I never understood this to mean he was dead and believed to get raised from the dead. My understanding was that he went to the cross believing he would be raised from the dead. The two records where he refered to Jonah being in the fish's belly for 3 days and 3 nights is what made it clear for me.
I never understood this to mean he was dead and believed to get raised from the dead. My understanding was that he went to the cross believing he would be raised from the dead. The two records where he refered to Jonah being in the fish's belly for 3 days and 3 nights is what made it clear for me.
exactly, he trusted God. that is faith, yes? So does that fit into the framework of "The Law of Believing"?
do you believe that Jesus, being God, raised Himself from the dead?
Haven't gotten an answer to that one yet. :)
The bible says Jesus was dead for 3 days and nights so while he was dead, he could not believe, obviously.
However, Jesus did believe God's word and promise that the son of man would rise from the dead. (Mark 8:31)
So whether you call that "faith" or "law of believing" is pure semantics. He did believe to receive. Believing was a requirement. If he didn't believe that he was the son of man and that God would raise him from the dead, I can't see how it could have happened or how he could even fulfill his messianic mission.
So whether you call that "faith" or "law of believing" is pure semantics. He did believe to receive. Believing was a requirement. If he didn't believe that he was the son of man and that God would raise him from the dead, I can't see how it could have happened or how he could even fulfill his messianic mission.
so Jesus could have negated the whole thing, by not believing, even if he followed through with the cross
the "law of believing" if full of rules, I haven't heard these used for "faith"
Oldiesman, that's another straw man. In trinitarian parlance it was the Father who raised the Son.
Sure, Jesus went to the cross 'believing' he's be raised (but it's more like knowing he'd be raised), but it's a non-issue in the Bible. Therefore it's more or less irrelevant. What is relevant, because it is mentioned in the Bible record, is Jesus' obedience.
This whole believing thing is such a red herring...and is still causing people to miss the big (and very clear) picture.
Well I don't want to miss the big picture, that's for sure.
If faith and the "law of believing" are the same, why use "law of belieiving" terms? It is confusion. God is not a God of confusion?
I can't speak of what's going on today but in my 19 years in twi, I didn't notice twi teaching that "Jesus used the law of believing to rise from the dead". As a matter of fact, I never even thought of that until you brought this topic up. Faith is ok with me. :)
Well I don't want to miss the big picture, that's for sure.
I can't speak of what's going on today but in my 19 years in twi, I didn't notice twi teaching that "Jesus used the law of believing to rise from the dead". As a matter of fact, I never even thought of that until you brought this topic up. Faith is ok with me. :)
It was something taught recently, by someone most here have probably heard of. That's why I bring it up.
It seems like everything, big and small, is explained by believing.
15As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd. 17Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. 18No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.
36Simon Peter said unto him, Lord, whither goest thou? Jesus answered him, Whither I go, thou canst not follow me now; but thou shalt follow me afterwards. 37Peter said unto him, Lord, why cannot I follow thee now? I will lay down my life for thy sake. 38Jesus answered him, Wilt thou lay down thy life for my sake? Verily, verily, I say unto thee, The cock shall not crow, till thou hast denied me thrice.
Chapter 14
1Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me. 2In my Father’s house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. 3And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.
4And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know. 5Thomas saith unto him, Lord, we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way? 6Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. 7If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him. 8Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us. 9Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father? 10Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. 11Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works’ sake.
12Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father. 13And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.
13Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.
If faith and the "law of believing" are the same, why use "law of belieiving" terms? It is confusion. God is not a God of confusion?
There are 9 genatives listed in Bullinger's Companion Bible. Taking a look at the definitions he used, the "law of believing" would be usage 5, the genative of relation not usage 4, the genative of apposition.
example of genative of relation used would be 'the law as it pertains to believing'.
example of genative of apposition used would be 'the law, that is to say, believing'.
The 'law of believing' and faith are not the same. The genative identifies the consistancy of the practice. Hence, there would be no confusion with a little research.
