other portions of the same paragraph, let alone took the time to read the book, at least some of it (even though I hyperlinked in one of my comments aside from a basic Irenaeus’ quote).
You really missed many, many points when you don’t read the full paragraph, out of curiosity did you know exactly Irenaeus was talking about, let alone against, in this very paragraph? Just to give you a hint, that chapter 13 have nothing to do with God the Father or Jesus, he was speaking of Gnosticism (Their version of God and their verse of LOGOs, the word; their hersey) the title even states the following: The First Order of Production Maintained by the Heretics is Altogether Indefensible.
If that isn’t enough for you, this is what the chapter was referring to Gnosticism:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeon_(Gnosticism)
http://www.pfrs.org/gnosticism/Gnosticism01.pdf
You have taken Irenaeus’ words and his writings out of context, again, and didn’t really see what his real message is and that of the early church. You take bits and pieces from these parts the books, not realizing what the chapter is about or what was said before/after of which you posted. Irenaeus, who “fought heresies and defended the church”, makes it crystal clear of what he believes and what the Christians in his time, of the church, believed.
Quote: There is no doubt that Irenaeus had a subordinationist view of the Godhead and extended the term God (as theoi or elohim) to include the Son and those also of the adoption. We know without doubt that the Council of the Sons of God were the elohim (god/deity) (cf. also Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:4-7; the Psalms and Rev. 4 and 5). Thus the adoption, by definition, had to include the loyal Host also (see below). He seems to indicate here that Christ gathered the elect, whereas we know from Scripture that it is God who gives the elect to Christ in order that they be gathered (Jn. 17:11-12; Heb. 2:13; 9:15). The exclusive use of the term to the physical elect may be incorrect given Irenaeus’ application here. The loyal Host are also included in the council from the understanding in Revelation 4 and 5 – thus the loyal Host are also the Ecclesia of God. There is no doubt that the term elohim or theoi was held to extend to the Church and that this was the understanding of the first century Church both from John to Polycarp who taught Irenaeus and on into the second and subsequent centuries.
It is clear that Irenaeus held that only God the Father was the true God of the Bible and he was creator of all others.
Really? I don’t think so. Irenaeus’ Against Heresies only contains “5 books” (Books I, II, III, IV, and V being the “final volume). Unless, you mean Book 4, Chapter 6, with its title being: Explanation of the words of Christ, "No man knows the Father, but the Son," etc.; which words the heretics misinterpret.
I already know what Book 3, chapter 1 and 6 says, since I already read it, I invite you to read it too, for context of course. Yes I had read it, in full. But apparently you didn't.
Nope. Irenaeus speaks for himself in his own writings. Plus I already made mention to it. It wasn't hard to miss, especially in his books.
I’m surprised you quoted from John Norman Davidson Kelly’s “Christian Doctrine”, a Patristic Scholar who is a Protestant. That being said, you missed what he said on the start of page 107, and what he continues on to say about Irenaeus’ belief in pages 108-110. In addition to that, he quoted Irenaeus, and from that quote, I already made comment to.
But going on with JND, do you believe that: The Father, the only God, is a single personage and that the Word, that is the Son and the Spirit that acts through.
What is interesting is that you didn’t get to the several remaining sentences of Chapter 25, let alone the context to what you quoted as to what the writer has stated after that.
Before we start on Tertullian, here is a brief bit of information about what he wrote pertaining to his wirings and what it is about: The book, Against Praxeas, is the main document written by Tertullian which illustrates his beliefs concerning the relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Scholars strongly believe it was written after he became a Montanist (AD 210).
