Jbarrax

Colossians 1:16 does not say that Jesus created the world. That's a mistranslation in the KJV. The Greek words translated "by" and "for" are en and eis, meaning in and unto (For by Him were all things created...all things were created by Him and for Him) The end of the verse should be translated "all things were created in Him and unto Him. This doesn't mean Jesus created the world. Rather, it means that everything in the heavens and earth was created with a view to Christ's redemption of man and ascension to the right hand of the throne of God. The throne Christ now occupies at God's right hand, his position of Lord of the universe, were prepared for Him when God created the heavens and earth. There is no man or power in the entire universe above Jesus of Nazareth except God Himself. That's what Colossians 1:16 really means. That a man born of woman could be raised to such an exalted status is beyond miraculous. When you put this verse together with I John 3:2 and Romans 8:29, the grace that God has extended to mankind via Jesus Christ is truly mind-boggling. The human connection to Christ's exalted positionn is clear in the context. 17 And he is before all things, and by (in) Him all things consist. 18 And he is the Head of the body, the church; Who is the beginning, the Firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. 19 For it pleased the Father that in Him should all fulness dwell Peace JerryB

I've already posted my opinion on the BU thread. I don't see the logic in it myself. I don't believe that Jesus is "God the Son", but Chuck's seperation of Jesus into two persons is somewhat confusing. I'm comfortable with the idea that Jesus was a man born of divine conception and annointed with a heapin' helpin' of holy spirit. (I think I've been in Kentudky too long) :-P Peace JerryB

I really hesitate to get dragged into this, but I must say Chuck, as a Unitarian, I don't see where you're coming from. I don't think I've ever heard anyone try to distinguish between the person of Jesus and that of the Son of God. And I don't follow your logic. It seems to me that perhaps you are confusing eternity and immortality. God is eternal because He has neither beginning nor end. Jesus is immortal because he was born, and died, but lives on. According to the Apostle Paul, we who are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord will also receive immortality. That doesn't mean we were never born, it just means we'll be delivered from death. Peace JerryB

Can't say that I have Def. And what might some of those verses be, praytell? JerryB

Hey I've got a question. It seems to me that all the fuss about whether Jesus is God or not only partly addresses the issue of Biblical Unitarianism vs the Trinity. The debate rages on and on about whether Jesus was the Son of God or "God the Son". But what we're not looking at is the third part of the puzzle. The Nicene Creed states that God is a THREE part being, "God in three persons" is how the AME Church sang it every week when I was a youngun. Trinitarians will often reflexively refer to the Holy Spirit as "the third person of the Trinity". But if the Holy Spirit is a unique person, as Jesus and God are obviously unique persons, what is unique about Him/It? Although I can think of several attributes of Jesus and God that distinguish one from the other, I cannot think of one Biblical attribute of the Holy Spirit that is distinct from God the Father or the gift by the same name. So I ask you Trinitarians; what defines the Third Person of the Trinity that doesn't also apply to God? JerryB

"African boogers"??? What are.... No, wait. I don't want to know. Glad to hear you had a good time en Afrique. I'd love to go myself some day. JerryB

I don't know much about Platonism and Neo-Platonism, having taken only Philosophy 101 way back in `79. But I think I know a little about logic and the Scripture so I'll offer up my two cents' worth. From a purely Biblical perspective, I don't see any logical reason to believe the Trinity. We all know the arguments, both from JCNG and I suppose from Tzaia's highjacked Biblical Unitarian website, so I won't burden you all with a comprehensive rehash. Instead, here's my short list of obstacles to Nicene thinking 1) God cannot die--Jesus was dead for 72 hours 2) God is not a man and his ways are as high above ours as the heaven above the earth--Jesus was a man and was in all points tempted like as were are. 3) God is one person and his will at any one time is singular, not schizophrenic. Jesus said, "not my will, but thine be done" indicating that what God wanted and what he wanted were not identical. (This is the biggest obstacle in my mind to seeing Jesus and God as indentical persons) 4)Jesus is called the Last Adam. Therefore it is illogical to believe that, to correct the disobedience of Adam, God himself died on the cross. Unitarian logic makes the redemption of man by an obedient man perfectly logical 5)In the garden, Jesus prayed that his apostles would be one, even as he and the Father were one. Therefore, if we interpret "I and my father are one" as Jesus' claim of divinity, then the apostles are just as much God as he was. So now, it's not 1+1+1=1, it's 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1=1. Zounds! What absurdity!! However, having said all that, I must also confess two important caveats. The first is my belief that there is NO WAY to come up with a doctrine that explains all of the Bible's apparent contradictions. No matter what side we choose on any doctrinal debate, we will have to concede that there are a few verses that don't fit our creed. So it really is futile, imho, to try to develop a perfectly cohesive understanding of the Scripture. And more importantly, it seems that both Trinitarans and Unitarians get people saved, minister healing, speak in tongues, and serve God. God seems to accept the worship and bless the ministries of both camps. So, if it doesn't make any difference to HIM, why should it be such a big deal to us? Peace Jerry B

Hi Steve. Thanks for the greeting. I have enjoyed our online discussions as well. Sorry I should have read your post more carefully. I'll go back and finish. :-) Peace JerryB

Hello all. Geez, Raf, thanks for the enthusiastic greeting! :-)So nice to see old friends still hanging out at the Cafe. And thanks for the Momentus /Walk post Tzaia. I'll look into it. Peace JerryB

