Leaderboard

Sunesis, ((snickers)) Look who's talking, lady. Look who's talking. And many times you don't even see it. And the same arguments for supernatural occurances could be said re: other characters in the Bible. Or other characters in other religions, and the respective followers believe in them just as much as you do yours. Uuhhmmm, ... you don't? (For an example of why I voice my doubt about this, check out your posts re: Obama, ... then come back and lie to me again.) Tell ya what. You look at the critter you see in the mirror, and tell her exactly that, m-kay? Mark, ((here comes the onslaught, ... ;) )) You, no doubt, have read in that letter where Jefferson explains _why_ there is the 1st Amendment. So that it supports separation of church and state. And, (IMNSHO) for it to be effective, that wall must go _both_ ways. Has to, or else that 'wall' is a sham. And frankly, if your church (or any other) _needs_ the support of the government in order for it to carry out its doctrine, well, as Ben Franklin once said: Think about that one for a moment. How about _that_ as being a proper usage of said wall.

Community Reformed Church reborn as The Way The website How long before they have to change their name yet again? And, why on earth would anyone want a name that could easily be confused with TWI?

My husband is basically non-confrontational. He usually keeps his mouth shut. On a number of occasions we would get called to do stuff that he didn't want to do, like clean up someone else's yard, whatever. At the time, we had 3 small kids and quite a bit of work we were doing on our own home (which we were buying), so essentially, he didn't volunteer to help out. So, someone would invariably ask me to volunteer him, and I'd invariably tell them no. A conversation would go something like this (usually on the phone): We're cleaning x's house and need someone to clean out the gutters. Would your husband be available to help out at 10am Saturday? Me: No. Them: I'd like to talk to him myself. Me: No you're not. I already know he's not going to have the time, because he has plenty to do around here. Them: He needs to grow a pair. I can't recall how many times I was told my husband needed to grow a pair, but it was more than a couple of times. Why would someone say something like that?

This last post has been bugging me steadily since I posted it yesterday. I don't REALLY mind the crudeness, because LCM was often a very, very crude man. And when describing his actions it seems abundantly clear that he was often rude, crude, and lewd in his private actions and in the things he did and said as the president of TWI. So while typing words that themselves are crude I feel there is justice in describing LCM's lewd, crude, and rude behavior with language that makes it very, very plain that in spite of the times that many Greasespotters legitimately remember interaction with LCM that was kind and even times he was charming, that he used his charm to cover up and give people reason to excuse his many, many lewd actions. What I DO REGRET in the previous post is ascribing lewd actions to LCM that I can not be specifically certain of. I can not with certainty ascribe to LCM specifically encouraging his wife's fairly thoroughly reported lesbian activity. The truth is that I can not be 100% certain that LCM thought about it at all, except to feel fairly certain that considering the crapola he learned from Wierwille that it is possible he considered his marriage to serve as a kind of sexual healing for his wife. But as this possibility is concerning a man such as LCM whose many lewd actions have been testified to by many people it also seems likely that any considerations he might have had as concerning "sexual healing" were twisted by the things he learned by Wierwille. So as to the specific issue of how LCM's lewdness might have played out in his marriage I regret speaking beyond that which I can feel certain of, but not for using crude language to refer to a crude, rude, and lewd man such as LCM. I also think that I will not do a lot of that anymore, unless I feel especially certain that it might actually help someone see LCM for what he was, but in most cases tried to hide or simply put a pr style spin on for the sake of the TWI faithful for years now.

I'm so thankful my family didn't kick me to the curb like I did to them because of their unbeliever status. I've done some apologizing too. I even apologized to a child friend for being judgmental of her life-style. Who am I to tell her how to live her life? We were so self-righteous. We were so busy seeing how effed up everyone else was that we didn't see our own crap. What a joke. What a tragedy. What a cult.

Somewhat off-topic, but this reminds me of an old joke: A newlywed couple enter their new home together. The husband (much larger than his wife) takes off his pants and tells her to put them on. They're obviously much too big, and she says, "I can't wear these!" "That's right," he replies,"because I wear the pants in this family!" The wife then takes off her panties and tells her husband to put them on. "I can't get into these!" he exclaims. "That's right, and you WON'T be getting into those until you change your attitude!" :lol:

A dickless Cabinet Member and a sacless Department Coordinator once went before Queen Q-tip herself to tell her Mrs. B was wearing the pants. What was Mrs B doing? Exactly what her husband had "told" her to do. Absolutely nothing wrong. Was I ever confronted? Did anyone ask me? Was Almighty Q-tip receiving revelation? She was too busy to get the facts. What did any of it have to do with anything? There are a few trees on grounds missing some a lot of bark. Who do you think they represent?

WW.....you beat me to it. I was just about to say the same thing. Wierwille was idolized......warts and all.

Mark, You are not seriously telling me that taxes impede charitable giving are you? Because of net and gross? Well, I guess you are. . . not much I can say to that kind of logic. I think you really miss the heart of the matter. One thing is not the same as the other and God does not say if your taxes are too high. . . don't give. He says pay your taxes. He says give. And he tell us do to things without whining or grumbling, moaning and complaining. Do you think God actually NEEDS your money? Money is a great heart indicator. Render unto the government what is theirs and to God what is His. . . doesn't get much simpler than that. . . . Jesus did not say if your taxes are being used this way don't give. . . if it has an effect on the net don't give. If you want to give 10% of your income. . . you know what you earned. . . give it. ________________________________________ As for the examples you cited about countries that overthrow despotic government. . . did you read the verses I gave you? Did you follow my line of reasoning? God is Sovereign over nations and NOTHING happens that He does not allow. God does not carry out His will in spite of man. . . we are ALL subject TO His will. . . . and if He has a purpose for something. . . Forget it. . . it is not worth more of my time. . . you figure it out.

I think they thought you were controlling him instead of the other way around. I understand that you weren't controlling him....you were just helping him keep his own calendar focused on the family. They wanted him to tell you that he would make up his own mind and come over to do the gutters like THEY wanted. I hope that made sense.

