Posts by truth finder

1

Rare versus seldom discussed in apologetics

by truth finder in

please write to me back on two versus.

1 tim 6:16- says that christ alone has immortality.

i found this one on my own, and i believe it is one of the strongest verses affirming christ's nature.. 2 cor 12:9- i am not fully up to par on jw beliefs, but i do think that they believe that christ lost his power in the sense mentioned at this verse.

truth finder

Please write to me back on two versus.

1 Tim 6:16- says that Christ alone has immortality. I found this one on my own, and I believe it is one of the strongest verses affirming Christ's nature.

2 Cor 12:9- I am not fully up to par on JW beliefs, but I do think that they believe that Christ lost his power in the sense mentioned at this verse. I also believed that this is an act of prayer.

I had a chance to see the JW United site, and I became sick. Both sides were bickering. The JW scholar writing against the www.tetragrammaton.org author does not even bring up the point that the WT did not follow their rule (I am not a scholar in this area, but I think it is capatilized Lord in the Hebrew (?)).

Two points that I would like to mention is (1) the ignorance of 1 Cor 13:12, that we cannot fully figure out God, (2) Assuming that the bible does not teach the Trinity. Greg Stafford sets up Robert Bowman into a possition of defining God, and says that the bible never defines God in that sense (sorry, I don't have any citations). He, along with the WT believe in new light being shed, while taking a deffinite stand on Christ's nature, and ignoring 1 Cor 13:12.

I have developed various ideas through the years and one of them is that the Hebrew language was less ambiguous (sorry, no spell checker) than the Greek by virtue of it being in a small-strict culture. My point being is that wherever you see verses that uses infinity for God, those same verses mean the same for Christ. An interesting thing is that the NWT says that "indeffinite" is not "infinity," by their refference to their use of it in "Should You Believe in the Trinity."

Another idea I have recently came up with is that the Neo-Platonist's infuence on the Trinity may not have been as great as the WT supposes by virtue of the fact that the Neo-Platonists revered a nameless God (Yes, you can actually look at one of the scholars of JW United at the very end of discussion of the dialogue with the author of www.tetragrammaton.org. and he mentions the reverence of a nameless God. I also have citations from other sources.). The point here, is that if the Early Christians were influnced by Neo-Platonism so much, then why did they change the name to Lord, rather than save YHWH which was only mentioned by a priest, not that often, and under special conditions?

Aside from the numerous support for Christ's nature being that of the Father's, I never here anything of the Holy Spirit coming from Christ at Philippians 1:19, which says that Paul looked forward to "...supply of the Spirit of Christ Jesus." I hear of the Holy Spirit talked of as "God's Spirit in 1 Cor 2:11, but never the former.

Feel free to respond, but don't get too harsh!

2

Open minded towards creationism

by truth finder in

this will be the last time i work on this.

this is some thought for reluctant buddha to consider.

reluctant buddha stated that,

truth finder

This will be the last time I work on this. This is some thought for Reluctant Buddha to consider. Reluctant Buddha stated that,

Post 24 of 26
since 12-Dec-05

Too bad "truth finder" you werent [sic] around to read my rather lengthy discussion for all the new discoveries that are pointing back to an eternally osciallting [sic] universe, an infinite regression of "big bangs."

The logical difficulties is still inherent in this position, which I do not know the entire details of, but I know the foundations for this argument (one of my classmates last semester tried to explain it to me not seeing the logical problems in the argument). The gist of the whole story by Reluctant Buddha comes when he says, “an infinite regression of ‘big bangs’.”

Now, this view brings the problem of a vicious regress, which is impossible from the understanding of modern logic. There has to be a stopping point, and the following cannot apply

a, b, c, d,…..

The Cosmological Argument is as follows,

Every being is either a dependent being or a self-existent being
Not every being can be a dependent being.

Therefore,

There exists a self-existent being.

This argument is deductively valid, though its premises may not be true. The PSR, or the Principle of Sufficient Reason will help in the study, whether we want to accept all of the premises or not. All objects are,

explained by another
explained by nothing
explained by itself

The first premise is true by virtue of its construction, i.e. there cannot be both alternatives that are true at the same time, since that would exclude every being as being a dependent being. In accepting the PSR, we can only chose 1 and 3, since it is impossible for something to be explained by nothing. When we turn to premise 2, we might say that every being is a dependent being. But this not acceptable, since there would exist a vicious regress, and there would be no stopping point. One of the most fundamental ideas in science is that for every cause there must be some one fundamental agent.

