> with politics. Jesus taught us that the whole world is in the power of
the
> wicked one. Satan is like a puppet master who controls the corrupt
> politicians. Jesus stated the following.
> *** Rbi8 John 15:17-19 ***
> 17 "These things I command YOU, that YOU love one another. 18 If the
world
> hates YOU, YOU know that it has hated me before it hated YOU. 19 If YOU
were
> part of the world, the world would be fond of what is its own. Now
because
> YOU are no part of the world, but I have chosen YOU out of the world,
on
> this account the world hates YOU."
>
> 7/ Real Christians obey God first.
> *** Rbi8 Acts 5:28-29 ***
> " 29 In answer Peter and the [other] apostles said: "We must obey God
as
> ruler rather than men."
> What do we do when the laws of men conflict with the laws of God? Jesus
was
> given the same problem. Notice the way that he solved it?
> *** Rbi8 Matthew 22:15-22 ***
> 15 Then the Pharisees went their way and took counsel together in order
to
> trap him in his speech. 16 So they dispatched to him their disciples,
> together with party followers of Herod, saying: "Teacher, we know you
are
> truthful and teach the way of God in truth, and you do not care for
anybody,
> for you do not look upon men's outward appearance. 17 Tell us,
therefore,
> What do you think? Is it lawful to pay head tax to Caesar or not?" 18
But
> Jesus, knowing their wickedness, said: "Why do YOU put me to the test,
> hypocrites? 19 Show me the head tax coin." They brought him a de·nar'i·
us.
> 20 And he said to them: "Whose image and inscription is this?" 21 They
said:
> "Caesar's." Then he said to them: "Pay back, therefore, Caesar's things
to
> Caesar, but God's things to God." 22 Well, when they heard [that], they
> marveled, and leaving him they went off."
> Christians the laws of men provided that they do no conflict with the
law of
> God.
>
> 8/ Real Christians do not engage in warfare. This must be obvious from
other
> things that have been mentioned. Read what Jesus said to the apostle
Peter.
> *** Rbi8 Matthew 26:51-52 ***
> 52 Then Jesus said to him: "Return your sword to its place, for all
those
> who take the sword will perish by the sword."
> It is well known that the early Christians refused to engage in
warfare.
> This is one of the reasons why they were persecuted. If a soldier
became a
> Christian he quite being a soldier.
>
> 9/ Real Christians believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God.
They
> believe in the words of the apostle Paul when he wrote.
> *** Rbi8 2 Timothy 3:16-17 ***
> 16 All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for
> reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in
righteousness,
> 17 that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for
every
> good work."
>
> John
From: John Weatherly <john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Subject: Re: Jesus died on Wednesday
Date: 2000/04/23
Message-ID: <3903BBBE.EE80D9F0@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 614839166
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <D9AEF7248A2B0CDA.D422BAFFD1A8AACD.84D601E010109101
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <390194F5.E43ECF3F@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <DSiM4.1948$Qn1.625743
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
X-Accept-Language: en
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: news.uswest.net 956545924 63.225.166.210 (Sun, 23 Apr 2000
22:12:04 CDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2000 22:12:04 CDT
Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.baptist
Jennifer Usher wrote:
> "John Weatherly" <john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:390194F5.E43ECF3F@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > That "stuff" below gave me quite a giggle.
> > You would re-write the Bible.
> > I predict that God will erase your name from the Book of Life!
>
> So, according to you, believing Christ died on a Friday is a
requirement for
> salvation? I certainly hope that is not what you are trusting in, even
> remotely.
>
> --
> Jennifer Usher
I didn't say that, Jennifer. I was predicting this person's fate based on
his
desire to re-write scripture. I personally don't care either what day
Jesus
died, or which day He rose. I believe smarter people with better
resources could
and have calculated which day Jesus died. The im****tant fact to be sure
of is
that He rose on Sunday (the 1st day of the week in that day). And I only
say
that day is im****tant because that's when the account of His resurrection
says
the resurrection took place, and I believe it's VERY im****tant to take
the Bible
literally whenever possible. I don't believe we mortals should or have
the right
to re-interpret clear scripture.
john
john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: John Weatherly <john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Subject: Re: IS GOD THE AUTHOR OF CONFUSION?
Date: 2000/04/23
Message-ID: <3903CAAA.68ECF389@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 614854655
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <8dueme$8ds$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <28963198.9d36d3e8@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
X-Accept-Language: en
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: news.uswest.net 956549744 63.225.166.210 (Sun, 23 Apr 2000
23:15:44 CDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2000 23:15:44 CDT
Newsgroups:
alt.religion.christian.baptist,alt.christnet.bible,alt.bible,alt.religion
..christian.calvary-chapel
Well, we can certainly do***ent the Old Testament just by going to the
Jews. The
orthodox have been the custodians of the Old Testament for well over
3,000
years.
We do***ent the New Testament by internal evidences, and by external
evidences.
Among the internal evidences for the New Testament are its referencse to
places,
dates, and people whom we can do***ent elsewhere. Events are described in
detail
that took place in such real places as Jerusalem, Bethlehem, Athens, and
Rome.
That is a tipoff to the real historicity of those events. Dates are given
in
reference to rulers whom we know existed, such as local governors, the
Caesars,
and at least one Pharoah. The external evidence at times matches the
internal
evidences, as described above. External evidence also includes the
commentaries
and histories left behind by the early church historians / apostles.
I think the non-believers and skeptics too often laugh when they should
be
studying. Too many, like Lobotomy (he calls himself Libertarius), only
read
stuff that sup****ts their own corrupt POV. Then they/he call themselves
"educated". Reading only that which sup****ts your own corrupt POV is not
education; it's brainwa****ng.
john weatherly
john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I don't think God is so much the author of confusion, as it is we,
> ourselves, and our many varied kinds of interpretation of scripture.
> Eric.
>
> * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com
The Internet's Discussion
Network *
> The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
From: John Weatherly <john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Subject: Re: another Easter question
Date: 2000/04/23
Message-ID: <3903CFC7.DCE19029@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
X-Deja-AN: 614859689
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <FreeSpeech-2304002056080001@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
X-Accept-Language: en
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: news.uswest.net 956551053 63.225.166.210 (Sun, 23 Apr 2000
23:37:33 CDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2000 23:37:33 CDT
Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.baptist
Actually, we DO have 1st century do***ents that verify/authenticate the
texts/Bibles we currently have. Every translation of the Bible we have
since
the New International Version has been derived from the 1st century
do***ents
unearthed at Qumran (Dead Sea Scrolls).
So while your theory is interesting, it isn't factual. And we Christians
aren't nearly as mindless, as sheepy, or as unread as you might wish to
believe. If you don't wish to believe in Christ/Christianity/the Bible,
you
may certainly not believe, and I will not cry for you. However, don't
believe
for a moment that you are somehow on some intellectual high ground. You
aren't.
john weatherly
john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Since crucifixion was the punishment for sedition, it is highly
unlikely
> the two others crucfied with Jesus were thieves.
>
Don't believe, but don't re-write the Bible to suit yourself. Instead,
you
might want to check the Pe****a translation, the first century Bible,
which
most pseudo-scholar/skeptics don'teven know about. Lobotomy has laughed
at it,
but his scholar****p is dubious, since he is a hard-core skeptic, and
quite
possibly demon-possessed. It is doubtful that Lobotomy is open enough to
give
any serious consideration to pro-Bible scholar****p. I have confronted him
on
that issue before, and he lamely claims "there isn't any". Well, I
personally
have known roughly a dozen Bible scholars in my lifetime who read the
Hebrew,
Greek, and Aramic ****tions of the Bible fluently. One of my professors in
seminary was Dr. Butrus Abdul-Malik, an Egyptian Christian member of one
of
the original 7 churches (the churches the Epistles were written to), and
he
read a unique Bible he invented, which consisted of a Hebrew Old
Testament
bound to a Greek New Testament. He didn't bother with a translation. And
I've
known several scholars who were involved in the translation of the
ancient
(1st century) manuscripts into the modern translations we use today.
>
> It is far more likely they were Zealots or Nazarenes - members of the
> revolutionary groups that sought to liberate Judea from Roman
occupation.
What makes you think either one was a Jew? But perhaps. Just as likely,
they
were non-believing gentiles.
>
>
> Jesus's execution was not an end in itself but rather part of a pattern
of
> crucifying Zealots and especially their leaders in order to terrorise
the
> Jewish population into submission.
It was both. He was put to death in the Roman manner because the Romans
and
the Jews were tired of Him, and the op****tunity arose to get rid of Him.
He
was also put to death in the Roman manner to discourage others from doing
what
He was doing.
>
> Jesus a few days earlier entered Jerusalem riding an ass, in the manner
of
> entry expected of the liberating Messiah - a fact that could hardly
have
> been lost on the crowds filling Jerusalem for the festival of Passover.
Correct. See? We *can* agree, when you don't re-write.
>
>
> He also launched a raid on the temple mount. Furthermore he was a
friend
> of individual zealots
I don't know where you got that. Actually, the Bible records two
occasions
when He invaded the Temple. They're known in Christianity as "Cleansing
the
Temple" and many don't realize that He did that twice. He began His
minstry by
cleansing the temple, and He did it again towards the end of His
ministry.
>
>
> Jesus, who clearly was claimed to be of the line of King David, was
> executed as the "King of The Jews"
Correct. This was one of the titles that was painted on the board above
his
head.
>
>
> The later written accounts have been adjusted from the original events
to
> alter the interpretation and impact of these events and this was done
> during the time of Paul of Tarsus.
There is no do***entation for this statement whatever. Please quote
sources.
We have sources that indicate the historicity of the Bible.
>
>
> Paul sought to embrace these events with his synthesis of paganism and
> gnosticism that came to be regarded as the "true" account and
> interpretation. Paulism became modern Christianity.
In fact, all through his epistles, Paul refutes both paganism and
gnosticism.
He continually reiterates Christ's preaching, and he even went to Athens
to
debate the philosophers of his day, refuting paganism and gnosticism in
the
presence of Socrates, apparently.
>
>
> But who really was the man that the Romans killed?
The Romans executed Jesus. We know that as historical fact, both from the
Christian sources, and from the non-Christian, such as Josephus (tho I am
not
certain that Josephus himself referred to the crucifixion; I believe he
did)
>
>
> And why aren't we allowed to recognise him as who he truly was instead
as
> remembering him as part of a superstitious fantasy?
We Christians aren't the fanciful ones. We have do***entation for our
faith.
The history of Christianity, all the way back to the 1st century, when
Christ
founded His church in Jerusalem, is do***ented by His followers. In fact,
the
life/death/resurrection of Christ is one of the most do***ented events in
the
last 2,000 years. Before you argue this point, compare the do***entation
of
*any* other ancient event with this one.
john weatherly
john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> Lest we Forget Jesus of Nazareth
From: John Weatherly <john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Subject: Re: IS GOD THE AUTHOR OF CONFUSION?
Date: 2000/04/23
Message-ID: <3903C8AE.A8C7D8A2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 614852665
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <8dueme$8ds$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <8duglb$ad5$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
<3902F72F.828266AD@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <39039623.4BD9EFE2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
X-Accept-Language: en
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: news.uswest.net 956549236 63.225.166.210 (Sun, 23 Apr 2000
23:07:16 CDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2000 23:07:16 CDT
Newsgroups:
alt.christnet.bible,alt.bible,alt.religion.christian.baptist,alt.religion
..christian.calvary-
chapel,talk.religion.misc,alt.bible.prophecy,alt.christnet
Ah! Hi, there, Lobotomy!