I have no idea what you mean by the last part of this. . . I was just sharing part of MY life with you. We are to love our neighbor as ourselves. . . if your neighbor or enemy is hungry do you check their employment status first? I would just read the specific context of the verse you quote and why Paul said this. . . or not. God looks on the heart and I don't think Jesus is going to be mad at us if our worst sin is we were too kind. I don't question your heart in the least. . . as I have told you before. . . you have helped me. :)

Taxes are not charity. How they are dispersed is not charitable giving. Do you understand the difference?. . . . Taxes do NOT impede charitable giving required of a Christian. Perhaps your understanding of this needs tweaking. Even the most dictatorial governments prevent lawlessness. . . even or especially the most tyrannical ones. What's next. . . Hitler? Like I didn't see that coming. Hubby owes me five. Pharoah, Pilate, Caiphas (Who prophesied!) Did God use them? He used all of them. . . . for HIS purpose and they were bad men. . . He used the most TRAGIC of events. . . . the death of His Son for good. . . for His glory. It is not about us, but about God. His purpose which may not be ours. Should be. Persecuted Christians in dangerous countries submit to laws and governments. . . .even to the point of death, but still perfectly obeying God. . . Did Jesus perfectly submit to God's will? Did He overthrow the Romans? Isn't that what they were crying for Him to do? Was God's providence and sovereignty what happened? Just as it is in the examples you presented. For the LORD Most High is awe-inspiring, a great King over all the earth. He subdues peoples under us and nations under our feet. He makes nations great, then destroys them; He enlarges nations, then leads them away. Ah, Lord GOD ! You Yourself made the heavens and earth by Your great power and with Your outstretched arm. Nothing is too difficult for You! Who should not fear You, King of the nations? Let the heavens be glad and the earth rejoice, and let them say among the nations, "The LORD is King!" From one man He has made every nation of men to live all over the earth and has determined their appointed times and the boundaries of where they live. . . God chose Israel and then raised up Egypt to enslave them. . . then delivered them and drown the Egyptians! God is sovereign over nations. . . nothing happens that He does not ordain.

Hey WG, It is the HCSB(Holman Christian Standard Bible) the version I use . . . Romans 13:1 is about civil obedience. Some theories have it as an interpolation. . . I don't think so. . . but that is me. Taxes don't take the choice out of charity. . . you can still give to whomever you wish. :) Sounds like a tough place you worked. . . I am sorry you have no sympathy for these kids. Most of them sure as heck break my heart. That is no way to grow up. No way to live.

Nice thread! Those trips down Memory Lane aren't always quite as rosy as we remembered (wince). Shellon, good on you for having the guts to apologize. And good on all those people who took your phone calls, and accepted the apologies. You must have some great family and friends. Growth and healing to our hearts is always possible.

Ahh, nostalgia Looks like NYC may get nailed and Boston is right down the center of the storm right now.

You know the Right has had the hand of the Christian right in elections for the past couple of decades. Now someone on the Left uses their faith in a positive and honest way to win an election and suddenly they are "God's partner?" Can you say double standard? In fact that is all I have heard from the right lately, double standards.

Maybe some examples would make your point clearer. Like what infringements on the "American's Constitutional rights," or how exactly certain people use separation of church and state to keep Christians from being involved in government, or how the government is involved with the affairs of churches?

I really wish someone would stand up to twi bullies and refuse to change their name. no one OWNS the words in the bible, for christ's sake.

We're about due. We haven't had one of these in a long time.

Further . I'm keeping track of all the 'green votes' vis-a-vis' the 'red votes' here, and I agree with MarkO (I think it was MarkO). They are a rather stupid ... no, infantile, way of showing approval/disapproval in various posters. For example, I disagree with MarkO a lot, but I _know_ he's someone who speaks honestly and gives us all something to think about, ... yet he's being bombarded with negative 'red votes' as tho' he's the bad boy here. ... Gimme a break. ok, done with my rant. P.S., Here MarkO, want some of my 'green votes'?

Hi Mark, I'd agree, it does paint a certain stain on the person that shouldn't be there when the bottom line is they need care, period.

There is a downside to having the knowledge of genetic predispositions. One who has a documented predisposition will not be able to get life insurance (I've actually had to fill out forms asking that very question). And, under our current system, a predisposition will also be considered to be a "pre-existing condition." Likewise, certain jobs may be closed to the person (such as military service). This is not to say that one should not go have regular checkups. But when you start marking a person because of a genetic condition, it can be a scarlet letter. So I can fully appreciate somebody not wanting to be tagged with a certain condition. Again, let me stress that I am not trying to justify this as an excuse not to have checkups. The only thing I'm talking about is getting genetic tests to determine risk.

hmm.. might be good, who knows.. but to get enough "substance" from a few for tacos, wouldn't one have to include the innards and such?

The point was not sympathy; the point is are they really being helped, and in my opinion only one or two of them were. Throwing money and sympathy at a problem isn't a solution. Those girls needed to learn accountability and responsibility. They learned neither. They learned that they were pitiful, helpless, victims and that society owed them. They were taught that they were not responsible for their problems, nor were they responsible to learn any skills, support themselves or care for themselves in any way. I can think of two who very well may be independent right now, but most of them are probably still living off taxpayer money. I believe in helping those who cannot help themselves, but I do not have any interest in helping those who will not help themselves. And that's Biblical. Here's an example from that particular place: A teenage girl was in a class in the school and decided to spend the hour or so looking out the window. When she was asked, very politely and respectfully, to please kindly take her seat, she flew into a rage. How dare that &*()_()_^&*^())( tell her what to do? She flew upon the instructor, a big hulking young man, and had to be restrained. Even while her teeth were grinding the flesh in his forearm, this young man is saying, "Now, _____, you're really not angry at me you are angry at the person who hurt you when you were a child. That is the person you are biting, not me, not really." No accountability there. The guy had to get stitches and probably a tetanus and a rabies shot. But she was not responsible for harming him, oh no, she was a victim. I think it's time for people in this country to grow up, take responsibility for their own actions, and stop depending on the government. I believe in being as charitable as possible, but I would rather give my time and money and goods to those who really need help and want to help themselves. WG

Trust and Obey, I really enjoyed your post. . . you make so many good points. God is love. . . and we just love that verse. . . I do. . . but, I think we humans have a tendency to magnify that attribute of God's, above others. I often do. . . . because THAT is the one I am most comfortable with. Scripture only magnifies one attribute of God's . . . in it being said three times in two places. . . . Holy, Holy, Holy. . . not love, love, love. I believe it is the one attribute mentioned most in scripture. We don't really have anything to compare God's holiness with. . . it is completely unique in that He has no darkness or sin. . . hard to wrap our heads around. Even when we are living holy it is only in a vague or relative manner. So, yes God is love. . . . that is one thing He is. . . but, it is difficult to define Him(and I could stop there) by that one attribute alone.

