Tom Geiger

Hi Raf,

I will gather some of my thoughts and likely post in Questioning Faith.

In general, I was asking to see if anyone had some feedback.

Thanks!

You might want to do a little research on that quote form Einstein.

I was just curious if anyone has read the books published by Bart Ehrman and, if so, any thoughts?

Thanks!

I do not believe intent plays any part in copyright infringement cases.  

To me, a larger problem is the pseudoepigrapha and forgeries in "scripture".

Would you also consider 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus as letters of Paul?

Posting my thoughts on the difference between soul and spirit, from Tom G's thread in doctrinal.

I don't think soul and spirit are the same, Biblically. But I also think they are invented concepts entirely, and that is why it is so difficult to distinguish between them. It's like comparing the nutritional qualities of lembas bread and pumpkin pasties. They don't exist in real life, so you can say anything you want about either of them.

I suspect "soul" was the ancients' way of saying "consciousness," and they did not quite understand that the "soul" is nothing more than a function of the body. The notion of a soul as distinct from the body appears to be a later development. You don't see it through most of the Old Testament.

Will expand on my thoughts if anyone is interested and/or if I've said something factually/historically incorrect and I am corrected. But my basic position is that neither the soul nor the spirit exist. We are what we are.

You have given me a little more incentive to dig back into the OT now, so I won't comment re: soul in the OT until I do.

But I will say that pumpkin pasties probably do exist. But maybe we are thinking of different "pasties".

TG

It may be time to move to another church, Tom... or it may not. You will probably find that most churches have some degree of "error" (especially if you look through TWI-stained glasses). If nothing else, pretty much all churches will be trinitarian and promote the "Jesus is God" doctrine. Look at the overall balance of what they teach; can you live with what you believe is doctrinally "off"? What's their response if you raise any queries (meekly, of course!)? How do the people treat each other, and what outreach do they have (genuine outreach and interest in helping community)?

For myself, I attend two different churches regularly. I enjoy the fellowship of others in both. I say a silent "don't think so" at some points, and won't sing all the words of hymns, but I don't raise problems. I see what things the individuals do and how they give their lives; I'm thankful to be a part of such awesome generosity of heart and time - and money.

One of the groups to which I belong (Street Pastors) comprises Christians from a minimum of four different churches (denominations) and when we are out serving the people of our community, we speak of things we have in common - the things that unite us - not the things we disagree about. There are fundamental points that you can agree, one hopes, with any Christian - does any congregation you might join live those fundamental points? If not - it really is time to move on.

Excellent points, and much of what you said I had been thinking already. It is funny, but I have also not sung parts of songs during the services and had those " I don't think so" moments. I also often wonder how many others in that same service also have those moments and just don't say anything.

I try my best to not look at things through TWI colored glasses, and there are some things I have learned that are contrary to what TWI taught.

Maybe the best is to observe and wait until I know what the right move will be. While this church does do some good outreach, the problem will always come down to that point in time when you have to share the Word with someone brand new and my understanding of Jesus is very different from this church's.

I really appreciate the replies.

My word, I just noticed that I have been supping the coffee in the Cafe for just over 10 years.

And I have come a bloody long way in ten years.

Thanks in no small way, especially initially, to the Cafe patrons, without whom I'd still be wallowing in Waybrain. And thanks also to the community of Christians at my local church, the one that healed me enormously from Waybrain. And also to the community of Christians in the churches I now attend (one of which is a "daughter church" to the first one).

Life is GOOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!:dance:/>/>

Congratulations on the decade of Cafe patronage! :)

I just noticed that I joined the forums in 2002. Oy vey, time does fly.

Thanks for the replies.

Similar to TWI, there are other churches that will not accept any questioning of doctrine (or is it dogma?).

When the lead pastor says something is, well, then it is and you can't believe anything else without being a heretic. Of course, there are some doctrines that are foundational and there cannot be a difference of opinion without being non-Christian (e.g. Jesus is the Son of God and the savior). But there are others which are unclear even after research.

Topics including: what happens when you die (immediately not after the resurrection), the nature of hell, and, gasp, whether there is a trinity as defined by mainstream christianity or not.

With respect to the pneuma and psuche discussion, I do not believe they synonymous from what I know of the Bible.

Of course, I haven't gone to seminary school and do not have to defend the ordained doctrine of an organization either.

Do I think this pastor has an agenda? Not in so many words. Do I think he would defend the position of the organization of churches to which his church belongs, even in light of being shown potential error? Yes.

The main problem I see is that in this church there is little thought given that the Bible original text were not written in English within an American culture. Yes, truth transcends language and culture, but to get to an understanding of the truth being communicated, I believe you need to know how words were used in the text from which the Bible you are reading was translated and what did expressions mean culturally.