The view put forward by Reluctant Buddha is that to accept it we would have to accept 2 of the PSR, which states that it is explained by nothing. And a being explained by nothing is impossible. In addition to the Cosmological Argument there exists a great number of finds showing that evolution is wrong, and that some scientific theories have actually broken other scientific theories that are still acceptable. One of them I believe is the Law of Thermodynamics.

A last point to mention is that to make good discoveries we must open minded. And being open-minded means not attacking a view just because there may be a point or two one may not accept. Two of the fallacies that I picked up on are the Ad Hominem Fallacy, or argument against the person (though it need not involve one person) fallacy, and the appeal to ignorance fallacy.

There exists many scientists, and researchers with doctorates degrees who accept intelligent design. You stated, “The ruling was a major setback for the not-so-‘intelligent design’ deceivers, and that a judge stated that there exists “overwhelming evidence that ‘Intelligent Design’ is nothing more than so-called ‘scientific creationism’ relabeled to hide it’s actual religious nature.”

The part where you called intelligent design followers deceivers is an Ad Hominem, as you are attacking the person(s) advancing intelligent design by not using rational critique of the argument. As for the judge’s statements, there exists a great number of judges who make mistakes. While there may exist a great number of ID followers who are Christians, that does not disqualify the theory. I will not be “nit picking” and so will not describe the appeal to ignorance fallacy.

I think that the ID theory may not appear believable to many followers at first site. I used to have the same problem with math. I had to work, and work on math, until I got better at it. Every semester, until I went to advanced engineering math, my thinking would get more tuned in to math. The same experience happened with reading, and doing philosophy. I worked on the two former subjects within these past two years, that today, while I may not be an avid novel reader, or a professional logician my skills have nevertheless increased in the two subjects.

What I have found is that there exists a great number of little amazing facts about the bible that get revealed every year. Do you know that the bible is remarkably similar, and that there exists more evidence for it than many other things (I believe it is said to be one of the most historically accurate pieces in history), e.g. figures, or facts in history, which are automatically taken as true by many? There have been studies proving that out of 24,000 NT documents, 99% of the variants in those documents are insignificant. [1] Many of them involve switching “Christ Jesus” for “Jesus Christ.” [2] I would recommend that Reluctant Buddha not take an a priori dogmatism towards Christianity, just like the Jehovah’s Witnesses Watchtower Society who has been shown to have an a priori Unitarianism. [3]

[1] Ron Rhodes, The 10 Most Important Things You Can Say to a Mormon (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 2001), 38.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Robert H. Countess, The Jehovah’s Witnesses’ New Testament: A Critical Analysis of the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures (Philipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1982), 4.

6

Franz's and Jonssons's work

by truth finder in

there exists many interesting facts in direct conflict with the watchtower society, or are just not brought forward for some reason or another by the watchtower society.

this is a well known fact amongst many observers, and previous witnesses, that the watchtower society either hides the evidence by not mentioning anything about the material, or indirectly by misquoting the source (as is the case of the ante-nicene fathers).

i have selection from raymond franzs crisis of conscience.

truth finder

There exists many interesting facts in direct conflict with the Watchtower society, or are just not brought forward for some reason or another by the Watchtower Society. This is a well known fact amongst many observers, and previous Witnesses, that the Watchtower Society either hides the evidence by not mentioning anything about the material, or indirectly by misquoting the source (as is the case of the Ante-Nicene Fathers). I have selection from Raymond Franz’s Crisis of Conscience. The author says that,

Yet the adoption of this amendment [that in 1944 an amendment was passed requiring that a “maximum number of 500 persons, selected by the corporation’s Board, would be the only ones with a right to vote.” [1] ] as to voting members was presented in articles in the Watchtower of December 1, 1971…as being an occasion of such significance and magnitude that it became a focal point in the explanation of the prophecy of Daniel 8:14, regarding the 2,300 prophetic days connected with the ‘bringing of the sanctuary into its proper condition.’ I doubt that one Witness in a thousand, if shown that verse today, would ever connect it up with 1944 and the corporation amendment made then [own italics for emphasis]. [2]

