The Biblical Truth

[ckmkeon]

The Bible has no record of 3 gods and I better not hear "will this is what John says". In order to get saved you must goto Romans 10:9,10 The Epitles from Romans to Thessalonians are written directly to us. Starting in Romans it shows us how to get saved when you end up in Thessalonians that shows the hope of the return of christ. All of the bible is good

Romans 15:4a For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning.

There is no reason for anybody to read Revelations if you believe you are saved take a look at I Thess 4:16,17 I myself have started a fellowship teaching the foundational principles of the way not of the later years but of the beginning of the ministry.

Rules are No name calling and no cursing

God Bless,

ckmckeon

[markomalley]

The Bible has no record of 3 gods and I better not hear "will this is what John says". In order to get saved you must goto Romans 10:9,10 The Epitles from Romans to Thessalonians are written directly to us. Starting in Romans it shows us how to get saved when you end up in Thessalonians that shows the hope of the return of christ. All of the bible is good

Romans 15:4a For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning.

There is no reason for anybody to read Revelations if you believe you are saved take a look at I Thess 4:16,17 I myself have started a fellowship teaching the foundational principles of the way not of the later years but of the beginning of the ministry.

Rules are No name calling and no cursing

God Bless,

ckmckeon

OK, so let's see if I understand...

You want to call the game.

You want to exclude most of the Bible, except the verses that VPW misused

Have fun

God Bless

(there, no names were called and no profane language was used)

[TheEvan]

The Bible has no record of 3 gods and I better not hear "will this is what John says". In order to get saved you must goto Romans 10:9,10 The Epitles from Romans to Thessalonians are written directly to us. Starting in Romans it shows us how to get saved when you end up in Thessalonians that shows the hope of the return of christ. All of the bible is good

Romans 15:4a For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning.

There is no reason for anybody to read Revelations if you believe you are saved take a look at I Thess 4:16,17 I myself have started a fellowship teaching the foundational principles of the way not of the later years but of the beginning of the ministry.

Rules are No name calling and no cursing

God Bless,

ckmckeon

(Dear Lord, Mark, that animation is awful!)

1. So ck, one cannot get saved unless they do Rom. 10:9,10?!

2. 3 gods? What are you talking about? Ohhhhh, are you talking about Trinitarian doctrine? Oops, 'fraid you listened too closely to Wierwille, friend. You're against you know not what. Trinitarians don't believe what you allege. Not even close.

ck, there are many who hold to "the Word" and disagree. Jesus said people would know we are His disciples because we have love one for another. If you were arrested for being Jesus' disciple would there be enough evidence to convict? Or is your love reserved for the few remaining people who hold to that curious mix of doctrines I'll call wierwillism?

[CM]

kind of hard to turn the pages with boxing gloves on

[markomalley]

(Dear Lord, Mark, that animation is awful!)

Evan,

Review the threads that he's started and you'll understand why I pulled it out...

[CM]

but let's see

there is God

who Said in the beginning

which takes breath

which is Spirit

and Jesus who became one with God

one with Christ the Son of Man

[CM]

or maybe God is those 3 m&m guys, or is there 4

i do like m&m's

Edited February 21, 2006 by CM

[Oakspear]

The Bible has no record of 3 gods

Like Evan said, Trinitarians don't believe that there are three gods. That is a misrepresentation. I do think that a biblical case for unitarianism can be more easily made than trinitarianism, but there are verses and sections of scripture that lean toward both. You'd do well to argue your point straight from the bible, rather than from Wierwille;'s assumptions.

and I better not hear "will this is what John says".

:huh: What? You're talking about the gospel of John, right? If we're having a biblical discussion , why not use the bible?

In order to get saved you must goto Romans 10:9,10

Funny thing though. You never see the Romans 10:9-10 "formula" used in Acts, anywhere.

The Epitles from Romans to Thessalonians are written directly to us.

Why do you believe that?