We don't know who wrote Acts, and I don't engage in such speculations as
why
Acts appears to contradict itself or other passages. I know others who
would
probably be very good at that task, but I admit that I am not one of
them.
However, we certainly have other books we *can* trust, such as the
epistles
and the gospels. And there are cetainly histories and commentaries that
we can
refer to which back up the entire Bible. I can't comment more
specifically on
that since I no longer have my library.
That one is not able to give exact quotes or "name names" doesn't mean
we're
making things up, Lobotomy!
And I ask again, if you hate Christianity and the Bible so much, why do
you
waste time in here? I'll tell you why. Because your father, Satan, pushes
you
into trying to cause strife. Surely, you could find something more
productive
to do than attack Christians.
john weatherly
john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Doug wrote:
> >
> > d.pet...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> >
> > > It is thought by some that Acts is a fictionalised account of the
> > > spread of Christianity, possibly written by Papias of Hierapolis
about
> > > 140 ad. There are no surviving biblical texts before 145 ad (a
small
> > > fragment of the Gospel of John).
> >
> > The Gospels and Epistles are freely quoted by the apostolic fathers
from
> > 90 AD on.
>
> ===>NAME those "apostolic fathers", if you can. Or
> admit you are just making things
> up.
>
> Libertarius
From: John Weatherly <john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Subject: Re: evidence that sup****ts King Solomon ?
Date: 2000/04/22
Message-ID: <39019284.37672CB@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 614275264
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <39010b11.7004420@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
X-Accept-Language: en
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: news.uswest.net 956404293 63.225.165.251 (Sat, 22 Apr 2000
06:51:33 CDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 06:51:33 CDT
Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.biblestudy
Check at
1. your local Christian bookstore
you will find numerous non-Biblical sources at the local Christian
bookstore, presuming it's a good one.
2. your local non-Roman seminary
all you'll get from the local Roman seminary is the Roman slant, which
is very tainted with "we are the only church" dung.
3. Amazon.com
having worked there, they pride themselves on a policy of "if it
exists, we'll find it."
NOTE: that is not an endoresement of any kind for Amazon.com. What
they
re good at is books. What they are not so good at is people.
john
john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Hi. I'm doing a paper for a college history course. Is there
> non-Biblical evidence that sup****ts the existence of King Solomon.
> Since this is a history course (composed of Jews, Christians, and
> Muslims, etc.) I cannot just accept the Biblical account on faith with
> regards to this paper.
>
> Are there historical re****ts of Solomon's Temple? Archeological
> evidence? Recommended sources? Thanks.
>
> Tim
From: John Weatherly <john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Subject: Re: 13th deciple?
Date: 2000/04/22
Message-ID: <390198FD.CF471A7F@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 614281746
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <_c8M4.8061$4W3.107412@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
X-Accept-Language: en
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: news.uswest.net 956405951 63.225.165.251 (Sat, 22 Apr 2000
07:19:11 CDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 07:19:11 CDT
Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.calvary-chapel
Ummmmm... I thought Benny was the reinacrnation of Jesus.
(just kidding) Actually, Benny claims to be a reincarnation of another
charismatic phony by the name of Kathryn Kuhlman.
john weatherly
john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Is Benny Hinn the 13th deciple?
From: John Weatherly <john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Subject: Re: Jesus died on Wednesday
Date: 2000/04/22
Message-ID: <390194F5.E43ECF3F@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 614277646
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <D9AEF7248A2B0CDA.D422BAFFD1A8AACD.84D601E010109101
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
X-Accept-Language: en
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: news.uswest.net 956404919 63.225.165.251 (Sat, 22 Apr 2000
07:01:59 CDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 07:01:59 CDT
Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.baptist
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
That "stuff" below gave me quite a giggle.
You would re-write the Bible.
I predict that God will erase your name from the Book of Life!
john weatherly
john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Just a few thoughts for your creative juices...
>
> Jesus was crucified on Wednesday. He was in the ground 72 hours. The
> empty tomb was discovered in the Sunday morning darkness, before
> sunrise.
>
> There was a special day that week...Thursday, a "high day."
>
> John 19:31 The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that
> the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for
> that sabbath day was an high day) besought Pilate that their legs
> might be broken, and that they might be taken away.
>
> The sabbath day spoken about here was Thursday of that week, not the
> regular Saturday sabbath. There were two sabbaths that week.
>
> He was in the ground 3 days and 3 nights, seventy-two hours, from
> Thursday evening to Saturday evening.
>
> Matt 12:40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's
> belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the
> heart of the earth.
>
> He left the tomb on Saturday evening. The empty tomb was discovered
> BEFORE the sun arose on Sunday.
>
> John 20:1 The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when
> it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away
> from the sepulchre.
>
> The tomb was ALREADY empty.
>
> Matt 26:61 And said, This fellow said, I am able to destroy the temple
> of God, and to build it in three days.
>
> Matt 27:63 Saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he
> was yet alive, After three days I will rise again.
>
> Mark 8:31 And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer
> many things, and be rejected of the elders, and of the chief priests,
> and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.
>
> John 2:19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and
> in three days I will raise it up.
>
> The idea of "good Friday" and "Maundy Thursday" are more based in
> tradition than scripture.
>
> D*
From: John Weatherly <john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Subject: Re: Sultan of Spam Returns (was Re: NewChristianArtist)
Date: 2000/04/22
Message-ID: <39019882.DDE50A4@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 614280645
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <20000417204402.27073.00002181@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
<3900EE7E.8B1E7A12@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <390100b0.30686617@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
X-Accept-Language: en
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: news.uswest.net 956405830 63.225.165.251 (Sat, 22 Apr 2000
07:17:10 CDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 07:17:10 CDT
Newsgroups: rec.music.christian,alt.religion.christian.calvary-
chapel,alt.fan.bob-larson
I am sorry to see that someone in this news nroup who professes that he
is a
Christian would openly state that he likes John Denver. I attended a
John Denver
concert when I lived in California. He set a long poem to music. The poem
was
basically a very long explanation of all the problems he had with
Christianity.
The jist was, "Some come to God via Jesus, others come to God some other
way. And
the Christians should not tell us that we have to come to God through
Jesus.
That's a turnoff!"
McGovern wrote:
> And what makes it "inspirational?" Are people actually inspired by it,
> or is it just a product slepped w/ the "inspirational" label so
> teary-eyed charismatics will send in their credit card numbers?
>
> BTW - say what you will, I like John Denver. :)
>
> On Fri, 21 Apr 2000 18:12:47 -0600, Range...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>
> >Raric wrote:
> >
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> I'm new tothis group, and was advised by a producer for
crosswalk.com to
> >> post some info about my new CDs and where you can take a listen to
my
> >> inspirational songs.
> >
> <snip>
> >
> >> A little John Denver is thrown in there too.
> >
> > No comment necessary. :P
From: John Weatherly <john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Subject: Re: Memorial of Jesus death
Date: 2000/04/22
Message-ID: <39019E4F.29263585@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 614284389
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <14889-38F9F738-17@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
X-Accept-Language: en
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: news.uswest.net 956407317 63.225.165.251 (Sat, 22 Apr 2000
07:41:57 CDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 07:41:57 CDT
Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.episcopal
Why do you phonies come into a Christian news group?
Repent and be saved!
John 3:16, which you quote, says that "Whosoever believes on Him (the
Son,
not the watchtower socieity) shall not perish but shall have eternal
life."
john weatherly
john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
J wrote:
> Jehovah's Witnesses warmly invite you to
> remember with them God's gift of his Son,
> Jesus Christ. This gift opened up the prospect
> of enjoying everlasting life on earth(Jn 3:16)
>
> This year the Memorial of Jesus' death will be
> observed after sundown on Wednesday, April
> 19. That date corresponds to Nisan 14 on the
> Bible's lunar calendar. Please check with
> Jehovah's Witnesses locally for the exact
> meeting place and time.
>
> "Upon the WATCHTOWER, O Jehovah, I am standing constantly by day, and
my
> guardpost I am stationed all the nights..." Isa 21:8
>
> http://community.webtv.net/OnTheWatchtower/Previewthelatest
From: John Weatherly <john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Subject: Re: What Christian Doctrine Looks Like!
Date: 2000/04/22
Message-ID: <390195CC.17DCF8BA@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 614279291
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <NsDL4.3330$i84.15653@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
<20000420111207.18690.00002117@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <200420001214291050%
adamsfmmac@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <39006ac6@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <8drjtn$6dg$1
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
X-Accept-Language: en
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: news.uswest.net 956405135 63.225.165.251 (Sat, 22 Apr 2000
07:05:35 CDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 07:05:35 CDT
Newsgroups:
alt.christnet,alt.religion.christian.baptist,alt.religion.christian.metho
dist,alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic
The meaning of "born of water" is not clear from the text you site. "Born
of
water" could just as easily refer to our human birty, since the "water"
that
breaks does resemble water.
john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
's Disciple wrote:
> aml <durw...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:39006ac6@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >. It's amazing that you
> > question Dave being a Methodist, I've been wondering if you were even
> > Christian, muchless Methodist.
>
> They aren't. Just Hypocrites and profound Heretics.
>
> They aren't even baptised into Christ's saving name.
>
> They are not "buried with him in baptism" Col 2:12 (KJV)
> or "Born of water" [baptism by immersion] So such as Jesus states
"cannot
> enter the kingdom of God"John 3:5 (KJV)
>
> Just a completely useless 'tinkle of a sprinkle' when unbelieving tiny
babes
> in arms.
>
> The rest of their blatant heretical stance on a refusal to accept the
Lord's
> command on a women's "Silence in the church" is obvious to all.
>
> "God is not a God of confusion but a God of peace.
> As is true in all the churches of God's people, women should keep
quiet
> ["Keep silence". AV.] in the church meetings. They are not allowed to
speak,
> but they must YIELD to this rule as the LAW says.
> If they want to learn something, they should ask their own husbands at
home.
> It is SHAMEFUL for a woman to speak in the church meeting."
> [SPEAK: Strong's Greek No. 2980
> Greek word: laleo {lal-eh'-o}
> Part of Speech: v
> Vine's Word(s): Say, Speak, Talk, Tell, Utter
> Usage Notes:
> KJV - speak 244
> - say 15
> - tell 12
> - talk 11
> - PREACH 6
> - utter 4
> - misc 3
> - vr speak 1 [Total Count: 296]
> 1) to utter a voice or emit a sound
> 2) to speak
> 2a) to use the tongue or the faculty of speech
> 2b) to utter articulate sounds
> 3) to talk
> 4) to utter, tell
> 5) **To use words in order to declare one's mind and disclose one's
thoughts
> 5a) to speak]
>
> "Did God's teaching come from you? Or are you the only ones to whom it
has
> come?
> 37 Those who think they are prophets or spiritual persons should
understand
> that what I am writing to you is the Lord's command.
> 38 Those who ignore this will be ignored by God." 1 Cor 14:33-38 (NCV)
>
> Now they compound their arragant denial of God and his Word by making
such
> "silly women laden with sins" forbidden to SPEAK or **PREACH by
command, as
> 'Bishops' when the Scripture shows only men could qualify for
authority and
> service in the overseeing of the flock of God.
>
> "This is a true saying, If a MAN desire the office of a bishop, HE
desireth
> a good work.
> 2 A BISHOP then must be blameless, the HUSBAND one WIFE, vigilant,
sober, of
> good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
> 3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but
patient,
> not a brawler, not covetous;
> 4 One that ruleth well HIS OWN HOUSE, having HIS children in subjection
with
> all gravity;
> 5 For if a MAN" [not Women] "know not how to rule HIS OWN house, how
shall
> HE take care
> of the church of God?