Of course, IMHO, the real confusion is the use of the word within churchianity. The average church attendee may understand faith is equal to believing, but when things go array, the typical direction from church leaders is to have "more faith. This puts the attendee (in my personal experience) in a position question and condemn his or her self for not having enough and falling short of the mark.
exactly, he trusted God. that is faith, yes? So does that fit into the framework of "The Law of Believing"?
The law of believing could also be expressed as "the principle of believing". Believing is a simple matter of being fully persuaded regardless of what the world says around you. I see clear evidence of Jesus Christ believing throughout his ministry. Mainly, he believed the Word of God and acted on it.
If I understand this correctly, Bolshevik is stating that TWI teaches/ taught that the resurrection was contingent upon Jesus Christ operating the "law of believing".( although it is not called that in the scriptures.)
Yes, I have heard this, too, though it was not recently.
In fact, I have not heard anything they have taught recently.
This was, in fact, taught by Dr. Wierwille.
He said Jesus was able to go to the cross and give up the ghost because he was completely convinced of what the outcome would be.
In fact, he said it was this certainty of his "convictions" that helped him endure what he was subjected to and that if he had faltered in his "convictions", the resurrection could not have happened.( actually, I think he said "if he had faltered for even a moment.")
"But", he said, "Jesus was able to believe in the outcome because of his connection to God." That is not an exact quote.
I don't recall where or when I heard him teach this
It might be on an SNS tape.
There are some hints at this very same thing in the PFAL class. (Not in the session dealing with "believing".)
In summation, I would have to agree that VPW taught that "believing" played a pivotal role in the resurrection.
He taught that any time someone was raised from the dead in the Bible, "believing" was the key facilitative ingredient.
He also pointed out that in the other incidents of people being raised from the dead, it was someone other than the person who had to do the believing.
This, he said, separated Christ's resurrection from all the others because it was Christ himself who believed for his own resurrection and that it was the only one that did not involve the "believing" of a third party.
Actually, now that I think about it, VPW made quite a big deal of how in every incident involving being raised from the dead, you could look at it and see who the third party was but not so in the case of Christ's resurrection.
Believing and faith are not the same word. I understand Wierwille's argument and he was very wrong.
If you want to have two words that come from pistis, faith and belief are it (or faith and trust, I suppose). Making it an infinitive changes everything...into false religion.
Faith implies an object of that faith, one in whom you have faith. It is, properly, an inherently religious term. It implies trust and reliance on the one in whom you have faith. Faith is a gift of God (Eph 2:9) and it pleases God. It is God-centered.
Believing is an act of the mind. That is why common Way usage became "believe for". It implies action...works. It points back to the person and their own thinking. It is mechanistic and self-focused.
That, my friends, is the difference between true religion and one that is utterly and irrevocably false.
There are a lot of ancient myths about people dieing and rising or being raised from the dead after three days and three nights. All have to do with new beginings, new birth, new life, etc..
There are a lot of ancient myths about people dieing and rising or being raised from the dead after three days and three nights. All have to do with new beginings, new birth, new life, etc..
and all applied the "law of believing"? Maybe the sun does this every december too.
Believing and faith are not the same word. I understand Wierwille's argument and he was very wrong.
If you want to have two words that come from pistis, faith and belief are it (or faith and trust, I suppose). Making it an infinitive changes everything...into false religion.
Faith implies an object of that faith, one in whom you have faith. It is, properly, an inherently religious term. It implies trust and reliance on the one in whom you have faith. Faith is a gift of God (Eph 2:9) and it pleases God. It is God-centered.
Believing is an act of the mind. That is why common Way usage became "believe for". It implies action...works. It points back to the person and their own thinking. It is mechanistic and self-focused.
That, my friends, is the difference between true religion and one that is utterly and irrevocably false.
Evan
Truly said.
The scriptures are clear regarding the faith principle.
Good question. I guess I would say I know that about as much as I know this supposed Jesus who supposedly died, and was somehow (by believing or an external force or otherwise) supposedly raised from the dead.
I would say that since the law of believing isn't actually a law, and that the only way anyone believes Jesus was raised from the dead is by faith and faith alone, that I would put my money on faith.
