tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post1455385493828634187..comments2023-11-05T20:19:44.812+13:00Comments on Ambassador Watch: New Buzzy BookGavinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03060097218905523899noreply@blogger.comBlogger51125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-22646238373517753832009-05-30T02:24:00.974+12:002009-05-30T02:24:00.974+12:00Last night, the US National Spelling Bee was won b...Last night, the US National Spelling Bee was won by a young lady who spelled "Laodicean", is there a former COGer in the word selection committee?Imperio School Alumninoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-11093190967198846772009-05-29T07:46:19.391+12:002009-05-29T07:46:19.391+12:00Would Gavin also like to elucidate on what, exactl...Would Gavin also like to elucidate on what, exactly, constitutes in his opinion an <EM>ad hominem</EM> attack?<br /><br />Just curious.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-9245814325835844442009-05-29T07:01:10.608+12:002009-05-29T07:01:10.608+12:00Just a reminder to the "anonymous" who keeps tryin...Just a reminder to the "anonymous" who keeps trying to post Bible texts on this thread... most of us have Bibles of our own thanks. Feel free to submit references along with your own thoughts, but chucking naked proof texts around is not netiquette on this blog.Gavinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03060097218905523899noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-70445278367578764252009-05-29T05:22:35.661+12:002009-05-29T05:22:35.661+12:00"Concerning Psalm 110:1, during the famous disputa..."Concerning Psalm 110:1, during the famous disputation at Barcelona, 1263, Nachmanides, a great Sage, explained it this way."<br /><br />I don't know how many people know about Nahmanides, or Maimonides, although I've seen their names sporadically on some of these forums. Apparently, these two sages wrote some of the early commentaries on the Torah.<br /><br />Jack, I took up your challenge, and have been reading the book "Genesis and the Big Bang", by Dr. Schroeder. I like the fact that one does not need to surrender one's intelligence to become a believer. In fact, quite the opposite is true.<br /><br />The most convincing elements of this book in articulating the need for the presence of God in the evolutionary process have been the cross checking of evolution against mathematical probability, and the harmony of the astrophysical explanations and descriptions of the Big Bang, not only with Torah, but also with the deep understandings which Maimonides and Nahmanides expressed in their commentaries.<br /><br />Much knowledge was lost and repressed during the Dark Ages, and also when the Alexandrian Library was destroyed. This left much to be rediscovered during our own era. I believe that as science and theology progress, if common ground is sought, the two disciplines will eventually harmonize with one another. The problem now is that people with agendas are too often using one to discredit the other. Genesis 1 was rarely contested prior to Darwin's alternative and theoretical explanation.<br /><br />BBByker Bobnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-57064639943846786582009-05-29T04:40:29.081+12:002009-05-29T04:40:29.081+12:00"I realize that. My point is this: Deliberately mi..."I realize that. My point is this: Deliberately misspelling (or creatively "translating") the word adonai as a way of bolstering one's own apologetics, does nothing to make the apologetic in question, seem very credible. IMO."<br /><br />Boy! Don't we all! If I have to see you refer to Jesus Christ as "Jebus" (the early name for Jerusalem) one more time, I believe I'll have to puke!<br /><br />BBByker Bobnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-9012805659146956422009-05-28T20:55:30.443+12:002009-05-28T20:55:30.443+12:00Concerning Psalm 110:1, during the famous disputat...Concerning Psalm 110:1, during the famous disputation at Barcelona, 1263, Nachmanides, a great Sage, explained it this way. "The LORD said to my Lord" was written by King David to be sung by Levitical choirs. The singers therefore sang of God as Y-H-V-H and of David as "My Lord." Jews no longer pronounce Y-H-V-H when referring to God, but at that time they quite apparently did, at least during Temple services.<br /><br />One addresses the British House of Lords as "My Lords." Israeli wives refer to their husbands as Ba'ali, or "My Lord," after Sarah's example. But Moses addressed God as Adonai. He didn't use Adoni, as in Ps. 110.<br /><br />Concerning those Levitical singers, God had said to their Lord, King David, "Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet." At that time David was the royal messiah of Israel. As such he sat at God's right hand, metaphorically speaking, and God (Y-H-V-H) had promised him victory over many enemies.SmilinJackSprathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03946857548277008936noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-39178062883071020182009-05-28T20:44:28.177+12:002009-05-28T20:44:28.177+12:00"Please, PH, the whole point is that Adonai and ad..."Please, PH, the whole point is that Adonai and adoni are two different words."<br /><br />I realize that. My point is this: Deliberately misspelling (or creatively "translating") the word <EM>adonai</EM> as a way of bolstering one's own apologetics, does nothing to make the apologetic in question, seem very credible. IMO.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-83616269216010866812009-05-28T18:29:38.606+12:002009-05-28T18:29:38.606+12:00"and the Messiah there is David's lord, adoni,"
A..."and the Messiah there is David's lord, adoni,"<br /><br />Adonai. An alleged (self-professing?) "biblical" scholar who can't spell, does not make a very good impression, you know.<br /><br />Please, PH, the whole point is that Adonai and adoni are two different words.https://www.blogger.com/profile/10027548140795072454noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-18462312545477021202009-05-27T19:42:36.609+12:002009-05-27T19:42:36.609+12:00Anthony Buzzard said...