> 6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride HE fall into the
> condemnation of the devil.
> 7 Moreover HE must have a good re****t of them which are without; lest
he
> fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
>
> 8 Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to
much
> wine, not greedy of filthy lucre;
> 9 Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience.
> 10 And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of
a
> DEACON, being found blameless.
> 11 Even so must THEIR WIVES" [Not Their HUBANDS ] be grave, not
> slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.
> 12 LET THE DEACONS be the HUSBANDS OF ONE WIFE, ruling their children
and
> their own houses well.
> 13 For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to
> themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in
Christ
> Jesus. 1 Tim 3:1-13 (KJV)
>
> This brings them in contention with God's Word again. For the
Methodists
> have decided they know better then the truly spiritual gifted
Apostles.?
>
> Just more of their conceited blatant heretical arrogance.
>
> Now Homo'Sodomite "Fornicators" who "cannot enter the kingdom of God"
are
> re****ted as being ordained. What wonderful "fruits" they show as their
> "Blind lead the blind" in their predicable 'den of iniquity'
denomination.
>
> The mind boggles at their Laodicean complacency.
>
> Yet are such willing to humbly accept their unscriptual stance and
their
> corruption of the faith in both 'Doctrine & Practise' and repent and
"Do the
> first works" of the 1st Century churches....?
>
> Let's ask them?
>
> Sincerely Jeff...
> Christ's Disciple
> "He that covereth his sins shall not prosper: but whoso confesseth and
> forsaketh them shall have mercy." Prov 28:13 (KJV)
From: John Weatherly <john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Subject: Re: The Sabbath is so beautiful
Date: 2000/04/22
Message-ID: <3901A0D4.729D34EC@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 614287653
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <8dqudc$k6j$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <390150FB.321EA3F2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
X-Accept-Language: en
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: news.uswest.net 956407963 63.225.165.251 (Sat, 22 Apr 2000
07:52:43 CDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 07:52:43 CDT
Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.adventist
These notes are a true testimony to the truth of the old saying, "You
will see
what you want to see."
john weatherly
john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> I found something interresting I would like to share.
>
> It is easy to pick fault at why most Christians meet on Sunday. Most
every
> SDA worth his weight in salt can do so. How
> about reversing the coin for just a few days and reading about the
Sabbath
> from the other side of the coin and seeing what others see when we keep
the
> Sabbath. Go to this Web site http://www.ask.com
and type in
"Sabbath"
> in the search line. Study everything you can find on the Sabbath for
> several days,
> but do not bother reading SDA material, because you already know what
you
> think now. After you
> read everything you can find from other points of view, maybe, just
maybe,
> you will see something for
> the first time -- That Jesus is the reality for the shadow of the
Sabbath.
> I detest the shadows, now
> that I can stand in the light of Jesus.
>
> P.S. Sunday is also just a shadow. Jesus is not a day -- He is
everyday.
>
> julie...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>
> > Happy Sabbath everybody. It is such a blessing to have this special
> > day set aside each week to rest from all our work and to spend
quality
> > time with our Father in Heaven and our brothers and sisters in
Christ.
> >
> > No matter what is on the agenda, God has made sure that we are to
leave
> > it there this day. We can leave all the cares of the world behind
and
> > simply rest physically and spiritually. The blessed Sabbath Day is
the
> > only day we can do both these things completely. Refresh yourselves
in
> > the Lord this Day my brothers and sisters.
> >
> > The Sabbath is so beautiful.
> >
> > May God Bless you all.
> >
> > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > Before you buy.
From: John Weatherly <john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Subject: Re: It's KJV-Only time !
Date: 2000/04/22
Message-ID: <3901937D.7EDC2C6D@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 614276668
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <39015A29.105110CD@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
X-Accept-Language: en
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: news.uswest.net 956404543 63.225.165.251 (Sat, 22 Apr 2000
06:55:43 CDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 06:55:43 CDT
Newsgroups:
alt.christnet.calvinist,alt.religion.christian.presbyterian,alt.bible,alt
..christnet.bible,alt.religion.christian.biblestudy
Usually, KJV adherents are non-educated, non-thinkers who follow
"charismatic" "leader****p" who are also non-educated, non-thinkers.
I actually had a charismatic "brother" many years ago who actually said
to me, "Of course, I read the KJV. If it was good enough for Peter and
Paul, it's good enough for me!"
john weatherly
The DataRat wrote:
> Well, The DataRat guess it's about
> time to revisit the KJV-Only controversy.
>
> KJV-Only loonies naively believe that
> the King James Version of the Bible is
> direct revelation from God, Himself.
>
> More moderate KJV-Only proponents
> hold that it's the most perfect translation
> of Scripture. And, that any variation
> from the King James text is de facto
> proof of error.
>
> BOTH views are wrong !
>
> ( More to follow )
>
> The DataRat
From: John Weatherly <john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Subject: Re: Joseph of Nazareth
Date: 2000/04/22
Message-ID: <3901917E.DECD4109@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 614275904
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <3900F887.1AAB9ED4@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
X-Accept-Language: en
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: news.uswest.net 956404032 63.225.165.251 (Sat, 22 Apr 2000
06:47:12 CDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 06:47:12 CDT
Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.biblestudy
This question has been discussed in church and seminary since I was a
child. Since the Bible doesn't tell us what happened to Joseph, we can
assume several things. First of all, I believe it is pretty clear that
every word of scripture is im****tant. If Joseph's whereabouts is not
clear, we can perhaps assume that his whereabouts weren't / aren't
im****tant to the substance of the Gospel. Perhaps Joseph died before
Jesus
began His ministry. We do know that he was considerably older than Mary.
john weatherly
john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Anderson wrote:
> Whatever happened to Joseph of Nazareth?
>
> He just seems to disappear.... surely he didn't abandon his family!!!!
From: John Weatherly <john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Subject: Re: The Roman Church is the Beast
Date: 2000/04/22
Message-ID: <39019561.4619B078@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 614278813
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <38f03b9f.1367687442@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <BgeJ4.7619$IT6.33591
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <38f59e33.56033980@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
<8d5vjm0hor@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <8d7ptc$vns$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <delagee-
4CC6BA.21365414042000@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <8dapl101uge@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
<838ifskr97n2lt7dhvbqstecbk3k9p2454@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <38FAD023.DBC6BFC3
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <ZKMK4.5595$qF4.535546@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
<bkppfs0phuon27vo8vg0pok0hpiavlh0on@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
<Pine.LNX.4.21.0004181646570.19538-100000@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
<38fd83f6.4550701@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <Pine.LNX.4.21.0004210945550.18603-
100000@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <39013d76.3851450@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
X-Accept-Language: en
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: news.uswest.net 956405028 63.225.165.251 (Sat, 22 Apr 2000
07:03:48 CDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 07:03:48 CDT
Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.roman-
catholic,alt.bible.prophecy,alt.religion.christian.last-
days,alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic,alt.religion.christian.east-
orthodox,alt.christnet.theology,alt.religion.christian.presbyterian,alt.c
hristnet.christianlife,alt.bible,alt.religion.christian.baptist
Ephesians 2:20 says quite clearly that Jesus is the cornerstone of His
church. Peter
isn't mentioned.
john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Townsend wrote:
> On 21 Apr 2000, "Theodore M. Seeber" wrote:
>
> Matthew 16:18
> >"And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock
> >I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail
against it.
>
> Michael Townsend :
> >In saying this, Jesus Christ was not referring in any way to the
superstitious
> >ungodly "roman-catholic" organisation.
>
> Ted Seeber :
> >Why not? Were you there? Did you read Christ's mind?
>
> We genuine Christians Can and Do and Have read the Mind of Christ, and
also the Mind
> of GOD the Father, and the Mind of the Spirit of GOD, and the minds of
all of
> Christ's inspired apostles, and the minds all of GOD's inspired
prophets.
> And these HolyThree and their inspired infalible apostles are unanimous
in the
> specific parameters and requirements for Christ's one true Church.
>
> The "roman-catholic"cult fails in many respects to comply with the
parameters and
> requirements for Christ's one true Church. Hence my original
statement.
>
> Tom Goodman :
> >Jesus didn't say to Peter, "You're the only ruler of this Church".
>
> Michael Townsend :
> >True. The Bible teaches that Christ is the Head of His Church.
> >[ for GOD's proof, refer to Ephesians 1 : 22 & 4 : 15, and Colossians
1 : 18 ]
>
> Ted Seeber :
> >That's Paul, not God. Paul is not a part of my trinity.
>
> It's interesting to see you publicly insist that apostle****p and
apostolicity have no
> authority in the Church.
> Thank you for confirming that the "roman-catholic" cult no longer
attaches any
> significance or im****tance to its former boasts to be "apostolic".
> It has of course been obvious for many centuries that "roman-
catholicism"'s claim to
> be "apostolic" was as fraudulent as its claim to be "holy".
>
> Ted Seeber :
> >That's Paul, not God.
>
> So you're telling us that for you, the entire New Testament is
redundant except for
> the words of Jesus.
> And using your pathetic "reasoning", all of the Old Testanent is also
redundant for
> you except for the words of GOD in Person.
>
> By this, you're implying that they who decided the canon of the Old and
New Testament
> Scriptures were misguided block-heads because they were deprived of
your "superior
> discernment" as to what is and is not authoritative in the Bible.
>
> Since in your considered view the teachings of GOD's prophets and
Christ's apostles
> are irrelevant, redundant and superfluous, your religious meetings
reduced in
> duration by deleting all readings of the New Testament epistles and
most of the
> readings from the Old Testament.
>
> You should also request the "pope" and his Vatican officially rescind
the "papal
> encyclical of Pius XII "Divino Afflante Spiritu" because now that
you've chopped
> almost all of the Bible, there's little point in urging the "roman-
catholic" serfs
> a.k.a. "laity" to waste their valuable time on what is to you a useless
artefact.
>
> Ted Seeber :
> >Sure looks like he said exactly that to me. What word didn't you
understand?
>
> Michael Townsend :
> >Your ignorance of GOD's Scriptures is sad to see.
>
> Ted Seeber :
> >And your lack of intelligence makes the rest of this letter not worth
replying to.
>
> Oh ?
> If you want to see an imbecile, look in your bathroom mirror, because
anyone who
> considers the Bible to be mostly redundant is either a Moron or has a
negative IQ.
> You decide which of these applies to you, the incomparable Monsignor
Ted Seeber.
>
> >On this day, the Feast of St. Circularius;
> >the patron saint of lost bicycles and motor scooters.
From: John Weatherly <john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Subject: Re: Eating meat.
Date: 2000/04/21
Message-ID: <3900F804.311E730@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 614154189
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <1388ac9c.2b010e12@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
X-Accept-Language: en
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: news.uswest.net 956364736 63.225.165.131 (Fri, 21 Apr 2000
19:52:16 CDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 19:52:16 CDT
Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.biblestudy
We don't see meat forbidden in the early Old Testament. We don't see it
mentioned that Adam/Eve were supposed to or not supposed to eat meat. I
have
always believed that since they were given the earth and its fruits to
subdue
and use, that includes meat. However, by the time the Levitical laws
appear,
they are told what animals they are permitted to eat, and which to avoid.
Also,
you are incorrect that "all meat contains blood". The prohibition of
"eating
blood" meant that the Israelis were supposed to kill the meat they were
going to
eat and then bleed it according to prescribed rituals and for specified
lenghts
of time. This bleeding or draining out of the animal's blood left the
animal
"bloodless" and fit for Israeli consumption. Many wondered why the
Israelis were
prohibited from blood until modern science discovered how many diseases
that are
fatal to humans are carried in blood. AIDS is one example. Syphilis is
another
one.