Trust, thank you for the explanation of rhema and logos. It is a bit easier to grasp than before. rhemos is the words and logos is the thought behind those words. And geisha, what can I say, you once again are bringing things up I never gave much thought to before. Thanks for that. I'm still reading some of the posts here bit by bit.

God's plan of redemption is for mankind. We are forgiven through Christ. . . We know and understand in PART. . . when we learn something new. . we can repent of our sins . . . . Angels know God perfectly. . . . when Satan and his angels rebelled they were going against what they already had complete understanding and knowledge of. . . the glory of God. A complete rejection with full knowledge. Complete evil. God is love. . . again. . .we cannot apply our understanding of love to God, and along with being love. . . . and righteous, God is also perfectly JUST. He is every bit as just as he is love. God's plan of redemption for mankind brings glory to God as it reveals His mercy. He is merciful to those He will have mercy on. If one doesn't understand is just nature, His mercy is not going to be fully evident. What is it we are saved from? GOD's wrath to come. Is it just He has wrath? If we can begin to understand His amazing nature and glory . . . what it means that God is holy and He is every bit as holy as He is love. . . we see His great mercy revealed. Being holy means being totally separated from evil. . . He has no darkness in Him. . .that is His goal with us. . . sanctification. . . to remove evil from us. . . and then ultimately our glorification. His being holy is not that He has a great track record on doing good. . . . but, that He is completely separated from evil. . . . so, it is almost unfathomable that He would make a way for us to be accepted and to share with Him. While we were yet sinners?? THAT is mercy and THAT is love. God's love for the angel's allowed them to fully see His glory and to worship in His presence continually. . . . Is there forgiveness for the rejection of such complete knowledge of God? How could there be? But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked. Luke 12:48

I'll try and clarify my thoughts, but of course they are just my thoughts on the subject, and may not make any sense at all! Both are Greek words. rhema and logos. Both are 'primarily' translated with the same English term 'words'. But their meaning is different. Rhema at its simplest meaning would just mean 'words'. Such as God's words, what is recorded in scripture. What one says and writes. And sorta defines a language. Logos on the other hand comes from a root that means to collect and at the heart of the word logos is a myriad of thoughts and concepts collected together, they are then synthesized then into words. But those words don't always fully explain or define the entire 'collection' that is being explained. Have I complicated it more? When one speaks about God's rhema, they are speaking of specific words written. Black and white. Every yod and tittle. But when one speaks of God's logos, they attempt to speak of the meanings and understandings, the heart and collection of God's thoughts behind the specific rhema(words). God is certainly love. Those are the specific rhema(words). But what they mean, we can only attempt to explain. For God is greater than us all. But if we look at who He is, what has been revealed about Him, and what He has revealed to us, I think we can start to understand His nature, and understand what He means, the logos, the thoughts, behind these black and white writings. God didn't have the scriptures written so we have a black and white book to read and memorize. He wrote it as the starting point to a relationship with Him. A "how to" on coming to Him personally and having that relationship to know Him, and by doing that, we can know Him personally and reveal Him to others by imitating Him(His love, His care, His charity, His ways).. And yes even his hatred for evil. All that is part of sharing God's love. But on this subject of evil. That surely God hates, and we ought to as well if we are to imitate Him. It doesn't remove the fact that God loves His creation. Each and every part of it. He created it with a purpose in mind. But hates it when it turns from what it was created for. Yet there is nowhere I've seen that God has refused forgiveness to those who return to Him. Not the devil, not a person, not a nation. And while he has pronounced destruction to all those who turn away, including the devil, He has changed that pronouncement when people and nations have turned back to Him, and that is recorded many times in the scriptures. Which to me speaks loudly of God's nature. While He is willing to alert those of their impending destruction, He is always willing to change that initial pronouncement to those who in their hearts turn back to Him. And while I doubt the devil also will ever turn, I believe God is willing if it were to happen. For this is God's love manifest (1 John). And also, 'For God so loved the world that He gave His one unique son that whosoever puts their trust in him, should not perish but have life everlasting'.

