Oakspear

If I understand the Trinitarian position correctly it's exactly what you said, that Jesus is completely human and completely divine. When I refer to consistancy, I mean that you're not going to find one verse or series of verses that lay it all out in one place. One verse may refer to Jesus as divine, another may refer to him as human, one verse may talk about Jesus' distinctness from the Father, another points to his identity with God. One is left with applying one's logical thought processes in piecing it all together. Different people approach it in different ways and naturally come up with different conclusions.

Indeed. The understanding that we just aren't going to understand it all is quite freeing.

I just saw this, I'll pass it on to her. :)

When I was a programmer at a local community radio station, I met a guy whose dad, Eric Uml@nd wrote a book called Mystery of the Ancients. It was based on the "premise" that the Mayans were actually space aliens. He actually wrote the book as a spoof of the "Ancient Astronauts" books that were coming out in the 70's. My radio buddy pointed out that supposed artifacts were in reality drawings of his toys that his dad had sketched. The book was a complete goof, but the author was, as of about ten years ago, getting inquiries from nuts around the world.

I've always thought that trinitarian logic and the various unitarian explanations were each attempts to reconcile something that is not consistantly addressed in the bible. Is the lack of consistancy because the bible was written, not by a god, but by different people who held a spectrum of opinions about Jesus, or is it because Jesus' nature is not either/or, but some "other" that we do not fully grasp? My opinion is that Wierwille's explanation of why Jesus couldn't be God, with all of his examples of what God 'would have' done or how if Jesus was God such-and-such word would've been used, is pretty poorly thought out and has enormous holes in it. He makes much of pagan "trinities" as the origin of "the" Trinity (getting some of them wrong in the process) but ignores the pagan origin of the sacrificed king/god as a redeemer for his people. I see it as completely plausible that JCING was just a marketing ploy, and not a sincerely held belief.

You know, I never thought about this until just now, but "scripture build up" was one of the "keys to the Word's interpretation". IIRC, you would have to look at all verses on a subject to get the full story, e.g. four crucified, six denials of Peter, 2 entries into Jerusalem, etc. You won't find "four crucified" mentioned anywhere, nowhere are there more than two mentioned, but you take apparent contradictions and resolve them in a manner that adds up to four. True, there is no one place where the word "trinity" is used, but there are places where Jesus apparently is refered to as God, credited with the characteristics of God, or equated with God. Yet we don't attempt to use scripture buildup in this instance, but just assume that the verses that support the trinity are "unclear" or forgeries. Just a thought (or two)

When I first heard in PFAL about Wierwille dragging all of his commentaries (3000?) to the city dump I believed him. I may have thought that he exaggerated the number of volumes (I couldn't imagine there being 3000 volumes of biblical commentary in the whole world) but believed him when he said that he put aside all other sources and used the bible as his handbook and textbook. If there was any similarity between what Wierwille and another author said, then it was coincidence, they had independently come to the same conclusion. A few years later, when I read that statement in TW:LIL where Wierwille says that his work wasn't original, but that he was the one who put it together so that it fit, I tried to reconcile it with what I had read earlier: that he had based his research solely on the bible. If he had thrown out all of his books and his work wasn't original, how do you reconcile those two apparent opposites? My take on the statement in TW:LIL was that Wierwille was being humble, not bragging about his great feats, recognizing that others had uncovered bits of the truth before him, but that he was the first to hit the research jackpot in all categories! In other words, I took "not original" to mean, "not the first", that Wierwille had independently, using only his research skills and his bible, come to correct conclusions in a multitude of areas, while others had stumbled upon only a few. I didn't take it as Wierwille was saying that he built his work on those that came before him, but independently. His references to B.G. Leonard bear this out. Leonard is credited with teaching about the holy spirit, but Wierwille says that he taught from experience, while Wierwille worked the Word on the subject and came up with biblically accurate answers. Still later I read How to Enjoy the Bible by Bullinger and was surprised at how similar it was to many sections of PFAL. I bought the company line that Wierwille had come to the same conclusions as Bullinger independently of Bullinger. Years later I was made aware of the points of obvious plagiarism and stopped trying to reconcile the contradictions. Wierwille claimed to be taught by God things that hadn't been known since the First Century, yet an identifiable portion are copied straight from other authors. B.G. Leonard is belittled as teaching from experience and not the bible, Wierwille claims that he had never heard of Bullinger before devloping his teachings, J.E. Stiles is never mentioned except as the guy who led ierwille into tongues, yet the words of all three make it into Wierwille's books. Thanks to WordWolf for continuing to educate us on exactly what plagiarism is.

So does this mean you'll be talking about what you don't know about and guessing?

<_<

Pond: My response was to your characterization of dmiller's suggestion as an order, not whether or not you use quotes or not. Anything I need to tell you? Not really, I don't stay up all night wondering if you like my posts either Normally I don't criticize (or critique) another's posting/writing style anymore, because it is rarely, if ever, interpreted as helpful. No, but as an example I point out Oldiesman, who although he is definitely in a minority here, writes very clearly and presents his ideas coherently. There is never any mistakeing what his point is. Normally when I find a poster consistantly hard to understand I just stop making the effort and skip their posts.