Now then, since you left out a bit of Chapter 25, I will continue it off from what you quoted” These Three are, ONE essence, not one Person” It continues to read:
Continuing from what you quoted (what’s actual there, after said quote): I and my Father are One, John 10:30 in respect of unity of substance not singularity of number. Run through the whole Gospel, and you will find that He whom you believe to be the Father (described as acting for the Father, although you, for your part, forsooth, suppose that the Father, being the husbandman, John 15:1 must surely have been on earth) is once more recognised by the Son as in heaven, when, lifting up His eyes thereto, John 17:1 He commended His disciples to the safe-keeping of the Father. – (Against Praxeas chapter, 25)
The mid portion of the same chapter continues to say:
John 17:11 We have, moreover, in that other Gospel a clear revelation, i.e. of the Son's distinction from the Father, My God, why have You forsaken me? Matthew 27:46 and again, (in the third Gospel,) Father, into Your hands I commend my spirit. Luke 23:46 But even if (we had not these passages, we meet with satisfactory evidence) after His resurrection and glorious victory over death. – (Against Praxeas chapter, 25)
Now that all the restraint of His humiliation is taken away, He might, if possible, have shown Himself as the Father to so faithful a woman (as Mary Magdalene) when she approached to touch Him, out of love, not from curiosity, nor with Thomas' incredulity. But not so; Jesus says unto her, Touch me not, for I am not yet ascended to my Father; but go to my brethren (and even in this He proves Himself to be the Son; for if He had been the Father, He would have called them His children, (instead of His brethren), and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God. – (Against Praxeas chapter, 25)
The final portions of that SAME chapter:
Now, does this mean, I ascend as the Father to the Father, and as God to God? Or as the Son to the Father, and as the Word to God? Wherefore also does this Gospel, at its very termination, intimate that these things were ever written, if it be not, to use its own words, that you might believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God? John 20:31 Whenever, therefore, you take any of the statements of this Gospel, and apply them to demonstrate the identity of the Father and the Son, supposing that they serve your views therein, you are contending against the definite purpose of the Gospel. For these things certainly are not written that you may believe that Jesus Christ is the Father, but the Son. – (Against Praxeas chapter, 25)
So we know that Tertullian didn’t believe that God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit, the Trinity or Triad as he calls in other writings, were All 3 as One God. We see in chapter 25, he is pointing out that the 3 are separate and distinct essence, quote: Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete (meaning Holy Spirit; Comforter/Helper), produces three coherent Persons, who are yet distinct One from Another. These Three are, ONE essence, not one Person” So in short, Tertullian knows that the Father, God, is one, Jesus being the Son, is also one, and the Holy Spirit is one, for he describes the Holy Spirit in the opening of chapter 25 that the “there is the Paraclete or Comforter, also, which He promises to pray for to the Father, and to send from heaven after He had ascended to the Father. Referencing John 14:16 at the opening of the chapter, even addressing John 16:14.
The way I see it, what I “can” agree with is that Tertullian sees that there is a distinction between the 3. In regarding both the Father and the Son, we see how he makes a clear distinction between the 2, two persons, a Father and a Son; therefore, they are NOT one person.
I am sure you are aware of the title of Chapter 2? I will spare you on the title of this chapter… Also once again you only take “a small part” of something and accept it “as is” without understanding and or context. I reference this time because I will just state what Chapter 2 entails:
In the course of time, then, the Father forsooth was born, and the Father suffered, God Himself, the Lord Almighty, whom in their preaching they declare to be Jesus Christ. We, however, as we indeed always have done (and more especially since we have been better instructed by the Paraclete, who leads men indeed into all truth), believe that there is one only God, but under the following dispensation, or οἰκονομία, as it is called, that this one only God has also a Son, His Word, who proceeded from Himself, by whom all things were made, and without whom nothing was made. – (Against Praxeas chapter, 2)
So clearly we see that Tertullian, again, shows a clear distinction between The Father and The Son, even stating that the Only God also has a Son. Trinitarians will say that Tertullian didn’t mean that, but unfortunately it is said and done and part of history.
Let’s continue:
Him we believe to have been sent by the Father into the Virgin, and to have been born of her — being both Man and God, the Son of Man and the Son of God, and to have been called by the name of Jesus Christ; we believe Him to have suffered, died, and been buried, according to the Scriptures, and, after He had been raised again by the Father and taken back to heaven, to be sitting at the right hand of the Father, and that He will come to judge the quick and the dead; who sent also from heaven from the Father, according to His own promise, the Holy Ghost, the Paraclete, the sanctifier of the faith of those who believe in the Father, and in the Son, and in the Holy Ghost. – (Against Praxeas chapter, 2)
So we now see here, he makes it clear once again, that the Father and the Son are 2 different persons. For he believed that the Father sent the Son, Jesus Christ to earth via bestow Holy Spirit to the Virgin Jew Mary, who became pregnant. Being both a Man and God (godlike ones, sons of the Most High, Psalm 82:6), he is called Jesus Christ, believing him to have suffered, died and buried, only to be resurrected by the Father (literally dozen verses in the bible says this), raised up again out of death (Firstborn from the dead) and ascends to the Father to be seated at his right hand side. I don’t see how you still think Jesus is literally God the Father after reading something like that. But truly I say to you, that you don’t agree with Tertullian, especially now since he makes such a thing clear.