"How does that work," was clearly a question based on your faith based scenario making more sense to you than twi and other's faith based scenario under a different name. You must be intellectually satisfied with the unknown mechanics of how God raised JC from the dead, but unsatisfied not knowing the mechanics of the law of believing route. Whether it is God centered or self centered, both being faith based makes it self centered, because reality aside it comes down to YOUR faith, YOUR view, and what makes more sense to you at the moment. Both are also mechanistic, it's just impossible to know the mechanics of a God that is convienently beyond our comprehension. The law of believing puts things in our hands to a degree and we think we should be able to understand those mechanics, but we don't understand the human body to the degree that we can without a doubt rule out all the things labeled as "supernatural" as anything beyond just natural. So saying it is believing is just as plausible as the unvarifiable claim of an unvarifiable God raising an unvarifiable half human half god from the dead. It makes it just as possible as the rest of those guys getting raised from the dead by their respective gods or believing or mad scientists after remarkably the same number of nights and days.
I think there is a bigger picture here and I think it has little to do with mechanics and more to do with what it all means perhaps those days and nights would be a place to start. So, sorry if you didn't appreciate my last post much. I doubt this one will fare much better.
Good question. I guess I would say I know that about as much as I know this supposed Jesus who supposedly died, and was somehow (by believing or an external force or otherwise) supposedly raised from the dead.
I would say that since the law of believing isn't actually a law, and that the only way anyone believes Jesus was raised from the dead is by faith and faith alone, that I would put my money on faith.
"How does that work," was clearly a question based on your faith based scenario making more sense to you than twi and other's faith based scenario under a different name. You must be intellectually satisfied with the unknown mechanics of how God raised JC from the dead, but unsatisfied not knowing the mechanics of the law of believing route. Whether it is God centered or self centered, both being faith based makes it self centered, because reality aside it comes down to YOUR faith, YOUR view, and what makes more sense to you at the moment. Both are also mechanistic, it's just impossible to know the mechanics of a God that is convienently beyond our comprehension. The law of believing puts things in our hands to a degree and we think we should be able to understand those mechanics, but we don't understand the human body to the degree that we can without a doubt rule out all the things labeled as "supernatural" as anything beyond just natural. So saying it is believing is just as plausible as the unvarifiable claim of an unvarifiable God raising an unvarifiable half human half god from the dead. It makes it just as possible as the rest of those guys getting raised from the dead by their respective gods or believing or mad scientists after remarkably the same number of nights and days.
I think there is a bigger picture here and I think it has little to do with mechanics and more to do with what it all means perhaps those days and nights would be a place to start. So, sorry if you didn't appreciate my last post much. I doubt this one will fare much better.
If there is a God then He can be found. With "The Law of Believing", no, couldn't find Him.
It would be another thread topic, but I'm not "intellectually satisfied" with the "sun god" idea either.
Recommended Posts
YID
I never understood this to mean he was dead and believed to get raised from the dead. My understanding was that he went to the cross believing he would be raised from the dead. The two records where he refered to Jonah being in the fish's belly for 3 days and 3 nights is what made it clear for me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
The Jonah thing would make clearer sense to me if Jesus got swallowed by a whale.
There's something "fishy" about that allegory....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
And so Jonah was 'believing' to be disgorged by 'dat real big fish?
Way errors are still multiplying like rabbits.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
exactly, he trusted God. that is faith, yes? So does that fit into the framework of "The Law of Believing"?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
I have asked trinitarians this question:
Do you believe God raised Jesus from the dead?
or,
do you believe that Jesus, being God, raised Himself from the dead?
Haven't gotten an answer to that one yet. :)
The bible says Jesus was dead for 3 days and nights so while he was dead, he could not believe, obviously.
However, Jesus did believe God's word and promise that the son of man would rise from the dead. (Mark 8:31)
So whether you call that "faith" or "law of believing" is pure semantics. He did believe to receive. Believing was a requirement. If he didn't believe that he was the son of man and that God would raise him from the dead, I can't see how it could have happened or how he could even fulfill his messianic mission.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
likeaneagle
I remember Bob's Stanley song..
