T-Bone

I believe you are mistaken on this accusation. The error in circular reasoning is that the proposition to be proved is assumed at some point in the argument. For example: "The Bible says God exists. The Bible is true – so God exists." The assumption in the previous argument is that the Bible is true. This debate is over the deity of Christ, right? We're both assuming the Bible IS true. You're asserting arguments for the deity of Christ are without biblical basis - and so far I have referred to Scripture for my reasons in believing in His deity. The arguments in your paper are one-sided, appealing to verses that focus on His humanity ignoring the passages that speak of His deity. My argument [as noted in my post # 11 – referring to Philippians 2:5-11, and the references to His selective use of divine power like feeding the five thousand but not creating food for Himself when tempted in the wilderness] is that Scripture does seem to suggest Jesus had two natures while on this earth – human and divine. Personally I'm not sticking to any particular church's teaching – I currently don't belong to any, nor subscribe to a particular denomination. In fact, I'm open to other viewpoints and have a number of commentaries and systematic theology books from authors of various backgrounds/doctrines to attest to that…"Learning the truth" – I recognize to be such a well-worn pat phrase from TWI daze: Their assumption of accuracy, their belief that they have the right interpretation – that they have the truth. Their explanation of how Jesus did the things He did since He was only human - is by attributing them to His operation of the manifestations of the Spirit [WWJD = I operate all 7 all the time] – using one dubious doctrine to prove another. The signs, miracles and wonders that Jesus did perhaps go beyond overt similarities with those done by others in the Bible – in that they validated His identity: John 2:11 "This, the first of his miraculous signs, Jesus performed in Cana of Galilee. He thus revealed his glory, and his disciples put their faith in him" and Matthew 12: 22,23 "Then they brought him a demon-possessed man who was blind and mute, and Jesus healed him, so that he could both talk and see. All the people were astonished and said, "Could this be the Son of David?"

I agree certain aspects of the nature and identity of Jesus Christ can be found through study of the Scriptures by noting familial relationships and names/titles applied to Him. [A whole other subject worth pursuing – but would be a big digression – is studying His statements and actions in the gospels] And in regards to His nature and identity it is my opinion that a student of the Bible is only getting part of the picture if they do not consider all relevant passages. A few other titles are listed in Isaiah – among other things the Son will be called is "Mighty God" and "Everlasting Father": Isaiah 9:6,7 NIV For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on David's throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever. The zeal of the LORD Almighty will accomplish this. And in Hebrews the Father addresses Him as "God": Hebrews 1:8 NIV But about the Son he says, "Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom." As far as your saying: "The "Doctrine of the Trinity" will appear nowhere, and many biblical concepts will contradict the possibility of its existence" I would like to mention to all who read this thread – doctrine is something that is derived by man's selection of passages that they think can be categorized into a certain topic. As Alister McGrath pointed out [in his book Understanding Doctrine if I rightly recall] – he likens passages in the Bible to how vegetation occurs in the wild. In other words – they're not grouped together by categories with chapter headings, subject matter, cross references, indexes, etc. Like botanists who go into the wild, gather samples and group them in a greenhouse for further study – is the Theologian gathering all the passages that he thinks are relevant to a topic. I would like to know what biblical concepts contradict the idea of the Trinity. Perhaps you're depending on VPW's argument that the Old Testament said there was one God. However, as I mentioned in my previous post of Morey's book, the same Hebrew word for "one" is used in the following verses: Genesis 2:24 NIV For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh Genesis 11:6 NIV The LORD said, "If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them." Deuteronomy 6:4 NIV Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. The two usages of "one" noted in Genesis actually refer to more than one person. Biblical Hebrew has another word to indicate solitary or singular but was not used in Deuteronomy 6. And bearing in mind Rabbi Nazzi's comments on Hebrew and Chaldee languages Honest Discussion of the Trinity[/b] post # 176] "Every one who is acquainted with the rudiments of the Hebrew and Chaldee languages, must know that God, in the holy writings, very often spoke of Himself in the plural. The passages are numerous, in which, instead of a grammatical agreement between the subject and predicate, we meet with a construction, which some modern grammarians, who possess more of the so-called philosophical than of the real knowledge of the Oriental languages, call a pluralis excellentiae. This helps them out of every apparent difficulty. Such a pluralis excellentiae was, however, a thing unknown to Moses and the prophets. Pharaoh, Nebuchadnezzar, David, and all the other kings, throughout [the Law, the Prophets, and the Hagiographia] speak in the singular, and not as modern kings in the plural. They do not say we, but I, command; as in Genesis 41:41; Daniel 3:29; Ezra 1:2, etc." [from Tzvi Nassi, The Great Mystery, Jerusalem: Yanetz, 1970, page 6]." It seems one possible inference that can be drawn from all this is that the concept of the Trinity may indeed be found in the Bible – just not all spelled out in one passage. Furthermore, I would like to add the "doctrine of Jesus Christ not being God" is not found in Scripture – but like the concept of the Trinity – it can be inferred from select passages to the exclusion of others. The "doctrine of Jesus Christ not being God" often runs along the lines of arguments to refute His divinity by noting His human limitations – reasoning that these mortal constraints indicate He cannot be God. However, Scripture reveals that these were self-imposed restraints by our Lord - as Philippians 2 reveals His two natures [human and divine] and identity - His equality with God the Father and applies the title "Lord" to Him – a title that was exclusively used for the God of Israel in the Old Testament. While on earth, Jesus CHOSE to restrain His divine power and veil His glory. As a servant He never used His divine powers for His own good [like changing the stone into bread while being tempted in the wilderness] but only used them in rendering service to others [as in feeding the five thousand]. Philippians 2:5-11 NIV 5 Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, 7 but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death— even death on a cross! 9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