Let’s continue:
That this rule of faith has come down to us from the beginning of the gospel, even before any of the older heretics, much more before Praxeas, a pretender of yesterday, will be apparent both from the lateness of date which marks all heresies, and also from the absolutely novel character of our new-fangled Praxeas. In this principle also we must henceforth find a presumption of equal force against all heresies whatsoever — that whatever is first is true, whereas that is spurious which is later in date. – (Against Praxeas chapter, 2)
But keeping this prescriptive rule inviolate, still some opportunity must be given for reviewing (the statements of heretics), with a view to the instruction and protection of various persons; were it only that it may not seem that each perversion of the truth is condemned without examination, and simply prejudged; especially in the case of this heresy, which supposes itself to possess the pure truth, in thinking that one cannot believe in One Only God in any other way than by saying that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are the very selfsame Person. – (Against Praxeas chapter, 2)
Don’t you agree with Tertullian? That is something to look at, especially in all of Tertullian’s works in chronological order, including the Against Praxeas book. Let’s continue:
As if in this way also one were not All, in that All are of One, by unity (that is) of substance; while the mystery of the dispensation is still guarded, which distributes the Unity into a Trinity, placing in their order the three Persons— the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost: three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in substance, but in form; not in power, but in aspect; yet of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power, inasmuch as He is one God, from whom these degrees and forms and aspects are reckoned, under the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. How they are susceptible of number without division, will be shown as our treatise proceeds. – (Against Praxeas chapter, 2)
Tertullian, as I stated somewhere else, was the first to coin the word “Trinity” for he believed God, the Son and the Holy Spirit are not only separate beings, but they work in some way as a unity of some sort. Nowhere in his work he claims that The Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit is “one” person or a “three in one” person, as some Trinitarians claim to say this today, people like James White for example. To Tertullian, the idea of God becoming human is absurd, for God is incorruptible, the very opposite of corruptible, the case was different with Jesus, for he has only been made immortal AFTER God resurrected him from the dead.
Tertullian was the first to directly assert the essential unity of the three “persons”, but his logic and arguments are essentially subordinationist - (see Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. II, p. 570).
You also left out the closing conclusion of that same chapter, which speaks briefly on what Tertullian was talking about from the beginning of the Chapter:
For there is the Spirit Himself who speaks, and the Father to whom He speaks, and the Son of whom He speaks. In the same manner, the other passages also establish each one of several Persons in His special character — addressed as they in some cases are to the Father or to the Son respecting the Son, in other cases to the Son or to the Father concerning the Father, and again in other instances to the (Holy) Spirit.
Tertullian never once said that all of them are, together one God. That goes against what he was trying to tell us since Chapter 1. Just because the word is coined, Trinity doesn’t mean Tertullian considers all 3 of them in 1, a single God. Once again, he has made the distinction between the 3, and in his writings he uses bible scriptures, of which you ignored.
If the number of the Trinity also offends you, as if it were not connected in the simple Unity, I ask you how it is possible for a Being who is merely and absolutely One and Singular, to speak in plural phrase, saying, "Let us make man in our own image, and after our own likeness; (Gen.1:26)" whereas He ought to have said, "Let me make man in my own image, and after my own likeness," as being a unique and singular Being? In the following passage, however, "Behold the man is become as one of us (Gen.3:22)," He is either deceiving or amusing us in speaking plurally, if He is One only and singular. Or was it to the angels that He spoke, as the Jews interpret the passage, because these also acknowledge not the Son? Or was it because He was at once the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, that He spoke to Himself in plural terms, making Himself plural on that very account? Nay, it was because He had already His Son close at His side, as a second Person, His own Word, and a third Person also, the Spirit in the Word, that He purposely adopted the plural phrase, "Let us make;" and, "in our image;" and, "become as one of us." - (Against Praxeas, chapter, 12)
That was just a portion of Chapter 12, for its full version goes more in depth of the distinction between the Father and the Son, as well as how the Father use of the Holy Spirit. Tertullian makes a “fine” point in this chapter, for thinking The God and the Son are the same, let alone throwing the Holy Spirit into the mix, is quite really an absurd idea, and in Tertullian’s words, "a heresy".
Just going to cut this one short because every comment you make is the same pattern, taking bits and pieces out and assuming without reading the “full context” of what Tertullian is trying to tell us.
For I should give the name of sun even to a sunbeam, considered in itself; but if I were mentioning the sun from which the ray emanates, I certainly should at once withdraw the name of sun from the mere beam. For although I make not two suns, still I shall reckon both the sun and its ray to be as much two things and two forms of one undivided substance, as God and His Word, as the Father and the Son. – (Against Praxeas chapter, 13)
And viola, now you see what he tells us with the closing comments of chapter 13, it concludes to the point that both God is the Father and his Word, that is Jesus Christ, is the Son. Nowhere does he claim they are the same person, and or in Tertullian’s words, “selfsame person.”
