W.E.Vine and ThirdWitness - Brothers Beneath The Skin? (page 2)

MegaDude

I cannot take credit for unearthing this enlightening information. This was actually dug up by......mmmmmm......dare I use the name.......Carl Jonsson....lol

ROFLMAO!!!!!!

Big Tex

Don't tell me, another idiot who has never heard of the Hillary Step?

A bid for the White House?

MegaDude

The Hillary Step is a challenging piece of steep climbing very close to the top of Mt. Everest.

Here's a pic of Hillary Step on the Hillary Step when he was with the Climbing For Christ organization.

BizzyBee

Not to get in the way of the Pixies and the Politicians, but

A simple question, which I am quite certain will as usual be ignored, in favor of your claiming victory over debates that you do not even seem to fully understand.

3rd and others of his ilk do not seem to actually read other posts, including questions. Their function is similar to throwing a spanner into the works whilst running swiftly by. I believe that that is the preferred method of operations for these types - that way they believe they can't get pulled into the truth about the Lie. On the other had, I've noticed that the ones who will engage in verbal wordplay are not very bright. When cornered, their default response is usually, "Duh!"

garybuss

Vine held rallies in opposition to Jehovah's Witnesses. Randy Watters has the scan in his book Thus Saith The Governing Body.

plmkrzy

True Frankincense (Olibanum) was used to communicate with God. The resin was burned and its delicate perfume filled the heart of men and rose to the sky.

Jesus was given Frankincense by the Magi because it was a symbol of His divinity.

USE : Apply on the wrists before praying.

and the secrets of Parousia be revealed

The Holy Spirit is found in frankincense. When applied to the wrist at the proper time one can experience rapture and no organization is needed to achieve this.

Has anyone tried rubbing this stuff on their wrists before praying?

They were high

Mistah MOJO

Dear DEATH TO THE PIXIES

You wrote:

"Theology aside, a JW would quote Vine merely for his definition of "parousia" in a certain place, for this alone they quote. Who cares about his theology, especially on an unrelated topic. You seem to like unrelated topics, no?"

Well well well. What an interesting view of facts and scholarship you seem to have. In other words, it doesn't matter if someone is full of shiite up to their eyebrows, you'll use a quote from them to substantiate a point. You evidently see no problems in this approach, so please indulge me as I point out a few salient features.

If you quote sources that are known to be humbugs full of balderdash, you stain yourself and your writings with their poor reputation.

You will also cause embarrassment to others who adopt your rather shaky position, for when you're exposed as having relied on a humbug, they will share in your shame.

This position exposes a cavalier attitude on your part toward facts, truth. Your attitude sounds like the WTS attitude. Use whatever source you can find to support your preconceived notions, not matter how attenuated their connection to reality.

There are probably other problems with your approach, but I'm tired. Go forth and have fun in the world of scholarship. Take a fire extinguisher and a life jacket with you. MM

Death to the Pixies

Are you homosexual darling?

No, but I did save 15% on car insurance by switching to Geico....... I knew you were a dude from a previous post on another thread... The ref may be lost....Oh well, comedy show is over... Just to re-emph:

In view of my repeated and proved evidence that ThirdWitness is pointing to Vine's overall scholarship as being indicative of the trust one can maintain in his application of parousia in Matthew 24, and this being the subject at hand, how can it be off-topic nonesense? I have to say, you are quite stunning in your ignorance of the implications of this thread - I think a mischievous motive would garner more respect than actually thinking that this is the sum of your ability to grasp the issue at hand.

Again, He was answering a challenge that "No modern scholars agree.blah..blah.." the showing of the credentials was to show that Vines was indeed a legit scholar.. I have already addressed that he would not need to agree with all of Vines conclusions to quote him as an authority on translation of "parousia". Of course you agreed, which is what makes this thread so off-topic. You have probelms with diverting attention, Elsewhere 3rd wants to discuss how the testimony of the bible allegedly contradicts the secular and you want to argue the bible's legitimacy! As you see, slightly different than the point of his post. .

You seem to be trying to turn being incorrect into an art form! Given that this post was aimed at ThirdWitness, on topic with regard to both the parousia and Vine, and that it was your goodself that interfered with this post with very limited understanding of what was really being discussed, I will leave the readers to reach the same conclusion that I am reaching, that what you have between the ears is nothing much to be proud of.

Reply: No, you said in your last post:

"If you are able to join the dots, which you are obviously unable to do, you would see that the point AlanF and I made was that while Vine was an exellent scholar, he had an agenda that influenced his application of parousia. ThirdWitness repeated three times, in defence of Vine's views, his credentials as a scholar, indicating that no agenda was present and that we were attempting to discredit him to bolster an 'unscriptual' view."

But of course if you remember back to the other thread when this same supposed on topic point was made- 3rd said:

"To those who would attempt to discredit Vine saying he had an agenda. So what? What is the agenda of Carl Jonnson and Alan F? I think it is obvious what their agenda is. "

He obviously did not care to object..(everyone has an agenda!) .sooooooo why are you still diverting topics with this? He says "So what" He quoted Vines credentials not to buttress his own theology but to show that he was indeed a worthty commentator who agreed with "presence" being an apt rendering of "parousia", which if you remember was an answer to the challenge posed, namely, again for your benefit "No modern scholars agree..blah...blah.."

Simply re-read the corrections in the last post and re-emph'd here.

Arthur

DTTP:

This thread was addressing thirdwitness.

If thirdwitness observes hypocrisy, or disingenuousness on the part of hillary_step's argument, he will address it himself. He is a big boy. He can speak for himself. He doesn't need you to speak for him or be his advocate.

Please, let thirdwitness speak for himself, and stop trolling the thread. It is juvenile, and it is getting quite tiresome.

hillary_step

Death,

As you can see, your half-baked intellectual gibbering is impressing no-one. Your ability to continually miss the point has been noted, as has your complete lack of critical thinking skills. I hope that eventually the penny will drop, but who has that sort of time on their hands?

Sorry sweetie, we are going to have to give you C- and send you packing, hopefully you can muster your mental energies and return at some later date once the paint has dried on your, 'I Am Not With Stupid - I Am Stupid' teashirt.

HS

PS :

I knew you were a dude from a previous post on another thread... The ref may be lost....Oh well, comedy show is over... Just to re-emph:

A liar as well as dumb as a post. Poor sod.

W.E.Vine and ThirdWitness - Brothers Beneath The Skin?

Share this