It was acceptable to eat properly bled meat by Leviticus. The Israelis
were
commanded to eat meat when Noah and his descendants came off the ark.
john
john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> I was told recently that in the early bible, everyone was vegetarian.
> It was strictly forbidden to eat blood which would make you vegetarian
> since all meat contains blood. My questions are: Was there a time in
> the bible that it was forbidden to eat blood or meat? and If this is
> true, when did it become acceptable to eat meat?
>
> Thanks for your help.
>
> CMT
>
> * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com
The Internet's Discussion
Network *
> The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
From: John Weatherly <john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Subject: Re: Why I left the UPC
Date: 2000/04/21
Message-ID: <3900742A.DFEC1C29@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 613986093
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <38f2513b_5@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <38F892AB.5D1D917@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
<38fca40f@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <38fca686.13064830@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <38fccad9.1723713@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
<38fecb68.22508279@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
X-Accept-Language: en
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: news.uswest.net 956331014 207.224.252.79 (Fri, 21 Apr 2000
10:30:14 CDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 10:30:14 CDT
Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.pentecostal
1. Galatians tells us to correct those we find in scriptural error.
2. This post really cracks me up, since the one by Huldah just above this
one
states that many/most pentecostals/charismatics *do* believe in the
trinity.
john
Mark Bassett wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Apr 2000 20:53:24 GMT, hul...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Huldah) wrote:
>
> >>>I am wondering why you are trying to "Save" we apostolics. If you
think we
> >>>are wrong, then leave us be, quit trying to "convert" us. I don't
> >>>understand why you would come and try to stir up trouble in a
pentecostal
> >>>post anyways.
> >
> >Given that the overwhelming majority of Pentecostals believe in the
> >triune God of the Bible, what are *you* doing stirring up trouble in a
> >trinitarian newsgroup?
>
> Most Christians, according to every evaluation that I have ever seen,
regard
> the doctrine of the Trinity as an intellectual difficulty that they are
> supposed to accept according to their church, but believe that Jesus is
God
> Almighty, somehow, visiting mankind with His deity, and paying the
price of
> redemption with his own blood.
>
> Christianity is, by nature, Apostolic and Monotheistic AS OPPOSED TO
being
> "Trinitarian".
>
> The fact that your silly traditions have lived as long as they have
simply
> speaks of a tradition of forcing theological views on those who cannot
speak
> for themselves. Roman Catholicism, and later the state religions of
both
> Germany and England were both very good at that, being equipped with
the
> power of the sword and subpoena to eliminate all contest.
>
> -mwb
From: John Weatherly <john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Subject: Re: Why I left the UPC
Date: 2000/04/21
Message-ID: <39007587.306B877F@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 613987728
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <38f2513b_5@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <38F892AB.5D1D917@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
<38fca40f@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <38fca686.13064830@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <38fccad9.1723713@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <2qmL4.3075
$aG.59212@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
X-Accept-Language: en
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: news.uswest.net 956331364 207.224.252.79 (Fri, 21 Apr 2000
10:36:04 CDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 10:36:04 CDT
Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.pentecostal
Well, hehehehehehehehe!
We are now in a debate over whether this is a oneness non-trinitarian
news group, or
whether it's actually a trinitarian news group. Someone suggested that
"we count heads".
That is ridiculous. This is a public forum. I have tried multiple times
to figure out who
is/are the majority in any news group. The truth is, the title of the
news group is more
an indication of what is being discussed within the group than of the
viewpoints of its
contributors.
And I have seen both trinitarians declaring themselves (us) to be the
majority in here,
and the Oneness (anti-trinitarian) folks claiming the same majority.
Frankly, I think that's kinda sad. Both believe they are the correct POV.
And at least
some in both groups condemn the others as "heretics".
john
Raymond wrote:
> "Huldah" <hul...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:38fccad9.1723713@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > On Tue, 18 Apr 2000 18:29:40 GMT, mbas...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Mark
Bassett)
> > wrote:
> >
> > >>I am wondering why you are trying to "Save" we apostolics. If you
think we
> > >>are wrong, then leave us be, quit trying to "convert" us. I don't
> > >>understand why you would come and try to stir up trouble in a
pentecostal
> > >>post anyways.
> >
> > Given that the overwhelming majority of Pentecostals believe in the
> > triune God of the Bible, what are *you* doing stirring up trouble in
a
> > trinitarian newsgroup?
> >
> The problem is here in the NG you got more ONENESS then Trinitarians so
why do "you"
> stirring up trouble in a Oneness newsgroup? Check it out how many
here are for and
> how many against. Then since this is the Oneness/Trinitarian
newsgroup, everyone can
> stir up trouble, you do believe that, or at least you write like it.
>
> In the love of Jesus,
> Raymond
>
> ---
> > Huldah
> >
> > For the Bible truth about 'Oneness' Pentecostalism, see:
> > http://sites.netscape.net/trisagionseraph/homepage
From: John Weatherly <john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Subject: Re: The Bible is NOT God's word
Date: 2000/04/21
Message-ID: <3900F54E.81CAAA25@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 614152059
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <8dpjp2$6n3$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
X-Accept-Language: en
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: news.uswest.net 956364043 63.225.165.131 (Fri, 21 Apr 2000
19:40:43 CDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 19:40:43 CDT
Newsgroups:
alt.religion.christian.biblestudy,alt.religion.christian.presbyterian,alt
..christnet.calvinist
I congratulate you on finding errors in the Bible. Now, I have a question
for you. In all the time yu spent looking for errors, did you find any
truths?
The overall message of Christianity/the Bible is salvation for fallen
man.
You have certainly showed us your fallen nature with this post. Have you
discovred the loving, Holy God who took human form to die in your place
to
provide you salavtion?
In His love,
john
john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> It has been argued by theists that the Bible, as it stands, is the
> perfect and holy work of god. I hereby present my refutation of that
> statement.
>
> premise 1:
> 1) God is perfect
>
> Any "GOD" must be perfect if is he/she/it is to be all powerful. Having
> a flaw makes the being imperfect, thus a "god" is, by definition,
> perfect.
>
> premise 2:
> 2) A creation of God is perfect
>
> Anything created by a perfect being must, by definition, also be
> perfect. A perfect creator cannot put flaws into the design unless it
is
> on purpose. To create a holy work with intentional flaws is ridiculous
> to even consider the reasons for, so is presented as sub-premise 2:
>
> sub premises of 2:
> 2a) A perfect God would not intentionally create a flawed work to be
his
> "holy
> word".
> 2b) The Bible is the Christian "Holy Work" of God.
>
> premise 3:
> 3) There are errors in the Bible.
>
> noted errors (simple to find and collect)
> 1) David took -seven hundred- (2 Sam. 8:4)
> vs -seven thousand- (1 Chron. 18:4) horsemen from Hadadezer
> 2) Ahaziah was -22- (2 Kings 8:26),
> vs -42- (2 Chron. 22:2) years old when he began to reign
> 3) Jehoiachin was -18- (2 Kings 24:8)
> vs -8- (2 Chron. 36:9) years old when he began to reign
> 4) Jehoiachin reigned -3- months- (2 Kings 24:8)
> vs -3 months and 10 days- (2 Chron. 36:9);
> 5) There were in Israel -8000,000- (2 Sam. 24:9)
> vs -1,1000,000- (1 Chron. 21:5) men that drew the sword
> 6) There were -500,000- (2 Sam. 24:9)
> vs -470,000- (1 Chron. 21:5) men that drew the sword in Judah;
>
> According to premises 1, 2, and 3 the Bible is not perfect, and thus is
> not the direct work of God.
>
> Common Defenses
> 1) The numbers are translator errors or poor math on the part of the
> writers.
>
> -It makes no difference. If God created the Bible to be perfect and his
> true word, then he would have guided the hand of the translator to
> insure that his word remained true. The fact that there are errors, man
> made errors, sup****ts my claim.
>
> 2) The numbers are estimations, and different people make different
> estimations.
>
> -Again, it makes no difference. If God created the Bible, then he
should
> have been the one estimating. Besides, why would GOD need to estimate??
> God should KNOW how many men there were, or what year it was, or how
old
> someone was, since he/she/it is GOD. The fact that humans made the
> errors and wrote them into the Bible sup****ts my claim.
>
> 3) If 3 people witness a car crash, they will give three inaccurate
> statements, but they will be describing the same crash.
>
> -Again, you are inserting the flaws of man into the Bible. IF it is the
> work of GOD, then it must be inerrant. It cannot contain ANY flaws, or
> it is written by man and not by GOD, inspiration from God or not.
> Besides, 700 vs 7000 (error 1) is NOT possible under this defense. If
> you cannot distinguise 700 people from 7000, you need some other job
> besides Biblical Author.
>
> Assertions.
> ============
> Since the Bible is not perfect, it is therefore not the direct work of
a
> God.
>
> This leaves two options:
>
> 1) God dictated the Bible to his followers, who then put the errors in
> during transcription.
>
> 2) The Bible is solely the work of man, without divine intervention.
>
> Option 1 depends on heresay and conjecture. If Moses wrote the first 5
> books of the Old Testament, then we are relying on his inspiration from
> God, or (since the works are in the 3rd person) more likely his words
> put down by other scribes based on oral tradition and myth. Thus, the
> "true" word of God is moved back not one step (from God to the Bible to
> me) but several steps (from God to Moses (or whomever) to scribes
> (unknown number) to translators to the Bible to me). This is of no use
> to me since 1) I've recieved no personal insight from a divine creator
> and 2) There exist other such works with equal value in terms of
> tradition and myth (ie: the Koran).
>
> Option 2 rejects God as the driving force behind the Bible altogether,
> although this option is often debated by theists as being false and
> blasphemous. However, since option 1 seems improbable at best, it then
> puts the question forward: What exactly WAS God's influence on the
> Bible?
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
From: John Weatherly <john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Subject: Re: Why I left the UPC
Date: 2000/04/21
Message-ID: <39007316.9F857707@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 613983609
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <38f2513b_5@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <38F892AB.5D1D917@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
<38fca40f@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
X-Accept-Language: en
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: news.uswest.net 956330740 207.224.252.79 (Fri, 21 Apr 2000
10:25:40 CDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 10:25:40 CDT
Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.pentecostal
I've been asked several times, why do you come in here and post points of
view
different than ours?
1. Look around, Joe, this is a public area, whether you like it or not.
2. Read Galatians, in which Paul tells us to correct those we find in
error.
"Leaving you alone in what I perceive as your scriptural error isn't an
option.
I am to correct yoiu in love. "Would Jesus do this?" YES! Jesus was
*constantly*
correcting the Pharisees and the Saducees.
john
"Joe A. Stephens" wrote:
> I am wondering why you are trying to "Save" we apostolics. If you
think we
> are wrong, then leave us be, quit trying to "convert" us. I don't
> understand why you would come and try to stir up trouble in a
pentecostal
> post anyways. You have to ask yourself....would Jesus do this? WE are
to
> be Christ like.... Blessed is the peace keeper..for he shall see GOD.
You
> are making an otherwise peaceful post, very unpeaceful.
>
> God Bless you anways,
>
> Bro. Joe Stephens
> jas...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> John Weatherly <john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:38F892AB.5D1D917@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Thank God!
> > There are some in here and some in the UPC who come to a REAL faith
in
> > Christ/God without all the totally unscriptural shenanigans of
> charismaticism.
> >
> > Yes, the event that took place at Pentecost WAS miraculous! But I
have yet
> to
> > talk to one single 'charismatic Christian" who truly gets the REAL
miracle
> that
> > happened at Pentecost. The charismatic understanding of the Pentecost
> miracle is
> > indeed shallow.
