def59

quote:

Originally posted by oldiesman:

quote:

... that's why he stole portions of various teachings from other fringe players, creating his own hybrid version of Christianity.

Not enough to condemn VP now you are condemning the folks he learned from as "fringe". ha ha ha ha ha

B.G. Leonard, E.W. Kenyon, Stiles, Bullinger, Pillai, Martin Luther, etc. those are the biggies, yes they are all glassy eyed cultists on the fringe.

Me too.:D-->

Who said anything about Martin Luther?

I saw VP and JP play the guitar at a family table at ROA in 78 or 79. TWI took a pic and used it in their promos.

I don't know about you but knowing that the dead are not alive now and have scriptural confirmation comforts me much.

OM

I take comfort in knowing my son, who was a stillbirth, is in heaven right now fishing with his great-grandfathers. There's peace in that.

Life is not fair, but calls people home for a reason and that is to bring Him glory.

quote:

Originally posted by TheInvisibleDan:

quote:

Originally posted by def59:

But there were many copies of the letters and the Gospels. Most of those were written before 70 A.D. (None mention the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem.

The cute "little apocalypses" in the Synoptics do.

Danny

Sorry Danny, you'll have to be more specific. I found passages where Jesus prophesied about the Temple's destruction but that doesn't speak to the fact.

In other words. He was the Word (John 1:1), manifest in the flesh (John 1:14)

Can it be any more simple?

Mike

C'mon dude. Jesus didn't "qualify" for anything. He was born as the Word. That's how knew the Word he was the culmination manifest in the flesh.

quote:

Originally posted by sirguessalot:

some examples come to mind...

can we assume that God being a literal male father that lives in a place seperate from us is a figure of speech, and not literally true?

The Bible refers to God as a father and mother.

because if we cannot assume such a thing in conversation, how do we hope to fruitfully discuss the nature of God to our mutual enlightening?

I want to hear your premise first.

or, can we assume that any one word we use may have different meanings or applications or connotations when used by another?

and that to have clarity in this regard is paramount to a useful conversation?

Let's not assume, let's define our terms according to our understanding.

or, even trickier perhaps: can we assume that faith and science both play different but vital roles in the overall development of human understanding?

because if we cannot assume such a thing in conversation, how do we expect to find common ground?

It would be absurd to think that science doesn't play a role.

(not saying that we must assume these things, but simply asking if we hypothetically can, and if such assumpations might be useful as primers beforehand)

This is where the idea that he was God starts to play in. A man without daily access to the scrolls could not possibly remember the passages. But if he had a hand in the original writing of the books, then that's another story.

He wasn't called Lord for nothing.

quote:

Originally posted by moony3424:

Sounds about right Ham. Of course, when he was younger, he would have worked closely with the Priests while studying the scrolls to prepare for his Bar Mitzvah. Besides that, he would have had to study at the synogogue. There isn't anything actually written about those years, so anything would be conjecture.

Except that the Bar Mitzvah ceremony came during the Middle Ages.

But there were many copies of the letters and the Gospels. Most of those were written before 70 A.D. (None mention the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem.

Mike

You start with a passage written by vpw as God-breathed, the rest of us are not going to drink that Kool-Aid any longer.

Your idol died of a disease he said was caused by a devil spirit. If he was the man you say he was, shouldn't he be around today.

Your idol was a fraud, and your arguments reflect that fraudulence.

quote:

Originally posted by Cynic:

Following is a message I received today from a fellow who webcasts on a service called PalTalk. Since I’ve actually listened only to a few minutes of several of his broadcasts, I don’t know what ability he has to challenge and refute Schoenheit’s Socinianism.

quote:

From: Unchained Radio, Christian Alternative Music combined with

Intelligent talk radio

RE: Tonight on The Narrow Mind 09/13/2005

Tonight I will be interviewing John Schoenheit of “Truth or

Tradition?�

Here are some of the doctrines that John`s website embraces in the name

of truth rather than tradition:

• Rejection of the Trinity

still peddling that old thought? It's like a tradition with these guys -->

• Hurricane Katrina was caused by Satan

So who's in charge? Alexander Haig?

• Hell is NOT an eternal place of judgment

It's also a small town in Michigan, so maybe he has a point. But I'll defer to scriptures on this one.

• The website also offers 23 reasons for a pre-trib rapture

I like pan-trib. Everything will pan out in the end.

• And much moreâ€| go to http://www.truthortradition.com

Here's a good site.

http://www.christianity.co.nz/

Bob and Dan

Have you ever read Lee Strobel's "The Case for Christ" he cites his sources for how we can trust the Gospels for being historically accurate.

Strobel was an atheist who decided to see if the claims of the Bible were true. He was the legal editor for the Chicago Sun-Times (or Tribune) and well-acclaimed.

If the truth is what you say you want, it would be good to see all sides.

I would first grant an amnesty to all twi people, greasespotters, innies, cff, ces, and the rest.

I would open up the files and see what really went on. I would bring in an independent investigator and auditor to check the books.

I would fire bless patrol and rely on the sheriff for security.

I would stop the classes and all programs and send everybody home for a year to collect their thoughts.

I would bring all the best theological minds and see where twi's beliefs stack up. This would be a weeklong event and anyone on gsc or the offshoots that wanted to come and speak would be welcome.

After we got things settled we'd take a look at what kind of ministry we really wanted.

Knowing his character and his heart, how can we say "he taught me the Word?"

The sermon of his life, his testimony, if you will, should tell us of how far from the mark he was and how far we allowed him to take us.

quote:

Originally posted by Sunesis:

I just finished a book called "The Lost Christianities" by a Professor at one of the huge divinity schools.