Hi Dan I apologize. I told you I have a viseral response. I am sure you have read Dr. Sanday(SP)and his work on Luke, which is what settles this matter for most. That of Luke and his gospel. I too am thankful for the writings we have because it establishes for us after our investigation of internal evidence, the matter for many. Luke is mentioned 4 times in NT, but he is mentioned 2 or 3? times externally Knox came along and questioned Sanday's work on language he used to establish certain things. I don't mean to be vague, but it has been a few years. It might surprise you to hear I didn't react so radically to Knox, he was not conclusive or dogmatic, and his work spurred little real conversation. Until-Greasespot, Kruger(SP) some german scholars, you and others who agree. That means little or nothing to the reality of God. OR the reliability of the bible. It is an intellectual debate--which has gone on for years--critics of the bible--trying to disprove the existence of God or the reliability of Scripture. I don't mind most debates. But, I came out of a destructive gnostic cult. I saw the result of this belief system. For me it must be a discussion of the theology as well as history, does that make sense? It is as valid a consideration as what they said. Why did they say it? For a time, Marcion was pretty big. He was leading a large sect. Even after his death the same group continued and we know the outcome--again. You yourself said there is little left of Marcions writing. We can put together a slight history of his life. I would disagree that gnosticism like Marcions was as powerful a contender into History as you put forth--up to the tenth century. But, I MUST agree that it was a very powerful contender in the 1st and 2nd. Which is why we have to understand WHAT they were contending for as much as THAT they were contending. Hence, my reaction. I know that quote by Justin Martyr--yes Marcion was big. His churches spread like wildfire--for a time. And?. . . . I told you this already. There is evidence he hung around with Paul too. He was a church Bishop---He was once part of the christian church. Which he why he was given the latitude he was in the beginning. To question him was a BIG deal. His father was a Bishop at Sinope where he was raised for goodness sake. I don't dispute this in the LEAST. I am not a catholic, although confirmed at one point. They might still count me in as lapsed, but I believe they screwed up pretty badly as doctrine became corrupted. Yes, information on Cedro is little. And? He was considered a gnostic. Again. . . . .why was he outside the mainstream? What secret knowledge did he have. Well, if Marcion trained under him--we have a good indication. The deathbed thing is a bit iffy IMHO but I threw that in to illustrate a point. There are those that believe he did this. Something made him fall out with his father and get the boot. It could not have been good?? None of this is in dispute. My point to you has been the same as well, the why?? Must be looked at. What causes one to react with such vehemence? Money? Marcion was wealthy--a ship owner. He shored up the church in Rome for awhile--they gave him a refund. Was it the money he pulled away from the church? Or was it something else? Look at the internal evidence. Take Marcions theology and that of the apostles and fathers. Work it with the OT---well not Marcions--he got rid of that. And all things Jewish, or most. According to him--Chreestos--Christos--Jesus wasn't the Jewish Messiah. Faced with many problems, he had to come up with a winner of a theology--Because of this. . . Luke would have despised him. Luke was a skeptic. He looked at everything. He was logical. Luke was a bright guy. While we are on the subject here. So are you--a bright guy I mean. Too bright to let this talk you right out of God. The bible has had better critics than you over the years. It is has survived. It continues to teach and transform lives. It is too powerful for you to disprove. But, you can look at Marcion and this history from gnostic shaded glasses and see just what you want. You may take a few with you--to what end? Just make sure you understand all the perspectives. There is one you may have missed. Love is not deaf, dumb or blind Dan, there is a reason for everything. I slam VP on this site as well, with not one ounce of regret or guilt. Why? I am to love the Lord with my whole heart, soul, MIND, and strength. Many Christians forget the mind part IMHO. Part of loving him is recognizing those who try to destroy his people, and speak accordingly. Jesus called Peter Satan. I am not a wishy washy person. I call them like I see them. When it is people like you--who I believe are innocent and honest--I make a logical distinction. Sue me. I have a brain--I try to exercise it on occasion.

Hi Dan I want to be honest with you. This is a difficult discussion for me to have and I have thought about today for quite a bit. As you can well imagine--coming out of TWI into the Christian world at large was a process. Saturated with the secret knowledge, and a gnostic flavored version of TWI bible thumping magic, I felt far superior to my fellow man for a very long time. Arrogance is a mark of The Way that I believe stems in part from the gnostic aura surrounding their less than conventional teachings. I have been out for years, but it has not been years since the Ways stink has been washed from me. I clung tightly to my special knowledge. In fact, when I was accused here of being condescending, it quickly served to remind, sadden and to humble me. Having had the fairly unique and often horrific Way experience--which is what can often shape us, I have a less than calm and reasoned reaction to Marcion. To me, and I understand this does not apply to all ex-way, there is no debate here. That is not to say I won't engage you in a bit, but TO ME, it is an untenable position to support . I also have an emotional response to this topic. I have so far been unbothered by fly by comments and a SOMETIMES less than welcoming response on this thread--This topic, I react to viserally. It is too reminiscent. I have no respect or patience with gnostic teaching. Marcion was a gnostic and a heretic. I immediatley and with dogged tenacity identify with the Apostolic church fathers of the 2nd century. I see the debate over his cannon as a catalyst for good. With his REWRITTEN cannon he presented a strong case that HAD to be dealt with. I am thankful for this. I don't see it as a strange dispute between factions, I view it as the oppurtunity for the Church Fathers to deal with it and clarify the same faith that had been PRACTICED and believed for the previous 100 years. As you might be aware, it is only a small school of scholars who support the position that Marcion was copied by Luke. Don't get me wrong, I understand the argument. He could have had early access to some documents at Sinope. He left some verses in that did not support his position. . . . . . . Some say it wasn't even him, but someone at Sinope after he was excommunicated. . . . . . . . There are some okay arguments out there. I have read some of John Knox. Marcion also took his pen to Pauls work. He tried to errdicate anything too Jewish. I am sure you know he sat under the teachings of Cedro and obtained his own "Secret Knowledge" He pretty much dismissed the entire OT. Some of the reasons I dismiss him ARE his teachings. They don't work with the OT---they don't fit with the thread of the bible--its theme if you will. A Savior from sin, fits . For me he is just too far fetched---an affront to the beauty and reason of the gospel. It is a bizarre doctrine with an incompetent God, a barbarian God of the OT, a peaceful God saving us from the other God, not our own sin, which we are convicted of. No judgement, no ressurection of the dead. . . He loved the grace that Paul taught, but twisted the logic and simplicity of it. Funny, he so mirrors The Way. He taught one thing and lived a completely differing lifestyle. He lived an ascetic life--demanded it of others--FORBIDDING to marry. What really gets me is his claims of Jesus praising the androgenous original man/woman. Sounds like LCM and his version of original sin. That was okay for a dumb, blonde, blue eyed, 19 year old with no experience of worth with a church, I have grown up. Perhaps it is just as it says--a warning for teachings around at the time the epistles were written. Who was around? Where did he learn this stuff. Perhaps Clement didn't hide away in a cave, but it was Paul who warned us. Beware of special knowledge Dan. Sometimes things that are taught to us in history are correct. We are free to believe whatever we want, and free to try and restore the "Good name" of a heretic. But, I have sat under a heretic, I have seen the fruit in his life--destruction and pain. I no longer embrace them, but, do actively RUN the other way. I am incredulous that you let this be the straw the broke the camels back for you, but I almost think it is better to not believe for a time--than to believe a cloying gnostic doctrine. Anyway, I appreciate the time--it was a painful consideration, but in my lone perspective here--a worthy one! Geisha