have a good one...I always enjoy reading your input at GSC.

.dictation take Tonto have and it in microphone a Plug .3000 Works Tone new my in effect reverse the of advantage taken have could I ,course Of .Print on clicked I program processor word the uninstalled I as just then – processor word my in it draft to had I – message this post to just, Why .media any in process tedious and long a is technique reversing The !Bear Polar , Math Mute of clip that posting for Thanks

Naw…it’s gotta be The National Enquirer – no mere mortal could come up with those amazing stories.

And the cross was made of green kryptonite.

Your threads should help people get a better idea of your husband's viewpoint. Maybe you didn't mean to be condescending – but when I saw this I took it to mean you think I'm confused or need help and deliverance from believing Jesus Christ is God. I find this above statement [in bold red] to be rather tenuous. Are interpretations flawed if they do not line up with a certain viewpoint? And exactly what are the "real facts"? Yes, the biblical evidence that indicates Jesus Christ is the Son of God/the Son of Man is overwhelming. What's lacking in any debate of this topic is substantial/definitive/declarative evidence for this "Trinity" – but in that regard the same can be said for anti-Trinitarians [the Holy Spirit will have to forgive me – it seems these discussions only revolve around Father and Son] – there is no plain and simple passage that refutes He is God – for example "Jesus Christ is not God." At best – both sides offer circumstantial evidence. There's problems and issues on both sides. I'd also like to recommend a book - The Trinity: Evidence and Issues by Robert Morey. He has an interesting word study of "one" [Hebrew echad Strong's # 259] used in reference to a compound, composite or plurality and basically shows a unity of more than one person. Which I cited in my post # 173 of Honest Discussion of the Trinity thread http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...st&p=302302 and in my post # 176 - same thread http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...st&p=302401 Morey makes a strong case from Hebrew syntax and grammar that God is multi-personal, a composite. The theophanies in the Old Testament and the Word becoming flesh in the gospels make more sense to me when viewed as a way this multi-personal, "composite" God would "step" into our world [A very intriguing one to think about is the physical appearance of God to Adam and Eve in Genesis 3: 8 and following. It's not too far-fetched to consider that God appeared this way to them before they sinned – they don't appear to be in utter shock by His appearance in Genesis 3:8 – just embarrassed and ashamed.] I see what you're saying – and have no problem with your logic. Your main thrust has been to show a distinction between God and Christ and a subordination of Christ to God the Father in certain aspects of Their relationship. No problem. I'm not the resident defender of Trinitarian doctrine – I label myself a Trinitarian to let other people know that's more or less where I stand on the issue. Most of the time I wonder what practical consequence there is in all this arguing when it comes down to the service we render to our Lord and fellowman – other than beating other Christians over the head because they don't see the Lord exactly like I do. Maybe differing viewpoints are like regular TV versus High Definition TV. On the demo shelf are both TV sets [side by side] viewing the same channel – the local news. At a casual glance, both screens look the same, perhaps. But upon further investigation the viewer notices much more detail and sharpness on the screen of the High Definition TV. It's a dumb analogy and it's flawed because the Bible doesn't mention HD TV. My only point with it is that there's nothing wrong with either TV set – they're both "looking" at the same show. It's a difference in how the picture for each TV set is processed from start to finish. Overall, the picture is the same and the content is the same – your local anchors in living color reading the top stories. Our mental processor picks and chooses what data to consider, we make decisions on how to categorize data and what to accept and reject. What makes one person's perception differ from another is how they process the data. Although home theater buffs would argue about the technical/visual superiority of HD TV – my intention with the above analogy was to make only one point – showing a difference in processing data. I'm not implying one viewpoint is intellectually or doctrinally superior to another. Personally, I lean heavily towards the Trinitarian camp because the biblical data [like the points in Morey's book] seem to fill in more of the details of the image of God for me.