Time to go back and redo a word study done a long time ago on these two words.

It may also be time to move on to another church.

Thank you for taking the time to reply. I do appreciate it.

TG

I doubt it's with an agenda.

Contrary to what vpw said, it's possible for 2 words to be, in effect, synonymous.

"krima" and "krisis", in the Koine Greek, appear to be so, at least from what I found.

The first question is: are psuche and pneuma synonymous?

I believe they are similar concepts, but not identical-and the differences can be profound when that's the case.

If he's saying they are synonymous, I believe he believes that, and is in error believing so.

It's not a shock to me that a pastor, preaching for a living, can make rather elementary errors

when trying to understand the Bible. I don't think a lot of them have good study habits or

understand how to read the Bible for what's on the page. They're trained to preach, and any

other training might be light or missing completely.

You bring up two other words that I need to do some work on. Thanks

As maybe you have gathered from my recent posts, I am going through a bit of a struggle right now in trying to fellowship with believiers yet running into pastors teaching what I believe is error.

In a church I have been attending, the lead pastor just preached that soul and spirit are synonymous.

since those words are English, I will have to assume that he believes psuche and pneuma are synonymous.

Have I lost my mind or is someone else playing fast and loose with the Word, either ignorantly or with an agenda?

Thanks

TG

Raf, at this point I would say that is accurate. I always leave open the possibility that I will have additional insight that will make me change my mind.

In some churches I would be considered Christian, in others a heretic. I am frankly tired of the debating and the grey areas and having to parse sentences into words written in a foreign language to try and divinate a meaning. Frankly, if God is so powerful, He should straighten out the confusion regarding His own Word now. If it is supposed to be for all men to understand, then make it so. Otherwise, all you have are books written with the accuracy and exactness of a political campaign platform where people are able to spin phrases and sentences to fit their own theology.

It is utterly ridiculous the lengths humans have gone to understand what is accurate in the Bible.

If life and holiness and afterlife is so darn important, make it as easy as falling off a log to understand. Then people have the free will to fall off the log or not.

Yes, I am exasperated and very tired of all the drama and mental stress this "rightly dividing the Word" induces.

When all is said and done, I, at this moment:

Do not believe in any such Trinity. There is God who is Holy Spirit and His son Jesus Christ. Period, end of story.

I do not believe everything in the current Bible is God breathed. I believe it (the Bible) was added to for personal or political reasons or contains mistranslations. I do believe that the original Word of God is truth.

And I do believe I will need to leave the church I have been attending soon as I cannot tolerate the error being promoted as truth when the lead pastor continually tries to work the trinity into sermons, shoehorning it into spots it does not even remotely belong.

Sorry for maybe being off-topic. Not sure if the above counts as doctrinal.

While you're referencing scripture, here's a couple more verses to consider. (Not that anyone in twi ever mentioned that they might be even remotely relevant to anything written in Romans...)

John.19

[10] Then saith Pilate unto him, Speakest thou not unto me? knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and have power to release thee?

[11] Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin.

The more I read the more I am coming to the conclusion that the god of the Bible is sadistic and seems to have narcisstic tendencies.

He asks that justice be equal to the transgression, yet seems to want to exact penalities far in excess of personal transgressions.

I am slowly beginning to think that the Bible is nothing more than a book to keep people in submission to avoid all out chaos, written by men.

:(

I'm hoping some Christians (or some who understand) can explain why The Trinity is important to many Christians, why VPW's anti-Trinity stance was significant, and how the non-Trinity view may have affected other doctrines of Christianity in TWI. (What might have been intended and unintended consequences.) What role does the Trinity play and what did VPW disrupt?

Short answer: they believe disagreement with their doctrine to be an offense to their God by the damned.

In my limited contact with non-TWI Christians, it seems to be impossible for many to consider that Jesus was man (yes, the Son of God, but man and not God incarnate) who did not sin.

It seems that, to trinitarians, the only way this was possible was that Jesus Christ had to be God. Yet, the Bible clearly states that God cannot be tempted, neither does He tempt any man.

Yet Jesus was tempted, in many many instances. But did not sin.

It seems to me that trinitarians attribute His non-sinning to him being God, yet do not look at the other part of the picture. That if he is God then he cannot be tempted, which Satan already knows, so why did Satan try so hard to get Jesus to sin?

It also seems, that many believe that if you do not confess Jesus as God you are not saved.

It is still my firm conviction that Romans 10:9-10 is so simply stated as to eliminate that last argument. Of course, I have heard those twist even this simple scripture toward a trinitarian viewpoint.

