1 edit
Originally posted by dueceractually Duecer my friend i simply could not be bothered to be honest. You see i know what i profess and why i profess it, our friend here simply lifted a set of accusations from the internet, presented it as proof of indoctrination or whatever when he himself does not even understand why some of these practices may be objectionable to a Christian with a discerning conscience. Galvo my Texan friend i think has covered most and we are of the same mind 🙂
Us much as I enjoy debating theology with Robbie, I have to say this might be a stretch. Half of the things on that list repeat themselves, and in many of the items on the list would not be acceptable in other denominations as well (Catholicism for example).
I fyou have an issue with his theology go for it. If you have an issue with anything on the list, go after it, but an avalanche of inuendo is unfair.
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou really have misrepresented Origen. In the quote I gave you, he clearly distinguishes Christ from the angels. Christ is incapable of sin; the angels are not. He affirms that Christ is God. He is with God not in the sense that he is separate from God but because wisdom is distinct, but always essential, to the Godhead. He argues that Christ is alpha and omega and everything in between, because he is the guiding principle of all things; he does not say that Christ is an angel. You have totally misunderstood him.
oh there you bad ol putty cat, does Origen state what you did not want to hear? never mind, the usual cry of 'youve misrepresented the authors works', somehow does not wash here, for he states it rather plainly, on numerous occasions for all to see, the fact that he states that the Logos (Christ) was with God, in the beginning i find most enlighteni ...[text shortened]... your own words , took 1900 years to become manifest, and is not attested to elsewhere is FALSE
an exclusively Witness professed doctrine that in your own words , took 1900 years to become manifest, and is not attested to elsewhere is FALSE
Nope. The quotes you gave, except from Origen, were all after the nineteenth century. The one from Origen is totally misrepresented. You are just intellectually dishonest.
Origen argues that Christ is in all things, in men, in angels, in the Archangel Michael and Gabriel. But he is not these things nor confined to these things:
29. Now, if any one were to say that, through those who are partakers of the "Word" of God, or of His "Wisdom," or His "Truth," or His "Life," the Word and Wisdom itself appeared to be contained in a place, we should have to say to him in answer, that there is no doubt that Christ, in respect of being the "Word" or "Wisdom," or all other things, was in Paul, and that he therefore said, "Do you seek a proof of Christ speaking in me?" and again, "I live, yet not I, but Christ lives in me." Seeing, then, He was in Paul, who will doubt that He was in a similar manner in Peter and in John, and in each one of the saints; and not only in those who are upon the earth, but in those also who are in heaven? For it is absurd to say that Christ was in Peter and in Paul, but not in Michael the archangel, nor in Gabriel. And from this it is distinctly shown that the divinity of the Son of God was not shut up in some place; otherwise it would have been in it only, and not in another. But since, in conformity with the majesty of its incorporealnature , it is confined to no place; so, again, it cannot be understood to be wanting in any. But this is understood to be the sole difference, that although He is in differentindividuals as we have said— as Peter, or Paul, or Michael, or Gabriel— He is not in a similar way in all beings whatever. For He is more fully and clearly, and, so to speak, more openly in archangels than in other holy men. And this is evident from the statement, that when all who are saints have arrived at the summit of perfection, they are said to be made like, or equal to, the angels, agreeably to the declaration in the Gospels. Whence it is clear that Christ is in each individual in as great a degree as the amount of his deserts allows.
5 edits
Originally posted by Conrau Koh dont take it so bad, it will be ok, there is no need to go all petulant with a petted lip, i and all the others who were quoted are now intellectually dishonest, please enough of your accusations and sensationalism.
