Jbarrax

D.A. you said

quote:

it is impossible

Not according to Jesus Christ and the Bible. According the them, with God all things are possible.

quote:

There is an infinite chasm between the Creator and creature that cannot be breached from the bottom up.

Sounds a lot like VP's chasm from PFAL. Not so I say. More to the point; you are inserting a clause that does not exist in my argument. If God created the heavens and the earth with intent to exalt His Son to an exalted position therein, who says Jesus attained that position on his own, or in your words, "from the bottom up"? You see, your objection does not address my statement. God created the universe, God foreknew and foreordained Jesus to rule it. What's so impossible about that?

Then you said,

quote:

Your interpretation is not only a translation, but an extrapolation (i.e., inference) which goes beyond what the limits of grammar can lay claim. Translation alone cannot tell us what this passage intends to say about Christ.

You misrepresent my post. It was translation supported by the context. The context of the passage speaks of Christ being the head of the body of Christ, the firsborn from the dead. And, as Mark has already pointed out, I would much rather base my point on the words in the Scripture and the context of those words than to base it on an unsubstantiated claim that the passage is inspired by an unknown hymn. Come now, you can do better than that.

The Trinity may be true. And if I were arguing your point, I would allude to the divine attributes of Jesus in th passage; mainly that all things, in heaven and earth, including principalities and powers (arche) were created in and unto Him. That's pretty heady stuff. As I understand it, it means God prepared all of the archangels and powers of heaven to be in subjection to a perfect man born of a humble woman. What I see as mind boggling grace others might see as proof that Jesus is God Himself. But that would still be at odds with the text and the following passages about him being the head of the Church and the firstborn from the dead.

The triune God may be the true one. But, if I have to decide based entirely on the witness of the Scripture, the preponderance of the evidence says no.

Peace

JerryB

Perhaps this is a matter of perspectives Mark, but it seems to me that most of the uses of the term fire in the verses you cited indicate destruction, not purification. The chaff is burned, not purified. The purification occurs before the fire, when the wheat is seperated from (sanctified from; purified from the influence of) the chaff. Then, having been removed from that which is good and worthy, the chaff is destroyed by fire.

Likewise, the passage in Corinthians clearly says that if any man's work is found unsorthy "he shall suffer loss". The loss suffered is due to works destroyed by fire.

I'm not saying that you are wrong in your statements about the meaning of the word "age". It may well be that 'eternal life' refers only to temporary citizenship in the coming Kingdom of Christ. And part of me is still cynical about the whole concept of the Return of Christ, but that's another thread.

I just thought I'd toss my two mites in the ring. Please pardon the disruption and carry on.

Peace

JerryB

quote:

Originally posted by Mark Sanguinetti:

Still trying to send people to eternal torment Def? I am glad you are not God. A collection of writings totally void of the inspired scriptures I might add, but that is fine Def keep posting.

Those might be extra-canonical Mark, but there's a great deal of Holy writ that supports those views. Even Paul wrote to the Ephesians that inheritance in the Kingdom is not a foregone conclusion. I know it contradicts the notion of salvation by grace, and complicates most of what we were taught and would like to believe, but--as VP said, I didn't write the book.

Ephesians 5:3-7

But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not once be named among you as becometh saints;

Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking nor jesting, which are not convenient; but rather giving of thanks

For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.

Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things the wrath of God cometh upon the children of disobedience.

Be not ye therefore partakers with them

Like I said, it contradicts the doctrine of salvation by grace and all that, but there it is. And it's not the only passage of its kind. Check I Corinthians 6:9 & 10 and Galatians 5:19-21. Even the Apostle Paul, the champion of righteousness by faith, warned that sinful behaviour could result in a believer failing to inherit the kingdom of Heaven.

Peace

JerryB

oookay. Rock on, Gnostic Brethren. :-)

Personally, I have a copy of the Gnostic Gospels and I can't stomach most of it. The majority of it reads like baptized pagan mythology with the names of "virtues" like Faith and Truth being inserted in place of the Zeus, Apollo, Hera, and the rest of the Greco-Roman Pantheon.