Starting in Romans it shows us how to get saved when you end up in Thessalonians that shows the hope of the return of christ. All of the bible is good

Okay, so why had we "better not" quote John?

Romans 15:4a For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning.

Does this necessarily mean what Wierwille said it means?

There is no reason for anybody to read Revelations if you believe you are saved take a look at I Thess 4:16,17

So....why is it there?

I myself have started a fellowship teaching the foundational principles of the way not of the later years but of the beginning of the ministry.

Good for you and good luck

Rules are No name calling and no cursing

We know the rules, and we'll disregard them when we're feeling cranky

God Bless,

ckmckeon

May she bless you as well

[WordWolf]

All of the bible is good

Except the Gospels, the record OF our Lord?

Romans 15:4a For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning.

Well, that leaves out the Gospels-they weren't written "aforetime".

There is no reason for anybody to read Revelations if you believe you are saved

Then why did God bother having it written?

I thought "ALL" of the Bible was good.

Is this a case of "I do not know its value-therefore it must have none"?

take a look at I Thess 4:16,17 I myself have started a fellowship teaching the foundational principles of the way not of the later years but of the beginning of the ministry.

Oh, but that leaves out so, so much....

Why limit your fellow Christians to only what vpw knew at

the time-or ANY Christian, for that matter?

And are you currently teaching the occult-type doctrine that

you can compel God to act by a supposed "LAW" of believing

which has been thoroughly (and throughly) discredited?

That WAS in twi, after all, and it's a doctrine that harmed

a LOT of people.

[ckmkeon]

OK, so let's see if I understand...

You want to call the game.

You want to exclude most of the Bible, except the verses that VPW misused

Have fun

God Bless

(there, no names were called and no profane language was used)

Exactly I want to do the same as VPW in the beginning thank you for pointing that out That is what I have said on all of my threads. allright no rules use every book of the bible and tell me where trinity takes place

godbless,

ckmckeon

[ckmkeon]

Except the Gospels, the record OF our Lord?

Well, that leaves out the Gospels-they weren't written "aforetime".

Then why did God bother having it written?

I thought "ALL" of the Bible was good.

Is this a case of "I do not know its value-therefore it must have none"?

Oh, but that leaves out so, so much....

Why limit your fellow Christians to only what vpw knew at

the time-or ANY Christian, for that matter?

And are you currently teaching the occult-type doctrine that

you can compel God to act by a supposed "LAW" of believing

which has been thoroughly (and throughly) discredited?

That WAS in twi, after all, and it's a doctrine that harmed

a LOT of people.

Since most of your responce was around my quotes let me give this a shot. I never said the gospels were bad. Romans where the verse was that said "aforetime" was written later most of the epistles were written including the gospel and old testament. Revelations is not something I read. You and everybody else can read it I think it is written to seven churches and not unto us.

I believe all of the biible is good

godbless

ckmckeon

[CM]

I think it is written to seven churches

ummm yes and what are those churches in Revelations?

you want to do what vpw did?

why? it didn't work!

[ckmkeon]

ummm yes and what are those churches in Revelations?

you want to do what vpw did?

why? it didn't work!

Does the bible not say it is written(Revelations) to the seven churches?? or is that just me

godbless

ckmckeon

[CM]

seven golden candlesticks

seven stars

seven Spirits of God

seven lamps of fire burning before the throne, which are the seven Spirits of God

seven seals

stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth

seven angels which stood before God; and to them were given seven trumpets

And cried with a loud voice, as when a lion roareth: and when he had cried, seven thunders uttered their voices. 4And when the seven thunders had uttered their voices, I was about to write: and I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Seal up those things which the seven thunders uttered, and write them not

Revelation

Chapter 1

1The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John: 2Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw.

[WordWolf]

I never said the gospels were bad.

Your initial post seemed to say that.

Your most recent posts seem to say-more specifically- that's not the case at all.

Therefore, I'll consider the former to be bad communication

and scratch it as a dead issue.