You really have misrepresented Origen. In the quote I gave you, he clearly distinguishes Christ from the angels. Christ is incapable of sin; the angels are not. He affirms that Christ is God. He is with God not in the sense that he is separate from God but because wisdom is distinct, but always essential, to the Godhead. He argues that Christ is alph ...[text shortened]... h century. The one from Origen is totally misrepresented. You are just intellectually dishonest.
the text is quite plain Conrau, i do not deny that he was a trinitarian, infact, the quotation was specifically given because he was a trinitarian, not for my benefit, but for yours, never the less, the fact remains, he describes Christ as a type of Angel, infact, he even terms him an archangel, or did you forget the quote, here it is again in its entirety, before it slips your mind
The Saviour accordingly became, in a diviner way than Paul, all things to all, that He might either gain all or perfect them; it is clear that to men He became a man, and to the angels an angel. As for His becoming man no believer has any doubt, but as to His becoming an angel, we shall find reason for believing it was so, if we observe carefully the appearances and the words of the angels, in some of which the powers of the angels seem to belong to Him. In several passages angels speak in such a way as to suggest this, as when "the angel of the Lord appeared in a flame of fire. And he said. I am the God of Abraham and of Isaac and of Jacob." But Isaiah also says: "His name is called Angel of Great Counsel."
and
"There are certain creatures, rational and divine, which are called powers [spirit creatures, probably angels]; and of these Christ was the highest and best and is called not only the wisdom of God but also His power."
these proofs are not so easy to refute on the basis of a slanderous remark like, 'you are intellectually dishonest', Conrau.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAgain, Origen does not say that Christ is an angel. Christ may become a man or an angel but he always was and is divine. As I quoted earlier, the angels are capable of sin; Christ is not. Origen clearly does not believe Christ to be an angel. He firmly supports the Trinity. Christ is the wisdom and power of God, above all other beings -- Origen affirms that. He does not call Christ an angel (your quote duplicitously adds the words 'probably an angel' even though Origen distinguishes powers and dominions above angels.)
oh dont take it so bad, it will be ok, there is no need to go all petulant with a petted lip, i and all the others who were quoted are now intellectually dishonest, please enough of your accusations and sensationalism.
the text is quite plain Conrau, i do not deny that he was a trinitarian, infact, the quotation was specifically given because he w ...[text shortened]... te on the basis of a slanderous remark like, 'you are intellectually dishonest', Conrau.
Furthermore, in chapter 8 of book 1 of De Principiis, Origen lists and ranks all the angels. He begins with Rafael, Michael and Gabriel down to the guardian angels. No where does he mention Christ:
1. A similar method must be followed in treating of the angels; nor are we to suppose that it is the result of accident that a particular office is assigned to a particular angel: as to Raphael, e.g., the work of curing and healing; to Gabriel, the conduct of wars; to Michael, the duty of attending to the prayers and supplications of mortals. For we are not to imagine that they obtained these offices otherwise than by their own merits, and by the zeal and excellent qualities which they severally displayed before this world was formed; so that afterwards in the order of archangels, this or that office was assigned to each one, while others deserved to be enrolled in the order of angels, and to act under this or that archangel, or that leader or head of an order. All of which things were disposed, as I have said, not indiscriminately and fortuitously, but by a most appropriate and just decision of God, who arranged them according to deserts, in accordance with His own approval and judgment: so that to one angel the Church of the Ephesians was to be entrusted; to another, that of the Smyrnæans; one angel was to be Peter's, another Paul's; and so on through every one of the little ones that are in the Church, for such and such angels as even daily behold the face of God must be assigned to each one of them; and there must also be some angel that encamps round about them that fear God. All of which things, assuredly, it is to be believed, are not performed by accident or chance, or because they (the angels) were so created, lest on that view the Creator should be accused of partiality; but it is to be believed that they were conferred by God, the just and impartial Ruler of all things, agreeably to the merits and good qualities and mental vigour of each individual spirit.
You are intellectually dishonest. You pick selected quotes from your JW magazines (which I have proved to be deceptive). No doubt in this case you just pressed control+find to find helpful quotes irrespective of context and other interpretative factors.
1 edit
Originally posted by Conrau Kok, since you are still crying like a baby, i suggest you get a bib and a dummy tit.
Again, Origen does not say that Christ is an angel. Christ may become a man or an angel but he always was and is divine. As I quoted earlier, the angels are capable of sin; Christ is not. Origen clearly does not believe Christ to be an angel. He firmly supports the Trinity. Christ is the wisdom and power of God, above all other beings -- Origen affirms that ontrol+find to find helpful quotes irrespective of context and other interpretative factors.
you can choose to ignore the cited quotations, as you have done up to now, making no attempt to explain their significance with reason other than the usual trinitarian nonsense of developing arguments on what is omitted rather than what is written
secondly these quotations were not from any watchtower magazine that i have ever read, that is a falsehood and a vile insinuation
thirdly i resent the accusation of being intellectually dishonest, its a simple matter to bring a text to a persons attention and state, this seems to suggest this thing or that thing, but then to go on some caustic diatribe because someone does so, simply because we have no proper understanding of the text itself, nor any clear explanation is hardly commendable. therfore seeing that you have offered no explanation other than doing the usual of making it into a personal vendetta, (the last abode of those without a reason), its better left until you stop whinging.
Perhaps in the catholic church you are more accustomed to having your ruby encrusted gold ring kissed before a petition is put forth, who can tell?
Originally posted by galveston75And this is exactly what I mean: The bible is interpretated for us already! By the translators! Therefore it is interpretable!
But these are all mans interpretations, not Gods. The original writings were written one way, one writting and one meaning. It is man that has changed words and meanings.
So if you interprete it one way, and robbie, or the pope, or any preacher, or any other one calling himself a christian are not agree, then you have interpreted the text differently. Therefore it is interpretable!
For short the bible is interpretable!
A remedy would be that the bible nevere would be translated, the bible should be read in its original form in its original language. Like the Quaran.
But even Quaran is interpretable as there are numerous groups in Islam community who interprete the original text differently.
Any text is interpretable!
Perhaps the Science of Mathematics is not interpretable. Every mathematician agree of the basics of math. (Right?) Math is better than religion in this concern.
Originally posted by FabianFnasany piece of scientific data is also interpretable!
And this is exactly what I mean: The bible is interpretated for us already! By the translators! Therefore it is interpretable!
So if you interprete it one way, and robbie, or the pope, or any preacher, or any other one calling himself a christian are not agree, then you have interpreted the text differently. Therefore it is interpretable!
For short ...[text shortened]... athematician agree of the basics of math. (Right?) Math is better than religion in this concern.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe evidence seems very clear to me -- angels capable of evil; Christ not.
ok, since you are still crying like a baby, i suggest you get a bib and a dummy tit.
you can choose to ignore the cited quotations, as you have done up to now, making no attempt to explain their significance with reason other than the usual trinitarian nonsense of developing arguments on what is omitted rather than what is written
secondly thes ...[text shortened]... med to having your ruby encrusted gold ring kissed before a petition is put forth, who can tell?
3. According to our view, there is no rational creature which is not capable both of good and evil. But it does not follow, that because we say there is no nature which may not admit evil, we therefore maintain that every nature has admitted evil, i.e., has become wicked. As we may say that the nature of every man admits of his being a sailor, but it does not follow from that, that every man will become so; or, again, it is possible for every one to learn grammar or medicine, but it is not therefore proved that every man is either a physician or a grammarian; so, if we say that there is no nature which may not admit evil, it is not necessarily indicated that it has done so. For, in our view, not even the devil himself was incapable of good; but although capable of admitting good, he did not therefore also desire it, or make any effort after virtue. For, as we are taught by those quotations which we adduced from the prophets, there was once a time when he was good, when he walked in the paradise of God between the cherubim. As he, then, possessed the power either of receiving good or evil, but fell away from a virtuous course, and turned to evil with all the powers of his mind, so also other creatures, as having a capacity for either condition, in the exercise of the freedom of their will, flee from evil, and cleave to good. There is no nature, then, which may not admit of good or evil, except the nature of God— the fountain of all good things— and of Christ; for it is wisdom, and wisdom assuredly cannot admit folly; and it is righteousness, and righteousness will never certainly admit of unrighteousness; and it is the Word, or Reason, which certainly cannot be made irrational; nay, it is also the light, and it is certain that the darkness does not receive the light.
