Well, that's what open and honest discussion is for... for us to recognize when we're talking at cross purposes, and for us to figure out how to tune into a common wavelength. And you do it so well!
As for the question, "Are you drawing a distinction between national Israel and the individual resurrection promised in the NT?"
I understand now how you are using the phrase, "national Israel".
I was very cautious about it, because the phrase "national Israel" took on overtones among dispensationalists during the 19th century, when Zionism was on the rise, overtones which can still be heard on the radio/TV and read on the internet to this day.
What do you mean when you use the phrase "individual resurrection promised in the NT"?
Love,
Steve
And by the way, I don't think I've ever discounted the whole idea of Ezekiel 36, 37 being a prophecy of resurrecting Israel as a nation, except that I believe it applies to the believing remnant, and not necessarily to every descendent of the man Israel based on genetics.
Steve,
I am not a 19th century dispensationalist and we are just having a discussion about Ezekiel.... :)
I do believe that God is sovereign and orchestrates things according to His purpose, but if I were to begin to try and explain how....we would have that discussion until one of us dies. It is one of the nuances in scripture that is nearly impossible to put into words. I bet Cynic knows exactly what I am saying. It is the reason we come up with terms like "The Providence of God." So, I am probably not as leery as you are of movements and times and changes in history. I don't think God is idle. However, I don't believe God is a Puppet Master ....and that is as far as I can take that explanation.
So, again.....I don't believe that the verses in Ezekiel are speaking specifically to the resurrection of the dead, but to the resurrection of the life of Israel as a community. It is hinting at the resurrection of those faithful remnant, if you like. An analogy.....and beginning to build up to the resurrection of Jesus.....but, when you say.....here is the promise of resurrection.....no. Because.....it is just a glimpse into the idea of resurrection.....where else do we see these glimpses? Gen, Job, Daniel, Psalms.....
But, every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. . . .is what I was refering to in the NT.....those that belong to Him. Then, if you want to talk about Abraham....and those who looked for His coming in faith to see who are Christ's....we have to look at Hebrews. Yada yada :) I'll spare you!! LOL
Geerhardus Vos is a noted figure in two-age eschatology. I was going to post a link to an primer on two-age eschatology that includes Vos’s noted two-age diagram. The site (www.two-age.org) is defunct, however, and the Internet Archive WayBackMachine, which retrieved an archive of the web page earlier today, will not presently retrieve it.
My husband is reading Biblical Theology Old and New Testaments by Vos.....right now :)...
I am reading Henry A Virkler's Hermeneutics....are you familiar? It has been very helpful in understanding some of the theology that I read here at GSC. Although, much still eludes me!
I am not a 19th century dispensationalist and we are just having a discussion about Ezekiel.... :)
I do believe that God is sovereign and orchestrates things according to His purpose, but if I were to begin to try and explain how....we would have that discussion until one of us dies. It is one of the nuances in scripture that is nearly impossible to put into words. I bet Cynic knows exactly what I am saying. It is the reason we come up with terms like "The Providence of God." So, I am probably not as leery as you are of movements and times and changes in history. I don't think God is idle. However, I don't believe God is a Puppet Master ....and that is as far as I can take that explanation.
So, again.....I don't believe that the verses in Ezekiel are speaking specifically to the resurrection of the dead, but to the resurrection of the life of Israel as a community. It is hinting at the resurrection of those faithful remnant, if you like. An analogy.....and beginning to build up to the resurrection of Jesus.....but, when you say.....here is the promise of resurrection.....no. Because.....it is just a glimpse into the idea of resurrection.....where else do we see these glimpses? Gen, Job, Daniel, Psalms.....
But, every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. . . .is what I was refering to in the NT.....those that belong to Him. Then, if you want to talk about Abraham....and those who looked for His coming in faith to see who are Christ's....we have to look at Hebrews. Yada yada :) I'll spare you!! LOL
Hope that helps.
Okay, now we're getting somewhere!
As for the question, "Are you drawing a distinction between national Israel and the individual resurrection promised in the NT?"
My husband is reading Biblical Theology Old and New Testaments by Vos.....right now :)...
I am reading Henry A Virkler's Hermeneutics....are you familiar? It has been very helpful in understanding some of the theology that I read here at GSC. Although, much still eludes me!
Geisha,
:)
I read Biblical Theology Old and New Testaments about five years ago, when I was in the process of leaving a church I had been attending and finding a new one.