If we can agree about the reliability of what we have today as accurate to within 400 words as the NT we can sure look at the leap to it being reliable testimony. I would really like to talk about some evidence for Jesus being who He claimed He is. I got my lovely little jury duty notice in the mail the other day. I go every couple of years and sit and wait to be called. I have never had to sit for duty, but I, as do you, know a tiny bit about how a trial works. What is considered as reliable for testimony. An eyewitness to a crime is a powerful thing for a defense attorney to overcome. He /she must discredit a witness who has firsthand knowledge of a crime. Nasty tactic, but that is what it takes. Eyewitnesses give us our history that is relied on as true. We believe John Wilkes Booth killed our 16th President because of eyewitness/recorded testimony. We take the word of eyewitnesses at the scene of an accident. "That guy ran a stop sign and hit the car." If there is more than one eyewitness that agrees--the testimony is far more credible. As the witnesses mount the testimony is harder and harder to refute. The new testament is written as eyewitnesses with firsthand knowledge to the events recorded OR they record firsthand accounts of the events. We have already discussed that 11 of them were lead to their deaths for the testimony they refused to recant. They did not strap on bombs and murder innocents, they themselves were innocent. That is a very powerful affirmation of their story. 2Peter 1:16 tells us they knew the difference between a myth -- a lie--and the reality of what they witnessed firsthand. Remember, these events are attached to a real historical figure. They knew Him personally. I am loathe to quote scripture at ex-way, but can we agree that over and over again, they talk of the things they witnessed firsthand? 1John1:1-3/Acts1 1-3/1Cor 15:6-8 1/Peter 5:1/Acts 1:9 / Luke 1: 1-3 I could go on. Paul said that he "uttered words of sober truth." Paul, a former persecutor of Christians. A very serious scholarly man who loved Israel. What were they testifying to? That Jesus lived here, His sermons--yes, but also the miracles that He did. Now, before we jump to discrediting the eyewitnesses, we have to remember where they lived, their culture--what scripture meant. They were mostly Jews who revered the OT. Josephus tells us what the words meant to them. ". . . how firmly we give credit to those books of our own nation is evident by what we do; for during so many ages as we have already passed, no one has been so bold as either to add anything to them or take anything from them, or to make any change in them; but it becomes natural to all Jews , immediatley and from their birth to esteem those books. . . " To use your words--call them superstitious. They were serious about what they wrote as truth. In fact, they knew and believed from the OT that God hates false witness. In our society today you can go to jail for perjury. JAIL!!!!!You lie about what you see and are believed --people go to prison. These men revered and feared God. Yes, feared Him. God tells us NOT to bear false witness. They knew this better than you or I. Context is really important in trying to discredit these guys. An understanding of their culture, their faith, their national identity. Their community was wrapped up in their faith. They lived it. Okay--so all of them had a mass delusion of internalized their beliefs. HUH? They all lied? Only a few problems with that idea. One, there were too many of them. They could not coordinate such a huge lie. Even if they could some way pull it off--- they relied on the firsthand knowledge of those they converted. ---They used this knowledge. You know about these things---you saw--Acts 2:22 Men of Israel, listen to these words:Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him IN YOUR MIDST. They didn't convert THOUSANDS of people with a lie. They reminded them what they too had seen. So, Jesus lived and died and people believed He was . . . Doesn't make Him the Son of God or any different than L Ron Hubbard. The only problem with that is. . . there are not over 500 eyewitnesses to the resurrection of L Ron Hubbard. Luke 24:48 Acts 1: 8 Acts 2:32 Acts 3:15 Acts 4:33 Acts 5:32 Acts 10:39,41 Acts 13:31 Acts 22:15 Acts 23: 11 Acts 26: 16 1Corinthians 15: 4-9 15 1John 1:2 Context is really important here. Your eyewitness testimony is credible in a court of law. 2000 years later it can put someone away for a long time. Why is their eyewitness testimony less credible than yours? If anything, theirs is more credible in testifying to the events they witnessed. These men have more than one eye on their account. History is written on much less. Lying was a serious offense in their culture unlike ours where the meaning of the word "is" can be split and debated. Okay, so maybe Jesus did live and people did believe that they saw what they said they did, and wrote it down. It is too hard to believe that all that metaphysical stuff happened.You didn't think so once. Instead of saying it can't be true because they say he was raised from the dead--investigate this historical account without any supposition. It is compelling. It was written within 100 years of the events---too long to be believable---they had time to coordiante a lie. Is that what it says they were doing. Or were they being persecuted, beaten, stoned and killed while coordinating their lie. Thrown out of their community--excommunicated, cut off. Some were starving. What a lie to be protecting. It doesn't even make sense. To what end--a quicker death? These were Jews, they could have been in their homes and communities -- living the good life. Making a living. If they thought it a lie--why wouldn't they make one up that got them something other than persecution in this life? Why didn't Jesus just write it Himself? Much of our history is written about others, not by them, Alexander the Great, Charlemange, Cleopatra, Ceaser. . . . . . . . It is how we know our history---portrayals of historic figures. Jesus was portrayed as a meek and humble carpenter---He died a humiliating death---He didn't ride in on a great white stallion, but a donkey. What kind of flattering portrayal is that? Pliny the Younger--A History--found 750 yrs after it was written--all 7 copies. Not disputed Herodotus--A History--1,300yrs --8 copies Thucydides--History--1,300yrs 8 copies Sophocles 1,400 yrs Aristotle 1,400 yrsPlato 1,400 yrs This is just a skeletal outline of this argument. There are too many variables. I barely scratched the surface. Sorry for my spelling!! Too tired to check it!!

Hi Oakspear, Just wanted to add--after a second cup of coffee, that you are going to find lots of info out there in cyber world. I would challenge you to not immediatley embrace the perspective that you feel most comfortable with. It is interesting that you posted an article, which on the surface, refutes my claim of historical supported evidence for tthe bible. You did say you found other POV. Look at both arguments as equal in merit for a time. Why not put aside any preconcieved ideas; formed in the wake of a destructive and painful experience, surrounding our times with Joe Blow wack-job who thumped a bible. And let yourself with, a degree of detachment, consider the arguments. Think about this. There are atheist who are going to adamantly tell you there is no God. Truth cannot be known!!! I alway picture these declarations with accompaning foot stomping. That statement is self-defeating in nature. You can hear them ring out like a loud bell. If truth can't be known--how can they say this is true? With a straight face--how can they make such a proclamation. So, I just challenge you not to gravitate to your most comfortable position. That is being intellectually honest. Not to shore up your point of view, but to weigh and seriously consider the opposing perspective. Just a thought. It is a difficult challenge. I have confidence you are more than able.