>>Psalm 110:1 exerc...Anthony Buzzard said...<br /><br />>>Psalm 110:1 exercises a controlling hand over the NT...<<<br /><br />It would be helpful if you could explain it what way it exercises "a controlling hand?"Tom Mahonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02087223683733643082noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-4428890561539569332009-05-27T08:26:29.012+12:002009-05-27T08:26:29.012+12:00"Biblical unitarians across the centuries includin..."Biblical unitarians across the centuries including Isaac Newton, John Milton and John Locke, have maintained that Jesus' own belief about God is what counts."<br /><br />Dunno about Milton, and not certain about Newton, but wasn't Locke a Deist?? Well, that's unitarian enough, I suppose.<br /><br />"To say that Jesus is YHWH and the Father is YHWH would of course be 2 YHWH's which is not biblical monotheism."<br /><br />So your explanation for the christos allegory is what, exactly? That the christological figure was merely another prophet? Or that there was divinity present? Or not? Additionally, have you read Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus"? I highly recommend it.<br /><br />By the way, I'm not so confused on the topic, as to be interested in purchasing the book, my apologies. ;-)<br /><br />"and the Messiah there is David's lord, adoni,"<br /><br /><EM>Adonai</EM>. An alleged (self-professing?) "biblical" scholar who can't spell, does not make a very good impression, you know.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-40030507151874694242009-05-27T07:08:17.555+12:002009-05-27T07:08:17.555+12:00Appreciate your feedback. Apologies for the confus...Appreciate your feedback. Apologies for the confusion over pronunciation (I'm aware that at least some Britons with that surname do pronounce it that way.) I'll amend the posting.<br /> <br />"Self Inflicted Wound" is unavailable at Amazon, which led me to assume it is out of print. Again, I'll amend the post.Gavinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03060097218905523899noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-35408464804916907862009-05-27T04:04:53.522+12:002009-05-27T04:04:53.522+12:00Thanks for the discussion of our second book on th...Thanks for the discussion of our second book on the Trinity. The first, The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianity's Self-Inflicted Wound (1998) has never been out of print and is available from 800-347-4261. Secondly, my name is pronounced like the bird. I cannot imagine what the writer was thinking when he alluded to any variation!<br /><br />Biblical unitarians across the centuries including Isaac Newton, John Milton and John Locke, have maintained that Jesus' own belief about God is what counts. In Mark 12:29 Jesus gives us this proposition, reported as quoting LXX: YHWH our God is one YHWH. Hebrew echad, Greek eis mean "one single." To say that Jesus is YHWH and the Father is YHWH would of course be 2 YHWH's which is not biblical monotheism. Thousands of singular personal pronouns denote the God of the Bible as a single Divine Person.<br /><br />Psalm 110:1 exercises a controlling hand over the NT and the Messiah there is David's lord, adoni, a title invariably not for God but for a non-Deity superior.Anthony Buzzardhttp://restorationfellowship.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-25961410910717989302009-05-27T03:59:58.095+12:002009-05-27T03:59:58.095+12:00One of the main reasons that Jews usually don't co...One of the main reasons that Jews usually don't convert to Christianity is because of the trinity doctrine.<br /><br />In the beginning of the gospel, the followers of Jesus were all Jews. Even after the preaching of Paul to the gentiles, they were mostly still all Jews and gentiles who attended Jewish synogogues.<br /><br />So, what happened?<br /><br />The doctrine of the trinity was invented. That's what happened.Corkyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15894537940881776504noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-44280285023452123882009-05-26T21:28:50.611+12:002009-05-26T21:28:50.611+12:00Anon May 26, 08:19:00, you say, of my logic, that ...Anon May 26, 08:19:00, you say, of my logic, that "Interesting that what Thomas said was and is in the scriptures. So you make your assumption that Thomas' words were not his, so what about the rest. Also, you mention Emmanuel, Manny, etc. So if someone is named Jesus, he is not a savior, so by your logic then, the Jesus of the NT is what? Your logic is flawed, so is your conclusion."