Whoa there, Socks – you had to evoke the name!...Just kidding. Jack will always be one of my favorites – I think of him as one of the many forerunners of early rock – who brought their particular instrument to the foreground – inspiring musicianship I guess – so the art form started having some substance to it – and it wasn’t just about a catchy song or something you can dance to…Well, that’s my take on these giants anyway. As far as style – I don’t prefer Jack’s style of Cream days – it works great as a featured instrument. But I’m more into the task of the bass player is to provide a strong backbone – melding the beat of the drums with the melody of the other instruments – in an interesting way that contributes to the tune but doesn’t become a distraction…Flea is amazing – I am fascinated by his technique! And Jaco was a monster for sure! I personally like Jimmy Haslip of the Yellow Jackets and Francis “Rocco” Prestia of Tower of Power. Will Lee – besides his work with Paul Shaffer, he appears on a few CDs I have – looking at his website I’m gonna have to get his solo CD OH. And of course Victor Wooten featured with Bela Fleck and the Flecktones.

Oak, that is something to consider. After John the Baptist was imprisoned, it seems even he needed some assurance of Jesus' identity. Luke 7:18-23 ESV 18 The disciples of John reported all these things to him. And John, 19 calling two of his disciples to him, sent them to the Lord, saying, "Are you the one who is to come, or shall we look for another?" 20 And when the men had come to him, they said, "John the Baptist has sent us to you, saying, 'Are you the one who is to come, or shall we look for another?'" 21 In that hour he healed many people of diseases and plagues and evil spirits, and on many who were blind he bestowed sight. 22 And he answered them, "Go and tell John what you have seen and heard: the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, the poor have good news preached to them. 23 And blessed is the one who is not offended by me."

Wow – is that eerie or what? I can still hear that oddball phrase “hows come” in ol’ VPW’s voice. But that’s ingredients for a whole new thread: Does the grammar of TWI need to be good? …or should I use “gooder” – oh geez – I still need deliverance!

Johniam's Post # 184 has got to be one of the most offensive things I've ever heard – and wouldn't think of repeating it here nor responding in kind…I read it this morning and have given it some thought on why it bothers me so. And in reviewing this thread from the beginning one of the things that occurred to me was how much post # 184 reminded me of TWI's two-faced mentality – typically being nice to people until their theology is challenged – then the arrogant venom is launched. It has the effect of blind-siding someone not prepared – I guess that's me. I think such an adamant and haughty attitude may indicate a deeper problem – perhaps TWI's toxic mindset still thrives within. It goes back to what Rascal said at the start of the thread: Talking about the shock and denial that hits ex-TWI folk in my post # 165 goes along with what Rascal said in post # 1 – not sure if it's the next step [you psyche majors chime in please] but I think recovery, healing, understanding, growth…is impossible without ACCEPTANCE – realizing you were deceived. Realizing to some extent and for whatever reason you turned off your intellect and conscience. In my opinion those who have left TWI but want to defend it or throw a dreamy gauze over the lens to soften and sweeten everything – are still [at best] in the denial phase. When something really bothers me – and I feel I must respond – I usually let it sit awhile and try to figure out what is the appropriate Christian response. Things like love your enemies and pray for your fellow believers comes to mind. Though post # 184 was not directed to me – I am bothered by it. I know we're all adults here – and after coming to GSC awhile you develop a thick skin – even so I think a little encouragement now and then does the soul some good – I would like to thank WordWolf, Rascal and Sunesis for your input on GSC. Since I've been coming here I find myself drawn to and affected by your posts. Keep on with the keeping on.