It would be a wonder as to how accurate the aforementioned statement is. If it is a

rarity then this only confirms the final conclusion that there exists certain doctrines, and verses related to certain doctrines that are either hidden, or not that well expounded (current evidence brought forward on the concealment of Daniel 8:14 is welcome) For example, in regards to the hidden evidence of ancient writers in regards to the Seventy Years of Desolation, that “…the Watchtower Society fails to mention that Berossus’ statement is clearly supported by the most direct reading of Daniel 1:1-6.”[3]

The book by the previous author, The Gentile Times Reconsidered, is no longer published, and is indeed a rarity. The author makes note (still under the same heading: Misrepresentation of Ancient Writers) that the Watchtower Society hides the “fact that Josephus, in his third and last reference to the period of Jerusalem’s desolation, states that the desolation lasted for fifty years, not seventy [in Against Apion I, 21]![4]

The Watchtower Society tries to raise doubt by the contrary evidence by quoting

Josephus, and Theophilus who was the bishop of Antioch. But little is known amongst most elders (who talk with a scholarly tone about Josephus’ works) that “The chronology of the Septuagint version disagrees completely with that of the Hebrew text…” [5] The evidence brought against the Watchtower Society’s 607 B.C.E. date (thus allowing them to arrive at their 1914 date), including biblical, is too many to count, especially considering the archeological support. An interesting example of the historical data comes from the thousands of business tablets, which Johnson says, “If twenty years have to be added to the Neo-Babylonian era in order to place the destruction of Jerusalem in 607 B.C.E., where are the thousands of business and administrative texts dated in those missing years?” [6] An exhaustive study need not suffice here, but just to show an example from Jonsson’s book, a Neo-Babylonian chronology was presented, which was published by R.P. Dougherty, and based upon over two thousand business and administrative documents. [7]

Nabu-apal-usur 21 years (625-605 BC)

Nabu-kudurru-usur 43 years (604-562 BC)

Amel-Marduk 2 years (561-560 BC)

Nergal-sar-usur 4 years (559-556 BC)

Labasi-Murduk a few months ( 556 BC)

Nabu-naid 17 years (555-539 BC)

The importance of the business and administrative documents is that they confirm not only agree with the evidence given by Berossus’ King list, Ptolmy’s cannon, the astronomical diaries, and Nabonidus’ royal inscriptions, which the Watchtower Society mentions. [8] But the Watchtower Society does not say anything about the business and administrative documents agreements refuting “the notion that the information on VAT 4956 [the author makes the reading difficult by failing to mention here that VAT 4956 is a astronomical diary] could have been concocted during the Seleucid period.” [9]

I had missed the opportunity to study a course in ancient Israel this semester, since a mistake was made by dropping the wrong course. I have had the opportunity to study from a friend’s library who lives close by. Writing this down keeps me busy, until I have I go back to school again.

[1] Raymond Franz, Crisis of Conscience (Atlanta, Georgia: Commentary Press, 2002), 103.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Carl Olof Jonsson, The Gentile Times Reconsidered (Atlanta, Georgia: Commentary Press, 1986), 151.

[4] Ibid, 153.

[5] Ibid, 155.

[6] Ibid, 60.

[7] Ibid, 64.

[8] Ibid,145.

[9] Ibid.

5

intelligent design

by truth finder in

i have done extensive thought about the intelligent design theory.

the bad comments coming from the evolutionists are flagrant.

as a student seeking graduate study in philosophy, i feel that the teleological argument & the cosmological (although this is not from my understanding this one has no relation to intelligent design) arguments should be mentioned when a teacher starts making statements about our possible origins, since there exists a few scientists who do not believe in evolution from nothing (the teleological arguement has a greater following).

truth finder

I have done extensive thought about the intelligent design theory. The bad comments coming from the evolutionists are flagrant. As a student seeking graduate study in philosophy, I feel that the Teleological argument & the Cosmological (although this is not from my understanding this one has no relation to intelligent design) arguments should be mentioned when a teacher starts making statements about our possible origins, since there exists a few scientists who do not believe in evolution from nothing (the teleological arguement has a greater following).