> >
> > I will pray that God continue to reveal Himself to you through His
Spirit!
> >
> > I have been a born-again believer for over 40 years now. And I, too,
was
> briefly
> > caught up in the charismatic madness.
> >
> > Let me know if you have any issues that you'd appreciate a long-time
Bible
> > student's POV on.
> >
> > In Christ,
> > john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > Michael wrote:
> >
> > > I became a Christian in March 1998 by deciding to turn from my own
> worldly
> > > ways and take Jesus Christ as my personal savior. I was baptized by
> > > immersion in Jesus' name.
> > >
> > >
> > > Of course I realized that this was not speaking in tongues as
described
> in
> > > the Bible, and in fact I had received the Holy Spirit when I first
> believed.
> > > I also had some serious doubts about other major UPC doctrine -
that of
> > > Oneness vs. Trinity, and legalistic doctrine such as holiness
standards.
> > >
> > > Then in September of 1999 I just couldn't see how I could continue
under
> the
> > > increasingly obvious doctrinal errors. I had a few meetings with
my
> pastor
> > > in which I made sure I wasn't missing something. Indeed, when
directly
> asked
> > > if he really thought it was true that unless one spoke in tongues
they
> weren
> > > 't saved, my pastor tried to dodge my question, but the visiting
revival
> > > preacher sure didn't - laying open the obvious lie. That was it for
me,
> and
> > > with the Lord's blessing I left.
> > >
> > > And what a glorious plan he had in store, for later that month I
found a
> > > wonderful new (Trinitarian evangelical) church. During my first
visit
> there
> > > I sat down next to a beautiful woman whom I have since married - it
was
> so
> > > obvious that the Lord meant for us to be together that it was
joyously
> > > laughable. To top it all off, He also sent me piles of money so
that she
> > > could stay at home and take care of the needs of our family. What a
> glorious
> > > and awesome God - what a plan He had and has for me!
> > >
> > > I thank and praise God daily for my deliverance from the false UPC
> > > teachings. What a mighty God we serve!
> > >
> > > - Michael
> >
> > Praise God!
> > john
> >
> >
From: John Weatherly <john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Subject: Re: Did Jesus die on a friday?
Date: 2000/04/21
Message-ID: <390054C5.DFBC8680@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 613948074
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <8dmc63$djl$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
X-Accept-Language: en
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: news.uswest.net 956322941 207.224.250.242 (Fri, 21 Apr 2000
08:15:41 CDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 08:15:41 CDT
Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.calvary-chapel
Have you ever heard of Passover? Have you ever heard of the Passover lamb
that is to be sacrificed?
Have you ever heard the corelation between the Passover lamb and the
Passover Lamb of God?
Had you heard that Jesus was the perfect lamb of God who/that was
sacrificed for the sin of all mankind?
Ask any Jew "What day is Passover?" You'll hear, "It's always on a
Friday."
john weatherly
john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cheong wrote:
> Please log into http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Troy/9519/friday.html
From: John Weatherly <john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Subject: Re: Is the ICoC in the Desert?
Date: 2000/04/21
Message-ID: <390023ED.B31F9208@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 613898969
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
References: <8de76u$l0k$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
X-Accept-Language: en
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
X-Trace: news.uswest.net 956310436 209.180.199.201 (Fri, 21 Apr 2000
04:47:16 CDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 04:47:16 CDT
Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.boston-church
My problem with the ICoC--and with works-oriented churches in general ( I
am not ICC, but I attended Pepperdine U.)--is that they ignore, or tend
to
ignore, God's Grace, without which we'd all be burning in hellfire.
1. the thief on the cross didn't have any op****tunity to "work out his
faith".
God saved him anyway. And I have heard ICC believers explain that God
gave the thief special grace. That doesn't allow us to sincerely come to
faith on death's row, as did Ted Bundy.
2. Paul told us that he had been the perfect Jew until he'd encountered
the
Perfect Christ. At that point, Paul then began to call himself the chief
of
sinners. If the greatest evangelist of the 1st Century was the chief of
sinners, where does that put us?
3. Jesus said He came, not to enslave us, but to set us free.
I believe that the ICC follows the Calvinist POV, which is "anything that
is not specifically stated as ok in scripture isn't"
Dr. Martin Luther, on the other hand, said "anything that is not
specifically stated as *not* ok in scripture is."
I believe the God of the Bible, and JEsus Christ, His incarnate Son, have
given us freedom, not slavery to a thousand laws.
For example, one could go to the market and pray over which brand of
toothpaste God wants us to buy. That is silly. God cares that we brush
our
teeth. He isn't concerned with which brand of toothpaste gets the job
done.
Another example that is a little more to the point. When I was preparing
for seminary, I had two choices of schools to attend. I prayed over that
decision for months; no answer came. I finally went to my pastor, who had
agreed to sponsor me. I told him I wasn't getting an answer on which
seminary to attend. He said that was an excellent example of the point
that
"God doesnt' care which school you attend. God is telling you that both
seminaries are good. God DOES give us choices, frequently!"
I'll leave you with a caution. The ICC is one of those churches that is
full of people who will happily make all kinds of choices for you if
you'll
let them. Don't let them. I've heard people say, "I prayed for months
about
whether I should go to church or not. I got no answer." Well, that means
that you don't pray over issues about which scripture is already crystal
clear. The Bible clearly says that we should find a church that
preaches/teaches as we believe is appropriate. We don't need to pray
about
that. We just need to be obedient.
In Christ,
john
john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I know that
> others have also discovered a lot more of the fullness of God’s grace
> after leaving the ICoC - I have read about that in this news group and
> also talked to people who have left.
>
> Could it be that due to the ICoC’s tendency to lean towards the
> works/human effort/striving in accompli****ng God’s commands and
> purposes, that they are stuck wandering in the desert? Or maybe for
> other reasons? Or maybe, I’m missing the boat with the analogy? I’m
> curious to get some feedback from both those in the ICoC and from
> believers who have left the ICoC.
>
> Thanks,
> dave. . .
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
From: John Weatherly <john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Subject: Re: QUESTION FOR TRINITARIANS
Date: 2000/04/21
Message-ID: <39005A78.F803788A@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 613951540
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <sIJI4.320$PV.10289@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
<20000411185516.22777.00000098@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <38f5d7be.26983186@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <2ASI4.4184$fV.353431@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <sf91hfdc4nk164@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <Cw3J4.999
$PV.56272@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <sfbkqkl7aln29
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <kslJ4.2183$PV.159637@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <sfc2bcfaln14@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
<38F9D8A6.291E78E5@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <sfri6uabeoc90@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
X-Accept-Language: en
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: news.uswest.net 956324402 207.224.250.242 (Fri, 21 Apr 2000
08:40:02 CDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 08:40:02 CDT
Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.pentecostal
This minutae is getting so absurd! How can Jesus be the Son of God and
not be
God the Son?
The two terms, if you understand them, are interchangeable. That means He
is
both. The Bible talks about the Son of God all the way through the Bible.
Every
time God takes visible form, as a man, whether Old Testament or New
Testament,
that "man" is the Son of God. John 1 and Colossians 1 and 2 tells us that
He
(Christ/the Son) is the image of the invisible God. John 1 says The Word
was
with God, and the Word was God, and He was in the beginning with God...
And the
Word became flesh. That can only mean that God took human form. His
followers
called Him many things. Rabbi, Lord, and the famous declaration of Peter:
You
are the Christ, the Son of the Living God, or Son of God. When Jesus
referred to
the same title with the Jews, referring to "my father', the text says
"the Jews
became very angry with Him, and even accused Him of blasphemy, because
He,
"being a man" had called God His Father, making Himself EQUAL TO GOD."
How could
He be *equal to God" without being God. Again, see Colossians 1 and 2.
Christ
Jesus was the total of Deity (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) in flesh. Any
other
interpretation, ("being the Son of God doen't make Him God the Son") is
quibbling.
john
Joy wrote:
> "John Weatherly" <john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:38F9D8A6.291E78E5@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > I have to ask here, why must we split hairs like this?
> > If God is omnipotent, and omniscient, and omnipresent, He can be
anywhere,
> and
> > everywhere at the same time. He can sit on His throne (Father/son)
and He
> can
> > indwell us who believe (the Holy Spirit). When we get bogged down in
> definitions
> > that can't possibly fit Him because He is, by nature, Infinite, and
we, by
> > nature, are finite, how can we hope to ever put Him in a box or under
a
> > microscope. This attempt to "understand" the nature of the tri-une
God is
> doomed
> > before we even begin. I certainly would not believe in a God I could
fully
> > understand. And I've understood since my earliest childhood that God
has
> NOT
> > told us all there is to know about Himself. One of those things we
have
> > imperfect knowledge of is His nature (whether we are Oneness or
> Trinitarian)
> > john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >
> > >
> > > I am going out on a limb here, but I would say that Jesus is
telling
> those
> > > standing around Him that the spirit inside of Him is God.
> >
> > So, are you here saying that He was not God before He was baptized
and the
> > Spirit descended upon Him?
>
> Where did the baptism part come in at? I didn't say anything about
baptism,
> or anything else.
>
> > This is dangerous ground. When the Archangel Gabriel came to Mary and
told
> her
> > she would give birth to God the Son, He didn't tell her that her baby
> would
> > BECOME God the Son. He told her she would give birth to the Son of
God.
> "the
> > holy one to be born will be called The Son of God." Luke 1:35
> > He was born God.
> >
> The Son of God doesn't make Him God the Son.
> You are a son of man, but not Man the Son.
>
> > > What makes Him
> > > the same God is that while I can say I have the spirit of God
inside of
> me,
> > > He doesn't have my spirit inside of Him, nor do I possess the
totality
> of
> > > God inside of me, as Jesus did.
> > > The totality of Jesus was in the Father, as well as the totality of
the
> > > Father was in Jesus. How can two "persons" be inside each other,
if
> they
> > > are different?
> >
> > Again, you are trying to reason the nature of God. We don't find one
> single
> > verse in the entire Bible that allows or invites us to reason God's
> nature. Be
> > VERY careful with that.
>
> Why be careful with that? Is it a big secret? Is it a sin to wonder
about
> God? You are trying to reason with His nature by saying He coundn't
> possibly be the Father, Son, and HG WITHOUT being three "persons". I
am
> saying He can do all things WITHOUT being three "poersons".
>
Do as you wish. You are going to anyway. You have been warned. I said we
are not
supposed to reason or debate the nature of God. If I had my dozen
different
versions of the Bible, as I used to, I believe I could have given you
multiple
references to sup****t that POV. I can't, because I don't have all those
Bibles
anymore. And we are of very different faiths, so I am sure you will do as
you
please. I can't follow half the unscriptural tangents you charismatics go
on
anyway. Some of you actually even believe in apostolic succession, which
is a
RCC pagan teaching. And some of you actually even believe in modern-day
speaking
in tongues, which the Bible also clearly states ended in the 1st Century,
along
with prophesy (the writing of the Bible).