Jesus Christ is not T-Bone. Though I thought I was…as a teenager every time I came home late…my dad would say, “Jesus Christ, where have you been?!?!”...Jesus Christ is not Bill Cosby either – from whom I “borrowed” this routine.

Mstar, whenever you’re commissioned to depict any biblical characters in their underwear – do they specify boxers or briefs?

The following excerpts are from The Strongarm’s Exhausting Concordance : Troll(s) – from an ancient Internetian dialect – derived by mimicking the sound of a large mythical brutish creature upchucking God-only-knows-what at the host’s dinner table. GeeWhiz 1:2 Not long after the beginning Trolls snuck in and stirred up the pot - even God was pi$$ed off. GeeWhiz 3:2 And the Troll said to the woman “Why don’t you dump that loser and come to my place.” Johnny Upchuck 8:7 …the Troll said, “she that is without sin better look me up – I’ll take care of that problem.” I Tumultuous 3:16 Without controversy - great is the need for Trolls, manifesting trash void of molecular weight. Trolls Revealed 2:17 If a Troll is overcome he shall return with a new name which no man knoweth… Trolls Revealed 22:12 …the Troll saith unto her, “be forewarned I come quickly…”

Jean – I know this is a lot to take in. This stuff sounds so appalling…shocking…unbelievable…and unless a person was a member of the Way Corps [the people who were trained by and worked for TWI] they may never fully understand how VPW sabotaged people's moral compass and laid the groundwork for sexual predators like himself. I was in the Family Corps – and if you have a hard time believing first hand accounts because you do not know the person – you may want to consider the implications of something that was experienced by all Corps and on occasion even some TWI followers who were not Corps…At some point during Corps training everyone gets to see one of VPW's favorite videos – a dog having sex with a woman. VPW's Christian Family and Sex Class was only a hint of his lascivious attitudes. When I was in residence – VPW had a pajama part [an informal setting for making a good soft-sell of his perverted lifestyle] and showed us that porn video – remember I said I was in Family Corps – there were teens present! At one point during the pajama party VPW invited a sixteen year old girl to the front of the room and shows her this pen as he describes to the rest of us that it has little figures of a man and a woman having sex and you make them do it by moving the pen up and down. VPW's very presence always had the power to sedate the intellectual and moral functions of his most devote followers – there we were cutting up with jokes during the video – he's laughing along with us – all the while slipping in all that nonsense about how he's so renewed his mind that this doesn't bother him or shock him. There's something you can verify for yourself. Talk to any Corps that you know. Think about what that says of VPW's character…of his morals…Do you think it's acceptable for a supposed minister of God to do things like this? The general public were sold a certain persona – a façade really – all painted up to look like the man of god for this day and time and hour. This is a hard pill to swallow. The first thing that happens to folks is shock – they go numb…don't know what to think, feel, or what to do…Then it's denial – "Naw – can't be – I couldn't have been tricked – why would God let this happen?" It takes a lot of strength and courage to move on from there. I wish you the best and encourage you to just listen, think, question, consider, and look into any of the issues that capture your attention.

I hope you weren’t offended, Waysider – I was just having a little fun with what you said. I think you’re a fine upstanding musician who simply wants more harmonica in the home.

For Whom the Hell Trolls by Ernest IntheWay

So don’t freak out if you hear heavy breathing when you pick up the phone – it may be Waysider practicing his harmonica technique.