Romans where the verse was that said "aforetime" was written later most of the epistles were written including the gospel and old testament.

That was an ERROR propagated by vpw.

If we were to "split hairs",

then the Gospel of John will ALWAYS be an exception,

since it was written approximately AD 57-58.

The Gospel of John is traced back-at the earliest-

as AD 80.

The Gospel of Luke is traced back-at the earliest-

as AD 58.

Therefore, if Paul were to strain at a gnat here,

he might be saying that Matthew and Mark are

"for our learning" and didn't apply to us,

since they were penned before AD 57,

BUT Luke and John were written AFTER,

and therefore TO us,

since their date EXCLUDES them from being

simply "for our learning."

HOWEVER,

no matter what vpw said-

it seems obvious that Paul wasn't trying to

place the Gospels as "written aforetime."

The books of the Old Testament were

written over a period of time ending some

400 years before Paul arrived on the scene,

and their canon was considered fixed at his

time. (Let me know if you need documentation.)

Stuff that's 400 years old-or older- was written

"aforetime" to now.

The books of the New Testament were being

written at the same timeframe as Paul was

writing Romans. Rather than divide things

by what month they were written-and even

suppose he KNEW which books were being

written while he was writing-

it seems obvious-WHEN WE LOOK AND ASK

THE QUESTIONS-

that Paul referred to stuff centuries ago as

"aforetime", and did NOT mean

"what was written a few years ago" as

"aforetime."

Therefore, Paul did not intend to exclude

anything from the "New Testament."

The Gospels were written ABOUT a

time before Pentecost.

The Gospels were actually WRITTEN AFTER

Pentecost.

Revelations is not something I read. You and everybody else can read it

Well,

previously in this thread, you said there was NO REASON

to do so, but I'll accept this-"It's not something I read"-

as a more honest represenation of your position.

I think it is written to seven churches and not unto us.

I believe all of the biible is good

godbless

ckmckeon

It was written after Pentecost, and as early as 68 AD.

(After the "aforetime" cutoff, if you're absolutely wedded to

the concept.)

Therefore, it was written to Christians, same as the Epistles.

Exactly I want to do the same as VPW in the beginning thank you for pointing that out

I can really go off on this one, but I'll leave it at this....

You have no idea what vpw did in the beginning.

You know what he TOLD someone he did in the beginning.

If you want an introduction to what he did,

check out the "wonderland" threads,

if you want to know specifically what he did "in the beginning",

check out "the way:living in wonderland".

Edited February 21, 2006 by WordWolf

[CM]

without the gospels

matthew mark luke and john

and many other gospels about the same events

the epistles are meaningless

revelations is what the epistles do not say

aforetime applies to the individual

(not a point of time in the calendar imo)

as do all the scriptures

and his/her life and what is for them

times in the individuals life they will see

what is written

[CM]

the old testament is quite important

example-

Matthew 24:37But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 38For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, 39And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

[ckmkeon]

That was an ERROR propagated by vpw.

no matter what vpw said-

it seems obvious that Paul wasn't trying to

place the Gospels as "written aforetime."

You have no idea what vpw did in the beginning.

You know what he TOLD someone he did in the beginning.

If you want an introduction to what he did,

check out the "wonderland" threads,

if you want to know specifically what he did "in the beginning",

check out "the way:living in wonderland".

Lets take a look at the epistles goto thessalonians first. It does not matter if there was VPW or not. Thessalonians was written first. I believe that when Paul wrote aforetime he meant all scripture from Genesis to the time that he wrote aforetime.

Godbless

ckmckeon

[CM]

aforetime

4270 prographo { prog-raf’-o}

from 4253 and 1125; TDNT - 1:770,128; v

AV - write 1, write aforetime 1, write afore 1, evidently set forth 1, before ordain 1; 5

GK - 4592 { progravfw }

1) to write before (of time)

1a) of old set forth or designated before hand (in the scriptures of the OT)

2) to depict or portray openly

2a) to write before the eyes of all who can read

2b) to depict, portray, paint, before the eyes

Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1995.