Krysilis is not wrong about WordWolf not being wrong

It wasn't an order, it was a suggestion. A suggestion that would make your posts more understandable and coherent. The "quote thing" helps to unmistakably separate your words from those of the person that you are quoting. But there's no requirement on this board to be understandable or coherent.

Sure it's possible, but I personally consider it unlikely. Why? Because in several different instances Wierwille would come to the same conclusion as Bullinger, but omit or change one of Bullinger's premises, or one of the intermediary steps, which then did not support the conclusion. Or he would quote Bullinger as if Bullinger's work supported his own, when an even cursory read of Bullinger would indicate that it did not. In a number of cases it is obvious that Wierwille did not fully understand what Bullinger was saying. All of this indicates to me that he didn't come up with this stuff on his own.

Yeah...um...listen to dmiller

1. God allows bad things to happen because you didn't believe 2. God causes bad things to happen because it's part of his plan 3. God allows bad things to happen because it's part of his plan 4. Bad things just happen and God intervenes sometimes and sometimes he doesn't. God doesn't really come across very well in any of those scenarios

There ya go! And the victors write the history (or holy) books From a Christian point of view, that's a good explanation, from a pagan point of view the Christians took all the good myths and grafted them onto Jesus. You know I'm a pagan, right?

It's times like these when I wish I hadn't dragged all of my TWI stuff to the gehenna/city dump :( On one hand I'm glad that crap isn't around my home, but I miss out on some of these discussions.

A little clarification on my opinion that you haven't made your case regarding the Hellenists: It's possible that you are making your case and I'm not comprehending your argument, but on the face of it it looks like you're just stating your opinion without supporting it with anything. There are also several problems with the position that the Hellenists in the section of Acts in question that you have not really addressed. Like you said, there is a distinction between the Hellenists and "the Hebrews", but is the distinction one of believers vs. unbelievers? If so, why are they included in the "daily ministration" overseen by the apostles and later the seven? Regarding the definition of pagans, I don't think that the word is used in the bible, but I would accept it's use to describe the non-Christian non-ewish religions native to the area. When it comes to dictionary definitions, they abound; here's the Merriam Webster online definition: Now #1 would seem to be the "neutral" definition; #2 I would guess grew out of the Judeo-Christian view that all pagan" religions were false and therefore its fpollowers irreligious; #3 refers to the "new" pagans of modern times.

Just a side note on Bullinger to Socks and any other "old-timers" By the time the 90's rolled around the word on the Way street was that "Doctor" came to the same conclusions that Bullinger did independently. In fact this position is alluded to in PFAL, where he relates how his friend (Dr. Higgins?) supposedly introduced him to Bullinger, telling him that Bullinger wrote like Wierwille taught.

Well that definition carries a bit of bias with it...Pagans as a rule don't worship the idols, but the gods behind them...and who gets to decide which gods are false? Mulsims might disagree Christianity incorporated pagan beliefs and practices from very early on, including the slain god who redeems his people... While you are entitled to your opinion, you have not made a case as to why the distinction is what you say it is I think everyone on this thread disagrees with you! That doesn't by itself make you wrong, but your position is pretty much unsupported.

Broadly speaking "pagan" does refer to those outside the Abrahamic religions (Jews, Christians, Muslims). From a Christian perceptive calling someone a pagan could be considered derogatory. "Paganism" in the modern sense is an umbrella term for a many, many families of religions.

Although I no longer attend churches I still hear Wierwille's (and Martindale's) voice rattling around in my head and sizing up people or institutions. I regularly perform weddings, and occassionally someone wants to read or have me read First Corinthians 13 (the love chapter!) and the tape of the TWI explanation starts rolling. Going to meetings that don't start on time cues the TWI speeches about 10 minutes early being on time.

And here I thought that I was a Pagan living in a Christian culture... Okay, but why is that your understanding? What is it that leads you to conclude what you posted about them? You may be right, but I can't seem to see the basis for your opinion. Part of my objection is that it seems incredible that non-Christians would be approaching Christian leaders with complaints.

Congrats on your book. Writing a book is one of those things that I want to do someday, but haven't made the time for. Seeing a fellow GSer get published allows me to live vicariously through you! ^_^ But you know, your line about those who want to know the truth and brave enough to act upon it hit me the same way it did Jim. But then I thought about it and realized that all those folks who want to know the truth will be soon lining up outside my door, since I'm the one who has the truth. I'd better go bake some cookies for 'em.

Hey, no judgement, do what works for you, I just have trouble following it. Sometimes what I do is open GSC in two windows. In the first window I hit the "reply" button at the bottom of the post, this gives me the post that I am replying to, but as you said, it does not include the post that that post is replying to. In the second window I find the post that the post I am replying to is replying to. I hit the reply button, then copy what pops up to the first window. Now I have the original post, the reply by a second poster, and now I can add my reply to the reply. I'm not saying that you should do it, just that I do. That's how I got the post that you replied to in there. I see what you're trying to accomplish with your colors and "So-and-so said" intros, but it just doesn't work for me. Your mileage may vary!