Origen also writes:
As now by participation in the Son of God one is adopted as a son, and by participating in that wisdom which is in God is rendered wise, so also by participation in the Holy Spirit is a man rendered holy and spiritual. For it is one and the same thing to have a share in the Holy Spirit, which is (the Spirit) of the Father and the Son, since the nature of the Trinity is one and incorporeal. And what we have said regarding the participation of the soul is to be understood of angels and heavenly powers in a similar way as of souls, because every rational creature needs a participation in the Trinity.
The Son of God is not an angel; all the angels and all men participate in him.
Lastly, the idea that Jesus is an angel is just contrary to Scripture:
Of the angels he says: "He makes his angels winds and his ministers a fiery flame";
but of the Son: "Your throne, O God, stands forever and ever; and a righteous scepter is the scepter of your kingdom."
Hebrews 1:7-8
you can choose to ignore the cited quotations, as you have done up to now, making no attempt to explain their significance with reason other than the usual trinitarian nonsense of developing arguments on what is omitted rather than what is written
I don't ignore these quotations. Rather, I challenge your understanding of them. You have taken them out of context. You have inserted lines into them. No where does Origen say 'Christ is an angel'. Origen supports the Trinity. The whole point of De Principiis is to affirm that Christ is a member of the Trinity, distinct from all creation.
secondly these quotations were not from any watchtower magazine that i have ever read, that is a falsehood and a vile insinuation
Yeah right. I can only suppose then that you are an interested reader in Origen and greatly appreciate his work. Just as I suppose, you are a reader of Socrates Scholasticus. Yeah right you didn't pick this stuff up in JW magazine.
thirdly i resent the accusation of being intellectually dishonest
The accusation fits.
Originally posted by Conrau Kgrow up!
The evidence seems very clear to me -- angels capable of evil; Christ not.
[quote]3. According to our view, there is no rational creature which is not capable both of good and evil. But it does not follow, that because we say there is no nature which may not admit evil, we therefore maintain that every nature has admitted evil, i.e., has become wicked. A ...[text shortened]... ly i resent the accusation of being intellectually dishonest
The accusation fits.[/b]
1 edit
Originally posted by FabianFnasi can look at the palaeontological evidence and state that it does not support the theory of evolution, you may take the same data and state that it does. A specific example might be that it was once thought that reptiles and birds were closely related, now through a different interpretation of the same data, its not so clear as far as evolutionists are concerned. What was once thought to be a human fragments, now through a different interpretation of the same data, its established that they are clearly Simian, as in the case of the ill fated 'Lucy', etc etc etc.
Give examples, if you don't mind...?
When galvestone said the bible is not interpretable, do you agree, or do you disagree with him?
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe accusation does fit. Origen clearly distinguishes Christ from the angels. I don't see why you are unable to acknowledge this. It is very clearly expressed. Origen did believe that Christ became an angel (just as Christ became a man) because he believes that all men and angels committed a prenatal sin, the gravity of which determined whether they would come to earth as an angel or as a man Therefore, all beings, angelic or human, needed salvation and Christ became incarnate in both forms to save them. Did you know this? Did you factor it into your interpretation of Origen? do you even know who he is or when he existed? You have no credibility.
grow up!
Again, Origen does not say that Christ is essentially an angel (which is your belief) and he does not include Christ in the list of angels. But I doubt you will actually read any of this.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAs you know, the different interpretation of a specific fossil finding does not pose a threat to the evolution theory as a whole. Evolution theory is not completed in any way, our understanding is growing better and better, that's scientific methods, that's science.
i can look at the palaeontological evidence and state that it does not support the theory of evolution, you may take the same data and state that it does. A specific example might be that it was once thought that reptiles and birds were closely related, now through a different interpretation of the same data, its not so clear as far as evolutionists ...[text shortened]... established that they are clearly Simian, as in the case of the ill fated 'Lucy', etc etc etc.
Creationism as a complete theory cannot be shown scientifically, therefore the theory of creation cannot be science, shouldn't be treated as science, it's religion. And if you try to apply scientific methodology to religion things, it is predestined to fail.
Well, do you agree with Galveston that the bible is not interpretable, or do you agree with me that the bible is interpretable? Don't avoid the question. I don't avoid yours.