And I will not go into all that again.
john
>
> > john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > >
> > > >
> >
From: John Weatherly <john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Subject: Re: QUESTION FOR TRINITARIANS
Date: 2000/04/21
Message-ID: <39005E9D.2C9AD6B5@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 613960285
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <sf1205b6cqv150@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
<38F0D5AE.34BF7A5F@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <Q%8I4.6414$YB4.446645@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <YDlI4.1138$xe6.349096@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
<38f473ca.14810743@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <9RDI4.1271$xe6.387541
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <38f43f58.24751021@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
<FPII4.247$PV.7577@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <38fe5d82.32473622
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <qpJI4.302$PV.9763@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <3902657d.34517042@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
<sIJI4.320$PV.10289@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <Vq%I4.133432
$Pa1.3521872@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <6i3J4.991$PV.58375@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <sfbnpbtmaln79@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <fMlJ4.2225
$PV.161199@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <sfc4sp7galn117
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <6prJ4.165$wj.44574@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
<38F9CB2E.EB5E0463@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <2_BK4.58747$9g4.1230551
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
X-Accept-Language: en
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: news.uswest.net 956325463 207.224.250.242 (Fri, 21 Apr 2000
08:57:43 CDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 08:57:43 CDT
Newsgroups:
alt.christnet.public,alt.religion.christian.pentecostal,alt.christnet.the
ology,alt.bible.prophecy
Raymond, you are both illiterate, un-illuminated, and boring. We can and
do *both* take
teachings from the New Testament to reveal truths in the Old, and vice
versa.
The point I was making was this: when we see a manifestation of God in
flesh in the Old
Testament, and we wonder who He is/was, we only need to look to the New
Testament for the
answer. Whether it's in the Old Testament or it's in the New, it's all
part of the same
Holy Word of God. The New Testament says in multiple places, in John
chapter 1, and in
Colossians 1 and 2, that Christ Jesus is/was the image of the invisible
God. When the
invisible God takes human form, as He did when the Father took flesh and
became the Son,
Jesus, any time God takes human form, that is the Son of God.
So anywhere we see God in human form, anywhere in the Bible, that is the
pre-incarnate
Christ/Son of God, meaning that He was the Son in flesh in the Old
Testament before he
was Jesus in the New Testament.
It couldn't be any simpler. We use the New Testament to explain the Old.
And if you don't
understand that, how can you claim to be indwelt by His Spirit, Who is
supposed to teach
you all things?
Raymond wrote:
> "John Weatherly" <john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:38F9CB2E.EB5E0463@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Another good point, Mike. When I was in seminary, I made the same
> > discovery you did, but you didn't quite divulge the entire point,
which
> > I will do now.
> > Since Colossians says that He/Jesus is the image of the invisible
God,
> > then who did Abraham see when God took form? The answer is, Abraham
saw
> > the pre-incarnate Christ (the image of the invisible) in His glory.
>
> They taught you in seminary, if you have not a verse, you make one up?
You have
> nothing to show that it was a "pre-incarnate Christ" or anything except
what the
> Bible says it was. Your Church teaching doesn't make it true or
bible. That
> answer was one given by a man, that did not have any proof of his
statement. Which
> you took, hook line and sinker, still doesn't make it so. When I was
in Seminary we
> were not taught this as a pre-incarnate Christ.
So what makes your seminary teaching superior to mine? Only in your
opinion, which I
don't share. One can go to seminary, and be taught by ignoramuses, and
one doesn't become
educated. One becomes an ignoramus taught by ignoramuses. Just like when
I was in
graduate school, and my psychology professors tried to tell me that I was
wasting my time
in graduate school because I continued to hold onto my silly beliefs in
God. That opinion
didn't make these professors smart. They had all that education, and yet
they were still
ignorant of God.
> Now as I read some here that call
> themselves followers of the Trinity doctrine there was no need to "pre-
incarnate"
> Christ as He is the second person in the God group and so just popped
in as he is the
> "eternal Son of God" by one writer in this NG. No need for "pre-
incarnate" stuff,
> the 2nd person of the Godhead would not have a problem of just dropping
in.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz... All I meant (and all "pre-incarnate* means)
by
"pre-incarnate" was is that before the New Testament time when the Word
became flesh
(incarnate), He became flesh in the Old Testament. This is commonly known
as
"pre-incarnate". What you are suggesting is that we are not free to make
up terms to
define concepts in the Bible, such as "pre-incarnate", "trinity", etc.
Where does the
Bible say that we can't make up terms as a shorthand so to speak??
> The
> more I read in this NG from them that call themselves Trinitarians, is
just getting
> more confusing, if they want to make God something or something, they
just say it,
> and think that is all that is needed. Not very Biblical is it? Then
I suppose
> since you do the same, I am asking the wrong person?
I see your point, which is no point. It's your human foolishness. It's
your lack of
comprehension.
>
>
> > I'm now betting I'm gonna get 100 questions "What do you mean by the
> > "pre-incarnate" Christ?"
> >
>
> Then that would be par for some in this NG.
>
> > john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > Mike S wrote:
> >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I can rule out the Father as the one Abraham talked to.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > And just how do you come to that conclusion?
> > > > >
> > > > > The bible says no one has seen the Father except the Son.
> > > > >
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > I have never in my life seen more double speak than I have today
> > > by the Oneness Pentecostals on this group.
> > > It's actually giving me a headache.
> > >
> >
> > The lack of Bible scholar****p doesn't run in Oneness Pentecostalism
and
> > Charismatic theology; it gallops!
> > john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Mike
> > >
> > > As a former fetus, I am opposed to abortion.
> >
From: John Weatherly <john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Subject: Re: QUESTION FOR TRINITARIANS
Date: 2000/04/21
Message-ID: <39005EE0.86045B57@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 613960800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <3906689f.35318777@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <lpKI4.1657
$fV.129341@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <38f48154.4858446@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <JqSI4.4143$fV.345727@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <38f5002b.37333942@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
<PaUI4.408$WF.26277@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <sf925ce4nk172
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <0D3J4.1007$PV.60132@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <38F9DA0D.F9E83BC5@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <8dcn56$326$1
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <39003046.64501391@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
X-Accept-Language: en
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: news.uswest.net 956325528 207.224.250.242 (Fri, 21 Apr 2000
08:58:48 CDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 08:58:48 CDT
Newsgroups:
alt.christnet.public,alt.religion.christian.pentecostal,alt.christnet.the
ology,alt.bible.prophecy
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...
Mark Bassett wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Apr 2000 10:42:25 -0400, "bm" <b...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> >The sad thing is that they are not kidding. They believe that the
power of
> >salvation comes through a preacher words rather than Christ. Christ's
> >command in Matthew 28:19 doesn't matter to them or some try to twist
the
> >words.
>
> Acts 2:38 *IS* the WORD OF GOD, FULFILLING in the CHURCH, the
commission of
> JESUS CHRIST.
>
> When you begin to explain away the scripture as "a preachers words",
you
> have already explained your problem.
>
> -mwb
From: John Weatherly <john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Subject: Re: Bible origins
Date: 2000/04/21
Message-ID: <390025F0.2C001F51@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 613902534
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <38F9B7BB.1972AF96@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
X-Accept-Language: en
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: news.uswest.net 956310951 209.180.199.201 (Fri, 21 Apr 2000
04:55:51 CDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 04:55:51 CDT
Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.boston-church
I continue to be amazed at the garbage spewed by those who have no
respect for God's word. I suggest that "Mr. Johnson" submit this
"thesis" to an orthodox Jew and then run! The Jews will tell you in a
heatrbeat that the information passed by Mr. Johnson as "history" is
pure RCC rubbish. I personally don't believe that Mr. Johnson would
refer to novelist H.G. Wells as anything resembling a historian of the
Bible or of Bible history.
Let me clue you, Bob: The "first Bible" came to us, not from the RCC
Council of Nicea, but from the Eastern Church. The first Bible is called
the Pe****a text, and it was compiled in the first century. Take note,
by the way, that the first century is the same century in which the
Apostles wrote the New Testament!
In Christ,
john weatherly
john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Robert L. Johnson" wrote:
> We've recently updated our Bible origins page at
> http://www.deism.com/biblevotes.htm
>
> Hope you find it interesting and thought provoking!
>
> Thanks, Bob
> http://www.deism.com
From: John Weatherly <john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Subject: Re: QUESTION FOR TRINITARIANS
Date: 2000/04/21
Message-ID: <39005EE0.86045B57@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 613960800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <3906689f.35318777@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <lpKI4.1657
$fV.129341@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <38f48154.4858446@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <JqSI4.4143$fV.345727@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <38f5002b.37333942@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
<PaUI4.408$WF.26277@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <sf925ce4nk172
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <0D3J4.1007$PV.60132@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <38F9DA0D.F9E83BC5@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <8dcn56$326$1
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <39003046.64501391@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
X-Accept-Language: en
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: news.uswest.net 956325528 207.224.250.242 (Fri, 21 Apr 2000
08:58:48 CDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 08:58:48 CDT
Newsgroups:
alt.christnet.public,alt.religion.christian.pentecostal,alt.christnet.the
ology,alt.bible.prophecy
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...
Mark Bassett wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Apr 2000 10:42:25 -0400, "bm" <b...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> >The sad thing is that they are not kidding. They believe that the
power of
> >salvation comes through a preacher words rather than Christ. Christ's
> >command in Matthew 28:19 doesn't matter to them or some try to twist
the
> >words.
>
> Acts 2:38 *IS* the WORD OF GOD, FULFILLING in the CHURCH, the
commission of
> JESUS CHRIST.
>
> When you begin to explain away the scripture as "a preachers words",
you
> have already explained your problem.
>
> -mwb
From: John Weatherly <john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Subject: Re: The Original Church?
Date: 2000/04/21
Message-ID: <39002037.D642F9E6@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 613895379
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <8dgbo7$1a2$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
X-Accept-Language: en
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: news.uswest.net 956309485 209.180.199.201 (Fri, 21 Apr 2000
04:31:25 CDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 04:31:25 CDT
Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.boston-church
Good question!
I would not say that there is one single church that is the modern day
equivalent of the churches that Paul founded. And I notice that you asked
a
question that technically has no answer. Technically, there was not
"first
church" or "original" church. The "epistles", the letters Paul wrote,
such
as Galatians, Ephesians, etc., were written to the "original 7 churches".
And if you read those letters/"books" carefully, you will notice that
Paul
observed that each of the seven had its good ponits and its bad points.
So
there were minor/and sometimes major difficulties and errors within each
of
the original seven churches. Yet, contrary to the Mormon and Jehovah's
Witness view that "none of the 7 were true churches, because the letters
Paul wrote told them that they had all fallen short", Paul addresses each
church as "my brothers and sisters in Christ', which tells us that even
with all the difficulties and shortcomings of the seven original
churches,
they were all *still* under God's grace.
For a look into what constitutes a "New Testament" church on the order of
the ones Paul founded, you might want to pick up a copy of Dr. William
Steuart McBirnie's classic text The Search for The Early Church.
Dr. McBirnie is recognized as one of the foremost (some say THE foremost)
scholars on the Early Church.
He tells us very basically what characteristics are required of a New
Testament, without all the dogma.
Hope you find some answers.
By the way, some would like to tell you that the Church of Christ was the
first; others would say that the first church was the RCC. But the New
Testament mentions the first church by name; it's called The Way.
In Christ,
john
john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Hey guys, I was recently lurking in this ng and read a post about "the
> original church". I sent away for that book, and believe me, it's very
> eye-opening. Now, what I want to know is:
>
> Is there a modern-day church that meets these requirements? I'd really
> like to know. Where can that church be found?