Just one quick comment Steve. I think you're carrying on a doctrine we learned in the Way that I humbly ask you to reconsider. You said I humbly submit that you are equating the Scripture with the Lord. If one were to follow your premise, he would have to check his heartfelt beliefs against the Scripture. But the Scripture is not always clear and is sometimes self contradictory. More to the point, the Scripture itself says in numerous places that we are to supposed to grow into a relationship with God and Christ via the indwelling holy spirit. My point is, If you want to know if the thoughts of your heart are right, why not just pray about it? Why not just ask your heavenly Father and use the access to Him provided by the life, death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ? Or, if you prefer, why not just ask the Lord himself. He is in us is he not? One of them is surely willing to provide guidance. Indeed Paul wrote in Thessalonians that Christ will direct our hearts into the love of God (II Thess 3:5). I have come to the conclusion that as we grow, we are not supposed to be continually bound to a written creed, but more in tune with Our Father and Our Lord. So if one's heart needs corecting, why not take it straight to the Lord instead of breaking out a concordance and a book or three and doing all that retermorizing and such? Peace JerryB

Hello all. God bless! Interesting discussion here. I just wanted to butt in to ask TZaia for some more information about that weekend walk she spokee of earlier, and where her Momentus thread is. I'd like to learn about the 'walk' so I can give it a try if it's offered in my area. The interest in the Momentus thread, I must admit, is just morbid curiosity. :-) By the way, I thought JAL stepping down when he was confronted was pretty admirable too. Somewhat inspiring even. Peace JerryB

The problem with the "substantive errors" thread is, we can't come to a consensus about what's erroneous and what's not. And, as you have seen, the more lattitude given to the detractors, the more contentious the rebuttals of the Wierwillites become. Is this how we are going to spend the rest of our lives; debating the value of PFAL? JerryB

He was just feeling cryptic.:-)

LOL. Yes it does seem rather ludicrous doesn't it? Ooooooh, the intrigue. Let's try to catch him in his words! That way we can build a solid case to support a hypothesis that can't be proven and doesn't really matter. Who cares if it's Craig or not? Haven't we have enough of the cult of personality? JerryB

Mike. When you decide to ask an intelligent question instead of spewing rhetoric, I might answer it.

This is why I'm sooooo glad to be finally free of the "The Bible is God's Word" mentality. It seems to give a$$holes carte-blanche to advocate legalism and bully people.

Apparently what some of us have kept from PFAL is arrogance.

Song: Sadly, he's not jesting. JerryB

I guess it depends on when you were in Johniam. I didn't get involved until 82, which was during what has beome known as TWI2. I have heard that TWI1 was more of a Christian movement and less relgious than TWI2. By the time I got in, the focus was clearly on the class and on differentiating The ministry from the sincere but ignorant church goers who didn't know "The Word" like we did. There was still some emphasis on witnessing, outreach, and such, but the main focus was on "mastering the PFAL material" and committing to the ministry. Peace JerryB

Wow. I don't see how you couldn't infer that. It was the underlying theme of the class. One of hte first verses he quoted was Hosea 4:6 "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge". He started right off the bat trying to convince us that knowledge itself is the difference between an abundant life and being destroyed. By the end of session two he was already trumpeting his outstanding Bbile knowledge by asking the rhetorical question, "Who has taught us figures of speech?" Knowledge is what PFAL is all about. Peace JerryB

I just found this thread and wanted to toss my two cents in. I haven't seen everyone else's lists yet, but, time permitting, I'll go back and read em. Let's see. I initially threw out the law of believing,but have come to accept a slightly less extreme version. Believing is an essential part of success and fear is often a precursor to failure, but neither is a LAW that binds God's actions..imo. Are the Dead Alive Now? I don't know, but I do believe in spooks. I do I do I do I do believe in spooks! And hooky-pook artists! That is, I believe the Devil is alive and well, and has a lot of help. Speaking in tongues, Yep. All nine manifestations. A qualified yes. I think every Christian can do em, but being able to minister healing to someone once in a while is not necessarily the same as having a "gift" of healing. I think that might be in the category of a gift ministry like Oral Roberts. Or to use VP's term, a "longsuit". So there may be a middle ground between those who say you have to have the gift of tongues to be able to S.I.T. and VP's assertion that every born again believer can speak in tongues and there's no such thing as a "gif of tongues". Lessee...I still don't believe the Trinity, but I can't say for certain that it's wrong. It still contradicts more Scripture than it fits, imo, but the Scripture is not the only source of truth, nor is it perfectly God-breathed. So I really can't argue that one anymore except to say it doesn't make sense to me. Salvation by grace. Yep. I don't believe the Way's later teaching that there's absolutely no judgment for wayward Christians, but getting saved is easy. The Great Mystery. Check. I like the emphasis on Paul's ministry. I don't think we came close to recreating it, but it does give us the true heart of Christianity in the seven Church epistles. And, I think that's about it. I may see something I should have added as I read the rest of the thread, but most of the Class is either wrong or questionable-- in my opinion. plink, plink. Peace JerryB

Personally, I've never gotten the hang of S.I.T. silently. I can do it, but not without moving my lips. I don't see how you can speak in tongues mentally, since there's no physical action. That, in my opinion does border on "faking it" because you're intruding on God's territory. Once your mind is actively involved, you're notreally speaking by the spirt,imo. plink,plink. my two cents' worth. Peace JerryB

Amen to that Todd! Love is the catalyst of deliverance. Peace and love. JerryB

Thanks for sharing the leg story. That's awesome (in the true sense of the word). Funny how often we beat our heads against a problem until we rememberthat God wants to help. Then we ask for help and voila! Problem solved. God is wonderful isn't He? The fact that these supernatural solutions are so often preceded by prayer puts a little dent in the dna theory though, doesn't it? :-D Peace JerryB

LOL. That was quite a profound statement, wasn't it? Where's "Obvious Man" when you need him? Hi Raf, God bless! How've you been? JerryB