I am presently reading The Law is Not of Faith: Essays on Works and Grace in the Mosiac Covenant, edited by Bryan D. Estelle, J.V. Fesko, and David VanDrunen -- all of Westminster Seminary, California. One longstanding irritation I have had with Covenant Theology is
the practice of some covenant theologians to characterize the Mosaic covenant soley as an administration of the covenant of grace and ignore some plain statements in Paul's epistle to the Galatians. Well, it seems I have not been as alone in harboring a dissenting view as I had thought. The contributors to this book (who are all highly likely to be covenant theologians) are expressing their own theological dissent.
He is indeed. He ran my first class. A 15 year veteran of the TWI trenches. He likes to say "I took the slow bus to bible class." You, especially, would like him Cynic, you have a great deal in common. He too loves the lord. :)
I was up at the University library about an hour or so ago, scanning the new arrivals as I usually do. I found a book titled The Old Testament Roots of Our Faith by Paul J. and Elizabeth Achtemeier. (Hendrickson Publishers, original copyright 1962). It says just about everything I wanted to say on this thread, but much more cogently than I ever could.
Wierwille preached "the integrity of God's Word is always at stake", yet the dispensationalist hermaneutic he taught sliced and diced, pared and compartmentalized God's Word to the point that his version of Christianity was a free-floating construct, based on nothing more solid than Darby's and Scofield's and Bullinger's and Wierwille's hot air.
All of God's promises to Israel were summed up in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
The benefits we receive by identifying with Him are all benefits originally spoken to Israel. That's what we find when we read meanings out from what is actually written instead of reading foreign meanings into the text.
i honestly dont think it can be done that way, Steve (interpret solely from within)...not in a way that supports claims of interpretative authority based on things like history, logic and reason.
sure, one will come up with something, but even that doesnt match others who use the same method...or use the same lexicons and concordances and such. "Holy Spirit" inspired interpretations dont match.
nor can one avoid reading into it. the depth and degree of self-awareness required to fully bypass the vast background of social and cultural noise we use to interpret each and every word seems beyond human limits.
...
and...may i ask what you mean by "foreign meanings"?
is this ethnic, linguistic, or something else?
Are you saying that comparing religious texts will yield no valid insight into the Bible?
Or that non-canonical art and literature and history can yield no insight into the Bible?
...
clearly, there are some of the hottest edges of age-old conversations...so feel free to opt out if you are not game at this time. or take your time. whatever.
"Away with all attempts to introduce a mottled Christianity of Stoic, Platonic and dialectic composition!"
That's what Tertulian wrote somewhere in North Africa sometime around the turn of the third century.
What was this "dialectic" that Tertulian so despised? Was it some abstract philosophical notion invented by Hegel?
Dialectic is the middle form of the trivium in classical education, which consists of three progressive forms: grammar, dialectic and rhetoric. Grammar form is roughly equivalent to elementary or grade school (which is why they are sometimes called "grammar schools") The dialectic form is similar to middle school, and rhetoric form is like high school.
In the grammar form, the students are taught to deal with questions that have rote answers. The primary method of instruction is lecture, where the instructor presents material and the learner passively listens and memorizes.
In the dialectic form, the students are introduced to dealing with questions that don't have rote answers. The answers to these questions have to be arrived at through critical thinking. The primary method of instruction is dialogue in which the learners actively particpate by proposing answers and then by critiquing each others answers. The instructor guides the discussion by modelling critical thinking. Dialectic is sometimes called the "logic form" because it is the form where the students are instructed in formal logic.
In the rhetoric form, the students learn the depth and detail of particular subject areas by applying the tools of dialectic, critical thinking, to the bodies of knowledge (or information) that have been built up in those areas. The crowning point of the student's progress through the forms is the oral presentation and defense of a thesis (or research paper) to a question that the student has him- or herself devised.
The goal of classical education is not first to teach the students how to come up with answers, but rather to teach the students how to come up with pertinent questions, and then how to find appropriate answers. This was how Tertulian was educated.
The dialectic that Tertulian desired to banish from his theology was critical thinking, as developed through persuasive dialogue, or in other words, Tertulian didn't want anybody to ask any questions about what he was teaching. He was reading meanings into the scriptures instead of out from them, and he didn't want his followers to notice.
In the last half of his life, or so, Tertulian became a promoter of Montanism. The Montanist movement stood in relationship to mainsteam Christianity then as Pentecostalism stands in relation to mainstream Christianity today. Tertulian didn't find regular Montanism legalistic enough to suit his tastes, so he formed his very own cult which became extremely legalistic, but survived until the time of Augustine.