The question now is who is ignoring these scriptures right after the scriptures you say the pastor quoted from? Are you ignoring them or did he or she ignore them? And NO, not every government follows this all the time. If all nations would follow this then we would not have wars between nations under their governing authorities. However, sorry, but we have had wars between nations. Do wars between nations show love and follow the below? :confused:/>

Romans chapter 13

8 Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law. 9 For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not bear false witness,” “You shall not covet,” and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

No one ignored verses 8 and following, But that still does not help with the understanding of:

6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing.

Really? Does anyone really think that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea are God's servants?????

My questions has nothing to do with owe no man anything but to love one another, I get that.

I am struggling with the more than apparent contradiction that there are PLENTY of governments that are NOT serving God.

This is a section of scripture that, as I sit here now, is screaming out that it has been rewritten, or added or mistranslated.

Ya know, if you think of this as a letter that some guy wrote to a bunch of people a long time ago, in a place and culture that confounds us, about a situation whose details we really don't understand...it suddenly doesn't seem so important.

Except when the Pastor at the church you are attending teaches on this section to hundreds of people and states that all government authority is from God.

Then it becomes extremely important.

Thank you to everyone who has replied.

There has been so much parsing of these verses and interpretations and commentaries and not one of them has ever explained how all power in government comes from God.

To me that is absolutely the most absurd explanation of these verses, unless, of course God has MPD and is, at one time, all loving, and at another a murdering, torturing entity against the "innocent".

I don't accept VPW and TWI explanation of these verses either. Saying that the authority spoken of in the verses is the authority within the church is inconsistent with the context.

Yet, there is no plausible explanation I have found to say, for instance, Stalin's authority came from God.

I agree, we are to live, as much as it is in our control, peaceably with all men. I am not looking for a reason to start a riot not do I condone anarchy. So, yes, the idea of the government of men is from God, but all governments. Sorry, can't accept that.

I agree that government of people, especially the executive branch or enforcement branch, keeps evil in check. Case in point, look what happens during blackouts or major natural disasters.

But I am really trying to understand this section of Romans.

That being said, I don't want anyone to hand feed me everything. I would be just as grateful if someone has a useful reference and can just point me to it.

Verses like this really lead me to want to research the origins of the New Testament books and see what may have been in the "origina" letters versus what we have now and how much was translated incorrectly.

Some things just seem like they wee added afterwards or are not God breathed.

Don't forget, Paul has been shown to be in error in the New Testament. We all have heard at least one explanation on how Paul was mistaken to travel to Jerusalem. But also look at his handling of John Mark and the contention he caused with Barnabas, which I believe from my reading, was in error.

Anyway, I have set these verses aside for now and cannot honestly expound on theme to anyone who asks because I cannot give a logical, coherent answer.

And Mr. Geiger was my Dad :) I am just Tom.

Thanks!

In a church I have been attending, the pastor is presenting sermons on the book of Romans.

Maybe I have fallen asleep all the other times I have read Romans 13:1-7 or maybe the current political climate and world events made me more ware of these verses (from the NIV):

1 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience. 6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. 7 Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

OK, help me understand how, as the pastor taught, that all governments are from God.

Stalin? Pinochet? Hitler? Mussolini? Idi Amin? Taliban? Ayatollahs? Castro?

Socialism? Communism? Totalitarianism? Fascism?

So rebelling against a represssive or even murderous government is rebelling against God?

If so, my view of God is going to have to change.

TMVP, try checking in one of the online Bibles, for "Adam". You will find almost all of the 27 occurrences refer to the person of what we are told is the first man (Eve's hubby) although Gen 5:2 says:

2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.[emphasis added]

A further reference is to a city (in the book of Joshua, when crossing the Jordan).

And then there is this ONE reference, in 1 Cor 15:

45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening [live-giving] spirit.

Not "the second Adam" but "the last Adam." Second Adam implies there might be another after him, the third Adam. There are NO MORE "Adams" to be referenced.

From Blue Letter Bible (online resource):

"Quickening" - Strongs G2227: Strong's Number G2227 matches the Greek ζῳοποιέω (zōopoieō),

Outline of Biblical Usage:

1. to produce alive, begat or bear living young
2. to cause to live, make alive, give life
   
1. by spiritual power to arouse and invigorate
2. to restore to life
3. to give increase of life: thus of physical life
4. of the spirit, quickening as respects the spirit, endued with new and greater powers of life

[*]metaph., of seeds quickened into life, i.e. germinating, springing up, growing

The first Adam was a "living soul" - the last Adam is "a life-giving spirit." Does that make any difference to your theology, TMVP?

I happen to disagree with your parsing of these verses. Saying the "second Adam" is accurate, unless you think Jesus was the third or fourth Adam. Saying he is the second Adam in no way whatsoever implies there will be any more. It so happens that the second Adam is the last Adam.

I truly appreciate all the replies and I mean no disrespect to anyone of the trinitarian doctrine.

Since leaving TWI, I have been questioning and examining everything I learned.

