Raf

Good one.

Templelady, What I've said does not fall into the same framework of your theology. Therefore, this thought of what happened when God's spirit left Christ's body is not a part of how I view this. It is not my position that Christ did not die. It is my position that the things you're bringing up are not relevant to the discussion of whether or not Christ died. I don't know what you're thinking when you say "that many posters here believe," but you sure as shootin have not expressed or summarized my beliefs on this.

Medusa and the Kraken were the titans who clashed in "Clash of the Titans." I don't believe either was a Titan in Greek mythology (Medusa was a Gorgon, the Kraken was a Scandinavian seamonster), but then, no one really cares all that much. :)

Just because ekklesia can be translated church doesn't mean that every ekklesia is what we think of in English when we use the word church. That's a corruption of the concept of translation. We are not a church here in Greasespot anymore than that mob was a church. The point of the teaching was that ekklesia does NOT mean "church" as we think of it, not that it DOES. Every group called out for a specific purpose is an ekklesia, but not every such group is a church. If you insist on addressing us in Greek, then please be consistent and use only Greek. If you're speaking to us in English, this ain't no church.

A-Yup.

Sorry for the delay...

Not everyone on GS is a Christian. We may be an ekklesia in Greek, but in English, we are not a church. Mob might be a better word. :)

What the Hey, I see your reading comprehension skills have not improved. Your statement that salvation is dependent on "confession of belief yields receipt of confession" doesn't validate or invalidate the law of believing. One has nothing to do with another. Furthermore, it is not entirely what Wierwille is talking about when he made the statement. Please let me know when you have become somewhat literate so we can continue this conversation. Your use of faulty, disjointed logic is no longer worth my efforts.

It's funny. The truth that he DID those things doesn't upset them. But let someone TALK about it, and

18 is not all that phenomenal. I find it about average. 20 is pretty dang good. 25 would surprise me. I can't imagine 2 minutes.

Not a relevant question in my theology. A relevant question in Mormon theology, granted. That's why we disagree. Coffee?

He says there's nothing wrong with the definition, then goes on to describe why it is inadequate. Point is, it's not a law. Simplicity is a beautiful thing. Haste makes waste. Often true. Not always. Not a law, but worth remembering. Same goes for VPW's aphorisms on believing. Often true. Not always. Not a law, but worth remembering.

LG, You presume that witnessing to onlookers and this being a cry of triumph are mutually exclusive. I don't particularly see it that way.

It's not "asking someone to believe he was pondering the esoteric" if, in fact, he did quote scripture while he was hanging there. I believe he was pondering the scripture he quoted, a reasonable belief considering he quoted a scripture. I do not believe God forsook him, I do not believe he believed God forsook him, and I do not believe it was a cry of anguish from someone going through intense physical pain. He managed to say seven different things on the cross, despite the pain he was enduring and had endured. It doesn't strike me as odd at all to suggest that a man who quoted a scripture was thinking about that scripture at the time.

I was making a gag, but I missed the word "assist" in the opening post, so shame on me. :)

Welcome back, M.D. Vaden. And nice post. Can I nitpick on something you said, though?

I was looking for the line that said "If there's anything we can do to help you, please let us know." Was that in the excerpted portion of the letter?

Then I must be wrong. :)

Actually, Mo, what I am saying is not only that God did not forsake Jesus, but that Jesus never felt that God forsook him. If indeed he was quoting a scripture, then his reason for calling out those words goes beyond the words themselves. If ANYONE knew that God would never, ever forsake Jesus, it would be Jesus.

The problem is, the more you try to re-describe the law of believing, the farther you get from Wierwille's definition. Wierwille's "law of believing" isn't oversimplified. It's flat out wrong, doesn't exist. I've come to the belief that what Wierwille describes is more of an aphorism or proverb than a law. The difference is with aphorisms, when it works, it works, and when it doesn't, it doesn't mean the laws of the universe have been violated. "Train up a child in the way that he should go, and when he is old, he will not depart from it." This is not a "law." It often works exactly as presented. It often does not work. People are people. Believing equals receiving. Confession of belief yields receipt of confession. As you believe, you receive. These are good sayings. But they do not express a law.

Something that works. The law of believing doesn't.

Mike, You're acting as if I've claimed that the "law" of believing is a human-type or Mosaic-type law. That's stupid. It's not what I ever said; it's not what I ever meant. As a matter of scientific-type laws, THERE IS NO LAW OF BELIEVING. It flat out does not work.

Mike, In my heart, I knew I would not get the job. The principles laid out in the Bible are wonderful. Turning them into a "law" was error. I confessed with my mouth what I believed in my heart, and it did not come to pass. Instead of trying to figure out where the (nonexistent) law of believing failed (which it did), I'm busy praising and thanking God.

Thanks for clarifying.

Confession of belief yields receipt of confession, right? Yeah, right. Not true. I believed I would get passed over for a promotion. I confessed that belief to others. I got the promotion. Either VPW was wrong, or I got someone else's job!