Somebody died on Calvary's Tree...
on and on
Then who raised him from the dead?
Loved that old song.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
so Jesus could have negated the whole thing, by not believing, even if he followed through with the cross
the "law of believing" if full of rules, I haven't heard these used for "faith"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
As I see it he wouldn't have followed through with the cross if he didn't believe.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
If faith and the "law of believing" are the same, why use "law of belieiving" terms? It is confusion. God is not a God of confusion?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
Oldiesman, that's another straw man. In trinitarian parlance it was the Father who raised the Son.
Sure, Jesus went to the cross 'believing' he's be raised (but it's more like knowing he'd be raised), but it's a non-issue in the Bible. Therefore it's more or less irrelevant. What is relevant, because it is mentioned in the Bible record, is Jesus' obedience.
This whole believing thing is such a red herring...and is still causing people to miss the big (and very clear) picture.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Well I don't want to miss the big picture, that's for sure.
I can't speak of what's going on today but in my 19 years in twi, I didn't notice twi teaching that "Jesus used the law of believing to rise from the dead". As a matter of fact, I never even thought of that until you brought this topic up. Faith is ok with me. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
It was something taught recently, by someone most here have probably heard of. That's why I bring it up.
It seems like everything, big and small, is explained by believing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
15As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd. 17Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. 18No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.
36Simon Peter said unto him, Lord, whither goest thou? Jesus answered him, Whither I go, thou canst not follow me now; but thou shalt follow me afterwards. 37Peter said unto him, Lord, why cannot I follow thee now? I will lay down my life for thy sake. 38Jesus answered him, Wilt thou lay down thy life for my sake? Verily, verily, I say unto thee, The cock shall not crow, till thou hast denied me thrice.
Chapter 14
1Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me. 2In my Father’s house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. 3And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.
4And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know. 5Thomas saith unto him, Lord, we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way? 6Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. 7If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him. 8Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us. 9Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father? 10Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. 11Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works’ sake.
12Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father. 13And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.
13Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.
and then are there these
http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/?searc...&spanend=73
So quite the big picture I'd say......
Edited by cmanLink to comment
Share on other sites
YID
There are 9 genatives listed in Bullinger's Companion Bible. Taking a look at the definitions he used, the "law of believing" would be usage 5, the genative of relation not usage 4, the genative of apposition.
example of genative of relation used would be 'the law as it pertains to believing'.
example of genative of apposition used would be 'the law, that is to say, believing'.
The 'law of believing' and faith are not the same. The genative identifies the consistancy of the practice. Hence, there would be no confusion with a little research.
Of course, IMHO, the real confusion is the use of the word within churchianity. The average church attendee may understand faith is equal to believing, but when things go array, the typical direction from church leaders is to have "more faith. This puts the attendee (in my personal experience) in a position question and condemn his or her self for not having enough and falling short of the mark.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
YID
The law of believing could also be expressed as "the principle of believing". Believing is a simple matter of being fully persuaded regardless of what the world says around you. I see clear evidence of Jesus Christ believing throughout his ministry. Mainly, he believed the Word of God and acted on it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Jesus trusted the word of his Father which He had spoken to him.
He considered it to be reliable information from a reliable source,
and he acted accordingly.
You do the same thing whenever you decide to carry an umbrella or not
after checking a weather report.
The details of the information and the action vary, but the principle is
the same for both, and is strikingly simple.
This need to slap labels and numbers on it is understandable, human,
unnecessary and an excellent method to encourage MISunderstanding
what happened.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
I see the problem as in just not knowing who or what God is and
Especially the Lord Jesus Christ, who - was is and will be
can't hardly be found looking from the outside in
from inside one must open the eyes
the bible is not the way truth and life
until it's seen from inside it's life
then more then the bible can hold will have substance
don't matter about no believing 'law' or faith
what matters is love, the rest is real enough
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
If I understand this correctly, Bolshevik is stating that TWI teaches/ taught that the resurrection was contingent upon Jesus Christ operating the "law of believing".( although it is not called that in the scriptures.)