When the verse in question came up, and then the followup of moving a comma, it really shocked me. THought I knew what Romans 10:9-10 said. Actually had looked up the definitions Twinky provided, but was sure I had missed something becaue a sincere pastor couldn't be wrong

The replies by Twinky confirmed that I actually do know how to read and use the reference books I still own :B)

Wierwille would have been proud! Tinkering wit puncuation to make it say what he wants!

Regarding the Lord = God contention, some Trinitarians rely on the fact that when the NT quotes the OT, Yahweh/Jehovah is usually translated into Greek as kurios (lord)

Yes, that may be where this gentlemen went off the rails. God is Lord as is Jesus, but he missed that God is Lord over Jesus.

There certainly are some radical trinis out there.

I went to a local evening Bible school (to try to get a different non-Way view of things). There were a variety of teachers from different churchy backgrounds – it was interesting considering their points of view, some of which I would run by other churchmen whose views I had come to really respect.

One of these teachers had the idea that Jesus was walking about in the OT and specifically referred to Dan3:25, where Jesus himself is in the furnace with Daniel and his buddies. Hmm.

Give that one to your pastor, Tom. He’ll like it. Others think it hilarious.

Actually, he thinks the same.

Wow, never heard that one before. I'm stuffed then.

This pastor takes every opportunity to insert his theology of the trinity into teachings. He even said, much like another teacher I heard, that the comma in Romans 9:5 needs to be moved:

Original from American Standard Version:

5 whose are the fathers, and of whom is Christ as concerning the flesh, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen

Pastor authorized revision:

5 whose are the fathers, and of whom is Christ as concerning the flesh, who is over all God, blessed for ever. Amen

Today I heard a pastor state that Romans 10:9 says that you must confess Jesus is God (yahweh). If you don't you are not saved. When I look up a Romans 10:9 it says that you must confess Jesus as Lord (kyrios) not God.

A case of someone trying to cram the trinity into a verse where it doesn't exist or is he right?

I have often heard Psalm 103:12 quoted to describe how God deals with our sins once forgiven:

as far as the east is from the west,

so far has he removed our transgressions from us.

Yet Romans 14 says:

10 You, then, why do you judge your brother or sister[a]? Or why do you treat them with contempt? For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat.

11 It is written:

“‘As surely as I live,’ says the Lord,

‘every knee will bow before me;

every tongue will acknowledge God.’"

12 So then, each of us will give an account of ourselves to God.

So, if I get this right, God has forgiven us our transgressions and removed them from us as far as the east is from the west, but we will now need to recall them all and give an account? Even though Jesus has been alleged to have paid for them?

What am I missing?

Thanks!

Well how's this for irony, Tom: I have attended a mainstream church since 2001. I have never become a member for the same reasons you state, although I've never told anyone exactly why. For the first 5 years, the trinity was never mentioned. Then we left the denomination and the new denomination is REALLY trinitarian. Since I had been a Jesus is functionally god person for a number of years, the trinity didn't bother me that much - anymore. Now I'm struggling with believing any of it. However, since I'm a huge volunteer and we are well known even in our large congregation, here I am going almost every week.

What happened is that I no longer care about doctrine. That started in 2002. I became very aware of how doctrine was basically a matter of opinion and very divisive when it comes to relationships. Since for me church is about relationships, I just don't let doctrine be a dealbreaker for me. I don't need to discuss it. I don't need to be in agreement to have a relationship.

I found it to be very liberating. Not. to. care.

Hi Tzaia,

I am basically in the situation you described. I am now attending a church and I attended a new members dinner to hear what the church believed, what they were doing in terms of volunteering and outreach. But they require you take a series of classes to become a member and sign that you agree to their basic doctrines, one of which is the trinity. So I have not pursued membership, although I have been encouraged toward that end. As well as joining in small study groups.

The hardest part is when I sit listening to a sermon where the lead pastor inserts some commentary as truth into his sermon when it supports his doctrine of the trinity. In other words, his teaching was fine and was from Scripture up and until he went and inserted man's opinion.

I guess I will see how things move forward.

Thanks for your reply.

Tom

I know I am late to the discussion, but hope to answer the original question.

None of those things listed bother me.

What bothers me is that I need to fellowship but cannot do so in a mainstream Christian church.

It does not bother me that most are trinitarians. What bothers me is that I am sitting through services in a Church where I do not believe in their doctrine.

It bothers me that I feel hypocritical because I am there to fellowship with brothers and sisters in Christ but cannot. I won't be able to be "member of the Church" because I won't confirm I hold their core beliefs, one of which is the trinity.

It bothers me that I need to keep searching for fellowship.

As for what others do, if I let all that bother me, I would never get any sleep.

What bothers me is what I do or do not.

"So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me. For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me. What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death? hanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord!"