Hi Oakspear, Badgering me? I hardly see your discussion as such!! I had better be able to tell you WHY I believe the bible is true, and correct in its declarations of God. That it is His declaration of self. His relationship to man. If I am unable to defend my position to, beyond a reasonable doubt, to you---than why would I myself believe it. As I said--taking it on faith? I can take on faith that the clouds are made of cotton candy. After all, they look like it! It took me a few years to search these things out. and to honestly consider all the variables. To build faith. THEN I come to find out---there is a whole bunch of people who do this all the time---defend the bible as true and the exsistence of God. To quote Adam Sandler "INFORMATION THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN HELPFUL YESTERDAY" History is one small part of the why--but for me--one of the fascinating ones. If you are interested I will happily consider your arguments. I don't shy away from a defense of the Gospel. I embrace it. Like you, time is a luxury, but I will do my best. Be patient. One post will not get you to genuinley consider the probabilities. 100 may never get you to, but they may influence some of your perspective. They may give you insight into the heart and mind of a Christian. Most information if viable-is useful for something. Lucky me. I get to work the holiday today. Day and night. Back at ya soon. Geisha

Hi Oakspear, I actually respect your questions. If I were to say to you -- I just take it on faith--that would mean what?? NOTHING!! It would mean that I don't know why I believe as I do. It would mean that I was assuming a whole lot with what is potentially the most important decision of my eternity. There was a process I went through in coming to Christ. It included weighing the evidence concerning the verasity of the bible, creation, intellegent design and historical accuracy. I was rather quick this morning--this is a big discussion. Happy to have it, but it is not something I can articulate in a paragraph. So, I apologize. I turned in a paper --the bible is historically accurate--therefor true. Is not the answer your worthy questions deserve. I would like to look at the assertion that the authors of the bible had an agenda. I chuckled as Peter immediatley sprung to mind. I am sure you have heard this, but please consider it again. If you were Peter, and you had a say about what went into the bible, would you have included---get thee behind me Satan? Or the fact that you denied the Lord not once -- not twice -- but THREE times? Yeah, I would NOT want that info front and center. How about cutting off that Roman soldiers ear only to have the Lord heal it. Or having Jesus rebuking you for not having enough faith? I don't know about you, but I like to be portrayed in a better light than having God call me Satan. But here is the thing that helps convince me that any supposed agenda was true. 11 of those 12 apostles died a martyrs death. All they had to do was to recant. I like my neck attached to my body(We are funny that way). I don't know about you, but I am not dying for a lie. Not one of them recanted. None of the 11 died peacefully. There are so many things that make me believe the bible. Historical accuracy--supported by archeology. Intellegent design, and the scientific evidence of a creation. The thing that really intrigued me though, was the history. The evidence to support the accounts of the OT. You should look into it sometime. Come at from a skeptical viewpoint as I did. For me, the evidence was powerful. If it is accurate in its history. Then it is AMAZING in its prophecy. Ancient documents written about this man who would come claiming to be God. Born of a certain bloodline--in a certain town--live a certain way--die--and raise from the dead. How did they know this? There are over 500 eyewitness accounts of his resurrection. You do believe that the prophecies of His comming were written long before He was born? Like I said--it was not one thing, but for me an overwhelming amount of evidence which lead me to consider the bible as true. Truth has to have a corresponding object. For me the truth of the bible and its corresponding God are now obvious, but I have to remember--they once were not.

Lindyhopper, Bingo! Now hold that same standard to yourself. To think that the god that you have faith in, which is based on your own subjective experiences and POV, is absolute and universal, you would have to know everything, the ins and outs of the ways of God. That is, of course, if there is a god and if there is only one God and if there is not another universe of gods and if there is not a race of intelligent machines that has us in a virtual existence feeding off our juices and if there is not an alien race that controls us telepathically across light years of space and time etc etc. The number of unverifiable possibilities exceeds our ability to imagine them. This is why I don't engage in apologetics. I never said my faith was based on subjective experiences or POV. In fact, I have articulated that my Faith is in the person of Jesus Christ. God to Christians minus The Way, Mormons, Moonies, JehovasWitnesses and the cast of Fraggle Rock. He is --as you have heard before--the way the truth and the life--I don't have to know everything-I know Him. I am hesitant to use that term here, because it has been bandied about like a blunt instrument. As for the rest of your argument, I will let that stand on its own merit. How can you possibly know the scope of the reality of God's existence and how the Bible conforms to it and how this God deals with human beings without knowing everything? And, if you only know it in part, couldn't the parts that you don't know be rather significant given the presumed scope of God? Couldn't those unknown aspects amount to something greater or lesser or different than the absolute and universal beliefs that you hold? LindyHopper, you know what the bible is about. It is not a cookbook? Again, I don't have to know everything to know truth. I know Christ. Yes, I am positive there are things I don't yet understand about God. However, Jesus came to show us God. To reveal Him. I would never presume to damn someone to hell, or tell them they are headed there. I am no evangelist--I do enjoy reading D.L Moody and Charles Spurgeon though. It is a doctrinal thread and I have shared my faith--not judged you for yours or lack thereof. In fact, I didn't believe for quite awhile after TWI although I went through the motions. So, I might actually be able to empathize with you--without trying to convert you and possibly relate to you on a unique level. If you can get past my faith in Christ and belief in the bible--if you are not too busy being tolerant of everyones right to choose their path.

Hi Oakspear For the sake of discussion I'll stipulate that it can. How then can you determine which of the competing "truths" is THE TRUTH The bible is true because it coforms to the reality of Gods existence and His dealings with us as human beings. Truth has to have a match up with what is actual or real. Otherwise it is not true. Let me ask you a question. Do you think reality can be shaped anyway you want? Interesting take, similar to the atheism = religion argument. I suppose if one were to say "there is no way that your "truth" can be TRUTH, I might agree with you. It goes back for me to theory vs. practice. In theory truth can be determined, in practice I haven't seen it done. I did say that. To say no one can know God in such a way as to invalidate what someone else beliefs--is wrong. I also said it is a religion unto itself. Now, because you Oakspear have not seen truth determined--means what? It has never been determined? Not at all. All that it presupposes is that no one has come up with an objective verifiable measurament of that "knowing". You just proved my point. You would have to know all to seriously make this statement--How the universe is wired--the ins and outs of God--if there is a God. . . To make this statement--you would have to know truth--the actual reality that there is no objective verifiable measure--

