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

by hillary_step 28 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  hillary_step

  ThirdWitness,

  Speaking of W.E.Vine and your stated respect for his profound understanding of scriptual exegesis and his scholarly expertise about such subjects, I wonder what comments you have on this observation by the man :

  UNAUTHORIZED SYSTEMS

  Events at Jesrusalem, therefore provide no support for the establishment of a controlling centre for the organization of churches. One will search in vain in the Acts and the Espistles for even an intimation of the establishment of such an institution.

  Apart from such matters as the supply, by churches in a district, of the needs of poor saints in another region, the only bond binding the churches together was a spiritual, that of a common life in Christ and the indwelling of the same Holy Spirit. There is no such thing as external unity by way of federation, affiliation or amalgamation, either of churches in any given locality or all the churches together. Apostolic testimony is indeed, against the organization of churches into an ecclestiastical system'.

  The Church And The Churches, W.E.Vine published by John Ritchie, Kilmarnock, pp11.

  This is of corurse how the Plymouth Bretheren view their own network of churches to this day, as being held together not by a central organization, such at the WTS in Brooklyn, but by the Holy Spirit.

  In an earlier post you accuse AlanF and myself of trying to discredit W.E.Vine as a scholar by pointing out that his religious views, not of the mainstream, very much influenced the application of the Koine Greek word 'parousia', in his Expository Dictionary. This dictionary, as you know, is the most commonly and repeatedly appealed to by the WTS in claiming evidence for their own use if the parousia in Matthew 24.

  Do you agree with the views of W.E.Vine regarding the lack of evidence in scripture for the need of a central ecclesiastical organization?

  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.

  HS
• 

  Death to the Pixies

  Since when it is necessary to agree in toto with a scholars beliefs to quote him for a specific point? It is not i believe, if that were true no-one would quote anyone...Ever. 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?
• 

  minimus

  Hillary, Vine wasn't perfect plus he didn't have The Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses as we have it in this 21st century. Just as the disciples in Jesus' day did not know the true meaning of all scriptures until Jehovah God would see fit, so like wise did Brother Vine not get to understand all of the "sacred secrets".
• 

  hillary_step

  Death,

  Since when it is necessary to agree in toto with a scholars beliefs to quote him for a specific point? It is not i believe, if that were true no-one would quote anyone...Ever.

  Silly billy! That is not the point. Of course scholars all have areas of disagreement, that is OUR point. When we pointed this out to ThirdWitness, he accused us of trying to discredit Vine to undernmine the WTS application of parousia. You obviously are yet another poster who posts carelessly before they read carefully. HS
• 

  Death to the Pixies

  Silly billy! That is not the point. Of course scholars all have areas of disagreement, that is OUR point. When we pointed this out to ThirdWitness, he accused us of trying to discredit Vine to undernmine the WTS application of parousia. You obviously are yet another poster who posts carelessly before they read carefully.

  Well then your point is all over the place.. If you are merely trying to show 3rd the difference in opinion amongst scholars, then why exactly are you pointing to Vine's take on ecclesiastical authority? Does this somehow show that a Vine, an alleged modern scholar (the original context of the introduction of Vine mind you) does not agree with the use of "parousia" at Matthew 24? Of course it does not so this whole diversion is ....um...a diversion.

  You cannot discredit Vine's take on the parousia by showing 3rd places where he disagrees with his own theology. That is unless 3rd exclusively hides behind Vine's authority, something he has not done.
• 

  metatron

  This is an excellent quote and well summarizes the decentralized situation in the first century.

  They all had the holy spirit - and you couldn't tell 'em anything, like born agains today.

  metatron
• 

  hillary_step

  DeathPixie,

  You cannot discredit Vine's take on the parousia by showing 3rd places where he disagrees with his own theology. That is unless 3rd exclusively hides behind Vine's authority, something he has not done

  This is exactly what he HAS done. For the sake of your own credibility, read the posts that generated this thread before commenting further.

  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.

  What I have shown is that Vine had an agenda with regard to his views of ecclesiastical authority ALSO based on his religious viewpoint, and one that the WTS would vehemently disagree with no doubt seeking to discredit it.

  What this proves, is that it is not uncommon for Biblical scholars to introduce a personal agenda into their work, and that is why Vine found himself out in the cold with regard to his application of the parousia. ThirdWitness will not accept this fact. My quote above gives him no choice, given his own theological stance, to accept the possibility that Vine was not correct in his application of parousia in Matthew 24.

  Now, I have taken you through this step by step, a process which would not have wasted my time had you bothered to read and assess the posts that generated this thread.

  Many thanks - HS
• 

  hillary_step

  ThirdWitness,

  By the way, you never did comment on a question that I asked some while ago, I will repeat it in case you missed it :

  Were you aware that years before the Rutherford / Franz Flying Circus claimed that one of the Wild Beast in the Revelation represented the League of Nations ( 1927, I believe ) that W.E.Vine had already presented this interpretation to the world? Plaigerism has of course never been an issue where the WTS is concerned. They have cobbled together bits and pieces from the graveyards of numerous religions, and some crackpot political theories and created a Frankenstein whose mouth is unfortunately located at its rear end.

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

  HS
• 

  Death to the Pixies

  This is exactly what he HAS done. For the sake of your own credibility, read the posts that generated this thread before commenting further.

  
  

  But sweetie the context was merely about finding a modern scholar who believes "presence" is correct, So yes 3rd Witness did exclusively pointed to Vines , (cough), but the point made of course was 3rd has not rested his case on "parousia" simply by pointing to Vines. That is the difference, and that is why this is just off-topic non-sense that hopefully 3rd will not waste his time on.. 3rd was merely atempting to justify Vines as a legit scholar which of course would be an answer to AlanF's challenge.. .We do not want to spread him to thin do we? 3rd seems
  

  You really are just an off-topic king.
• 

  hillary_step

  PixieDeath,

  But sweetie the context was merely about finding a modern scholar who believes "presence" is correct, So yes 3rd Witness did exclusively pointed to Vines , (cough), but the point made of course was 3rd has not rested his case on "parousia" simply by pointing to Vines.

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

  My goodness! Is it really that possible to miss the point SO often? Do you still not understand that ThirdWitness HAS indeed raised the spectre of Vine as being a trustworthy source for Biblical exegesis not just related to the parousia, now FOUR times posting his credentials On the Board with this very point in view? Can you really be that daft as to not understand what these posts are about?

  That is the difference, and that is why this is just off-topic non-sense that hopefully 3rd will not waste his time on.. 3rd was merely atempting to justify Vines as a legit scholar which of course would be an answer to AlanF's challenge.. .We do not want to spread him to thin do we? 3rd seems

  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.

  You really are just an off-topic king.

  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.

  HS