The root of Unitarianism, as do most Christians, were Subordinationist. Like it or not, it is true and it is history, it is as true as the bibles using the oldest and reliable sources that some bibles seem to ignore. I don’t see how and why are you still in denial of this, but hey, some Christians today don’t like their history or past in those ancient days, trying to change and twist what our early church fathers were about.
Subordinationism is a belief within early Christianity that asserts that the Son and the Holy Spirit are subordinate to God the Father in nature and being, meaning that apart from God, The Son and the Holy Spirit are apart from the True God himself, thus making them separate. It has been around in the Pre/Ante-Niece Era, The Apostolic Age and has been around since the practice of Arianism started to spread, even outlasting the practice of Arianism.
Unitarianism is a belief that the God in Christianity is one Entity/Deity/Elohim. For the Father, the Son, and Holy Spirit are separate from each other. Unitarians also believe that Jesus was inspired by God in his moral teachings, and that Jesus is a savior, but he was a normal human, born of a Jew into the Law, he was a man, The Word, from God, that became flesh. Unitarianism is NOT one single Christian denomination, it is a collection of both extant and extinct Christian denominations, whether historically related to each other or not, which share a common theological concept of the oneness nature of God.
Very much alike, very similar to each other, all of us who are Non-Trinitarians have our roots in Subordinationism. But apparently, it is too hard for you to believe this, but I will leave that information up for the others, even the Jehovah’s Witnesses so they know where majority of Christianity originated from before the Council of Nicaea.
Not quite. I pulled the information from the source I linked before. Other websites have the same quotes (technically it is called the internet so most items will be identical), some closer to said quote, I don’t dwell in Catholicism, nor would I dwell in anything to do with websites that believe apparitions of Mary” are often seen in their churches, like the one in Egypt, as they claim. I am completely baffled to how you do not know the history of Binitarians (which of whom Irenaeus was against; the Binitarians also had a role in the Trinity doctrine itself), allow me to note the following clearly:
During Alexandria and the rise of Binitarianism, Subordinationst Unitarians, wrongly called Arians or Eusebians by the later Trinitarians.
The Canons of the Council of Nicea have been lost. It was later established that there were only 20, which commenced the introduction of aberrations such as: domiciliary rules for the clergy living with females, i.e. celibacy; the persecution by the imposition of penance of Unitarians (incorrectly called Arians)
In 328 CE Constantine realised that the Athanasians were not the majority sect and were a source of division and persecution in the Empire and he recalled the five Unitarian leaders. (It is suggested this was at the urging of Constantia, widow of Licinius. However, it is more probable that she was merely a prominent Unitarian of the Eusebian or Arian faction). The problem with the Unitarian Christian system was that it followed the Bible tenets and was not concerned with the control of nations.
It was shown what the early position was over the first two centuries and how it became Modalist and then Binitarian from the beginning of the fourth century and from the Council of Nicaea, and finally Trinitarian from the introduction at the Council of Constantinople in 381 and the ratification from the Council of Chalcedon after 451. – (Early Theology of the Godhead, No. 127)
After the 325 Council of Nicaea defeated Arianism, the Council of Constantinople was called in 381 in order to attempt to deal with the binitarians, who were referred to as "Semi-Arians". However, as the Trinity was finalized at this time as official Christian doctrine, the offended Semi-Arians walked out. "They rejected the Arian view that Christ was created and had a different nature from God (anomoios dissimilar), but neither did they accept the Nicene Creed which stated that Christ was 'of one substance (homoousios) with the Father'. Semi-Arians taught that Christ was similar (homoios) to the Father, or of like substance (homoiousios), but still subordinate" - (Pfandl, Gerhard. The Doctrine of the Trinity Among Adventists. Biblical Research Institute, Silver Spring, MD June 1999).
Athenagoras set the philosophical division between Christ and the other sons of God and began the inexorable march to adoption of the Binitarian worship found in the devotees of the cults of Attis, Adonis and Osirus, and from the Mysteries and which were established at Nicaea in 325. It is a form of the Noetian Heresy denounced by the Smyrna trained disciples. The canons of Nicaea were destroyed as heresy and that system was removed from 327 with the restoration of the Subordinationst Unitarians, wrongly called Arians or Eusebians by the later Trinitarians. The restoration of Binitarianism and the grounds for Trinitarianism came with the appointment of Theodosius as emperor in the East by Gratian and his support of the Athansians in 381 at Constantinople, and from 451 from the Council of Chalcedon.
Other Note: The Binitarians considered a new faction that had a new and developed doctrine based on the pagan theology of the Triune God, which came in from the worship of Attis in Rome and Adonis among the Greeks. Trinitarians and Trinitarianism did not come into existence until 381.
You “may” want to check out the history of the Nicene Creed. A brief bit of information:
[Modalistic Monarchians allied together with the Semi-Trinitarians to formulate the early 325 Nicene Creed to counter the Arian threat which denied the divinity of Jesus Christ. Reasons why Modalists and the Semi-Trinitarians were able to sign the early Nicene Creed while the Arians could not]
What can be said is that things got really “brutal, bloody, violence, excommunications, eventually going on into the things of the following, the burning of writings and literature, killings and what not. Just so people can be “forced” to not believe in Arianism, since the Creed was met to target them. Anything in the name of Trinitarianism, right? I’m surprised you don’t know how bad things got, reasons being I linked a book for you to look at.
I dunno if anyone can agree with or say "Amen" regarding people plotting to kill Christians, force them to believe one doctrine, burn their writings, and the like. But I guess "Christian Violence" gives some people that rush when they praise that stuff, like getting wild off of caffeine kind of way.
You maaaaaaay wanna look at how Arius, and others have died. Let's just say it seems kinda Rated R for those who dig for this truth.
This is just the tip of the iceberg:
Everyone knows who Eusebius is, one of the well known church Fathers in his time, hence his title “The Father of Church History”.
You really want to take that chance, with a person like me who occasionally quotes and or briefly speaks of Eusebius? By all means, I am up for it. As for you claim “works there is no mention of Binitarianism”, nowhere was his works mention, don’t see why you want to bring up his works when it will a contradictory to what you believe, but if you want to get into that topic, I am all for it. That being said, do you have any idea of what “heresies” Eusebius was even against???
There is a reason he is called “The Father of Church History”, don’t forget that.
Technically he has mention such heresy, just as the other church fathers have, in addition to that, you will be astounded by Eusebius’ belief if you actually took time to look it up.
You may want to check on what the Binitarians believed and their history, they have existed from the start of the 4th century and into and after the Council of Nicaea. Oh and they have referred to it, those who believed that The Father, The Son and the Holy Spirit are literally one being, or a 3-in-1 God, “selfsame”.
Irenaeus has fought and or was against Binitarianism. Others included Polycarp, Melito, Tertullian (although he himself did not hold a Binitarian view), Origen and Hippolytus, we have strong evidence that some sort of Binitarian view was held during the time of Smyrna era of the Church of God (the second, third, and early fourth centuries).
The early Church Fathers tend to fight against doctrines that are bad, this includes Binitarianism. Don’t add Eusebius into this if you don’t really know who he is. Don’t take chances with him, it won’t go too well for you if you do.
Also Unitarianism = Subordinationism = common belief of early church (one God, one Son, one Holy Spirit, etc) I gave you a “clear-cut” definition of both. You can’t deny Christian history and think you can get away with it.
Not quite, because you have only taken bits of information without even going to the book itself to look at the complete context, examples being this phrase:” rather God Himself, since He is the Word” Last I checked, God the Father’s name wasn’t “Nous” and the aspects of LOGOS were several spirit beings, as the Gnostics have taught, similar to their the Valentinians counterparts, the very portion paragraph in the Chapter of which you assume was talking about God the Father and Jesus who is the Son and The Word. Perhaps this would help you out:
My claims are not lacking, for us Unitarians believe that God is one and true. We believe that The Word and Wisdom of God is the Son (Jesus Christ) and The Holy Spirit (Wisdom), both from God the Father, the same views as the Pre-Nicene Christians held way before the Council of Nicaea for the majority of Christians were indeed Subordinationst.
For a guy who thought Irenaeus has “6 books in his “Against Heresies” perhaps it is you who need to do a bit more research on the Church, let alone the history of Christianity.
“[My Father is greater than I.] In the Psalm His inferiority is described as being "a little lower than the angels." Thus the Father is distinct from the Son, being greater than the Son.” –Tertullian
“For the Father indeed is One, but there are two Persons, because there is also the Son.” – Hippolytus
“We believe in One God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible” – Eusebius
Why Women are special ..(read this complete )
?????????????
Good for You Mom, you Deserve it!!! Husband & Wife were watching TV when Wife said, "I'm tired, and it's getting late. I think I'll go to bed." She went to the kitchen to make sandwiches for the next day's lunches.