It was a very thorough, objective look at all of the different types of Christianity that appeared in the first and second centuries, from manuscripts that have been found - scholarly, but a layman can easily understand. You can read about Paul fighting all of these different types, some quite large, in his epistles. It was fascinating. It looked at the Marcionites, ebonites, gnostics, proto-orthodox (what we are today), and other groups. Also, other things.

I found the trinity interesting. The church found it necessary to describe who Christ was because you had several influential groups saying many and various different things about Christ and who he was.

One group said he was a phantom - he appeared real, but was not, he was more a spirit in bodily form; one group said he was totally human and the "Christ" spirit came in at his baptism by John and left during the crucifiction (can you imagine the horror of the poor guy who's body was "borrowed" by the Christ spirit coming to his senses on the cross, wondering - how did I get here?!); one group said he was totally divine; one group said he was an emanation; plus various other beliefs, there were a lot of differing opinions on who he was.

We think Christians today are divided - the first and second centuries were amazing.

Anyway, the leadership had to decide who Christ was in order to combat these heresies. He wasn't a "god", yet he wasn't just a "person" invaded by spirit, nor just a perfect person. On the whole, I think they came up with a pretty good way of explaining who he was that effectively combated the heresies.

Most ex-twiers erroneously think trinitarians think Christ is God. This is wrong. They do not believe that. We can thank VP for this.

They believe the ESSENCE of God was in Christ reconciling men to God. Therefore, he was human, yet had the essence of the Father in him.

To think of the essence concept, think of a block of silver (God). Think of the corner being chipped off and living on earth. God and Christ were of the same essence. Christ was not bigger than God or God.

Trinitarians tend to use the term, or say that Christ was God. What they mean is Christ had God's essence - its a shorthand term, just as TWI had many they use that others go, what?.

I finally understood why though, they call Christ the "incarnation" (note, I did not say "reincarnation").

So, many may dislike the trinity concept, but imagine how Christianity and society would have been different today if the other views had won out.

Sun

I am ex-twier who now believes in the trinity. I believe Jesus is God in the flesh. See John 1.

I believe he was fully God and fully man.

As for the question. I believe when we accepted Jesus as Lord, none of us knew him for who he really was at the time. If we surrended to his lordship, then he will bring us closer to him and we will know the Truth.

Then there's some of us who believe in a pre-wrath Rapture.

Instead of waiting for the return of Mike,

lets get back to the subject at hand.

Jesus tells us how he will return and when.

Paul tells us it will be at the last trumpet,

John tells us there are seven trumpets.

You do the math.

Templelady

Are you sure you haven't kept forsaking the spring of living waters for another broken cistern?

LDS has an equally shaky beginning with Joseph Smith and his plates and special glasses and many painful lessons over the years including polygamy and racism.

LDS theology takes many leaps with science and history, what makes it so appealing after twi?

quote:

Originally posted by templelady:

People outside the LDS church often view it as controlling.

But you have the right in the LDS church to look at your, bishop, your stake president, your organization president and SAY "NO". you can say "I disagree", you can say "I've prayed about it and I have been told NOt to do it"

And even tho they as individuals may not be happy with your decision--no one is going to come to your house and yell at you (and if they do , someone higher up will put an end to that nonsense), no one is going to threaten you with death from GOd's hand etc.

YOu can be excommunicated for Adultry, alcoholism, criminal activity etc but that has to be proven--really proven not just someones gossip.

Catcup is right--its part of the abuse cycle--if you are in fear you pass the fear along

But what about the guy who wrote a book saying the polynesian people are genetically linked to the Indians. He was booted for adultery when he was separated, but he and his wife have forgiven each other and reconciled.

What is your take? Can your church handle challenges to the faith?

quote:

Originally posted by grasshopper:

i've returned to my lutheran roots.

i hated church as a kid however,

having custody of my children every other weekend i take them, ages 11, 6 and 4 whether wethey like it or not. my 11 year old admitted recently that she is "sort of starting to like it". the church is very friendly and they don't seem to mind too much when my 4 year old turns to jelly and slimes his way under the pews or when my six year old walks up front for the childrens sermon with his pants on backwards or with missing shoes and tie askew.

i intially started attending these services to bless my aging parents but this form of worship has grown on me.

afterwards, we all go out to a greek diner for lunch.

my soon-to-be ex wife roundly, derisivly and with much condescending laughter criticizes this church attendance, an attitude which will not serve her well when we settle our divorce. she attends a wierwillist/geerite fellowship with the kids which is fine with me. no harm yet as far as i can see.

i will be having my youngest boy baptized at this lutheran church.

it's all good.

as long as it is truly good.

and i will be the one to judge.

luther vs wierwillw? no contest.

i'll take luther.

Grasshopper, I am glad you are finding a positive response there. There are many churches which are more than happy to reach out to former twi-ers.

I'll pray for you.

I am of the opinion that God is in control.

That said, I believe He allowed the selections or chose them precisely of the resulting exodus.

Without them, the sham would continue and many of us would still be brainwashed.

Instead of looking for churches that teach way doctrine, why not learn about the doctrines your church teaches. That may prove more beneficial since twi doctrine is held in contempt by most denominations as heretical or demonic.

I did it and learned how weak twi arguments really are.

quote:

Originally posted by Eagle:

Hi Jan:

My wife and I attend Northpoint Church in Toledo. We're involved in disaster relief right now. It is a United Brethren church and has pretty good teachings. The pastors are usually graduates of Moody Bible Institute.

Hey Eagle

I go to a United Brethren Church in Michigan, just northwest of you. Was the pastor from your church the one who became bishop?

def