Tertulian was a prototype Wierwille at the turn of the third century.
Now my observant reader might ask, "How did you learn that stuff, Steve? I couldn't find it using any search engines?"
For several years I taught Humane Letters to the lower dialectic students, fresh out of learning all the rote answers, at a Christian classical academy. It was my job to shock them into realizing that they had to start thinking, and to start teaching them how to do it.
There were a number of high points in the year for the school as a whole: the field trip to the opera at Indiana University, the Regency Ball (which was sort of like a costume, early-1800s prom), the school play, the lower rhetoric form's declamations in Latin and the upper rhetoric form's presentations of their theses.
The high point of the year for the middle rhetoric form (11th grade) students was a formal debate held before all the dialectic and rhetoric students and the faculty. The juniors were separated into two debate teams. One team championed the position of Justin Martyr, the other stood for Tertulian. The moot was "Philosphy is of no use to Christians."
We faculty members were long familiar with both sides of the argument, and we were equal-opportunity "grillers" when the debate came to the "questions from the audience" part. That was our job... as well as our fun!
Wierwille's declaration, "We DARE NOT say 'I think it means...'", in the middle of teaching "No prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation", in the middle of a class which consisted entirely of Wierwille's own P.I., stands right up there with Tertulian's declaration, "Away with all attempts to introduce a mottled Christianity of Stoic, Platonic and dialectic composition."
"Training" in Tertulian's cult... or TWI... never went beyond the grammar stage.
Why anybody would applaud the suppression of discussion on a website that consists of nothing more than the discussion that was forbidden by TWI is something that is beyond me.
Why anybody would applaud the suppression of discussion on a website that consists of nothing more than the discussion that was forbidden by TWI is something that is beyond me.
Love,
Steve
.I believe twi and the offshoots.... promote the kind of foolish discussions scripture warns Christians to avoid, the kind that leads to ungodliness. Or as Tertullian would say....heresy.
What they forbid is the kind of conversation that leads to instruction, faith in and a knowledge of Jesus Christ.
There was plenty of vain useless chatter in TWI. Great swelling words of pride....a lust for secret knowledge....accusations against Christians..... accusations against Jesus....a need to compare Him to us instead of we to Him......and a real eagerness to pull Him down from the cross. To rid ourselves of the cross. A shame Jesus endured for our sakes.
When Jesus said "But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself." He was speaking of being lifted up onto the cross.
What is appropriate discussion for those drawn to Him? A praise-filled one in a manner worthy of the gospel? Of the Lord? In 2 Timothy 2:14, 16, 23.....wrangling about words....our favorite pastime in TWI...leads to the ruin of hearers. We are to avoid empty chatter which leads to further ungodliness, (notice what is sandwiched in between these two verses)and foolish and ignorant speculations which produce conflict.
No matter how brilliant or scholarly the proponents of such discussions may appear .....does it build true faith or exalt the person of Jesus Christ and not the person offering it?
Conversation which results in true faith building is Godly.
It is not a requirement to be a Christian to post here...these are not Christian forums....and I often appreciate the perspective of those who don't share Christianity as a faith.
But, to those who claim a kinship with Him....we are told to avoid certain conversation....no?....and after being in TWI...I have no problem with that admonition.....I understand why. Seems to me Tertullian might have been confronted by it and understood it a bit as well. :)
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
39
90
45
29
Popular Days
Mar 24
34
Mar 25
28
Apr 10
24
Mar 23
21
Top Posters In This Topic
year2027 39 posts
Steve Lortz 90 posts
geisha779 45 posts
roberterasmus 29 posts
Popular Days
Mar 24 2010
34 posts
Mar 25 2010
28 posts
Apr 10 2010
24 posts
Mar 23 2010
21 posts
Popular Posts
geisha779
Hebrews 4:12 .. . . to whom is it written? It was written to the Jews who had intellectually agreed to the gospel, the facts about Jesus, the authority and power of the 1st century church, but were no
geisha779
Hey Gen-2 I am curious what people think strong meat really is? :) Perhaps it is. . . to the measure of the stature of the fullness in Christ. . . . and not some super-duper special x-ray ability,
cman
Excuse me there Bob, but your post has a narrow view. I will not use the word you used to describe a perspective. Other words come to mind. But, you are, as all, entitled to your own works.
geisha779
Steve,
I am not a 19th century dispensationalist and we are just having a discussion about Ezekiel.... :)
I do believe that God is sovereign and orchestrates things according to His purpose, but if I were to begin to try and explain how....we would have that discussion until one of us dies. It is one of the nuances in scripture that is nearly impossible to put into words. I bet Cynic knows exactly what I am saying. It is the reason we come up with terms like "The Providence of God." So, I am probably not as leery as you are of movements and times and changes in history. I don't think God is idle. However, I don't believe God is a Puppet Master ....and that is as far as I can take that explanation.