Peace

JerryB

Colossians 1:16 does not say that Jesus created the world. That's a mistranslation in the KJV. The Greek words translated "by" and "for" are en and eis, meaning in and unto (For by Him were all things created...all things were created by Him and for Him) The end of the verse should be translated "all things were created in Him and unto Him.

This doesn't mean Jesus created the world. Rather, it means that everything in the heavens and earth was created with a view to Christ's redemption of man and ascension to the right hand of the throne of God. The throne Christ now occupies at God's right hand, his position of Lord of the universe, were prepared for Him when God created the heavens and earth.

There is no man or power in the entire universe above Jesus of Nazareth except God Himself.

That's what Colossians 1:16 really means. That a man born of woman could be raised to such an exalted status is beyond miraculous. When you put this verse together with I John 3:2 and Romans 8:29, the grace that God has extended to mankind via Jesus Christ is truly mind-boggling.

The human connection to Christ's exalted positionn is clear in the context.

17 And he is before all things, and by (in) Him all things consist.

18 And he is the Head of the body, the church; Who is the beginning, the Firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

19 For it pleased the Father that in Him should all fulness dwell

Peace

JerryB

I've already posted my opinion on the BU thread. I don't see the logic in it myself. I don't believe that Jesus is "God the Son", but Chuck's seperation of Jesus into two persons is somewhat confusing. I'm comfortable with the idea that Jesus was a man born of divine conception and annointed with a heapin' helpin' of holy spirit. (I think I've been in Kentudky too long) :-P

Peace

JerryB

I really hesitate to get dragged into this, but I must say Chuck, as a Unitarian, I don't see where you're coming from. I don't think I've ever heard anyone try to distinguish between the person of Jesus and that of the Son of God. And I don't follow your logic. It seems to me that perhaps you are confusing eternity and immortality. God is eternal because He has neither beginning nor end. Jesus is immortal because he was born, and died, but lives on. According to the Apostle Paul, we who are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord will also receive immortality. That doesn't mean we were never born, it just means we'll be delivered from death.

Peace

JerryB

quote:

Originally posted by def59:

Jb

Have you read the article on the Holy Spirit on http://www.empirenet.com/~messiah7/rsr_whohs.htm ?

Can't say that I have Def.

quote:

There are many verses that show the Spirit to be a distinct person and not just another name for the Father or an inanimate power source.

Check out Charles Stanley's books on the subject.

Here's another site:

http://www.carm.org/doctrine/trinity.htm

And what might some of those verses be, praytell?

JerryB

Hey I've got a question. It seems to me that all the fuss about whether Jesus is God or not only partly addresses the issue of Biblical Unitarianism vs the Trinity. The debate rages on and on about whether Jesus was the Son of God or "God the Son". But what we're not looking at is the third part of the puzzle.

The Nicene Creed states that God is a THREE part being, "God in three persons" is how the AME Church sang it every week when I was a youngun. Trinitarians will often reflexively refer to the Holy Spirit as "the third person of the Trinity".

But if the Holy Spirit is a unique person, as Jesus and God are obviously unique persons, what is unique about Him/It? Although I can think of several attributes of Jesus and God that distinguish one from the other, I cannot think of one Biblical attribute of the Holy Spirit that is distinct from God the Father or the gift by the same name.

So I ask you Trinitarians; what defines the Third Person of the Trinity that doesn't also apply to God?

JerryB

"African boogers"??? What are....

No, wait. I don't want to know.

Glad to hear you had a good time en Afrique. I'd love to go myself some day.

JerryB

I don't know much about Platonism and Neo-Platonism, having taken only Philosophy 101 way back in `79. But I think I know a little about logic and the Scripture so I'll offer up my two cents' worth.