Rinsed out the bowls, took vegetable out of the freezer for morning, checked the cereal box levels, filled the sugar container, put spoons and bowls on the table and started the coffee pot for brewing the next morning.Â
She then ironed a shirt and secured a loose button.Â
She picked up the game pieces left on the table, put the phone back on the charger and put the telephone book into the drawer.Â
She emptied a waste basket and hung up a towel to dry.Â
She yawned and stretched and headed for the bedroom.Â
She stopped by the desk and wrote a note to the teacher and pulled a text book out from hiding under the chair.Â
She signed a get well card for a friend, Addressed and stamped the envelope and wrote a quick note for the grocery store.Â
She put both near her bag. Then she washed her face, put on her moisturizer, brushed her teeth..... Husband called out, "I thought you were going to bed." "I'm on my way," she said.
She put some water into the dog's dish, then made sure the doors were locked.Â
She looked in on each of the kids and turned out their bedside lamps and radios, and had a brief conversation with one kid who is still up doing homework.Â
In her own room, she set the alarm; laid out clothing for the next day.Â
Said her prayers, and visualized the accomplishment of her goals. about that time,Â
Husband turned off the TV and announced to no one in particular. "I'm going to bed." And he did... without another thought.Â
Anything Extraordinary Here?Â
Share this to phenomenal women today... they' ll love you for it!Â
And Forward this to as many men as you can so that they know why women are so special......!!!! - ?????
Alan F
Perhaps you could say that COJ's work is a summary of the best of modern scholarship and I am inclined to agree but I will hold you to this comment. Yes, when one rejects this scholarship then it could be argued that one is rejecting the best scholarship so I agree to both statements.
I don't ignore anything. Insults from you do not reflect scholarship.
It is good that you have considered SDA scholarship and that is my advice to you and I disagree with your statement that such scholarship has debunked WT Chronology. I am familiar with MacCarty's material as I have his treatise to hand.
No, not just in principle but in practice, that is why Methodology is essential.
WT Chronology has no need to misrepresent any evidence and I have found no examples of having done so nor have they ignored Bible passages but have evaluated all available evidence. Your presentation of such matters is simply a retelling of the COJ story and that has been falsified by the biblical 'seventy years'.
We all know about your supposed 'fact checking' it is simply proved to be bogus. There is no need to quote mine the Bible because the texts that we use are exactly the same scriptural texts that feature in COJ. These are few in number and are mainly centered around a few books of the OT relevant to NB Period. You are correct, Ussher's Chronology and WT Chronology are both established schemes of Chronology. Please note that to date COJ has not published a OT scheme of Chronology and neither did Edwin Thiele.
Any evidence that you have presented is simply a rehash of the COJ story so this is not new and has been dealt with by contrary evidence over the years. It is not evidence that is the problem or that is missing for the problem is the INTERPRETATION of that evidence which you fail to understand.
'Very likely' does not cut it. You have presented such as a fact in your earlier charts on the JWD FORUM and it has to be so in order for your novel theory to work. The only evidence we have is Ezra 1:1; 2 Chron.36:22-3.and that simply staes that the decree was given Cyru's' first year.
No, Ezra did not specifically indicate what year the seventy month fell. It could not have been 538 BCE but could only have been 537 for the reasons I have given before and yes they must have arrived prior to that seventh month in order to be settled in their cities. The month of their actual arrival is not stated.
Your thesis contains both assumptions and interpretation and that is fine so there is no room for dogmatism. OK
I have already given you three reasons for concern which must be duly recognized but you are free to have an opinion just try to make a better fist of it and pay close attention to what Ezra actually said in Ezra 3:8 and not misinterpret his words in order to harmonize with Josephus' comment.
Incorrect, if you read what WT publications have written about the Return you will notice that certain assumptions were and are made in order to establish a Chronology for the Return.
My response is that the quote was used correctly and in context.
A dissertaion is not required but a short article with scholarship would be nice.
Yes the fact are indeed clear but your assumptions are impossible therefore undermining the merit of your argument as I have explained previously.
I have indeed and there is no evidence of any scholarship or research just an interpretation based on a fallacy.
This so-called new information has been part of your thinking since June 2005 some 12 years ago and even yet has not had COJ's tick of approval.
Why would he have done when he would have understood as most scholars do that 538 is impossible. Thiele does not discuss the Return in his MNHK but in a paper published in February, 1976. Now if you had engaged in proper research in support of your thesis then you would have come across such an article. Good scholarship demands a Literature Review.
Excellent. Well done so tell me what else did you learn from his article with regard to the Return? Now, Steinmann is a Chronologist who indeed argues 533 which was 5 years after 538 making your theory absurd, impossible. Josephus' comment is not decisive when it comes to fixing the actual date of the Return.
True, this is a consistent with SDA scholarship originating with Horn in 1953 but still today highly contentious
My concession excluded the time of the Decree and its proclamation which existed prior to.the actual journey preparations and the journey itself.Further, 537 had an additional month in contrast to 538 BCE.