So, again.....I don't believe that the verses in Ezekiel are speaking specifically to the resurrection of the dead, but to the resurrection of the life of Israel as a community. It is hinting at the resurrection of those faithful remnant, if you like. An analogy.....and beginning to build up to the resurrection of Jesus.....but, when you say.....here is the promise of resurrection.....no. Because.....it is just a glimpse into the idea of resurrection.....where else do we see these glimpses? Gen, Job, Daniel, Psalms.....
But, every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. . . .is what I was refering to in the NT.....those that belong to Him. Then, if you want to talk about Abraham....and those who looked for His coming in faith to see who are Christ's....we have to look at Hebrews. Yada yada :) I'll spare you!! LOL
Hope that helps.
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
thanks everybody
there three context rolling into one
1. the context of Israel as a nation of God
2. the context of man kind being saved by God
3. the context man becoming spirit again
1. Resurrection of Israel has a nation
2. Resurrection of man kind
3. Resurrection of Spirit
all three work as one
Past, Present, and Future are one
in the bible you have all three context working toward one context
with love and a holy kiss Roy
Edited by year2027Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
The Internet Archive is again retrieving pages from the site (www.two-age.org) I mentioned.
An archive of the main page (with working, archived links!) is accessible at
http://web.archive.org/web/20080607162454/http://www.two-age.org .
There is an interesting short piece titled, “The Two Ages and Redemptive History,” that has a diagram illustrating the two ages and a present overlap of those two ages. This piece is accessible at http://web.archive.org/web/20080516173455/www.two-age.org/beliefs_index/two-age.htm
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
My husband is reading Biblical Theology Old and New Testaments by Vos.....right now :)...
I am reading Henry A Virkler's Hermeneutics....are you familiar? It has been very helpful in understanding some of the theology that I read here at GSC. Although, much still eludes me!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Okay, now we're getting somewhere!
As for the question, "Are you drawing a distinction between national Israel and the individual resurrection promised in the NT?"
No, I don't draw that distinction.
Is there a reason why I should?
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
Geisha,
:)
I read Biblical Theology Old and New Testaments about five years ago, when I was in the process of leaving a church I had been attending and finding a new one.
I have never heard of Virkler, but I found that his book was reviewed at John Frame and Vern Poythress site ( http://www.frame-poythress.org/poythress_articles/1982ReviewVirklerHermeneutics.htm ). Maybe you could post a short synopsis or review of it.
I am presently reading The Law is Not of Faith: Essays on Works and Grace in the Mosiac Covenant, edited by Bryan D. Estelle, J.V. Fesko, and David VanDrunen -- all of Westminster Seminary, California. One longstanding irritation I have had with Covenant Theology is
the practice of some covenant theologians to characterize the Mosaic covenant soley as an administration of the covenant of grace and ignore some plain statements in Paul's epistle to the Galatians. Well, it seems I have not been as alone in harboring a dissenting view as I had thought. The contributors to this book (who are all highly likely to be covenant theologians) are expressing their own theological dissent.
Question: Is your husband an ex-Wayfer?
Edited by CynicLink to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
He is indeed. He ran my first class. A 15 year veteran of the TWI trenches. He likes to say "I took the slow bus to bible class." You, especially, would like him Cynic, you have a great deal in common. He too loves the lord. :)
And....he is the nicest person I have ever met.
Oh and thank you very much for the review!
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
I was up at the University library about an hour or so ago, scanning the new arrivals as I usually do. I found a book titled The Old Testament Roots of Our Faith by Paul J. and Elizabeth Achtemeier. (Hendrickson Publishers, original copyright 1962). It says just about everything I wanted to say on this thread, but much more cogently than I ever could.
Wierwille preached "the integrity of God's Word is always at stake", yet the dispensationalist hermaneutic he taught sliced and diced, pared and compartmentalized God's Word to the point that his version of Christianity was a free-floating construct, based on nothing more solid than Darby's and Scofield's and Bullinger's and Wierwille's hot air.