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
From: John Weatherly <john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Subject: Re: Isaiah 7:14
Date: 2000/04/21
Message-ID: <3900FAEE.2BA8C610@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 614158218
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <3905fba3.44245616@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <ndqJ4.1012
$qF4.65637@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <4ytJ4.25426$2D6.746014
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <N%uJ4.1177$qF4.102454@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
<7e3K4.30108$2D6.925289@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <EV9K4.4152$qF4.360877
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <38FAC8F8.370AD265@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <K5JK4.5537
$qF4.517970@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <8dg3sc$oqo$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
<67OK4.35635$2D6.1160461@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <38fbc444_5
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <027ofsgmkoeeh9fnar69u6d7b9kql7duqs@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
<5R3L4.641$i84.8136@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <38fce212_2
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <8div5f$uac$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <wo8L4.843$i84.9804
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <8dj92n$9a5$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <G%bL4.96216
$1C2.2909570@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <sfrl3nmteoc143@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
<8dldg5$lnr$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <sfst0cbsin2112@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <8dq21c
$llm$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
X-Accept-Language: en
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: news.uswest.net 956365484 63.225.165.131 (Fri, 21 Apr 2000
20:04:44 CDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 20:04:44 CDT
Newsgroups:
alt.religion.deism,alt.bible,alt.religion.christian.biblestudy,alt.messan
ic
Why is this garbage being spewed in a Bible study group?
Jesus is God in flesh, and thus has nothing to do with Lucifer, a created
being (fallen angel).
Not only did Jesus claim deity, "If you have seen me, you have seen the
Father!" John 14:9
Rev Peter wrote:
> In article <sfst0cbsin2...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> "Brad" <b...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> [snipped for brevity]
>
> RevP:
>
> > >
> > > Tell me Brad, do you think a god would want a vicious decadent like
> > > Peter around in his legs for an eternity? Hopefully Peter gets his
> wish,
> > > and is tortured forever to entertain his Jesus Lucifer Christ.
>
> Brad
> >
> > ***I suspect that Peter, as most people, would wor****p just about
> anything
> > that he believes will take care of him in eternity. For people who
> can't
> > wait to get to heaven Xians seem to know very few details about what
> exactly
> > will go on there.
Yes, much of Heaven is a mystery. Yet we know that the God who
loves/loved
us enough to take human form and die for us would not hurt us. And He has
told us that we will be rewarded in Heaven. We will also be re-united
with
loved ones who have perished before us.
And after all, going to Heaven sure beats the alternative, doesn't it?
Heaven also beats "nothingness".
In Christ,
john
john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Paul mentions a third heaven in 2 Cor 12:2. Where is
> that?
> > A trip to heaven may involve being a sheep in more ways than Peter
> cares to
> > imagine.
> > BTW Jesus also fits some of the imagery in Ezek 28:7-10 in striking
> detail.
> > Same with Ezek 32:4-8.
> > Jesus was pierced, spread and hung upon a hill, crucified(birds would
> pick
> > the remains of most crucified victims), his blood flowed out onto the
> > ground, he was buried in the pit,
No, the Bible says very clearly that He was buried in a borrowed tomb.
Think
about it: there would be no large stone in front of a pit. You may not
like
what the Bible says, but that gives you no justification for re-writing
it.
> the sky became dark at his death and
> the
> > earth trembled, he wanted to be like God, and died the violent death
> of the
> > uncir***cised.
Actually, the Bible, in John 1 and in Colossians 1 and 2 says that He
is/was
God in flesh.
You sure spout a lot for someone who hasn't read the Bible.
I am in a hurry at the moment; I will take a look at some of these
scriptures later, and respond to any I feel appropriate. I frankly have
seen
a whole lot of scripture I heard was "prophetic" of Chrsit, or not
prophetic. And the last scriptures I looked up were in regard to His
first
advent, not His second. The Bible clearly teaches two separate advents of
Christ. The first was obviouly as Suffering Savior. The second coming
will
be as conquering Lord and King.
john
john weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Yet, I don't hear Xians claiming that Ezek 28 and 32
> were
> > foreshadowings of Jesus as they do with any other verse that they
> claim
> > foretells of Jesus. The similarity of Jesus in Ezek 28:7-10, and Ezek
> 32:4-8
> > is too striking to ignore. Unless of course it doesn't fit the Xian
> agenda.
> > Regards, Brad***
>
> RevP:
>
> Well said Brad. Christians are very selective and dishonest in what
they
> borrow from the Jewish Scriptures where Jesus is concerned. They take
> non prophecies, and verses taken completely out of context in an effort
> to justify Jesus [ie, taking Hosea 11:1 out of its context which
> includes verse 2]. They even invented prophecies which have no basis at
> all in the Ta****h, and then boast that Jesus fulfilled it. For example:
>
> Matt. 2: 23, "23 and came to reside in a city called Nazareth, that
what
> was spoken through the prophets might be fulfilled, 'He shall be called
> a Nazarene.'"
>
> Of course, the fiction writer who wrote Matthew, failed to identify
> these prophets. The reason? There are no prophets ever said any such
> thing. The Messiah is a ruling king, he is not some hillbilly.
>
> It is this type of nonsense which goes on and on in the New fangled
> Testament. The only prophecy which fits Jesus, is Isaiah 14: 12-19. It
> fits him so well, that Jesus could very well be the fulfillment of it.
>
> [THE XIAN APOLOGETIC THAT SATAN WANTS TO SIT ABOVE GOD IS NONSENSE, the
> text shows that Lucifer only wants to be above the stars of God. When
> will xians learn to read what is written, instead of misreading
> everything their darkened minds look at!]
>
> Also, considering that in Rev 22:16, Jesus admits to being the "morning
> star" [in Latin: Lucifer], and Rev 1:5, Jesus is identified as the "the
> ruler of the kings of the EARTH" [in effect, the RULER OF THE WORLD].
>
> The xians can keep Lord Lucifer Christ and his cannibalistic death
cult.
>
> peace brother
>
> Rev Peter
> --
> http://members.xoom.com/grgaud/
> "In revealed religions, you have blasphemy and heresy.
> In Deism, you have questions and free speech."
> -- Ladyhank.
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
From: John Weatherly <john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Subject: Re: admission in the crucifixion
Date: 2000/04/21
Message-ID: <3900F654.D0330B4D@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 614154159
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
References: <sg05njuhl6e114@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
X-Accept-Language: en
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
X-Trace: news.uswest.net 956364305 63.225.165.131 (Fri, 21 Apr 2000
19:45:05 CDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 19:45:05 CDT
Newsgroups:
alt.bible.prophecy,alt.messianic,alt.religion.christian.biblestudy,alt.re
ligion.clergy
Well, Mike, I had seen several warnings that you were/are a Satanist
masquerading as a Christian. I didn't believe it until this post. You are
twisting and misquoting and mis-interpreting scriptures herein. I don't
have
time to itemize this right now. I will try to get to it later. But you
almost
had me fooled until this post.
I'll ask you what I asked the guy who spends all his time looking for the
"mistakes" in scripture: Have you discovered the Bible's Plan of
Salvation yet?
Shame on you for allowing Satan to fill your heart. Repent or perish!
In Christ,
john
john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Night wrote:
> Here's one of the biggest clues: (John 12:27+).
> Jesus’ talking about his crucifixion;
> "now shall the prince of this world (who they themselves admit is SATAN
> (John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11); be cast down,"
>
> The one being cast down here was him. (even in their own accounts he
was
> cast down to hell in the Apostles creed also Acts 2:27)
> Satan was a fallen archangel(cHIEF pRINCE). He was the Anointed
> (CHRIST)Cherub (Ezekiel 28:8-18).
> So Jesus is admitting being the "fallen"(cast down) prince(1st prince
of
> this world) in John 12:27+
> Satan is the god of this world (2 Corinthians 4:4).
> Lucifer ="light-bearer" and “Morning Star” (Isaiah 14:12-19)
> Sometimes he is disguised as an angel of light (2 Corinthians 11:14).
> Jesus admits being the bright morning star Rev 22:16 and
> baring light and being the light (Day/morning/sun/baal/satan) of this
world
> (John 8:12, 9:5, ****trayed by illuminated/luciferous rays of light).
> He was-
> Not G-d http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/9623/notgod.html
> Not a prophet: http://members.tripod.com/~MikeNight/falseprophet.html
> Not legitimately in the bible
> http://www.fortunecity.com/greenfield/bp/890/interpretation.html
> Not fulfilled of the Messiah roles and prerequisites:
> http://members.tripod.com/~MikeNight/qualify.html
> not an atonement: http://members.tripod.com/~MikeNight/sacrifice.html
> which means he was: http://members.tripod.com/~MikeNight/match.html
> http://www.veoweb.com/autos/malakh/
From: John Weatherly <john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Subject: Re: QUESTION FOR TRINITARIANS
Date: 2000/04/21
Message-ID: <39005E9D.2C9AD6B5@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 613960285
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <sf1205b6cqv150@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
<38F0D5AE.34BF7A5F@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <Q%8I4.6414$YB4.446645@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <YDlI4.1138$xe6.349096@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
<38f473ca.14810743@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <9RDI4.1271$xe6.387541
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <38f43f58.24751021@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
<FPII4.247$PV.7577@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <38fe5d82.32473622
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <qpJI4.302$PV.9763@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <3902657d.34517042@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
<sIJI4.320$PV.10289@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <Vq%I4.133432
$Pa1.3521872@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <6i3J4.991$PV.58375@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <sfbnpbtmaln79@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <fMlJ4.2225
$PV.161199@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <sfc4sp7galn117
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <6prJ4.165$wj.44574@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
<38F9CB2E.EB5E0463@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <2_BK4.58747$9g4.1230551
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
X-Accept-Language: en
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: news.uswest.net 956325463 207.224.250.242 (Fri, 21 Apr 2000
08:57:43 CDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 08:57:43 CDT
Newsgroups:
alt.christnet.public,alt.religion.christian.pentecostal,alt.christnet.the
ology,alt.bible.prophecy
Raymond, you are both illiterate, un-illuminated, and boring. We can and
do *both* take
teachings from the New Testament to reveal truths in the Old, and vice
versa.
The point I was making was this: when we see a manifestation of God in
flesh in the Old
Testament, and we wonder who He is/was, we only need to look to the New
Testament for the
answer. Whether it's in the Old Testament or it's in the New, it's all
part of the same
Holy Word of God. The New Testament says in multiple places, in John
chapter 1, and in
Colossians 1 and 2, that Christ Jesus is/was the image of the invisible
God. When the
invisible God takes human form, as He did when the Father took flesh and
became the Son,
Jesus, any time God takes human form, that is the Son of God.
So anywhere we see God in human form, anywhere in the Bible, that is the
pre-incarnate
Christ/Son of God, meaning that He was the Son in flesh in the Old
Testament before he
was Jesus in the New Testament.
It couldn't be any simpler. We use the New Testament to explain the Old.
And if you don't
understand that, how can you claim to be indwelt by His Spirit, Who is
supposed to teach
you all things?
Raymond wrote:
> "John Weatherly" <john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:38F9CB2E.EB5E0463@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Another good point, Mike. When I was in seminary, I made the same
> > discovery you did, but you didn't quite divulge the entire point,
which
> > I will do now.
> > Since Colossians says that He/Jesus is the image of the invisible
God,
> > then who did Abraham see when God took form? The answer is, Abraham
saw
> > the pre-incarnate Christ (the image of the invisible) in His glory.
>
> They taught you in seminary, if you have not a verse, you make one up?
You have
> nothing to show that it was a "pre-incarnate Christ" or anything except
what the
> Bible says it was. Your Church teaching doesn't make it true or
bible. That
> answer was one given by a man, that did not have any proof of his
statement. Which
> you took, hook line and sinker, still doesn't make it so. When I was
in Seminary we
> were not taught this as a pre-incarnate Christ.
So what makes your seminary teaching superior to mine? Only in your
opinion, which I
don't share. One can go to seminary, and be taught by ignoramuses, and
one doesn't become
educated. One becomes an ignoramus taught by ignoramuses. Just like when
I was in
graduate school, and my psychology professors tried to tell me that I was
wasting my time
in graduate school because I continued to hold onto my silly beliefs in
God. That opinion
didn't make these professors smart. They had all that education, and yet
they were still
ignorant of God.
