<<<Interesting. So you ascribe to the school of dishonest scholarship if it suits your cause?>>>
Reply: See the problem with Yes/no answers...LoL.... That was a "No" to the brochure being guilty of your charge.
Is The watchtower Dishonest When It comes to the Trinity?
by RevFrank 66 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
LittleToe
So you agree that such a tactic would be dishonest, then? Thanks
Now if I use this thread when quoting you I can make you seem to be saying anything I want
Welcome to the world of reverse-WTS tactics
-
Death to the Pixies
HaHa! Seriously, that is not a valid comparison.
Are you all out of juice, or is there anything else?
-
LittleToe
Juice? I've not even started - the topic bores me, I've done it so many times
-
Hellrider
<<You honestly think that the WTS is accurately representing the intent and beliefs of the original authors?>>
Reply: The ultimate belief is not what they are quoting, they are quoting for a specific purpose, like with Fortman, to show that even those who profess the Doctrine, do not believe it is explicit in scripture. That should trigger "If it is not explicit in scripture, then where is it explicitz?" in the mind of the reader.
That is BULLSHIT, and yoy know it. And if you don`t know it, then you should!
One can`t just pick and choose among the sentences in a text written by someone, and use a sentence that would seem to suit ones own agenda. It just isn`t fair, not to ones opponent in a discussion, and neither to the person whos text you are using. And the old "well, some others are doing it too"-argument you are using, doesn`t work either. All you do is split hairs, it`s ridicolous! What the WTS are trying to do in that brochure, is to make it look like the early church fathers did not believe in the Trinity! And that is just wrong, wrong, wrong. Perhaps some of them did not believe in it in its form of today, but they still believed in a Trinity, although some of them were subordinationists. There is nothing in the brochure that indicates that what the WTS are trying to do, is make it look like the early church fathers said "look, we know it`s not in scripture, but we believe in it anyway". The whole point of the WTS in that brochure, is to make it look like the early church fathers did NOT believe in the Trinity, period! And you know this very, very well.
-
Death to the Pixies
Such a cogent argument Hell-rider.
<<< And that is just wrong, wrong, wrong. Perhaps some of them did not believe in it in its form of today, but they still believed in a Trinity, although some of them were subordinationists>>>
Reply: You did not deal with my example, if you would have you should have comprehended the simple point. The context is there for the Fortman quote.
And.....This would be the definition of "non-sense". "A Trinity"....? Well, by such non-sensical standards I believe in "A Trinity". I believe in the Father, Son and spirit, and a unity is taught in scripture.. "The Trinity" as understood today was not held. Suborditionist views as held by Origen, Justin are not compatible with the ontological Trinity. , Jesus in is Divine pre-human nature is subordinate, not just subordinate by economical standards... The Brochure shows the fact that the doctrine was a formulation and brought out points by the ECF that are incompatible with "The Trinity" as understood today. Trust me, The WTS is not alone here. The fact that you say "A trinity" also proves this "formulation".
Why do you even post on theology issues with that language, you sound like a fool. In a fluff thread for comedic purposes I can see, but in a Christology thread? Dep!
-
LittleToe
This isn't really a theology thread. It's about scholastic dishonesty, which you appear to support!
-
Hellrider
Reply: You did not deal with my example, if you would have you should have comprehended the simple point. The context is there for the Fortman quote.
Yes, it is there for the Fortman-quote, I have no problem with that, but that`s not (only) what you were trying to pass it of as. You wrote:
The ultimate belief is not what they are quoting, they are quoting for a specific purpose, like with Fortman, to show that even those who profess the Doctrine, do not believe it is explicit in scripture.
...thereby implying that this also goes for the other quotes in the brochure (which it doesn`t) ! It is quite a slick way of smoothing things out, a sneaky way of reassuring the reader that "it` s really not that bad"...but the sad truth is that it is. The dishonesty of the WTS lies in the fact that they are trying to pull the "the ultimate belief is...to show that even those who profess the Doctrine, do not believe it is explicit in scripture" - also on the early church fathers! Their "quotes" from the early church fathers are ripped out of context. And your strategy here is to use that one example from Fortman (which I do agree with) - to try to pass off all of the misquoting as "something that can be explained...see, I showed you with the Fortman-quote...all the other quotes are exactly the same". It`s not so difficult to see what you are trying to do. I can read JWs like an open book, I have a full family of them.
-
Death to the Pixies
<<<thereby implying that this also goes for the other quotes in the brochure (which it doesn`t) ! It is quite a slick way of smoothing things out, a sneaky way of reassuring the reader that "it` s really not that bad"...but the sad truth is that it is. The dishonesty of the WTS lies in the fact that they are trying to pull the "the ultimate belief is...to show that even those who profess the Doctrine, do not believe it is explicit in scripture" - also on the early church fathers! Their "quotes" from the early church fathers are ripped out of context. And your strategy here is to use that one example from Fortman (which I do agree with) - to try to pass off all of the misquoting as "something that can be explained...see, I showed you with the Fortman-quote...all the other quotes are exactly the same". It`s not so difficult to see what you are trying to do. I can read JWs like an open book, I have a full family of them>>>
Reply: No, not really, I started to discuss the ECF on one of the other 64 threads started this week on this forum about the SYBTB , but got little response. And I also gave my thoughts on another quote in Rev Franks post, I could go on, but Why? I do not feel the need to systematically justify every attack on the brochure, every time it comes up. Fortman caught my eye on this thread because I recently read his book. To say the Fortman quote is somehow the only one Rev Frank missed the mark on, well..... is not the truth.
-
Hellrider
I stand by this statement to its fullest:
The ultimate belief is not what they are quoting, they are quoting for a specific purpose, like with Fortman, to show that even those who profess the Doctrine, do not believe it is explicit in scripture.
...thereby implying that this also goes for the other quotes in the brochure (which it doesn`t) ! It is quite a slick way of smoothing things out, a sneaky way of reassuring the reader that "it` s really not that bad"...but the sad truth is that it is. The dishonesty of the WTS lies in the fact that they are trying to ;pull the "the ultimate belief is...to show that even those who profess the Doctrine, do not believe it is explicit in scripture" - also on the early church fathers! Their "quotes" from the early church fathers are ripped out of context. And your strategy here is to use that one example from Fortman (which I do agree with) - to try to pass off all of the misquoting as "something that can be explained...see, I showed you with the Fortman-quote...all the other quotes are exactly the same".
...because this is exactly what you were trying to do, whether you admit it or not. I`m not going to really hold it against you, because you are a JW-apologist (or apologetics? English is my second language), so this is pretty much what is to be expected.
To say the Fortman quote is somehow the only one Rev Frank ;missed the mark on, well..... is not the truth.
You may be right, I`m not sure. But he was a 100% right in that other thread, concerning the church fathers, what they really said, and what the WTS was trying to pass of their statements as. This I know, because I have read much of the texts of the early church fathers myself, they can be found here, if you are in doubt: