How did Joseph Smith know it would be Independence MO when Independence MO was not even founded, discovered, or whatever ya call it when Joseph Smith was alive? Curious? TY.
I think this is the main reason my neighbor won't sell her house and move anywhere else. She wants to be in Independence when it happens. We are trying to sell our house to move to warmer climate. Why can't Christ come to Texas? Why MO? I'm wondering why would he want to come back to a place that has SO MANY CASINOS, and CRIME?
Independence has been around since the late 1820's
It is here that land was bought for the first temple
Because of GOvernor Boggs orders to "exterminate the Mormons" (yeah that's the wording used) the saints fled to Ohio and later Illinois abandoning the site.
Independence is where the New Jerusalem will be
But that won't be until the final resurrection after the thousand years.
SO it is really kind of pointless to not move anywhere else since
1) ideally you will have been "caught up" in the first resurrection
2) Independenace will all be changed anyway to perfection
But some people get so attached to the tree that they lose sight of the forest much less the big picture.
Me--I'm just to busy making sure I get to live in the New Jerusalem to worry overtly about where it will be-just so long as I am one of the residents : B)
Oh PLEEEEEEEEASSSSSE keep going Templelady.."only LDS get to go to 'the' heaven..non LDS go to other heavens" !!! Yet you have the audacity to point the finger at VPW teaching what he did ??
Does the term 'hypocricy' mean anything to you ??!!
What exactly do you mean by a Oneness group? Prehaps you mean UNITARIAN? Monotheistic (One God who gets worshipped) (One Son who paid the ultimate sacrifice for us, Jesus, whom we are Joint Heirs with)?
Oneness theology is a subset of Unitarianism. All Oneness adherents are Unitarians, but not all Unitarians are Oneness adherents. Oneness theology is characterized by a set of peculiar dogmas. While Arians (e.g. Jehovah’s Witnesses) and Christological Socinians (e.g. TWI-types) are Unitarians who deny the deity of Jesus Christ, Oneness advocates try, rather incoherently, to juggle Unitarianism with some purportedly positive confession concerning the deity of Jesus Christ.
I don't see THAT as denying the eternal identity and existence of the Son of God.
You don’t seem to have understood the statement about the eternal identity and existence of the Son of God in my previous post, read and understood a significant amount of material at the http://www.christiandefense.org site, or come to appreciate the significance of the issue of whether the Son of God is an eternal figure. Following are a few quotes from Oneness adherent and UPCI figure David K. Bernard appearing at http://christiandefense.org/one_rejctTrin.htm#bernardOb that should help us begin to unpack things:
”How can there be an eternal Son when the Bible says that He was begotten, clearly indicting that the Son had a beginning? (John 3:16; Hebrews 1:5-6). “
“If the Son is eternal and existed at creation, who was His mother at that time? We know that Son was made of a woman (Galatians 4:4).”
“If the Son is eternal and immutable (unchangeable), how can the reign of the Son have an ending? (1 Corinthians 15:24-28).”
Asserting that the Son of God had a beginning certainly entails denial that the Son of God has an identity and existence that are eternal (but see Hebrews 7: 1-3).
Let's continue:
Seems this defense.org are labeling people who do not believe in the Trinity in an unfair and in-accurate way. I think their interpretation of what THEY THINK THEY KNOW about what OTHERS BELIEVE -- to be PURE BULL S_ _ T!
For one thing the JW's don't think or teach that Jesus 'collectively' is GOD. That would be (God in three persons- blessed Trinity). THEY DO NOT TEACH a three-in-one GOD. This web site you provided is just so grossly opinionated and obviously not well researched. I was among the JWs so I know what they teach, as well with TWI, and JESUS IS NOT GOD.
Please provide quotes from and links to whatever material there is at http://www.christiandefense.org you think represents Jehovah’s Witnesses as teaching “that Jesus 'collectively' is GOD.”
In either of these two groups teachings, and I've gone to the UPC web site and they are clear on what they believe. Unitarians do not deny CHRIST, they just don't believe the SON is also the FATHER.
Actually, while holding on one hand the Son is Jesus’ human nature, Oneness adherents assert the divine nature of Jesus is the Father. Again, quoting Bernard (this time from http://www.aomin.org/CHALC.html ):
“In this connection, let me make this point crystal clear - the doctrine enunciated in this booklet emphasizes the very real humanity of Christ; it is not at all the same as teaching that the Father IS the Son, or that the Son IS the Father. Such teaching is confused, illogical, and unscriptural - but when we say that Jesus is BOTH Father and Son, BOTH God and Man, that is a vastly different matter.”
Thus Bernard rejects the notion that the Son is the Father, but asserts that “Jesus is BOTH Father and Son.” In Bernard’s Oneness Christology, the Son is a temporally beginning human figure that is Jesus’ human nature, while the Father is the eternal figure who is Jesus’ divine nature (or, perhaps, deity dwelling in Jesus). James White, in his critique of Bernard’s theology appearing at http://www.aomin.org/CHALC.html , rather aptly notes that, despite Bernard’s emphatic assertions to the contrary, statements by Bernard entail a Christology which divides Jesus into two distinct persons.
The God-head bodily function much like a household where there is a father (head of the house) and children. They have their facts WRONG on so many things they 'think others believe/teach'. Its yet another attempt at a Trinitarian Organization to Blast the teachings of those who don't conform to their way of thinking.
The JW's in their teaching see Jesus as a 'Great Teacher' as well as Michael the Archangel. (that one confused me.)
Other Unitarians see God as Monothiestic (One God but NOT with three persons.)
This organization has misunderstood the teachings of UPC an JW. Probably cause they can't grasp the concept of 'simplicity'. I don't know, but I read it and they WRONGLY Misrepresent the Unitarian Beliefs. To prove what? That the Trinity is the Divine Theory? Heck, the word Trinity isn't even in Scripture!
Although Trinity is not a biblical word, the Trinitarian view of God held by orthodox Christians is made necessary by various things Scripture says about God, the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. The doctrine of the Trinity, alone amidst all its Unitarian (e.g. Sabellian, Arian, Socinian) and henotheistic (e.g. Mormon) competitors, affords any meaningful recognition of the scriptural testimony concerning the three divine persons and the emphatic oneness of God.
Oneness theology is a subset of Unitarianism. All Oneness adherents are Unitarians, but not all Unitarians are Oneness adherents.
Not quite, ... not by a long shot.
For one thing, organizationally speaking, the Oneness Pentacostal denomination(s) have not come from nor originated from any Unitarian group or church. Two, all Unitarian groups, those who identified themselves as Unitarian, either by name or by belief, have either all disgarded the Diety of Christ, or with a few exceptions, have regarded him as, if you'll pardon the term, a 'lesser god' as it were. But there is a clear departure between the understanding of Jesus Christ being God re the Pentacostals, and the understanding of Christ's relation to God in the Unitarian's mind. No doubt there were, and maybe even are exceptions to this rule, but by and large there are far more similarities between Pentacostals and Trinitarians regarding this issue than Pentacostals and Unitarians.
Perhaps a more thorough (and shall I say, less hostile) understanding of where Unitarians are coming from on your part would benefit you more.
Have a nice day. B)
P.S., to expand on what I said here, rather than portraying Oneness as a subset of Unitarianism, perhaps it can be seen as a different kind of Unitarianism; much like Mormonism (who view Jesus Christ as the Son of God on the same order as Lucifer once was, if I understand it correctly) or Jehovah's Witnesses (who view Jesus Christ as Micheal the Archangel). And yet they have significant differences to make them distinct from Unitarianism, both back centuries ago, and today.
Discussions of the nature of the godhead are complicated. Whatever verses or concepts one chooses to elevate, the other guys have verses to prove the opposite. The doctrinal debates of the second and third centuries revolved around the nature of Jesus and God and their connection to each other.
Whatever verses or concepts one chooses to elevate, the other guys have verses to prove the opposite.
Oak -- what a *truism*. :)
Oneness theology is a subset of Unitarianism. All Oneness adherents are Unitarians, but not all Unitarians are Oneness adherents.
Cynic -- I can both agree and disagree with this. IMO -- Unitarianism is belief in ONE GOD and as such, Oneness adherents definately fall in this category, yet they believe that Jesus is the ONLY God, therefore to me they are more of a subset of the trinity believing crowd which also believes Jesus to be God, though not the only one.
The Unitarians that I know of (biblical Unitarians, NOT universalist Unitarians), believe in one God also, and His son Jesus. In no manner of speaking would I or any of these other folks call ourselves *oneness*.
Quick story here -- I know a lady cello player that comes to our jam sessions occassionally who is ex-UPC, and she introduced me to her dad (still in UPC) one day, and he was thrilled to hear I did not believe in the trinity (yea -- religion came up fast and quick there!), but he didn't have the time of day for me, after he heard my version versus his.
We both believed in One God --- but mine was the Father, and his was Jesus. Oneness and Unitarianism are like oil and water. They don't mix.
Yes Jetc57..truth is simple, Jesus came to 'uncomplicate life'.That is why I will be eternally greatful to have learnt 'simple truths' from the ministry of VPW whilst I was involved , no matter where he 'copied' differn't ideas from or how bright the lightbulbs were during his filming of pfal ( wordwolf and Oenophile will get what I mean !!)
dmiller, Oneness doctrine is not a subset of Trinitarian doctrine.
I'm not sure who Cynic was quoting (call me lazy) but Trinitarians do not believe the Son is the Father. Shheesh. How many times I've heard this crazy misconception stated as fact by ex wayers that still bu their unique version of the Godhead.
Oh Evan but you are WRONG, my friend. The Trinity doctrine World Wide teaches that Jesus is God.
That God is 'three persons in one' blessed trinity. They even got their own song.
"God in three persons - blessed trinity".
They (mainstream christianity) think Jesus was God come down in the Flesh., that Mary is the mother of God, and the list just goes on and on. Try denying it all you want. I was raised in a Baptist Church and I remember the 'drill' very well. I have Catholic people tell me this, too all the time. Even Evangelicals.
Discussions of the nature of the godhead are complicated. Whatever verses or concepts one chooses to elevate, the other guys have verses to prove the opposite. The doctrinal debates of the second and third centuries revolved around the nature of Jesus and God and their connection to each other.
And then throw in the fact that they're using Bible verses primarily to support their argument which holds absolutely no weight with those who don't necessarily believe that the Bible is "God breathed" and the "perfect" word and will of God. :)
I'm just really have a great time learning about all these different religions, cultures and history. Thanks y'all!!
jet, put simlply, recognizing Jesus as God in the flesh is not at all the same as calling the Son the Father. You're taking shots at a doctrine you've not educated yourself on.
BTW, I'm not particularly trinitarian, but I think it's a more reasonable explanation of the Godhead than Wierwille's.
Look, I'm not digging a hole as I have no position to defend.
You are demonstrating your inability or inwillingness to arry on a civil conversation. Your "part God" comment is borne of ignorance. You show no inclination to be instructed so I think I'll save my breath. But I'll repeat that you're arguing against a thing you've not bothered to read even the most basic explanation of. Until you have even the slightest knowlege of what you're talking about, further conversation is useless.
Most of the things I believe and simply understand -- I DID NOT LEARN IN TWI., but TWI did teach similar things that merely ADDED to my basic understanding to which I arrived on my own reading the Bible., and what others had to say about certain topics. We seem to give VPW TOO MUCH CREDIT.
It matters not to me whether someone is 'trinitarian, oneness, or unitarian'. I think the thing that matters most to me is that we do not JUDGE someone who makes choices on what they do believe.
For instance, when some Religious Zealot trys to call me ANTICHRIST because I do not believe Jesus Christ is GOD (Jehovah). Then I get my feathers ruffled, and my nails come out.
I think God is the ultimate Judge and Jury on whether or not a person is HIS Child or Not.
As to believing Jesus is God and yet not the Father, that's just a load of 'differences of opinion, and interpretation.' I think its funny how we see these groups even in here where each one of us gives our own opinions. Remembering PFAL when VPW mentioned the group of people (including Maggie Muggins) all giving their own interpretations., I have to chuckle alittle.
I find it interesting and unpersuasive, tho - to read, or even listen to someone of a different opinion than mine. If we close our hearts and minds to what others have to say, we stop learning. To stop learning in my opinion is to stop living and loving.
I love you all and value whatever you say even if I choose NOT to agree.
When we close our minds we stop learning and we miss out on getting to know some of the greatest people. :) (although, some people need to be, and are, on ignore to keep my blood pressure at a safe level. ;) )
If the "simplicity of The Word" is so simple, why do we need "keys"? Why do we need to understand Orientalisms and figures of speech? Why is it that a "simple" reading of "The Word" yields so many different answers?
Those other books help enlighten our understanding, and still I don't think everyone believes EVERYTHING they read from a 'book' outside of the Bible. At least I'm speakin for myself.
I've read books by lots of writers, not just those who wrote the Way books, and there are many Christians out there sharing things they have learned. I don't buy into every writer's philosophy of God, however.
Has anyone out here in GreaseSpot land ever read any books by Bishop Spong? How about reading the excerpts from those educated of scholars who are in current debate called The Jesus Seminar?
I find a great many things I've read there informative and educational and some more confusing than anything going on here. Do we classify these people as "cults"?
This is my last post on here, I'm hoping for a forum that doesn't associate itself with this CULT Label System.
Girl Scouts of America. Pretty soon they'll be out selling "cookies" in their yearly "fund raising" efforts, securing much needed funds for - what? Exactly where does that money go? And for what purposes? Their relentless efforts at filling our pantries with their cookies every year makes guys like Lance Armstrong look like weinies. On the surface it's all beanies and smiles but what lurks under the surface? Highly trained, committed survivalists - this is a youthful army that bears watching.
The Wal Mart Greeters. Ever gone into Wal Mart and try to get a cart on your own? It's impossible. Wal Mart hires senior citizens for these front line jobs but my sense is these are no candidates for the President's Council on Aging, no indeed. They smile, they greet, they give you the cart THEY want you to have and woe to the young whippersnapper that challenges them! Possible motives? Why THAT cart, why then, and why ME? It's all suspiciously random and all-too-sweet. The next time you see that big yellow smiley face and hear "Have a nice day" as you're handed a cart with a wheel out of whack...be afraid. Be VERY afraid.
The Jimmy Kimmel Show. Where did he come from? Who is he? Sure, he's funny, off-beat. But how did a guy who looks like your cousin get the sweet spot on late night TV? You can bet money changed hands in a midnight ceremony somewhere in Hotel California and there was one less chicken in somebody's dinner-pot the night the contracts were drawn for That show.
Kermit. He's little, he's cute, he's green, he's a frog. Or is he? What unseen power allows this stuffed puppet to retain followers year after year after year? No amphibean before or since has done so well. Our collective antennae should have twitched long ago about THIS one.
I have MUCH background research to substantiate this and a lot more. If you'd like my Weekly newsletter "The Truth and Nothing But the Truth", you can get it completely free of charge and at no cost whatsoever. Just send 19.95 to cover the nominal shipping and handling fees to "socks@get_it.com" and this powerful message of hope will be sent to you, real soon. Packed with news you can use and insider insight, you'll be really glad you did.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
8
11
27
14
Popular Days
Oct 11
24
Oct 18
13
Oct 7
13
Oct 17
12
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 8 posts
Allan 11 posts
jetc57 27 posts
templelady 14 posts
Popular Days
Oct 11 2005
24 posts
Oct 18 2005
13 posts
Oct 7 2005
13 posts
Oct 17 2005
12 posts
jetc57
TempleLady
How did Joseph Smith know it would be Independence MO when Independence MO was not even founded, discovered, or whatever ya call it when Joseph Smith was alive? Curious? TY.
I think this is the main reason my neighbor won't sell her house and move anywhere else. She wants to be in Independence when it happens. We are trying to sell our house to move to warmer climate. Why can't Christ come to Texas? Why MO? I'm wondering why would he want to come back to a place that has SO MANY CASINOS, and CRIME?
:D
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
Independence has been around since the late 1820's
It is here that land was bought for the first temple
Because of GOvernor Boggs orders to "exterminate the Mormons" (yeah that's the wording used) the saints fled to Ohio and later Illinois abandoning the site.
Independence is where the New Jerusalem will be
But that won't be until the final resurrection after the thousand years.
SO it is really kind of pointless to not move anywhere else since
1) ideally you will have been "caught up" in the first resurrection
2) Independenace will all be changed anyway to perfection
But some people get so attached to the tree that they lose sight of the forest much less the big picture.
Me--I'm just to busy making sure I get to live in the New Jerusalem to worry overtly about where it will be-just so long as I am one of the residents : B)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Allan
Keep going..this gets more and more BIZZARE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Allan
Oh PLEEEEEEEEASSSSSE keep going Templelady.."only LDS get to go to 'the' heaven..non LDS go to other heavens" !!! Yet you have the audacity to point the finger at VPW teaching what he did ??
Does the term 'hypocricy' mean anything to you ??!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
So-o-o, in what way is Templelady being hypocritical here? ... Specifically, that is.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
Oneness theology is a subset of Unitarianism. All Oneness adherents are Unitarians, but not all Unitarians are Oneness adherents. Oneness theology is characterized by a set of peculiar dogmas. While Arians (e.g. Jehovah’s Witnesses) and Christological Socinians (e.g. TWI-types) are Unitarians who deny the deity of Jesus Christ, Oneness advocates try, rather incoherently, to juggle Unitarianism with some purportedly positive confession concerning the deity of Jesus Christ.
You don’t seem to have understood the statement about the eternal identity and existence of the Son of God in my previous post, read and understood a significant amount of material at the http://www.christiandefense.org site, or come to appreciate the significance of the issue of whether the Son of God is an eternal figure. Following are a few quotes from Oneness adherent and UPCI figure David K. Bernard appearing at http://christiandefense.org/one_rejctTrin.htm#bernardOb that should help us begin to unpack things:
”How can there be an eternal Son when the Bible says that He was begotten, clearly indicting that the Son had a beginning? (John 3:16; Hebrews 1:5-6). “
“If the Son is eternal and existed at creation, who was His mother at that time? We know that Son was made of a woman (Galatians 4:4).”
“If the Son is eternal and immutable (unchangeable), how can the reign of the Son have an ending? (1 Corinthians 15:24-28).”
Asserting that the Son of God had a beginning certainly entails denial that the Son of God has an identity and existence that are eternal (but see Hebrews 7: 1-3).
Let's continue:
Please provide quotes from and links to whatever material there is at http://www.christiandefense.org you think represents Jehovah’s Witnesses as teaching “that Jesus 'collectively' is GOD.”
Actually, while holding on one hand the Son is Jesus’ human nature, Oneness adherents assert the divine nature of Jesus is the Father. Again, quoting Bernard (this time from http://www.aomin.org/CHALC.html ):“In this connection, let me make this point crystal clear - the doctrine enunciated in this booklet emphasizes the very real humanity of Christ; it is not at all the same as teaching that the Father IS the Son, or that the Son IS the Father. Such teaching is confused, illogical, and unscriptural - but when we say that Jesus is BOTH Father and Son, BOTH God and Man, that is a vastly different matter.”
Thus Bernard rejects the notion that the Son is the Father, but asserts that “Jesus is BOTH Father and Son.” In Bernard’s Oneness Christology, the Son is a temporally beginning human figure that is Jesus’ human nature, while the Father is the eternal figure who is Jesus’ divine nature (or, perhaps, deity dwelling in Jesus). James White, in his critique of Bernard’s theology appearing at http://www.aomin.org/CHALC.html , rather aptly notes that, despite Bernard’s emphatic assertions to the contrary, statements by Bernard entail a Christology which divides Jesus into two distinct persons.
Although Trinity is not a biblical word, the Trinitarian view of God held by orthodox Christians is made necessary by various things Scripture says about God, the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. The doctrine of the Trinity, alone amidst all its Unitarian (e.g. Sabellian, Arian, Socinian) and henotheistic (e.g. Mormon) competitors, affords any meaningful recognition of the scriptural testimony concerning the three divine persons and the emphatic oneness of God.
Edited by CynicLink to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
most established, roman catholic
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Cynic,
Not quite, ... not by a long shot.
For one thing, organizationally speaking, the Oneness Pentacostal denomination(s) have not come from nor originated from any Unitarian group or church. Two, all Unitarian groups, those who identified themselves as Unitarian, either by name or by belief, have either all disgarded the Diety of Christ, or with a few exceptions, have regarded him as, if you'll pardon the term, a 'lesser god' as it were. But there is a clear departure between the understanding of Jesus Christ being God re the Pentacostals, and the understanding of Christ's relation to God in the Unitarian's mind. No doubt there were, and maybe even are exceptions to this rule, but by and large there are far more similarities between Pentacostals and Trinitarians regarding this issue than Pentacostals and Unitarians.
Perhaps a more thorough (and shall I say, less hostile) understanding of where Unitarians are coming from on your part would benefit you more.