All of God's promises to Israel were summed up in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
The benefits we receive by identifying with Him are all benefits originally spoken to Israel. That's what we find when we read meanings out from what is actually written instead of reading foreign meanings into the text.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
thanks Steve
If we get a meaning out from and get another from in what real meaning
let see
1. Wierwille preached "the integrity of God's Word is always at stake",
2. All of God's promises to Israel were summed up in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
3. All of God's promises to the world were summed up in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ
4. Is the words of God bigger in or out of because I see many layers of context
think about it
with love and a holy kiss Roy
Edited by year2027Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
i honestly dont think it can be done that way, Steve (interpret solely from within)...not in a way that supports claims of interpretative authority based on things like history, logic and reason.
sure, one will come up with something, but even that doesnt match others who use the same method...or use the same lexicons and concordances and such. "Holy Spirit" inspired interpretations dont match.
nor can one avoid reading into it. the depth and degree of self-awareness required to fully bypass the vast background of social and cultural noise we use to interpret each and every word seems beyond human limits.
...
and...may i ask what you mean by "foreign meanings"?
is this ethnic, linguistic, or something else?
Are you saying that comparing religious texts will yield no valid insight into the Bible?
Or that non-canonical art and literature and history can yield no insight into the Bible?
...
clearly, there are some of the hottest edges of age-old conversations...so feel free to opt out if you are not game at this time. or take your time. whatever.
Edited by sirguessalotLink to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
thanks everybody
just moving to the top
with love and a holy kiss Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
thanks everybody
just moving to the top
with love and a holy kiss Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
"Away with all attempts to introduce a mottled Christianity of Stoic, Platonic and dialectic composition!"
That's what Tertulian wrote somewhere in North Africa sometime around the turn of the third century.
What was this "dialectic" that Tertulian so despised? Was it some abstract philosophical notion invented by Hegel?
Dialectic is the middle form of the trivium in classical education, which consists of three progressive forms: grammar, dialectic and rhetoric. Grammar form is roughly equivalent to elementary or grade school (which is why they are sometimes called "grammar schools") The dialectic form is similar to middle school, and rhetoric form is like high school.
In the grammar form, the students are taught to deal with questions that have rote answers. The primary method of instruction is lecture, where the instructor presents material and the learner passively listens and memorizes.
In the dialectic form, the students are introduced to dealing with questions that don't have rote answers. The answers to these questions have to be arrived at through critical thinking. The primary method of instruction is dialogue in which the learners actively particpate by proposing answers and then by critiquing each others answers. The instructor guides the discussion by modelling critical thinking. Dialectic is sometimes called the "logic form" because it is the form where the students are instructed in formal logic.
In the rhetoric form, the students learn the depth and detail of particular subject areas by applying the tools of dialectic, critical thinking, to the bodies of knowledge (or information) that have been built up in those areas. The crowning point of the student's progress through the forms is the oral presentation and defense of a thesis (or research paper) to a question that the student has him- or herself devised.
The goal of classical education is not first to teach the students how to come up with answers, but rather to teach the students how to come up with pertinent questions, and then how to find appropriate answers. This was how Tertulian was educated.
The dialectic that Tertulian desired to banish from his theology was critical thinking, as developed through persuasive dialogue, or in other words, Tertulian didn't want anybody to ask any questions about what he was teaching. He was reading meanings into the scriptures instead of out from them, and he didn't want his followers to notice.
In the last half of his life, or so, Tertulian became a promoter of Montanism. The Montanist movement stood in relationship to mainsteam Christianity then as Pentecostalism stands in relation to mainstream Christianity today. Tertulian didn't find regular Montanism legalistic enough to suit his tastes, so he formed his very own cult which became extremely legalistic, but survived until the time of Augustine.
Tertulian was a prototype Wierwille at the turn of the third century.
Now my observant reader might ask, "How did you learn that stuff, Steve? I couldn't find it using any search engines?"
For several years I taught Humane Letters to the lower dialectic students, fresh out of learning all the rote answers, at a Christian classical academy. It was my job to shock them into realizing that they had to start thinking, and to start teaching them how to do it.
There were a number of high points in the year for the school as a whole: the field trip to the opera at Indiana University, the Regency Ball (which was sort of like a costume, early-1800s prom), the school play, the lower rhetoric form's declamations in Latin and the upper rhetoric form's presentations of their theses.
The high point of the year for the middle rhetoric form (11th grade) students was a formal debate held before all the dialectic and rhetoric students and the faculty. The juniors were separated into two debate teams. One team championed the position of Justin Martyr, the other stood for Tertulian. The moot was "Philosphy is of no use to Christians."