From a purely Biblical perspective, I don't see any logical reason to believe the Trinity. We all know the arguments, both from JCNG and I suppose from Tzaia's highjacked Biblical Unitarian website, so I won't burden you all with a comprehensive rehash. Instead, here's my short list of obstacles to Nicene thinking

1) God cannot die--Jesus was dead for 72 hours

2) God is not a man and his ways are as high above ours as the heaven above the earth--Jesus was a man and was in all points tempted like as were are.

3) God is one person and his will at any one time is singular, not schizophrenic. Jesus said, "not my will, but thine be done" indicating that what God wanted and what he wanted were not identical. (This is the biggest obstacle in my mind to seeing Jesus and God as indentical persons)

4)Jesus is called the Last Adam. Therefore it is illogical to believe that, to correct the disobedience of Adam, God himself died on the cross. Unitarian logic makes the redemption of man by an obedient man perfectly logical

5)In the garden, Jesus prayed that his apostles would be one, even as he and the Father were one. Therefore, if we interpret "I and my father are one" as Jesus' claim of divinity, then the apostles are just as much God as he was. So now, it's not 1+1+1=1, it's 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1=1. Zounds! What absurdity!!

However, having said all that, I must also confess two important caveats. The first is my belief that there is NO WAY to come up with a doctrine that explains all of the Bible's apparent contradictions. No matter what side we choose on any doctrinal debate, we will have to concede that there are a few verses that don't fit our creed. So it really is futile, imho, to try to develop a perfectly cohesive understanding of the Scripture.

And more importantly, it seems that both Trinitarans and Unitarians get people saved, minister healing, speak in tongues, and serve God. God seems to accept the worship and bless the ministries of both camps. So, if it doesn't make any difference to HIM, why should it be such a big deal to us?

Peace

Jerry B

Hi Steve. Thanks for the greeting. I have enjoyed our online discussions as well. Sorry I should have read your post more carefully. I'll go back and finish.

:-)

Peace

JerryB

Hello all. Geez, Raf, thanks for the enthusiastic greeting! :-)So nice to see old friends still hanging out at the Cafe.

And thanks for the Momentus /Walk post Tzaia. I'll look into it.

Peace

JerryB

Just one quick comment Steve. I think you're carrying on a doctrine we learned in the Way that I humbly ask you to reconsider. You said

quote:

What does it mean to "fear the Lord"? it means to submit the thoughts and intents of your heart to the critique of the living Word of God.

I humbly submit that you are equating the Scripture with the Lord. If one were to follow your premise, he would have to check his heartfelt beliefs against the Scripture.

But the Scripture is not always clear and is sometimes self contradictory.

More to the point, the Scripture itself says in numerous places that we are to supposed to grow into a relationship with God and Christ via the indwelling holy spirit.

My point is, If you want to know if the thoughts of your heart are right, why not just pray about it? Why not just ask your heavenly Father and use the access to Him provided by the life, death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ? Or, if you prefer, why not just ask the Lord himself. He is in us is he not? One of them is surely willing to provide guidance. Indeed Paul wrote in Thessalonians that Christ will direct our hearts into the love of God (II Thess 3:5).

I have come to the conclusion that as we grow, we are not supposed to be continually bound to a written creed, but more in tune with Our Father and Our Lord.

So if one's heart needs corecting, why not take it straight to the Lord instead of breaking out a concordance and a book or three and doing all that retermorizing and such?

Peace

JerryB

Hello all. God bless!

Interesting discussion here. I just wanted to butt in to ask TZaia for some more information about that weekend walk she spokee of earlier, and where her Momentus thread is. I'd like to learn about the 'walk' so I can give it a try if it's offered in my area. The interest in the Momentus thread, I must admit, is just morbid curiosity. :-)

By the way, I thought JAL stepping down when he was confronted was pretty admirable too. Somewhat inspiring even.

Peace

JerryB

The problem with the "substantive errors" thread is, we can't come to a consensus about what's erroneous and what's not. And, as you have seen, the more lattitude given to the detractors, the more contentious the rebuttals of the Wierwillites become.

Is this how we are going to spend the rest of our lives; debating the value of PFAL?