Yes, I have heard this, too, though it was not recently.
In fact, I have not heard anything they have taught recently.
This was, in fact, taught by Dr. Wierwille.
He said Jesus was able to go to the cross and give up the ghost because he was completely convinced of what the outcome would be.
In fact, he said it was this certainty of his "convictions" that helped him endure what he was subjected to and that if he had faltered in his "convictions", the resurrection could not have happened.( actually, I think he said "if he had faltered for even a moment.")
"But", he said, "Jesus was able to believe in the outcome because of his connection to God." That is not an exact quote.
I don't recall where or when I heard him teach this
It might be on an SNS tape.
There are some hints at this very same thing in the PFAL class. (Not in the session dealing with "believing".)
In summation, I would have to agree that VPW taught that "believing" played a pivotal role in the resurrection.
He taught that any time someone was raised from the dead in the Bible, "believing" was the key facilitative ingredient.
He also pointed out that in the other incidents of people being raised from the dead, it was someone other than the person who had to do the believing.
This, he said, separated Christ's resurrection from all the others because it was Christ himself who believed for his own resurrection and that it was the only one that did not involve the "believing" of a third party.
Actually, now that I think about it, VPW made quite a big deal of how in every incident involving being raised from the dead, you could look at it and see who the third party was but not so in the case of Christ's resurrection.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
Believing and faith are not the same word. I understand Wierwille's argument and he was very wrong.
If you want to have two words that come from pistis, faith and belief are it (or faith and trust, I suppose). Making it an infinitive changes everything...into false religion.
Faith implies an object of that faith, one in whom you have faith. It is, properly, an inherently religious term. It implies trust and reliance on the one in whom you have faith. Faith is a gift of God (Eph 2:9) and it pleases God. It is God-centered.
Believing is an act of the mind. That is why common Way usage became "believe for". It implies action...works. It points back to the person and their own thinking. It is mechanistic and self-focused.
That, my friends, is the difference between true religion and one that is utterly and irrevocably false.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
There are a lot of ancient myths about people dieing and rising or being raised from the dead after three days and three nights. All have to do with new beginings, new birth, new life, etc..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
and all applied the "law of believing"? Maybe the sun does this every december too.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CWF
Evan
Truly said.
The scriptures are clear regarding the faith principle.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
Good question. I guess I would say I know that about as much as I know this supposed Jesus who supposedly died, and was somehow (by believing or an external force or otherwise) supposedly raised from the dead.
I would say that since the law of believing isn't actually a law, and that the only way anyone believes Jesus was raised from the dead is by faith and faith alone, that I would put my money on faith.
"How does that work," was clearly a question based on your faith based scenario making more sense to you than twi and other's faith based scenario under a different name. You must be intellectually satisfied with the unknown mechanics of how God raised JC from the dead, but unsatisfied not knowing the mechanics of the law of believing route. Whether it is God centered or self centered, both being faith based makes it self centered, because reality aside it comes down to YOUR faith, YOUR view, and what makes more sense to you at the moment. Both are also mechanistic, it's just impossible to know the mechanics of a God that is convienently beyond our comprehension. The law of believing puts things in our hands to a degree and we think we should be able to understand those mechanics, but we don't understand the human body to the degree that we can without a doubt rule out all the things labeled as "supernatural" as anything beyond just natural. So saying it is believing is just as plausible as the unvarifiable claim of an unvarifiable God raising an unvarifiable half human half god from the dead. It makes it just as possible as the rest of those guys getting raised from the dead by their respective gods or believing or mad scientists after remarkably the same number of nights and days.
I think there is a bigger picture here and I think it has little to do with mechanics and more to do with what it all means perhaps those days and nights would be a place to start. So, sorry if you didn't appreciate my last post much. I doubt this one will fare much better.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
If there is a God then He can be found. With "The Law of Believing", no, couldn't find Him.
It would be another thread topic, but I'm not "intellectually satisfied" with the "sun god" idea either.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.