Hi Abigal, I really enjoyed your post-truly. My point was--I believe what I believe and that is unchangable. Because of my faith in Christ--FOR ME--He is All. There is no other way to God--that actually is part of my faith. Perceiveable to many as intolerant. As such a steadfast believer, I can find no common ground on issues of faith with those that don't accept Him as Savoir. To me, it is not just a belief--it is the fabric of who I now am. Does that make any sense? It is not just a notion or an excerise in philosophy--it is my heart and my soul. It is how I live. BUT--if I live it the way Jesus meant--I will love, not judge--I will serve, not take and I will strive to keep peace. There is no one of any other faith not welcome in my home--with the exception of Satanist--who kinda scare me. Homosexuals --- atheists--- exway :) All welcome! I would never turn my back on anyone in need. But, that is what I believe is expected of me as a follower of Christ. I long to serve others. Do you know what I mean? If it is lived right--it is an amazing thing. I strive for this because I have been given a second chance--I am redeemed. That is my belief--confirmed to me by the Holy Spirit--but not TWI's version. LOL You might actually like me if you met me. I don't always speak of matters of faith. This is a doctrinal forum and that is what we are talking about. LOL I can party with the best of em--unless it is after 10:00pm. Then I start to fade. I sure would like to know how that happened? Christians are no better than anyone else!!!!! I really mean that. In fact, think about it. To realize you need a Savoir--you have to see you are a sinner---that is what brings us to the Cross. I know my shortcomings and they are plenty. Hope this helps explain a bit. I do really like ex-way people. I mean--we picked a podunk cult--slogged through together and all landed in different places. We share a unique experience. And as much as it irks me--it did, for a time, shape us. I still carry some scars from those days--actions resulting from a vapid system of flagrant theology. Things I can never undo--you know what? I know you "get" that. George: Isn't "apathetic agnostic" redundant?:)

I would respectfully disagree with you. I do believe that absolute truth can be known. However, I also think that the belief system that says no one can know truth in such a way as to invalidate someone elses beliefs is wrong, and is in itself religious. It has its own affirmations--doctrines--and denials. To say that God cannot be known at all presupposes that the one saying this knows all. Which is what saying our beliefs are similar fosters. Why is it that a broken, unworthy, sinful, repentent Christian who dogmatically holds fast to Jesus and the bible is arrogant? While the "All paths lead to God-tolerant-we are more alike than different" relativist disciple is enlightened? This system uses absolutes to say there are none. As much as I can love you, I cannot agree with you. I am positive there is no other way but that of Jesus crucified, buried, and risen. With His refining work to follow. It is hardwired into me. I am unflappable. Therefore, by many standards arrogant and unenlightened. I surely do not mean to sound harsh, but I am steadfast. Not because I see myself as morally superior, in fact I know that I am not, I am broken, sinful, and unworthy to stand before a Holy God. That is why I cleave to Jesus. I don't judge those who believe other than I---not my job or inclination. I just don't find common ground and build from there. Faith in Christ is what it is. Ah, but if the martyrs were Christians and they were blowing up innocents in the name of a holy war???? If they were killing off the Jews and heretics as was done in the 1400 - 1500's? If they were killing off Native Americans and forcing their children to convert to Christianity??? Well, if someone did do that in the name of Christianity it would not be anything to do with Christ. We are called to love. Not just our friends which is easy, but our enemies. I am called to love Hindus-Muslims, Jews, Pagans and on we go. To feed the poor, comfort the sick and to give of myself to the point of selling what I have to give if need be. No matter their faith. I said before that I could cite countless things done in the name of Jesus that are chilling. I would argue that He had nothing to do with them. He healed all that He met who were in need--denied no one--and still desires all to come to Him. What man does, in His name to cause harm--is man doing it. This includes many of the things said and done by evangelicals today. I have very little respect for most modern day American evangelicals-who distort the simple beauty of the gospel with politics, protests, and televangelism. The Gospel message is a heart-wrenching beautiful love story--written by a God who desires you and paid a precious price to redeem you. That is what makes Jesus so unique You and I and this entire universe groan and travail and wait--I wonder you don't feel it? Abigal--my best to you.

Hi, To agree with you, I would have to presuppose that those who strap bombs to themselves and blow up innocents are martyrs for their faith. That is a supposition I cannot prescribe too. I do dare call it murder/suicide though. The two cannot be equated. Not without rationalization. Again, I am no good at apolegtics. It would take someone with far more knowledge and intellect to explain the difference between the Koran and the Bible--the essence of God and the Power of the Holy Spirit. I can quote John14:6 to you ad nauseum, but why? You know it as well as I. I assume you have read your bible. That is one assumption about ex-way I feel safe in making. :) What I would like to say to you is that our experiences in the Way were abusive and detremental to our spiritual well-being. That is my opinion. However, if you at some point begin to thrist for more or a different relationship with God (I always want more) it is not only possible--it is a given He will welcome you. Please notice, I did not assume your spiritual life now is void. I don't know that. I don't judge that-I would just encourage you to listen to any tug or pull that you might feel on your heart. I am no brain--I am a heart kinda gal. I have that (obnoxious to some) steadfast faith that Jesus is able to save to uttermost. I would encourage you to read the same book I offered George--although I assume you are not an atheist. If he doesn't want it, I would happily send it on to you! Along with my very best. I feel a real kinship with ex-way. Who else would believe the stories we can tell!! Rather shocking to the average ear!