However, to teach an entire class (like the statues of Daedalus, my knowledge in this ( see Plato's Meno towards the end, before Meno is led to the conclusion that virtue is right opinion) that run away if not tied down, I cannot seem to remember the entire wants of the creationists) seems more religious based. But to include it some point when inferences are being made to Man's possible origins is perfectly fine.

The whole intelligent design theory, if strictly based on tradditional biblical support, does have some difficulties based on sciences understanding. However, taken for what it is, a philosophical theory, which in my opinion is also scientific, the teleological argument is perfectly fine. But, the ontological argument, which is also the weakest argument (My epistemology teacher Michael expalined this) since it is actually explaining only a necessary condition of God, or any supposed perfect being, is definitely a religious based argument.

A reduction to the absurd can show how those against the creationist theory(some at least) are wrong:

If, 1. R then [~B* B]

2. ~[B*B] since, contradictions are false

So,3. ~R modus tollens

R= Any (notice I did not say some) part of creationist theory should not be allowed to be taught in Public schools

B= It will free our schools from religious based and not scientific. (By way of logic we know that this is not all true)

I have not been keeping track of the current debate, but I do know that the entire creationist theory is not biblically based.

I will not get into all the specifics of both arguments but I do know that they are:

(a) based from the empirical

(b) more believable than a theory that says we come out of nowhere.

Now the teleological argument is an argument from analogy, and the cosmological argument stops a viscious regress, but runs into difficulties for some to who do not want to believe in a self-caused agent. If we stop with most evolutionist's idea of where we came from, we run into many problems. No theory can circumvent the philosophical problems created by the evolutionist's idea of Man's origins. I contend that

(a) There exists some evolutionists who belief in a creator

(b) If these 2-arguments are not allowed into the picture, then no teacher has the right to infer Man's possible origins, since the former theories are from the empirical.

2

scholarship/use of definite article

by truth finder in

by no means is my scholarship affected by misspellings, and my research may appear at first sight to not mean much.

but with further investigation, one should find the point i have made.

it is a very common thing among proffesors to have misspellings, especially in lecture outlines.

truth finder

By no means is my scholarship affected by misspellings, and my research may appear at first sight to not mean much. But with further investigation, one should find the point I have made.

It is a very common thing among Proffesors to have misspellings, especially in lecture outlines. The main point is meaning, and I would reccomend anyone to take a Linguisticts class in Anthropology, as words are continually changing (It was a favorite for my anthropology teacher to twistr words around). I do not plan to get too invovlved with this as my research is currently in other areas.

As for the definite article, I believe it does have bearing within the scope that one recognize that both Jesus and His Father are called "King of Kings and Lord of Lords [as a philosopher there exists no way I can prove anyhting beyond a doubt, let it be P; I believe I have seen the former, but more importantly I chuckle when one proves me wrong with certainty]." Dr. Bob Countess affirms the former in his book "The Jehovah's Witnesses' New Testament" on Pg. 39. The bible verses backing this up are : Revelation 17:14;19;16; 1 Tim 6:15; Daniel 2:47; Deuteronomy 10:17. Though I do not mention the chapter and verse, I am all too familar with hit and run scholarship (I don't do this).

The fundemental pattern that I am looking for is the aforementioned plus,

(a) a compound word such Lord and God, or Lord God. see Revelation 4:11, where the Greek says "the Lord and the God of us.

(b) Verses that have completly substituted God, or the tetragrammoton (which is essentially the same as the former, but in the sense that God name is supposedly being mentioned) with Lord. Without proof, one can imply that the former is true, though proofs can be supplied in an advanced class. An example is in Ephesians 5:17. I am not going to debate over the use of the article here, but I am following the NWT guidlines .To maintain my privacy I will not mention my teachers name (he teaches the philosophy of the Old & New testaments). He comments that translation is a very difficult thing that is subject to change since it is based on historical records. The same was said by my history of early christianity teacher (the history of early christianity that I took was the real deal and was not covered up like the classes you will find in many seminaries).

