Must be a glitch, looking forward to the rest. I think looking pre 300 is the best way to sort the truthtigger2 wrote: I seem to be unable to post the rest of my answer to RR. I'll try again to post part 3 tomorrow. I haven't even gotten to the meat of it.
I don't know what I'm doing wrong. I notice that others can post lengthy messages.
How and when did the Trinity become Christian dogma?
Moderator: Moderators
-
brianbbs67
- Guru
- Posts: 1871
- Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2017 12:07 am
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 2 times
Re: Part 3
Post #91-
RightReason
- Under Probation
- Posts: 1569
- Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 6:26 pm
- Been thanked: 16 times
-
RightReason
- Under Probation
- Posts: 1569
- Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 6:26 pm
- Been thanked: 16 times
-
RightReason
- Under Probation
- Posts: 1569
- Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 6:26 pm
- Been thanked: 16 times
Post #98
[Replying to post 95 by tigger2]
He and the others were also not recognized by the Church as insightful Christian witnesses that we should listen to. Sorry, but I can't really take your post serious, because it lacks credibility.
LOL! Doctor of Divinity? William Alexander was born in the 1800's. He and everyone else you quoted can't exactly be compared to the writings of the first Christians who lived in 1 A.D.William L. Alexander, Doctor of Divinity, stated:
There seems good reason for regarding Michael as the Messiah. Such was the opinion of the best among the ancient Jews.... With this all the Bible representations of Michael agree. He appears as the Great Prince who standeth for Israel (Dan. xii. I), and he is called "the Prince of Israel" (Dan. x. 21)--William L. Alexander, ed., A Cyclopedia Of Biblical Literature, originally edited by John Kitto, 3d ed. (Edinburgh: A & C Black, 1886). vol. 3, p. 158.
He and the others were also not recognized by the Church as insightful Christian witnesses that we should listen to. Sorry, but I can't really take your post serious, because it lacks credibility.
Post #99
[Replying to post 98 by RightReason]
My reply showed your statement to be false. I expected an honest admission of this. Instead I get ridicule.
Also my sources spoke of the Shepherd of Hermas which was considered as scripture by many in the 2nd century. Apparently you just scanned my reply and didn't actually see much of it.
W.E. Vine is not worth reading? International Bible Dictionary ? Fairbairn’s Imperial Standard Bible Encyclopedia? Many others from different denominations before Russell's teaching?
Why the animosity and denial of recorded facts?
they would not have said, "Well, he’s Michael the Archangel!" Not only was the very idea was unheard of before Charles Taze Russell (the founder of the WTS),
My reply showed your statement to be false. I expected an honest admission of this. Instead I get ridicule.
Also my sources spoke of the Shepherd of Hermas which was considered as scripture by many in the 2nd century. Apparently you just scanned my reply and didn't actually see much of it.
W.E. Vine is not worth reading? International Bible Dictionary ? Fairbairn’s Imperial Standard Bible Encyclopedia? Many others from different denominations before Russell's teaching?
Why the animosity and denial of recorded facts?