[CM]

For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that through patience and through comfort of the scriptures we might have hope

time for learning huh

we all go at our own pace

sometimes it's quickened

[ckmkeon]

Mark

I know this is offtopic but I have a movie to recommend Pink Floyd The Wall

ckmckeon

Edited February 21, 2006 by ckmkeon

[markomalley]

Since most of your responce was around my quotes let me give this a shot. I never said the gospels were bad. Romans where the verse was that said "aforetime" was written later most of the epistles were written including the gospel and old testament. Revelations is not something I read. You and everybody else can read it I think it is written to seven churches and not unto us.

I believe all of the biible is good

godbless

ckmckeon

1 and 2 Thessalonians were written around 48-49 AD

Galatians was written somewhere around 53-54 AD

Romans was written somewhere around 56-57 (from Corinth)

1 Corinthians was written somewhere around 57 AD (from Ephesus)

2 Corinthians was written somewhere around 57 AD (from Macedonia)

Ephesians, Philipeans, Colossians, and Philemon were written during Paul's captivity, around 61-63 AD

1 Timothy, Titus, and 2 Timothy were written from Macedonia 63-66 AD

The Gospel According to St. Mark (St. Peter's historian) was written somewhere between 50-67 AD

The Gospel According to St. Matthew was written somewhere between 64-67 AD (but likely after Mark)

The Gospel According to St. Luke (St. Paul's travelling companion and historian) was written somewhere between 80-90 AD

The Gospel According to St. John was written somewhere between 90-100 AD

The Acts of the Apostles were written by St. Luke somewhere between 80-90 AD

So, according to the thought process you just demonstrated, apparently 1, 2 Thessalonians and Galatians should not be considered "to us" (and can thus be disregarded at will), while all four Gospels and the Acts should be considered "to us" (and thus can only be disregarded with much more tapdancing).

Interesting!

[markomalley]

By the way, just so you know I don't buy into EW Bullinger's Ultra-Dispensational view of Biblical interpretation either. So the point is rather moot to me anyway...

[LG]

If I were a (non-Waybrained) Christian, I think I would realize at least a couple of things. One, that Romans through Thessalonians is no more and no less "for our learning" than any other scripture. Two, that most of Paul's epistles are no more addressed to me than are any other scriptures. A couple are addressed (in one way or another) to all Christians. Most are addressed to specific churches. "Aforetimes" be damned; Wierwille was wrong about "to whom it is addressed."

Food for thought: "Epistles" are simply letters, which are normally addressed to particular recipients. Other writings (books, theses, articles, opinion pieces, etc.) are not generally specifically addressed to any parties, but are intended for (and therefore, implicitly addressed to) all who may read them.

Food for thought: If the Gospels are not addressed to Christians, by which I mean those "born again" on or after the Pentecost that figures prominently in Acts (it was an annual affair), then to whom are they addressed? Actually, the answer is pretty simple. All Biblical writings are addressed to whomever might read them in the future (from the perspective of the writers). The gospels were not written for the people who were there with Jesus. They were written for (and to) people who did not personally witness Jesus' life and ministry but who might, upon reading or hearing about it, believe on (in, whatever) him. The notion that they were not targeted (addressed, if you prefer) to potential or actual Christians, is ludicrous.

Wierwille was simply wrong about the whole "to whom" topic. His error was obvious not only by logic, but also by reading "to whom" the "church" epistles are actually (in their words, not Wierwille's) addressed. The "church" epistles are no more addressed to any living Christian, potential Christian, or combination thereof, than are any other sections of the Bible.

[TheEvan]

Right on, LG. And the concept comes home to roost as a dirty lie when he dances through Rom 9-11, claiming they are written to Jews in one place, Gentiles in another, and NOT the Church.