In regards to the importance importance of the article Bob Countess says "...yet, when the article is used , definiteness is assured..." (46). I think one should reconsider the meaning in "Lord of Lords," as the is saying that Jesus & His Father are the Lords over all. The former also contradicts the WT contention (which very few people know) that Jesus is only the Lord on earth.

Sorry if I offended anyone, but the main is to show how the use of Lord really does mean something when used of the Son. The former "occurences of 'Lord of Lords' " coupled with places where Lord is subtituted for either God or Jehovah, shows that my thesis is correct, contrary to mainy peoples' contentions that "Lord" is meaningless. One does not have to be a full fledged scholar to understand my thesis, and I hope it will be of some use-
Happy Christmas
Action :: Jump to:

Style: basic XP (IE Only) Compact

6

Chronology - 70 weeks of years

by shadow in

the 7 times of daniel 4 and the connection to 607 has been discussed and debated in great detail.

is there a thread that discusses the 70 weeks of years in daniel 9?

is the time frame suggested by the wt for this also in doubt?

truth finder

I am not a JW, nor have never been one. The Page #, and chapter # in Carol Olof Jonssons book is Pg 87, and Ch. 3

3

Research into Jehovahs Witnesses

by truth finder in

i would encourage anyone to look into the ante-nicene fathers, or better yet you can ask the watchtower to send you some photocopies.

the watchtower employs bad scholarship, e.g.

plagiarism, misquotating, and insufficient information.

truth finder

I would encourage anyone to look into the Ante-Nicene Fathers, or better yet you can ask the Watchtower to send you some photocopies. The Watchtower employs bad scholarship, e.g. plagiarism, misquotating, and insufficient information.

I would encourage one to look into the bible at 2 Cor 12, where the only conclusion is that Jesus was prayed to. The Watchtower uses the word entreat to disguise Pauls' intentions. A quick look into a dictionary will show that entreat means to earnestly ask.

The use of the deffinite article does not apply to just God, but is used in denoting the true Lord, etc. By the standards of both most Greek scholars, and the Watchtower:

If (1) The deffinite article is used in anything (lets say Lord for this example) then it denotes that true holder of that title (this is a fact from both scholars and the Watctowers own use)

(2) The deffinite article is used in the title of Lord for both the Father and the Son (I will let the reader research this).

Therefore, (3) Both the Father and the Son are the true, and only Lords over all.

The Watchtowers' intentions is to turn their followers to their teachings only, and to advoid any discontent within their members. Look at the thread I added to the one seeking the 70 years chronology for further proof.

**************Merry Christmas, and rememeber 2 Cor 12: Christ is strong even when we think otherwise. And let the power of Christ remain like a tent over you (I researched the New World Translation just in case any are wondering whether my research is ineffective or not)!

6

Chronology - 70 weeks of years

by shadow in

the 7 times of daniel 4 and the connection to 607 has been discussed and debated in great detail.

is there a thread that discusses the 70 weeks of years in daniel 9?

is the time frame suggested by the wt for this also in doubt?

truth finder

I am a senior in philosophy at California State University in Fresno. I began a study of Jehovahs Witness' beliefs to find the truth. I don't want to brag, but the philosophy major (I am more tuned in to finding contradictions).The study of the the Watctower chronology is a difficult one, and the materials are limited. An extensiveresearch by Carl Olof Jonsson points to were they (Watchtower) has quoted, and what they have left out. Proof from authorities in ancient history, as well as an examination of the bible, Carl was able to refut the Watchtower. The analysis of the dating using archeological remains and the application of history is the strongest criteria, although most Jehovah's Witnesses will not care, and thus the contradiction comes into play:

~P*P

~P= listen to the bible only, and what it teaches,

P= follow the Watchtower teachings which uses other scholars findings to raise doubt.

Another one is :

~B*B, where

~B= Watchtower does'nt claim to have bible scholars, e.g. in Greek, Hebrew, etc.

B= Watchtower claims to make a better interpretation of the bible knowing Greek, and Hebrew (an amazing thing is the fact that the Watchtower publishes the Kingdom Interlinear, making use of other scholars, and Greek grammar, while teaching its members that the uneducated understood Jesus better than the educted, i.e. Pharisees, and Sauducees !)