Correct but the time periods are not identical were they?
We agree. But it is you that has excellent reading and comprehension skills for I am but a dummy!!!!
So this fact should temper your criticism.
Because of its novelty and any such new thesis is usually accompanied with sound scholarship.
I will give it careful consideration and would be happy to give a Critical Review..However, please take note of my earlier criticisms and deal with these carefully.
Sorry to hear that and I hope all goes well with him.
Case in point is that of WT scholars and the NWT and yes I am an amateur but then so is COJ.
Correct, amateurs can move scholarship forward and I look forward to your contribution in this area.
Well six months is sufficient for actual journey and resettlement but it still excludes the preparations and the Decree and I only agreed in context with the actual journey itself.
I agree so let us crank up the scholarship!
Not so, you try reading the stuff better than chess or a mathematical puzzle.
I would if I could.
No not your nonsense but our scheme. Please.
I have.
You fail to grasp the matter for my comment has absolutely nothing to do misrepresenting SDA sources which shows that historically SDA scholars were in tandem with WT scholars even though criticism was levelled from both sides.
Opinion not fact
scholar JW emeritus
Alan F
I do not need to challenge you on anything because all that you have written is just a rehash of COJ'S GTR.
Neither do you. For starters a precise date for the Fall of Jerusalem, a precise date of 607 rather than the fuzzy dates of 586, 587, 588....a precise date for the Return, 537 rather than 538, 536, 535? all also fuzzy. A precise chronology of the seventy years and its description etc.
Well if they have provided a solid date, 607 and it must be solid because why did your guru COJ devote much of his life and his GTR of nearly 400 pages to the subject. Only a fool would devote so much for something so little. Thiele and Young have tackled issues that only arose because of the methodology they have employed.
So now you are an expert in Decision Analysis and indeed if such an analysis has the solution then how come it has made little impact on scholarship over the last 14 years? We had the final result in 1944 and cried 'Prais Jah!'
You have explained the reasons but as I have said before nothing has changed within scholarship so the debates continues to rage. I do not ignore the matter because I have had a longtime interest in these debates and try to keep pace with biblical scholarship. Do you?
Neb's acc year is falsified by the 'seventy years' so must be adjusted some twenty years in order to harmonize with the Bible Chronology.
It is authority rather than evidence that has always impressed you as shown in your Bio. Evidence and valid arguments can be simplistic because both sides claim to champion such tools rather it comes down to methodology and interpretation.
How do then do you engage? Have you written to Young and Steinmann about some validation of your 538 BCE thesis? What commentaries have you consulted in relation to your thesis? I have no need to engage with Young at this point in time but I could if necessary.
Nothing much has changed for if you examine the scholarly literature since 2004 the date 586 continues to have wide support.
Really, Josephus simply states the Temple's foundation was laid in Cyrus' second year which would have been 536 BCE. Ezra dates the Temple's foundation in the second month not in Cyrus' second year but 'after they came to the house of the true God' which can be interpreted as the year of the Return. You assume that both are synonymous but all that can be said is that both give different time formulas from different perspectives of the same event-foundation of the Temple. We accept the regnal data supplied by Josephus relating to the Fall including the Temple laying in obscurity for fifty years but do you except the many references by Josephus about the nature and timing of the seventy years? Or do you 'cherry pick' Josephus?
No. It should be 537 + 70= 607
Just read SDA scholarly literature published since 151 and read Steinmann.
There is no problem for WT scholars to solve because we simply prioritize the Bible as stated in our publications.
Look harder! Do I have to hold your hand and give you the specific reference?
Nonsense. You are quite prepared to acknowledge that scholarship evolves albeit slowly and even those early chronologies that you have tabulated and compare with current knowledge proves this and yet you are not prepared to give WT scholars the same benefit or courtesy. You chided WT on your website Bio for scholastic dishonesty but refuse to look at yourself in the mirror. Give me a break!
No it does not. I am simply providing a context for the basis of a revised scheme of Chronology published in 1944. The fact is that there was scholarship emerging in relation to Bible Chronology first in 1942 and later in 1944 with Thiele's paper and continued into the fifties.
Context, Alan, Context. Get it?
Correct
A little rhetorical flourish to entertain the reader.
scholar JW emeritus
https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/activities/construction/volunteers-tuxedo-new-york/#?insight[search_id]=68cd32e3-dd61-4e9f-b87d-daca038b0d81&insight[search_result_index]=0
Legal Offices
No Lawyer-Client Relationship. No lawyer-client relationship or other relationship is created by communicating with our law department or a lawyer in our law department by e-mail or otherwise through our website.