Have a nice day. B)
P.S., to expand on what I said here, rather than portraying Oneness as a subset of Unitarianism, perhaps it can be seen as a different kind of Unitarianism; much like Mormonism (who view Jesus Christ as the Son of God on the same order as Lucifer once was, if I understand it correctly) or Jehovah's Witnesses (who view Jesus Christ as Micheal the Archangel). And yet they have significant differences to make them distinct from Unitarianism, both back centuries ago, and today.
Edited by GarthP2000Link to comment
Share on other sites
jetc57
TOO COMPLICATED FOR MY MIND ---
I can only simply put it this way. God had no beginning and has no end.
Christ, the son of God, had a beginning!! Jesus Christ is NOT GOD, but rather the SON OF GOD.
We are Joint-heirs with Christ, therefore we are his brothers. If Jesus is God, then SO ARE WE by that logic............
This is the way I think. I don't care for all the circular reasoning that is proposed by that website.
I tried to appreciate it, trust me, but it has so much BS - I had no where to shovel it all.....
:unsure:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Cynic -- I can both agree and disagree with this. IMO -- Unitarianism is belief in ONE GOD and as such, Oneness adherents definately fall in this category, yet they believe that Jesus is the ONLY God, therefore to me they are more of a subset of the trinity believing crowd which also believes Jesus to be God, though not the only one.
The Unitarians that I know of (biblical Unitarians, NOT universalist Unitarians), believe in one God also, and His son Jesus. In no manner of speaking would I or any of these other folks call ourselves *oneness*.
Quick story here -- I know a lady cello player that comes to our jam sessions occassionally who is ex-UPC, and she introduced me to her dad (still in UPC) one day, and he was thrilled to hear I did not believe in the trinity (yea -- religion came up fast and quick there!), but he didn't have the time of day for me, after he heard my version versus his.
We both believed in One God --- but mine was the Father, and his was Jesus. Oneness and Unitarianism are like oil and water. They don't mix.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Allan
Yes Jetc57..truth is simple, Jesus came to 'uncomplicate life'.That is why I will be eternally greatful to have learnt 'simple truths' from the ministry of VPW whilst I was involved , no matter where he 'copied' differn't ideas from or how bright the lightbulbs were during his filming of pfal ( wordwolf and Oenophile will get what I mean !!)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
dmiller, Oneness doctrine is not a subset of Trinitarian doctrine.
I'm not sure who Cynic was quoting (call me lazy) but Trinitarians do not believe the Son is the Father. Shheesh. How many times I've heard this crazy misconception stated as fact by ex wayers that still bu their unique version of the Godhead.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jetc57
Oh Evan but you are WRONG, my friend. The Trinity doctrine World Wide teaches that Jesus is God.
That God is 'three persons in one' blessed trinity. They even got their own song.
"God in three persons - blessed trinity".
They (mainstream christianity) think Jesus was God come down in the Flesh., that Mary is the mother of God, and the list just goes on and on. Try denying it all you want. I was raised in a Baptist Church and I remember the 'drill' very well. I have Catholic people tell me this, too all the time. Even Evangelicals.
:P
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
And then throw in the fact that they're using Bible verses primarily to support their argument which holds absolutely no weight with those who don't necessarily believe that the Bible is "God breathed" and the "perfect" word and will of God. :)
I'm just really have a great time learning about all these different religions, cultures and history. Thanks y'all!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
jet, put simlply, recognizing Jesus as God in the flesh is not at all the same as calling the Son the Father. You're taking shots at a doctrine you've not educated yourself on.
BTW, I'm not particularly trinitarian, but I think it's a more reasonable explanation of the Godhead than Wierwille's.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Allan
Just keep it simple Evan (and others) "Jesus is God but not the Father.".so he is only PART God ??
You just show the ludicrousness of these 'skewered' teachings.
Like the Mormons, Catholics and other denominations..the further they get from the simplicity of the Word, the bigger the 'hole' they dig.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
Look, I'm not digging a hole as I have no position to defend.
You are demonstrating your inability or inwillingness to arry on a civil conversation. Your "part God" comment is borne of ignorance. You show no inclination to be instructed so I think I'll save my breath. But I'll repeat that you're arguing against a thing you've not bothered to read even the most basic explanation of. Until you have even the slightest knowlege of what you're talking about, further conversation is useless.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jetc57
Most of the things I believe and simply understand -- I DID NOT LEARN IN TWI., but TWI did teach similar things that merely ADDED to my basic understanding to which I arrived on my own reading the Bible., and what others had to say about certain topics. We seem to give VPW TOO MUCH CREDIT.