We faculty members were long familiar with both sides of the argument, and we were equal-opportunity "grillers" when the debate came to the "questions from the audience" part. That was our job... as well as our fun!
Wierwille's declaration, "We DARE NOT say 'I think it means...'", in the middle of teaching "No prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation", in the middle of a class which consisted entirely of Wierwille's own P.I., stands right up there with Tertulian's declaration, "Away with all attempts to introduce a mottled Christianity of Stoic, Platonic and dialectic composition."
"Training" in Tertulian's cult... or TWI... never went beyond the grammar stage.
Why anybody would applaud the suppression of discussion on a website that consists of nothing more than the discussion that was forbidden by TWI is something that is beyond me.
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
.I believe twi and the offshoots.... promote the kind of foolish discussions scripture warns Christians to avoid, the kind that leads to ungodliness. Or as Tertullian would say....heresy.
What they forbid is the kind of conversation that leads to instruction, faith in and a knowledge of Jesus Christ.
There was plenty of vain useless chatter in TWI. Great swelling words of pride....a lust for secret knowledge....accusations against Christians..... accusations against Jesus....a need to compare Him to us instead of we to Him......and a real eagerness to pull Him down from the cross. To rid ourselves of the cross. A shame Jesus endured for our sakes.
When Jesus said "But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself." He was speaking of being lifted up onto the cross.
What is appropriate discussion for those drawn to Him? A praise-filled one in a manner worthy of the gospel? Of the Lord? In 2 Timothy 2:14, 16, 23.....wrangling about words....our favorite pastime in TWI...leads to the ruin of hearers. We are to avoid empty chatter which leads to further ungodliness, (notice what is sandwiched in between these two verses)and foolish and ignorant speculations which produce conflict.
No matter how brilliant or scholarly the proponents of such discussions may appear .....does it build true faith or exalt the person of Jesus Christ and not the person offering it?
Conversation which results in true faith building is Godly.
It is not a requirement to be a Christian to post here...these are not Christian forums....and I often appreciate the perspective of those who don't share Christianity as a faith.
But, to those who claim a kinship with Him....we are told to avoid certain conversation....no?....and after being in TWI...I have no problem with that admonition.....I understand why. Seems to me Tertullian might have been confronted by it and understood it a bit as well. :)
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
thanks everybody
What is heresy but that I do not agree with yet?
What is truth but which I have seen yet?
What is a lie but that which I have seen?
What is a Christian but that person who does not believe in God?
What is a Atheist but that person who believes in God?
each word as more than one true meaning
words can mean anything and they can mean nothing
that why I say Wierwille only taught one possible outcome
But there more than a person can measure
just like Tertullian is another possible outcome
while Jesus is all Possibles roll into one
three become one or 4,5,6,7 and so on become one
Its a Trinity more than and less than at the same time
with love and a holy kiss Roy
Edited by year2027Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
The Blind Men and the Elephant
by John Godfrey Saxe
It was six men of Indostan
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind.
The First approached the Elephant,
And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side,
At once began to bawl:
"God bless me! But the elephant
Is very like a wall!"
The Second, feeling of the tusk,
Cried, "Ho! What have we here
So very round and smooth and sharp?
To me 'tis mighty clear
This wonder of an Elephant
Is very like a spear!"
The Third approached the animal,
And happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands,
Thus boldly up and spake:
"I see," quothe he, "the Elephant
Is very like a snake!"
The fourth reached out an eager hand,
And felt about the knee.
"What most this wondrous beast is like
Is mighty plain," quothe he;
"Tis clear enough the elephant
Is very like a tree!"
The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,
Said: "E'en the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most;
Deny the fact who can
This marvel of an Elephant
Is very like a fan!"
The Sixth no sooner had begun
About the beast to grope,
Than, seizing on the swinging tail
That fell within his scope,
"I see," quothe he, "the Elephant
Is very like a rope!"
And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was party in the right,
And all were in the wrong!"
Moral:
So oft in theologic wars,
The disputants, I ween,
Rail on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean,
And prate about an Elephant
Not one of them has seen!
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
then there are also those whom the blind men don't see ... who say "hey, it's an elephant!"
Edited by sirguessalotLink to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
thanks Todd
yes because are many way to understand that we do come with
seeing for what we see is only part of the picture
and we do not see
like the Red mix with Blue you get the color violet
Blue mix with red you get the color Purple
but mix no color with no color what do you get red sometimes other times violet but other times purple and so on
and take sounds it works the same way
because no time when you do not hear something
with love and a holy kiss Roy
Edited by year2027Link 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.