Hi, I know the stories to which you refer. Actually part of my undergrad work. Yes, there was an odd kind of ectasy in these people who fought to throw themselves first to ravenous beast. In the lines waiting for Christians to be brought out to lions--there were arguments over who would go first! Selfish? I don't know I do know that those who gives their lives for the Christian faith understand that God is JUST. An unfamilar characteristic of God to many Wayfers-Ex and present. Most Christians do understand that the glory and reward of heaven is far greater than the moments of earthly suffering. The man who was born blind--for God's glory--his reward is in eternity and never ends. His life here on earth was a blink. Paul talked about this-To live is Christ-to die is gain. But Paul lived and suffered and served. Because he loved. Other Christians do the same. Many in less than comfortable conditions. Knowing that we are slaves or servants of Christ. That is our calling. A blip on the Christian radar of a group of ecstatic self-made martyrs in no way exemplifies the heart of a servant of God. There are many examples of things done in His name that chill me. That is a whole other discussion--I could probably out cite you on those instances. The Way alone gives us enough material for a set of encyclopedias. That is why we are told to prove all things and hold fast to that which is good. That is why we follow Jesus-hear His voice and KNOW Him. As for those who die in vain for a faith such as Islam. I don't think I really even need to point out the differences, but will just say that their deaths-steal from people, kill others and destroy the lives of many. There is a great book I would encourage you to read called Prisoners of Hope. It was written by the two American girls held by the Taliban during the beginning of the Afghanastan war. It really does exemplify the love in a Christian heart for muslims. As for this world -- this is where we make our decision about Jesus. It is a question that you are asked whether you realize it right now or not. And if Vp ever said anything true it was this. "You tell me what you think about Jesus Christ who he is and I will tell you how far you will go. . . " I for one love that you ask these questions. Jesus can stand-up under your scrutiny. I hope you are asking Him these questions as you seek Him out in the gospels. By the way, I do care for my mom who is older, well not really old, but infirm and as helpless as a kitten. So, I applaud your love and devotion to your parents and the care you gave them. It is in no way easy.

Oh Please-that is so passe-so 19th century ---We will just get him on stage with Benny Hinn and slay him a few times. Ooops I mean in the spirit. Or did I?

Hi, Somewhat confused here and please bear with me. What did I miss? People are demons? HUH? What was the big deal about Invisible Dan's question and cman and Oakspears follow-ups that solicited that kind of response? Not trying to be antagonistic at all, I promise, but WHOA! WOW!! I love the Lord and I wasn't offended. Been there. Wondered similar things myself?? Glad I did---it helped get me to the place I accepted Him. Jen-o God doesn't defend Himself--He declares Himself. We show Him to others through love. Cman did kinda seem right on that. Your defense--while powerful--makes me wonder why you get so upset about a few questions. Maybe I misunderstood? You are so right it was a destructive cult. It hurt peoples very souls. If stances are taken and questions are asked--who am I to judge these are permanent? I declare what I know to be true about Him--share the love He has given me and the rest is His to deal with. Jen-o I am really glad you know the Lord Jesus--awesome isn't He? Kind and gentle and able to deliver? I love the way He never infringes but woos. How He chastens with love and refines our hearts. There is real peace in His authority and unspeakable joy in Him. Sorry to impose on this thread too much--I saw a question and my heart was to answer it. It still is. Yes, He is all He is cracked up to be and More! Be Happy--He lives!!

Excathedra, Your dignity inspires-so right back at ya sister! Sunesis, Ain't it the truth. Step away from the light, I mean the church. WOW! Been years since I have played "Bible Gotcha" Seems to be a still viable sport with some here. The twisted logic and double speak remind me of the "Good Old Days" when I used to hit people upside the head with scripture. I guess I just don't have the stomach for it anymore. I am rusty and now lack the talent to twist and turn those words to wound. Er, I mean expound. Sorry, don't mean to derail or get These little emoticons are sooo cute!!

Hi Invisible Dan You said "When you gather all the citations from the gospels of such cases, it presents us a rather unsettling depiction. Unsettling in the fact that it's all too familiar." I have to agree with you that it is unsettling. I actually went through a similar thought process for awhile. For me, and I understand this is not a widely held belief here, it was the WHO of Jesus that helped me to know Him. He is authoritative, because He is the final authority. He rebuked because He lived among them and they could not see Him. He stepped into time to show them and us who God is. He actually has the authority and power to teach, chasten and refine. The difference is the love he does it with. He gave Himself for us. He proved His love. And Dan, He loves like no other. But, if He is just a man--then it very well can seem "all too familar". If He is who He claimed to be---it is beyond wonderful that He would even bother. That is to His Glory--not ours. It is hard to see through the clutter of odd TWI doctrine, but I for one am glad you ask these questions. I hope you keep looking and wondering and asking until you meet and know the Jesus who loves you and gave His life for you. Anyway you go I hope you have joy--but, please don't dismiss the joy of knowing Him. He gave us the VERY BEST thing ever possible-Himself.

Hi, I am basically a lurker here. I read with interest, but rarely post. Hope it is okay to just jump in. This thread and others are interesting to me because my son and I have often had this discussion. We live in an area that has a very large gay community. It is no secret to this community that Christians disapprove of their lifestyle and why. What is sadly a secret to many is the love that is shed abroad in our hearts. When you know someone has a pre-conceived idea of you and it is negative--the first thing that happens is you go on the defensive. Right? Who wouldn't? So, why not reach out with the love freely given to us. It isn't my job to convict someone of their sin. I don't want that job--it belongs to the Holy Spirit. It is my job to love others as myself--I am pretty self-centered--so it is a HUGE task! The gay community is WELL aware of Christians disdain for them---they even know why!! What they need to see from those of us who claim to know Christ is His amazing love for His creatures. He died for All men--shows Mercy to those He chooses and He sorts it out-- We are called to love--even our enemies as He does. You can share the gospel much more readily with someone who isn't running from your disapproval. I know what the bible says about homosexuality. Who doesn't? I was delivered from a Bible worshipping--idolatrous-- cult--who knows but God--whom He has called? Treat people with love and show them God's heart. It is the GOODNESS of God that leads to repentance. Not the scariness of God-- Just my Two-Cents-probably all it is worth!

Hi, I don't normally post-I lurk and read and look for friends---BUT---this topic is too good to miss. When we left in 1988--ages ago--during the "Great Mass Exodus". (Basically the whole state walked) I remember the limb leader had held back the ABS. He said we were all welcome to take it back. Hubby went and grabbed ours and what did we do with it??? GOT OUR PHONED TURNED BACK ON!! Then we really splurged and got the BIG box of Pampers!! Two babies and no phone!! What was I thinking??? Had to ABS!! None of them deserved or deserve our money. Not a single one! That is my own humble opinion for what it is worth! THANKS-that felt good!!

Hi Does anyone know if they are still "IN" and where they are? Mona-if you happen to read this--we still love and miss you both. Hope all is well-you are often in our thoughts!! I drive by Chester Street and remember you!! Mary&Tom