It matters not to me whether someone is 'trinitarian, oneness, or unitarian'. I think the thing that matters most to me is that we do not JUDGE someone who makes choices on what they do believe.
For instance, when some Religious Zealot trys to call me ANTICHRIST because I do not believe Jesus Christ is GOD (Jehovah). Then I get my feathers ruffled, and my nails come out.
I think God is the ultimate Judge and Jury on whether or not a person is HIS Child or Not.
As to believing Jesus is God and yet not the Father, that's just a load of 'differences of opinion, and interpretation.' I think its funny how we see these groups even in here where each one of us gives our own opinions. Remembering PFAL when VPW mentioned the group of people (including Maggie Muggins) all giving their own interpretations., I have to chuckle alittle.
I find it interesting and unpersuasive, tho - to read, or even listen to someone of a different opinion than mine. If we close our hearts and minds to what others have to say, we stop learning. To stop learning in my opinion is to stop living and loving.
I love you all and value whatever you say even if I choose NOT to agree.
Edited by jetc57Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
AMEN, Jet!
When we close our minds we stop learning and we miss out on getting to know some of the greatest people. :) (although, some people need to be, and are, on ignore to keep my blood pressure at a safe level. ;) )
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
If the "simplicity of The Word" is so simple, why do we need "keys"? Why do we need to understand Orientalisms and figures of speech? Why is it that a "simple" reading of "The Word" yields so many different answers?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jetc57
Those other books help enlighten our understanding, and still I don't think everyone believes EVERYTHING they read from a 'book' outside of the Bible. At least I'm speakin for myself.
I've read books by lots of writers, not just those who wrote the Way books, and there are many Christians out there sharing things they have learned. I don't buy into every writer's philosophy of God, however.
Has anyone out here in GreaseSpot land ever read any books by Bishop Spong? How about reading the excerpts from those educated of scholars who are in current debate called The Jesus Seminar?
I find a great many things I've read there informative and educational and some more confusing than anything going on here. Do we classify these people as "cults"?
This is my last post on here, I'm hoping for a forum that doesn't associate itself with this CULT Label System.
:huh:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Allan
The 'keys' Oakspear are SIMPLE too !!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Some of the Top Kults today:
Girl Scouts of America. Pretty soon they'll be out selling "cookies" in their yearly "fund raising" efforts, securing much needed funds for - what? Exactly where does that money go? And for what purposes? Their relentless efforts at filling our pantries with their cookies every year makes guys like Lance Armstrong look like weinies. On the surface it's all beanies and smiles but what lurks under the surface? Highly trained, committed survivalists - this is a youthful army that bears watching.
The Wal Mart Greeters. Ever gone into Wal Mart and try to get a cart on your own? It's impossible. Wal Mart hires senior citizens for these front line jobs but my sense is these are no candidates for the President's Council on Aging, no indeed. They smile, they greet, they give you the cart THEY want you to have and woe to the young whippersnapper that challenges them! Possible motives? Why THAT cart, why then, and why ME? It's all suspiciously random and all-too-sweet. The next time you see that big yellow smiley face and hear "Have a nice day" as you're handed a cart with a wheel out of whack...be afraid. Be VERY afraid.
The Jimmy Kimmel Show. Where did he come from? Who is he? Sure, he's funny, off-beat. But how did a guy who looks like your cousin get the sweet spot on late night TV? You can bet money changed hands in a midnight ceremony somewhere in Hotel California and there was one less chicken in somebody's dinner-pot the night the contracts were drawn for That show.
Kermit. He's little, he's cute, he's green, he's a frog. Or is he? What unseen power allows this stuffed puppet to retain followers year after year after year? No amphibean before or since has done so well. Our collective antennae should have twitched long ago about THIS one.
I have MUCH background research to substantiate this and a lot more. If you'd like my Weekly newsletter "The Truth and Nothing But the Truth", you can get it completely free of charge and at no cost whatsoever. Just send 19.95 to cover the nominal shipping and handling fees to "socks@get_it.com" and this powerful message of hope will be sent to you, real soon. Packed with news you can use and insider insight, you'll be really glad you did.
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.