> Now as I read some here that call
> themselves followers of the Trinity doctrine there was no need to "pre-
incarnate"
> Christ as He is the second person in the God group and so just popped
in as he is the
> "eternal Son of God" by one writer in this NG. No need for "pre-
incarnate" stuff,
> the 2nd person of the Godhead would not have a problem of just dropping
in.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz... All I meant (and all "pre-incarnate* means)
by
"pre-incarnate" was is that before the New Testament time when the Word
became flesh
(incarnate), He became flesh in the Old Testament. This is commonly known
as
"pre-incarnate". What you are suggesting is that we are not free to make
up terms to
define concepts in the Bible, such as "pre-incarnate", "trinity", etc.
Where does the
Bible say that we can't make up terms as a shorthand so to speak??
> The
> more I read in this NG from them that call themselves Trinitarians, is
just getting
> more confusing, if they want to make God something or something, they
just say it,
> and think that is all that is needed. Not very Biblical is it? Then
I suppose
> since you do the same, I am asking the wrong person?
I see your point, which is no point. It's your human foolishness. It's
your lack of
comprehension.
>
>
> > I'm now betting I'm gonna get 100 questions "What do you mean by the
> > "pre-incarnate" Christ?"
> >
>
> Then that would be par for some in this NG.
>
> > john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > Mike S wrote:
> >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I can rule out the Father as the one Abraham talked to.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > And just how do you come to that conclusion?
> > > > >
> > > > > The bible says no one has seen the Father except the Son.
> > > > >
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > I have never in my life seen more double speak than I have today
> > > by the Oneness Pentecostals on this group.
> > > It's actually giving me a headache.
> > >
> >
> > The lack of Bible scholar****p doesn't run in Oneness Pentecostalism
and
> > Charismatic theology; it gallops!
> > john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Mike
> > >
> > > As a former fetus, I am opposed to abortion.
> >
From: John Weatherly <john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Subject: Re: Columbine/America is sick
Date: 2000/04/21
Message-ID: <39001CF2.5E687EF0@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
X-Deja-AN: 613892805
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <38FF1C8E.1014DD8@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
X-Accept-Language: en
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: news.uswest.net 956308648 209.180.199.201 (Fri, 21 Apr 2000
04:17:28 CDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 04:17:28 CDT
Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.boston-church
Although this post doesn't directly address issues related to the title
of this News Group, it *does* address issues that should concern
everyone--male or female--who calls themself a Christian, whether Roman
Catholic, Adventist, Sabbatarian, Baptist, Brethren, Boston Church, or
Christian Teen/Youth.
I am a 52 year old military veteran, disabled, on Social Security. This
country's government has abused me ever since I became officially
disabled.
10 years ago, my son't mother accused me of "verbal assault' which
Wa****ngton state defines as "any activity which the female partner
wishes to say frightened her." In my case, as has happened to millions
of others in America, there was no assault. There was only a desire on
the part of my son's mother to get "uncontested custody".
After I was "convicted" without a trial, the courts and the police
basically decided that if I would "abuse my partner verbally" I could be
considered capable of anything.
Consequently, 7 years ago, the ex- accused me of molesting my son. Since
I had already been "convicted" of "verbally assaulting" my son's mom,
the courts assumed that if I would assault my son't mother, I'd molest
my son. No trial, no charges filed, I was presumed guilty and sentenced
to 2 hours a week of supervised visitation in an agency setting. So for
the past 7 years, my basic contact with my son has taken place in one of
several rooms of a very old, converted elementary school office. This
confinement has severely restricted the activities that my sn (now 12)
and I can enjoy. For perspective, remember the last time you took your
son/daughter shopping for a pair of shoes? I haven't enjoyed that basic
activity with my son for 5 years. Remember the last time you took your
kid out for an ice cream cone. I haven't been able to do that with my
son for 5 years. Remember the last time you took your kid to a movie? I
haven't been able to do that with my son for 5 years. I'd bring a TV and
VCR and a movie to our visits when I had a TV and a VCR and a car with
which to trans****t them. I was homeless for 6 months of 1999 and a month
of 1998, during which time, the man who let me move in with him stole my
TV and VCR. I ended up at the Seattle Union Rescue Mission for 6 months,
during which time I lost my car. So I can't even enjoy a movie with my
son anymore, not to mention that the two hour visits we had to begin
with were also too expensive for me to pay for ($25 an hour), so
I--almost immediately after being :"awarded" the two hour visit--was
reduced to 1 hour a week. The court had "awarded" me 2 15 minute
monitored phone calls per week, monitor to be chosen by the mother.
Well, she only chose one monitor, and he was only available once a week.
So my total court ordered contact was immediatly reduced by 50%.
The judge also rigged a "psychological evaluation with a ***ual deviancy
component" which came out inconclusive, so the psychologist lied in
court that I was a molester, and the judge ordered me into therapy. I
was not told at the time that, to get into therapy, I'd have to admit to
molesting my son, and then I'd have to go to prison for several years,
then to therapy; then I'd have to register as a ***ual offender. Well, I
am not a ***ual offender. So I am now in the limbo of having to wait
until I win a 10 million dollar lottery before I can afford to go back
to court and try to get custody back. In the meantime, I am too sick to
work, and so my personal living situation gets worse and worse.
I have contacted every politician I can think of, from President Clinton
to all my federal and state representatives. They have all said,
essentially, "Well, that's too bad! Yes, that's unconstitutional! But
the laws are basically good laws, so just because a few million of you
have lost everything as a result of the laws, we aren't going to change
the laws. See, a few million people who the laws have destroyed don't
represent enough votes to gte me into office, or to put me out of
office. So we/I really don't care." That is what I've heard from the
politicians who have bothered to respond to my letters, faxes, emails,
and phone calls. The politicians don't care. So I contacted the media.
Either they didn't care, or they said, "So?"
The other thing I have heard from the media and the politicians is
"Well, that hasn't happened to me, and it never would, so I really don't
care that it's happened to several million others."
So, I am writing to these News Groups asking for each of you who has a
conscience, for each of you who knows someone to whom something similar
has happened, to write to your politicians, write to your news media.
Don't let us remain invisible/forgotten. The best way for evil to
triumph is for "good people" to do nothing.
And I'll tell you why. There is an old proverb. I'm sure you've all
heard it, but I am going to repeat it here as a reminder:
When they came for the Jews, I didn't say anything, because I am not
Jewish.
When they came for the blacks, I didn't say anything, because I am not
black.
When they came for the old folks, I didn't say anything, because my
grandparents were already dead.
When they came for the disabled, I didn't say anything, because I am not
disabled.
When they came for the poor, single fathers, I didn't say anything,
because I am not a poor, single father.
When they came for me, I went silently; there was no one left to defend
me.
thanks for your help
john weatherly
john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mulder wrote:
> "It will take time and energy to be healed
> from this most tragic community wound.
> For the families of the slain there will be only
> grief and despair.
> For us as a community there can be healing...
> by helping those who suffer and are in pain."
>
> - Rabbi Steven E. Foster
>
> "When it seems that our sorrow is too great to be borne,
> let us think of the great family of the heavy-hearted into
> which our grief has given us entrance, and inevitably, we
> will feel about us, their arms and their understanding."
>
> - Helen Keller
>
> "...time for all Americans to ask what we can
> do - as individuals and as a nation - to turn more young
> people from the path of violence; how we can take
> responsibility, each and every one of us, for the future
> of our children."
>
> - President Clinton
>
> "Too soon, too soon comes Death so show
> We love more deeply than we know.
> And love in life should strive to see
> Sometimes what love in death would be."
>
> - Coventry Patmore
>
> "Love is the flower of life, and blossoms unexpectedly
> and without law, and must be plucked where it is found,
> and enjoyed for the brief hour of its duration."
>
> - D. H. Lawrence
>
> "God protects disciples in high school shooting that claimed
> the lives of 14 students and one teacher."
>
> - John Lusk, Evangelist, Denver International Church of Christ
>
> --
> ______________________
> Fox Mulder AKA Lewis Johnson
> DID 360.750.0314
> FAX 360.750.9150
> lewjohn...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ICQ 1363586 <--For lurkers that need to talk--<<
> http://www.geocities.com/~lewjohnson/icc/
> ______________________
> My old church welcomes all denominations,
> but mainly they prefer twenties and fifties.
From: John Weatherly <john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Subject: Re: QUESTION FOR TRINITARIANS
Date: 2000/04/17
Message-ID: <38FB4C72.3C4FAC53@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
X-Deja-AN: 612317374
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <sIJI4.320$PV.10289@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
<20000411185516.22777.00000098@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <38f5d7be.26983186@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <2ASI4.4184$fV.353431@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <sf91hfdc4nk164@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <Cw3J4.999
$PV.56272@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <sfbkqkl7aln29
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <kslJ4.2183$PV.159637@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <sfc2bcfaln14@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
<38F9D8A6.291E78E5@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <7_BK4.58749$9g4.1230551
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
X-Accept-Language: en
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: news.uswest.net 955993141 207.224.250.212 (Mon, 17 Apr 2000
12:39:01 CDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 12:39:01 CDT
Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.pentecostal
Once, again, Raymond, you have chosen to be thick and to split hairs. I
did not say we
should not try to know God. I said we "can't ever fully know Him", at
least not in this
mortal lifetime.
And I speak/spoke of the tri-une God and of Trinitarian beliefs/teachings
because those
are my beliefs. I can't speak for anyone else, as you have said also that
YOU can't.
I was making the point that we will not ever agree on all points. That is
not something
we should even expect to do. But I don't think it is essential or even
appropriate to
debate the nature of God whom we can not ever fully comprehend. Then you
want to quibble
with my terms.
Raymond wrote:
> "John Weatherly" <john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:38F9D8A6.291E78E5@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > I have to ask here, why must we split hairs like this?
> This attempt to "understand" the nature of the tri-une God is doomed
Again, Tri-une or Trinity ONLY means that the Bible tells us there is a
person we know as
God who is called the Father; there is a person we know as God who is
called the Son of
God; and there is a person we know as God who is called the Holy Spirit
or Spirit. Count
'em yourself. That is 3 names: Father, Son, and HOly Spirit. Three names,
three different
functions. We are called "trinitariians" because we refer to the three as
the Holy
Trinity, the Trinity, or the Tri-unity. You believe in the Father, the
Son, and the Holy
Spirit, you just call them by other names. I am not going to get hung up
on the
name/names..
>
>
> So you are saying that you do not need to know God,
You should ask me, rather than saying "you are saying..." then you say
something I
*didn't* say. I NEVER said we should not try to know God. I never said we
"do not need to
know God." If that's what you got from what I wrote, you got nothing. I
said, as finite
beings, we can not ever know the Infinite God in this human lifetime.
> and if you did know him fully you
> would reject him?
I also said I would not believe in a god whom I fully understood. Because
the God I DO
believe in is too big to be put in a box or under a microscope and
understood fullly. The
Infinte Deity can't fit into the finite brain of man or woman.
> Jesus taught to Know him, the Apostles said to study and God said
> ask thou me, then in Matt 28:20 Jesus showed them the mystery of the
Godhead, and so
> on.
Nowhere will you ever see any verse in scripture that says
1. we can fully understand the nature of God
2. we should debate the nature of God.
> I like to know fully the God I am giving my life for, and my
eternality too.
Then you are commiting heresy. God has not told us we can know Him fully
in this
lifetime. Paul said, "Now I see (God) through a glass darkly. Then I will
see Him face to
face, and I will know Him as I am known." You are misquoting the test.
>
|