<br /><br />No, my logic isn't flawed; it's in accord with the books of Moses, which form the benchmark for all the subsequent Biblical books. Jesus mentioned them: the Law, Prophets and Psalms (Writings). But inclusion of the Prophets and Writings had to be decided on the basis of conformity with the Torah. Consequences for abandoning Torah are outlined in Deut. 13.<br /><br />Since the Torah and the Prophets constantly state that "I alone am God and there is no one else," then there is no possibility that observant, Torah savvy Jews like Jesus' disciples, could have thought of Jesus as God. It simply is not possible. Jews don't follow "other gods."<br /><br />For Jesus to have been Messiah, he had to be a patrilineal descendant of King Solomon. Since a vast number of Jews accepted Jesus as their king, then his genealogy must have been known. Two NT genealogies for Jesus attest to the king lists. The fact that long lines of kings leading down to the Jesus generation are interrupted, ostensibly by God, either proves Jesus' ineligibility for the throne, or testifies to tampering with the records. If Jesus' royal line had been interrupted by God, at the last possible juncture, then there is no chance that he was their King Messiah because God is not descended from David through Solomon.<br /><br />So what was Jesus? His contemporaries thought he was the messiah they were looking for. They shouted Hosanna (Hoshia na)! Save us, now! They wanted freedom from Rome, provided by an anointed king descended from David. They thought they'd found their man.<br /><br />The opening of John says, "He came unto his own and his own received him not." Now, this isn't true at all. Here is another text that does not properly reflect the rest of the story. He was enthusiastically received by his own. There were some corrupt priests and Pharisees who were threatened by his popularity, but the people wanted Jesus as their heroic deliverer, their savior -- their David.<br /><br />Instead, Herod executed him. There could only be one king of the Jews, and Rome approved of Herod. Crucifixion was the legal penalty for sedition. To go on living, Jesus should not have gone into Jerusalem on a royal steed, to be accepted by vast throngs, in the tradition of the Jewish kings.<br /><br />Make what you will of the story, but absolutely nothing in Jesus' Jewish world, from Abraham forward, including all the messiahs (christs in Gk.), whether priestly, royal -- or even Gentile, like Cyrus -- would ever have allowed a true messiah to be recognized as God.SmilinJackSprathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03946857548277008936noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-84843994314460328752009-05-26T20:54:49.675+12:002009-05-26T20:54:49.675+12:00"....on the Millennium? Really? I always found tha..."....on the Millennium? Really? I always found that to be one of the more straightfoward doctrines. I mean, it was one of the few doctrines of the WWCG you could actually back up with scripture."<br /><br />Not exactly. It actually came from <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerinthus" REL="nofollow">Cerinthus</A>:<br /><br /><EM>"He taught that Jesus would establish a thousand-year reign of sensuous pleasure after the Second Coming but before the General Resurrection, a view that was declared heretical by the Council of Nicaea."</EM>Although the wiki does note, "Cerinthus used <STRONG>a version of</STRONG> the gospel of Matthew as scripture." [emphasis mine]<br /><br />Some of the other parallels are likewise creepy.<br /><br /><EM>"This should read 'She wasn't sent...' The Holy Spirit is feminine."</EM>Po-tay-to, po-tah-to. Wisdom is feminine. The "holy spirit" (or, if you like, the christos) is masculine.<br /><br /><EM>"When you make the two into one, and when you make the inner like the outer and the outer like the inner and the upper like the lower, and when you make male and female into a single one, so that the male will not be male nor the female be female, when you make eyes in place of an eye, a hand in place of a hand, a foot in place of a foot, an image in place of an image, then you will enter the kingdom."</EM> Gos. of Thomas, log. 22<br /><br /><EM>"Truth didn't come into the world naked but in types and images. Truth is received only that way. There is rebirth and its image. They must be reborn through image. What is the resurrection? Image must rise again through image."</EM> Gos. of PhilipAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-77003444478945320092009-05-26T15:48:32.444+12:002009-05-26T15:48:32.444+12:00"First, the personality of the Holy Spirit didn't ..."First, the personality of the Holy Spirit didn't come until later, because He wasn't sent until after Christ's death."