JerryB

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zixar:

Raf: For a couple of days, all I saw in your avatar block was some unreadable text.

---

He was just feeling cryptic.:-)

quote:

---

Originally posted by excathedra:

:)--> sis

if i had to save posts for the future or to prove someone is or isn't someone, ohmygod help me....

?

---

LOL. Yes it does seem rather ludicrous doesn't it? Ooooooh, the intrigue. Let's try to catch him in his words! That way we can build a solid case to support a hypothesis that can't be proven and doesn't really matter.

Who cares if it's Craig or not? Haven't we have enough of the cult of personality?

JerryB

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mike:

Jerry,

So, all those pagan murderers throughout history are closet Bible thumpers?

---

Mike. When you decide to ask an intelligent question instead of spewing rhetoric, I might answer it.

This is why I'm sooooo glad to be finally free of the "The Bible is God's Word" mentality. It seems to give a$$holes carte-blanche to advocate legalism and bully people.

Apparently what some of us have kept from PFAL is arrogance.

Song:

Sadly, he's not jesting.

JerryB

I guess it depends on when you were in Johniam. I didn't get involved until 82, which was during what has beome known as TWI2. I have heard that TWI1 was more of a Christian movement and less relgious than TWI2. By the time I got in, the focus was clearly on the class and on differentiating The ministry from the sincere but ignorant church goers who didn't know "The Word" like we did. There was still some emphasis on witnessing, outreach, and such, but the main focus was on "mastering the PFAL material" and committing to the ministry.

Peace

JerryB

quote:

---

Originally posted by johniam:

By the way, ex, you said...

I have alot of trouble with the idea propagated in PFAL that "knowledge" is the ultimate end, and "principles" define our relationship with Jesus Christ and our fellow humans.

I didn't infer that from PFAL, but I totally agree that knowledge without love is puffed up. That's what you meant, isn't it?

---

Wow. I don't see how you couldn't infer that. It was the underlying theme of the class. One of hte first verses he quoted was Hosea 4:6 "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge". He started right off the bat trying to convince us that knowledge itself is the difference between an abundant life and being destroyed. By the end of session two he was already trumpeting his outstanding Bbile knowledge by asking the rhetorical question, "Who has taught us figures of speech?" Knowledge is what PFAL is all about.

Peace

JerryB

I just found this thread and wanted to toss my two cents in. I haven't seen everyone else's lists yet, but, time permitting, I'll go back and read em.

Let's see. I initially threw out the law of believing,but have come to accept a slightly less extreme version. Believing is an essential part of success and fear is often a precursor to failure, but neither is a LAW that binds God's actions..imo.

Are the Dead Alive Now? I don't know, but I do believe in spooks. I do I do I do I do believe in spooks! And hooky-pook artists! That is, I believe the Devil is alive and well, and has a lot of help.

Speaking in tongues, Yep. All nine manifestations. A qualified yes. I think every Christian can do em, but being able to minister healing to someone once in a while is not necessarily the same as having a "gift" of healing. I think that might be in the category of a gift ministry like Oral Roberts. Or to use VP's term, a "longsuit". So there may be a middle ground between those who say you have to have the gift of tongues to be able to S.I.T. and VP's assertion that every born again believer can speak in tongues and there's no such thing as a "gif of tongues".

Lessee...I still don't believe the Trinity, but I can't say for certain that it's wrong. It still contradicts more Scripture than it fits, imo, but the Scripture is not the only source of truth, nor is it perfectly God-breathed. So I really can't argue that one anymore except to say it doesn't make sense to me.

Salvation by grace. Yep. I don't believe the Way's later teaching that there's absolutely no judgment for wayward Christians, but getting saved is easy.

The Great Mystery. Check. I like the emphasis on Paul's ministry. I don't think we came close to recreating it, but it does give us the true heart of Christianity in the seven Church epistles.

And, I think that's about it. I may see something I should have added as I read the rest of the thread, but most of the Class is either wrong or questionable--

in my opinion.

plink, plink.

Peace

JerryB