Contra Stavrinides Index
Next Part
Previous Part

Contra Stavrinides
by Frank Nelte

PART III: A CLOSER LOOK AT DR. STAVRINIDES' APPROACH

In Part I we briefly looked at the approach that Dr. Stavrinides takes in trying to prove his ideas. Now we need to focus more closely on that approach.

1. For a start, we need to realize that we are dealing with the views of an unconverted mind. The whole presentation, for the whole 26 hours Kyriacos Stavrinides is on camera, is totally carnal. This is made very clear time and again by the way he reasons and by the way he deals with the Scriptures ... carnally! It is made equally clear by the way he handles the questions that challenge his ideas.
2. He knows very well that there is an abundance of Biblical evidence that unequivocally contradicts and disproves his ideas.
3. He knows equally well that his own ideas originate with pagan philosophers and with "theologians" of the Catholic Church.
4. Thus he must attempt to somehow show that .."the Scriptures that leap to mind" (Mr. Joe Tkach Jr., Tape #1) that contradict what he is saying don't actually mean what they plainly state. He attempts to do this by claiming:
   • The Hebrew word used cannot really be translated into English
   • Ditto for the Greek word used
   • The Hebrew word used actually has this other meaning
   • Ditto for the Greek word used
   • It is just a figure of speech ("you are my sunshine")
   • It is just a vision and doesn't mean what it portrays
   • It is just an analogy
   • It is just an anthropomorphic picture God uses
   • The Septuagint Version (LXX) states it much better
   • The Jewish understanding makes clear that there can't be any Scriptures in the O.T. referring to TWO God Beings;
   • Drawing totally unwarranted conclusions from the isolated verses he presents
   • It can't possibly mean what it plainly says because that would contradict something he has already logically proved five tapes earlier; etc., etc. .

   These are all the expressions of a mind that is hostile to God and His Word ... God couldn't possibly mean precisely what He says. It is a mind that is not subject to God, just as Romans 8:7 describes.

5. Next, he must attempt to somehow show that what pagan philosophers and Catholic "theologians" have concluded is correct and therefore we should accept it. He attempts to do this by:
   • Claiming the Bible doesn't really tell us enough about the nature of God.
   • Therefore we MUST look to "reasoning" for the answers.
   • Reasoning requires PREMISES that are correct and are acknowledged by all to be so.
   • He selects, what he considers to be, "indisputable" premises.
   • On these "indisputable" premises he builds little arguments intended to lead to his philosophical conclusions.
   • To really "get it right" we then also have to use the same Greek words ("hypostasis) these "theologians" used.
   • He presents a few scriptures, taken out of context and misrepresented, to back up these "theological" views.
   • He expects us to believe that he has now somehow "proved" his claims to be true and that they are now "BEYOND ANY QUESTION".
   • He then tries to FORCE acceptance of his conclusions by endless repetition ... and he freely admits that this is his approach. Towards the end he says:

     "I have said A THOUSAND TIMES: the only time you can have a body is in space and they (i.e. the Father and Christ) are NOT in space."

6. His attitude to questions is clearly hostile. He frequently tries to ridicule the questions. At other times he says things like: I don't like that question, I don't understand the question, you are not allowed to ask me ..., we have already answered that question earlier, "what do you mean ... IF", "if THAT is a question, then we have answered it", etc.. He tries his best to pull the questions apart ... just like people might have done on Mars hill in the days of old. If he can make the questioner look foolish, then maybe people won't notice that he actually hasn't really answered the question at all. He has merely questioned the question. As I mentioned above, this is a very carnally-minded approach to questions.
7. His explanations rely very heavily on the use of analogies, many of which are extremely odd; for example:
   • Regarding God "KNOWING": "God IN THE BOX, the answer is: NO; God OUTSIDE THE BOX, the answer is: YES." (Tape #5)
   • The TRAIN analogy and the driver drinking tea or coffee to "know" whether he'll go to L.A. or to San Francisco (Tape #4).
   • A man standing on the International Dateline and being simultaneously in the past, present and in the future.
   • The world consisting of two classes of things: chalk and non-chalk; or cats and non-cats; applied to angels, this is weird.

   FACT: Analogies can never be used to PROVE anything! An analogy is just an analogy, that's all! It doesn't prove a thing!

   Yet, in his presentation, Dr. Stavrinides frequently presents analogies and then concludes with something like: "WE HAVE PROVED THAT ...". This kind of approach ignores logic and sound reasoning.

8. To prove his points, he will quote the GREEK word used in an O.T. scripture ... i.e. from the LXX version. At times he also quotes the LATIN word from the Vulgate to make a point.

   FACT: God inspired ONLY the Hebrew text of the Old Testament. The Greek word used in the LXX is totally irrelevant ... it adds no more weight to the argument than the CHINESE equivalent for the Hebrew word in question! Ditto for any Latin word from the Vulgate.

   A later section will prove that the Septuagint (LXX) is a forgery ... it wasn't produced by anyone in B.C. times at all. So any quote from the LXX is a meaningless statement in the argument.

Contra Stavrinides Index
Next Part
Previous Part