<br /><br />This should read "She wasn't sent..." <br />The Holy Spirit is feminine.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-18571638296277104562009-05-26T13:29:28.295+12:002009-05-26T13:29:28.295+12:00"I already understood that WCG's teaching on the t..."I already understood that WCG's teaching on the trinity, born again, the binding of the devil, the first resurrection and an earthly Millennium was wrong.."<br /><br />You disagreed with HWA on the Millennium? Really? I always found that to be one of the more straightfoward doctrines. I mean, it was one of the few doctrines of the WWCG you could actually back up with scripture.<br /><br />If you are Tom, the real Tom, I must say I am also intrigued by your beliefs. Did this cause trouble for you in the WWCG and LCG? <br /><br />The Apostate PaulAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-40969881719375857362009-05-26T08:19:39.344+12:002009-05-26T08:19:39.344+12:00"Thomas never said Jesus was his lord and God. Tho..."Thomas never said Jesus was his lord and God. Thomas was Jewish, like Jesus. Jews flatly don't recognize any God other than God. Someone put these words in Thomas's mouth."<br /><br />Interesting that what Thomas said was and is in the scriptures. So you make your assumption that Thomas' words were not his, so what about the rest. Also, you mention Emmanuel, Manny, etc. So if someone is names Jesus, he is not a savior, so by your logic then, the Jesus of the NT is what? Your logic is flawed, so is your conclusion.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-84985978315711762082009-05-26T07:46:35.037+12:002009-05-26T07:46:35.037+12:00"So before I started attending WCG in early May 19..."So before I started attending WCG in early May 1975, I already understood that WCG's teaching on the trinity, born again, the binding of the devil, the first resurrection and an earthly Millennium was wrong."<br /><br />Riddle me this, Tom, I can't quite wrap my head around it:<br /><br />Given your above statement, what reason did you have to keep attending the church?? Those are core doctrines right there, and I daresay you kept your "hypocrisy" (not really hypocrisy since it's all mythology no matter which way you slice it) to yourself, otherwise you wouldn't have been in the church as long as you (claim you) were, if the ministers had gotten wind of what you believed.<br /><br />And, by your own admission, you read Augustine and Pascal <EM>before</EM> you joined the church.<br /><br />So how does the church even figure in to your journey, if you never believed anything the church ever taught? And how do you reconcile your refutation of core church doctrines above, and the fact that you considered the church "god's true church"?<br /><br />I don't get it......Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-30176463286227211682009-05-26T07:39:55.683+12:002009-05-26T07:39:55.683+12:00Buddhists have long had a 4 value logic system, TR...<I>Buddhists have long had a 4 value logic system, TRUE, NEITHER TRUE NOR NOT TRUE, NEITHER FALSE NOR NOT FALSE, and FALSE.</I>Bah. "Neither true nor not true," and "neither false nor not false" are just wordy ways of saying "gibberish." "Not true" = "false" and "not false" = "true." Thus, it's "neither true nor false" and "neither false nor true" -- and our experience knows no such categories.<br /><br />The Law of Noncontradiction might help you clear your head a little, Bamboo Bends.<br /><br />The basis for the Christian doctrine of the Triune God is not Aristotelian logic, but the experienced revelation that Christians received from and through and with Jesus and the Apostles. The disciples received the doctrines of monotheism and of the divinity of the Man Jesus, and experienced the divinity of the Holy Spirit through His indwelling -- that faith is expressed in the New Testament. The language and concepts of trinitarian theology developed as the Church explored the proper ways to express the truths they had received that God is one while the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are each fully divine. Sir Anthony wrestles manfully with the Church's scriptures in an attempt to explain why they don't really say what it sure sounds like they say (he couldn't adequately explain St. Thomas' "my Lord and my God" when I asked him about that text), but in the end those who wish to be disciples of Christ will assent to receive the testimony that the Church received from her Lord and chose to preserve in her sacred scriptures.Jared Olarnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-21065908082283649502009-05-26T01:22:55.543+12:002009-05-26T01:22:55.543+12:00Anon said...