Sunesis, thanks for sharing that stuff – people need to see the big picture of TWI. What the Hey, I understand what you're saying about the spiritual battle. When I was in TWI – they did such a fine job of getting followers to be "spiritual" minded that followers gave little thought to the role of flesh and blood. Even though Ephesians 6 is very picturesque in describing the whole armor of God – I think the practical application of it was lost with people who compartmentalize their doctrines - that see no relationship between spirituality and what they do in their physical bodies. The Corinthians had a problem with that – not realizing they were supposed to glorify God [a very spiritual act] in everything they do. How else would the directive to put on the belt of truth apply if it did not mean I should submit to the truth in all I do? How else do I put on the breastplate of righteousness if I don't follow God's righteous moral standard? Ephesians 6:10 ESV 10 Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his might. 11 Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the schemes of the devil. 12 For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places. 13 Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand firm. 14 Stand therefore, having fastened on the belt of truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, 15 and, as shoes for your feet, having put on the readiness given by the gospel of peace. 16 In all circumstances take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming darts of the evil one; 17 and take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God, 18 praying at all times in the Spirit, with all prayer and supplication. To that end keep alert with all perseverance, making supplication for all the saints… Romans 13 has another interesting reference to armor – and also ties it together with our conduct. Interesting too - that it also equates putting on the armor of light with putting on the Lord Jesus Christ. It appears the purpose of this armor is to prepare us for battle against temptations of flesh and blood [doing wrong to a neighbor, adultery, drunkenness, etc.]. Romans 13: 8-14 ESV 8 Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. 9 For the commandments, "You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet," and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." 10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. 11 Besides this you know the time, that the hour has come for you to wake from sleep. For salvation is nearer to us now than when we first believed. 12 The night is far gone; the day is at hand. So then let us cast off the works of darkness and put on the armor of light. 13 Let us walk properly as in the daytime, not in orgies and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and sensuality, not in quarreling and jealousy. 14 But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to gratify its desires.

The passengers on the Mayflower were transported to a real place. The passengers on the Titanic planned on having a safe and pleasurable voyage to a real place.

Most leaders when called on the carpet is something to fear and dread But some speak of a certain lady Who thinks it’s an invite to bed Christian leaders should bear responsibilities And be responsible enough not to bare Any more than their soul – it’s inappropriate yah know With another soeur or frère

Welcome to GSC, TTL Glass !!!!!! Thanks for sharing all that stuff!!!!!!!!!!! And I admire the thinking process you reveal in your narrative. A few things you said really impressed me. I am always amazed at the intelligence and social skills of kids. It's terrible the amount of pressure TWI folks put on the young ones to conform – as you so aptly described…Looking at the manifestations as an outsider would - and picking up on TWI dropping the "for God" aspect of messages – very sharp on your part. As far as your question "So does anyone know how they came up with all this? Was it some divine revelation God gave VPW?" – I'm sure there's others at GSC who could give you a detailed response. All I've got to say is that VPW plagiarized a lot of his PFAL material – which includes the Holy Spirit/manifestations stuff. May I suggest you use the Search feature at the top right of the GSC page and then click on More Search Options - and you'll find lots of threads that address your questions. You can search by word or phrase like: plagiarism, utterance manifestations, etc. Something that I have always wondered about over the years since I left TWI – is how VPW could come up with such detailed/technical instructions for operating the manifestations – when there is not anything definitive in the Bible. I would think if an ability is God-given, supernatural – then the technical details are His problem. I Corinthians has the most concentration of data on these supernatural abilities and absent are any "nuts and bolts" talk on how to "operate" anything - and don't see anything about having "practice sessions" either. What I do notice is emphasis on having the right attitude and keeping in mind things should be done to edify the church.

Hmmmm…looks like an eggcident – but could be a bunnicide. Better call in the CSI fellas – naw, forget that – sometimes they take too long…Call CES and have them pull their last five personal prophecies on that rabbit.

Thanks for your kind words, Invisible Dan – and the feeling is moochal…I knew your criticism was directed towards Bruce – and it is a fair assumption on your part that I favor his work…And disagreements don’t bother me one iota. In fact, I really do enjoy the dynamics of a thread like this. Challenges often get me to review why I think a certain way. Sometimes I reassess what really matters to me on an issue…what’s negotiable, what’s not. And it’s not always about me getting my point across. For some reason I enjoy hearing other people think out loud. All great posts on this thread! I like what you said in post # 26: “I even think the very character of Christ can all the more be guiding here.” …Maybe that’s related in a roundabout way to my saying the Bible is a means to connect with God. I started thinking that after leaving TWI – perhaps out of rebellion to TWI’s worship of the Bible.

I think the simple fact that the Bible does mention the sins and foibles of specific people speaks volumes about God’s concern for moral uprightness – that His purposes be carried out honestly, through righteous means – and that the WHOLE story be told – as Word Wolf put it [see below]…The problem with the TWI that I experienced was that they were far from humble to admit to any moral depravity – but through their “pure revelation” [arrogance in the original Grease Text] dared to re-interpret a lot of the Bible to suit their aforementioned moral depravity!