Communications Not Confidential. We do not guarantee the confidentiality of any communication with our law department or a lawyer in our law department via e-mail or otherwise through our website.
Select Location Albania Angola Argentina Armenia Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Brazil Britain Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cameroon Canada Central African Republic Chile Colombia Costa Rica Côte d’Ivoire Croatia Curaçao Cyprus Czech Republic Democratic Republic of the Congo Denmark Dominican Republic Ecuador El Salvador Estonia Ethiopia Faroe Islands Fiji Finland France French Guiana Georgia Germany Ghana Greece Greenland Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guinea Haïti Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Kazakhstan Kenya Kyrgyzstan Latvia Liberia Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macedonia Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Malta Martinique Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Moldova Mozambique Myanmar Nepal Netherlands New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Norway Pakistan Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Réunion Romania Rwanda Saint Barthélemy Saint Martin Saint Pierre et Miquelon Samoa Senegal Serbia Sierra Leone Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands South Africa South Korea South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Sweden Switzerland Tahiti Taiwan Tanzania Thailand Timor-Leste Togo Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Turkey Turks and Caicos Islands Uganda Ukraine United States Uruguay Venezuela Zambia Zimbabwe
United States
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc.
Office of the General Counsel
100 Watchtower Drive
PATTERSON NY 12563-9204
UNITED STATES
+1 845-306-0700
generalcounsel.US@jw.org
World Headquarters
Jehovah’s Witnesses, Office of the General Counsel
1 Kings Drive
TUXEDO PARK NY 10987-5500
UNITED STATES
+1 845-306-0711
generalcounsel@jw.org
This will help you! I can’t tell you anyhow.
All properties and money donations are used in the World-Wide work and building new Kingdom Halls and Facilities. Volunteers work with their own time and money to give from the heart their volunteering. They receive blessings and room and board and an allowance each month for necessities. A value of a property proves that our work is growing and helping the World-Wide organizations. You must ask them more of these properties if you have any other questions. Watch the Video above that will help you also.
@James Thomas Rook Jr.
Mostly offices there with those working at these offices and JW Broadcasting. Not sure I can give you other info? It is now 2018, many things have changed including the opening of the New World Headquarters in Warwick, New York. Most of those of the Governing Body travels constantly to help the World-Wide work. Many times he’s a shuttle to the Airports many miles away in New York. Buses travel there, Perhaps plan a trip to see for yourself? The facility is very organized and clean as well as enjoyable to visit.
I have been trying to watch the little show here without getting involved, as I no longer much care if it doesn't involve "where the rubber meets the road" things that may or may not have happened several millennia ago... but perhaps here is something to think about ....
How did the people count time back then .... from January 1 to January 1 being one year .... or April 22nd to April 22nd being one year?
IF the Egyptians, Syrians, Babylonians, and Jews all had different start and end dates.... you could gain or lose a year right there.
My wife and I constantly have a different view of my age. Â
I count my age from nearest birthday to nearest birthday, ... like they do in the life insurance business. She counts my age by how many "birthdays" I have had.  There is a six month difference right there.
It could be more.
It's like adding and subtracting fractions ... to add 1/4 inch to 3/32 inch, to 26-5/8 inches to 22mm, to 16.234 cm to 3.567 feet ... you have to convert SOMETHING.  In fact, it all must be reduced to a COMMON SYSTEM before you begin.
Because my background of preference is Land Surveying, I convert the whole mess to Feet, and hundred-thousand-ths of a foot. because that is the way I think, and like to do calcs.
I HATE creeping round-off errors.
...and PI at 3.14 is only good for pie .... if you want to keep your aircraft from landing on it's nose in a corn field at high speed (flotation devices are under your seat...) , better have PI to at least eight places. After calcs are finished, rounding off to six places is often acceptable.
Perhaps the same thing may be true with "587" calculations.
However ... "Stardates" are REALLY cumbersome.
Â
I never allowed vaccinate myself against a FLU, NO !! My Doc. said, bla bla... its better, etc. but I always said, NO NO, haha
My last Flu was many many years ago >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Only a "tetanus inoculation" is very importend ! For drivers, gardners and some more humans.
I'm good informed about different vaccinations.... Some people were died after any weird vaccination, so sad :-(
Which is precisely the goal of many Watch Tower writers.
One can find hundreds of similar egregious examples in Watch Tower literature. I myself have documented more than two dozen instances where WTS literature has given the impression -- usually without actually stating outright -- that all manner of pre-1914 WTS predictions came true, when the fact is that no visible prediction came true.
AlanF