>>Fine fellow, quintessentiall...Anon said...<br /><br />>>Fine fellow, quintessentially English, bright, sensible, a gentleman, scholar and able musician. I wouldn't too-lightly dismiss anything he might say or write.<<<br /><br />If you had added your name to this unsolicited reference, it would carry much more weight.Tom Mahonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02087223683733643082noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-37459674739000724922009-05-26T01:13:20.534+12:002009-05-26T01:13:20.534+12:00Gavin said...
>>Tom, I honestly have to say...Gavin said...<br /><br />>>Tom, I honestly have to say you've taken me by surprise by moving away from binatarian to trinitarian doctrine. From Armstrong to Augustine! Quite a journey.<<<br /><br />It will be a surprise to many others, except, perhaps, The Third Witness. But like Saul, who went to find his father's asses, and ended up being crown king of Israel; my journey to understanding the true God and many of the fundamental doctrines of the bible began in 1969 after reading a biography of Blaise Pascal. I was fascinated with the life of Pascal, without knowing why!<br /><br />However, after was I called by God in 1974, I reread Pascal's, especially the section on the Pansees, and was shocked by what I had missed in 1969.<br /><br />Anyway, Pascal led me to the writings of Cicero and Augustine. So before I started attending WCG in early May 1975, I already understood that WCG's teaching on the trinity, born again, the binding of the devil, the first resurrection and an earthly Millennium was wrong. <br /><br />Nevertheless, I still believe that WCG was God's one true church, and that Mr. Armstrong was a servant of God. WCG was obviously Laodicean, with the emphasis on materialism, but it was spiritually naked and blind. So God spewed it out of his mouth, scattering the few faithful to the four winds of the earth.<br /><br />So, you see, my journey was not a sudden volte-face! Like Saul, I was led by God every step of way. Saul's destiny was to meet Samuel; mine was to read Pascal and Augustine.Tom Mahonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02087223683733643082noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-11142776712984702962009-05-25T20:50:09.167+12:002009-05-25T20:50:09.167+12:00Concerning Sir Anthony Buzzard's name, when he was...Concerning Sir Anthony Buzzard's name, when he was a student at AC, he pronounced his name as we might learn from a standard English dictionary, but with an Oxford accent. There was some talk of moving the accent to the second syllable, but nothing much came of that during his tenure there. Perhaps he changed it years later... <br /><br />Fine fellow, quintessentially English, bright, sensible, a gentleman, scholar and able musician. I wouldn't too-lightly dismiss anything he might say or write.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-62481232919712955902009-05-25T20:48:28.344+12:002009-05-25T20:48:28.344+12:00"'even Armstrongites were baptized in ALL THREE's ..."'even Armstrongites were baptized in ALL THREE's name.'<br /><br />You right. I had forgotten that."<br /><br />Well, I never got dunked, but I remember that part of the verse from <EM>Go Ye Therefore Into All the World</EM>.<br /><br />I dunno, I kind of like the idea of the holy spirit being a force or a power, an underlying generative agent for life, the universe and everything (yeah yeah yeah I know, "the answer is 42"). Armstrong lifted that particular theology from the Quakers he grew up with, believe it or not.<br /><br />Now, some Quakers believe(d) that underlying force or power or agent for good or however someone wants to define it or doesn't define it at all, is present in everything. And by everything, I mean E V E R Y T H I N G. Which I'm onboard with. <br /><br />Hell, even if it's a delusion, at least I feel more connected to the rest of the world, and it mitigates the anxiety some. So there's that. By their fruits, etcetera.<br /><br />That said, I'm still an atheist in the same sense that Bamboo_Bends is, in that "god" is not an anthropomorphized nor pronoun-specific deity somewhere "up there". As a matter of fact, the partial Quaker holy spirit theology of the church is pretty much the only "god" I can get behind, as that mythos supports the panentheism that I lean towards, anyway.<br /><br />Works for me. YMMV.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-74388536571410334802009-05-25T14:37:48.924+12:002009-05-25T14:37:48.924+12:00Mark said......"even Armstrongites were baptized i...Mark said......"even Armstrongites were baptized in ALL THREE's name."<br /><br />You right. I had forgotten that.Mr. Scribenoreply@blogger.com